01
Aug
Proposed Rodenticide Ban Ordinances in Mass Sets the Tone for Protecting Biodiversity
(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2024) The city council of Newbury, Massachusetts unanimously voted to ban second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) on private property earlier this year, according to a press release by Mass Audubon. Several other local governments across the state have passed proposed rodenticide or pesticide ordinances since the fall of 2023 – including the cities of Arlington, Orleans, and Newton. Moreover, proposed legislation sitting in the state legislature calls for designating glyphosate as a restricted-use pesticide on public lands (S.516, S.517, and H.813) and establishing ecologically based mosquito management plans at the state and local levels. (S.445 and H.845) The combination of these pending actions demonstrates the public’s concerns over adverse impacts of toxic pesticides and demands for a transformation toward an ecologically sustainable land management system rooted in organic principles in the absence of federal action.
Massachusetts is one of about 45 states that, in some form, preempts local governments from establishing pesticide ordinances. If a municipality’s elected officials vote to pass a pesticide ordinance, some states (including Massachusetts) require passage through the state legislature. This is known as the Home Rule petition process. Back in the 19th century, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John F. Dillon established what is known as the Dillon Rule, which provides guidance for the distribution of powers between local and state governments. Under the rule, local governments are to be treated as “political subdivisions†that derive their authority from the state government. On many matters, ranging from the incorporation of a new fire department, establishing a real estate transfer fee for local properties, or prohibiting the use of a pesticide that is not prohibited statewide, actions of local governments—after voting on a measure within their own body—must go through review by the State Attorney General’s office and both chambers of the state legislature before becoming local law. See this report by the Massachusetts Division of Local Services in the Department of Revenue for more information and history. For further analysis of pesticide regulations and local preemption, see “State Preemption Law: The Battle for Local Democracy†for a detailed breakdown of pesticide ordinance law on a state-by-state basis.
In Massachusetts, the town of Orleans passed a pesticide ordinance that would prohibit the use of nonagricultural use of toxic pesticides on private and public land except for an allowed list in alignment with the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, a cornerstone of the Organic Foods Production Act. The towns of Newton and Arlington passed similar resolutions to Newbury in prohibiting the use of SGARs on public land but not explicitly mentioning a prohibition on private property.
There is substantial peer-reviewed scientific research and lived experiences of those living in communities that are routinely exposed to SGARs that motivates communities to chart a path for ecologically based pest management. The United States has yet to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), nor has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporated biodiversity targets as a national priority across all its programmatic areas. Â Earlier this year in February, advocates across the nation called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to improve its protection of endangered species from rodenticides in a public comment period. In 2021, advocates demanded the prohibition of aerial rodenticide dropping on California-based Farallon Islands as it would impose undue health consequences on seabird and sea lion species in northern California and across the Pacific coastline. Reliance on toxic rodenticides also poses threats to public health. Beyond Pesticides reported last fall that guests at a Pittsburgh, PA extended-stay hotel were evacuated by health officials due to a contamination and poisoning incident caused by an unidentified rodenticide. Officials confirmed that the particular rat poison involved in the incident, when exposed to water, releases the highly toxic phosphine gas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the gas causes many symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, thirst, muscle pain, difficulty breathing, and the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, with acute and prolonged exposure potentially leading to more severe consequences.
Growing out of local advocacy, the California state legislature in 2020 passed the California Ecosystems Protection Act— a law that prohibits (with limited exceptions) the use of highly toxic rodenticides, specifically SGARs. Rodents that are poisoned by SGARs often do not die immediately and are often left weakened or deceased for other mammals and birds to consume; ultimately, this permits the bioaccumulation and spread of toxic rodenticides through local and regional food webs. A 2022 meta-analysis published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution reviews over 100 studies that reinforce the necessity to transition to a nontoxic pest management systems as biodiversity collapse is imminent and public health is on the line. In 2023, EPA released a decades-worth of Pesticide Incident Reports from its Incident Data System and the Center for Biological Diversity noted over 1,169 reported incidents involving brodifacoum, one of the most widely used rodenticides in rodenticide products. The vast majority of this incident data is gathered by pesticide and chemical companies as required by the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (FIFRA), raising concerns among public health advocates that there is a likelihood of underreporting. Learn more about the adverse health effects of SGARs, including bromadiolone, through Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.
Federal preemption is on the docket once again in this year’s Farm Bill negotiations, as reported in previous Daily News (here, here, and here). In the Republican-back version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee in June, the Farm Bill draft, if passed, would prohibit the rights of state and local governments to restrict or ban pesticides in the service of public and environmental health. The draft bill establishes preemption language in both Sections 10204 and 10205:
- “Prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof… from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements with respect to, labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.†(SEC. 10204. UNIFORMITY OF PESTICIDE LABELING REQUIREMENTS).
- “A political subdivision of a State shall not impose, or continue in effect, any requirement relating to the sale, distribution, labeling, application, or use of any pesticide or device. . .†(SEC. 10205. AUTHORITY OF STATES).Â
See Action of the Week to contact your U.S. Congressional Representative and Senators to protect local and state authority to enact more stringent restriction of pesticides in the final Farm Bill.
Health and environment advocates believe in the significance of transitioning to new models of pest management that prohibit the use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and chemicals. See Daily News section on adverse impacts of rodenticides on public well-being, wildlife health, and ecological stability. See Safety Source on Pest Management Providers to learn how to best identify pest management companies that utilize the least toxic and pesticide free practices. See Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management to easily identify active ingredients in rodenticide and insecticide products and their potential for adverse health impacts. See Parks for a Sustainable Future to learn more about how to engage your community in organically managed public parks and lands. If you are concerned that you or a loved one was exposed to a toxic pesticide, see What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Mass Audubon
