Update on OUST... Lessons learned?   Out is one of the chemicals used in the Massachusetts Rights of Way Vegetation Management Plans.  The problem with these ROW plans is that the herbicide fact sheets the companies and state agencies use are out of date.  Current research (and law suits) repeatedly  show that the chemicals are more toxic and cause more damage than previously understood.

PAN Blog  http://www.panna.org/blog

Last week's action by EPA and the pending lawsuits — with billions in potential liability — come on the heels of Dupont's losses in a lawsuit around damage caused by the company's herbicide Oust. Another longlasting, water-soluble herbicide (active ingredient: sulfometuron methyl), Oust was used by the Bureau of Land Management back in 2001 to control invasive weeds on more than 30,000 acres of public rangeland in Idaho. (See below.)

 Tree-killing herbicide pulled from market  Mon, 2011-08-22  

Dupont's new systemic herbicides, designed to keep turf grass free of troublesome weeds, seem to pose little direct danger to human health. But it turns out they do kill trees.
 
After receiving more than 7,000 reports of damaged or killed trees in states throughout the midwest, last week EPA ordered Dupont to immediately "halt the sale, use or distribution" of the company's herbicide Imprelis.

EPA approved conditional registration of Imprelis in August 2010. New York and California chose not to register the herbicide because tests showed it failed to bind with soil, "raising a red flag for potentially contaminating groundwater and damaging non-target plants," according to BioCycle Magazine.

BioCycle also reports that a national law firm has organized a class action lawsuit targeting Dupont on behalf of homeowners in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, and Minnesota whose trees have been damaged or killed. Plans are underway for additional legal actions in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas and South Dakota.

Norway spruce and white pine appear to be particularly susceptible to harm from the longlasting herbicide.

Imprelis is one of dozens of Dupont products with the active ingredient aminocyclopyrachlor, most designed for use on turf grass or roadside brush control. All other products in this family, including the herbicides Perspective, Plainview, Streamline and Viewpoint, are still on the market.

 

Growing trouble with herbicides

Last week's action by EPA and the pending lawsuits — with billions in potential liability — come on the heels of Dupont's losses in a lawsuit around damage caused by the company's herbicide Oust. Another longlasting, water-soluble herbicide (active ingredient: sulfometuron methyl), Oust was used by the Bureau of Land Management back in 2001 to control invasive weeds on more than 30,000 acres of public rangeland in Idaho.

 

When the wind came, the herbicide was carried in dust onto more than 100 neighboring farms. Sugar beets wilted, corn was stunted and potatoes died; after years of crop failure, farmers suffered millions in losses, and some lost their land to creditors.

One of the attorneys in the case described the herbicide as "very potent," known to hurt crops in concentrations as low as parts-per-trillion.

In a 2009 trial involving just 4 of the 118 farmers who have filed suit, a jury ordered Dupont to pay $17.8 million in damages, finding the company "responsible for selling a product that was defective, unreasonably dangerous and lacking adequate warnings" according to coverage in the MagicValley Times-News.

Dupont has appealed the ruling, and the 114 other cases remain to be heard. Between dying trees and damaged crops, Dupont's herbicides seem to be keeping the company lawyers very busy.

Letter to Linda Walsh, Newton Health Department

12 8 2010  Attn:  Linda Walsh, linda_walsh@newton.k12.ma.us  cc: Bob Rooney rrooney@newtonma.gov
Dear Linda,
   Bob Rooney sent me the draft of the letter you are planning to submit to the MBTA.
   I am very grateful that you have taken the time to send comments.
   I hope you will be willing to consider my suggestions for your comments.  Please call me if you would like to discuss them. 
    (Note: I have asked Bob to ask the Mayor for a formal acknowledgment of the original letter and a brief summary of the steps City of Newton officials have taken so far.)
   Your letter focuses on steps to fulfill the requirements regarding notification.  At our meeting last Thursday, I thought we agreed that newspaper notices are not acceptable.  In the past, the local newspaper notice was limited and ineffective. It is even more inadequate today when so many people rely on email and online communication.  
    Clearly the requirements for record keeping and communication to the public need review and updating.  The confusion between Ann Phelps and John McNally about when the spraying takes place is evidence that systems need updating.
    And then, even if the state agencies and the city of Newton did meet the requirements of the current regulations, the public would not be receiving adequate or proper notice of either the spraying or the opportunity to influence official policymaking. 
    Therefore I hope you will ask that the review and comment period for the YOP be extended to give the City of Newton adequate time to notify its citizens, especially the abutters, of opportunities to engage in a legitimate public review of the entire YOP.
    More important, there are no precautions that people can take to protect themselves and their families from exposures to herbicides. In fact, such false assurances misinforms the public about the true nature of pesticides.
    Since learning that City of Newton officials do not have records of the multiple herbicide applications on Rights-of-Ways in Newton, and until such records are public, I hope the Health Department will object to the use of herbicides by state agency contractors. 
    While Bob Rooney has asked the City of Newton Law Department to acquire the herbicide application records, please know that the complete ingredients in the chemical products are trade secrets. They not disclosed even to the EPA. So that public officials nor the public ever has the complete picture of what chemicals are being used and therefore there is no way to truly track or evaluate the true cost to health or the environment.
    As we discussed last Thursday, I look forward to working with you to share information with other Newton officials and citizens.
    Please forward me your final letter so that I can share it with others who are interested in the City’s response to the Letter to Mayor Warren.  Signatures (as of 11/20/2010).
    I have been posting information and resources online. Click here.
Best regards,
Ellie Goldberg 617 965-9637

Debacle over drinking water deals a blow to CDC and EPA.
http://wapo.st/e2aWIm

When it comes to something as basic as ensuring that our drinking water doesn't poison our children, you'd think federal scientists and environmentalists would hustle to give the public the fullest and most reliable information as quickly as possible. Washington Post [Registration Required] 

EG: This article discusses why government agencies do not provide the most reliable information on the health affects of environmental hazards and why they are slow to admit error...