Selectmen hold off on ruling for pesticides on fields
Published on November 23rd, 2005
After listening to a presentation on the benefits of an all-organic policy, the town's Board of Selectmen held off on ruling whether to reverse its anti-pesticide use policy for the town's playing fields on Monday night.
With a number of parents, high school athletic coaches, and field maintenance crews reportedly complaining about the state of Stoneham's playing fields since the all-organic policy was implemented in a unanimous decision, rookie Selectman George Seibold suggested a few months ago that the issue be revisited.
Prepared for a potential reversal, the Stoneham Environmental Action committee, a citizen advocacy group which first lobbied the Selectmen to bar the use of pesticides on municipal fields, brought along Chip Osborne, who manages Marblehead's all-organic fields.
According to Osborne, an all-organic field management policy, if correctly implemented, should prove superior to pesticide-use and ultimately cost far less. Specifically, the florist argued that pesticides, in addition to carrying serious health risks, kill beneficial organisms in the soil that foster the growth of turf.
"Aside from the widely documented health risks associated with chemicals, the fact is there are no chemicals on the market today that don't compromise the biological system," the Chairman of Marblehead's Recreation, Parks, and Forestry Commission remarked.
"Chemicals are very effective killers of biological life. One thing we do know is that more than target organisms are killed. Pesticides don't discriminate and they can alter the soil system," he added.
Attempting to debunk a popular myth utilized by opponents of an all-organic policy, Osborne cited various studies proving that pesticides and chemicals are known to cause a number of debilitating diseases, including a number of cancers, genetic mutations, and birth defects.
With that in mind, the Marblehead resident claimed that while many people may counter an all-organic policy request with statements alluding to the fact that they played on fields treated with chemicals without physical harm, those residents were in fact among the lucky ones to escape unfazed.
"I've personally sprayed more chemicals than most [landscapers] ever would. I remember using fungicides that were considered relatively safe. You didn't even wear gloves and your hands would be stained yellow," Osborne recalled, revealing that the specific chemical was later revealed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be one of the three most dangerous substances on the market.
"Federal law prohibits anyone to say [pesticides are] 'safe when used as directed, non-poisonous, or non-toxic to humans and pets'. There are companies out there that bid on municipal contracts and say these things, and that is a violation of federal law."
According to the all-organic field proponent, implementing a successful plan revolves around three factors: the use of natural organic products when pests need to be dealt with, enriching the mineral and beneficial organism content of soil, and implementing sound grass maintenance procedures.
"No. No," Osborne responded, when asked by Seibold whether enriching soil content meant that fields needed to first be ripped up and rebuilt. "You work from the top down [by adding compost and aerating the turf]. Unless there's something extreme, the use of the right enrichments can establish good soil profiles."
Explaining how the system essentially works, the florist said that once excellent soil quality is established, grass will grow deep roots. By overseeding, the turf will then grow in thickly, naturally blocking any weeds from germinating. Lastly, by cutting and managing the newly grown turf at a high height with sharpened blades, the long turf will choke out any sunlight from getting at any weeds or pests that do manage to squeeze in.
Adding that an all-organic program would lower watering costs - as the deep roots would pull more moisture from the soil -and further cut expenses through savings created by not purchasing chemicals, the Marblehead resident promised that a proper program would reduce overall maintenance costs within a three-to-five year period.
However, according to Public Works Director Bob Grover, who agreed with Osborne's basic contention, an all-organic policy was unrealistic from a financial standpoint. Referring to the florist's comments that he had six workers employed in maintaining Marblehead's fields, Grover called the comparison between Stoneham and the affluent community unfair.
"I'm envious of your program," the DPW director admitted. "But you say you have six park workers and I'm guessing that costs around $300,000. We have a total field maintenance budget of $70,000 for everything."
"Obviously your heart and soul goes into this, but that's tough when you have a subcontractor," Seibold added, referring to the fact that Stoneham bids out its field maintenance. "I think most of our problems here are related to manpower. It seems hard to stay on top of something like this."
However, according to the all-organic advocate, his program could be implemented on any budget. The only variable, Osborne admitted, was how quickly town officials wanted to turn their ailing fields around.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!