In terms of serious threats to our environment, most people don't immediately think of plants as something to include. That's because humans don't typically look at plants with their ecosystem functions in mind. 

Plants have been collected and imported that have ornamental qualities or other useful traits over the centuries, but we have learned that even though they may appeal to us, some of them grow differently outside of their native range. These plants are classified as being invasive.

Invasive plants are defined as, "A plant that is both non-native and able to establish on many sites, grow quickly, and spread to the point of disrupting plant communities or ecosystems." Not all non-native plants are invasive, in fact most aren't, though they don't provide the same ecosystem services as native plants do. Researchers have found that Carolina chickadees require an area with at least 70% native plants to keep populations steady.

This is where the harm from invasive plants come in - decades of research have shown invasions have the ability to alter ecosystems and displace native plants. They are a major and growing cause of population-level and species-level extinctions. Rigorous evidence demonstrates the ecological harm caused by these plants that humans have moved outside the region they evolved in. 

This isn't the plants fault of course, and they aren't inherently bad or evil. All invasive plants are a vital food source for the insects and wildlife that they co-evolved with in their native range. These organisms evolved and adapted over millions of years. Our planet is a complex system made of billions of different organisms - these are not interchangeable like lego blocks. It is not the plant's doing, but the human disruption of this balance that is the source of the problem. 

​Invasive plants are unquestionably a problem and they do need to be managed. Unfortunately, many are quick to reach for the toxic herbicides as a first line of defense. As pesticide reform campaigners, we want to encourage prioritization of the non-chemical methods that are available.

One way we can do this is by meeting local habitat restoration folks where they are at and focusing on common goals. However, the promotion of myths around invasion biology, or even outright denial of invasion science will definitely not gain more allies in our fight against the cosmetic use of toxic pesticides in our communities. It will absolutely hurt our credibility, and not result in a positive outcome.

In fact, promotion of myths or baseless criticisms can indirectly cause the use of more herbicides. How? As it is, not nearly enough people are removing the invasive plants in their landscape simply because they are uninformed about the problems they cause. But by actively engaging in apologetics for invasive plants, we encourage people to become even less likely to remove them from their landscapes. Without removing these plants, they spread to wild areas, increasing herbicide use. This is one of many reasons why we strongly encourage people to plant natives, and remove invasives in their landscapes. 

​Both camps clearly care about our ecosystems and wildlife, so we need to use this common ground to work together to find non-chemical solutions whenever feasible. A few ideas:

Organize a volunteer effort to pull invasive plants. Not only is this a learning experience, but it can gain a lot of good will from land managers who do employ herbicides and open a channel of communication to help support each others goals and reduce the use of chemicals.

Encourage landowners to remove invasives and provide education to the public about organic management methods.

Turn (invasive) lemons into lemonade. Look for ways to use the invasive plants that are removed from the landscape. They can be made into paper or other goods, many are edible and others can even be made into medicine. Remember to be clear to encourage their full removal for harvest, not their propagation.

Promote and trial non-chemical methods like goats, and mechanical removal.

By following the science, thinking outside the chemical box, and presenting ourselves as allies not adversaries, we can work together to manage invasive plants and restore biodiversity in our communities.

Suggested reading:

So Why Don’t You Use the Chems, Mike?

Ecological Land Management With Goats

Bringing Nature Home

​

If someone were to pull out a pack of cigarettes, smoke one in front of you and then when they were done, proclaim that this proves tobacco products are safe, you'd think they were pretty crazy right? Yet, this exact same type of argument is regularly being used to defend the use of toxic pesticides - most often seen with glyphosate.

When approaching decision makers about toxic pesticide use most advocates, if not all us, have run into some form of acute toxicity comparison with pesticide products. LD50 (lethal dose 50%), or the median lethal dose, is the measure used to account for the acute toxicity or short-term poisoning potential of a substance that when given at one time causes the death of 50% of a group of test animals. 

These measurements help determine the signal word on a pesticide product; CAUTION, WARNING and DANGER. These signal words are useful to the person applying the pesticide, but they do not account for the risk of long-term chronic exposure to pesticides which is the main focus of community concerns. And yet, when discussing this issue, groups have received promotional literature from the manufacturer, or are presented with lists of acute toxicity comparisons from pesticide industry trade groups like this one to help "ease" their concerns.

This graphic is lying to us with facts - while the acute toxicity of these substances are correct, comparing them like this is very deceptive. This is a clear example of false equivalence.

Salt, also known as sodium chloride, is an essential mineral that we all need in proper amounts. Nobody needs to replace Bravo, Treflan, Roundup and Pendulum when they sweat profusely. These chemical concoctions serve no function in the human body, they are classified as xenobiotics.

Vitamin D is a hormone, essential to immune function. Normally our skin makes it when exposed to sunlight and we absorb what we need. Taking a whole bottle of synthesized vitamins is a very bad idea. But that doesn’t mean being exposed chronically to a little pesticide is a good idea. Dose is important, but it doesn’t make the poison, despite what you’ve heard - this is very old, outdated science. We know there are dose response curves that are not linear, for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and substances like lead and chlorpyrifos cause harm at very low levels.

There are no safe levels of exposure to some toxic chemicals like lead, or to asbestos that has such low acute toxicity it has no LD50 assigned to it. This was used as a frequent argument to prove how safe it was by the industry that sold it. Sound familiar?

Another reason this argument is misleading is that pesticide products are more than just a singular active ingredient. The formulated product being sold and used on landscapes have added adjuvants - other chemical ingredients designed to help the active ingredient work better - usually listed by percentage as "other" or "inert" ingredients on the label. The actual chemical names of these ingredients are not required to be listed. The acute toxicity of the final formulated product is generally not required to be tested. In one independent study that did test it was found that Roundup was 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. The U.S. National Toxicology Program has also found the formulations to be much more toxic than the active ingredient alone.

Acute toxicity is only one measure of toxic effects. It’s relevant to people spraying a pesticide, so they know what type of precautions to take and protection to wear, but it’s completely irrelevant in the context of chronic exposure.

Getting back to the example at the outset, smoking is perfectly safe when you only look at acute toxicity. DDT has a very low acute toxicity but we now know it can cause breast cancer, and that the timing of exposure is a determining risk factor. Recently, Washington State University researchers have found a variety of diseases and other health problems in the second and third generation offspring of rats exposed to glyphosate. This blows the argument that glyphosate is somehow safer than table salt.

So dose matters, yes, but the dose alone doesn’t make the poison - sub-lethal effects, chronic toxicity, timing, sequence of exposures, combinations of exposures, individual susceptibility and many other factors determine the toxicity of a substance. When this argument inevitably comes up, you should be armed with the knowledge to refute it and steer the conversation back to the core issue of chronic low level exposures to toxic pesticides by the public. 

See our Myths PDF for more.

At a certain point in your campaign it will come time to meet with decision makers. This may be officials from your city or school district, or HOA board.

Regardless of whom it is that you meet with it's imperative that you present yourself as an ally, there to help find solutions, rather than someone who is simply critical of pesticide use without offering alternatives. Be sure to stay on topic during your meeting, and remember to stay politically neutral as well. 

Being prepared is key. Leaving officials with printed materials from your group will help them remember you, and have something to reference. Our resources page can help you find documents to include in a packet, folder, or binder. 

It is very important to understand that most decision makers know next to nothing about landscaping practices, and their employees or vendors will likely come back to them with the reasons they cannot change to organic methods. The staff or landscaping contractors have been trained for years by the chemical industry representatives, who have told them that the products they are using are “perfectly safe” and that there are no other viable or cost effective measures that can be employed. You will need to inform them that other cities and school districts have switched over successfully and that costs were kept in control. Include this information in your printed materials, along with alternatives, a cost comparison and studies looking at the public health and environmental risks from using toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

By being prepared, using credible information, and delivering it with a positive and professional attitude you will be able to make allies of officials and begin the process of switching to sustainable organic practices just like so many other communities have been doing.

Glyphosate, also known by the brand name Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in the world and it has been coming under increased scrutiny over the last several years. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designated glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Other independent research has generated concerns about other potential human health effects like endocrine disruption, liver disease, birth defects and reproductive problems. Even more research has flagged up environmental harms. 

While we wait for more data to come in and inform us further of the consequences of using glyphosate based herbicides, many cities have decided that the potential risks (including that of liability due to lawsuits) are no longer worth it and have decided to ban glyphosate. But what does that mean exactly?

Certainly, it should be applauded that decision makers are starting to pay attention to the fact that pesticides like Roundup are not nearly as benign as they are advertised to be. Unfortunately, in many if not most instances, a ban on one herbicide just means that another chemical formula will take its place and status quo will remain essentially unchanged. Even if the one chemical is replaced with an organic alternative, that would still not address the rest of the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers being used in our landscapes.

​This has been the case in several cities. Glyphosate gets banned, and glufosinate, or diquat dibromide are now used. They have even been coupled with pre-emergent herbicides like indaziflam and flumioxazin, meaning that instead of one toxic herbicide being used, now there are two. For pesticide reform campaigners, this means they are right back where they started, or even a step backward.

For example, prior to passing an organic policy in one city, the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid was banned and replaced with another synthetic chemical insecticide to be blanket applied as a "preventative" grub treatment - whether there were grubs present or not. Now, with an organic policy and plan in place, grubs will be spot treated only if they are present above a tolerable threshold, and the product used will be an organic product that contains natural soil bacteria that target just the grubs. 

Organic is not about swapping out conventional products for organic ones, but rather it is a soil-based approach that relies on cultural practices and mechanical and biological controls rather than just reaching for a product. When a product is needed, then the least toxic option is chosen.

This is why we advise groups to advocate for a comprehensive organic policy so that they may avoid what's known as regrettable substitution. In cities that have been successful, they have implemented policies that exclude toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and allow least toxic organic and EPA exempt options.

In the case of weeds outside of a turf grass area, like on sidewalks, medians, roadsides or other areas where glyphosate is typically used - herbicides do not have to be the only choice. Dover, New Hampshire has just become the first city in the Northeast to purchase a steam weeding unit to manage vegetation on roadsides. Use of this machine is supplemented with organic herbicide on 30+ miles of roadway. This is a cost-effective and safe method that uses water to "cook" the weeds and can even reduce the amount of weeds that grow over time by exhausting the seed bank.

When looking to make changes in our communities, we are best served by looking at how to switch management strategies and present options for organic compatible alternatives, rather than seek to ban single chemicals. 

See our Documents page under "policies and practices" for examples you can share with decision makers.