 |
 |
Parks & Rec Business
| Both Sides Speak Using Pesticides on Youth Sports Fields Blue Ribbon Panel Discusses Pros and Cons By Randy Gaddo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor’s Note: In Peachtree City, (Fayette County) Georgia, a small group of parents questioned the safety of the long-standing common practice of applying herbicides, insecticides or fungicides to control pests on youth sports fields. The incident that triggered the concern involved a young girl who had an allergic-like reaction after playing on fields that had been recently sprayed with herbicides. To respond to concerns and help answer their questions, the Recreation Department convened a blue ribbon panel of experts and held a public workshop on the subject last November. The results were surprising. This is a report of that workshop. The panel donated their time and talent to this free public information forum. Each one of them is a respected expert in their field. Their credentials are impeccable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Panel Dr. Paul Guillebeau is an associate professor of entomology at the University of Georgia’s (UGA) Athens, Ga., campus. One of his primary responsibilities is the reduction of pesticide risks and implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs. IPM is a method of using best practices to minimize pesticide use. Dr. Tim Murphy is a professor of weed science at UGA’s Griffin, Ga., campus. He conducts research, out reach education programs and teaches the weed science portion of a turf grass pest management course. Dr. Gil Landry is coordinator of the Center for Urban Agriculture at the UGA Griffin campus. From 1979 to 2003 he was responsible for UGA’s statewide development and implementation of extension turf grass management educational programs. Ms. Julia Gaskin, CPSS (Certified Professional Soil Scientist), with UGA’s Extension Service Land Application department. For the past seven years she has worked in the Agricultural Pollution Prevention Program to ensure that by-products used in agriculture are environmentally safe and effective. Dr. Alex Lu is an assistant professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health. His specialty is assessing human exposure to environmental chemicals and subsequent health risks. Dr. Melanie Pearson, research project manager at Emory University. She is working with Dr. Lu conducting and managing field studies designed to assess risk of exposure to environmental and dietary pesticides. She and Dr. Lu were interested in conducting a controlled, extended study of pesticides’ effects on children using sports fields. They were especially interested in doing the study as an IPM was being implemented. Dr. Robert Geller is an associate professor at Emory’s School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics. He is the director of the Southeast Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. A pediatrician and medical toxicologist, his specialty involves minimizing the consequences to children of exposure to various environmental compounds and responding to any effects that do occur. Mr. Doug Jones, manager of the Georgia Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Division, which enforces state and federal laws pertaining to the use and application of pesticides. With a variety of credentials such as these, nobody could say that all aspects of the topic weren’t represented. Why Control Weeds At All? Dr. Murphy kicked off the discussion by answering the question: why control weeds on sports fields at all? He pointed out that it’s not like in agriculture, where weed control supports higher crop yields to sustain the need for food. “But the weeds compete with turf grass for nutrients, sunlight and water,” he explained. “If weeds take over, it can lead to erosion problems, which will create an uneven playing surface that can lead to injuries. Weeds can also lead to insect problems and other sorts of pests. Flowering weeds tend to attract bees, and people allergic to bees can be adversely affected.” Weed infestations reduce the utility of the turf grass. It is harder to mow. This can disrupt the even playing surface, which can lead to injuries. “The best approach is to take actions to limit the weed infestation to a level that is economically, ecologically or aesthetically beneficial and acceptable,” Murphy said. Dr. Landry agreed that injuries caused by poor field conditions represented a greater risk than that from pesticide use. He cited a Penn State study that showed 21 percent of high school football injuries were due to field conditions. “There’s a definite relationship,” he said. “Rough ground, bare spots and weeds create hazards that athletes shouldn’t have to worry about. The field should have no effect on the game.” As to the risk of pesticide use, he said, “My daughter has played soccer in Georgia for 14 years and if I thought there was an unnecessary risk I wouldn’t let her play.” Risk Management Dr. Guillebeau started his remarks with a hypothetical example. “What if I offered you a job, but told you that you’d be working with a toxic chemical known to cause brain damage, and it is explosive. You can’t use protective clothing, and I wouldn’t pay you, you’d pay me $2 or $3 per gallon. The chemical is gasoline, and the risks of using gasoline far outweigh the risk of using pesticides. “But we’re not afraid to use gasoline because we’ve learned how to use it safely…for us, the benefits of gasoline are important enough for us to minimize the risks so we can use it.” He used another example to set the tone for his comments, asking what people would say if he told them about a new law that would save thousands of children and millions in property damage. “You’d probably like that, but now what if I told you the new law set the speed limit at 35 mph all over, on all roads. It’s ludicrous, but you can’t argue the premise that it would save lives. However, we’re not willing to exchange the benefits of cars just because we think the risks are too great. Instead, we demand greater safety measures for cars, such as seat belts and air bags.” He said that is how people should think about pesticides. “They are valuable tools and we would be foolish to disallow the benefits due to potential risks associated with them,” he said. “We want to reduce the risk to feel confident that the benefits far outweigh the risks.” He stressed that this is what IPM is all about, to obtain maximum benefits with minimum risk. “But even if you can medically determine that children are picking up pesticides on the fields, it would take many more years of testing and research to determine if that’s important. So at the end of the day, it’s really up to the parents to balance the risks and benefits as you see fit.” The Pesticide Question Dr.’s Lu and Pearson are in fact attempting to address the first part of that equation: do children absorb pesticides into their systems from using sports fields. They are attempting to obtain federal funds to conduct a study of about 50 Peachtree City youth using the soccer fields. They would obtain urine and saliva samples from volunteer participants at key times to obtain their data. “The missing link in medical research is that linking exposure to disease,” said Dr. Lu. “What do levels of pesticides in the body mean to toxicity?” Lu, Pearson and Geller all agreed there is a large gap in the medical field when it comes to recognizing the cause and effect of pesticide use on humans. “The benchmarks we use are based on animal experiments required by the government to approve the product,” said Lu. “We don’t really have chronic human data. It takes decades to determine how pesticides might affect human health.” As an example, Lu cites DDT which. he said, was discovered by Swiss scientists early during WWII. It was thought to be a “good” pesticide because it demonstrated low toxicity in animals and it killed bugs…it even won a Nobel Prize. But now it is found that people with long-term exposure to DDT have reproductive problems. More than one of the panelists pointed out the quality of pesticides has greatly improved since they were first introduced due largely to the stringent testing done prior to being put on the market. “These products go through 120 different toxicology tests, and that doesn’t include the environmental fate studies to determine what happens to them when they get into streams or their effect on micro organisms,” said Murphy. “The point is we can’t live in a society that is pesticide free,” Lu stated. “Farmers need it to combat weeds, insects and microorganisms in order to bring dinner to the table. Public health needs it to control such things as West Nile Virus. And last, the city needs to protect the great investment in these fields. The question to ask is, who needs to use pesticides? What are the alternatives?” Lu, who said he doesn’t use pesticides on his lawn, agreed that it comes down to risk management. “Under normal circumstances, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that an average of 80 percent of our pesticide exposure comes from the food we eat,” he said. “So 20 percent is from other causes.” It is up to individuals to determine what those causes are in their unique lifestyle and make choices based on that. “I would only advocate use of pesticides if it’s done smartly and responsibly,” said Lu, who has two boys, age 8 and 11, who play sports. “I tell them don’t put your hands in your mouth when you’re playing, wash your hands before you eat,” he said. “These are chemicals that are designed to kill something, so you can’t say there’s no risk. It’s up to adults to assess the risk for their children.” Dr. Pearson stressed that their study will only determine if chemicals are being absorbed into children’s bodies. “We can’t predict health outcomes because we would need to have a very long study to do that,” said Pearson, who grew up in Fayette County and whose mother currently lives in Peachtree City. “Peachtree City is leading the way in this area, because if we can establish a baseline level in the children we can determine whether or not the pesticides are getting absorbed into their systems. Then after they start the IPM we can see what, if any, affect the IPM measures have on that absorption rate.” Dr. Geller pointed out that children are not just little adults, that they are metabolically different. “First, their breathing zone is different,” he said, talking about the area where they take in their air around their nose and mouth. “As adults we stand five to six feet tall and take in our air there, but small children stand 18 inches or so high, and the air they take in there is different…it can be better or worse, but it’s different.” Plant Absorption Rates of Pesticides In past discussions it has also been emphasized that children playing sports such as soccer tend to be breathing heavier, taking in more air, rolling on the ground more, possibly putting their hands to their mouths more. This could also contribute to higher intake if the pesticides are present. During a Q&A session, Murphy indicated that plants rapidly absorb herbicides. “Once it dries, if it gets wet again it could re-suspend, but there will be very little due to the high absorption rate,” he said. These findings support the policy of not allowing anyone on fields until a minimum of 24 hours after pesticide applications. This is a step that the state of Georgia recommends that is beyond what the EPA requires. “Once it dries, if it gets wet again it could re-suspend, but there will be very little due to the high absorption rate,” he said. These findings support the policy of not allowing anyone on fields until a minimum of 24 hours after pesticide applications. This is a step that the state of Georgia recommends that is beyond what the EPA requires. The overall consensus at the conclusion of the session supported the measured approach of an IPM program to monitor and minimize use of federally approved pesticides applied by licensed technicians. Dr. Geller, who is also director of the Georgia Poison Center, had reviewed the types of herbicides (to control weeds; the fields have never needed insecticides to control insect pests) used on the Peachtree City fields. He concluded that while it is possible for the chemicals, which have a very low toxicity level, to affect children, it was highly unlikely. The low toxicity level means that most children would have to be exposed to a large dose of the chemical to be affected, and a “susceptible” child – one who would be more sensitive to a certain chemical – would have to be exposed to a moderate dose to be affected. “I’m not saying it’s not possible. It’s just unlikely,” he told a local newspaper reporter after the workshop. Randy Gaddo is Director of Parks, Recreation and Library Services in Peachtree City, Georgia and a frequent contributor to Parks & Rec Business. Watch for his IPM updates in future issues. He can be contacted at rgaddo@ptcgovernment.org. |
||
All contents contained within this website may not be reproduced or disseminated without expressed written permission from the Publisher.