PUBLIC DEBATE about levels of pesticide use on Long Island reflects our conflicted national consciousness about these materials. 

The recent report that in 1998 Suffolk and Nassau used 895,000 gallons and 5.3 million pounds of toxins, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, must worry us as a sign of what we are doing to the planet and to ourselves.

Click Here to Add Comment

              

Subject:    Rule of Reason Must Prevail on LI's Pesticide Use
 Date:        Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:31:35 -0400
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 from Newsday.com - Wednesday 04/25/2001 - Page A 30 entitled: Rule of Reason Must Prevail on LI's Pesticide Use By Steven A. Kolmes. Steven A. Kolmes is director of the environmental-studies program at the University of Portland in Oregon.

PUBLIC DEBATE about levels of pesticide use on Long Island reflects our conflicted national consciousness about these materials. 

On the one hand, two environmental groups-the Albany-based Environmental Advocates and the New York Public Interest Research Group-recently released a report showing that Suffolk and Nassau ranked among the top users in the state of both liquid and solid pesticides. On the other hand, a State Supreme Court justice just declared that Nassau cannot implement New York State's new neighbor-notification law for pesticide-spraying without first carrying out an environmental-impact statement.

How did this combination of conflicting societal elements come about? Few of us would casually spray a solution containing lead and arsenic on our lawns or gardens. Common sense would tell us that anything containing two toxic heavy metals would inevitably produce consequences in terms of our health and that of our families. But we so misunderstand pesticides that we casually accept them as benign entities belonging on our lawns, our gardens, our farms. Few realize that, before the advent of DDT in the 1940s, the pesticide of choice in many agricultural situations was lead arsenate. More than 100 million pounds were sprayed annually in our country. When it was used to protect apple orchards from insect pests, white coatings of the material would build up on tree trunks. So it is no surprise that, when DDT was introduced, Americans took to it enthusiastically, Although DDT proved to be too persistent and had to be banned when we began to decimate pelicans, bald eagles and other birds and fish, there is no question that more recently developed synthetic organic pesticides are far better choices for the environment than extensive applications of heavy-metal salts. But this comparison is important to remember.

Modern pesticides are the lesser of two unfortunate choices for pest control. They are not by any means benign. We now treat pesticides with a level of trust we would never have ascribed to a heavy metal. In truth, both are classes of materials that can be used in a way that reduces human exposure in the process of killing pest species, but cannot eliminate human exposure entirely. Both types are toxic to people and other animals as well as their target species.

Modern pesticides are irreplaceable tools in the control of insect-transmitted diseases such as malaria, West Nile virus and yellow fever.

They protect our vital crops from being decimated by pests such as the Russian wheat aphid and whiteflies. But we often use them agriculturally for cosmetic perfection of our fruits and vegetables, rather than to prevent excessive loss of crop yield. In a society where an apple with a spot on it is far less valuable than an unblemished fruit, consumers effectively demand growers spray orchards up to 10 or 12 times annually. And growers are complying with that request.

Doses of pesticides well below lethal levels have significant effects on human and animal health. In one well-documented example, migrating salmon have their homing abilities their abilities to ward off diseases and parasites, and their ability to sense one another's reproductive pheromones diminished by pesticide levels far below those that cause their immediate death.

There are real needs for pesticides in the world, but we need to act as adults and distinguish these from cosmetic uses. In the long run, given a choice between spots on the X-ray of your liver and spots on your apple, any sane person would choose the damage to the fruit.

The recent report that in 1998 Suffolk and Nassau used 895,000 gallons and 5.3 million pounds of toxins, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, must worry us as a sign of what we are doing to the planet and to ourselves. These are densely populated counties, not some malarial hotbed in the tropics.

Although the agricultural chemical industry always reassures us that current use of its products is safe, some of the pesticides used on Long Island during the study period, (such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon) are now federally banned due to health concerns. Herbicides such as 2,3,4-T were once considered safe and were recommended for years for lawn care, but that chemical is now banned and recognized as a cause of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in farmers who applied it. How often do we have to hear the same lesson before we get the idea? We ought to discriminate between vital needs and applications based on vanity or silliness, and stick to the vital ones.

There are many situations where pesticides are the only effective avenue available to us. We must recognize the gravity of choosing to spray a toxin and do so in as limited a fashion as our pressing social needs require.

Well Mr. Helliker, If there are no "legal" alternatives, then and only then, there are some situations where a temporary means of pest "control" are obtained when your "registered" pesticide POISONS are used/misused. I have gotten far better control and even elimination of pest problems inside and outside without using any of the above "registered" toxins. When will it be "legal" (in your opinion) to use safe and far more effective (unregistered) alternatives to actually solve pest problems? Would not the "Rule of Reason" mandate the use of food grade and/or GRAS unregistered pest control alternatives?

Respectfully, Stephen L.Tvedten

---

[Editor's Note:  The LD50 of a pesticide is the level where it will 50% of the test animals.  Steve Tvedten wonders why no one ever talks about the 50% that survive that amount of poison... how are they feeling?]

If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.

TOP