|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A grassroots environmental coalition has launched a petition urging San Mateo County to do away with the use of toxic chemicals as a strategy for vegetation control.
The local groups Protect Our Watershed San Mateo County and El Granada Advocates teamed up with nationwide organization Non-Toxic Neighborhoods to craft the petition, which they plan to send to the county Board of Supervisors.
The petition comes amid the groups’ concerns about increased pesticide or herbicide spraying by the county because of the overgrowth of weeds and other unwanted vegetation due to the amount of rain that fell over the winter and spring.
“In years of more rainfall, we tend to see more spraying,” said La Honda resident Patty Mayall, director of Protect Our Watershed, “and this is one reason we will keep gathering signatures on our petition.”
About 120 individuals and groups have so far signed the petition, according to El Granada Advocates co-founder Melinda MacNaughton. More signatures are expected to come in over the next several weeks.
“We continue to ask questions about what the county is willing to do,” MacNaughton said, “and our latest ask is a moratorium on the very toxic pesticides we have found they are using based on pulling public records.”
In broad terms, pesticides include herbicides and insecticides. Pesticides kill or control animals and plants considered damaging or a nuisance in the agriculture industry and domestic life.
In their petition, the groups took issue with the county continuing to use pesticides for vegetation management on public lands and parks, including glyphosate-based products such as Roundup ProMax.
“Spraying occurs throughout the year,” the petition said, “and records show the use of glyphosate on specific weeds, which are then left on the land.”
Some environmental and health organizations, including Non-Toxic Neighborhoods, have argued that glyphosate is a cancer-causing carcinogen, and over the past decade, lawsuits have targeted Roundup with claims that plaintiffs were not warned about regular exposure potentially leading to severe health problems such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s underlying scientific findings have determined that glyphosate poses no health risks when used according to label instructions, the federal department said on its website. “EPA also found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.”
But in their petition, Protect Our Watershed and its partners maintained that the pesticide spraying poses a clear danger to public health and the environment.
It leads to the “potential contamination of soil, watersheds and the health of our very sensitive ecosystems,” the petition said, imploring the county “to transition off the continual use of hazardous pesticides and to use effective, safer alternatives.”
The pesticides can also contain other highly toxic substances such as POEA and PFAS, MacNaughton said.
Alternatives to pesticides include the use of organic products, regenerative land practices and the mechanical removal of weeds, environmental groups say.
One spraying incident in La Honda earlier in the year caught the attention of Mayall and other local residents. They described what happened as broadcast spraying at the county Public Works Department’s La Honda Corporation Yard maintenance facility, 59 Entrada Way.
Broadcast spraying is the application of herbicide uniformly over a large area. In 2012, the county already banned that kind of spraying on land it owns except for its airports in San Carlos and Half Moon Bay.
But it was “obvious” that broadcast spraying did occur at the county facility in La Honda, said Mayall, who has long fought for the end of pesticide application in the county. Signs of broadcast spraying usually appear three to five days after application and include a noticeable swath of brown, dead vegetation.
The area had seen a lot of rain, Mayall also said, “so we were very concerned about runoff (given that) the Corporation Yard is next to La Honda Creek and residents downstream use it for water.”
County Public Works Director Ann Stillman confirmed to The Almanac that spraying indeed transpired there Feb. 6 with Roundup ProMax. It was “to control weeds and vegetation on a slope on county-owned property,” Stillman said.
But the concerns raised by residents have prompted her department to revisit county regulations regarding vegetation management and herbicide use, she said.
The county would consider other measures at the La Honda facility for vegetation control and wildfire prevention, she said.
In a separate email to Mayall and others, Stillman said she directed her staff to stop spraying the area with any product similar to Roundup ProMax.
“We will be exploring alternatives that would be effective in eliminating or minimizing the weeds in this area going forward,” she said in that email.
In the email to this publication, she said the current county protocol is to not use herbicides for roadside vegetation management and instead mow unless spot spraying of invasive plant species is necessary.
“The county uses mechanical mowing along county roads to minimize fire hazards along the edges of roads and to maintain sight distance and visibility for road users,” Stillman added. “The heavy rain years have increased the amount of vegetation and regrowth of vegetation, which means that our department has had to mow certain areas more than once per season to help control the vegetation.”
The county’s Integrated Pest Management Policy also emphasizes applying non-pesticide options or the least-toxic chemicals where feasible and practical, she said.
The link to the environmental groups’ petition at tinyurl.com/ProtectOurWatershedpetition.
Many thanks for this excellent article and for the support throughout San Mateo County on this issue (since the 1990s). Spraying pesticides / herbicides are a source of potentially toxic pollution that we can actually DO something about– by using alternatives that can be more effective for all purposes!
What we need is leadership from SMC public officials to prioritize our health and environment–i
If you agree, please sign onto our letter/ petition (correct link is in second paragraph) —
And Long Live Local Journalism!
Thank you, Almanac and Reporter Neil Gonzales!
Patty Mayall
Protect Our Watershed SMC
It’s great if DPW takes a different approach from spraying–Director Stillman never replied to my emails on this–and why are County Parks still spraying ? Not wanting my tax dollars going to toxic chemicals! At the very least the County needs to POST on-site warning notifications when spraying– and
Thank you, Almanac!
T.Rutledge Jr.
La Honda
I was so pleased to open up this week’s paper see this important topic covered by the Almanac. I was shocked to see that the county is still spraying pesticides and herbicides in our area, not to mention broadcast spraying! They need to end this practice YESTERDAY. There are so many feasible alternatives, that there is just no excuse.
This is Melinda MacNaughton. Thank you, Neil, for this very informative article about our concerns. Thank you to Ann Stillman for taking action to stop using the very toxic RoundUp Pro Max and we hope it would be stopped in all areas and mechanical means or food grade organics would be used instead of chemicals. We collected information from scientific research and pulled public records. The toxic pesticides (which include herbicides) the San Mateo County (SMC) uses contain glyphosate, PFAS (forever chemicals) and POEAs (3,450 times more toxic than glyphosate), and whether in ounces or gallons they are being applied monthly, quarterly, and continuously with no end in sight on our public lands. We only know locations from observation or if they tell us because location of application is not recorded. Here are a few examples: Round Up ProMax (commercial grade >41% glyphosate and POEA), Ranger Pro (> 41% glyphosate and POEA), Nufarm Polaris Herbicide- (PFAS AND POEA), RoundUp Custom for Aquatic and Terrestrial Use (> 41% glyphosate), Vastlan (PFAS), and Garlon 4 Ultra (PFAS and POEA from the surfactant).
We know several San Mateo County departments apply pesticides including Parks Department (apply within the Parks), Department of Public Works, and Agricultural Weights and Measures. It is a public health and ecosystem contamination threat as we are going through the sixth mass extinction of species including insects/pollinators on the planet. Glyphosate is in many products including RoundUp. It has been linked to many types of cancer, endocrine disruption in humans, animals and the decline of insects including pollinator populations. Micro-doses of glyphosate have been shown to be detrimental to human and animal DNA over generations. We have the research to prove it. All of this pesticide application does not stay in one place or biodegrade completely or quickly. It travels into our ecosystems, watersheds, air and food.
There are many municipalities, organic and regenerative public/private lands using alternative methods instead of chemical poisons and they are successful. The cost of alternative methods is not as exaggeratedly high as chemically reliant organizations describe, and alternatives can be used efficiently and cost effectively. Government needs to work with nature, give the use of 100% alternative methods a chance, and follow proven examples with guidance from leaders who are successful. Using chemicals on the land is NOT a nature based solution and the costs of continuous use of pesticides (ecocides) on ecosystems and public health is too high.
In light of last winter’s severe storms, our concern over glyphosate use in our parks has become even more pressing. These storms highlight the serious issue of glyphosate runoff, which threatens not just our land but also the fragile marine environment that neighbors us. When glyphosate enters our oceans, it endangers marine life and the delicate balance of our already overtaxed coastal ecosystems.
Our geographical proximity to the ocean on the Coastside, increased runoff from more frequent storms due to climate change, combined with the known health impacts of glycosphates, the negative impact on local biodiversity including pollinators, further underscores the urgency for change.
We need to find safer alternatives and actively engage in protecting our natural habitats. Our united efforts are crucial in preserving the health and beauty of our community and ocean.
Great article addressing an important issue. There are a number of alternatives that need to be seriously considered over using pesticides on public lands. The pesticide industry is very powerful and the EPA statement that glyphosate use is “safe” is very suspect. Pesticides kill things. There is nothing safe about it. I commend the work of these groups in this article working to get these poisons eliminated from our public parks and lands.
I agree, the County should not be using pesticides and herbicides that contain high levels of glyphosate, PFAS and other highly toxic chemicals in our Parks and other public lands that expose our families to health risks. I have seen many reports showing how many species of weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate. Does that mean they have to keep applying more for it to work? PFAS and farms in Maine have been in the news. There were so many crops and dairy farms contaminated by PFAS that they had to shut down farm operations and stop food sales. We need to pay attention to the effects of poisons in our environment and the larger consequences which are difficult or impossible to remedy.
While the dangers of glyphosate in public parks and baseball fields are not as “visible” as gun violence, their potential to cause significant and long-lasting harm to public health, particularly among children, justifies treating their use as a public health emergency. The cumulative and often invisible nature of the risks makes transparency of what known carcinogens are used where children play crucial.
While Integrated Pest Management(IPM) was originally created to minimize risks to human health and the environment, the chemical industry has co-opted IPM to create a marketing tool that maintains the use of pesticides under the guise of environmental stewardship. Effectually promoting and protecting continued pesticide use rather than its original intent of minimizing risks to human health and the environment. This is why it’s critical that these IPM policies are not written or influenced by the same folks that profit off chemical use and or are funded by the chemical industry.
Confirmed by San Mateo’s County Public Works Director based on their pesticide usage report, the county is not following their own IPM policy. Making a broadcast application Roundup ProMax fails to align with their claim that their IPM policy “emphasizes applying non-pesticide options or the least-toxic chemicals where feasible and practical.” The reckless disregard for scientific evidence by San Mateo County Parks is alarming, as they make safety claims in support of glyphosate in their IPM policy despite the overwhelming and mounting scientific consensus to the contrary, is deeply concerning and misleads residents of the dangers. “GLYPHOSATE
The best available scientific information at this time says that the herbicide active ingredient glyphosate, when used for invasive plant control in accordance with its label, use of appropriate personal protective equipment and best practices by the personnel applying the chemical, that it is low-risk for wildlife, public, pets, and the applicator.”
County staff have a legal and moral obligation to acknowledge and act upon the mounting scientific evidence provided by federal and state agencies, including the EPA. Per the EPA’s now Final Report, glyphosate harms or kills 93% of the plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act. The report found that 1,676 endangered species are likely to be harmed by glyphosate, and that glyphosate also adversely modifies 96% of all species for which critical habitat has been designated.