2005 LEADERSHIP ISSUE: Grassroots Issues: The Best Defense

True leaders raise the standards by which they judge themselves and the group they lead. We at Bayer Environmental Science are constantly striving to raise the bar for our company and for the Green Industry as a whole.

It’s not enough to set goals for one year and work to achieve them – leadership is an ongoing process requiring continual revision and adaptation.

The green industry is a wonderful industry to be affiliated with. It is also under attack by activist groups like never before. The future of the green industry, as we know it, may well be determined within the next three to five years. The question of who will decide what the future looks like – green industry participants or the activists – has yet to be answered. This great industry is worth defending.
 
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE)® is an association that was created in 1991 to address the critical needs of the specialty pest management and plant health industry. 

When RISE was formed in 1991, its primary focus was on federal issues, including “lawn care hearings” held in the U.S. Senate with a secondary focus on state issues. In 1991, the emphasis on “local” issues was primarily directed toward ensuring adequate state preemption of local pesticide regulations was in place.

While activist attacks against the use of pesticides and other inputs necessary for the production and maintenance of sod, lawns, landscapes, golf courses, water features, nurseries, trees and other green industry activities is not new, the numbers, intensity and degree of organization within the activist community has noticeably escalated recently. Through widespread use of the Internet for communication, activist groups have shared ideas and strategic plans quickly across the United States and internationally. As a result, our industry suffers similar organized attacks simultaneously at federal, state and multiple local levels making it increasingly difficult to defend the industry using traditional resources and methods. Today, we see much broader based and more carefully planned “activism” against the green industry than ever before. Various activist groups now campaign for restrictions or outright bans not only on pesticide use but also use of fertilizers, water, energy, land-use and even plant types and species. In short, the entire concept of lawns, landscapes, water features and other outdoor spaces is under attack.

The activist community currently appears to have a relatively cohesive strategy to carefully separate their attacks on specialty pesticide and fertilizer uses from agriculture in a clear effort to divide and conquer. At the same time, they will make every effort to separate segments of the specialty industry, attempting to get a particular group of professional users to help them work against consumer use, or against some other segment of the professional use market, in exchange for less stringent regulations. In the end, bad regulations spread and as soon as one segment of the industry is lost to protect another, the activist’s focus turns to the remaining segments.

A key focus of the activist community is to ingrain misuse of a concept called the Precautionary Principle into the U.S. political system at all levels. Activists continue to misuse this concept and will continue to attempt to sneak precautionary language into federal, state and local legislation and regulation. See the text from a recent bill proposed in New York: S.4545, (4): “it shall further be the policy of the state that where threats of harm to human health or the environment exist, lack of full scientific certainty about the cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for state or local government to postpone precautionary measures to protect public health or the environment.”

As you can see from the proposal, regulation would not be based on “harm” or scientific evidence, but of fear or perception of possible harm. Language such as this nullifies the validity of our current science based federal and state regulatory systems and the concept of state pre-emption at the same time, and would ultimately be fatal to our industry, and to your business.

The most important battlegrounds for this concept will continue to be the federal and state legislatures and, to a lesser extent, federal and state judicial branches. Defense against this threat will use traditional RISE and allied association’s lobbying tactics and methods at the federal and state level. This will require added resources and volunteers, on a state-to-state basis, to address specific legislative introductions and will continue to require direct association and grassroots involvement by our industry.

Tools the activist community use to promote and advance the concept of the Precautionary Principle include attempts to roll back both federal and state preemptive statutes and regulations, biomonitoring for pesticides and other chemicals in the human body, and imposition of bans or restrictions on “cosmetic use” of pesticides.

While many of the issues that threaten our industry at the federal, state and local level are similar, the speed and intensity of the action and the strategies and tactics needed to defend ourselves varies by venue.

FEDERAL PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER ISSUES. Federal or national issues of concern to the green industry may take the form of legislation, regulation or legal action taken by federal legislative bodies. The U.S. Congress and/or U.S. Senate pass legislation. Federal regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate and enforce based on the legislation passed in Congress. Law suits and subsequent rulings by the federal court system may impact how legislation, regulation and enforcement are implemented. RISE, other industry associations, individual companies as well as anti-pesticide and anti-fertilizer activist groups regularly engage in advocacy activities to impact the outcome of federal legislation, regulation, enforcement and litigation.

RISE and other green industry associations work to maintain rational legislation and regulation at the federal level, while continuing to assure that science-based regulation is in place to protect people and the environment. 

In general, federal legislation and regulation progresses relatively slowly and with the exception of an occasional legislative “push” there is adequate time to plan and react appropriately to provide input in defense of our industry. This does not mean that our industry can reduce our federal efforts, only that there is generally time to plan and prepare our efforts and coalitions with other industry or allied groups to address federal issues.

Some of the most active federal issues in 2005 include: 

• Endangered Species Act (ESA). This has been the subject of litigation in federal courts where activist groups have sued the EPA resulting in potential restrictions on the use of pesticides in certain areas.
• Children’s Health & Biomonitoring Issues. Children’s health and “biomonitoring” issues will be heard again in 2005 and 2006. Senator Clinton and Representative Pelosi will likely re-introduce onerous “cradle-to-grave” human “biomonitoring” proposals in continued efforts to blame chemicals for any and all human illnesses. These proposals attempt to play on public fears of the unknown, while discounting the huge benefits to the public health and well-being provided by turfgrass, green spaces, vegetation management, aquatic management and public health programs.

The issue of biomonitoring, or chemical trespass, lends credence to the activist’s intentional misuse of the precautionary principle. By proving that there are chemicals present in people’s bodies, under their definition of the precautionary principle, there need be no evidence that any harm or risk really exists – the fear is enough to stop use of legitimate and beneficial products. 

• Clean Water Act. Clean Water Act enforcement and litigation relative to pesticides and fertilizers continues to be of concern. The most important areas focus on the issues of spray drift and non-point-source pollution.

Your role as a grassroots member of the green industry in federal affairs is to respond quickly when asked to contact your federal legislators or regulators. For the most part, your national associations will take the lead in monitoring and lobbying relative to federal legislation and regulation on a day-to-day basis. As citizens, you should be aware of your legislators and federal agencies, cast an informed vote in every election, participate in and contribute to individual campaigns if you desire, and if you are a business owner you should make efforts to meet and know your U.S. Congressional representative and be sure he/she has a basic understanding of your business. Beyond participating in the “normal duties of a citizen,” you should be prepared to provide input to your national associations, either directly or through your state and regional association and be willing to act quickly as requested to support industry positions.

STATE & LOCAL PESTICIDE & FERTILIZER ISSUES. State legislation and regulation moves much more quickly than federal and compared to the federal timetable, local regulation of our industry can appear to move at the speed of light!

Many state legislatures are in session only a few weeks or months each year, resulting in compressed decision making agendas with a flurry of activity the last week or two. In the states, RISE and many other national, regional and statewide advocacy groups retain the services of contract lobbyists to manage issues for us, within the parameters of the association’s agreed upon positions.

Some of the most active and potentially damaging issues facing our industry in 2005 and returning in 2006 include:

• The Precautionary Principle. While only one state legislature, New York, introduced specific legislation to implement the precautionary principle in 2005, we expect similar legislation to be introduced in five to six more states in 2006. 
• State Preemption of Local Pesticide or Fertilizer Regulation. The activist community is well pleased with Canadian outcomes the past two years. They recognize that the key legal hurdle to achieve similar results in the United States is state preemption. If you have followed this issue, you know that Toronto and several other Canadian cities have virtually banned the use of pesticides in lawn care for homeowners and professional users alike. Several U.S. cities and counties have considered regulations, or passed non-binding “resolutions” restrictive of so called “cosmetic use of pesticides.” Other U.S. cities and counties have already restricted the use of fertilizer on turfgrass and others are currently working on restrictive regulations.

The activists understand that their federal and state efforts to severely restrict/ban use of our industry products are slow and costly. In the end, science and logic do carry at least some weight at the federal and state legislative and regulatory levels and the processes are relatively slow. At the level of local politics however, ordinances and regulations can often be conceived, proposed and enacted in a matter of days and may be determined on the basis of emotion with no justification in science and/or fact. Due to the number of political subdivisions, the level of difficulty monitoring and reacting to “local issues,” as well as the financial and human resources required, underscores the critical importance of maintaining and strengthening current preemption and obtaining additional pesticide and fertilizer preemption statutes.

During 2005, seven states proposed legislation to weaken or eliminate preemption of local pesticide regulation. These states are reacting to activist pressure being applied from the local level. While none of these bills passed, we will be forced to use scarce resources to oppose them in the same states again in 2006, as well as several other states where legislatures are already working to draft legislation.

Defending, maintaining and strengthening preemption for both pesticide and fertilizer products, along with combating individual attempts to implement local restrictions or bans is likely to be the most time and resource intensive activity RISE and many allied associations will face during the next two to five years.

• Proposed Bans on “Cosmetic Use” of Pesticides. While the issue of “cosmetic” and/or “aesthetic” use of pesticides and fertilizer will remain a high priority, it is generally addressed in conjunction with the overall issues of preemption and/or the precautionary principle. (Water, energy and labor uses are also under attack and these issues are among the highest priorities for other associations and industry groups). Generally, the “cosmetic/aesthetic” use issue is a tool the activists have found to resonate with some segments and can be used to move toward their ultimate goals of banning all chemical pesticides and fertilizers.

Combating “cosmetic/aesthetic” use bans will continue to be a high priority. However, they are merely tools activists use to attack preemption and precautionary principle issues. 

• Biomonitoring. Responding to a recent CDC (Centers for Disease Control) report on chemicals detected in human blood, the American Chemical Council said, “The mere detection of a chemical does not necessarily indicate a risk to health. Thus, the information in the report should not be undue cause for concern, but a springboard for better understanding.” The activists disagree, under their interpretation of the precautionary principle detection is reason to act – even to ban – products and services.

The State of California recently passed Senate Bill 600, legislating human biomonitoring. Several other states have considered such bills in 2005. In 2006, we expect to see as many as six to eight states consider requiring biomonitoring of the general population.

• Local Ordinances to Ban or Otherwise Limit or Restrict the Use of Pesticides or Fertilizers. While federal issues may move slowly, offering many opportunities for stakeholder input over months or even years, legislation and regulation at the state level can be introduced, debated and passed in a matter of months or weeks, and at the local level your world could be turned upside-down overnight.

With 50 state legislatures and more than 80,000 smaller governmental units, one can easily understand the potential for massive “overload” simply attempting to track all potential legislation or regulation, much less actively defending the industry for any trade or professional association acting alone. When we look at the entire green industry, however, adding all of the hundreds of thousands people who are employed in manufacturing, researching, registering, selling, servicing, and using pesticides and fertilizers, the numbers are more manageable if we can get more grassroots participation.

Because of the huge number of opportunities, activists continue their attempts to pass legislation or to litigate for elimination of state preemption. At the local level legislation and regulation are not science-based as they are at the federal level. Local politics are steeped in emotion and issues are decided by the numbers and passions of those who show up for meetings and hearings. It is indeed time to hang together to defend the green industry.

• Container Recycling. This is an emerging issue. If you have not heard about pesticide container recycling in your state, you will during 2006. You will hear it from your associations, your state regulators, your Cooperative Extension and your suppliers. The specialty pesticide industry will partner closely with agriculture to substantially increase the percentage of our plastic Professional Use pesticide containers that are recycled.

TAKE A STAND. Our industry is under attack like never before. Therefore, we must fight, like never before, to defend and preserve it. As the activists continue to focus on state and local regulation, each and every one of you who work in the green industry must become involved. It is no longer enough for association staff, manufacturers, distributors and a few large professional user groups to carry the burden.

Also, continued negative comments by our own industry, directed at other segments must stop. Finger pointing and blaming other groups may be what Winston Churchill had in mind when he said “appeasement is feeding others to the crocodiles, in hopes that they will eat you last.” If we do not stand and defend our industry together, we will all eventually be eaten by the activist agenda. Appeasement of the activist demands will not work.

It is time to heed the words of Benjamin Franklin who said, “Now we must all hang together, or we will assuredly hang separately.”

What can you, personally, do to defend the industry? The first priority is to ALWAYS do your own job well, project a positive and professional image and be known to your own customers as a person or company who does the right things. Additionally, it is imperative that you participate in our democracy and vote for candidates whom you believe will legislate and regulate fairly, ethically and with consideration of real science.

If you are the owner or manager of a business, you should know and be known by your state, county and local elected officials whose districts encompass your home and business. Those elected officials should know who you are, what business you are in and how many people you employ.

Everyone in our great industry must work to stay informed of what is going on relative to legislation, regulation, news and activist actions of impact to our industry. The only way RISE or your other associations will find out about local threats in time to act is if you tell us. Then, once local threats are identified, the industry needs you to be willing to attend local hearings and testify to defend it. While associations can help you prepare, provide talking points and encourage you, no one has the positive impact at a local hearing as someone who lives and works in that town. We must not allow the activists to win in local political arenas because they showed up and we did not.

Take your place, stand up and defend the best industry I know. It is time for us to hang together, hang tough and work cohesively to assure that we have a viable green industry to pass along to future generations.

Frank Gasperini is Director of State Issues for RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment)®. RISE can provide current and accurate information on issues and research affecting the specialty pesticide industry. RISE is able to provide viewpoints from its members – as well as legislative viewpoints – as it monitors legislative and regulatory issues in Washington, D.C. and the states. To contact RISE, call 202/872-3860, fax 202/463-0474 or write 1156 15th St. NW; Suite 400; Washington, D.C. 2005.