The fact that pesticides used for lawn, tree and shrub care are toxic is no secret. Indeed, that’s the reason they’re used so often in the first place – to kill unwanted weeds and insects in otherwise attractive landscapes. Still, many homeowners and municipalities in the United States and Canada are furthering efforts to severely limit if not eliminate pesticide use for aesthetic purposes.
Following Toronto’s and Montreal’s leads from earlier this year, the residents of Windsor and Essex County, Ontario, Canada will be faced with the issue of creating bylaws to govern pesticide use, according to an Oct. 13 article in the Windsor Star.
The Star reports that Windsor-Essex County Environment Committee is planning a telephone survey of 500 residents next spring on the use of chemical pesticides for aesthetic reasons and will begin a campaign to inform residents about chemical pesticide alternatives, notes Committee Coordinator Ron Elliott.
“Is it really important that they have pristine green lawns that look like golf courses, or would they accept a ban on pesticides and have the odd dandelion to cut out?” Elliott says. His question and the committee’s program arise just as a Canadian study confirms high levels of pesticide residue in young children.
According to the study released last month and conducted by the Quebec Institute of Public Health, residues of pesticides in the organophosphate and chlorphenoxy classes were found in children tested. Researchers detected chlorphenoxys, a common class of weed killer, in the urine of 15 percent of children tested one or two days after lawn spraying took place. Additionally, organophosphate residues were present in 98.7 percent of childrens’ urine samples.
Questions regarding the levels of pesticide residues present and how they compare to toxic levels of those pesticides were still being investigated as of press time.
The study tested on 89 children between the ages of 3 and 7 years old who lived outside of agricultural areas, but near suburban Montreal and Quebec City. Researchers recognize that this sample is not representative of the Canadian public at large, but are concerned nonetheless.
“The study justifies any large-scale measure to diminish the use and exposure of pesticides in the population,” says Mathieu Valcke, an Institute of Public Health toxicologist and co-author of the study.
“Although we don’t have all the scientific data, it’s better to err on the side of caution,” adds Harold Dion, chairman of the Quebec College of Family Physicians, which is calling for an outright pesticide ban because of previously discovered links between pesticides and cancer.
Canada’s results reflect the concerns of American families and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has hit a sticking point with regard to its own study on pesticide toxicity in children.
On Saturday, Oct. 30, the Washington Post reported that the EPA is dealing with internal protests and ethical questions regarding the planned two-year Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study, partially funded by the American Chemical Council (ACC). In addition to raising questions about bias due to the ACC’s financial involvement, some scientists are concerned about how the program will affect lower-income families.
According to The Washington Post, in exchange for participating in the study, which involves infants and children up to age 3, the EPA will give $970, some children’s clothing and a camcorder to keep, to each family using pesticides in their home. Some EPA officials expressed their concern that the study lacked safeguards to ensure that low-income families would not be swayed into exposing their children to hazardous chemicals in exchange for the gifts.
In an e-mail cited by The Washington Post, Suzanne Wuerthele, the EPA’s regional toxicologist in Denver wrote, “It is important that the EPA behaves ethically, consistently, and in a way that engenders public health. Unless these issues are resolved, it is likely that all three goals will be compromised and the agency’s reputation will suffer.
In defense of the program, Linda Sheldon, EPA’s Acting Administrator for the human exposure and atmospheric sciences division says the agency will educate families participating in the study and would inform them if their children’s urine showed risky levels of pesticides.
“We are developing the scientific building blocks that will allow us to protect children,” Sheldon says, noting that the study design was reviewed by five independent panels of academics, officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and representatives of the Duval County (Florida) Health Department where the study would be conducted.