Alerts & News
· As of January 15, 2008, the cap on H2B immigration visas for migrant and seasonal workers was reached. This means if Congress does not vote for an extension of this program, we on the East End of Long Island will suffer from a severe labor shortage this Spring and Summer. You may wish to contact our Congressman Tim Bishop with your thoughts at http://TimBishop.house.gov . Once on his website, type in Keywords “H2B Visas” to see his statement on this matter.
· The H2B Guest Worker Program is not our only problem with labor. Due to the high cost of living, much of our native work force has moved away from the area. As with all supply and demand situations, this will cause the costs of labor to escalate.
· As predicted, the new Spitzer regime has made it more difficult to operate our landscaping businesses in the State of New York. Some of these unneeded actions have made it even more difficult to find skilled and qualified employees in the pest control business. Over-regulation is expensive for everyone.
· Suffolk County has passed a bill which will prohibit Late Fall Lawn Fertilization for residential clients. No Lawn Fertilization after November 1st, starting in 2009. The County Legislature went with what feels good instead of sound science. What else is new?
Legislative Update
John Iurka-Legislative Liaison
* IMPORTANT INFORMATION *
6 NYCRR 325.2 (d) states “During pesticide use, the certified applicator, certified technician or commercial pesticide apprentice must have in their custody a copy of the label for each pesticide being used”.
The NYSDEC is interpreting this to mean that “it is the applicator’s responsibility to keep the pesticide product label immediately available as they move about the site of application.
This means that the person doing the applications must have the label on his/her person during all application. Having the label on the truck will not be acceptable.
The new administration in Albany is sending strong signals that change in regulations regarding pesticides is a priority. We will be keeping a close eye on what is happening there. The buzzword we are hearing is
“LEAST TOXIC”
I think we should all look at our businesses and think about the need to “Green” them as much as possible.
· Up until now we have provided labels to each client. We also have labels in the truck. Labels are also attached to the spray tanks. This has all been mandated. Apparently this is not enough. We must now attach them to the fertilizer spreader and carry it on our person. Our government is doing all it can to make our business as inefficient as they are. These largely unneeded actions only make services cost more. When and where does it stop?
_________________________________________________________________________________
INSIDE EDITION --- NEWS FOR YOU... FROM: The New York State Lawn Care Association SUMMER 2007 -- INSIDER BRIEF
‘Quick Takes on What’s Happenin...!’
Big News is of course is change in administration in Albany, with enviro-green activists in charge. Burton raised concerns about ‘Pete’ Grannis’s nomination by Gov. Spitzer as new D.E.C. Commissioner. During the protracted hearing process, NYSLCA asked several senators to query Grannis to see if he would seek a more aggressive regulatory stance, - and if he was going to pursue legislation alike positions he favored as a legislator? - ie. sponsoring bills to give local authority to regulate pesticides, etc.! Copy of letter to NYSLCA gives some insight about how he may look at things now as an administrator. Burton responded, as shown in copy enclosed. We’ll see what happens.
INTRIGUE
Key Spitzer appointees are now settling into their jobs of influence in state agencies, bureaus, and departments. Our sources tell us not all is with ease. In a number of policy positions, there has been some bureaucratic resistance to implementing the Spitzer game plan. Seems some appointees are a bit ‘overzealous’ and need time to learn the ropes and that there are statutory and regulatory limits restricting quick adoption to a number of activist desired policy changes. We’ve been told there’s a lot of stress by numerous career civil service personnel to some Spitzer policy initiatives. The outcome — NYSLCA predicts; - after supporters settle in and gain full control in 2007, Spitzer policy will be adopted and put into play. Expect in 2008 much tougher enforcement from DEC on industry. Moreover, - as not seen much from prior administrations, use DEC as an advocate to lobby the Legislature for changes in policy, and adopt a series of new programs that look not to be friendly to business! Spitzer is likewise making a major effort to obtain a Democrat majority in the Senate to gain advantage to put through his legislative programs, including more restrictive pesticide use.
SOME GOOD NEWS
Lobbying by NYSLCA, New York Alliance for Environmental Concerns, and other allied groups, has been instrumental in stopping legislative bills harmful to our members: including to establish certification and regulations for irrigation work: - to allow local governments to enact pesticide laws; as well to forestall establishing an Urban Pesticide Board (which calls for study of pesticide applications, and a must that 1PM training be given). Other pesticide bills not making it thru the Legislature; - notification and sign posting on golf courses; stopping use of lawn care pesticides on day-care property, and outlawing pesticides deemed to have unacceptably toxic and cause ill effects as determined by the Legislature. And of major importance, NYSLCA voiced strong opposition to a Senate initiative to have lawn applicator companies be directly responsible along with owners, managers, supers, to notify each and every tenant, renter, occupant, employee, etc. prior to pesticide applications to multi-dwellings, offices, hotel complexes, and other occupied buildings or use facilities. Notification would be made under procedures of the 48Hr.Neighbor Notification Law. What a headache if such a bill became law!!
ELSEWHERE IN NEW YORK
State Education Department is asking schools to curtail use of fertilizers containing phosphorus. NY State Office of Attorney General seems to be lead agency for this initiative with what NYSLCA considers erroneous and misleading information. (Where is the NY Department of Ag. & Markets on this issue?) Ag. & Markets is the agency controlling fertilizer use in New York. Although Westchester County is wavering on restricting phosphorus, we nevertheless see Co. Exec.Spano’s anti-phosphorus stance will prevail. NYSLCA predicts in several years a similar effort by activists to severely restrict nitrogen use on lawns. Lawn and ornamental care without nitrogen would cripple current lawn care management programs and severely impact our landscape businesses. Certain enviro-wackos are determined to make us go native!
• While on this issue of nitrogen, some activist legislatorsini Suffolk County want to start on the path to outlaw nitrogen use in ornamental care. They want to restrict nitrogen use to no more than 1 lb./1000 sq. ft. per year of only slow release nitrogen, and as approved by Suffolk County. There are other encumbrances as well. NYSLCA is in vigorous opposition.
• Village of Schaghticoke in Rensselaer County (east of Albany) enacted a local law to require burdensome requirements for restricted pesticide use in designated areas of the village (supposedly watershed, - including many residential properties). You’d have to see the regulations under this local law to believe it! (Like much written documentation to justify need, and all submitted 60 days prior to application.) NYSLCA, NY Alliance for Environmental Concerns, NY Ag. & Markets, RISE, and others have voiced strong opposition, - including the obvious argument this local law in null-n-void by virtue of the fact that only the State government has the authority to regulate pesticide use in New York. Note: several years ago, NYSLCA successfully waged (almost single handedly) a campaign to keep 48 Hr. Neighbor Notification out of Rensselaer County. Fortunately, we retain friends there, and this local initiative should not bear fruit for radical activists.
OTHER F.Y.I.
• I.O.U.’s are being called in! See Albany Times Union prominent editorial from Joel Freedman of Canandaigua (Rochester area), and a thorn in our side. We can bet more leftwing activists will be reminding Spitzer about the Attorney General’s position on curtailing pesticide use. Expect extra-ordinary pressure from activists in 2008. Enough said!
• DEC’s police unit is being brought into enforcement on alleged misuse of pesticides on Long Island. Local reporting of Fox 5 News ‘poisoned’ their reporting by stressing pesticides found in possession of non-licensed applicators and unlicensed businesses were dangerous? But to the contrary, we believe (and as shown in TV photo captions) the pesticides were actually ‘General Use’ and likely purchased at garden stores; - ie. granular pre-emergent herbicide trifluralin. See next page, #3.
From Vincent A. Palmer — Pesticide Control Specialist III on Long Island about pesticide use container regs. Container must bear the following or have affixed:
1. Name and address of manufacturer, or registrant. as appears on labeL
2. Registered product name & US E.P.A. Registration Number
3. Maximum volume or weight of pesticide container can hold.
And for any substance highly toxic to humans, service container must also bear:
1. The skull and crossbones sign.
2. Poison printed prominently in Red, against a contrasting background.
3. A statement of an antidote for pesticide.
An alternative to the above requirements, securely affix a copy of registered product to container or application device and indicate maximum weight and volume.
NYSLCA was invited to attend a planning session to hear DEC/EPA new rule making governing pesticide containers. At this time, program is meant to primarily address ‘residue’ removal for refillable and nonrefillable pesticide containers pertaining to manufacturers, formulators and suppliers. As of now, this is not to propose adding further regulations to the commonly used 2 ˝ gal. jug and smaller containers, which require a 3 rinse procedure before disposal to approved landfills, or return to suppliers. However, we expect applicators will be drawn into the regulatory process some time after 2009, but probably before 2011.
“KUDOS”
Kudos for our compatriot New York State Turfgrass Association in designating as part of a $175,000 grant to Cornell research to study benefits, risks to water quality, and costs of both benefits and risks, with and without fertilizer and/or pesticides. Research will be under the direction of Dr. Martin Petrovic. — Grant Title, Benefits of Turf -- ‘Reasons Why Pesticides and Fertilizers Applied to Turf are Not Just for Cosmetics.’ This is good reason alone to be a member supporter of NYSTA! We are pleased!
48 Hr. Neighbor Notification
If you do pesticide service work in opt-in counties, member company Lawn Medic strongly suggests conveying the benefits of lawn care, and denounce the law as obstructionist to both customers and abutting neighbors alike! See the attached form (
mailer) to abutting neighbors asking their permission to waive future notification. This approach is working out exceedingly well to help ease fears, apprehensions, and reduce costs for notification! Looking down the road, - many of the John Q. Public citizens could very well be allies in our on-going pesticide battles.
YOUR INPUT DESIRED
As a preliminary, non-binding step, NYSLCA would appreciate your feelings in regards to asking the State to amend the current 48 Hr. Neighbor Notification Opt-in Law. In discussions with both Democrat and Republican Assembly and Senate Legislators,
Burton said some members in both the Senate and Assembly are receptive to looking at changes in the law, and corrective legislation. One option would be to make the 48 Hr. Law voluntary, whereby applicators would be obligated to make abutting neighbors aware they can require notification. Political incentives for changes could be for applicators at least once per year contact abutting neighbors that they can request notification. Another, and a big one, make this voluntary neighbor awareness requirement a statewide law covering all counties, instead of the current County Opt-in one. Give us a call or drop us a note about your thoughts. If enough members desire to look at the possibility of changing the law, NYSLCA will then contact legislative members on drafting a bill with changes for further review and consultation. As matters stand now, additional intrusive notification laws and regs look almost certain to be heading our way. No guarantees, but pre-emption on our part might at least have some tempering of this nasty situation. It’s certainly worth a try; - better than Industry’s usual rollover and do-nothing response so common in the past. Again, give a call, or e-mail us! 585-494-1466 —
nyslca@frontiernet.net “For lawn care and landscape work, 2 most important needs, -- air compressor and Excedrin aspirin.” d. burton. 7/14/07
To: Honorable Members of the Suffolk Co. Legislature
Dear Legislator,
I want to follow-up on my November 29th, 2004 letter to you about Suffolk County possibly giving consideration to further restrict outdoor ornamental pesticide use. It is also my hope that Hon. Legislator Schneiderman’s apprehensions about pesticides will be eased as more authoritative information is available for review.
I agree with Hon. Legislator Jon Cooper’s contention pesticide use is best understood as a health matter. And with this thought, may I suggest the following for consideration. Ask those Environmental and Cancer Support Groups alleging unacceptable health risks from pesticides to sponsor authoritative and reputable science research that can document and validate unacceptable health risks do exist. I would welcome this kind of inquiry. As of now, the E.P.A., D.E.C., departments of health, U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, U.S. Dept. Of Interior, U.S. Forestry Service, U.S. Geological Survey, World Health Organization, Public and Private Research and Teaching Institutions, etc. whose job is to monitor/and or regulate pesticide use, contend pesticides used in accordance with instructional directions do not pose an unacceptable health or environmental risk; but in fact, are beneficial. Wow!
The work of an alternative, authoritative research inquiry would be to disprove the overwhelmingly prevailing view of government regulatory bodies and university and Industry research, that pesticides do not pose the risk alleged.
Should the Suffolk Co. Legislature, or Environmental/certain Cancer Groups sponsor such research for pesticide fate analysis and (again, contrary to current science) show potential ill health effects, - then there is cause for remedy. Instead of the Suffolk Legislature passing a law or resolution, better to challenge regulators and petition for change in policy and regulations to accommodate validated findings that ‘current practice’ results in unacceptable health risks. Obviously, legal recourse, or asking the State Legislature to make changes are options. Otherwise, a local law could be dysfunctional; likely cause confusion, trouble in gaining compliance, and force the County to devote resources for enforcement, etc.
Sincerely,
Donald W. Burton, President
NYS Lawn Care Association
And for:
NY Alliance for Environmental Concerns
NY Citizens for Responsible Environmental Policy
PASS THE TOXINS AND CARCINOGENS
It is that time of the year: parties, presents, family gatherings - and dining-room tables laden with a tempting array of mouth-watering, delicious, seasonal chemicals. Chemicals? Yes.
We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being “all-natural” and “purely organic.” Poultry sections offer fryers from “happy, free range chickens.” “Chemical free” cuisine is in.
So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natural holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins(poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can’t pronounce the names.
Assume you start with an appetizer then move on to a medley of crispy, natural vegetables, and proceed to a traditional stuffed bird with all the trimmings, washing it down with libations of the season and topping it all off with some homemade pastries.
You will thus have consumed holiday helpings of various “carcinogens” (defined here as a substance that at high dose causes cancer in laboratory animals) including:
• hydrazines (mushroom soup);
• aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides and psoralens ( your fresh vegetable salad),
• heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, dihydrazines, d-limonene, safrole and quercetin glycosides (roast turkey with stuffing):
• benzene and heterocyclic amines (prime rib of beef with parsley sauce);
• furfural, ethyl alcohol, allyl isothiocyanate (brocolli, potatoes, sweet potatoes);
• coumarin, methyl eugenol, acetaldehyde, estragole and safrole (apple and pumpkin pies);
• ethyl alcohol with ethyl carbamate (red and white wines).
Then sit back and relax with some benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6,-dibenz(a)anthracene with 4-methylcatechol (coffee).
And those, all produced courtesy of Mother Nature, are only the carcinogens you just scarfed down. Your 100-percent natural holiday meal is also replete with toxins popularly known as “poisons.” These include the solanine, arsenic and chaconine in potatoes; the hydrogen cyanide in limabeans and the hallucinogenic compound myristicin found in nutmeg, black pepper and carrots.
Now here is the good news: these foods are safe. Four observations are relevant here:
• When if comes to toxins, only the dose makes the poison. Some chemicals, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic, are potentially hazardous at high doses but are perfectly safe when consumed at low doses like the trace amounts found in our foods.
• While you probably associate the word “carcinogen” with nasty sounding synthetic chemicals like PCB’s and dioxin, the reality is that the more we test naturally occurring chemicals, the more we find that they, too, cause cancer in lab animals.
• The increasing body of evidence documenting the carcinogenicity (in the lab) of common substances found in nature highlights the contradiction we Americans have created up to now in our regulatory approach to carcinogens: trying to purge our nation of synthetic carcinogens, while turning a blind eye to the omnipresence of natural “carcinogens.”
• While animal testing is an essential part of biomedical research, so is commonsense. A rodent is not a little man. There is no scientific foundation to the assumption that if high-dose exposure to a chemical causes cancer in a rat or mouse, then a trace level of it must pose a human cancer risk.
If we took a precautionary approach with all chemicals and assumed that a rodent carcinogen might pose a human cancer risk (“so let’s ban it just in case”), we’d have very little left to eat. (A radical solution to our nation’s obesity problem!)
The reality is that these trace levels of natural or synthetic chemicals in food or the environment pose no known human health hazard at all - let alone a risk of cancer.
So the next time you hear a self-appointed “consumer advocate” fret about the man-made “carcinogen du jour” and demand the government step in and “protect” us-remember, you just ingested a meal full of natural carcinogens without a care in the world and with no risk to your health.
Pass the methyl eugenol! Bon Appetit!
New York Post
December 24, 2003
Elizabeth M. Whelan
FACTS DON'T MATTER -
Did you really think that a little thing like scientific evidence would get in the way ot the Green Machine? Hah!
After a seven-year, $8 million study, the National Cancer Institute has concluded that there is absolutely no scientific link between a relatively high presence of now-banned pesticides and Long Island's statistically elevated breast-cancer rate.
The enviros claim a connection between what they term " dangerous toxins" and cancer rates on Long Island.
And when the Green Machine speaks, the pols listen. Hence the study.
But science can be a stubborn thing: None of the pesticides studied - including DDT, chlordane, dieldrin and PCBs - were found to contribute to breast cancer rates. No matter.
The greenies still aren't satisfied.
"We disagreed with the institute's approach of looking at a few hypotheses and doing a case-controlled study," argues Jerome I. Baranick, who was - probably not coincidentally - turned down to run the study.
Laura Haight, a senior environmental associate at NYPIRG, says "the study wasn't designed in the best way."
That is to say, it didn't produce the desired results.
Hogwash.
Yes, breast-cancer rates are unfortunately higher in Long Island than most places.
And there are high levels of pesticide residue in Nassau and Suffolk.
But as NCI's study clearly illustrates, the two facts appear not to be connected.
It's the science, stupid!
New York Post
Wednesday August 7, 2002
