MOTION:

Important Announcement

GeoCities is closing on October 26, 2009.

This website will no longer be available after October 26, 2009.

The email address [email protected] will continue after website closure.

“Today, every man, woman and child has synthetic chemicals in their bodies. No child is born free of them.” From TRADE SECRETS: A MOYERS REPORT (Emmy award winning documentary for outstanding investigative journalism and target of a classic smear campaign by the chemical industry)

For a summary http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/InvestigateChemicals.htm. The video of this PBS documentary can be obtained through the Sedona Public Library.

City of Sedona Landscape Spraying Hotline (928) 203-5101

The City of Sedona now offers a Landscape Spraying Hotline for you to access at your convenience to determine whether the City is spraying herbicides or pesticides. You may call (928) 203-5101, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to access a message-only phone line to listen to the spraying schedule. The information will be updated once a week by Friday at 5:00 p.m. for the subsequent week and will provide the schedule for both Public Works and Parks and Recreation Departments.

Andi Welsh

Director of Administrative Services

City of Sedona

ALERT! CITY OF SEDONA RESUMES TOXIC HERBICIDE SPRAYING!

On April 28, 2009 the Sedona City Council decided to reverse its prior policy and resume toxic herbicide roadside spraying. This includes, but is not limited to, highway 89A in Sedona. The letter on the following link is in response to that action: http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/ReconsiderHerbicidePolicy.htm

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/SuggestionsForNon-ToxicWeedControlProgram.htm Document referenced in above letter-Suggestions for Non-Toxic Weed Control Program

Letter to the editor: http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Letters2009.htm

6-9-09 Statements to City Council

(These three statements and three others were not read at the meeting. Four other people spoke supporting nontoxic methods. No action was taken by the council on the issue. It did not make it onto the agenda for the Tuesday, June 23 meeting.)

#1 Suggestions from a horticulturist:

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/SuggestionsStatementByCGrohs.htm

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/CostSavingSuggestions.htm

#2 Factual dangers of active and inert ingredients, specific chemicals used by Sedona:

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/ChemicalDangerStatement.htm Excerpt:

“Bioaccumulation means that chemicals affect not only the individuals directly exposed, but their offspring as well.

One of the most common pesticides in the U. S., glyphosate (a component of Round-up), is a proven bioaccumulator. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Quick Pro, currently used in Sedona. Glyphosate is toxic to humans and animals, and kills earthworms and fish. It has also been linked to cancer, reproductive disorders, and neurological conditions among many other illnesses. A 1999 American Cancer Society study found that people exposed to glyphosate are 2.7 times more likely to contract non-Hodgkins lymphoma*….

The distinction between active and inert ingredients looms large in considering another product used by the city of Sedona: Surflan. The active ingredient in Surflan, oryzalin, is scary enough. According to the Chemical Watch Factsheet’s 2007 update******, oryzalin no longer qualifies for reregistration by the EPA for numerous former applications, partly because of children’s health concerns. Oryzalin is listed as a known carcinogen by the state of California. However, in addition to the dangers posed by Surflan’s active ingredient are the dangers from the inert ingredients. At least two of the known inert ingredients in Surflan are linked to liver damage, ** at least two affect the kidneys, ***and at least two have been linked to fetal toxicity and embryo death in lab animals. *** The inert propylene glycol in Surflan also affects the central nervous system.”

*A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides, American Cancer Society, 1999

** Journal of Pesticide Reform/Winter 2001 Vol. 21, No. 4, pp 16-20

***Journal of Pesticide Reform/Winter 2001 Vol. 21, No. 4, pp 16-20

******Chemical Watch Factsheet, A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Factsheet, Oryzalin, October 2007 update to Volume 8, No.4, October 1989

#3 Misuse of term IPM and IVM by city officials, EPA registration does not mean “safety approval”, questions about why trial failed:

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/IPMDefineEPAStatement.htm

Support material also submitted: 1. Nontoxic Weed Control Programs Used in Other Communities, Universities, and Schools (scroll below to see)

6-23-09 City Council Meeting- Paul Gazda spoke for three minutes during the open forum in support of nontoxic weed control. No action was taken by the council.

Sedona City Clerk and other city offices

102 Roadrunner Dr., Sedona, AZ 86336

City Clerk (928) 203-5032

[email protected]

Dan Neimy, Superintendent of Streets

In charge of spraying, spraying schedule and notification

(928) 204-7109

[email protected]

City of Sedona Landscape Spraying Hotline (928) 203-5101

(See description above)

Now for some good news!

Highway 179 Landscape Maintenance Issue (6-24-09 Update)

The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors awarded the Hwy 179 landscape maintenance to the alternative non-toxic bid!

June 24, 2009

We did it! The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors met this morning and awarded the Hwy 179 landscape maintenance from August 1, 2009 to October 31, 2010 to the alternative non-toxic bid! To those of you who wrote to the Board, your emails made a difference. The Supervisors mentioned that they had received a lot of emails in support of the alternative bid.

I gave the maximum allowed 3 minute speech to support the alternative bid. When Supervisor Thurman said they had received a written comment from the All American Road Committee supporting the standard toxic herbicide bid, my heart sank. Then they talked about Sedona’s recent switch back to toxic herbicides. My heart sank even further.

But Chip Davis spoke strongly in support of the alternative bid, saying he believed in the old fashioned weed pulling method rather than chemicals. He stepped up to the plate and made the difference. The vote was 2-1 with Chip Davis and Thomas Thurman voting for the alternative non-toxic bid and Carol Springer voting against it.

My sincerest and deepest thanks to all of you who took the time to write to the Board and/or spread the word on this issue. It made all the difference!

Many thanks and best wishes,

Paul Gazda

Below excerpt from COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CHEMICAL LAWN CARE
A Beyond Pesticides Factsheet See List of Topics Below for related information

Any pesticide legally used in this country must be registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This registration does not constitute an approval rating or safety claim of any sort -- nor does it guarantee that the chemicals have been fully tested for environmental and human health effects. In fact, of the 36 most commonly used lawn care pesticides registered before 1984, only one has been fully tested and evaluated - sulfur. Health effects of these 36 lawn pesticides show that: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 24 with neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 34 are sensitizers and/or irritants. A child in a household using home and garden pesticides is 6.5 times more likely to develop leukemia than in a home that does not…. EPA believes that no pesticide can ever be considered perfectly "safe." Additionally, the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the New York and Pennsylvania Attorneys General have charged various companies with misleading advertising and prohibited safety claims.

For complete Factsheet answering the following questions see: http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/CommonQuestionsAboutLawnCareFactsheet.htm

Companies keep telling me that the chemicals they use are registered with the EPA.

Is this registration a guarantee that the products are safe? If these products aren't safe, why have they been registered? Can my kids and pets play safely on the lawn when it is dry? How can I control the weeds in my yard without harming my family? How can I ensure that my lawn care company is really using an organic program?

LIST OF TOPICS BELOW:

1. Nontoxic Weed Control Programs Used in Other Communities, Universities, and Schools-see below

2. Alternative Approaches to Chemical Herbicide Spraying

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/AlternativeApproaches.htm

3. Hidden Dangers of “Inert” Ingredients in Herbicides

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/InertDangers.htm

4. Herbicides – Lymphomas and Other Health Effects: Herbicides Used in Sedona

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/HealthEffects.htm

5 . Glysophate, 2, 4-D and Pendimethalin Factsheets-Effects on Health, Wildlife and Environment

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/FactsHerbicides.htm

6. Informational Web Links

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/WebLinks.htm

7. Investigative Reports on the Chemical Industry (Bill Moyers)

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/InvestigateChemicals.htm

8. Politics weigh heavily in pesticide approval process, critics say

www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PesticidePolitics.htm

9. Low Doses of Herbicides/Pesticides Matter— “there may not be an identifiable no-effect level”

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/WhenLessIsMore.htm

Environmental Toxins & Liver Disease: A Link?

Study Says Low-Level Exposures May Explain Rise in Liver Disease

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20090529/environmental-toxins-and-liver-disease?src=RSS_PUBLIC

10. Study: Pesticides linked to 70% increased risks for Parkinson’s disease

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PesticidesParkinsons.htm

11. Herbicides in House Dust; 2, 4-D Medical Risks

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/HerbicideHouseDust.htm

12. Petition and Resulting City Council Motions

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PetitionMotions.htm

13. Contact City Officials

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/ContactCity.htm

14. Letters to the Editor Link— News Articles

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/LettersNewsArticles.htm

15. Submissions to City Council on 3/13/2007

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Inert.htm

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Program.htm

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Questions.htm

16. Four Statements in Support of the Petition— Submitted to the Sedona City Council 6/27/2006

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/4StateForPetition.htm

17. Cover Letter to the Sedona Herbicide Petition (5/22/06)

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PetitionCoverLetter.htm

18. City of Sedona Herbicide Spraying Statement (To the City Council by Carol Grohs, 5/1/06)

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Statement.htm

1. Nontoxic Weed Control Programs Used in Other Communities, Universities, and Schools

(Updated June 2009)

The cities listed below are using a non toxic, non chemical approach or an integrated vegetation management (IVM) approach for weed control. IVM principles dictate that the least toxic methods always be used first and that chemical herbicides be used only rarely and as a last resort. All of these cities have switched due to health effects on people, pets, and the environment. Some of the cities on this partial list have been doing this successfully for a number of years.

The following officials and scientists have stated in phone conversations with people in the Sedona area their willingness to discuss their programs, methods, or expertise with city officials in Sedona:

o Dan Deemer — Arcata, CA 707-825-2213 — 1-800-801-0061 — (mechanical methods, vinegar based product Burnout sprayed or applied with daubing stick, & emphasis on carefully monitored timing of applications) — Burnout purchased at www.milkyspore.com

Additional procedures from June 2, 2009 conversation:

1. Mulching

2. Emphasis on proper plant selection

3. In addition to Burnout, has added use of lemon oil and clove oil. Applies the oils and then puts down layer of mulch.

This city’s program is funded through EPA grants and non profit status. Arcata Pesticide Reduction Plan - Nov. 2004 says: “A. Scientific research indicates that no pesticide is completely safe to human health and the environment, and various pesticides are hazardous to human health. B. The migration of pesticides into the City’s watercourses, water bodies…poses a severe threat to the health of the environment. C. On May 7, l986, the City Council declared a moratorium on the use of all pesticides in the city….” (Their definition of pesticides includes herbicides.) www.arcatacityhall.org

o Robert Wood— IPM Specialist, Santa Fe, NM — 505-955-2117— Email: [email protected] — (added June 1, 2009) — Invited the head of public works, the Mayor and the Sedona City Council to come down to see Santa Fe’s program. He is willing to share all of their mistakes as well as their successes. He says a properly run IPM Program will cost less long term. Says government grants are available.

1. Mechanical methods- including weed whacking which is done from midnight to 8 am

2. Emphasis on carefully monitored timing

3. Solarization -Solarization is killing plants and seeds by trapping solar heat. 6 mil black reusable plastic is laid over weeds and then the plastic edges are secured with drip edge tube stakes or staples. Soil must be moist, not wet. For certain plants, two hours of heat by this method kills weeds and seeds. Solarization is used by organic gardeners.

4. People sentenced to community service are used for weed removal including putting down plastic for solarization.

5. Invasive Russian thistle is choked out with sunflowers

6. More wildflower use rather than rocks- Mr. Wood suggested going on Google Earth to take a look

7. Public education important

o Naresh Duggal, M.Sc., BCE (Board Certified Entomologist)— County IPM manager, Santa Clara County, CA — 408-299-5159, Fax: 408-295-1613, Email: [email protected] — 2005 IPM Innovators Awardee, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, award winning program for least toxic weed control (added June 1, 2009) — Naresh Duggal will email us information.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/ipminov/awards/05awards.htm The following is from this website:

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, SAN JOSE As the largest county in the San Francisco Bay area, Santa Clara County includes 15 cities and serves 1.7 million residents. Led by Supervisor Liz Kniss, the county board passed an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Ordinance in 2002. It outlined the county's intent to protect the health and safety of county employees, the public, the environment, and water quality, as well as to provide sustainable solutions for pest control on county property. To implement the IPM ordinance, the County Executive's Office retained a highly qualified professional, Naresh Duggal, to serve as a full-time IPM coordinator. County departments were required to designate a departmental IPM coordinator. Duggal, a certified entomologist with 17 years of pest management experience, has spearheaded the counties pilot projects, employee training and organization-wide adoption of IPM. Weed management on county property includes cultural controls (irrigation system maintenance, plant care and a healthy lawn/landscape maintenance program), mechanical/physical controls (hydro mulching and seeding, use of recycled rubber mulch, wood mulch, weed fabrics) and use of reduced-risk pesticides and biopesticides. Ponds are managed with biological controls and aeration to prevent algae growth; water levels are altered to control aquatic weeds. Ground squirrels are trapped, structures vermin-proofed, and bird barriers installed in and around structures. The County manages pests with reduced-risk pesticides and biopesticides, and uses baits and abatement plans for yellow jackets and Argentine ants. Santa Clara County set up the area's first Regional IPM Conference for participating counties and agencies. The county also created and conducted customized training programs and safety education for IPM coordinators and employees involved with pest management. Several field demonstrations on reduced-risk strategies have been conducted. The county offers IPM information on its Web site, www.sccgov.org/portal/site/scc [opens in a new window], publishes IPM manuals, a county employee IPM newsletter, and makes IPM brochures available to the public. Santa Clara County has created a comprehensive IPM program that serves as a model for other local governments.

Santa Clara County IPM Web: http://www.sccgov.org/sccsearch/ui.jsp?ui_mode=answer&prior_transaction_id=4201&iq_action=5&answer_id=16777216&highlight_info=4197114,753,776&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esccgov%2Eorg%2Fportal%2Fsite%2Fipm#__highlight

o Chip Osborne — Organic Turfgrass Management — 781-631-2468 — 11 Laurel St, Marblehead, MA 01945 — Email: [email protected] — specialist and educator in organic turfgrass management (ball parks, school grounds, parks) — (added June 2009)

Chip Osborne's on-line organic land care training info ($40 for municipalities): http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticidefreelawns/training/index.htm.

Chip Osborne is a professional horticulturist with 35 years experience in greenhouse production in Marblehead, MA. After several years, Chip converted his chemical-intensive greenhouse operation to an organic environment and by the mid-1990’s switched his specialty to natural turfgrass management. In 2005, he founded Osborne Organics, providing natural turf consulting services. Chip co-founded ten years ago and currently co-chairs the Marblehead Pesticide Awareness Committee. He co-authored the Town of Marblehead’s Organic Pest Management Policy. He has been recognized by the Toxic Use Reduction Institute at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, the Governor’s Office on Environmental Affairs, and the Toxics Action Center of Massachusetts. Above description from: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/forum/speakers/index.htm

o Tamson Yeh — Cornell University Cooperative Extension —631-727-7850 — She knows about the herbicide/insecticide phase-out in NYC and about the herbicide-free weed control program of Suffolk County/Long Island (mechanical methods). She is currently studying a vitamin C based product called C-Cide with positive results. (Contact person for purchasing C-Cide is Lisa Smith — 631-262-0851, [email protected] — C-Cide information-how it works, testing, uses: http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/C-cideinfo.htm

o Larry Ballenger — Carbondale, CO — 970-963-2733— (mechanical methods only) (recontacted June 2009)

o Kevin Krall — Street Operations Supervisor for Olympia, WA — 360-753-8333 — Olympia has not used herbicides on roadsides for at least 17 years. Rare exceptions made for noxious weeds. (recontacted June 2009)

o Lane McCallister — Thurston County in Washington state —360-754-4276— (mechanical methods only)

o Nicole Armstrong-Best — Volunteer Coordinator for Arizona State Parks — 602-542-7152

o Bruce Eilerts —Statewide Manager for Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) —602-712-7398— For information on roadside vegetation management. Will answer any questions or direct callers to the appropriate experts within his agency.

o Mike Mingo—Natural Resources Planner, ADOT— 602-712-6993, Email: [email protected]— Provided recommendations (July 2006) on appropriate native grass and wildflower mixes for geographic area and vendors of these. Summary of his suggestions:

§ Mowing should be done in late October, after the plants have mature seed heads. The mower deck should be no lower than 6 inches from the ground. This height will ensure protection of the grass plants. If a spring mowing is needed for early weeds, avoid having the blade height too low. Grasses need to shade themselves until the summer rains come.

§ Seed Mixes 122.4 and 133.3 both will work for Sedona because of its geographical location:

1. 122.4 - GREAT BASIN CONIFER WOODLAND (Prickly Poppy, Sideoats Grama, Blue Grama, Indian Blanket, Galleta, Arizona Poppy, Prairie Coneflower, Sand Dropseed)

2. 133.3 - INTERIOR CHAPARRAL (Prickly Poppy, Sideoats Grama, Plains Lovegrass, Arizona Poppy, Blue Flax, Desert Lupine, Desert Globemallow, Alkali Sacaton, Sand Dropseed )

For seed mix list and vendor list, see links to the documents below. The top link is Sedona specific; the second is more inclusive.

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/NativeGrassWildflowerMixAndVendorsForSedona.htm

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/SeedMixesVendorsNativeGrassWildflowers.htm

o Salvador Torres Jr., Project Engineer, Office of Roadside Maintenance, District 02, Redding

Office, California Department of Transportation — (530) 225-2034, fax (530) 225-3435, Email: [email protected] —

CRMCrete weed barrier -- a maintenance free, fire resistant barrier that effectively reduces chemical spraying--lasts 3 times longer than concrete-- made partially of recycled tires, alleviating some land fill and environmental problems. For more information, including a CD on proper application of CRMcrete, contact Mr. Torres at number above.

The following municipalities also have non toxic, non chemical weed control programs or integrated vegetation management (IVM) programs:

o Santa Monica, CA — Carl Bruskotter— 310-458-2255

o San Francisco, CA- Chris Geiger, San Francisco Dept. of Environment- 415-355-3759 (number confirmed 6-2009)

o Albany, NY

o Santa Cruz, CA

o Palo Alto, CA (switched to non insecticides in buildings, in process of switching to non toxic weed controls)

o Santa Barbara, CA (not yet in place)

o Yavapai County, AZ (mechanical methods only)

o Marin County, CA (complete ban on roadside herbicides)

o Jefferson County, WA (complete ban on roadside herbicides for over 20 years)

o San Juan County, WA (complete ban on roadside herbicides)

o Thurston County, WA (mechanical methods only)

o Clallam County, WA (does not use herbicides on existing roads)

o Westchester County, New York, has a ban on using pesticides in county parks and nature preserves.

o Yamhill, OR (uses herbicides only as a last resort)

o As of the year 2000, 70 of Iowa’s 99 counties have adopted IVM programs to varying degrees.

o Washington State Department of Transportation is required by state law to follow IVM principles.

o The State of Connecticut has banned all of the chemicals Sedona is using and all other chemicals on school grounds, city playgrounds, and daycare playgrounds due to the health effects of these chemicals on children.

o 117 Canadian municipalities, including Montreal, Vancouver, London, and Halifax, have adopted pesticide by-laws. Many of these, including Toronto (population of 2.48 million), include bans on the use of herbicides for cosmetic purposes. Another 10 Canadian municipalities have by-laws pending.

o Quebec province has province-wide restrictions on herbicide use under Quebec’s Pesticide Management Code.

As an example of Canada’s progress, we refer you to the Pesticide Free Ontario website www.pesticidefree.ca . There you will find the Full Report by the Ontario College of Family Physicians which has influenced the Canadian people and governments. That report is a systematic review of herbicide/ pesticide studies from 1992 onward, including an extensive list of physical effects of exposure to herbicides and other chemicals.

Due to the health effects on their students, many schools, colleges and universities are reevaluating their weed control measures. Some are conducting pilot programs. Others (like Seattle University which has not used herbicides for 20 years) have discontinued or are in the process of discontinuing the use of chemical herbicides. The following is a partial list:

o Seattle University—Manager of Grounds — (206) 296-6439 Craig Chatburn

A shift to sustainable landscape practices began in 1979. Seattle University rejects the notion that pesticide application is a viable last resort. The Grounds Department has focused on organic solutions and has successfully maintained the campus since 1986 without the use of pesticides and has accomplished this by adopting a combination of practices that nurture the soil instead of focusing on individual plant needs.
Some of the components of this practice include responsible plant selection, weed suppression and control, weed chip mulch, sheet mulching, nutrient cycling, grasscycling, mychorryzia fungi, compost topdressing, compost tea application, phosphorus management, and beneficial insect release.

The Grounds Department maintains all outdoor areas of the Seattle University campus. The 48 acres of urban campus include athletic fields, lawns, shrub and tree plantings, roadways, walkways and parking lots. The Grounds Department provides quality services consistent with responsible fiscal and environmental stewardship to support the landscape construction and maintenance needs of Seattle University. In accordance with its mission statement of education the whole person and the community, Seattle University is committed to fostering an organic and environmentally friendly campus that functions as an urban wildlife sanctuary.

This info is from their website: www.seattleu.edu/facilities/page.aspx?id=17&x=17

o A Dartmouth College grounds person stated "If you employ a lot of pesticides in pursuit of a weed-free campus, you are going to end up killing butterflies, earthworms, birds, and on up the chain. We would rather overseed and hand weed, accept some weeds, and put some work in." The grounds department does not apply chemicals to control weeds. *

o As of the year 2000, seven state school systems in the U.S. had 'prohibition of pesticide use' policies. (Herbicides are a sub-category of pesticides.) These states are Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. This trend is largely due to proven, mounting evidence that children are more susceptible than adults are to pesticide poisoning. *

o Amherst Schools, Amherst, NY, no herbicides used.

o According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle newspaper (November 4, 2005), four districts and three schools from the Rochester, NY area reported using no pesticides (including no herbicides) whatsoever: the West Irondequoit, Penfield, East Rochester and Brighton districts, as well as The Harley School in Brighton, Allendale Columbia School in Pittsford and the Board of Cooperative Education Services #1 School in Fairport. Four others (Cobblestone School, Hillel School, Honeoye Falls—Lima, Pittsford School) use no herbicides or other outdoor pesticides.

o As stated above, the State of Connecticut has banned all toxic herbicides on school grounds, city playgrounds, and daycare playgrounds due to the health effects of these chemicals on children.

o Suffolk Community College, Long Island (successful test trials of vitamin C based C-Cide done on campus)

o Ammerman College, Long Island (successful test trials of C-Cide done on campus)

o Northport School District, Long Island (successful test trials of C-Cide done on campus)

(Contact person for purchasing C-Cide is Lisa Smith — 631-262-0851 [email protected] )

o Tufts University, Medford, MA: Pilot project on campus

The project involves just over 2 acres of campus: a southern area around residence halls and a children's playground; a field used for informal sports by both college students and a community youth soccer league; and the varsity baseball diamond. These pilot areas were selected to provide experience with a variety of types of turf. The varsity baseball diamond, for example, is managed much more intensively than the informal sports field. All areas included in the project are receiving pro-active maintenance to ensure good turf quality, and are not being treated with any herbicides or other pesticides. In addition to the pilot project on specific areas of the campus, grounds staff have undertaken a variety of other sustainability measures. These include experimenting with natural alternatives to synthetic herbicides for use along walkways and in landscaped areas.

o Janet Hurley, School IPM Working Group (Multi state organization), Texas A & M — 972-952-9213 or 877-747-6872 —

Fax 972-952-9632 — [email protected] http://schoolipm.tamu.edu www.sripmc.org/schoolIPM/members.cfm (added June 2009)

*From: UB Pesticide Report 2000, Stacey Vaeth, B.A. Environmental Studies, 2000, UB Green Office

See http://www.ubgreenoffice.com/?p=43

http://www.ubgreenoffice.com/ UB Green: Helping you go green—additional information

2. Alternative Approaches to Chemical Herbicide Spraying http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/AlternativeApproaches.htm

3. Hidden Dangers of “Inert” Ingredients in Herbicides

Safe?

See also statement to city council 3-13-2007 incorporating some of the below information

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Inert.htm

It is not widely known that no pesticide manufacturer in the United States (as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency) is allowed to call its product "safe." When a pesticide passes the scrutiny of the EPA, it simply means that that product is effective and does kill the organism that its label says it kills. Also, while some information on toxic effects is made available by manufacturers, there is no legal requirement to provide such toxicity data on "inert" ingredients, only active ones.* This is a serious gap in the data of potential chemical effects since some products are more than 99 per cent inert ingredients. Inerts usually make up at least half if not most of consumer pesticide products. Of the 85 pesticide products examined by the New York Attorney General's office, 75 percent contained over 90 percent inert ingredients. ** Thus, risk assessments that are based on active ingredients alone can be misleading and serve to downplay the detrimental effects of the products under consideration. Further, a chemical that is used as an “inert” ingredient in one product can sometimes be found as an active ingredient in another. In some cases, the inert ingredients may be more toxic than the active ingredients. *** (See the second excerpt below from the report summary of Worst Kept Secrets: Toxic Inert Ingredients in Pesticides, by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.)

For further discussion, see the following excerpt from The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients, Report, Attorney General of New York State, Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau, February 1996.

The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients

Look at any label on a pesticide product and you will find a list of "active" ingredients, with a few long chemical names, and then typically the phrase "inert ingredients," with only a single percentage figure given and no listing of individual ingredients. The active ingredients are the chemicals used to control the target pest and must be listed on the label. The so-called "inert" ingredients are used as carriers for the active ingredients, to help dissolve them, make them easier to apply or to preserve them.

Unfortunately, many people will conclude from the term "inert" that such ingredients could not possibly have any adverse health or environmental effects. This is not the case at all. The chemicals used as inerts include some of the most dangerous substances known. Some of these chemicals are suspected carcinogens and have been linked to other long-term health problems like central nervous system disorders, liver and kidney damage and birth defects. They can also cause short-term health effects like eye and skin irritation, nausea, dizziness and respiratory difficulty…. Although EPA has published a list of chemicals used as inerts, this list does not tell consumers which products contain these inerts. Furthermore, pesticide manufacturers are not required to list all inerts on the product label. Thus, people must play blind man's bluff when it comes to which inerts might be in the pesticides they buy or are used where they live, work or play. (Emphasis added)

Inerts usually make up at least half if not most of consumer pesticide products. For instance, 99.1 percent of Raid's Ant and Roach Killer is inert ingredients and Ortho Diazinon Dust is 96 percent inerts. Of the 85 pesticide products examined by the Attorney General's office, 75 percent contained over 90 percent inert ingredients. Despite the health effects EPA associates with inerts, people do not know to which chemicals they may be exposed since inerts are not identified on the label.

Pesticides are widely used throughout the United States in non-agricultural settings--in homes, outside homes, in offices, schools, and recreational areas. Over 70 million pounds of pesticides are applied on lawns alone every year. The use of lawn care pesticides is increasing at about 5 to 8 percent annually. In fact, four times as many pesticides are used on home lawns as are used to grow food crops. Commercial lawn care is now a $1.5 billion industry. In addition, according to a 1985 study, pesticides used on golf courses accounted for nearly 12 million pounds nationwide. And all these pesticide products--whether used in lawn care, household fumigation, pet care or in personal-care products like insect repellents--contain substantial amounts of inert ingredients.

The excerpt below is from the report summary of Worst Kept Secrets: Toxic Inert Ingredients in Pesticides, by Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides.***

Over 650 chemicals that have been identified as hazardous by federal, state, or international agencies are hiding behind the misleading word "inert" in pesticide products, according to a report released by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Worst Kept Secrets: Toxic Inert Ingredients in Pesticides [PDF 150k] documents the hazards of so-called "inert" ingredients, over 2,500 substances that are added to pesticides but are not named on product labels. Regulatory agencies have few requirements for toxicological or ecological effects testing of inerts. Despite this lack, the new report shows that over 25% of the chemicals used as "inerts" actually have been identified as hazardous.

Inerts pose a wide variety of hazards, according to the new report. Almost 400 inert ingredients are now or have been used as the active, killing ingredient in pesticides. In addition, 209 are hazardous air or water pollutants, 21 have been classified as carcinogens, and 127 are occupational hazards. Many have been identified by more than one statute or agency. For example, the "inert" ingredient naphthalene is a pesticide active ingredient, a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and a priority pollutant under the Clean Water Act.

(Full summary found at http://www.pesticide.org/ActiveInertsRel.html)

*UB Pesticide Report 2000, Stacey Vaeth, B.A. Environmental Studies, 2000,
UB Green Office

See: http://www.ubgreenoffice.com/?p=43

** The Secret Hazards of Pesticides: Inert Ingredients, Report, Attorney General of New York State, Office of the Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau, February 1996.

***Worst Kept Secrets: Toxic Inert Ingredients in Pesticides, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Eugene, OR, January, 1998. Summary at http://www.pesticide.org/ActiveInertsRel.html , and (full report)

Worst Kept Secrets: Toxic Inert Ingredients in Pesticides [PDF 150k]

4. Herbicides — Lymphomas and Other Health Effects

Herbicides Used in Sedona

“Today, every man, woman and child has synthetic chemicals in their bodies. No child is born free of them.” Quote from the Emmy award winning documentary for outstanding investigative journalism TRADE SECRETS: A MOYERS REPORT.

At least two of the synthetic chemicals used for weed control in Sedona are among those that bioaccumulate. This does not even take into account inert ingredients which may biaoaccumulate. Bioaccumulation means that chemicals affect not only the individuals directly exposed, but their offspring as well. Both glyphosate (in Ranger Pro and Roundup) and 2, 4-D (in Mecamine D) are known to bioaccumulate…. Continue at http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/Inert.htm

A 1999 study, A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides, (American Cancer Society, 1999), found that people exposed to glyphosate are 2.7 times more likely to contract non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.

More info on herbicides used in Sedona at http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/HealthEffects.htm

5. GLYPHOSATE, 2,4-D and PENDIMETHALIN FACTSHEETS

Effects on Health, Wildlife and Environment

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/FactsHerbicides.htm

6. Informational Web Links

http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/WebLinks.htm

7. Investigative Reports on the Chemical Industry

TRADE SECRETS: A MOYERS REPORT (Emmy award winning documentary for outstanding investigative journalism and target of a classic smear campaign by the chemical industry): http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/

The following is excerpted from http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/program/program.html :

TRADE SECRETS: A MOYERS REPORT is an investigation of the history of the chemical revolution and the companies that drove it – and how companies worked to withhold vital information about the risks from workers, the government, and the public. Journalist Bill Moyers and producer Sherry Jones rely on an archive of documents the public was never meant to see –- documents that reveal the industry's early knowledge that some chemicals could pose dangers to human health that were not disclosed at the time.

But the documentary also reports a much larger story – a never- before-told account of a campaign to limit the regulation of toxic chemicals and any liability for their effects.

Today, every man, woman and child has synthetic chemicals in their bodies. No child is born free of them. Are they safe? Does anyone know? What is the industry doing to keep us fully informed about the health and safety effects of chemicals? These are the crucial questions raised by the documentary and addressed in a panel discussion moderated by Bill Moyers in the program's final half hour.

From http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/problem.html:

The chemical revolution of the past 50 years has altered nearly every aspect of our lives. Many of the products we rely upon every day – from plastic bags to computers – would not exist without synthetic chemicals. Most of us believe the chemicals in consumer products have been tested and approved by some government agency. In fact, until they are proven harmful, most chemicals are presumed safe.

Of the more than 75,000 chemicals registered with the Environmental Protection Agency, only a fraction have gone through complete testing to find out whether they might cause problems for human health. Many that are produced in enormous quantities have never been tested at all. Usually, it takes dramatic episodes of workplace injuries or wildlife poisonings, combined with rigorous scientific proof of harm and public outcry, before the government will act to restrict or ban any chemical. And that is no accident. The current regulatory system allows synthetic chemicals into our lives unless one is proven beyond doubt to be dangerous.

Today, while scientific research worldwide is finding that every one of us carries traces of synthetic chemicals in our bodies, scientists know very little about the risks of these low level exposures. We do know some chemicals are highly toxic. Some are carcinogenic. Others interfere with the reproductive system. Many others likely present no health threat at all.

The problem is that for most chemicals, we simply do not know how safe – or dangerous – they may be. And they are everywhere around us – in the air, soil, and water; in our homes; and in our bodies. Not a single child today is born free of synthetic chemicals.

How Do We Cover Penguins and the Politics of Denial?

by Bill Moyers

Keynote Speech to the Society of Environmental Journalists Convention

Austin, Texas - October 1, 2005

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1007-21.htm (for complete speech)

Excerpted below is the portion of the speech pertaining to investigative reporting of the chemical industry:

…What they [corporate and other opponents of the environmental movement] did to Rachel Carson when Silent Spring appeared in 1962 has been honed to a sharp edge aimed at the jugular of anyone who challenges them.

I felt the knife's edge some years ago when I took up the subject of pesticides and food for a Frontline documentary on PBS. My producer, Marty Koughan, learned that the industry was plotting behind the scenes to dilute the findings of a National Academy of Science study on the effect of pesticide residues in children. When the companies found out we were on the story, they came after us. Before the documentary aired television reviewers and the editorial pages of newspapers were flooded with disinformation. A whispering campaign took hold. One Washington Post columnist took a dig at the broadcast without having seen it and later confessed to me that he had gotten a bum tip about the content from a top lobbyist for the chemical industry and printed it without asking me for a response.

Some public television managers were so unnerved by the propaganda blitz against a yet-to-be aired documentary that they actually protested to PBS with a letter prepared by the chemical industry.

Here's what most perplexed us: eight days before the broadcast, the American Cancer Society, an organization that in no way figured in our story, sent to its three-thousand local chapters a "critique" of the unfinished documentary claiming, wrongly, that it exaggerated the dangers of pesticides in food. We were puzzled. Why was the American Cancer Society taking the unusual step of criticizing a documentary that it had not yet seen, that had not yet aired, and that did not claim what the Society said was in it? An enterprising reporter named Sheila Kaplan later looked into these questions for Legal Times. She found that the Porter Novelli public relations firm, which had several chemical companies as clients, also did pro bono work for the American Cancer Society. The firm was able to cash in on some of the goodwill from their "charitable" work to persuade the communications staff at the Society to distribute erroneous talking points about the documentary before it aired - talking points supplied by, but not attributed to, Porter Novelli. Legal Times headlined the story, "Porter Novelli Plays All Sides," a familiar Washington game.

This was just round one. The producer Sherry Jones and I spent more than a year working on another PBS documentary called "Trade Secrets." This was a two-hour investigative special based on records from the industry's own archives. Those internal documents revealed that for over 40 years big chemical companies had deliberately withheld from workers and consumers damaging information about toxic chemicals in their products. They confirmed not only that a shameless and amoral industry knowingly deceived the public. They also confirmed that we were living under a regulatory system designed by the chemical industry itself - one that put profits ahead of safety.

Once again the industry pounced. We found ourselves the target of another public relations firm - this one noted for using private detectives and former CIA, FBI and drug enforcement officers to conduct investigations for big business. One of its founders acknowledged that corporations "sometimes" resort to unconventional resources, including "using deceit." We were the target of a classic smear campaign and PBS felt the pressure. Still, the documentary ran, created a big impact across the country, and a year later received an Emmy from our peers for outstanding investigative journalism….

8. Politics weigh heavily in pesticide approval process, critics say

By John Lantigua, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer (Monday, December 19, 2005)

“the monitoring of pesticide use in Florida has become make-believe. It is Disney-esque." Alex Simons, a former environmental specialist for the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

See full article: www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PesticidePolitics.htm

9. Low Doses of Herbicides/Pesticides Matter

“there may not be an identifiable no-effect level” *

*Understanding Pesticides

Endocrine Disruptors: When Less is More

Journal of Pesticide Reform/ Winter 2006, Vol 26, No. 4

More of this article at: http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/WhenLessIsMore.htm

Excerpts:

Throw Out Your Old Dose-Response Curves

Until the discovery of endocrine disruptors, toxicologists worked on the assumption that higher doses would always have more of an effect than lower doses. This is called a monotonic dose response curve. It turns out that endocrine disruptors are often more active at lower doses than at higher doses…..

What Damage is Caused?

Studies have shown that endocrine disruptors are linked to fetal deaths, hypospadias (a birth defect of the penis), compromised immune systems in children, lower sperm counts, and early onset puberty.(4) Their role in causing cancer is suspected though not proven. Especially sobering is the fact that every human being alive today contains measurable levels of endocrine disruptors (5). Even polar bears and Inuits living in the Far North have them (6). The website of the authors of Our Stolen Future, the book that first documented the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals on wildlife, discusses the health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors in detail. (7)

(1)National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 2006 Endocrine Disruptors. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/endocrine-disruptors.pdf

(4) Scientific findings of the impacts of endocrine disrupters at low dose.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/lowdose/lowdose.htm

(5) http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/ubiquitous/ubiquitous.htm

(6) Pilar,F., J.O. Grimalt. 2003 On the global distribution of persistent organic pollutants. Chimia57(9)514-521

(7) www.ourstolenfuture.org

Environmental Toxins & Liver Disease: A Link?

Study Says Low-Level Exposures May Explain Rise in Liver Disease

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20090529/environmental-toxins-and-liver-disease?src=RSS_PUBLIC

10. Study: Pesticides linked to 70% increased risks for Parkinson’s disease

By Alan Mozes, 2006

See article at: http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PesticidesParkinsons.htm

11. Herbicides in House Dust; 2,4-D Medical Risks

Excerpt from Beyond Pesticides (www.beyondpesticides.org):

Study* Finds Agricultural Pesticides Common In Rural House Dust
(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2006)

“… Most shocking is the amount of dust containing 2,4-D, which was found to be present in 95 percent of homes, typically in concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppb. In one house, 2,4-D's values reached an astounding 125,000 ppb. Used on crops, along roadsides, in forests, and on lawns, 2,4-D is the third most widely used herbicide in the United States and Canada. According to Illinois EPA, 2,4-D is a probable endocrine disruptor and a number of studies link 2,4-D to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma….

Of nearly 120 studies that have investigated the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma associated with pesticide contact, most show an increased risk for the disease—especially for herbicides—according to the Lymphoma Foundation of America. Printed information from the foundation states that the pesticides "more frequently associated with increased lymphoma incidence and/or deaths" are the herbicides 2,4-D and the triazines, which includes atrazine….”

For this article (which includes more information on health effects) from Beyond Pesticides go to http://www.geocities.com/sedonasprayfree/PesticidesInHouseDust.htm

*The study Proximity to Crops and Residential Exposure to Agricultural Herbicides in Iowa was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, June 2006.