And if problems in the Middle East are not enough to worry about...

Some of the lawn-care chemicals have been associated with birth defects, mutations, adverse reproductive effects and cancer in laboratory animals. Children younger than five and fetuses may be more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides than adults.... Ninety-six percent of all fish sampled in rivers and streams contained pesticide residues.

Americans should be concerned about lawn-care pesticides

by Don Gordon
Published in the Mankato Free Press, August 12

We have been trying to control weeds in American lawns with synthetic chemicals for just a little more than 50 years. Prior to that time weeds in turf were controlled by farm animals or by mowing.

Old-timers tell me that prior to the end of World War II, manicured lawns were an anomaly. Since that time, pristine lawns have become big business, fostering an industry with multi-billion dollar sales. Consider the following statistics from an organization called Environment and Human Health Inc. (Incidentally, their publication, “Risk From Lawn-Care Pesticides,” may be downloaded for free at www.ehhi.org.)

More than 200 different pesticides are authorized for use on lawns and these are often mixed and used as chemical combinations. About 35 of these pesticides are used in more than 90 percent of lawn treatments. Nearly 80 million pounds of pesticides are used on lawns annually.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides on lawns per acre than farmers use on their crops.

Some of the lawn-care chemicals have been associated with birth defects, mutations, adverse reproductive effects and cancer in laboratory animals. Children younger than 5 and fetuses may be more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides than adults. Lawn-care pesticides are not tested for chronic health effects unless they are also licensed for food use.

Ninety-six percent of all fish sampled in rivers and streams contained pesticide residues. In New York, lawn-care pesticides were found to be among the most common cause of death in birds sampled. Pesticides have been identified as a potential cause of amphibian decline and overuse of some pesticides is associated with decline of honeybees and other pollinators. If you searched the world, experts tell me you would be hard-pressed to find a single human that did not have pesticides stored in their body.

Americans seem far less concerned about the risks from lawn-care pesticides than several other countries, although a number of U.S. cities have restrictions prohibiting pesticide use on public lands or limit the use and/or type of pesticides. Arcata, Calif., probably has the most restrictive laws. They have officially eliminated the use of pesticides on city property for nearly 20 years.

Internationally, Denmark has virtually eliminated almost all pesticides for use on lawns. 2,4-D, the most widely used lawn chemical, has been banned in Kuwait, Norway, and its use has been severely restricted in Sweden, Belize and Korea. In Canada, many cities including Toronto, Halifax, and most of Ottawa, have banned “cosmetic use of lawn pesticides.” Quebec has adopted a pesticide management code that sets “the highest standards in North America to decrease exposure to pesticides.” And, the magazine Orion reported cosmetic pesticides will be banned from all public and private green spaces in this province, which is twice the size of Texas. Today all synthetic pesticides have been banned from schools, daycare centers, roads, and sources of drinking water. Just recently, a committee of the Federal House of Commons recommended a ban on cosmetic pesticides across Canada. Sounds like a wise move to me.

Scanning the species

There is a new way of identifying plants and animals on the horizon.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a consortium of international scientists is attempting to simplify identification through DNA analysis.

In the future, hand-held devices, not unlike a GPS (global positioning satellite) or those that scan bar codes, will be available for the world’s flora and fauna. Imagine strolling through a woods and you find an unusual plant. Just insert a leaf into the “bar code” reader and out pops the name, or if you have doubts about the poisonous properties of a mushroom, the plant bar code may save you for another day. Just a feather will confirm which bird you find.

The challenge facing the botanist is to find a gene that will serve as the bar code for the entire flora. Right now they have narrowed the search to six different sequences. Zoologists are also planning the bar code approach and they think the gene for cytochrome oxidase may be the answer. The bird taxonomists have used this gene for most of the North American birds, and they hope to complete the code for the rest of the world’s 10,000 birds by 2010. They estimate the bar code for the world’s marine fish could be completed in just four years. Some optimists have speculated this technique could spell the end of field guides and naturalists who identify organisms. I don’t think so.

Don Gordon is professor emeritus of botany at Minnesota State University, Mankato.