06
Mar
Public and City Council Protect Organic Land Management Ordinance Against Weakening Amendment
(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2025) A proposed change to a model pesticide ordinance in the city of Portland, Maine, was soundly defeated after public engagement and a near-unanimous city council vote. In a 6-1 vote, the council rejected the school district’s request for a waiver under the city’s pesticide use ordinance to use the insecticide chlorantraniliprole/acelepryn (diamide insecticide). A campaign to reject the waiver was led by Avery Yale Kamila, cofounder of Portland Protectors, and supported by Beyond Pesticides.
Portland passed a landmark Pesticide Use Ordinance in 2018 and a synthetic fertilizer ban over five years later. As stated in Beyond Pesticides testimony to the council, “Key to [the Portland ordinance’s] passage was an understanding that Portland was not going to take a product substitution approach to land management, replacing a toxic pesticide with an “organic†pesticide, but that it was facilitating the adoption of an organic systems approach that used allowed inputs (defined in the ordinance) when necessary.†The ordinance refers to allowed materials under federal organic certification law. The Landcare Advisory Committee, created by Portland’s ordinance, recommended the toxic pesticide use waiver with some objections, raising questions among city council members about the need for strengthening the ordinance to ensure support for the rigorous adoption of organic land management practices to prevent pest problems.
In its testimony, Beyond Pesticides said: “The recognition that creating sustainable fields, lawns, and landscapes requires a holistic approach to land management is central to the passage and updating of the ordinance. We urge that the City Council reject the amendment to the ordinance that will allow the chemical’s use and constitute a serious setback for the City’s sustainability efforts.â€
The events in Portland illustrate that public policy and health protections are continually subject to pressure from those who want to take a chemical-intensive approach to land management. In fact, continuous engagement and education are required, given the turnover of elected officials and continual campaigning by those committed to chemical-intensive practices, either because they have not been trained in organic land management or they have a vested interest in using toxic chemicals.
Background
The City of Portland is part of a growing number of communities that have adopted ordinances that restrict pesticides by limiting their use to a list of allowed substances established under federal organic law. The adoption of the Portland ordinance followed the adoption of similar laws in neighboring South Portland and other jurisdictions like the City of Takoma Park and Montgomery County, both in Maryland. Thirty-four jurisdictions throughout Maine have restricted pesticides, including on public and private property. South Portland and Portland have adopted a holistic approach to land management by also banning petrochemical fertilizer use—since that use undermines the natural cycling of nutrients in the soil that requires building back organic matter and feeding microorganisms in the soil that solubilize nutrients for uptake by grass and other plants.
In support of Portland’s legislation when it was being debated, the council received a letter from 31 medical and science professionals, who said, “As health professionals, it is our contention based on the molecular and microbiologic actions of these synthetic land care pesticides that the continued use of them must be challenged, banned, and replaced by practices and products that are not harmful to people and the environment.â€
Maine policymakers continue to adopt the precautionary principle and understand the importance of moving beyond siloes in promulgating public policy, as evidenced by numerous pieces of legislation passed in recent years. Through the adoption of this policy, communities express the importance of responding to the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises that are exacerbated by the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.
In an attempt to preempt Maine municipalities from adopting their pesticide restrictions, the chemical and pest control industry sought unsuccessfully to enact a statewide pesticide preemption law (LD 1853) in 2018. In April 2021, the Maine legislature passed, and Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) signed, a new law that will prohibit use of neonicotinoid pesticides with the “active ingredient[s] dinotefuran, clothianidin, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam used for application in outdoor residential landscapes such as on lawn, turf or ornamental vegetation.†A few months after this win, however, Governor Mills vetoed legislation prohibiting the aerial use of glyphosate and other dangerous herbicides in forestry practices.
(See Daily News, Portland, ME Becomes an Organic City, Banning Toxic Pesticides on Public and Private Property, for historical context.)
The Connecticut Example on Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
A similar effort to weaken previously adopted pesticide restrictions occurred in Connecticut when legislation was introduced in 2012 to repeal the state’s ban on toxic pesticide use on school grounds with an amendment calling for “integrated pest management†(IPM), a practice that allows the use of toxic pesticides without any meaningful restrictions. Through public engagement, communities fought back and defeated the measure.
Because of IPM’s reliance on pesticides and its failure to meet its original goals of moving away from pesticide dependency, Beyond Pesticides began advocating for the adoption of organic policy and practice in the early 1980s. A 2021 study authored by previous IPM practitioners and advocates worldwide concluded, “More than half a century after its conception, IPM has not been adopted to a satisfactory extent and has largely failed to deliver on its promise. . . . Despite six decades of good intentions, harsh realities need to be faced for the future. . . . IPM has arguably reached its limits.â€
The researchers determined that the failures of IPM are sixfold:
- The plethora of definitions of IPM has meant confusion and varying interpretations of the concept by practitioners;
- There have been inconsistencies between IPM concepts and practices and public policies;
- Commonly, there is a lack of basic understanding by farmers of the ecological concepts behind IPM;
- In many IPM programs, chemical controls remain a cornerstone, and their use as a “last resort†is rarely adopted by farmers;
- IPM research has been paltry, both in scientific and programmatic realms; and
- “Ecology†has been inadequately prioritized in IPM.
(See Daily News, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Fails to Stop Toxic Pesticide Use, for further analysis.)
Parks for a Sustainable Future
Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with communities across the nation to advance organically managed land management systems on public green spaces, including parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. Community discussion on this underscores the importance of building and sustaining awareness of the importance of organic land management and food systems as chemical and pest control interests push the introduction of weakening amendments, even years after a policy is passed.
See here to learn more about the process of becoming an advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future program and transition your community into a petrochemical-free zone! If you are a local government official interested in learning more about how to participate in the program, see here.
See Action of the Week from earlier this year to ask your mayor to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community’s parks and public spaces.Â
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Portland Press Herald
