Point/Counterpoint: Should pesticide use be banned on playing fields?

ONEONTA, N.Y. - Here, two guest columns that were published in the Daily Star Newspaper, Oneonta, N.Y., share two views on pesticide use on playing fields. The first is from local activist Michael Whaling and the second is from Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment President Allen James.

PART ONE: Should pesticide use be banned on playing fields? Yes, chemicals are harmful, especially to children.

By Michael Whaling

Pesticides are chemical weapons. Consider the quotations:

1. Dr. Phil Landrigan, director of the Center for Children's Health and the Environment, Mount Sinai School of Medicine: "As a pediatrician I urge all parents to reduce pesticide use as much as possible, especially lawn services. Children's health is more important than a few weeds. Children have greater exposure than adults. Pound for pound of body weight, they drink more, eat more and breath more than adults. Growing and developing processes are easily interrupted. ... If reproductive development is diverted by pesticides, the resulting dysfunction can be permanent and irreversible."

2. Ward B. Stone, wildlife pathologist, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: "Birds dying on lawns from pesticides are a strong warning of the potential risks these chemicals pose to people and pets. As a wildlife pathologist, I see firsthand the carnage caused by the unnecessary use of lawn and garden pesticides."

3. Eliot Spitzer, New York state attorney general: "Pesticides are chemical or biological substances designed to kill, control or repel a variety of living organisms such as insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), mold or fungus (fungicides) and rodents (rodenticides). They are poisons. Pesticides pose health risks, even when used and applied in full compliance with manufacturers' recommendations and legal requirements. EPA registration is not a consumer product safety program. In fact, federal law prohibits manufacturers from making claims that EPA registration of their products means they are safe."

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.: "All pesticides are toxic to some degree ... and most pesticides have not been adequately tested to determine their effects on people or the environment."

Where is the New York State Department of Health? Notably missing from this group of quotes is the state Department of Health, whose mission statement includes: "Working together and committed to excellence, we protect and promote the health of New Yorkers through prevention, science and the assurance of quality health care delivery."

Its title alone implies advocacy, and the silence on pesticides is all the more puzzling when we consider the potential health effects published by the USEPA for 2,4-D, a chemical in Trimec, a broadleaf weed killer used locally at the Clark Sports Center in Cooperstown and on the State University College at Oneonta campus. These effects include: vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia, ulcers of the mouth and pharynx and damage to the liver, kidneys and respiratory system.

It is clear our Department of Health is not doing its job. A particularly virulent strain of bureaucratic rigor mortis sets in when certain subjects are raised — pesticides being one, burn barrels the other.

Since the DOH is staffed with doctors and other health-care professionals, the obvious question follows: Does "Do No Harm" apply to remaining silent when you should speak out? I believe it does.

The Precautionary Principle: Written into several international agreements and foreign environmental statutes, The Precautionary Principle asserts that parties should take measures to protect public health and the environment, even in the absence of clear, scientific evidence of harm. It provides for two conditions. First, in the face of scientific uncertainties, parties should refrain from actions that might harm the environment, and second, that the burden of proof for assuring the safety of an action falls on those who propose it.

Locally, we see the reverse in the Precautionary Principle in the screaming silence from the SUCO Biological Field Station on the subject of pesticide use on the golf courses at the edge of Cooperstown's drinking water supply.

Common sense tells us that the nonessential toxic cosmetic maintenance of a game should not be allowed anywhere near the shore of a reservoir, but officials are still waiting for conclusive proof that these poisons are in the water before they take a position. In the meantime, many are left to wonder how much illness and environmental degradation will occur while they wait for the big numbers to accumulate.

Pesticides in Schools; Ignoring the Precautionary Principle: Schools are a special concern. When children are in school, parents no longer have direct control over their health and welfare; that responsibility is then shared with the faculty and administration.

Schools generally recognize the complexity of this relationship and will not subject students to certain risks without parental permission. For instance, participation in field trips or other travel outside the school generally require notice to the parents and written approval for the student's participation. Similarly, participation in extracurricular activities, such as organized sports, may not only requires parental approval but may also require medical screening.

Children will often be exposed to pesticides on playing fields, in cafeterias where food is prepared and consumed, and in classrooms. Rarely, if ever, are parents consulted on whether or not they want their children to be in areas that have recently had pesticides applied.

In a survey of New York schools outside New York City conducted by the attorney general's office in 1999, 87 percent of respondents use pesticides. More than 75 percent of them apply pesticides indoors and almost 65 percent apply pesticides outdoors. Only about 20 percent of the schools have a written pest management policy, and almost 20 percent keep no records of pesticide applications.

Pyrethrin-based insecticides, frequently chosen for use in schools, are derived from natural sources and were generally believed to have a lower potential for long-term health effects. However, in August 1999, based on new evidence, the EPA office of Pesticide Programs reclassified the pyrethrins as "likely carcinogens." As such, they join a group of about 10 other pesticides used at schools and identified by EPA as possible, probable or likely carcinogens.

The lesson here is simple. A decision to use pesticides is not only a decision to accept known health risks, but also an acceptance of those risks that are as yet unrecognized.

Conclusion: If the Precautionary Principle were in place at the EPA and local health departments, we would have already banned all aesthetically related lawn chemicals as nonessential threats to public health. Those who encourage the use of these poisons and claim their safety are in the mold of the tobacco executives: chasing the money and lying for profit.

Whaling, who lives in Sharon Springs, writes on wilderness and environmental issues.

PART TWO: Should pesticide use be banned on playing fields? No, responsible use can help prevent injuries and lower risks

By Allen James

The safe and responsible use of pesticides should always remain an option for managing turf grass on public playing fields.

Parents want to be assured that their children are protected from harmful and sometimes deadly insects and weeds.

Dense athletic turf provides many health protection benefits, most importantly offering a protective cushion for athletes and children.

Injuries in sports and games can be buffered by a soft, resilient turf grass surface.

There are times when sports turf is overcome by weeds, insects and disease, making the playability of these fields unsafe and putting athletes at risk. When that happens, pesticides need not be used exclusively, but they should be part of a balanced and planned program called integrated pest management, or IPM.

IPM is a common-sense set of measures that allows for a variety of approaches to control pests, including access to pesticides if and when they are necessary.

The federal definition states: "Integrated Pest Management is a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks."

Practices such as overseeding, renovating the grounds, proper mowing heights and watering techniques can help prevent pests from damaging playing fields. If there are only a few weeds, hand-pulling may prove effective.

However, there are times when pesticides are needed. For instance:

• Sixteen-year-old Jennifer plays on the city league softball team. She goes to catch a fly ball in the outfield and trips over a clump of crabgrass. She twists her ankle and falls to the ground. She's carried off the field, rushed to the hospital and unable to play the rest of the season.

• While participating in a junior high track and field meet, Mark, age 13, brushes up against poison ivy growing alongside the running track. A severe skin rash forces him to the local emergency room for treatment. Mark is not alone; more than half of the U.S. population is allergic to poison ivy, poison oak, poison sumac and other noxious plants that cause severe skin rashes, irritation, itching and blistering.

• During his second soccer game of the season, 6-year-old Joshua stands ready to defend the goal. As team goalie, he's not letting anything distract him until a swarm of bees begins to buzz around him. In a panic, he swats at the bees and is stung on his arms and hands. Unknowingly, Josh is standing near the bee's ground nest. Josh has an allergic reaction to the stings and must be rushed to the hospital.

• Spectators in the bleachers watching the high school football game on a cool, fall evening can barely enjoy the competition. In between cheering and clapping, they're swatting mosquitoes and worrying if the last one that bit them was a carrier of the West Nile virus.

When pesticides are used in a judicious, safe and responsible manner on sports turf, playing fields and in parks, they keep athletes and spectators safe from injuries and health risks.

Extensive research and sound science show that pesticides, when used according to label directions, pose little to no risk to human health or the environment.

The American Council on Science and Health states, "There is no scientific evidence supporting a link between the proper application of pesticides and any ill-health effects in humans. Moreover, there is no evidence that the approved use of pesticides contributes in any way to human cancer."

Just last month, the results from a federal study by the National Cancer Institute on possible links between pollution and high rates of breast cancer on Long Island proved there is no connection between the disease and pesticides that were once used on the island. The study took seven years to complete and cost taxpayers $8 million.

The use of lawn fertilizers and pesticides and their impact on water quality have also been researched and studied extensively over the last decade.

Many tests have been done right here in New York by leading university turf researchers. These tests prove that maintaining high-quality turf through the use of fertilizers and pesticides protects against excessive runoff and does not pose a threat to groundwater quality.

Pesticide products used to control insects, weeds and diseases have been thoroughly tested for effects on health, safety and environment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates and enforces pesticide testing, registration, labeling and use. States and local governments cooperate in applicator training and certification and may have additional pesticide requirements.

All pesticides undergo rigorous testing before release to the public. The EPA requires pesticides to pass more than 120 tests in lab and field. Additional safety factors may be added based on potential risks to children. Required research includes toxicological analyses and environmental evaluations.

Such testing, evaluation, EPA registration and label approval takes from eight to 10 years at a manufacturer's cost of more than $100 million.

On average, only one in 20,000 potential products may make it from lab discovery to eventual marketing. In addition, the EPA continues to monitor and evaluate pesticides to assure that marketed products continue to meet scientific and regulatory requirements for health, safety and environmental effects.

Pesticides applied per label directions (reviewed and registered by EPA) pose little, if any, risk to consumers or applicators. Improper use, as with any product, is another matter.

It's important to always follow label instructions and handle pesticides in a responsible manner.

There will always be anti-pesticide activists who declare pesticides as the ultimate evil and claim a kaleidoscope of ill-defined, unsupported side effects and environmental harm.

These individuals would remove the right to choose the safe use of pesticides to protect children's health.

They will seek a total ban on pest control products of all kinds — even products used to control mosquitoes that carry the deadly West Nile virus.

The community deserves to have a choice — a choice to hand-pull weeds if they prefer or to use pesticides when insects, weeds and diseases on public playing fields put athletes and children at risk for injury.

The intelligent use of pesticides needs to remain an option.

James is president of Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, a national trade association representing specialty pesticide manufacturers, formulators and distributors, based in Washington, D.C.