******************************************************************************************************************************

 

HELP TOXICS INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP)

PROTECT RI CHILDREN & DRINKING WATER! 

 

SUPPORT THESE 2005 RI LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES COMING UP AT A HEARING ON APRIL 6, 2005 BEFORE THE RI STATE SENATE ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE!  IF YOU CANNOT BE THERE, CALL OR SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY.  (See contact info below)

******************************************************************************************************************************

 

THE TWO LAWN PESTICIDE BILLS BEING CONSIDERED

IN THE 2005 RI GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION ARE:

 

S769 - AN ACT RELATING TO PESTICIDE CONTROL

23-25-39. Lawn care pesticides prohibited. – The application of lawn care pesticides shall be prohibited on the grounds of any public or private school, from pre-kindergarten to grade twelve, and any child day care center or group day care home, except to eliminate an immediate threat to human health.

 

S305 – AN ACT RELATING TO TOWNS AND CITIES

45-62-1. Pesticide use on lawns and turf. – The city or town councils are hereby authorized to adopt ordinances to restrict the use of pesticides for the cosmetic care of lawn and turf, provided such restriction is at least as restrictive as the classification by the Department of environmental management (DEM) as guided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Chapter 25 of title 23.  Such ordinances shall not include pesticide use on lawn and turf for purpose of protection of the public health from pests, including, but not limited to, mosquitoes, ticks, and stinging insects.

 

 

IF YOU LIVE IN THE DISTRICT OF ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS BELOW, PLEASE CALL OR E-MAIL THEM.

To leave phone messages for any of the Senators at the State House, call 222-6640 and follow the prompt. 

For more suggestions on supporting legislation, see: http://www.rileague.org/site/pubs/Handbook.pdf

 

ALSO, EVERYONE SHOULD SEND WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE COMMITTEE CHAIR:  Susan Sosnowski, Chair, Environment & Agriculture Committee, RI State Senate, State House, Room 317, Providence, RI 02903.

 

SEE SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS FOLLOWING COMMITTEE LIST.

 

 

 

RI Senate Committee on Environment and Agriculture

 

 

Senator Kevin A. Breene, Secretary (R) District 34,

21-D Victory Highway, W. Greenwich, RI 02817

397-9408, sen-breene@rilin.state.ri.us

 

Senator Walter S. Felag Jr., Member (D) District 10

51 Overhill Road, Warren, RI 02885

245-7521, sen-felag@rilin.state.ri.us

 

Senator June N. Gibbs, Member (R) District 12

163 Riverview Ave., Middletown, RI 02842

846-1579, sen-gibbs@rilin.state.ri.us

 

Sen. John F. McBurney, III, Vice-Chairperson

 (D) District 15

5 Nancy Street, Pawtucket 02860

725-2459, sen-mcburney@rilin.state.ri.us

Sen. Michael J. McCaffrey, Member (D) District 29

115 Twin Oak Drive, Warwick 02889

 739-7576, sen-mccaffrey@rilin.state.ri.us


 

 

Sen. Leonidas P. Raptakis, Member, (D) District 33

2080 Nooseneck Hill Road, Coventry, RI 02816

397-2720, sen-raptakis@rilin.state.ri.us

 

Senator V. Susan Sosnowski, Chairperson

(D) District 37

680 Glenrock Road, West Kingstown, RI 02892

783-7704, sen-sosnowski@rilin.state.ri.us

 

Senator William A. Walaska, (D) District 30

140 Aldrich Avenue, Warwick, RI 02889

737-1065, sen-walaska@rilin.state.ri.us

 

TALKING POINTS ON LAWN PESTICIDE BILLS

 

Draw from the following suggested talking points whichever speaks most to your concern about lawn pesticide use on school grounds and/or local control over safety and health.  Then, write your thoughts in your own words, including any personal experience you may have had.  Be Brief – one page is best.

 

WHY RI SENATE BILL S769, BANNING LAWN CARE PESTICIDE USE

ON SCHOOL & DAY CARE GROUNDS, SHOULD BE PASSED

  1. It is generally agreed that children are far more susceptible than adults to these chemicals.  They are smaller, and their systems less developed.  They crawl and roll around on the grass, and sometimes put stuff in their mouths.
  2. There are studies showing serious health effects to kids linked with pesticide exposure, including higher rates of leukemia and other cancers, growing rates of asthma, neurological and behavioral conditions. 
  3. The EPA makes it clear that there is no “safe” pesticide.  In fact, it is illegal to make claims of safety about these products.  The vast majority of synthetic chemicals are only minimally tested – by the manufacturer, not the government.  Many are not tested at all.
  4. Time after time, pesticides originally hailed as benign have turned out after years of use to be deadly to human health and the environment.  Examples include DDT and the recently withdrawn Dursban.
  5. Our children should not be guinea pigs on whom we try out new, “safer” chemicals, especially when no benefits to human health are involved through their use.  (This bill does not apply to products used for emergencies or human health and safety.)
  6. Even for cosmetic purposes, the pesticides addressed by this bill are quite unnecessary.  Healthier lawn care alternatives are in use in many places around the country, including Rhode Island.  Gorgeous green lawns existed many years before the development of these chemicals – consider the estates of the gentry, in olden days.
  7. Cost/benefit figures favor the less-toxic methods.  Many have saved money by using less synthetic lawn chemicals.  One school district actually reduced their budget by 40 per cent while reducing pesticide use by 90 per cent.
  8. Liability issues relating to pesticide use are a growing concern, as more and more incidents of children injured by pesticides are being recorded. 
  9. Although schools are presently required to attempt the use of IPM (Integrated Pest Management), the term is vague and subject to very different interpretations.  This has often resulted in kids’ exposure to unacceptably toxic applications.  Is it really appropriate that safety and health decisions about children’s exposure to chemicals should be made by minimally trained pesticide applicators instead of informed regulation?
  10. The bill will not have any adverse effect on the lawn care industry in the state.  It will not result in the loss of any work or jobs.  It will provide the same rules for everyone.  Moreover, there is research showing that pesticide applicators suffer from greater rates of some cancer and other health conditions linked to their employment.

***************************************************************************************************************************

WHY RI SENATE BILL S302, AUTHORIZING CITY AND TOWN COUNCILS TO ADOPT ORDINANCES

TO RESTRICT THE USE OF PESTICIDES FOR COSMETIC CARE OF LAWN AND TURF, SHOULD PASS:

  1. The preemption clause presently in state law interferes with the rights of the people of Rhode Island to protect themselves, their children, their homes and drinking water from toxic chemicals.
  2. This clause is of no benefit to anyone but the chemical companies, that pressed for its passage some years ago in 30 states, feeling that regulation of their products would be weaker if local communities had no power or say in it.
  3. The bill would not prevent use of pesticides in cases of risk to human health – it does not allow for bans on responses to West Nile Virus or other insect-borne hazards.
  4. The state has no real interest in prohibiting stronger environmental and health measures in individual towns, which may have specialized local situations that justify such ordinances. 
  5. The bill would not allow for less strict regulation by any town – ordinances would have to be at least as strong as those of the state DEM.  In no case would the people of RI be less safe than they are now – only more protected.