Below is the text of a letter written by Representative Jim McConnell and sent to the House Committee on Agriculture and Environment. Dated September 11, 2017
I believe HB 399 is consistent with the principles of Integrated Pest Management.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is not a uniformly defined term, particularly in the area of allowed toxic substances and criteria for their use. However, taking the definition as outlined in the Pesticide Board’s booklet, requirements include recommendations for prevention, inspections, identification, monitoring, and management with pesticide use as a last resort (pg. 10). It clearly states that “If non- chemical steps don’t work, use the least-harmful pesticides to manage a pest problem” (pg. 24). HB 399 simply codifies this approach as applied to lawn care by defining what those least-harmful pesticides are - as the Pesticide Board’s booklet does not specifically define these least harmful products - when non-chemical methods fail. HB 399’s definitions are drawn from both the US Environmental Protection Agency and US Department of Agriculture.
Green Shield Certified, operated by the IPM Institute of North America which certifies pest management providers in IPM, defines the term as “a proven, cost-effective strategy to combat pest problems without unnecessary pesticide use. By correcting the conditions that lead to pest problems and using approved pesticides only when necessary, IPM provides more effective pest control while reducing pesticide use.” However, as with the Pesticide Board’s booklet, the IPM Institute’s list of allowed pesticides is not defined in a way that eliminates the potential use of toxic pesticides that threaten children’s health. HB 399 thus fits within this definition of IPM by defining approved pesticides which are not harmful to children’s health. This is the core of the legislation - the understanding that toxic pesticides should not be sprayed where children play unless it is determined by a designated health official to be necessary to protect children’s health. Through the emergency provision, HB 399 establishes when these pesticides are indeed necessary. That being said, I am open to your ideas to amend the emergency provision. In that regard I believe it would be helpful to talk with physicians and toxicologists should you wish to refine the criteria for when the use of pesticides is warranted.
HB 399 does not interfere with the ability of school or day care officials to control pests inside and around buildings. An amendment to the bill, which I submitted during your initial hearings, clarifies that any restrictions in pesticide use will only apply to lawn care pesticides - defined for the purpose of controlling lawn, garden or ornamental plant pests, also referred to as the cosmetic use of pesticides. HB 399 is about management decisions over the cosmetic appearance of turf, not whether to control rodents, wasps and other pests which endanger public health.
Adoption of HB 399 will improve the health of lawns and soil, reduce reliance on pesticides and the need to water lawns. While eliminating the effects of pesticides in soil may require a transition period where costs increase slightly, technological advances in the industry now often achieve cost parity with conventional landscaping from the outset, and see additional long term savings once a healthier soil system is in place. Most important of all, it will be an important step in reducing children’s exposure to toxins.
Representative James W. McConnell
Sponsor HB 399
Students and faculty from classes on Environmental Governance and Environmental Law at Keene State College are the authors of these posts. We also invite guest authors when appropriate.
NH Science for Citizens
Department of Environmental Studies
Keene State College
Keene, NH 03431
A project of students and faculty at Keene State College in collaboration with local NH state representatives.