No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLawn Care Pesticides: Guide for Action 1987LAWN CARE PESTICIDES: A GUIDE FOR ACTION ROBERT ABRAMS Attorney General of New York LA~ CAI~E PESTICIDES: A GUIDE FOR ACTION ROBERT ABRAMS Attorney General of New York State ~ew York State Department of Law Environmental Protection Bureau The State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (518) 473-3105 Nay, 1987 CONTENTS Summary Unknown Potential: Health Effects When Lawn Sprays Miss the Target Advertising Consumer's Rights . Recommendations Conclusion Appendix A: "Trouble-Shooting" Guide Appendix B: DEC Region Addresses 1 4 12 15 21 24 SU?L~ARY Over the past few years, the Attorney General's office has received numerous complaints about companies around the State which offer lawn care services. Many customers have complained about faulty contracts and other business practices. Many more customers and their neighbors have been concerned about what chemicals these companies use to create picture-perfect lawns and whether the weed-killers and insecticides may affect the health of family members and pets. In response to the increasing number of questions about the use of residential pesticides, the Attorney General's staff has prepared this guide to provide some answers. Unfortunately, no one, not even scientific experts, has all the answers. Consumers should know that there is some uncertainty about the use of lawn sprays containing pesticides. This report pinpoints several key areas of concern to help consumers better understand the risks as well as the benefits of using lawn care services. It also recomKLends new laws that could better protect us. Pesticide use may not be risk-free. The federal Environ- mental Protection Agency ("EPA") is in the process now of requiring and evaluating additional health studies of many pesticides contained in common lawn sprays. Even when this information is completely analyzed, no one can be absolutely certain that exposure, even very lo%~ exposure, to such pesticides is safe. Although pesticides are registered with EPA and product labels state this, registration does not mean the substance has completed the evaluation process or has been determined to be safe. There are other flaws in this system. Many other so-calLed inert ingredients in pesticide sprays, some that are suspected of causing cancer and other diseasest are not being analyzed at al!~ as this report will describe later. In addition, those pesti- cides undergoing tests are not being studied for their effects on the nervous system. In the meantime, are allowed to remain evidence will come in pesticide ingredients that are being tested on the market~ Years from now, the establishing their risks and hazards~ Most of the advertising and information from the lawn care industry tends to avoid this point. The ads and glossy brochures emphasize that pesticides are registered with EPA. Most consumers would interpret this to mean that EPA has approved their safety. This common assumption is not true but the industry does little to correct it~ Pesticide manufacturers are not required to inform consumers that their chemicals are being studied for health effects. Customers and potential customers are entitled to receive from the lawn care company copies of the product labels from the pesticide mixtures that will be sprayed. Often this informatien is illegible or incomplete, so that consumers cannot weigh the risks of chemical exposure against the benefits of a green lawn. Many New Yorkers have complained that they were not notified in advance before their yards were sprayed~ Sometimes tkis has resulted in unnecessary exposures. There are currently no legal - 2 requirements for notifying neighbors before a customer's lawn is sprayed. Pesticide lawn sprays do not stay where they are applied. Sprayed through a nozzle as a fine mist, pesticides can drift away or run downhill, accidentally exposing people, pets or property. Label instructions, established by federal law, prohibit the use of pesticides when drift or runoff can occur. But these requirements are difficult to enforce. When there is a sudden strong wind, for example, it may be difficult to spot a violation of label instructions: the wind will carry the pesticide away. Oral contracts may deprive customers of their rights. Another potential problem consumers should be aware of before hiring a lawn care company is the contract. Many customers have reported to the Attorney General's office that unwritten contracts are automatically renewed from one year to the next, without the customer's express consent. This results in unplanned and sometimes unwanted spraying, and could accidentally expose people and property to pesticides. These problems are described in greater detail in the following pages, along with several recommendations for solutions, including proposed legislation. Until the State Legislature acts on some of these proposals, consumers can protect themselves by being informed. Lawn treatment is a service purchased like any other. If customers are dissatisfied with how lawn spray businesses deliver their service or provide information about the chemicals they use, - 3 - informed customers can use their purchasing power to convey their dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms, by canceling or refusing to review the contract. Neighbors who never bought the service but are nonetheless affected by drifting pesticides can urge their State Legislators to support the recommendations of this report. UNKNOWN. POTENTIAL: HEALTH EFFECTS The federal Inseoticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") requires chemical manufacturers to register pesticides with the EPA before they can be used. The registration process includes specific requirements for the submission to EPA of test data on health effects so that EPA can assess whether the pesticide will result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment,'not whether it will be totally safe. In fact, FIFRA prohibits companies from making any claims that their preducts are safe. Consumers must not assume that because a product is registered, it will not cause health problems in people or animals that are exposed to it, or that it will even be as effective as advertised. EPA acknowledges that many of the health studies conducted on pesticides years ago are inadequate by today's standards. Yet these studies have been the basis for the registration of most pesticides used today~ Diazinon, for example, a common insecti- cide used in lawn sprays, was registered in ~954, long before many current health data requirements were in place. Diazinon is acutely toxic to birds. Over 70 bird kills, some involvinq as - 4 - many as 700 birds, have been linked to Diazinon in recent years. EPA has issued a notice of intent to cancel Diazinon use on golf courses and sod farms. Last year the Attorney General submitted evidence to support even stricter controls on Diazinon use. An administrative hearing is now scheduled for late summer, 1987. In 1986, New York temporarily banned Diazinon use on golf courses and sod farms because of danger to birds. The Department of Environmental Conservation is expected to announce a permanent restriction soon. For many pesticides, EPA has asked manufacturers to submit additional data. EPA scientists will then decide whether these products currently registered and on the market may continue to be used for the specific purposes for which they were originally registered. Manufacturers may continue to sell these pesticides until the re-registration process is completed even though many pesticide ingredients are being tested for the first time for effects of chronic, long-term exposure like cancer or sterility (as opposed to acute or immediate effects like nausea or dizziness). The review of non-agricultural pesticides will not be completed until sometime in the twenty-first century, according to a recent Congressional report.1 Benomyl, pendimethalin and bentazon are among the many active ingredients of lawn sprays currently being tested. EPA l"Nonagricultural Pesticides: Risks and Regulation", RCED-86-97, General Accounting Office,' April, 1986, page 26. - 5 suspects that human exposure to benomyl may cause birth defects and reduce fertility. Pendimethalin and bentazon are being tested for a variety of long-term health effects. The types of new tests required vary according to the permitted (registered) uses of the pesticide and when it was originally registered. Other pesticides are being tested for such health effects as mutagenicity (causing changes in genetic material), oncogenicity (causing benign or malignant tumors), birth defects and 2 reproductive problems like sterility. Environmental impacts cf some pesticide ingredients are also being evaluated and tests will examine, for example, how long a pesticide exists in the environment before dissipating and how it moves from one medium (soil, water or air) to another~ 2Few pesticide chemicals have been tested for petentia! effects on human behavior and the central nervous system. Certain chemicals produce these effects by interacting w~th the brain and nervous system and inducing disorders ranging from memory loss and slowed reflexes to bizarre behavior, convulsions and paralysis. These neurobehavioral and neurotoxic effects have been largely ignored in federal regulatory policies. EPA currently requires manufacturers conduct only one extremely limited test to screen for potential neurotoxic effects of pesticide chemicals. [Subdivision f - Pesticide Assessment Guidelines - Hazard Evaluation - Human and Domestic Animals - Revised Edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DoC~ PB86-108958 (November, 1984); 7 U.S.C. !36(h); 40 CFR Part 158.] The chemicals used in pesticides, therefore, have never been properly tested for these effects. For the last twelve years, the National Academy of Sciences has been recommending that neurobehavioral effect toxicity evaluations should become a routine feature of the safety evaluation of all chemical substances. Two years ago the NAS concluded that such an evaluation for pesticide ingredients was a very high priority. [National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, (Footnote Continued) - 6 - In the meantime, these products may continue to be sold despite the possibility that new data may eventually prove they are dangerous. Manufacturers are not even required to state on product labels that the contents are being studied for health effects. The New York State Assembly is considering a bill that would impose such a notice requirement. EPA has given manufacturers deadlines ranging from several months to a few years to provide the new data. EPA's reliance upon data submitted by laboratories under contract to the pesticide registrant has created an opportunity for unethical companies to submit inaccurate test data. EPA cannot conduct independent tests to verify data submissions. Several years ago the government discovered that one laboratory under contract to perform health effects testing for several chemical companies had falsified data for several pesticides which were subsequently put on the market. EPA has identified most of those and has requested new tests. The pesticides remain on the market pending the new test results. Pesticide mixtures used in lawn care are made up of both active and inert ingredients. With more than 50,000 pesticide mi:~ture$ on the market, EPA has limited its review to only the (Footnote Continued) Committee for the Revision of NAS Publication No. 1138 91977) "Principles and Procedures for Evaluating the Toxicity of Household Substances", Washington, D.C.] In 1986, New York State joined with Wisconsin, the American Psychological Association, the American Public Health Association and several other groups in a petition to EPA to require full testing of pesticides for neurcbehavioral and neurotoxic effects. - 7 - active ingredients -- those that actually kill pests and weeds -- in a particular product, with priority placed on pesticides used 3 on food (agricultural pesticides). Non-agricultural pesticides (including lawn care products) will be looked at last. "Inert" ingredients, which generally make up the bulk of pesticide products, have not been subject to the same test requirements and usually are not identified on the pesticide label. The term "inert" simply means that they are not the pest killing ingredient in the mixture. They serve a variety of 3pesticide residue in both raw and processed food has become a major concern. EPA concedes it is an area of high risk and lcw regulation in its recent report on comparative risks of various environmental hazards, "Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems," February, 1987. The General Accounting Office recounts poor monitoring of both imported and domestic food for unlawful levels of pesticide residues ("Pesticides: Better Sampling and Enforcement Needed on Imported Food," September, 1986). In April, 1987, Attorney General Robert Abrams testified about the need for better monitoring of imported foods, and stricter enforcement when violations are found, in hearings before the Subcommittee cn Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Copies of this testimony are available upon request. At the same hearing, Lawrie Mott, Senior Scientist, ~atural Resources Defense Council, testified after reviewing many EPA documents that, in many cases, the public's maximum potential exposure to pesticides in food may exceed the amount considered safe to ingest. NRDC sampled food from San Francisco marketsr finding 44% of 71 samples contained residues of 19 different pesticides, including DDT, which has been banned as an active pesticide ingredient in the United States since 1973. Most recently, a National Academy of Sciences report released in May, 1987, estimated that pesticide residues in food may be responsible for as many as 20,000 additional cancer cases each year in the U.So ("Regulating Pesticides in Fcod: The Delaney Paradox" Committee on Scientific and Regulatory Issues Underlying Pesticide Use Patterns and Agricultural Innovation, Board of A~riculture, National Research Council, National Academ57 of'Sciences, May, 1987). - 8 - purposes such as carrying or dissolving the active ingredients. These ingredients are not necessarily benign and many, like asbestos, DDT and benzene, are highly toxic chemicals. EPA has not required tests for chronic health effects which might arise from synergistic reactions between different active and inert components. Such interactions may result in a marked increase in the severity of the toxic effects of one component when it is accompanied by another. Two ingredients acting together may produce an effect that would not be caused by either ingredient individually. EPA recently announced proposals to encourage the use of less toxic substances as inert ingredients. The Agency will alsc require increased testing of some substances when they are used as inert ingredients, and some ingredients which have been included as inerts will be considered active and tested accord- ingly. These proposals are subject to public comment before becoming final. While these measures, if implemented, will not affect products already cn the market, they underscore the past inadequacies of the registration program. Until all the facts are available, consumers should not be lulled by advertisements into thinking that lawn sprays are safe. Before deciding to use residential pesticides, consumers must weigh the benefits of using pesticides in the hope of attaining a greener lawn against the uncertain potential for long-term health problems. At the very least, reasonable steps shculd be taken to avoid exposure to lawn care chemicals when they are used. - 9 - Hazards Faced By Pesticide Workers In view of the many uncertainties related health effects of pesticides, applicators, who to the potential are subject to greater exposure than customers, should be particularly careful. For example, the National Cancer Institute found in a 1986 study that exposure to a chemical mixture called 2,4-D correlated with a six-fold increase in one type of cancer among farmers who applied the chemical, and an eight-fold increase among farmers who not only used the chem±cal but also mixed it themselves (when compared with males of the same age who did not mix and use the product).4 Yet, 2,4-D constitutes the active ingredient in Ortho Weed-B-Gon, Weedone and Trimec and 1,500 other pesticide products used in lawn care. At least one lawn care company has announced it would stop using 2~4-D, but many others will probably continue to use it unless new laws or regulations forbid it. For a lawn company to do business in New York, State law requires that it have at least one certified applicator who kss passed a test which includes questions about how to safely handle pesticides and the hazards of specific pesticides. Unfortunate- ly, not all applicators are certified and, therefore, may not be well-informed on these issues. However, New York's Right to Know law helps to fill this gap. it requires training for every 4Hoar, et al.t "Agricultural Herbicide Use and Risk of Lymphoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 256, No. 9 (September 5, 1986), pp. 1141-1147. - 10 - employee who is job. This training must include chronic effects of exposure, the proper methods of safe use. "routinely exposed to toxic substances" on the information about the acute and symptoms of those effects, and Information obtained from lawn care businesses which have voluntarily discussed training programs with the Attorney General's office indicates serious lapses in worker training. Enforcement suffers because most lawn care workers simply do not know of their statutory rights under the law and, therefore, are not aware when they are being inadequately trained. Without adequate safety training, employees do not know that they may demand protective gear from their employer. Lawn spral, workers are frequently observed wearing only a company uniform. In dozens of chance observations by the Attorney General's staff, no applicators were seen wearing rubber gloves or respirators, which have been shown to reduce health risks. In one study, the National Cancer Institute found that protective equipment can 5 reduce the risk of cancer from exposure to 2,4-D by 50 percent. Applicators who are not properly trained in safety procedures or who are not familiar with the hazards of pesticide exposure are themselves a danger to the public. They may provide inaccurate answers to consumers' questions about the possible hazards of a product or, even worse, they may be more careless 5Ibid. 11 - than a well-trained applicator when applying chemicals they honestly but mistakenly believe are harmless. WHEN LA~ SPRAYS MISS THE TARGET Another common problem of lawn pesticides involves their application. Chemicals sprayed into the air or applied to the ground can drift or wash away. Customers frequently complain that chemicals often miss the target. Current law does not adequately deal with this concern. Sprayed through nozzles as fine mists, pesticides can blow or drift away from target areas, especially on wind~~ days. When applied as a liquid mixed in water, the spray can run off alon~ the ground away from the target area, particularly in wet weather. Chemicals can also volatilize or evaporate into the after application. Chemicals escaping from the target area in these ways may reach pets, plants, water, soil, fish, wildlife and, most seriously, people. While there are no State laws specifically addressinq drift, runoff and volatilization of pesticides, applicators must comply with label directions under federal law. Frequently, the label language warns against use of the pesticides under conditions that allow chemicals to migrate beyond the target area. Under the federal law, for example, the Diazinon 5, commonly used to kill state, "Do not apply where runoff label on a container of insects on turf grass, must is likely to occur. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift from areas treated°" For Betasan 4-E, the label warns, "Do not apply when weathe~ - 12 - conditions favor drift from area treated." And the label on MecAmine-D must read, "do not apply directly to water. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift away from target area Do not contaminate domestic or irrigation waters." If an applicator or lawn spray company disregards label instructions, federal law enables the Commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation to deny or revoke the applicator's certification to work or the company's registration to operate in New York. violation or a culprit: pesticide away so that But it is often difficult to spot a a strong wind, for example, can carry the it is almost impossible to trace. In addition to federal label requirements, state regulations also warn applicators to avoid "contamination of crops, property, structures, lands, pasturage or waters adjacent to the area of application." But there are no specific conditions banning the use of pesticide sprays when, for example, wind speed is high or when the grade of the soil is too steep. While there should be more specific regulation of pesticide application, some chemical migration is inevitable. Therefore, lawn care customers and their neighbors should be given ample opportunity to keep family members and pets indoors or away from home when spraying occurs. This is particularly true in light cf what we are learning about chemically sensitive people for whom even a very small amount of pesticide ingestion or inhalation can lead to severe health problems. - 13 - Trainin? Applicators Drift, runcff and volatilization can all be reduced if the applicator uses proper equipment and application methods. Applicators should assess site and weather conditions before choosing and using the appropriate equipment. Equipment can be tailored to various geographical and weather conditions. For example, a trained applicator can vary the size of the spray droplets by changing the type of spray nozzle and type of chemical formulant used. State law makes it unlawful for a commercial applicator to apply pesticides without certification by the Commissioner except while working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.6 However, the supervisor need not be present when a 7 non-certified applicator is working. Lawn spray companies which hire unskilled laborers and students for summer work, for example, may have only one or two certified applicators who may be responsible for the supervision of as many as 20 er 30 applicators. The non-certified applicators often have little cc no training either about the toxicity of the substances or on hc~ to apply them. When pesticides are applied by untrained and uninformed employees under less than strict supervision, it is less likely 66 NYCRR S 325.17. 76 ~;YCRR § 325.1(cc). 14 i that companies will be able to comply with pesticide laws, regu- lations and label directions concerning drift, runoff and volatilization of pesticides. By contrast, certified applicators have at least had an introduction to basic information about pesticide-related health hazards in order to be certified. Requiring all applicators to be cartified would at least mean that everyone applying pesticides would have had basic training and non-target application should be reduced. ADVERTISING Under federal law, pesticide manufacturers must not claim on their product labels or in their advertising that the chemicals to be applied are safe. In addition, New York General Business Law, which app!ie~ to advertising by any business including lawn care companies, prohibits false or misleading advertising or the 8 omission of important information. Yet, much of the lawn care advertising examined by the Attorney General's office is full of assurances of, if not health effects. Glossy brochures absolute safety, extremely low risk of tend to emphasize that the pesticides used are all EPA registered, with the clear implication that they are, therefore, approved as safe by the government. Given what we know about the flaws in the EPA registration program, this type of claim, while factual, is actually quite misleading. 8New York General Business Law ~ 350. 15 - Moreover, some of the ingredients may be in the marketplace with registrations tkat are contingent on further studies of health effect data. Even if all pesticides registered by the EPA were, in fact, fully studied and understood, registration could never mean ~ guarantee of absolute safety. EPA's registration process is designed to establish whether a given pesticide ~ill "perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the 9 environment". Some risk of harm may be "reasonable" if sufficiently offset by a recognized benefit. Since complete safety of pesticides is not a goal of the law, the EPA has promulgated regulations to make sure that "safe" and "pesticide" are never used together on pesticide product labels or in manufacturer's advertising. For example, EPA forbids the use of such assurances as "not poisonous," "non-injurious," "harmless~" "non-toxic" or "among the least toxic chemicals known.''10 Another com~on advertising assertion, direct or indirect, is that a given lawn care product or targeted pests. The fact is that usually susceptible to the lethal Pesticides control specific types service is lethal only to some non-pest organisms are effects of pesticides. of weeds or insects by acting upon their biological processes, which are not necessarily unique to pest species and may be common to large classes of organisms. 9U.S.C. S 136a(5). 1040 CFR 162.10(1)(5). 16 - Therefore, while pesticide ingredients may be chosen because they are more toxic to one group of organisms than to others, it would be false and misleading to say that no harmed. A similar tactic employed by lawn other organisms can be services is to compare the relative safety of the pesticides used with other common human experiences; the toxicity of the chemical versus that of a cup of coffee or a tablet of aspirin, for example. This type of comparison is generally based upon so many simplifying and limiting assumptions as to be meaningless. For example, frequently these comparisons only consider one route of exposure, such as eating treated grass, and ignore other potential routes such as inhalation or contact with skin. Chronic health effects and synergistic effects are routinely ignored. Moreover, as discussed in the previous section on health effects, a chemical company or lawn care service simply does not have the data to make legitimate comparisons. Often the "inert" ingredients are unknown and therefore their effects are not even considered in such comparisons. In view of the health questions surroundinq lawn care, some degree of caution is appropriate before deciding to use residential pesticides. Nevertheless, many companies tend to make unfounded claims as to the safety of lawn care products and services. Pesticide manufacturers and lawn care companies should acknowledge their inability to guarantee safety. In the face of their failure to do so it is up to the prudent consumer to be - 17 - skeptical of broad claims denying or ignoring the potential risks of pesticide services. CONSUMER'S R~GHTS Before hiring a lawn care company, consumers should know what services they are actually purchasing. What kinds of chemi- cals will be used? How safe are they? What rights does a consumer have if not satisfied? Frequently, this information is not provided or is offered only in vague terms. Even after the service is purchased, the Attorney General's office has learned that the homeowner or resident does not always know when tke pesticides have been applied or even what chemicals have been used. And the contract between the company and the homeowner often of little use in protecting the consumer's rights. Contracts Many companies still do not use or offer written contracts for lawn care services. As a result, customers who have verbal service contracts have often complained to the Attorney General's office about two main problems: spraying of lawns and automatic the customer's express consent. unauthorized and unnecessary. annual service renewal %~ithout In a few cases a company relied on a general inquiry from the homeowner as a request for service. In other instances, companies have mistakenly sprayed the wrong lawns. In such cases, unintended exposure to pesticides and wrongful billing results. Many customers without a written contract are surprised t~ find out that service will be renewed each new season 18 - automatically, unless the customer tells the company in writing to terminate the service. During spring and summer months, the Consumer Frauds Bureau of the Attorney General's office receives complaints from consumers around the State who did not know the service was to be automatically renewed and who did not wish to continue the company's service. Verbal contracts undeniably benefit lawn spray companies by increasing future sales and offer customers less'protection than written agreements. New York law requires a company usinq written contracts to provide customers with advance written notice about automatic renewal before a company may continue 11 service past the first year. This protection does not necessarily extend to verbal contracts. Under general principles of contrac~ law, any contract, whether verbal or written, is only valid when the parties agree to and understand all of the important elements of the contract, suck as when the service is to be performed. Unless a clear agreement on automatic renewal is reached when the company is first hired, the entire contract could be invalid. The company cannot modify a contract, for example, by mailing information about automatic renewal provisions if these provisions were not agreed to in the first place. Lawn care companies have conceded that, very often, automatic renewal is not mentioned until invoices or flyers are left at the house or sent to the consumer. llGeneral Obligation Law S 5-903. - 19 When continued services have not been properly contracted for, the customer has the right to stop attempted service in subsequent seasons. If the renewal service does occur without a valid contract the customer is not under any obligation to pay for it. Better consumer protection laws are needed to address the problems associated with lawn care contracts. In the meantime, there is much that a consumer can do to avoid contract problems simply by asking the right questions and insisting that all essential terms of a service agreement are put in writing. Notification Once lawn care service is purchased, New York State law requires that lawn care companies give consumers a written copy of all information and warnings contained on the manufacturer's label of the pesticides to be apPlied -- before the applicat~cn 12 begins. Unfortunately, this requirement is difficult tc enforce and is commonly flouted. The consumer may receive incomplete label information, information that is illegible or nc information at all. If it is received, it may not arrive sufficiently in advance of the intended application date to allow for adequate assessment and understanding by the customer. Even if the customer is legally notified, the usefulness of the information is limite~ by the fact that pesticide labels provide no indication that the chemicals have not been assessed for 12New York State Environmental Conservation Lawt Section 33-0905(5). - 20 - chronic health risks. While State law imposes minimal requirements on lawn care companies to tell their customers about the pesticides being used, customers do not have to be told when spraying will take place. Nor do neighbors have to be notified. New laws are needed to close these gaps. Advance notification is always essential so that people and pets are not unnecessarily exposed to potentially harmful pesticides. Until notice laws are improved it is up to consumers to protect themselves by asking tough questions and insisting upon clear contract terms when purchasing lawn care services. We strongly urge lawn care service customers to insist on a written contract and, in negotiating the contract, not to hesitate to ask appropriate questions. We suggest the checklist in Appendix A. R~.COMMENDAT!ONS Clearly current laws and regulations ~o not adequately deal with the lawn care problems discussed in this report. The Attorney General strongly urges State legislators to consider the following proposals for legislation that would address these gaps in the law. Written Contracts: To protect consumers, the Attorney General reco~Lends that the General Obligations Law be amended to require that all lawn care service contracts be in writing. Automatic renewal clauses should be printed in boldface type. Automatic Renewal: The General Obligations Law should be amended to require lawn care companies which use automatic - 21 - renewal clauses in their contracts to provide customers with timely written notice prior to spraying in subsequent seasons, with a clear opportunity to cancel. Pesticide Warnings for Customers: To protect consumers a bill has been proposed by the Attorney General and sponsored by Assemblyman Francis Pordum to-amend the Environmental Conservation Law to ensure that customers receive complete information before their lawn is sprayed, including the names of pesticides to be applied, precautions to be taken to ensure safety for family members and pets, label warnings and time and date state that components of this mixture are. undergoing health effects from exposure to the product when such case. Advance Notice to Neighbors: In both 1986 and 1987, 'the Attorney General has proposed legislation to ensure that neighbors of lawn spray customers receive notice before spraying will occur, including all information provided to the actual customer. In addition, the lawn care cempany would be required to post warning signs on treated lawns. Sponsored by Francis Pordum, the Assembly passed the bill in 19~6. Safe Application: We also need legislation to better control drift~ runoff and volatilization of lawn sprays. Lawn sprays should not be applied during a high wind, on steeply sloping areas and under other adverse conditions° Certify Applicators: To ensure that all applicators know spraying is to take place. Warning Labels: Labels on pesticide products shculd clearly tests for is the - 22 - how to safely apply these potentially dangerous chemicals, the law should be revised to require that all applicators be properly trained and certified. Better Worker Training: The worker training programs of lawn care companies should be reviewed for compliance with DEC regulation~ and to ensure that all applicators are aware of the potential health effects of all toxic chemicals used, the symptoms o~ the~e effects and the proper protective equipment available to avoid unnecessary exposure. ~e~istry of Chemically Sensitive Individuals: Because drift cannot be totally avoided, those people who for health reasons wish to avoid the possibility of exposure should be permitted to do so. We propose legislation to create a registry of these individuals which could then be used by lawn care companies to provide appropriate notice when spraying is to be done in the neighborhood of a registered person. CONCLUSION There is something that can be done about the problems caused by lawn sprays. Unlike some other kinds of environmental pollution, the spraying of potentially hazardous pesticides in communities across New York State is an intentional act of chemical exposure. These chemicals are used precisely because they kill living plants and animals. Informed consumers can decide for themselves if the disadvantages of using these substances outweigh the benefits. There is, after all, a choice. - 23 APPENDIX A Trouble-Shooting Guide Consumers are not usually equipped with the information necessary to make an educated decision about using lawn care services. Once the decision is made to purchase the service, the customer may not be ~ully aware of the terms of the service contracted for. But there are ways for consumers to protect their rights if they are prepared to ask the right questions. If you are considering lawn care services we suqgest you use this guide in contracting with a lawn care company: What are the active and inert chemical ingredients of the pesticide mixtures to be used? Can you choose non-toxic alternatives such as fertilizers without pesticides? Do you have copies of the mixtures? The company is this information. If the copies you can read. labels for these pesticide required by law to provide labels are illegible, ask fcr What are the potential acute and chronic health effects of these pesticides? Are there any health data requested by EPA which have not yet been submitted and evaluated? How can you avoid exposure to these pesticides? For example, how long should you wait after pesticides are applied before using your yard? What should you do if it rains shortly after an application? Will the applicator let you know in advance when he/she is coming so you can take in toys, lawn furniture, pet food dishes, wading pools, etc.? A-1 Does the company have liability insurance to cover any claim for personal injury or property damage wnlch or a neighbor might make if the applicator mis-applies the pesticides on your property? What specific services will the company provide? Does the company custom-mix the pesticides to suit your lawn, or does it use whatever mixture it has on the truck on the day it delivers? Can vegetation be selectively treated? Does the company use liquid spray or pesticides in granular form and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Will. a certified applicator do the actual sprayinq? Does the company have a professional ogronomist on staff or at its disposal? If se~ may you make specific inquiries of this expert regarding your particular pest problem? If the applicator uses granular pesticides, how long will it take for the material to dissipate~ skould pets and children be kept off the lawn in the meantime? If the applicator uses liquid spray, is there a wind speed above which he/she will not apply the product? Will it be applied on steep hills or under adverse conditions? Will the service be automatically renewed nezt season? What will you have to do if you wish to discontinue i~? To further protect yourself and others you should find cut if your homeowner's insurance provides coverage in the event you or your neighbors are harmed by the lawn care service~ fMany such policies have a "pollution exclusion" clause excluding environmental damage from coverage.) It is also both prudent and fair to notify your neighbors that spraying will take p!acec A-2 APPENDIX B For complaints about applicator practices, call the State Department of Enviroiu~ental Conservation listed below: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 (518) 457-5400 Region 2 47-40 21st Street Hunters's Point Plaza Building Long Island City, NY 11101 (718) 482-4900 Region 4 2176 Guilderland Avenue Schenectady, NY 123C6 (518) 382-0680 Region 6 317 Washington Street Watertown, NY 13601 (315) 785-2236 Region 1 Building 40 - SLaY Stony Brook, NY 11794 (516) 751-7900 Region 3 21 S. Putt Corners Road New Paltz, NY 12561 (914) 255-5453 Region 5 Route 86 Ray Brook, NY 12977 (518) 891-1370 Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Blvd. Liverpool, NY 13088 (315) 428-4497 Region 8 Region 9 6274 E. Evan-Lima Road 600 Delaware Avon, NY 14414 Buffalo, NY 14202 (716) 226-2466 (716) 847-4600 For complaints about advertising claims, contract disputes B-1 or other consumer-related issues, contact the Consumer Frauds Bureau of the Attorney General's office: 120 Broadway - 3rd Floor New York, NY 10271 (212) 341-2345 59-61 Court Street Seventh Floor Binghamton, NY 13901 (607) 773-7823 65 Court Street Buffalo, NY 14202 (716) 847-7184 State Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 360-6196 190 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 (516) 742-3700 Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. State Office Building 163 W. 125th Street New York, NY 10027 (212) 870-4475 70 Clinton Street Plattsburgh, NY 12901 518) 563-8012 235 Main Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 (914) 485-3900 144 Exchange Boulevard Rochester, NY 14614 (716) 546-7430 333 E. Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 (315) 428-4283 207 Genesee Street Utica, NY 13501 (315) 793-2225 317 Washington Street Watertown, NY 13601 (315) 785-2444 202 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 997-6230 B-2