March Issue Extra: The Regulations Outlook

I was reviewing old files the other day and began looking at state reports I have generated over the years on pesticide issues impacting the green industry. Lawn care posting and notification were being debated in a number of states with the industry convinced that putting signs on the lawn after treatment would be the end of their industry. Pre-notification and contracts were also issues and, eventually, 11 states passed some form of pre-notification requirements for people who wanted to be told in advance about outdoor pesticide applications abutting their property. The green industry has adapted to these new requirements and has continued to operate and provide value to its customers.

However, there are gray clouds on the horizon that portend of some difficult challenges ahead. In particular, I see two trends. The first is the growing challenge by activists to eliminate pesticide use by local communities similar to the San Francisco model that emerged a few years ago and an even more draconian goal of eliminating cosmetic use of pesticides and fertilizers. The other challenge is the push to impose the “Precautionary Principal” in public policy.

Both challenges fail to consider science in the decision making process and rely exclusively on emotion and rhetoric to sway the political process. In the San Francisco model, pesticide use by local government on owned and operated facilities is phased out over a three-year period. While the reality of the situation in San Francisco is pesticides are still being used, the activist community promotes the concept and San Francisco is a success story to other communities throughout California and the rest of the country.

A very disturbing variation on this activity is the recent events in Canada, which allow local communities to not only prohibit their own use of fertilizer and pesticides on public properties but to prohibit use on private land of these products for cosmetic or aesthetic purposes. In other words, you are out of luck if you want a beautiful green lawn free of weeds or healthy trees and shrubs.

This is nothing short of a denial of private property rights, but the Canadian highest court has upheld the authority of local municipalities to impose such laws on the public. Could it happen in the United States? We have seen recent legislation in Massachusetts that came very close to prohibiting schools from using pesticides for cosmetic purposes. At the last minute, the language was changed to allow school boards to vote if they would allow pesticide use. However, the law still gives activists the opportunity to influence school boards on their non-use position.

I think there will be mounting pressure and attempts by the activist organizations to oppose cosmetic use in communities of their choosing. For instance, Fairfax, Calif., has adopted the New York neighbor notification scheme. According to local officials, the Fairfax law contains “sort of an implication that people, homeowners or professionals who are using pesticides in the home environment are putting their neighbors at risk.”

Supporters of the Fairfax ordinance say it reflects a growing movement by local communities to educate the public about the hazards of pesticides and to limit or eliminate spraying on public properties and schoolyards.

It is not a major leap to challenge pesticide use on private properties for similar reasons. A common element of these and other anti-technology arguments put forward by activists is based on a concept called the “precautionary principal.” Stated most simply – it is “better to be safe than sorry.”

Not a bad concept given the times we live in, but it is completely devoid of science as we know it. “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically,” the ordinance reads.

To the untrained ear, it sounds reassuring. But by separating the alleged “threats of harm” from “cause-and-effect relationships,” the precautionary principle replaces scientific standards with innuendo.

The precautionary principal embraces the concept that if we cannot prove using a pesticide or fertilizer won’t harm the environment, then we should err on the side of safety and not use it.

Of course, science cannot prove the negative. We build a database of information that allows us to do risk assessments and notifies when the benefits far exceed any risk we proceed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as guided by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), registers pesticides with this standard and the new Food Quality Protection Act standard as causing no harm.

Activists, however, want public policy to adopt a philosophy that throws out science as we know it, and adopts policy that is based on emotion. “It’s for the children,” is the new mantra – long on emotion but devoid of good science. “It’s a perversion of ‘better safe than sorry,” noted Hugh Wise, a scientist in EPA’s Office of Water. “The application of junk science to phantom risks to make them seem plausible.”

In a well-organized effort, legislation was introduced in New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 2001 to mandate adoption of the precautionary principal in all public policy. While not successful, expect to see increasing efforts by activists’ organizations throughout the country pursuing this concept in state and local legislation. It will be the cornerstone of their push to eliminate pesticide and fertilizer use for cosmetic purposes.

Yes, even pressure on fertilizer use is mounting with more local communities banning phosphate-containing fertilizer, even though science shows that a level of phosphates are needed for healthy turf and the major source of phosphate runoff is non-fertilizer sources. Comments like, “It seems like the right thing to do,” are heard all too often by those who support these ordinances and legislation. Where is the science? There is none.

What is the industry up against as we move further into the new millennium? For one thing, there is a large and well-financed industry working against lawn care professionals. The “environmental industry” or “eco-conflict industry” is comprised of a dozen major groups with a collective operating budget and assets of more than $1 billion, according to Jay Lehr, environmental scientist and lecturer. Combined with wildlife groups, they pulled in $5.83 billion in 1999. “Their product is packaging and selling fear,” Lehr noted.

Faced with such opposition, this industry will need to become engaged, organized and involved in state and local politics if it is to survive the next wave of the eco-conflict industry. Involvement in the political and public policy arena must become part of your business plan for growth and survival.

A good example of where this is occurring is New York. Faced with a neighbor notification law that allows counties to “opt in” to the notification law by passing legislation at the county level, lawn and landscape companies, along with their state and regional associations, have taken on the challenge to be active participants in the process.

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment has helped by creating a mechanism call County Watch to notify the industry members of hearing dates in each county and provide talking points to be used at these hearings.

There have been some failures, in spite of good efforts, but also some wins with counties choosing not to adopt these onerous notification rules because of a strong and organized effort by the lawn and landscape industry. Of the 62 counties in the state, only five counties have opted in to date. It has become abundantly clear in the process that there is no political downside risk to politicians who vote against the green industry.

To be successful in the future, politicians must better know and understand contractors and the contributions the green industry makes to the environment and economy. Be prepared to support key politicians at election time both financially and with other forms of help. Also, begin reaching out to customers to educate them on the benefits lawn care service provides. Get the customer engaged in the debate.

Can the green industry survive the next wave of assault by the activist community? You bet. But it will take commitment and dedication and a “can do” attitude. Join forces with other stakeholders and engage in the political process like never before.

The author retired last summer after spending six years as the manager of state government relations for RISE, Washington, D.C. Click here to read the rest of Lawn & Landscape's March issue.