Written by: Stacey Vaeth
B.A. Environmental Studies, 2000
UB Green Office
March 27, 2000
For the University at Buffalo Environmental Task Force
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Proposed University at Buffalo Pesticide Policy
3. Introduction
4. The National Trends in Pesticide Use and Regulation
4. The Science: Dangers of Pesticides
Pesticides in Use at the University at Buffalo
(MEC AMINE - D, Surflan, Roundup, Pendulum)
4. Alternatives to Chemical Lawn Care
Turf Management Basics
Cultural Perceptions
4. Schools Taking the Green (and Yellow!) Path
4. Green Marketing - An Untapped Opportunity for UB
4. Pesticide Information Profiles
Alternatives to Pesticides Turf Management Plan
Turfgrass Management Calendar
4. References
|
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses the University at Buffalo's practice of spraying lawn pesticides on campus. The Environmental Task Force understands that decisions to apply pesticides are made to satisfy primarily aesthetic concerns. This report will address scientific findings pointing to serious human health and environmental affects that call these decisions into question. It is critically important that decision making persons at UB and the persons who are charged with implementing these decisions become fully educated about the risks that pesticide applications pose to people who apply them and to members of the UB community, wildlife, and the landscape of the campus.
The Environmental Task Force endorsed the enclosed University at Buffalo Lawn Care Policy on March 22, 2000. The endorsement comes in the wake of increasing scientific data concerning health and ecosystem risks of chemical lawn care. The policy calls for the immediate elimination of all broadleaf weed control, the establishment of an Integrated Pest Management Committee and program; the development of an educational program to convey the environmental and public health dangers of chemical pesticides and the benefits of alternative lawn care, among other action items.
The Buffalo Pest Management Board (BPMB) recently adopted the Sunset Ordinance, a three-year plan to phase out the use of chemical pesticides on city property. In the wake of this passage, the BPMB approached the University at Buffalo to join in a green partnership and take the same initiative of a pesticide phase out. This report is designed to move UB in that direction. The national trend in pesticide use is towards reduction. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Department of Defense and the White House have each implemented pesticide reduction policies and Integrated Pest Management Programs within their own facilities. These reductions are motivated by the recognition of known dangers of lawn pesticides as well as by concerns about inadequate data on chemical health and ecosystem effects. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that of 2,863 high production chemicals that were evaluated, 7% had publicly available data on all eight basic tests for toxicity, which accounts for only 202 chemicals. A full 43% had no toxicity data available.
Pesticides cause detrimental effects to human and animal nervous systems and endocrine systems; some are carcinogenic, mutagenic and/or teretogenic. The acute and chronic poisoning possibilities of the chemicals that are applied here at the University are described in the Science section of this report. Phase-outs of pesticides are increasing each year, therefore, there are fewer options of chemicals we can use, and if we continue to apply these, they will become costly and a public relations detriment. Also, the Toxic Release Inventory program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has stated that within the next few years, individual users will have to quantify and report emissions of toxic releases. Two chemicals used for broadleaf weed control at the University at Buffalo fall into this category, MEC AMINE - D (used for dandelion control) and Pendulum. This will require additional costs and staff time to calculate and report our emissions, as well as being an embarrassment for the University.
Alternatives to chemical lawn care are abundant and proven to be effective. These include methods of care that will fundamentally change our soil from its current state to one that is well aerated, properly fertilized, consistently replenished with organic matter, scouted regularly (to look for and record lawn inconsistencies or health problems), and managed and landscaped appropriate to our climate. Although there is no way to ensure that dandelions or other perceived weeds will be completely eliminated through a non-chemical lawn program, there are many unexpected benefits that will result, such as increased animal species around the grounds, and a healthier looking turf. Also, it is important to understand that the health of our community and ecosystem should simply be the primary priority of this university.
There are many local resources for alternative and organic lawn care, and examples of universities across the country that are employing alternative practices.
The University at Buffalo would benefit greatly from joining these campuses in their efforts for a healthy environment. The Universities referenced in this report are American Association University members or Talloires Declaration signatories. A public education campaign touting our decision to stop applying lawn pesticides and explaining our commitment to a sustainable environment would be of greater benefit to UB (and to UB recruitment and retention efforts) than chemical spraying to kill dandelions and the on-going public controversy it is likely to engender.
Back to Top 
PROPOSED UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO PESTICIDE POLICY
The University at Buffalo recognizes the potentially serious risks inherent in using chemical pesticides in the school environment, and therefore authorizes the implementation of a comprehensive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program for all school buildings and grounds.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will be defined as the coordinated uses of physical, biological and cultural (non - toxic, mechanical) controls and least-toxic pest control products and techniques, to prevent unacceptable levels of pest damage by economical means, with the least possible hazard to people, property and the environment. An IPM program is to include selection of well-adapted or native species when developing landscape plans to decrease the reliance on pesticides for aesthetic controls. Additionally, an IPM program must include an educational component to convey the health and ecosystem effects as a result of pesticide lawn applications and subsequently the reasoning for non-chemical lawn care.
Integrated Pest Management involves the monitoring of threatening plant and animal species, establishment of damage levels, modification of habitats (to eliminate sources of food, water, harborage and entry), utilization of least-toxic controls, keeping of records, and evaluation of performance on an ongoing basis.
A pesticide will be defined as any insecticide, rodenticide, herbicide, acricide, algicide, slimicide, disinfectant or other chemical utilized to kill or repel a dangerous, destructive or unwanted species.
The University at Buffalo will:
 |
 |
Establish an IPM Committee (which will include, but not be limited to: the facility manager, grounds supervisor of North and South campus, an Environmental Task Force representative, Occupational Health and Safety representative, University Administration representative, Chemistry or Biology Department representative, Environmental Studies Department representative, Residence Life representative, Athletic Department representative, Custodial representative, entomologist, UB Environmental Network (student-run) representative, student monitor intern);
|
|
|
Not use herbicides without review and approval of the IPM committee;
|
|
|
Immediately eliminate all broadleaf weed control on turf areas;
|
|
|
Find alternatives to reduce and eliminate the use of Roundup:
|
|
|
Prohibit the use of all organophosphate and carbamate pesticides;
|
|
|
Post notices on grounds and in campus newspapers one week in advance of any pesticide application, absent emergencies;
|
|
|
Maintain detailed records of all pest control procedures;
|
|
|
Adhere to the Campus Wildlife Policy;
|
|
|
Prohibit pesticide applications within one hundred feet of any childcare center on campus, as well as any department that requests for no pesticides to be used;
|
|
|
Seek to employ organic fertilizers;
|
|
|
Incorporate this policy into the Master Landscaping Design process and all landscaping designs;
|
|
|
Develop an educational program to convey the environmental and public health dangers of chemical pesticides and the benefits of alternative lawn care.
|
Approved by University at Buffalo Environmental Task Force:
March 22, 2000
Back to Top
INTRODUCTION
This report discusses the potential dangers of chemical lawn care and alternatives to this practice. It will demonstrate that peer-reviewed, published evidence is quickly mounting in the scientific community on the many dangers of pesticides both to our natural environments and to human health. This report will refer to herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and infecticides and rodenticides under the general term of pesticides.
Previous attempts to reduce and eventually eliminate pesticide use on UB's campuses have not been successful, in part because the dangers of these chemicals are not widely disseminated by the companies that manufacture them. It is not widely known, for example, that no pesticide manufacturer in the United States (as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency) is allowed to call its product "safe." When a pesticide passes the scrutiny of the EPA, it simply means that that product is effective and does kill the organism that its label says it kills. Also, while some information on toxic effects is made available by manufacturers, it is not a requirement by law to provide such data on "inert" ingredients, only active ones. This is a serious gap in the data of potential chemical effects since inert ingredients often make up more than half of a pesticide's chemical components and may, in some cases, be more toxic than the active ingredients.
This report also will demonstrate that many prestigious research universities that are AAU members and/or signatories of the Talloires Declaration have rejected toxic chemical pesticides in favor of successful, and in the long run, economical alternatives. They report that they are pleased with the results; they also can claim to be truly green campuses, a valuable marketing claim that has considerable appeal for many prospective students and faculty, not to mention the communities they live in.
In fact, UB's external community has already approached the university and recommended that it begin a phase-out of pesticides of campus. The City of Buffalo recently adopted the Sunset Ordinance, a three-year plan to phase-out the use of chemical pesticides on city property. In the wake of passage of this ordinance, the Buffalo Pest Management Board, which is coordinating that effort, approached UB, asking the university to join together in a green partnership to take the same initiative on North and South Campuses. At the suggestion of President Greiner, the writer of this report has been in close contact with members of the BPMB and will continue to work with them, provided the UB administration agrees to a similar pesticide phase-out.
The universities, colleges and others that have successfully altered lawn care to not include chemical applications will be highlighted, followed by a discussion about conventional lawn care perceptions and a look towards the future of Integrated Pest Management alternative care. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) takes a broad approach to pest control that emphasizes:
|
|
Prevention
|
|
|
The use of least toxic methods
|
|
|
Alternatives to the use of chemical pesticides
|
|
|
Limited use of chemical pesticides (as a last resort)
|
|
|
Systematic use of cultural, biological, mechanical, physical, educational and least toxic chemical pest control methods that are environmentally sound, economically practical and socially acceptable
|
|
|
A reduction of an unwanted pest population to tolerable levels in a given environment, at the lowest possible risk to both health and the environment.[1]
|
This report is designed to answer questions and concerns about pesticides uses
and dangers as well as to provide alternatives to maintaining healthy and attractive lawns. A marketing and public education campaign is an essential portion of this process, and their potentials are discussed at the end of this report.
The University at Buffalo recently adopted the practice of spraying Mecamine - D to rid lawns of dandelions. UB has sprayed herbicides around light posts, trees and fences, in sidewalk gaps, mechanical areas, and along curb lines for many years. Additionally, regular herbicide spraying is a part of athletic field maintenance.
In the wake of substantial scientific data concerning chemical exposure dangers to human health and ecosystems, it is time to actively seek and implement alternative methods of lawn care. The development and implementation of IPM's are becoming increasingly common, in fact, the United States White House recently adopted an IPM in an effort to phase out chemical use on their lawns.
The University at Buffalo's Environmental Task Force is calling for a policy with the following elements, which is designed to phase out pesticide use on campus:
|
|
Immediate halt of herbicide application for aesthetic purposes.
|
|
|
Development and adoption of an IPM program for a phase out of herbicide use on athletic fields.
|
|
|
Development and adoption of an IPM program for dandelion reduction on lawns.
|
|
|
Development and adoption of an IPM program for alternatives to chemicals for weed growth in sidewalk cracks, around trees, light posts, fences and other problem areas as identified by grounds. This will require increased hand weeding and mechanical controls.
|
|
|
Additional staff or student assistant time provided to grounds for regular record keeping of problem areas. This will provide a record of trends and will assist in identifying fundamental lawn problems, increasing the feasibility of developing non-chemical solutions.
|
|
|
Development of a public awareness campaign promoting an ecological lawn aesthetic and explaining the rational and benefits of a lawn pesticide free campus.
|
|
|
Inclusion of native and well-adapted species into landscape design to reduce the need for chemical treatments.
|
Back to Top
THE NATIONAL TRENDS IN PESTICIDE USE AND REGULATION
Erie County has recently ranked fifth statewide in total gallons of pesticide use reported. Contrary to the notion that pesticides are primarily used in agriculture, Erie County reports that 95% of the total gallons and 92% of the total pounds of pesticides reported were for commercial application (any non-agricultural application).[2] Commercial pesticide application is used for pest control that may pose a threat to human health, yet a substantial portion of it is used for aesthetic reasons. It is disconcerting that aesthetic priorities overwhelm risks to humans and ecosystems in many situations.
In the wake of serious concerns pertaining to the heath effects of pesticide use, several actions have been taken to phase out their use on municipal grounds in Erie County and around the nation. Considering commercial use of lawn pesticides is primarily for aesthetics (not to avoid major crop and economic loss), it is prudent to look for non-harmful alternatives. Alternatives generally save money for property keepers, and help to ensure better health for constituents.
The Buffalo Pest Management Board together with Erie County Department of Environment and Planning is developing alternative lawn care programs to phase out chemical spraying on City and County golf courses in addition to implementing the Sunset Ordinance. Following the trend, the State Assembly of New York approved two bills (to be passed on to the Senate) in early February 2000 concerning pesticides and their health affects. A newsletter covering the bill's passage states: "The Assembly passed legislation with bipartisan support that continues the house's efforts to limit the public's exposure to pesticides and the health risks related to these chemicals." The first bill requires 48 - hour notification to neighbors or adjoining property occupants prior to outdoor pesticide application. The second bill requires the phase out of some chemicals on state property and the implementation of an IPM for every state department, agency and public benefit corporation.[3]
In October of 1996, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to pass a landmark pesticide ordinance, which resulted in one of the toughest ordinances ever, setting precedence for the rest of the country. Pesticide use on public property within the first year was reduced by two thirds, and almost no pesticides are currently used that have been linked to cancer or reproductive harm in scientific analysis.[4]
The United States Department of Defense has developed a Pesticide Policy in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency. Their Strategic Approach is designed to: "Incorporate sustainable IPM philosophies, strategies, and technologies in all aspects of DoD and Component vector control and pest management planning, training, and operations including installation pest management plans and other written guidance to reduce pesticide risk and prevent pollution...100% of DoD installations will have pest management plans prepared, reviewed and updated annually by pest management professionals." [5]
These efforts are indicative of a widespread national recognition of scientifically established dangers of exposure to chemical pesticides. Closer to home, some local school districts are phasing out or have phased out pesticides, most notably Amherst High School, which has not used them for years. The University at Buffalo should follow suit, for the pesticides used here are not an exception to proven dangers.
Pesticides have been linked to acute and chronic poisoning, cancers of many kinds, birth defects, neurological damage, reproductive damage, immune system suppression and endocrine system disruption. While these dangers have been established, little of it has been made publicly available. In fact, the International Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have joined an international effort to identify chemicals that lack safety and health data. Of 2,863 high production chemicals that were evaluated, 7 % had publicly available data on all eight basic tests for toxicity, which accounts for only 202 chemicals. A full 43 % of had no toxicity data available. [6] Yet, with this tremendous gap in research and known effects, these chemicals are in widespread use. Even the U.S. EPA (which registers pesticide products) has determined that no pesticide can be considered safe, even when used as directed
Back to Top
THE SCIENCE: DANGERS OF PESTICIDES
General Risks and Unknown Factors
In 1992 approximately 89,700 children in the U.S. suffered from acute pesticide poisoning. [7] Children are more susceptible to poisoning due to increased inhalation of air (primarily because of their high level of activity), over two times the adult proportion of skin to body weight, and a child's tendency to have increased contact with their surroundings. While children are most susceptible to chemical exposure, there is significant data concerning overall detrimental health effects to all humans and ecosystems from pesticides, including those used for chemical lawn care. Specific health effects from pesticide exposure are detailed in the following sections.
Nervous System Toxicity: Many pesticides can be neurotoxic, affects ranging from persistent headaches and dizziness, to confusion and seizures. Neurotoxicity occurs because of the function of some pesticides (most often of the classes organophosphates and carbamates), to interfere with the enzyme cholinesterase. This enzyme promotes normal nervous system functioning in humans, insects and animals, but when interfered with creates nervous system toxicity problems.[8] In essence, the pesticides' intent is to interfere with the nervous system of insects and lawn pests, therefore killing or severely disabling them. These chemicals inevitably reach the systems of humans and other animals. Taking into account the vulnerability of fetuses, infants and children during their developmental stages, the acute and/or chronic risks from exposure to a neurological disrupter increases dramatically. Additionally, Parkinson's disease and other neurological disorders have been repeatedly linked to the neurotoxic affects of pesticide exposure and use.[9] Although most often the pesticide classes of organophosphates and carbamates are linked to neurotoxicity, the nervous system of non-target species is being linked to increasing numbers of chemicals. Chemical applicators and producers should employ a precautionary principle until there is fully researched and publicly available data.
Carcinogenicity: A recent review at the National Cancer Institute stated:
"Many of the cancers associated with pesticides among children, such as leukemia, brain cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft-tissue sarcoma, and Hodgkin's disease, are the same cancers that are repeatedly associated with pesticide exposure among adults... furthermore...the magnitude of the risks [to children] is often greater than among adults, indicating greater susceptibility... [therefore] it is prudent to reduce or where possible, to eliminate pesticide exposure to children." [10] Governmental and independent organizations are conducting increasing numbers of studies to specifically look at pesticide risks posed to children. These alarming results have, and are likely to continue, to result in lowering allowable levels of pesticide exposure in all areas of the country.
Another study found that areas of greater pesticide use had correspondingly higher frequencies of birth defects. Even more compelling were findings that found increased abnormalities within babies conceived in the spring, also the time of greatest pesticide exposure to mothers.[11]
In New York State, 33% of the total gallons of pesticides sold contain known and suspected carcinogens. Sixty-one percent of the total gallons purchased by farmers and 26% of the gallons applied by commercial applicators contain probable, likely or possible carcinogens.[12] This means that over half of the pesticides used in New York State are at least possible carcinogens. The remaining percentages of chemicals applied were not mentioned in the report referenced. Since this data is based on very incomplete knowledge of pesticide dangers and absent data for many products, it is likely that the percentage of probable, likely or possible carcinogenic pesticides are much higher.
Endocrine Disruption: Endocrine disruption is the broad term for a chemical interference of the delicately balanced system that regulates a wide range of biological processes, including: control of blood sugar, growth and function of reproductive systems, regulation of metabolism, brain and nervous system development. Endocrine disruption results in developmental and reproductive abnormalities in wildlife, and is suspected by some scientists to cause adverse health affects in humans, including birth defects, breast cancer, prostate cancer and infertility.[13] Several pesticides have been identified as potential or proven endocrine disrupters and subsequently banned. They are: Chlordane, DDT, Aldrin/Dieldrin, Endrine, Heptachlor, Kepone, Toxaphene, 2,4,5-T. As all chemicals in current use are tested for endocrine disrupting potentials, it is expected that more will be banned.
The Food Quality Protection Act has specific language concerning dangers of endocrine disrupters in drinking water (toxic effects by ingestion), but there is not enough data on all chemicals in commercial use to evaluate the potential health risks from inhalation and physical exposure. In the wake of this vast uncertainty, the Environmental Protection Agency developed an Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program to test all 87,000 chemicals in United States commerce for potential endocrine disrupting properties.[14] This study is likely to bring to light unknown dangers of chemicals currently in wide use. Due to our current uncertainty, it would be wise to be conservative in chemical purchase and use and prioritize human and ecosystem safety over aesthetic concerns, which can be addressed through non-toxic methods.
Considering the health risks, both known and unknown, the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has released the first formal national goal for pesticide use reduction. The emphasis of this program is to promote sustainable agriculture and Integrated Pest Management practices through many guidelines, some of which are:[15]
|
|
Promote the development, registration, and use of safer pest management alternatives.
|
|
|
Eliminate cumbersome procedures for removing pesticides that pose unreasonable risks.
|
|
|
Improve data on pesticide use to measure progress towards reduction goals.
|
|
|
Provide EPA and FDA with tools necessary to ensure pesticide laws are appropriately and adequately enforced.
|
These guidelines, although preliminary, are taking the first national step in monitoring a long neglected field of chemical production, commerce and use.
Pesticides in Use at the University at Buffalo
The pesticides currently used on the grounds of the University at Buffalo pose health and ecosystem risks. Our university applies three chemicals on the outdoor grounds regularly, and a host of other pesticides to the athletic turf areas. MEC AMINE - D is a turf herbicide, active ingredients Dimethylamine Salt of 2,4-Dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid (or 2,4-D), Dimethylamine Salt of 2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) propionic acid and Dimethylamine Salt of Dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid), and is used to eliminate dandelions and other broadleaf weeds on UB grounds. Inert ingredients compose 50.33% of MEC AMINE-D. Surflan, active ingredient oryzalin (3,5-dinitro-N4,N4-dipropylsulfanilamide), is used for pre emergent weed control around landscaped areas. Inert ingredients compose 59.6% of Surflan. Roundup, active ingredient glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, is used most often. Roundup is composed of 59% inert ingredients. Roundup is used for general spot-spraying purposes, such as eliminating weed growth around trees, light posts and fences. Pendulum, active ingredient pendimethalin N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine), is being considered for use in fenced - in mechanical areas. Pendulum is composed of 40% inert ingredients. As stated in the introduction, inert ingredients are not required by law to be listed on the pesticide label, yet these chemicals have the potential to pose health problems and in some cases have proven to be more toxic than the active ingredient.
Additionally, there are multiple pesticides applied to campus playing fields. These chemicals need to be analyzed for their health and ecosystem impacts, but they are not covered in this report. There has been some success in altering traditional field maintenance to include non-toxic alternatives, with an eventual reduction of pesticides by 90%. While this certainly needs a closer look, this report is focused on eliminating pesticides used for aesthetics, which have viable and widely used alternatives.
One of the most fundamental concerns about pesticide production and use is that the fate of the chemical depends largely upon persistence and solubility in water and soil in the environment. The chemicals used at UB are rated to have low to middle range persistence levels. A chemical in this category is said to degrade in less than one hundred days, however, this degradation rating may still pose problems to groundwater, ecosystem integrity and wildlife, as there are many variables in chemical degradation or persistence in the environment. Sunlight; water and bacteria levels; soil composition; pesticide application; handling, production and disposal each have a significant affect upon the real world chemical persistence in the environment.
The greatest threat for soil and water contamination include:
|
|
A pesticide of high solubility, low adsorption and high persistency
|
|
|
Sandy or gravel soil with low organic matter
|
|
|
High groundwater table or a consistently wet site
|
|
|
Pesticide application during heavy precipitation or irrigation [16]
|
Each of these factors influence chemical persistence, and are not fully controllable to avoid health and ecosystem health and ecosystem dangers. The soil at UB is not tested regularly for groundwater or soil contamination; we therefore do not know the fate or the persistence of the pesticides that we apply.
MEC AMINE - D
(Dimethylamine Salt of 2,4- Dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid)
Cornell University has developed a document termed Pesticide Human Health Effects that categorized forty-three classes of chemical pesticides for their affects on humans. Of the four major herbicides used at UB, only 2,4 - D's chemical class (an ingredient in MEC AMINE -D, used to combat dandelions) is listed on Cornell University's Pesticide Human Health Effects document, which categorized classes of chemical pesticides for human health effects. According to the Pesticide Information Profiles, developed by the Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University, the chemical classes of Pendimethalin, Oryzalin and Glyphosate are all termed "Chemical Class Unavailable" (which may indicate there is inadequate research or publication of the potential health effects of these chemicals) and 2,4 - D is a chlorophenoxy pesticide. The EPA 2,4 - D Pesticide Fact Sheet has classified 2,4 - D as a Group D oncogen (not classifiable as a human carcinogen) because existing data are inadequate. But recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified 2,4-D as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This is based on several human studies documenting exposure to 2,4-D and an increased incidence of tumor formation.[17] 2,4 - D is registered for terrestrial, food and nonfood, aquatic, domestic and forestry uses by the EPA. However, the manufacturer label states "Drift or runoff may adversely affect non target plants. Do not apply directly to water or wetlands (swamps, bogs, marshes and potholes). Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters."[18] Inconsistencies such as this present a dangerous situation concerning acceptable use and disposal of pesticides.
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that 2,4 - D adversely affects reproduction, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, skin, eyes, nose and throat, and birth defects.[19] Cornell University printed a study on 2,4-D that states: "Medical literature contains reports of peripheral neuropathy following what seemed to be minor dermal exposures to 2,4 - D." Also, " [In] experimental animals, 2,4 - D causes vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, weight loss, ulcers of the mouth and pharynx, and toxic injury to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. Myotonia (stiffness and incoordination of hind extremities) develops in some species and is apparently due to CNS damage: demyelination has been observed in the dorsal columns of the cord, and EEG changes have indicated functional disturbances in the brains of...experimental animals."[20] The results of animal testing are some of the most concrete data available concerning the direct affects of pesticide exposure.
The Federal Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a hazard summary for this chemical which stated that neurotoxicity is the predominant affect of acute (short-term) inhalation and oral exposure to 2,4-D. Symptoms include stiffness of arms and legs, incoordination, lethargy, anorexia, stupor and coma in humans. Chronic exposure to 2,4-D affects human blood, liver, and kidneys.[21]
The Federal Office of Endangered Species, a department of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Department of the Interior, has issued a report indicating that certain endangered species may be in jeopardy from the use of 2,4 - D.[22] The Material Safety Data Sheet for 2,4 - D (which is prepared by the chemical manufacturer) reports quick degradation and rapid uptake by target plants, which leads the consumer to believe that this chemical poses little threat to groundwater. However, there have been several reported findings of 2,4 - D residues in groundwater. In light of the fact that 2,4 - D has been determined to be highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, groundwater contamination creates great concern for the health of non-target species. Chemical degradation rates vary with the amount of sunlight reaching the soil, the composition of the soil (e.g. water drains through poorly graded sandy soils more readily than have well-graded clay soils), and the amount of precipitation or standing water.
Winds have the potential to carry 2,4 - D as far as 250 feet, which increases the potential of contamination to lawns, water, ecosystems and human health on both campuses. The EPA has a strong policy on spray drift of pesticides, requiring any pesticide wherein off-target drift is to be avoided or prohibited (as stated on the manufacturer label) to be applied in means other than spray application.[23] However, at UB, MEC-AMINE D is sprayed and therefore presents a strong potential to affect non-target plants (as stated on the Material Data Safety Sheet), animals and people.
The phenoxy family of herbicides (2,4 - D and Mecoprop) has been strongly linked to a number of different cancers, most notably Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, whose incidence has increased dramatically in recent decades.[24] The EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet, as mentioned previously, has not classified 2,4 - D specifically as a human carcinogen, due to inadequate data. According to the Basic Guide to Pesticides, 2,4 - D has been proven to be a carcinogen, a suspect mutagen, a teratogen (likely to cause birth defects) and a suspect fetotoxin (can poison the fetus). 2,4 - D has also induced symptoms of anorexia, and caused toxic injury to the liver, kidney and central nervous system.[25]
According to Joseph Gardella, UB Chemistry Professor, "A further concern with continual use of 2-4 D based herbicides is the consequent contamination and release of "Dioxin" into the environment. Dioxin is a commonly used term for a class of 73 isomers and congeners of chloro-dibenzo dioxins. 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2378TCDD) is the most toxic and carcinogenic of the 73 related chlorodibenzo dioxin compounds nearly 120 dibenzo furan compounds. 2378TCDD is a synthetic side product of the synthesis of 2,4-D and 2,4,5 T, components of Agent Orange and other herbicides (Agent White, Agent Purple, Agent Pink, Agent Green). Other sources of dioxins include incineration of medical waste, degradation of chlorinated organic compounds and other high temperature combustion processes in which organic chlorine containing compounds exist as a precursor.
According to Joseph Gardella, UB Chemistry Professor, "A further concern with continual use of 2-4 D based herbicides is the consequent contamination and release of "Dioxin" into the environment. Dioxin is a commonly used term for a class of 73 isomers and congeners of chloro-dibenzo dioxins. 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2378TCDD) is the most toxic and carcinogenic of the 73 related chlorodibenzo dioxin compounds nearly 120 dibenzo furan compounds. 2378TCDD is a synthetic side product of the synthesis of 2,4-D and 2,4,5 T, components of Agent Orange and other herbicides (Agent White, Agent Purple, Agent Pink, Agent Green). Other sources of dioxins include incineration of medical waste, degradation of chlorinated organic compounds and other high temperature combustion processes in which organic chlorine containing compounds exist as a precursor.
While the present commercial source of 2,4 D may certify to a specific detection limit of dioxin contamination, this information will be required for future regulatory reporting.Beginning January, 2000, EPA requires all facilities who file Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports to include their releases of Dioxins and Dibenzofurans into the environment as part of the report. The specific requirement, part of the addition and lowering of reporting thresholds for persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBT), will require all facilities who release 0.1 gm total of all dioxins and dibenzo furans. Unlike all other manufactured chemicals on the TRI list, Dioxins and dibenzofurans are impurities and side products, thus the reporting of amounts of dioxins will require monitoring and analysis. A further complication to spraying dioxin-containing pesticides will be the requirement that all dioxin put into the environment through pesticide spraying will have to be measured and reported. Other TRI components can be reported simply by evaluating the amounts purchased and used or sold. Dioxin represents a new issue in TRI reporting and therefore requires additional documentation and expenditure. Poor public relations will result for this campus in having to report publicly the choice to spray dioxin into the environment." The increasing insistence by the United States Government to quantify and report the dioxin released into the environment as a result of our chemical use exemplifies the negative and dangerous health affects of the use of this chemical and others. The national trend is away from chemical applications, it is our decision to either voluntarily look for alternatives, or wait until alternatives are the only option.
Surflan (Oryzalin)
Surflan is a pre emergent herbicide that UB uses for general weed control around landscaped areas. Oryzalin is extensively under - researched. In fact, one federal chemical database, IRIS, reported NO details of toxic effects other than the lethal dose value for all routes and levels of toxicity.[26] Some examinations of oryzalin determined that acute affects by inhalation and skin exposure cause dermatitis or skin rash, irritation or skin sensitization.[27] It is determined to be slightly toxic (class 4) and is classified as a possible human carcinogen (class c).[28] The residual chemical traces can last for at least two months after application, posing a significant risk to hand - weeders in gardens from physical exposure. Oryzalin is a suspected carcinogen and poses low to medium oral and dermal toxicity and low to high toxicity due to inhalation.[29]
Roundup (Glyphosate)
Monsanto, the producer of Roundup, has contributed tests to the Chemical Profiles compiled by Cornell University. The sub acute and chronic toxicity testing observed "no relevant gross or histopathologic changes...no adverse affects to rats or dogs, and no mutagenic, carcinogenic, teratogenic (birth defects), adverse reproductive changes, or neurotoxic effects."[30] These studies also determined the normal half-life to be less than 60 days.
There is concern that these studies do not fully present the potential impacts of glyphosate on health and the environment. One of the discrepancies between the manufacturer's safety data sheets and pesticide monitoring groups is inert ingredient inclusion. Roundup is comprised of 41% glyphosate, N- (phosphonomethyl) glycine, (in the form of its isopropylamine salt) and 59% of inert ingredients, including surfactant.[31] The inert ingredients are not required by law to be listed on the label. This does not mean, however, that they do not impact the environment or human health. In fact, the Journal of Pesticide Reform determined that "The surfactant used in a common glyphosate product (Roundup) is more acutely toxic than glyphosate itself, the combination of the two is yet more toxic."[32]
Glyphosate is a systemic and non - selective herbicide used to kill broad-leaved weeds, grass, and sedge species, and is the third most commonly used pesticide on commercial (non-agricultural) land. The mode of action of glyphosate is not known at this time, yet, it is thought to inhibit or repress two enzymes that are involved in the synthesis of plant amino acids. In mammals, Roundup has been found to affect enzymes, and to decrease the activity of two detoxification enzymes in the liver and intestine.[33]
This same study found the combination of the surfactant and glyphosate (Roundup) killed rats with a third of the amount than glyphosate alone.[34]
California agricultural workers have reported glyphosate to be the third most common cause of pesticide illness, and the most commonly reported chemical - causing illness to landscape workers. Many of these reports involve "irritant effects" to the eyes and skin. Over half of these effects are of a serious nature, such as: burning of the eyes or skin, blurred vision, peeling of the skin, nausea, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pain, dizziness, numbness, burning of the genitals, and wheezing.[35] Long term toxicity data has shown glyphosate to be a suspect carcinogen and a suspect mutagen, with acute oral and dermal toxicity to be of medium range, and the inhalation toxicity level to be unknown.[36]
Glyphosate has the ability to affect non-target species of plants and animals due to its ability to drift readily. It is non-selective meaning it is designed to kill anything it comes into contact with. It moves readily within plants and can therefore damage areas that are not directly exposed. This poses a significant threat to investments in trees, shrubs and perennial flowers, as well as wild life and humans.
Pendulum (Pendimethalin)
Pendimethalin is being considered for use in fenced - in mechanical areas on campus. It has been determined by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a possible human carcinogen, and adverse human and other species effects have been demonstrated pertaining to reproduction, kidneys and liver, and skin, eyes, nose and throat. [37] Pendimethalin lacks data required for national safety data sheets. However, even lacking this data, it has made it on to two federal regulatory lists as a suspected carcinogen and a suspected gastrointestinal or liver toxicant. The immediate toxicity to fish and crustaceans is ranked as high, however the long-term (chronic) toxicity in mammals is unknown.[38] It is ranked more hazardous than most chemicals in two out of four ranking systems, and is ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds (in the worst ten- percent) to ecosystems and health. [39] On December 31, 1999, the EPA passed a final rule to lower reporting thresholds for certain Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) chemicals and pendimethalin is included in this list. Lowering these chemicals' releasable levels is based on their carcinogenicity, chronic human health effects and/or their significant adverse effects on the environment.[40]
Back to Top
ALTERNATIVES TO CHEMICAL LAWN CARE
Because of this increasing evidence of human health and environmental dangers stemming from pesticide use and because there has been an explosion of interest in nontoxic methods of lawn and garden care both for institutions and the home, there has been a surge of interest in Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
The key benefits of IPM programs are that they create beautiful landscapes without doing damage to human or animal or plant health. In addition, they make our lawns and gardens healthier in the long run, requiring ultimately less attention than do landscapes on which pesticides are applied.
Thirteen states in the U.S. have defined Pesticide Policies that mandate IPM's for their school systems. In fact, seven state school systems in the U.S. have 'prohibition of pesticide use' policies. These states are Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. [41] This trend is largely due to proven, mounting evidence that children are more susceptible than adults are to pesticide poisoning.
The Buffalo Pest Management Board of Erie County developed and had passed (by the Buffalo Common Council) the Sunset Ordinance (a three-year phase out of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides on municipal grounds). Their literature states: "It is widely accepted that pesticides are not safe. In fact, it is illegal for manufacturers to even make that claim. At the same time, there are non-chemical approaches to pest control that are often more effective. The application of chemical pesticides addresses only the superficial symptoms of a larger problem. For example, pesticides used to kill weeds don't strengthen lawns to prevent future weed intrusion. Non-toxic methods focus on prevention and making an environment naturally pest-resistant."[42]
Factors to reducing chemical dependency include:
|
|
Increased aeration of all grounds
|
|
|
Fertilization and composting (after soil analyses are completed and need levels are determined)
|
|
|
Increased mulching around trees and in gardens
|
|
|
Development of methods for inhibition of weed and grass growth around light posts, such as small rubber pads made of recycled tires
|
|
|
Remediation of sidewalk cracks
|
|
|
Utilization of hot water or acetic acid (vinegar) sprays to kill weeds
|
|
|
Increased training for grounds personnel concerning safety measures and dangers of chemical lawn care
|
|
|
Increased monitoring and record keeping of chemical and fertilizer applications
|
|
|
Increased monitoring of "problem areas"
|
|
|
Increased and appropriate seeding of grassy areas
|
|
|
Ensuring lawns are mowed at proper height
|
|
|
Planting of native and cohabiting species of trees, grasses, shrubs and flowers
|
|
|
Tolerance for weeds
|
Included in this report is an Alternative to Pesticides Turf Management Plan[43], which outlines some of the ways to adhere to the previous suggestions.
It is essential that UB develop a policy (draft included in this report) in conjunction with creating an Integrated Pest Management program to set forth a timeline and goal for the phase out of chemical treatments.
In an effort to design what an IPM program for UB might look like, it is necessary to know what is being done currently for weed control. Broadcast spraying (MEC AMINE - D; 2,4 - D) was done once in the spring of 1999, about three weeks prior to commencement to deter dandelion growth. We understand that the University plans to spray MEC AMINE - D once or twice a year to control dandelions, with the second possible application scheduled for fall. Spot spraying (Roundup; Glyphosate) is done as a regular maintenance throughout the spring, summer and fall.
In the past two to three years, primarily on the North Campus, the use of Roundup has increased dramatically in the wake of staff downsizing and increased pressure concerning aesthetics. It is probable that playing fields are becoming increasingly resistant to chemical treatments because the same chemicals are used every year. Roundup is used to eliminate weed growth around trees, light posts, fences, mechanical areas, and along sidewalks and curb lines, therefore reducing the need for hand weeding or proper and regular mulch application
Turf Management Basics
To appropriately monitor the health and problem areas of lawns, evaluation and scouting should occur bi - weekly from late March to the end of May and from mid-August to mid-October. The evaluation will include walking the grounds and recording areas of weed growth, standing water, insect infestation, etc. This requires additional staff commitment and time, but is extremely effective in stemming a potential large problem before it takes hold. Bill Ellsworth, Labor Supervisor for University Facilities on South Campus, has developed a preliminary Turfgrass Management Calendar, attached, for the campus. Proper timing for all elements of turf care is essential for healthy growth and natural weed deterrents. Included in the Management Calendar is:
|
|
Evaluation and Scouting
|
|
|
Fertilization
|
|
|
Overseeding with improved varieties for specific locations
|
|
|
Aeration
|
|
|
Higher mowing practices
|
|
|
Broadleaf Weed Control (chemical application, by last resort and permission of the ETF Land Use Subcommittee)
|
With this regular approach, the patterns of lawn growth are established. As discussed earlier, lawn care problems are indicative of an underlying imbalance within the soil; therefore, many things that are usually dealt with by chemicals can be adjusted with soil remediation. A proposal for a student intern to monitor grounds throughout the spring, summer and fall has been submitted to the Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Program and the Environmental Studies Department at UB. This would be an extremely beneficial internship for any student interested in developing horticultural or naturalist field skills. Also, continuous and accurate monitoring would prove invaluable to UB grounds for preventing lawn degradation or problem areas.
Fertilization of grounds, especially problem areas, may be effective in improving soil quality. However, soils should always be tested prior to fertilization to ensure it is needed. Also, fertilizers chosen must be organic rather than chemical in design.
Dandelions proliferate in alkaline soils (pH of 7.5 or higher), but do not fare as well in acidic soils. Instead of applying a chemical herbicide to combat dandelions, it would be more effective to adjust the soil (through additions of organic matter and essential micronutrients), which may have a beneficial effect on factors other than dandelion reduction. Fertilization provides soil with necessary phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium. Nitrogen is not readily replaced from the environment to the soil and is not often in an available form for plants, but it is essential for strong root growth and lush top growth. In a climate as harsh as Buffalo's, it is essential that root development be nurtured, to ensure plant health after the spring thaws.
Besides using fertilizer, compost can be added to the soil. Compost is available from the town of Amherst, or could be produced on UB's own grounds from our food waste. This would greatly reduce food waste disposal costs and eliminate costs for top dressing, some mulch and some fertilizer for UB grounds. Compost adds essential micronutrients and elements to soil and creates a well-graded soil composition that inhibits quick drainage. These elements combine to provide a healthy structure in which plant roots have more nutrients to adsorb and more ability with which to adsorb them. Bion Soil is another option for a compost/fertilizer mix. This is a product developed from dairy farm manure rich in nitrogen and effective for strong plant and root development, and is currently being used at Buffalo State College.
In conjunction with fertilization and incorporation of organic matter (compost) into the soil, aeration must become a regular practice. Ideally, aeration will be done in the spring months of April to mid-June, prior and during fertilization. This process punctures the soil to decrease compaction (which occurs from frequent mowing, weather conditions, use, etc.), thereby improving the ability of water and nutrients to penetrate the soil and move freely under the surface. Increased aeration also improves oxygen penetration and bacterial growth (which aid in root and organic matter decomposition for nutrient cycling) and decomposition (by oxygen and bacteria) of environmental contaminants in soil and groundwater. UB owns aerator equipment and is in need of additional manpower and a consistent schedule to commit too to employ this practice.
Overseeding of grasses is helpful in creating a tight network of grass roots, thereby creating an unfit system for weed growth. Grasses tightly grown also increase shade on the surface of the soil, inhibiting weed seeds from germinating and/or establishing themselves. Grass root networks grow proportionately to the above ground grass, so if lawns are cut at a higher mowing height (two and a half to three inches), the roots have the ability to grow stronger and hardier. This increased root strength and depth makes it more difficult for weed seeds to establish themselves and thrive, as well, a decrease in the frequency of mowing slows compaction. Seed varieties selected should be appropriate to Western New York growing conditions and the use of the turf.
The previously mentioned IPM practices will assist in dandelion reduction and chemical broadleaf weed control should not be considered as an acceptable part of an IPM program. When dandelions are chemically treated, they are affected the most by 2, 4 - D or a derivative. As discussed in the Lawn Chemicals Used at UB section of this report, the health and ecosystem dangers presented by 2,4 - D are significant and they must be given more weight than subjective aesthetic perceptions.
Bill Ellsworth at UB has identified several actions that can be taken instantly to reduce the perceived need for chemical weed control. Increased mulching of gardens and around trees and rubber pads around light posts will reduce the need for Roundup with the eventual goal of phasing out the chemical. However, mulching must be at the right depth, properly applied and in conjunction with more aggressive hand weeding. Weed control is an ongoing process, and must be understood as such. IPM practices range in rates of effectiveness, and as such, some acceptance of weed growth should be accepted initially. However, the general aesthetics of the campus will not drastically change, as an IPM program attempts to alter lawn care to provide the same result.
When the University is having a landscape designed, preliminary questions need to be answered to fulfill a goal of no chemical maintenance. Some examples are: [44]
|
|
What plants are native to the area, thus needing less watering or special care?
|
|
|
What plants would stabilize the soil in areas susceptible to erosion?
|
|
|
What plants would replenish soil nitrogen, allowing a reduction in the use of fertilizers?
|
|
|
What plants are less susceptible to local insect pests?
|
|
|
What planting design would minimize the need for lawn mowing?
|
|
|
Can any grassy areas be replaced with trees and shrubs?
|
|
|
What design and selection of plants would displace local wildlife as little as possible?
|
|
|
What plants are drought/cold tolerant?
|
Cost is a factor in all decisions. IPM programs are of no exception, and many have proven to be more cost effective than regular herbicide application. The initial few years after eliminating pesticide use, lawns experience "growing pains", an adjustment to decreased chemicals and increased healthy actions (aeration, compost application, etc.). The money invested in non-chemical lawn care is often paid back through reduced costs (no more chemicals), decreased liability for potential lawsuits, and elimination of costs for permits and disposal of the chemicals. Lawn health and self-maintenance (decomposition of increased organic matter and cycling of nutrients) improves the overall look of the turf, as well as ensuring the health of the ecosystem. The owner of Green Space Environmental Design, an New York State based company that specializes in organic lawn care and native species restoration, responded to the cost question with this insight: "These days I think it's pretty comparable [organic lawn care/chemical services]. With a chemical service one of the problems is that you're basically paying to maintain a monoculture, which is further from the natural order and therefore needs more maintenance. You need to add fertilizer, for example, but synthetic fertilizers can destroy soil microbes, leading to a really stressed and unhealthy system."[45] Costs will have to be determined on a long-term scale, with the appropriate payback periods and the benefits to all of chemical reduction taken into consideration.
Cultural Perceptions
Well-defined perceptions of what a healthy, well kept and beautiful lawn looks like is one of the major challenges to implementing an IPM program and eliminating pesticide use. It is essential to view these images in the context in which they were created. i.e. by chemical lawn treatment companies and golf courses, and acknowledge that pesticide lawn dependency is becoming outdated, less publicly accepted, and restricted or banned in some federal cases. A campaign to promote a "new aesthetic" of lawn care would benefit the University's public image and enable UB to utilize this new endeavor to benefit recruitment and retention. Recognizing this development will be a big step forward and an important action to be taken by a progressive, proactive university. An educational campaign can certainly make this point known through literature, public service announcements and newspaper articles, on - line information, appropriate signage and by other methods, explaining the reasons chemical lawn care has been eliminated and celebrating the decision. A discussion of health effects of pesticides, IPM programs, and an explanation of UB's commitment to environmental sustainability should be a part of this marketing campaign. A resolution to commit to lawn pesticide use elimination is essential in developing a coalition with the city through the Buffalo Pest Management Board, and our commitment to high levels of stewardship to the general community. An educational campaign such as this is an exciting endeavor that looks and acts towards the future with responsibility.
Back to Top
SCHOOLS TAKING THE GREEN AND YELLOW PATH!
Several universities and even more elementary, middle and high schools around the country have taken steps towards a pesticide - free campus. In New York State, there are over fifteen recorded elementary, middle and high schools with written pesticide policies for both indoor and outdoor application.[46] Several universities, such as Cornell University, are immersed in pesticide research and IPM practices. The universities highlighted below are also signatories of the Talloires Declaration or members of the Association of American Universities.
The University of Rochester grounds director reported no large-scale spraying and infrequent use of Roundup around trees. They focus instead on cultural (least toxic, mechanical) practices for healthy lawns, such as aeration, fertilization, compost application, insecticidal soaps, and hand weeding.[47] In fact, U of R's university flower is the dandelion (established decades ago as such) and they host a giant dandelion festival each spring.
The University of Virginia Foundation created an innovative master-landscaping plan, in which sustainable issues, such as phasing out chemical use, is a focus of campus design. This includes minimizing mowed grass areas, planting at least five times the normal amount of trees in new native orchard areas, and planting indigenous species of shrubs and trees to decrease the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
Minimizing mowed areas is an approach to campus aesthetics that is conducive to many acres. The native grasses and wildflowers that are allowed to grow regenerate habitats for native birds and other wild life. In addition, native grasses and flowers are climate - ready, requiring no maintenance and little, if any watering or irrigation and no chemical treatment. Indigenous shrubs and trees are similarly effective in eliminating the need for chemical treatments, as they are acclimated to the soil type and climate. Also, The University at Virginia has dedicated forty percent of their 532 acres to un-development. Regeneration into a wilderness preserve will be its primary function.[48]
St. Lawrence University students developed a program termed "Project Dandelion". For the past year they have been soliciting help of faculty, administration and students to eliminate pesticide use. Currently, they are in meetings with the grounds supervisor and weighing alternate lawn care options.[49]
Northern Arizona University has developed a program in which their Affirmative Action department grants a week prior notice to chemically sensitive people on campus prior to chemical application.
The policy for herbicides and pesticides at Tufts University is an IPM program. They only treat with pesticides or insecticides where there is a severe problem (such as an insect infestation that will destroy many trees). Herbicide use is not included in this exemption. They have made an extensive effort to incorporate native perennials into the grounds to reduce the use of Roundup, and have annual beds for commencement and other events. [50]
A Dartmouth University grounds person stated "If you employ a lot of pesticides in pursuit of a weed-free campus, you are going to end up killing butterflies, earthworms, birds, and on up the chain. We would rather overseed and hand weed, accept some weeds, and put some work in." The grounds department does not apply chemicals to control weeds.[51]
The University of Nebraska grounds department has invested in creatively returning campus green space to native grasses and perennials. They have shifted away from annual beds, because of their high need levels and cost, and redirected monies into establishing multi-season perennial beds. They are also gradually reducing turf areas, especially those of high maintenance, and replacing plain grass with tall grass landscapes, perennial beds, or regeneration areas. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all need for trim mowing, therefore reducing the need for hand weeding in these areas (in our case, the use of Roundup). In return for these efforts, the University of Nebraska has virtually eliminated costs of nursery-bought native plants because theirs are established well enough to propagate on site. Also, there has been a marked increase in animal life on campus, especially native birds, which has helped to spread grass, shrub and tree seeds throughout the area. Costs for irrigation are virtually eliminated, for the native grasses are drought resistant and deeply rooted.[52]
Seattle University has eliminated chemical sprays, which used to be on a calendar application system. Mechanical controls, such as hand weeding, and hand removal of insects have resulted in a $1,300 annual savings.[53]
Back to Top
GREEN MARKETING - AN UNTAPPED OPPORTUNITY FOR UB
The University at Buffalo is in a prime position to distinguish itself from the rest of the SUNY system as an environmental leader. As a research institution UB has numerous resources with which to explore further the scientific evidence behind dangers of pesticides. The Environment and Society Institute, the Environmental Studies Department, the Chemistry and Biology Departments, the Medical School and the Department of Social and Preventative Medicine host advocates for a lawn pesticide - free campus. As the national trend away from chemical usage is increasing, the University at Buffalo should be eager to be proactive. A policy to ban lawn pesticide spraying could benefit not only public health and the environment but also be a great public relations project for UB. It would undoubtedly assist in recruitment and retention efforts.
UB is one of only 250 signatories of the prestigious Talloires Declaration, a commitment to strong environmentally responsible campus actions. Our University is nationally recognized for its energy conservation program. We have an accomplished recycling program that now recycles over 30% of our solid waste stream. We are also one of the only campuses to have numerous strong Environmental Policies, an Environmental Task Force, a Building Conservation Contacts program, an Environment and Society Institute, and a highly active student Environmental Network. Our University is possibly the only one in the country where nearly half the paper we use is 100% post consumer recycled-content, processed chlorine free paper. Our comprehensive Think Green campaign is gaining national attention, with requests for materials and guidance coming from around the country. UB is in a position to market these accomplishments but to do so effectively we must be consistent. We need to take the step of minimizing pesticide use and eliminating lawn herbicide application for cosmetic purposes.
A positive 'green marketing' campaign will place the University into state and national spotlights for proactive and effective environmental stewardship, which is becoming a national priority. This modern, positive and healthy image will impact recruitment, attracting high quality, proactive students, and students in general that are sensitive to health and environmental matters. Creative approaches to campus aesthetics and grounds will improve qualities of outdoor life at UB, enhancing retention rates. The City of Buffalo and the University at Buffalo have the opportunity to combine talents and efforts on this issue to safeguard and improve human and ecosystem health. It is the responsibility of higher educational institutions such as UB to educate others and set an example as a good environmental citizen for the university and the wider community. Let the elimination of lawn pesticide use on our campus continue our collective efforts of learning from the past, and allow us to strive for a stronger, healthier, greener future.
Back to Top
PESTICIDE INFORMATION PROFILES
TextGoesHere
Back to Top
REFERENCES
1. Definition provided by New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, 2000.
2. Environmental Advocates, Western New York: Summary facts regarding pesticide use and sales patterns in Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie and Niagara Counties., Appendix C.
3. "Assembly Approves Pesticide Phaseout and Notification Legislation". This WEEK; Assembly Action Highlights Newsletter, 2/2000.
4. City of Buffalo Pest Management Board, Buffalo Sunset Ordinance, 1999.
5. DoD Instruction 4150.7, "DoD Pest Management Program," April 22, 1996.
6. Environmental Defense Fund Scorecard: The Importance of Basic Toxicity Testing.
7. http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/def/basic_det.html
8. Partnership for Pesticide-Free Schools Project; New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.
9. Guillette, E.A. et al. 1998. An Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed to Pesticides in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106(6):347-353. see also Wiles, R. et al. 1998. Overexposed: Organophosphate Insecticides in Children's Food. Environmental Working Group. Washington D.C. see also Weils, B. 1997. Pesticides as a Source of Developmental Disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 3:246-256. see also Stokes, L. et al. 1995. Neurotoxicity Among Pesticide Applicators Exposed to Organophosphates. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 52: 648 - 653.
10. For a review of the medical literature on Parkinson's disease and pesticides, see Environmental Advocates' and NYPIRG's Focus on Pesticides #1: Pesticide and Parkinson's Disease. December 1997.
11. Zahm, S.H. and M.H. Ward. 1998. Pesticides and Childhood Cancer. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106(Supplement 3): 893 - 908.
12. Garry, V.F. et al. Pesticide Appliers, Biocides, and Birth Defects in Rural Minnesota. Environmental Heath Perspectives. 104(4):394 - 399.
13. Environmental Advocates: New York State Pesticide Use and Sales Data 1997. http://www.envadvocates.org/public_html/Pest/ data.html
14. Environmental Protection Agency: Testing for Endocrine Disrupters http://ag.arizona.edu/pito/acces/english/1198ap.html
15. Office of Science Coordination and Policy: Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program, EPA. 1999.
16. Campt, Douglas D., Director, Office of Pesticide Programs: EPA Memorandum, Aug. 31, 1993.
17. Four Major Factors in Groundwater Pesticide Contamination http://pmep.cce.cornell,edu/facts-slides-self/slide-set/grwater10.html
18. Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technology Transfer Network; 2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4- D) (including salts and esters): Hazard Summary.
19. Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Fact Sheet: 2,4 - D (Dacamine, Weed-B-Gon) Herbicide Profile 9/88.
20. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Extension Toxicology Network. www.scorecard.org (Environmental Defense Fund).
21. Reigart, Roott J., M.D., Roberts, James R., M.D. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings. 5th ed 1999. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare
22. Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technology Transfer Network; 2,4 - Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4- D) (including salts and esters): Hazard Summary.
23. Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Fact Sheet: 2,4 - D (Dacamine, Weed-B-Gon) Herbicide Profile 9/88.
24. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. US EPA - Spray Drift of Pesticides. 12/99.
25. Garry, V.F. et al. 1994. Survey of Health and Use Characterization of Pesticide Appliers in Minnesota. Archives of Environmental Health. 49(5): 337-343. see also Institute of Medicine: National Academy of Sciences 1993. Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam. National Research Council. Washington D.C. see also Zahm, S.H. and A. Blair. 1992. Pesticides and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Cancer Research (Supplement): 52:5485S-5488S. see also Scherr, P.A. et al 1992. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure Cancer Research (Supplement). 52:5503S-5509S.
26. Briggs, Shirley A. Basic Guide to Pesticides: Their Characteristics and Hazards. p. 124. United States; Rachel Carson Council. 1992.
27. Integrated Risk Information System: Oryzalin CASRN 19044-88-3. Environmental Protection Agency.
28. Material Safety Data Sheet: Surflan As Herbicide, 20121. Dow Elanco.
29. Integrated Risk Information System: Oryzalin CASRN 19044-88-3. Environmental Protection Agency.
30. Briggs, Shirley A. Basic Guide to Pesticides: Their Characteristics and Hazards. p.170. United States; Rachel Carson Council. 1992
31. Glyphosate (Roundup) Chemical Profile. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/herb...uron/glyphosate/herb-prof-glyphosate.html
32. Roundup Pro label, Monsanto Company.
33. Journal of Pesticide Reform/ Fall 1998. Vol.18. No.3. Herbicide Factsheet; Glyphosate (Roundup)
34. Hietanan, E.K. Linnainmaa, and H. Vainio. 1983. Effects of phenoxy herbicides and glyphosate on the hepatic and intestinal biotransformation activities in the rat. Acta Pharma. et Toxicol. 53:103-112.
35. Martinez, T.T. and K. Brown. 1991. Oral and pulmonary toxicology of the surfactant used in Roundup herbicide. Proc.West.Pharamacol. Soc. 34:43-46.
36. California EPA. Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1998. Case reports received by the California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program in which health effects were attributed to glyphosate. 1993-1995. Unpublished report. Sacramento, CA. Aug.
37. Briggs, Shirley A. Basic Guide to Pesticides: Their Characteristics and Hazards. p.154. United States; Rachel Carson Council. 1992
38. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Extension Toxicology Network. www.scorecard.org (Environmental Defense Fund).
39. Briggs, Shirley A. Basic Guide to Pesticides: Their Characteristics and Hazards. p.174. United States; Rachel Carson Council. 1992
40. Environmental Defense Fund Scorecard; Chemical Profile Pendimethalin 40487-42-1
41. Environmental Protection Agency 40 DFR Part 372: Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds for Certain PBT Chemicals; Addition of Certain PBT Chemicals; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Reporting: Final Rule. 12/99.
42. Owens, Kagen and Feldman, Jay. State School Pesticide Policies: Table 2. "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws, Review of State Pesticide Laws Regarding Schools". Pesticides and You Vol. 18, No. 3, 1998.
43. City of Buffalo Pest Management Board, Buffalo Sunset Ordinance, 1999.
44. Bill Ellsworth, University at Buffalo Labor Supervisor: Facilities Operations-University Facilities; 2000.
45. Union Of Concerned Scientists: "Questions to Ask When You're Going to Landscape" http://www.ucsusa.org/less/ask.landscape.html
46. Best, Anne. 1996. "A Green Industry Interview" by Buffy Turner: Solutions, News Magazine of the New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.
47. Slergar, Michael. New York State Schools with Written Policies for Pesticide Applications.
48. Sheild, Dan; Grounds Director, University of Rochester. Phone Interview, 2/2000.
49. University at Virginia NEWS. Saving a Forest, 3,000 Trees at a Time. The University of Virginia Foundation Begins Innovative Landscape Relocation Project at North Fork Research Park. 1/1999. http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases/forest-jan-26-1999.html
50. Phone Interview with Katie Peck, student at St. Lawrence University; 2/2000.
51. Phone Interview with Lynn Zanski, Program Coodinator of Tufts Institute of the Environment. 2/2000.
52. Hochstin, Bill. Ecodemia, p.30. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C., 1995.
53. Hansen, Twyla. Ecodemia, p.28. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C., 1995.
54. Eagan, David J. and Keniry, Julian. Green Investment, Green Return, p.5, National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C., 1998.
[01] Definition provided by New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides
[02] Environmental Advocates
[03] New York State Assembly, February 2000
[04] Sunset Ordinance, 1999.
[05] US Department of Defense - 1999 PESP Strategy
[06] Environmental Protection Agency
[07] New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and NYS Attorney General's Office
[08] Guillette, E.A. et al. 1998
[09] Focus on Pesticides #1: Pesticides and Parkinson's Disease 12/97
[10] Zahm, S.H. and M.H. Ward. 1998.
[11] Garry, V.F. et al. 1996.
[12] Environmental Advocates, 1997.
[13] Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
[14] Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
[15] Douglas D. Campt, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA, 1993.
[16] Cornell University
[17] Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1998.
[18] EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet, 2,4 - D Herbicide Profile, 9/88
[19] EPA, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, Extension Toxicology Network
[20] Reigart, Roott J., M.D., Roberts, James R., M.D, 1999.
[21] Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1998.
[22] EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet, 2,4 - D Herbicide Profile, 9/88
[23] EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, 12/1999.
[24] Garry, V.F. et al., 1994.
[25] Basic Guide to Pesticides p.124, 1992.
[26] EPA Integrated Risk Management System, Oryzalin, 1987.
[27] Dow Elanco, Material Safety Data Sheet
[28] epa.gov, pg.6
[29] Basic Guide To Pesticides p.170, 1992.
[30] Glyphosate Chemical Profile, Monsanto Company 7/85.
[31] Roundup Pro label, Monsanto Company.
[32] Journal of Pesticide Reform, p.3, 1998.
[33] Hietanen, E.K. Linnainmaa, and H. Vainio, 1983.
[34] Martinez, T.T. and K. Brown, 1991.
[35] California EPA Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, 1998.
[36] Basic Guide to Pesticides, p. 154, 1992.
[37] Environmental Protection Agency
[38] Basic Guide to Pesticides p.174, 1992.
[39] Chemical Profile for Pendimethalin
[40] EPA 40 CFR Part 372, 1995.
[41] State School Pesticide Policies:Table 2.
[42] Sunset Ordinance. 1999.
[43] Bill Ellsworth, 2000.
[44] Union of Concerned Scientists
[45] Best, Anne. 1996
[46] Michael Slergar
[47] Dan Sheid - Grounds Director, University of Rochester, 2000.
[48] UVA News, 1/99.
[49] Phone Interview/Katie Peck, 1/00.
[50] Program Coordinator of Tufts Institute of the Environment, 2000.
[51] Hochstin, Bill. Ecodemia, p.30, 1995.
[52] Hansen, Ecodemia, p.28, 1995.
[53] Green Investment, Green Return, p.5, 1998.
Back to Top
|
|
TextGoesHere
|
|
|
