Lawn Pesticides and Us.

While the professional lawn care industry rakes in annual sales of $1.5-2 billion, we have received an increasing number of phone calls from people requesting information about these services. Many of the questions asked are similar in nature, revealing common misconceptions that are rampant among the public regarding the use of lawn care pesticides. Listed below are a few of these questions, along with the answers. We hope this will arm you, the consumer, with enough information to make informed choices about protecting the health of your family while properly caring for your lawn.

Companies keep telling me that the chemicals they use are registered with the EPA. Is this registration a guarantee that the products are safe?

Any pesticide legally used in this country must be registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This registration does not constitute an approval rating or safety claim of any sort -- nor does it guarantee that the chemicals have been fully tested for environmental and human health effects. In fact, of the 36 most commonly used lawn care pesticides registered before 1984, only one has been fully tested and evaluated - sulfur. Health effects of these 36 lawn pesticides show that: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 24 with neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 34 are sensitizers and/or irritants. A child in a household using home and garden pesticides is 6.5 times more likely to develop leukemia than in a home that does not. Obviously, EPA approval is not a guarantee of safety; in fact, EPA believes that no pesticide can ever be considered perfectly "safe." Additionally, the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the New York and Pennsylvania Attorneys General have charged various companies with misleading advertising and prohibited safety claims.

If these products aren't safe, why have they been registered?

Pesticides are, by their very nature, poisons. The federal law governing pesticide use relies on a risk-benefit statute, which allows the use of pesticides with known hazards based on the judgment that various levels of risk are acceptable. However, EPA, who performs this risk assessment, assumes that a pesticide would not be marketed if there were no benefits to using it and therefore no risk/benefit analysis is done "up front." Pesticides lacking data on health and environmental effects since 1972 (and in use for much longer) are still registered, although the required toxicity studies have yet to be performed/submitted. Scandals surrounding two pesticide testing laboratories revealed that fraudulent data had been submitted -- data that are still considered valid in the involved pesticides' registrations. And yet, EPA's evaluation process is considered a legitimate indicator of a pesticides' acceptability, continually allowing carcinogens to be deliberately introduced into our environment. But what level of risk could be considered reasonable for a green lawn? Beyond Pesticides believes that the "benefits" of using lawn care pesticides for aesthetic, unnecessary purposes does not outweigh the health risks associated with exposure to these poisons. Their registration is totally unacceptable; a healthy beautiful lawn can be attained without the use of these poisons.