I am frustrated, and overwhelmed, by how difficult it is to escape pesticide exposure.
In rural areas such as my hometown, farmers rely heavily on chemical applications to prepare their fields and maintain their crops, and many applications in farming areas across the nation are done aerially and extend far beyond the target point. In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson writes (back in 1962), “Although today’s poisons are more dangerous than any known before, they have amazingly become something to be showered down indiscriminately from the skies. Not only the target insect or plant, but anything human and nonhuman within range of the chemical fallout has known the sinister touch of the poison.”
Iowa residents Rick and Laura Collins’s children Liam and Arianne were victims of reckless and indiscriminate aerial spraying. While playing outside at a caretaker’s home, Liam and Arianne, along with other children, were caught in the wake of such an application that left them drenched with pesticides. Rick Collins states with frustration, “The Department of Agriculture ultimately issued a warning letter, but that’s not good enough. Apparently[,] it’s not illegal to spray people with chemicals as long as it’s not intentional. We obviously have bigger, broader issues if that’s OK . . . We have a cowboy attitude about aerial spraying.” Indeed, I would add to Rick’s statement that this “cowboy attitude” applies to chemical applications more generally.
Such spraying takes place all over—near businesses, schools, and homes, and sometimes only a few feet away from such spaces. In Florida, folks suspected that students at St. Johns Elementary were being exposed to high levels of chemicals from neighboring fields, and tests confirmed their fears. Results showed that “every one of 39 air samples collected in 2007 found some farming chemicals, and about three quarters had at least three chemicals, most commonly diazinon, endosulfan and trifluralin. The first two can cause nerve damage in animals; the third can cause cancer.” Furthermore, air sampling performed at Shafter High School in Kern County, Califorinia “revealed levels of chlorpyrifos that were 18 times higher than the U.S. EPA’s level of concern for pregnant women,” and the fumigant Telone showed up at levels that exceeded the “recommended level for lifetime cancer risk” at Shafter High as well as Rio Mesa High and Ohlone Elementary schools in California. Rightly concerned with these facts, California residents applied enough pressure to gain a victory for their children and environments—a state-wide buffer zone of ¼ of a mile around public schools and daycare facilities. The caveat, however, is that this protection is only during the hours of 6 AM – 6 PM, Monday through Friday, and, as Francisco Rodriguez, president of the Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers in Monterey and Santa Cruz points out, “Pesticides have no respect for the school calendar . . . A part-time no-spray buffer zone simply does not protect kids from exposure.” A report (2014) done by the California Department of Public Health shows that eight of ten of the pesticides applied most often in close proximity to schools “persist in the air for days or even weeks.” Thus, children’s bodies, which are highly vulnerable to the effects of pesticide exposure, are being multiply burdened with constant “low” doses of the poison as a result of a regulatory system that does not protect them from the chemical applications that occur outside their doors and windows.
During a trip to Grayson Highlands State Park, a breathtaking natural space that is located in what at first glance is a picturesque section of SW Virginia, I found myself idealizing the lifestyle local residents have away from the noise, crowded lots, smoke stacks, and the pollutants found in larger cities.
Yet, I was quickly taken aback by the fields upon fields of Christmas trees one drives past along the way and was troubled as I pictured folks who had been looking for a quiet and safe life in the country distressed from neighboring sprays they would certainly be met by.
I later found out that just such a Grayson resident created a petition in 2020 after walking with her mother and young child through drift from a neighboring tree farm, after which her family was offered few answers and no promise of change. Residents are still working diligently nearly three years after the start of the petition to expose the dangers of the aerial sprays common in Christmas tree farming so that laws may be created, and enforced, to protect the health and properties of those affected.
If living near farmlands and in more rural areas seems untenable due to the dominance of agriculture and a deplorable lack of zoning and other regulations to protect local citizens, a quick look at common landscaping practices across the U.S. offers little hope for escape. As Lakis Polycarpou, writing for the Columbia Climate School’s State of the Planet, points out, “Homeowners spend billions of dollars and typically use 10 times the amount of pesticide and fertilizers per acre on their lawns as farmers do on crops.” The types of pesticides they use quite comfortably vary, but Roundup, with its active ingredient of glyphosate, is certainly among the top on the list. Roundup has received widespread attention in recent years, making headlines as tens of thousands of plaintiffs have come forward with testimonies of Roundup use/exposure and subsequent illnesses—most times Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
Although John Wallace and Dwight Lingenfelter, of Penn State Extension, maintain that “EPA found no evidence of association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes” and would like to lead us to believe that glyphosate is largely safe, with even “lower acute toxicity to humans than 94% of all herbicides and many common household chemicals, including vinegar and table salt,” unbiased science has proven otherwise: glyphosate exposure is directly linked with an increased rate of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) by a staggering 41% along with a host of other negative health effects. Christopher Portier, who has worked as a U.S. government scientist, testified before a jury and affirmed that “multiple research studies conducted over many years show an ‘almost certain’ connection between Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer.”
After purchasing Monsanto in 2018 and facing a host of lawsuits that resulted in a multi-billion dollar payout, Bayer “announced it would stop selling Roundup, and other herbicides made with the active ingredient glyphosate, to U.S. consumers by 2023. But the company continues to sell the products for use by farmers and commercial applicators,” and a quick jaunt into box retailers such as Walmart and home improvement stores like Lowe’s proves that the product is readily available (as of 2024) and is often even placed, seemingly innocuously, alongside grills and sports beverages.
Despite these facts being widely published and even though numerous countries have or will be banning the use of glyphosate, so many people continue to believe that the chemicals they rely on for “perfectly” manicured and weed-free lawns are not only necessary but safe. “This won’t be what kills me,” they flippantly assert, filling their carts with the herbicide (and others like 2, 4-D, one of the two chemical components that made Agent Orange) and stockpiling them along their other insecticides and fungicides on their garage and kitchen shelves.
I suppose if one does not care to think too much about the studies and the stories of those who have gotten sick and died from exposure to such toxic pesticides, the stacks and stacks of Roundup that sit atop Gatorades and alongside grills in Lowe’s or across the aisle from children’s toys in Walmart would make these chemicals seem pretty safe.
But . . . chemicals are designed to kill, be it weeds, bugs, mold, fungi, and despite what those invested in their sales and distribution might tell us, humans, particularly children, those with compromised immune systems, and the elderly, as well as non-human animals (our beloved and trusting pets included) are not immune to their effects. In fact, as Beyond Pesticides notes, one study showed that dogs who lived with owners who had their lawns professionally treated were “associated with a significantly higher risk (70%) of canine malignant lymphoma.”
Yet, homeowners continue to spray. Libraries, business offices, hotels, grocery stores, parks, playgrounds, playing fields, campsites, and even hospitals regularly receive toxic weed and pest control methods, and we are being exposed through avenues we are not even aware of.
Sports fields and golf courses are some major avenues of exposure, and links have been made between pesticide exposure during play or work to a host of health issues and cancers. As Paul Van Asdol, ABC investigative reporter tells us, Tom Walsh worked to keep Pittsburg-area golf courses green for nearly four decades. Tom was diagnosed with Leukemia, and, after many complications and being termed the “the sickest person in Pittsburg,” Tom passed away at 56 years old. Tom’s oncologist explained to his son, Rich, that studies showed his father’s DNA had been changed due to years of pesticide exposure. Rich filed a lawsuit against local and major chemical companies that manufactured and sold the pesticides his father was exposed to, and about the those implicated, Rich states, “I feel like they took my dad away from me. I feel like they murdered my dad.” Rich’s statement may seem hyperbolic and emotionally-charged, and filled with emotion it rightly is. Critics (and chemical companies) will pull out the old, worn-out playbook, arguing that the accusation would imply intent, which we know cannot be proven and is, ultimately, irrelevant and a distraction from inevitable outcomes. Yet, I chose to include this statement because it highlights the fact that chemical companies and those who own and operate them, long aware of the likely effects of their products yet willing to produce and distribute them to the public because they are legally able to, should be held responsible for the lives they effect and those, such as Tom Walsh’s, that will inevitably be lost by their exposure.
While the chemical companies claim that there is no proof that the pesticides caused Tom’s illness and state such claims are based on “novel science” or “no science at all,” Jay Feldman, co-founder and executive director of Beyond Pesticides, asserts, “You see incredible connections between brain cancer, leukemia, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, with a lot of these chemicals that are used in turf management.” To argue otherwise is to put blinders on to “the body of scientific literature” that points directly to such connections.
As people have sought alternatives to traditional turf and have turned to artificial turf as a “better” (less expensive & lower maintenance) option, anecdotal evidence and what many people would consider clusters of large numbers of players, particularly goalies, who have been diagnosed with cancer after playing would seem to show that artificial turf, made partially of ground-up rubber that contains carcinogenic properties, is incredibly toxic. Amy Griffin, assistant head coach for the women’s soccer team at the University of Washington, began to question turf safety when she noticed a trend among players she knew: many of them were being diagnosed with cancer. As Jacqueline Howard, of CNN Health, reports, “Among the 53 players on Griffin’s list, many of the diagnoses were blood cancers, including leukemias, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas and Hodgkin’s lymphomas” and over half of those diagnosed (60%) had been goalies. Yet, after studies were conducted, a conclusion was reached: the cancer rates reported were not out of the ordinary, and people were encouraged to continue playing as they had.
FieldTurf, clearly invested in the uncritical acceptance of this claim, points to the fact that “Volumes of research and testing from academics and state governments like New York, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and school systems have examined everything called into question about synthetic turf. The conclusions show that there isn’t conclusive scientific evidence proving that artificial turf systems cause health risks” (emphasis added). Ahh . . . herein lies the rub. There isn’t “conclusive evidence.” So, while players continue to be diagnosed with cancer after playing on such fields, and while qualified scientists have found that the materials of turf contain cancer-causing properties, the basis on which “proof” can be said to exist does not allow for direct links to be drawn—yet. Rather than using this anecdotal and scientific evidence as guidance, however, and turning to the precautionary principle moving forward, our regulatory system tells us to keep doing as we are—continue exposing ourselves and our loved ones to known carcinogens—until so many get sick, diagnosed, and die that lawsuits mount up and the companies and corporations can say, Oh . . . wow . . . we didn’t know. Ok. We will pull this from the market since it seems to be unsafe . . . for some.
In response to the question, “What about carcinogens or substances in the crumb rubber that are known to cause cancer? Should parents be concerned?” The Washington State Department of Health writes,
Parents should be aware, but not concerned. We know that crumb rubber is made from tires that contain chemicals that have been shown to cause cancer. However, what is critical to consider are the routes of exposure and potential dose someone receives. The available research suggests exposures from crumb rubber are very low and will not cause cancer among soccer players. The Washington State Department of Health recommends that people who enjoy soccer continue to play regardless of the type of field surface (emphasis added).
Well, thanks for those words of encouragement Department of Health, but I am a parent, and I am personally both aware of the dangers and deeply concerned. And, other parents are and should be as well. Jean Bryant, a friend of Any Griffin’s and mother of three boys, recalls having to share with her son, Jack, who was just thirteen years old at the time, that he had cancer. It was Mother’s Day, and Jean recounts that though she wanted to cry she refrained from tears because she knew that, as his parent, her job was to protect him. She states firmly, “No one at this point can convince me that playing on ground-up tires is a healthy option for kids.”
It seems, whether on “conventionally-treated” (read here toxic) fields or on artificial turf, most individuals who play on or work around fields for a profession, or who want to play or have their children play sports, must accept “as a part of life” that doing so will necessarily expose them and/or their loved ones to dangerous chemicals that could lead to life-altering and even deadly health conditions not so long down the line. The same rings true for those who contribute to the billions spent on lawncare and pest-control chemicals.
But, things could be different. There are healthy alternatives to current methods and materials, and organizations like Non Toxic Neighborhoods are working to help educate people of the risks of toxic pesticides and to provide resources to help encourage communities to transition to safer methods.
If cost and time are an issue, it’s always easy and free to let lawns be natural, and that’s often what is best for our environments and those in it, including our lovely and essential pollinators, whose numbers are falling frighteningly fast, our adoring pets, and yes, us human animals, too.
Unfortunately, some circumstances may make avoiding pesticides nearly impossible in order to protect health or investments, but people have come to rely on the pesticides all-too readily available and to assume that they are as safe to use as table salt or vinegar (a ludicrous comparison too often used by chemical companies to convince folks that their products are benign . . . would you drizzle Roundup on your salad? I think not.). We don’t need Scott Green grass or perfect playing fields at the cost of our environments and physical health. We need to approach things from the perspective of Integrated Pest Management, where health and safety, with equal regard for protecting our larger environments, are prioritized and where the precautionary principle prevails and the first response is not to “treat” or spray.
I recognize that convincing people to adopt these principles will take time. I have experienced firsthand how difficult it is to get a community (and a city) to make these changes. Change is difficult, particularly when for so long manicured and weed-free lawns and flower beds have been synonymous with success, beauty, home values, prestige, and even safety. But, while crime rates may be lower in some of these manicured neighborhoods, there are other dangers I see when I drive through them. While perhaps residents can more immediately feel at ease about their well-being, their community methods are often highly toxic and deadly.
Life can be different. We just have to look at things from another perspective and begin to rethink our notions of beauty and value that too often come at the cost of health and life.
Common “pests” like clover help to clean our air, feed animals like bunnies, and attract the pollinators we rely on for sustenance, while the products we spray to kill weeds and maintain those thin and unhealthy blades of grass leave our soil depleted and in their wake a host of dry, dead worms, the very beings we need to keep our earth healthy.
A.A. Milne once wrote, “Weeds are flowers too, once you get to know them.” It is long time to reacquaint ourselves with nature and embrace the environments we are meant to have rather than continue to wage an impossible war against our natural surroundings. The fallout is already immeasurable.
