[Add Comment] * [ Fairfax
Information ] * [More
Articles on Pesticides]
Dear Mr. Helliker:
Here in Canada, our Supreme Court ruled in favour of a town called Hudson, in Quebec, with respect to their right to regulate certain aspects of pesticide use. I was of the impression, from my years as a primary school student in New England, that the American system of democracy was stronger than the one in Canada.
Apparently, I was mistaken. In fact, our Province of Quebec recently announced its plans to seriously restrict the use and sale of many pesticides currently in use in California. I used to believe that Quebec protected its citizens even less than a place like Orgeon or California, but again, I was mistaken.
It seems highly unjust for a group of concerned citizens to take the time and effort to protect their community's health, and then for a larger government to say, " you do not have the right to do so". We were told the opposite in Canada, that a municipality has the
right to restrict the use of pesticides, and to go above and beyond the provincial and federal guidelines. How can an official in place far away decide what is best for the smaller community? Sometimes, when it comes to matters such as civil rights, the larger
government acts wisely. But in this case, the larger government is violating the rights of a smaller authority. When it comes to ecological matters, the local eco- system should be addressed by all levels of government, especially the local ones. I urge you to reconsider this matter, and follow the lead of Canada's Supreme Court, when they ruled that Hudson, Quebec did indeed have the right to control the use of potentially hazardous substances within its
jursidiction.
Sincerely, Jeremy Wallace
Ste Agathe Des Monts, Quebec, Canada
RESPONSE FROM HELLIKER
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Helliker" <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
To: <wall.matt@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Nulling the Fairfax Town pesticide ordinances
Dear Mr. Wallace:
The following quote is from the California law and expressly prohibits the type of ordinance that Fairfax has adopted. I have suggested to the City Council of Fairfax that if they don't like the law, they should ask their legislator to change it.
Regards,
Paul Helliker
California State Statutes
Food and Agriculture Code
11501.1. (a) This division and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12501) are of statewide concern and occupy the whole field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this code, no ordinance or regulation of local government, including, but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county board of supervisors or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter relating to the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these ordinances, laws, or regulations are void and of no force or effect.
Subject: Pesticide ordinance
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:43:41 EST
From: Noforcedspraying@aol.com
Dear Town of Fairfax:
I represent the citizens in Napa County called, POISON,
People Opposed To Insecticide Spraying on Neighborhoods.
We are opposed to forced insecticide spraying of neighborhoods in
response to the glassy-wing sharpshooter. We
support you one hundred percent in your efforts.
There are many individuals in our community who cannot
tolerate pesticide exposure and they need to be protected.
We have friends and family members with cancer, AIDS, MS, asthma, severe
bronchial troubles, and so on. They
must be protected. One of the
statements we hear most at the agricultural commissioner's office is that the
poisons people use in their own homes are more toxic than the poisons they will
use to kill the glassy-wing. This
is an excellent point.
It is also an essential argument in your case for the
neighbor notification law. If our neighbor uses pesticides so dangerously, more
dangerously than the farmer, (and obviously they do not read the labels), then
we need protection from them. Certainly,
there must be a state law that requires proper application of pesticides by
everyone, not just registered applicators, and proper protection for everyone.
Pesticide applicators must take tests and conform to strict rules
(hopefully). Why does this not
apply to homeowners? Your town law
could actually be seen as local enforcement of the state law.
If a homeowner wants to use a pesticide, then the Agricultural
Commissioner must visit that person and oversee that the applications are done
correctly. If they are not, then that homeowner can be fined for not protecting
himself or herself, and endangering others.
Does the state have a limit for the amount of pesticide being applied for
the applicator to be required to be licensed?
If that is ten pounds, does this cover the homeowner who buys three
pounds one month, three pounds the next and four pounds the next. You know what I mean. What
is the legal line for applying pesticides? When would the homeowner be
considered over the limit? If you have seven homeowners living side by side on
one street block applying the same amount of pesticides used by a small farm,
would they be controlled? Our farm advisor said publicly that he would recommend
that a farm contact the neighbors when they were going to be using sulfur due to
the child's serious bronchial troubles. The sulfur spraying has put the boy in
the hospital. This is neighbor
notification.
Imagine that your town is one large farm, with many little
farmers. Every one of your farmers
would be required to report to the Agricultural Commissioner when an application
would take place. It would be up
the Commissioner to make sure that application was done safely.
The Commissioner is also responsible for overseeing all PCO's and
pesticide companies. Your
commissioner is responsible for yearly audits their practice.
It is a state law that all applicators must use the least toxic pesticide
solution at the very beginning.
I request that the Town of Fairfax request an audit from
all pesticide applicators and PCO's as required by state law.
I would request that you expect those audits and judge whether proper
applications were made. If the Marin Agricultural Commissioner has not performed
those audits, then I would suggest that your Town take issue with that fact.
I also request that you contact the Lindsay Museum in
Walnut Creek. Several years ago
they initiated a project to educate the public on the serious effects of
non-source point pollution. They
may have good data for you.
I hope that some of this information is useful to you.
Respectfully,
Lowell Downey
POISON
People Opposed To Insecticide Spraying On Neighborhoods
707-251-8919
noforcedspraying@aol.com
6/14/2001 - Northern California Bohemian
Open Mic
Out of the Box
By Tara Treasurefield
WE'VE HAD ENOUGH. While state officials pose for photo ops,
we're drowning in pesticides. We can't breathe. Nature is dying. Our pets are
dying. Our children are dying. To survive, we must demand freedom from toxic
trespass. We have no choice. State regulatory agencies block even modest
attempts by local governments to protect us from exposure to pesticides.
In March, Fairfax passed an ordinance that prohibits
pesticides from town property and public rights of way. The ordinance also
requires residents to give 48-hour notice to neighbors within 150 feet before
applying pesticides outdoors. Following the example of Fairfax, Sebastopol later
this summer will vote on a similar ordinance. In separate letters, an attorney
representing Pest Control Operators of California Inc. and Paul E. Helliker,
director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, warned Fairfax that the new
ordinance violates state law. Helliker contends that, as written, the ordinance
could be applied to property not owned by Fairfax, and that Fairfax has no right
to require advance notice of pesticide spraying on private property. That, he
says, amounts to regulating pesticides, which is the DPR's job. In response,
Fairfax has established a legal fund to defend its ordinance in court.
This isn't just a turf battle. Helliker advocates
integrated pest management, or IPM, which promotes nontoxic and least toxic pest
control methods first. IPM doesn't exclude synthetic (chemical) pesticides, even
though they disrupt and deplete the natural world. There's a vast difference
between IPM and organic agriculture, which prohibits synthetic pesticides.
Even within IPM guidelines, there's a decided disconnect
between theory and practice at the DPR. A matter-of-fact report on the DPR
website mentions that carbaryl is being used in residential areas to protect
vineyards. What happened to IPM? There are organic alternatives to carbaryl,
which the EPA places in the group of pesticides that pose the greatest risk to
the public health. In addition, the DPR reports that it has the tightest
restrictions in the United States for methyl bromide, one of the deadliest
pesticides of all. That's great, except that what's needed is an immediate and
complete ban of methyl bromide.
We're running out of time. Only fundamental change can save
us. Although it doesn't go far enough, the Fairfax ordinance is a step in the
right direction. Hurray for Fairfax! As Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson write in
their recent book Cultural Creatives, "When you're trying to change the old
culture, . . . you can't play within the old culture's mind-set."
Tara
Treasurefield writes about pesticides, energy, the environment, and related
issues, and serves on the city of Sonoma's Toxics Task Force. For info about the
Fairfax dispute with the state, see www.safe2use.com.
I have two comments about this action by DPR Chief Hellicker. His premise that one can keep pesticides on their own private property is a foolish misunderstanding of how pesticides move in our environment. Let me provide three situations. The recent accidental drift exposure of toxic pesticides on a Ventura School by a misinformed user clearly underscores this. A whole school exposed to toxics. They should have been warned.
Farm Without Harm did their own air quality tests to find that the Methyl bromide guidelines were hideously inadequate. Buffer distances were not adequate. Schools adjacent to Ag. fields were getting toxic doses.
An associate ( I am a landscape contractor) told me of his experience curing diseased trees in the San Diego region, where pesticides migrated from Power pole protection practices onto adjacent properties and disturbed the soil microbes so badly that trees would die. They would fix the problem by adding native soil microbes like mychrrhizael bacteria.
A fourth example includes the presence of now banned "Dursban" (from public use) been under golf courses and beneath farming communities in water tables.
It is interesting that whereas many Americans have great concerns about sexual preferences, person drug use (drugs that do not cause impacts on others) which can be contained on a person property, our government protects the rights of pesticide users whose use drifts and violates the sanctity of others private lands. Often these private lands have organic gardens for profit or health, whatever, they are private safe uses that should be protected, yet the economic pesticide user is protected.
Mr. Hellicker has a mandate along with his Ag. Commissioners to also protect the health of Californian citizens, however, when pesticide corporations scream, somehow the fiscal support system, the taxpayers, rights and health gets lost in the rush to bow down to powerful pesticide lobbyists.
His argument that it is his responsibility to follow the law is bunk. He has the responsibility to insure the health of the citizenry as well and that should be his first priority. Please write to your representatives, local newspapers and send copies to the Fairfax paper or Mayor Eggers. Help this community start the battle toward are mutual rights. New Yorkers are a bit safer now, why not us?
Thanks for this opportunity to speak out.
Greg Krouse
If you need to contact Greg Krouse try: earthdance@saber.net
5/22/01
Dear Mr. Egger: Good luck in your battle with the pesticide group. You and
the town council are doing the right thing and deserve the support of every citizen in the country. What we now know about the negative health
consequences of the indiscriminate use of pesticide spraying should galvanize a lot more resistance by the people of America.
David S. Most, PhD
Palm Beach Gardens, FL, USA 33418
It is now 12 years since I was disabled by poisoning. In that time I have done quite a bit of research. I have found that in the USA
poisoning is big business and a very heavily protected activity. The pressure from DPR and PCOC on Fairfax Ordinance 686 is a truly excellent
example of this finding.
A way needs to be established for Fairfax citizens' interest in protecting health and enjoyment of home to take precedence over
commercial interest in eroding those fundamental precepts.
Jeanne DeGange
Superior, Montana
In Friday's Marin Independant Journal, the Office of the CA DPR was quoted as saying that one: Fairfax was in violation of state law by employing its new ordinance that requires that neighbors notify neighbors and that two: the DPR was going to see that Stacy Carlssen, the County Ag Commissioner, would be sent into Fairfax to help the town and its citizenry achieve a working Integrated Pest Management Policy (IPM).
In making both these statements, the Office of the DPR is clearly talking out of both sides of its mouth. The fourth principle of IPM is that of notification: to wit, that in any instance where a non-containerized non-bait pesticide application be utilized, public notification must occur. So which is it? Does Helliker want IPM or not? If he wants IPM, then the more practical way for him to proceed would be to allow the town of Fairfax to employ its new ordinance. In sending in Stacy Carlsen, you are taking the local operations of the town out of town control and handing them over to the County. Stepping up and away from a local government to the next largest arena of government is always one: less effective, and two: more expensive.
Carol Sterritt
Vice-Chairwoman
Marin Beyond Pesticides 415 331 3263
Sent to Paul Helliker, California Department of Pesticide Regulation
and Christine Whitman, Director, EPA
We strongly recommend your most positive actions or review and full support in favor of and not opposed or in opposition to the following three (3) items or statements:
1. the UN Commission on Human Rights declaration in its 57th session of the human right to live free of toxic pollution and environmental degradation, including and not limited to the right of ALL persons and most especially our CHILDREN who are the most vulnerable and suseptible to the risks of CANCER and adverse health effects to live, learn, work and/or play with safeguards and protections for safer, healthier home and school environments free of toxic chemical/pesticide exposure.
a. No child or teacher, parent or grandparent, family member, relative, neighbor or friend in our communities, cities and townships across the United States of America or anywhere in the world needs to ever be involuntarily, unknowingly and/or unwillingly exposed to toxic pesticides/chemicals and/or their residues in a home and school environment or community residential setting.
2. the ban of two California cities or townships on toxic pesticide/chemical use through public ordinance law
3. proposed, planned or enacted legislation in your state, other states such as our home state of Maryland or nationwide for pesticide reporting and education, including recommendations in consideration of the need to provide for and impact of adequate and supervised training for licensed medical physicians and/or health care professionals and/or teachers, administrative and support staff on pesticide-related illnesses and in order for such persons to be able and compelled to properly report, diagnose, evaluate, treat and provide follow-up care.
Mindy Sperling, Ph.D.
msperling@erols.com
SO NOTIFICATION IS OK, ACCORDING TO CALIFORNIA LAW, IF IT IS PUBLIC PROPERTY BEING SPRAYED LIKE SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS, BUT NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY? SOUNDS LIKE THE LAWN CHEMICALS HAVE TO BE KEPT OFF THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS PUBLIC, NO? I HOPE FAIRFAX STANDS UP TO THIS LAWSUIT!
- Ann Waterman
I commend the courage of Fairfax!. Nancy Morris
Recently, we went before a panel of arbitrators in re: our
lawsuit against TruGreen ChemLawn (for poisoning by pesticides) and Philip Ring,
d/b/a Detailed Environments, Inc. (for poisoning by pesticides).
The attorneys for the defendants made fun of us for being made sick and
poisoned. They said things like how
could the poisons hurt us when the poison applicator sprayed (aimed) down and
not way in the air or how could we
breathe poisons when a spreader using granules (prodiamine) only went a few feet
in the air and we are on the third floor.
In the attorneys' eyes the gusting winds (20 + miles per hour) didn't
count for anything or the fact that the granules were used on December 29th on
frozen grass in 27 degree weather. This
is the kind of rubbish and garbage the defendants' attorneys used while they
laughed at us, literally. Is
pesticide poisoning humorous to any of you out there?
Alas, we live (but are, thank g-d, about to move out of) in
an incredibly puritanical area where just because something always was done, it
is done. Poisoning the earth or people or animals
doesn't matter. And we are the "wierd" ones because we get sick
(poisoned) and because we think it does matter.
The local stores are full of fertilizers and weed control
products--the advertisers have done a successful job in snowing the public.
Even though we are victims of pesticide drift and pesticide poisons, the
attorneys find it funny. Our
current area (PA suburbs) is in the dark ages about the dangers of pesticides.
While when we move there may be those who use poisons, we hope that the
awareness level will be much higher and that the activist level will be much
higher. The activism here is pitiful--almost non existent.
When you use pesticide poisons around someone when you know
it can hurt them, it is battery. When
you use pesticide-poisons around people without their informed consent and
knowledge, you are taking away their constitutional rights.
We have often said to our teen that the pesticiders will
not inherit the earth. We may have
been wrong. We hope not.
John and Gail Sutton
Advocates for a Better Earth
[Add Comment] * [ Fairfax
Information ] * [More
Articles on Pesticides]