07/11/09 - A local gardening enthusiast failed to persuade the Town Council to overturn a policy that requires the Conservation Commission to authorize the use of pesticides on town-maintained property. The council ended debate on the topic with a 5-0 vote after 45 minutes of discussion that juxtaposed children’s safety, finances and scientific evidence.

Gardner Fred Nelson (and Block Island Times gardening columnist) argued Monday that the council’s adoption in May of an Integrated Pest Management Plan, which discourages the use of pesticides on town-maintained land, was based upon flawed scientific data and pleas that tugged at the heartstrings. He said lobbyists and corporations at every level of government make such emotional arguments when the facts do not support their case.

“How many votes were based upon biased statements, emotions, innuendos, personal concerns or fear of the unknown?” Nelson said. “We all know the process of passing a bill in state legislatures and the United States Congress. How often do the legislators vote without even reading a bill?”

He implied the policy would allow weeds to invade Heinz Field, which opened this year after a $600,000 renovation project. Alternative organic control methods such as corn gluten held little promise and are expensive, he said. Nelson said if organizations such as the Block Island Conservancy felt so strongly about organic methods, then they should fund a demonstration project to prove their worth.

But Nelson stood alone. On the other side of the room, Conservation Commission Chairman Ned Phillips Jr. rose to defend the policy that sprouted from his commission. Phillips insisted that chemicals in pesticides, such as 2,4-D, caused medical problems in humans and negative impacts on the environment. He cited “studies” that showed chemicals in powdered form attached to people’s shoes and drifted into residences.

And the council noted letter after letter, from the Block Island Conservancy, Block Island Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy and residents, who expressed support for a cessation of pesticide use. In a letter, resident and mother Nancy Anderson quibbled with Recreation Director Rob Closter’s argument, delivered at a previous council meeting, that the town needed pesticides to maintain Heinz Field.

“Do we want to put kids at risk for the visually familiar weed-free field? I don’t think so!” she wrote. “I can’t come tonight because I’m with my kids so I wish you well in making your decision today for your future and all island inhabitants’ futures.”

Others echoed those concerns and led Nelson to point out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed 2,4-D safe when applied properly, despite it being a component in the herbicide Agent Orange used in the war in Vietnam. It was another ingredient in Agent Orange that made people sick, Nelson argued. Nelson also noted that people commonly keep dangerous chemicals such as aspirin in their homes, but follow directions to prevent hazards.

The back-and-forth appeared to agitate some members of the council looking for an unbiased position. Ken Lacoste complained the argument appeared as vague as it did when he was the sole dissenting vote in May.

“I felt it was a knee-jerk reaction based on fear mongering,” he said.

Councilor Peter Baute, a medical doctor, noted that the researchers behind one study Phillips provided had overturned their own conclusion four years later. And he said researchers at the University of Rhode Island found no worrying traces of 2,4-D in test wells around turf fields treated with the chemical.

And Gaffett struggled to remind everyone that the policy applied to more than 2,4-D and Heinz Field. The point led audience member Sean McGarry to question whether the policy applied to school facilities and the Transfer Station. (McGarry serves on the School Committee and his company runs the Transfer Station under contract with the town.) Gaffett said both entities would need to comply with the policy.