[APWG] Are invasives scaring us into chemical complacency?

Mon Aug 29 07:44:45 CDT 2005

I just returned from an invasive species workshop for foresters, land
managers, etc., during which time I also took the opportunity to read
Rachel Carsen's Silent Spring for the first time (yes, the first time!).
What an interesting coincidence!

In 1962, Rachel Carson questioned the use of aldrin, DDT and other
chemicals in the battle against unwanted pests and the effect of these
chemicals on the environment.  In 2005, I found myself at this workshop
asking similar questions about the control methods being espoused to rid
forests of invasive plants.  From my perspective, the workshop emphasized
the use of chemicals to eradicate invasives.  By comparison, little
discussion was devoted to non-chemical methods, let alone prevention or
early detection.

I should point out that the focus of the workshop was for management of
"non-crop production forests" (land being tended for timber harvest) - not
for "amenity forests" (a term I had never heard before the workshop) nor
for forests to be harvested for internal consumption (i.e. harvesting
non-timber forest products).  That notwithstanding, I also know that
forests harvested for timber are connected to the same soil, water and air
systems as the forests that may be harvested for personal consumption.  Do
birds, deer, bugs, and worms know the difference between a "production
forest" and an "amenity forest?"

During the panel discussion, I asked what the options were for invasives
removal from forests that would be harvested for consumption - the
response: One panelist pointed out that several formulations are registered
for food crops and that these involve a "very minute amount of chemical
uptake."

I asked what the obligations were for posting a notice that a forest had
been sprayed.  The response from the panel was rather nondescript, as was
their response to another participant's query regarding the half-life and
residual effects of particular chemicals.  Of course, I was reminded that
there are material safety data sheets (MSDS) and LD50s (a.k.a "lethal dose"
at which the chemical kills at least half of the animals tested - as I
understand it, this system is being phased out owing to the particularly
grim nature of this measuring stick).

Later conversations with workshop participants revealed a range of
practices.  One forester posts a notice announcing the chemical application
and the dates, which notice he then pulls down once the application is
completed.  Another mentioned the need to comply with OSHA (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration) guidelines (although someone else pointed
out that OSHA really only applies to employees, not the general public).
Different land management agencies have their own SOPs (standards of
practice or standard operating procedures) and then there are the State
laws (which may be stricter than the SOPs).  One participant pointed out
that if the label says not to return to the area for 5 days and you don't
comply with that, that you are not complying with the label and that's
illegal.  Another participant pointed out that if the label refers only to
keeping the applicator (i.e. the person applying the chemical) out of the
area, then there really isn't an obligation on the label to keep other
folks out of the area.

Today, I came across the following report from May 2005, that I had not yet
had time to read:  Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial
Spraying Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia (the urls are at
the end).   Needless to say, I took a moment to look it over!

The study concludes that the risk to humans is negligible compared to the
other dangers associated with growing the illegal crops, including "risks
associated with clearing of land, uncontrolled and unmonitored use of other
pesticides to protect the coca and poppy, and exposures to substances used
in the refining of the raw product into cocaine and heroin" (p. 90).  They
similarly concluded that the ecological risk of the spray program was small
compared to the risks associated with "other activities associated with the
production of coca and poppy, in particular, the uncontrolled and unplanned
clearing of pristine lands in ecologically important areas for the purposes
of planting the crop."   Let's not forget that this is AERIAL spraying that
is being evaluated.

I am struck both by the casual and causal attitudes toward use of these
chemicals.  Is this same reasoning going to be applied to my neighborhood
when it is decided that the risks associated with spraying the invasives
behind my house are minimal compared to the risk of a gas grill explosion,
my use of hairspray, or the exposure I get from the pesiticides on my own
food?!

Can anyone on this list allay my concerns about this?

-Patricia

Here are urls to the full report and a news release about the report:

      Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spraying
      Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia
      http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/glifosateFinalReport.pdf

       Pesticide used in Colombian war                                     
       on drugs 'not harmful'                                              

      http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=2072&language=1

Here is a url on the exact same subject from 4 years ago that draws a
different conclusion:

      Aerial Fumigation over Illicit Crops Is Most Certainly Dangerous
      —Approaching the Issue
      http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_nivia_fumigaciones_si_son_peligrosas_en.html

Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
US Fish & Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
Arlington, VA  22203
703-358-1708 x1753
FAX: 703-358-2276
Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural
resources.
<www.nps.gov/plants/medicinal>