[APWG] Are invasives scaring us into chemical complacency?
Jennifer Kalt
jkalt at asis.com
Fri Dec 2 21:10:35 CST 2005
Patricia,
Apologies for the belated response. I do think that chemical complacency
can be a result of people's intense desire to control invasive
species. An interesting article on demilitarizing invasion biology in
the Nov. issue of Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution inspired me to
respond to your original message.
I can't allay your concerns but can answer a few of your questions.
For the vast majority of pesticides used in forest settings, there are
no posting or notification requirements. In 2003, California's public
and private forestlands were sprayed with 229,134 lbs. of pesticides;
very little if any was subject to posting or notification requirements.
These chemicals are sprayed mostly to kill native vegetation that is
perceived to compete with commercial species, but the use of pesticides
for weed management is on the rise.
There is evidence that herbicides persist in plant tissue for more than
a year after spraying (see the Calif. Dept. of Pesticide Regulation's
report, "Residues of Forestry Herbicides in Plants of Interest to Native
Americans in California National Forests" at
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/pubs/forest/reports.htm).
Unfortunately, the public cannot easily avoid sprayed areas for more
than a year due to the absence of any laws requiring posting (except, as
you noted, re-entry times for employees, which are often 24-48 hours).
Although California is one of the few states with reporting
requirements, these reports are not timely (the pesticide use report for
2004 is still not available), so this system cannot be used to avoid
recently-sprayed areas.
Your concern about the LC50 being an inadequate assessment of impacts is
a very valid concern. Behavioral and reproductive damage and
carcinogenic effects are non-lethal in the immediate sense, and little
is known about long-term impacts.
I have learned that there are many problems with the pesticide
regulation system. Some chemicals are not registered for use on food
crops, yet are used in forested areas where people gather mushrooms,
berries, acorns, and other plants for food. One group of chemicals that
includes Oust, Glean, and Telar, are known to cause permanent
reproductive damage in plants, and are thus not registered for use near
agricultural crops. But they are used on forestlands, roadsides, and
other areas where rare plants and seed- and berry-producing plants
important to wildlife are likely to be impacted. Unfortunately, there
are no site-specific permits or pre-spray reviews for these chemicals,
so there is no mechanism to protect rare plants from being directly
sprayed. As Conservation Chair for the local chapter of the California
Native Plant Society, I brought to the attention of local regulators a
case of rare plant populations that were sprayed, only to be told that
the local enforcement agency does not view protecting rare and
endangered species as a requirement of pesticide regulation.
Things have gotten better since Silent Spring, to be sure--the chemicals
used today tend not to be bioaccumulators like DDT, and aerial spraying
is far less common at least here in California, which probably means
fewer impacts to streams and wetlands due to drift. But as a biologist
who has studied the issue closely for several years, I feel strongly
that we have a long way to go in terms of understanding the impacts of
pesticides, especially when you consider the unknown effetcs of
endocrine disrupting hormones. Often herbicides are considered to be a
one-time solution to invasions, when they in fact can be ineffective in
managing invasive species, or must be sprayed over and over again.
Continuing to contaminate and damage ecosystems that may never recover
without more information seems highly unwise, especially when many of
the invasive species continue to recolonize wherever land is disturbed.
As a staff botanist for the California Indian Basketweavers Association,
I have reviewed pesticide use plans, laws, and regulations relevant to
basketweavers' concerns about contamination of their weaving materials,
gathering sites, and ultimately their own health and safety. Pesticide
use on public lands is of particular concern, since basketweavers are
often members of tribes that do not have control of their ancestral
lands, and must rely on public lands for plants for traditional
purposes, including weaving, medicine, food sources, and ceremonial
purposes. If you have other questions regarding pesticide regulation and
impacts, I may be able to pass along information.
--
Jennifer Kalt
Resource Protection Associate
California Indian Basketweavers Association
Northwestern Field Office
P.O. Box 2702
McKinleyville, CA 95519
http://www.ciba.org
Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov wrote:
> 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>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> APWG mailing list
> APWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message.
More information about the APWG
mailing list