A growing number of US cities are banning glyphosate herbicide spraying in all public places as concern mounts that is a threat to human health
1. Los Angeles County bans use of Roundup weed killer
2. Pesticide ban? Las Cruces continues to wrestle with concerns over pesticide use
---
1. Los Angeles County bans use of Roundup weed killer
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
US News & World Report, March 22, 2019
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-03-22/los-angeles-county-bans-use-of-roundup-weed-killer
* The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors this week ordered a moratorium on Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, citing a need for more research into its health effects
Los Angeles County this week issued a moratorium on the application of Monsanto's Roundup weed killer, citing a need for more research into its potential health and environmental effects.
The county's Board of Supervisors asked the Department of Public Works to work with other health officials to survey the use of glyphosate, which is the main active ingredient in Roundup.
The moratorium was issued the same day a federal jury decided that the weed killer likely played a role in a California man's cancer. Monsanto, which was purchased by Bayer AG last year, faces thousands of similar lawsuits at the federal and state level.
LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger recommended the ban, KNBC-TV reported.
"I am asking county departments to stop the use of this herbicide until public health and environmental professionals can determine if it's safe for further use in LA County and explore alternative methods for vegetation management," Barger said.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate a carcinogen in 2015. However, the Environmental Protection Agency decided it likely does not cause cancer in people in a 2017 draft human health risk assessment.
More than 50 cities and counties have banned the chemical, according to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Environmental Working Group, which has long spoken out against the use of glyphosate.
"Kicking Bayer-Monsanto and its cancer-causing weedkiller off LA County property was absolutely the right call," Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said in a statement. "We know glyphosate causes cancer in people and shouldn't be sprayed anywhere – period."
Bayer AG did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
---
2. Pesticide ban? Las Cruces continues to wrestle with concerns over pesticide use
Blake Gumprecht
Las Cruces Sun-News, Apr 7, 2019
https://eu.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2019/04/07/las-cruces-nm-pesticide-lawsuit-roundup-gylphosate/3380534002/
The same day in March that a jury in California awarded a man $80 million in damages after he claimed the weed killer Roundup caused his cancer, Los Angeles County banned the use of the herbicide by all county departments.
Cities as diverse as Miami, Florida; Austin, Texas; and Portsmouth, New Hampshire, have banned all use of Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, on public lands. Vancouver, British Columbia, has gone even further, banning glyphosate on public and private property.
Many cities have prohibited the use of Roundup in parks, but a growing number are banning it in all public places as concern mounts that is a serious threat to human health.
The World Health Organization has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”. California has added it to the state’s official list of cancer-causing chemicals, though the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said it is safe if label directions are followed.
Should Las Cruces ban the use of Roundup and other pesticides containing glyphosate on city property? There seems to be growing sentiment on City Council and among people who have tried to influence its policies on pesticide use that it should consider that.
“It’s something we should contemplate,” said John Hamilton, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease and blames exposure to pesticides for his illness.
Concerns about Roundup
Last Monday, the Las Cruces City Council postponed action on a proposed pest management plan because of persistent questions by several council members about Roundup and concerns about its continued use.
Mayor Ken Miyagishima in response said the City Council would hold another work session to discuss the subject on May 13. It held one in August, too, but views expressed at that meeting seem to have had little substantive impact on the proposed plan.
City Council will then act on a tabled resolution to approve an integrated pest management plan one week later at its May 20 meeting. Given the extent of concerns expressed on Monday, it is far from certain whether the plan will be approved in its present form.
“I do have concerns about Roundup,” District 6 Councilor Yvonne Flores said. “It’s a health issue as far as I’m concerned. Heaven knows how many … people have been affected by this. Heaven forbid somebody would come up 20 to 30 years later with an incurable cancer.”
Ironically, the resolution asking City Council to approve the pest management plan was originally placed on the “consent agenda” of last Monday’s meeting, a part of council meetings where proposals not expected to be controversial are placed. Consent agenda items are voted on as a group and are not discussed.
But the item was removed from the consent agenda at the request of District 1 Councilor Kasandra Gandara. Council then spent 1 hour and 29 minutes discussing it.
Ultimately, a motion by District 3 Councilor Gabe Vasquez to table the resolution was approved unanimously.
Many of the concerns expressed at Monday’s City Council meeting echoed sentiments voiced at the August work session.
Councilors such as Gandara and Flores urged the city to move away from its use of Roundup. Vasquez encouraged the city to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on replacing Roundup with chemical-free herbicides such as Avenger or other weed-removal methods.
At the August work session, Mayor Miyagishima asked City Manager Stuart Ed to put together a cost comparison, showing the city’s current spending for chemical herbicides and what the cost would be to replace them with organic substitutes. If such a cost comparison was conducted, it was not presented at last week’s meeting.
Vasquez also suggested that the city establish specific targets for reducing the use of Roundup over time. He asked that the city study in greater depth the experiences of cities that have eliminated the use of Roundup and other pesticides containing glyphosate, such as Ranger Pro.
District 2 Councilor Greg Smith raised questions about when signs are posted to warn the public that an area has been sprayed with chemicals. Currently, the city only posts signs when chemicals are sprayed in parks and other places where the public gathers. It doesn’t post signs when it sprays along streets, on road medians, or in alleys.
Toward the end of discussion, Vasquez recommended city staff present to the council options for a modified integrated pest management plan that would include elimination of glyphosate and changes to policies for posting signs.
“I’m concerned about anything that contains glyphosate,” Vasquez said. “I agree that we need to keep our city looking as clean as possible, but I think we also need to keep our city as healthy as possible.”
Integrated pest management plan
Franco Granillo, the city’s interim parks administrator, presented the integrated pest management plan to council. He defended the city’s use of Roundup.
Granillo said the city has reduced its use of Roundup by 50 percent over the last decade or so, though he provided only anecdotal information about that, not specific data or dates.
The proposed pest management plan states that chemical pesticides are “used only when needed” and are “applied in a way that minimized their possible harm to people, nontarget organisms, and the environment.”
Granillo said that the city’s main strategy for reducing weeds is to apply pre-emergent herbicides, such as Esplanade, that prevent weeds from developing. He said Roundup is used only when those methods are not successful.
When interviewed later in the week, Granillo said that Roundup is used primarily along roadways, on traffic medians, and in alleys. He said it is not generally applied in parks, playgrounds or other places where people gather. In such areas, cultural and mechanical methods are used for controlling weeds. They include applying mulch and hand removal.
But Granillo acknowledged that “if there’s a large infestation of weeds, and we can’t control them through mechanical and cultural practices, we will put Roundup down.”
“We don’t use Roundup unless it’s absolutely necessary,” he said.
One exception to the city’s policy of only using chemical herbicides in public gathering areas when other methods don’t work is sports fields. The city uses chemical herbicides such as Battleship and Katana to maintain consistency in playing surfaces and reduce the risk for injuries.
But Granillo said the city has occasionally used Roundup on sports fields when weed growth has become so substantial that it decides to remove all vegetation and reseed a field.
“We will use Roundup to eliminate all growth and start from scratch,” he said. “But that’s a very rare situation.”
Granillo justified using Roundup along roadways, on medians, and in alleys because “people aren’t supposed to be gathering” in such places. That’s also why the city doesn’t post signs when it sprays in such locations, he said.
But several councilors and members of the public took issue with that assumption at last Monday’s City Council meeting.
“I have an alleyway near my house,” Gandara said. “People use that. They drive. They walk. Kids love to ride their bikes through there.”
Kari Bachman, director of the nonprofit Doña Ana Communities United, said, “The medians are used. They are frequented. They deserve the same exact treatment in terms of signage and what is used …. as any other place in the city.”
Multiple councilors asked why the city couldn’t replace Roundup and other chemicals with the organic herbicides, such as Avenger, which uses citrus oil.
Granillo said that the city has tried Avenger, but that is it significantly more expensive and less effective than Roundup.
“It does a poor job,” he explained on Thursday. “Roundup will kill the root. All Avenger does is burn the top. It’s not getting the roots, so you have to apply it time and time again.”
Pressed by councilors during last week’s City Council meeting about alternatives to chemicals, Granillo provided a cost summary that he did not include in his original presentation summarizing what it would cost for the city to remove all weeds by hand.
He said that Parks and Recreation Department would have to increase its staff from 22 to 729 people, costing $22 million. He said it would also have to purchase 380 additional trucks at a cost of $12 million, including fuel and maintenance, and spend more than $1 million on dumping fees and hand tools.
Councilors and others also expressed a desire for city to revise its pest management plan so that it provides greater information and specificity.
“The reasons for a policy are not just to say what is happening now, but what the city is doing to move forward,” Bachman said. “We need to move forward with a policy that actually lays out the criteria, that lays out how the monitoring will happen, that lays out what the baselines are, how we know if we’re moving forward.”
The plan presented to council on Monday is vague in what is says about the use of chemical pesticides. It doesn’t say what pesticides the city uses. It doesn’t identify what chemicals those pesticides contain. It doesn’t describe their health impacts.
The proposed plan doesn’t say where or in what types of situations the city uses pesticides instead of other weed control methods, such as hand removal. It doesn’t say whether pesticides are ever used in parks and on sports fields where people gather.
The plan doesn’t say how much Roundup the city uses, and it doesn’t establish any targets for reducing the use of it or other chemical pesticides, which even city officials acknowledge is a desired goal. Other cities have done that.
“What they have not done at this time is to (provide) access (to) this information to the public at large,” said Hamilton, who delivered an impassioned plea to council to reduce chemical use at the August work session. “That’s a major flaw.
“I’m looking out for the public,” he continued. “People are being sprayed. They’re being exposed. And they don’t know it. That’s what angers me.”