Texas - Pesticide, herbicide use in cities'
parks studied
Park managers in the state's 27 biggest cities used at least
75,000 pounds of weed and bug killers in 1998, the nonprofit Texas Pesticide
Information Network said Wednesday.
Subject: Pesticide, herbicide use in cities' parks studied
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:11:19 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State
of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr Helliker, I thought
you might like to read an article entitled:
Pesticide, herbicide use in cities' parks studied
Midland tops per-acre treatment in state survey
03/08/2001
By Randy Lee Loftis / The Dallas Morning News
Softballs and sneakers aren't the only things hitting the
grass in city parks in Texas, a new study shows. Pesticides are on the fields,
too.
Park managers in the state's 27 biggest cities used at
least 75,000 pounds of weed and bug killers in 1998, the nonprofit Texas
Pesticide Information Network said Wednesday.
A third of the pesticides were moderately to highly toxic,
said the network, a project of Consumers Union and two other groups. Some
contained chemicals linked to cancer and brain disorders, the groups said.
The most toxic parks were in Midland, both in potency of
chemicals and amount used per acre, the survey found.
Garland ranked second statewide in amount used per acre –
using nearly five times the statewide average.
A Garland parks supervisor questioned the findings and said
the city is acting responsibly.
Cities that fared best in the survey were Corpus Christi,
El Paso, College Station and San Antonio. The survey ranked Dallas' parks as
among the state's most chemical free – 0.2 pounds per acre, 20th of the cities
surveyed. In toxicity of chemicals used, however, Dallas ranked seventh.
The findings were derived from cities' responses to
requests made in 1999 under the state's open-records law.
Among the state's 27 largest cities, only Plano was not
included. Plano at first did not respond to the open-records request, then
sought to charge for the information, said the groups that assembled the survey.
Plano's policy is to assess labor and copying costs for
information that is not readily available or exceeds 50 pages, said Parks and
Recreation Director Don Wendell.
The groups were given a choice of paying $154 for eight
hours of research, plus copying costs, or coming to Plano to inspect the
records, Mr. Wendell said. He added that Plano has nothing to hide.
"We're safe and careful with the applications of our
chemicals," he said.
Although no city reported complaints about pesticides in
parks, that doesn't mean there aren't any concerns, the groups said.
"Contrary to popular conception, pesticides are not
safe, particularly for children," said Reggie James, Consumers Union's
Southwest director. "When even seemingly benign pest killers are linked to
cancer, it's time to examine the potential dangers we're exposed to ... in the
name of pretty grass and ant-free picnics."
Pesticide-use figures didn't include an additional 100
pounds of weed-and-feed fertilizers containing herbicides. They also didn't
include water used to dilute pesticides. .
The survey found that Garland used about 11,000 pounds of
pesticides on parks in 1998 – nearly 4.5 pounds per acre. The state average
was about one pound per acre.
Garland used 2.5 times more pesticides than Dallas, even
though Dallas' park system is about seven times bigger, the survey found.
Jack Summers, Garland's municipal services director for
park maintenance, said he didn't know where that number came from. The city only
chemically treats athletic fields and flower beds, he said – just 351 of its
2,500 acres of parks.
Mr. Summers said the survey must have counted fertilizer as
a pesticide. The study's authors, however, said they did not.
One possible reason for the discrepancies: The surveyors
said Garland had the most confusing and disorganized records of the cities
studied.
"It was often unclear what amount of pesticide was
used during an application," they wrote. The survey ranked Garland 11th
among 26 Texas cities in the toxicity of its pesticides.
Mr. Summers rejected any suggestion that Garland is putting
park users at risk.
"I'm an environmentalist myself," he said.
"Aspirin is more deadly than the chemicals we use."
Unlike six other states, including California, New York and
New Jersey, Texas doesn't require any reporting of pesticide use.
That leaves the public in the dark, said Mary Kelly,
executive director of the Texas Center for Policy Studies. The center and the
Texas Clean Water Fund did the survey with Consumers Union.
"Without a reporting requirement, there is little
public oversight," Ms. Kelly said.
Some cities are using "integrated pest
management," a strategy that relies on nontoxic methods along with
chemicals.
The maintenance supervisor of some of Dallas' most
ecologically sensitive parks said the strategy means the environment is more
important than keeping parks weed and bug free.
"People sometimes want to know why everything doesn't
look like a putting green," said Larry Smith, whose district includes the
Dallas Arboretum, White Rock Lake and parts of Lake Ray Hubbard. "We try to
educate people about what we're doing."
His putting-green analogy may be on target. Golf courses
skewed results for many cities, surveyors said, because they used about four
times as many chemicals per acre than other parks. And what they used was more
toxic. Garland's figures didn't include the city's Firewheel golf course, which
the parks department doesn't maintain.
Arlington used 20 times more pesticides per acre on its
golf courses than on other parks, the surveyors said. Even Austin, with the
least toxic golf courses, used eight times more per acre on its golf courses
than other parks.
Staff writers Richard Abshire, Lee Powell and Wendy Hundley
contributed to this report.
Well Mr. Helliker, when our
governmental officials make statements like: "I'm an environmentalist
myself," and. "Aspirin is more deadly than the chemicals we use." I cringe, I do not believe most environmentalists would use
your "registered" POISONS in parks and I believe that
this aspirin comparison is against the federal law. untrue and extremely
deceptive. Even if you consider
only the active ingredient in these "registered" POISONS, I am sure
Mr. Summers would not want to ingest aspirin sized amounts of these
"registered" POISONS for very long.
Rather than continue to study the how enormous is the POISONING of
America, why don't we simply control the pest problems using safe and far more
effective (unregistered) alternatives?
Respectfully,
Stephen L. Tvedten