Parks and Recreation Commission Decision on Barrington Environmentally Safe Turf (BEST) Proposal is Unfortunate. But They May Have Misunderstood the Proposal.

Well, well. I found out today through a roundabout email trail that the Parks and Recreation Department has rejected the Conservation Commission proposal for the Barrington Environmentally Safe Turf (BEST) program. I sure wish they invited me to their meeting to explain the proposal, since I wrote it, but I was not. John Requinha, as nice a guy as he is, seems not to understand the main thrust of the proposal and seems to believe that a turf field cannot be managed organically. That is simply not true and I know experts, even sport people, that can corroborate that. It may take more work or a different kind of work, but it can be done.

I haven't discussed the proposal outside of "formal" town processes, i.e., in Conservation Commission or Town Council meetings, or with DPW and the Town Manager. However, since the press has now gotten hold of this, I am providing a link to the actual proposal so that people of the town can read it for themselves.

First of all, why has this been proposed? Well, typical turf grass care involves the use of synthetic herbicides and insecticides to deal with weeds and grubs (mainly). These are typically applied as a preventive step; i.e., grub control products are applied whether or not grubs are present; "weed and feed" products are spread over the whole field whether weeds are a problem or not. This is an easy, yet thoughtless, way of managing a turf field, designed by Scotts or Dow or Monsanto to maximize their profit.   

These chemicals are not without potential health effects. The main chemical used in "weed and feed" is 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or 2,4-D. A plant hormone used for the control of broadleaf weeds, 2,4-D was a main ingredient in Agent Orange. 2,4-D has been implicated in the occurrence of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a blood cancer, in farmers using 2,4-D [1]. Suggestive evidence also exists that 2,4-D may be associated with a higher incidence of ADHD and other developmental effects. Biomonitoring studies of a cross-section of the U.S. population found the presence of 2,4-D in people's urine, documenting exposure [Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (CDC 2009; 2012)].  The CDC report cites studies in which 2,4-D was found in urine of up to a quarter of people tested.

The main grub control product used, Merit, contains imidacloprid, which has been associated, in animal studies, with adverse effects upon the thyroid gland and adverse reproductive effects (smaller offspring, reduced bone growth). Imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides have been implicated as a cause of Colony Collapse Disorder in honeybees and is highly toxic to earthworms and some birds.

Let's be clear (to steal an Obamaism), these chemicals are used to make management of the turf grass easier and to make it look better. It's cosmetics.  There is currently no goal in the use of these chemicals to make the playing fields safe for our kids. Safety is not a priority for Scotts or Dow or Monsanto. Money is.

Back to the proposal.  The proposal has three parts: 

Part 1: Each playing field in town gets classified as either:

Level 1: a Natural Playing Field, in which synthetic chemicals are not used, but products accepted in the National Organics Program are allowed,

Level 2: A Targeted Treatment Playing Field, in which synthetic weed and insect controls can be used on an as-needed basis and by spot-treatment only, or

Level 3: A Synthetic Treatment Playing Field, in which broadcast, or un-targeted, application of synthetic fertilizers, weed and insect control products are allowed.

This classification of each playing field in town would be made by a group of people selected by the Town Council, based on the use of and needs for the field.  This group would include representatives from DPW, the Sports and Recreation Commission, the Conservation Commission, the School Department, and others. The proposal does not force any field in town to become organic (although the hope is that it will move in that direction).

Part 2:  Signage

1. Signage defining the field classification is permanently affixed to field entrances.

2. Dates and description of all scheduled field maintenance activities - excluding irrigation, mowing, aeration, and marking - are posted on the Town’s website at the beginning of each playing season and updated, as appropriate.

3. Dates and description of all unscheduled maintenance activities, excluding irrigation, mowing, aeration, and marking, - are posted on the Town’s website and the playing field at least 48 hours before the activity is performed.

Part 3: Information-Sharing

A summary of information from neutral sources (e.g., CDC, EPA, scientific literature) on all synthetic chemicals used on Town-owned playing fields will be made available on the Town’s website and at the Town Clerk’s office for public information purposes.

That's the proposal: Classify, label, and provide information.  No forcing.  If people want to have chemically-doused playing fields and let kids play on them, fine.  But not without disclosure.

This proposal is all about letting people know what chemicals are on the playing fields and to what they are exposing their children. It's about individual choice. It's also about pressure from the bottom up.  If the citizens of Barrington want to have safer playing fields, pressure would come from citizens for the Town to change its playing field management practices.

But the Parks and Recreation Commission apparently doesn't want to give you that choice, because it might initially mean a little more work to keep the fields in playing condition, or the fields might have a weed or two. I actually think that their decision was based on fear of reprisal from what I understand to be the demanding sports organizations and over-zealous soccer moms/dads in town. And that pressure may be real. But I have a hard time believing that they are willing to sacrifice safety for aesthetics or maintenance ease or avoiding confrontation.

So, this proposal will go to Town Council in August. Do you care?  I don't know.  Maybe the outrage isn't there. Maybe people believe that if you can buy it at Lowes or Home Depot, it's safe. Maybe even if buying organic food is important or recycling is important or avoiding plastics is important, protecting kids from chemicals on the sports fields isn't important.  But I don't know why that would be.

So I am asking everyone who reads this to weigh in on the importance of knowing what chemicals are used on the Town's playing field and aiming for (at whatever pace is feasible) safer fields by using non-synthetic management controls. If you think this is important, please let me know, because I put this proposal together to make the playing fields safer for all of our kids. But if you don't care, let me know that, too. Because I have many other pressures on my time and if I am wasting my time, I'll stop.  Besides, my only child now lives in NYC, so I have other things to worry about.

[1] Zahm S.H., et al. (1990). A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and the Herbicide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2, 4-D) in Eastern Nebraska.  Epidemiology, Vol.1, Issue 5 (September).