Secretary Ben Brancel
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
PO Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708-8911
Re: ATCP 29 and EPA Grant Proposal
Dear Secretary Brancel,
We appreciate DATCP staff’s hard work hosting the recent public hearings on ATCP 29. The hearings were well run and well attended.
As the public comment period comes to a close today, more than 1,100 people have sent a clear message to DATCP that they oppose any efforts to weaken Wisconsin’s pesticide regulations. We expect DATCP to modify its proposal to reflect the overwhelming public sentiment. It is clear from a review of the letters and comments that Wisconsin citizens support (1) prohibiting pesticides from sensitive areas, (2) maintaining the pesticide registry block concept, (3) creating a registry update, (4) maintaining roadside posting requirement, (5) improving landscape warning signs, (6) reducing overall risks from and exposure to pesticides.
We urge DATCP not to lose sight of the fact that it regulates agriculture, trade and consumer issues for the "protection of the state’s citizens." In particular, the Division of Agricultural Resource Management is supposed to administer programs "designed to protect public health and the environment." (Blue Book 97-98)
We respectfully submit the following comments. These comments supplement previous testimony by Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade and Citizens for a Better Environment.
In addition, we request a meeting with the Department in advance of the December 9 Board meeting to discuss possible guidelines for a model policy to eliminate pesticides from sensitive areas.
Sincerely,
Pam Porter
Susan Mudd
Executive Director
Wisconsin Director
Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade Citizens for
a Better Environment
(608) 251-7020
(414) 271-7280
DATCP should use its regulatory authority to develop and pass a policy that eliminates pesticides from sensitive areas. We request a meeting with the Department prior to the December 9 Board meeting to develop specific guidelines.
PROBLEM WITH THE EPA GRANT:
a) It’s redundant. Studies and pilot programs around the country have proven that pesticides can be eliminated from schools and other sensitive areas. We know that pesticides are being used in sensitive areas in Wisconsin, we know that they can be eliminated and, based on studies around the country, we have a very good idea of how it can be done. Why waste two years of limited staff time and $120,000 of taxpayer dollars to reinvent the wheel?
b) It’s weak. The proposal does not clearly state pesticide elimination as a goal and does not ensure that children will be protected. A one-person, two-year project that might be funded in the hopes that some schools might reduce pesticide use may not protect any children. A statewide policy is needed now that protects all children from exposure to pesticides in sensitive areas.
c) It’s voluntary. The children of Wisconsin deserve protection from exposure to pesticides. "Voluntary" minimization means that the children who have the good fortune to be in schools with thoughtful, caring pest control and maintenance personnel may benefit from this effort. Unfortunately, for many children there will be no reduction in exposure as a result of this project. Why bother with a project that may protect some children two years from now when DATCP has the authority to protect all children now.
d) Flawed Process. While we recognize that DATCP was trying to respond
to our concerns and the concerns of others, the process for developing
the proposal was flawed. Had we been able to offer constructive comments
and expertise, the proposal might have been one we could readily support.
We believe this opportunity still exists.
There can be no doubt that citizens oppose DATCP’s proposed weakening of the pre-notification registry. Hundreds of participants submitted comments asking the Department not to weaken the registry. Fewer than 20 comments were registered in favor of the proposed changes. Accepting the proposed change would be a vote against the citizens of Wisconsin.
SOLUTION:
We urge DATCP to maintain the registry block concept so that citizens
can continue to receive notification of pesticide applications in their
neighborhood. DATCP should also allow citizens to list addresses by block.
This would make the registry more accessible and would save staff time
and taxpayer dollars by reducing the work load by 85%.
Moving the deadline from March 1 to January 15 makes the registry less accessible to families seeking neighborhood notification.
A January 15 deadline requires people to register at a time when no one is thinking about pesticides (winter and holidays). It’s only when pesticide season begins that people think about the registry and wish they had remembered to sign up. In addition, if someone moves to Wisconsin anytime after January 15 they would have to wait an entire year to get warnings of toxic applications in their neighborhood.
We do agree that early applications should be addressed when considering a date change, however; we would only accept an earlier deadline (say Feb 1) if DATCP includes an ENFORCEABLE May 1 update. An unenforceable update, as suggested by the Board, makes more work for DATCP with no benefit to the citizens of Wisconsin.
SOLUTION:
We urge DATCP to create a deadline of Feb 1 with an enforceable May
1 update. The initial deadline would allow people who signed up by Feb
1 to get notification of the applications in early March. The update would
allow new residents and people who heard of the registry after Feb. 1 to
receive notifications of the mid and late season applications.
DATCP staff acknowledged that walking in a field treated with dual-notice pesticides "would be a hazard" to human and animal health. Eliminating roadside posting would threaten those who work or recreate along public roads, including town road maintenance crews and delivery personnel.
Eliminating roadside posting also raises liability issues. Applicators could be held liable for injuries resulting from applications without posting (see legal memo submitted earlier by Jon Minkoff). Perhaps under the new trespass law the penalty for violators should be prosecution, but trespassers should not be injured.
SOLUTION:
In order to protect people who work or recreate along public roads and
to maintain citizens right-to-know, DATCP should maintain the current roadside
posting requirement.
The intention of landscape warning signs is to keep people off treated lawns. Unfortunately, the current landscape warning signs do not keep people off treated lawns because they’re too small and unrecognizable.
SOLUTION:
DATCP should make warning signs larger and more noticeable. The symbol
should be replaced with one more recognizable to children (skull and crossbones,
"Mr. Yuck"); the signs should be two sided and advertising and corporate
logos should be prohibited.
Pesticides are poisons. Mounting evidence of the adverse impacts on human health (endocrine disruption, cancers, decreased fertility) and the environment (contaminated drinking water, birth defects in wildlife) illustrate the need to reduce overall risks from pesticides and to support the broader goal of reduction and prevention.
SOLUTION:
Many cities, towns, farmers, school maintenance personnel, public park administrators and others around the country are beginning to realize the environmental, public health and economic benefits of pesticide reduction.
Here in Wisconsin, for example, we have developed a successful and innovative educational program that eliminated pesticides from schools and parks. The Green Thumb project has established pilot projects in Milwaukee, Duluth, Sarnia and Toronto that demonstrate that turf can be managed without pesticides.
DATCP should use knowledge from innovative programs like the Green Thumb project to develop a statewide reduction initiative. In particular, DATCP should take advantage of the ATCP 29 revision process to: