Herbicides

Clearing the hillside will inevitably introduce toxic chemicals.

At present, no chemicals are needed in the forest. Once it has been felled, herbicides – Roundup and/or Garlon – will be used to prevent resprouting of the eucalyptus, blackberry, and ivy. This will introduce toxic chemicals where there are none. Thousands of applications will be needed, since it will be used on thousands of tree-stumps, vines, and blackberry stems. It will be necessary over many years, because all these things resprout – eucalyptus for 7-9 years after being chopped down.

UCSF has shown itself entirely willing to use Roundup even in its student housing areas, where children and pregnant women might be exposed to it; it is unlikely to restrain its use in the forest.  Here’s a link to correspondence by a Sutro neighbor , trying to get UCSF to stop using Roundup in the Aldea campus.

[Edited to add: In mid-November 09, UCSF informed us that it was stopping use of herbicides pending further investigation. ETA2: However, their website still says they use it. ETA3: The website has been updated to say they are not using it pending investigation.]

Native Plant restorations in San Francisco are inevitably associated with toxic herbicides (see posts on pesticides on Twin Peaks here and on Imazapyr here)  because their primary goal is war on invasive plants. Unfortunately, it can cause real harm to animals, birds, and people.

Despite the manufacturer’s claims, there is evidence that these herbicides are not safe:

ROUNDUP

1. Here’s an article in Scientific American, about the effect of Roundup on human cells – not just the active ingredient, Glyphosate, but the “inert” one, POEA.
2. Here’s a series of research articles detailing some of illnesses caused by Roundup.
3. A 1999 article on research linking Roundup to cancer, specifically non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
4. This article cites University of Pittsburgh research showing Roundup is highly lethal to amphibians.
5. Here’s an abstract of a  May 2010 article in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. It indicates that Roundup increased retinoic acid activity in vertebrate embryos, causing “neural defects and craniofacial malformations.” The actual article, which we read elsewhere describes some of the birth defects: microcephaly (tiny head); microphthalmia (tiny undeveloped eyes); impairment of hindbrain development; cyclopia (a single eye in the middle of the forehead); and neural tube defects.

GARLON

Based on a pretty thorough multi-source review of Garlon, here are the risks: birth defects; kidney damage; liver damage; damage to the blood. It very probably alters soil biology. Garlon can persist in dead vegetation for up to two years. It’s particularly dangerous to aquatic creatures: fish (particularly salmon); invertebrates; and aquatic plants, which makes it an especially nasty chemical to use on one of the highest points above the bay.

1. Here’s a description of Garlon and what it does.
2. Here’s a discussion between commenters on Garlon. (Scroll down after clicking on the link.)
3. Here’s our article based on the Garlon chapter of Draft Vegetation Management from the Marin Muncipal Water District (which can be found here as a PDF file).
4. Here’s the “specimen label” for Garlon 4 Ultra from the website of the Armed Forces Pest Management Board. It details use precautions, including taking off and washing any contaminated clothing, and avoiding use where it could get into waterbodies or groundwater.

IMAZAPYR

We’re adding a section on Imazapyr, because this has recently come into use by the “Natural Areas Program” in San Francisco, and UCSF has suggested their pesticide use would conform to city norms.

Here’s our article on Imazapyr.  The main issues with it are that plants push it out through their root system, so that it can affect other plants; it is very persistent. Its breakdown product is neurotoxic. It’s banned in Europe.

CHEMICAL COMPANIES KEEPING US SAFE?

Can’t we assume that big companies like Monsanto and Dow would never release chemicals that harmed the environment and peoples’ health? And if not, isn’t that what the EPA is there for? Well, not always.

1. Here’s an article on why EPA clearance doesn’t mean safety; and a link to an article about the dangers of the “inert” chemical, POEA in Roundup.
2. And here’s a petition by Change.org, which notes: “…the 33 year-old law that is supposed to protect Americans from exposure to toxic chemicals is so outdated that China legally exports toxic materials into the U.S. that are not only banned in Japan and Europe, but can’t even be used domestically in China.”
   
3. And here’s one pointing out a loophole by which the EPA allows chemicals to be described as “inert” even if they’re toxic.
4. Here’s the consent order against Dow AgroSciences (which makes Garlon) in the matter of alleged misleading advertising for another pesticide, and here’s the article from the Office of the Attorney General about the $2 million fine.
5. This article from Yale Environment 360 (from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies) notes that low level long term exposure to pesticides many be causing die-offs of bats, amphibians and bees. Title: “Behind Mass Die-Offs, Pesticides Lurk as Culprit”
6. Here’s an article about Dr Phillip Landrigan of Mount Sinai Medical Center saying that more research was needed into the environmental causes of autism – including pesticides.
7. Here’s the Environmental Defense Fund’s assessment of the EPA’s efforts on the “Voluntary Chemicals Program.”