Winter Maladies: Natural Approaches
June Russell's Health Facts
Pesticides, Lawns, and "Drift"
Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that municipalities have the right to ban the use of pesticides. Some 36 other Quebec towns, as well as the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, have enacted similar bans since 1991. Opponents of pesticide use say the chemicals can affect the brain and nerve development of children, can block or mimic natural hormones and can harm household pets. Two Quebec lawn-care companies brought the case to the Supreme Court. The court’s unanimous decision said that our future depends on a healthy environment. Until now a lot of Canadians have assumed that because the government permits pesticides, they were safe. A lot of people don’t read the warning labels.
(“Canadian supreme court allows ban on lawn pesticides,” healthcentral.com - June 2001)
Using a lot of chemicals on your lawn will lead to a lawn that is choked with thatch, which is unhealthy and dependent on chemicals. A healthy lawn is the best defense against weeds.
(“Hazards on the Homefront,” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients,” Jan. 2001)
One preliminary report suggests that lawn sprays can cause a four-fold increase in cancer in children. When yards are treated with pesticides, children are more apt to develop tumors called sarconomas. Even 'no-pest' strips are associated with increased risk of leukemia.
("This Your Child’s World?", Doris J. Rapp, M.D., 1996. Dr. Rapp is a well-known physician specializing in Environmental Medicine, Pediatrics, and Pediatric Allergies, and Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the State University of New York at Buffalo)
After banning perfumes, Halifax, NS, Canada, made it illegal to use pesticides on lawns and gardens. The ban will apply to spraying within 50 meters of schools, hospitals and the homes of people with medically proven sensitivities. A Parliament Committee stated that chemical pesticides “pose a threat to human health and to the environment,” and have been linked to different forms of cancer.
(“Halifax Bans Pesticides,” Our Toxic Times newsletter, a publication of the Chemical Injury Information Network, August 2000)
Infants and children often receive higher exposures than adults to carcinogenic chemicals. For example, because chemicals linger longer at ground level, young children more readily come into contact with formaldehyde exuded by new carpets and with insecticides sprayed in the home; children also pick up chemicals residues while playing on lawns sprayed by herbicides. Exposures to low levels of chemicals early in life may be a contributing factor in childhood cancers. Researchers who reviewed 32 studies on parental occupation and childhood cancer concluded that occupational exposure of parents to chemicals (paints, pesticides, solvents, etc.) raises the risk of cancer in their children. Workers often bring home chemicals on their skin and clothing. A recent study found a strong association between home use of pesticides in the yard and soft-tissue sarcoma, and between use of pest strips and leukemia in children under 15.
(“Cancer and the Environment,” Physicians for Social Responsibility, www.psrus.org - April 2002)
After banning perfumes, Halifax, NS, Canada, made it illegal to use pesticides on lawns and gardens. The ban will apply to spraying within 50 meters of schools, hospitals and the homes of people with medically proven sensitivities. A Parliamentary Committee stated that chemical pesticides “pose a threat to human health and to the environment,” and have been linked to different forms of cancer.
(“Halifax Bans Pesticides,” Our Toxic Times, a publication of the Chemical Injury Information Network, August 2000)
Pesticide Drift
Pesticide drift involves the movement of the airborne portion of a dust or spray, away from an intended point of application. The height of the application, as aerial, can drift further than an application from a hand-held backpack. With aircraft 50-75% of pesticides applied miss the target area - in contrast to ground application missing 10-35%.
Tomato plants in suburban gardens may be at risk from neighbors spraying 2,4-D (the most commonly used herbicide by home owners). In contrast with farmers, gardeners are without legal protection from pesticide damage drifting from neighboring properties. Of perhaps more urgent consideration, chemically sensitive people have been helpless to stop their neighbor’s spray applications of any pesticides that pose a serious health threat due to drift from the application site to adjacent properties.
(“Out of Control,” Pesticides Adrift, Rachel Carson Council, Inc., Oct. 2000)
Drift is a serious problem because pesticides do not stay where they are applied.
Inhaled pesticides bypass the digestive system’s powerful enzymes that help break down chemicals before they are circulated to all parts of the body. Also EPA’s risk assessments assume that people are exposed to only one pesticide at a time despite air monitoring data that show that people are frequently exposed to multiple pesticides simultaneously in the air they breathe. The toxicological effects of exposure to multiple chemicals are unknown.
(“Action Alert: Strengthen Controls on Pesticide Drift,” Hormonewise Digest, Jan. 2001)
Pesticide drift has significant adverse effects on the ecosystems (including fish, wildlife, and beneficial insects) and communities. The most effective approach to prevent pesticide drift is to ban the use of drift-prone pesticides - - especially the most highly toxic ones - - and problematic spray technologies altogether. This should be coupled with biologically based integrated pest management. Fumigants also should be of concern in regulating drift.
Any amount of chemical that drifts away from the application site and makes its way into other fields, our homes, schools, or workplaces is unacceptable. Communities should not be required to accept any level of chemical trespass onto their homes, property, businesses, schools and workplaces, just so others can profit. We support pesticide label instructions requiring a 24-hour advance written notification of all residents and property owners within 1/4 mile of any application that has the potential to drift off-site at any time during or after the application.
Information should include anticipated date and time of spraying, name and phone number of applicator, name and phone number of the property owner, name of the pesticide product, a list of active ingredients and other ingredients, and a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the pesticide product(s) being sprayed. The label must also require the sprayed area to be posted for 72 hours after the application.
The fact that terrorists have been investigating the use of aerial spraying is another reason to prohibit aerial applications altogether and dismantle the infrastructure that makes rapid dispersal of highly toxic substances possible. The EPA must move quickly to phase out these technologies and replace them with less hazardous, more ecologically sophisticated alternative systems and methods.
(“Strengthen Controls on Pesticide Spray Drift,” PANNA, Jan. 2001)
Back to Chemical Sensitivities/Pesticides page