On this page:
- Introduction
- Local Work
- State Policy Reform
- National Policy Reform
- Drift Catching
- Contact Information
- Resources
Introduction
Pesticide drift is a serious problem for many people, especially those who live and work near sites of regular pesticide applications. Change is needed so that public health is taken into account when risk/benefit decisions are made about which pest control method is best.
But this is not an easy area to change. Chemical companies seeking to maximize profits and reduce individual farmers' control over their production systems have used multi-million dollar advertising budgets to convince farmers that there is no other way to control pests besides using toxic pesticides. These same companies use additional millions of dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying to convince politicians and regulators to limit restrictions on pesticides. What this means is that fighting drift in the U.S. is ultimately tied to reducing corporate influence on the pesticide regulatory system. This can best be done by uniting community organizations, concerned citizens, and organizations working on environmental and health issues to make change in pesticide use policies.
Because of the way U.S. federal and state laws are currently written, one of the first steps is to work to change policies so drift is recognized as a hazard and declared to be illegal. Raising awareness about drift and its hazards will be necessary to dispell the misconception that U.S. EPA is "protecting" people from pesticide exposure. Successful campaigns should push agencies that regulate pesticides (federal, state, and local) to make health-protective decisions that will protect people from drift and require strict enforcement of the laws. Find out more about the laws related to drift.
Local Work
Local groups across the country have developed pesticide drift campaigns around environmental protection, community health, and workers’ rights. Some communities are demanding protection zones around pesticide applications—established areas around sites such as schools, residences, workplaces, retirement facilities, daycare centers, and hospitals where pesticides are not allowed to be applied. Others want notificiation of when pesticide applications will be made, so they can take measures to protect themselves. One suburban group in California, Neighbors at Risk, had a conventional strawberry field next door that was poisoning the neighborhood air. They worked together with the landowner to bring in an organic grower in place of the conventional grower who was applying toxic pesticides. In urban areas, concerned citizens are working to prohibit cosmetic uses of pesticides on parks, golf courses, and sports fields. Universally, communities in the U.S. and abroad want local pesticide regulators to take drift incidents seriously and not dismiss their concerns about drift. Find out more about how to organize a campaign to reduce drift in your community.
State Policy Reform
Pesticide reform coalitions have pushed for—and won!—policy changes that regulate pesticide drift at the state level.
One successful example is in California, where the 2004 Pesticide Drift Exposure Response Act (SB 391) creates requirements for emergency plans by state agencies to respond to incidents of pesticide drift, requires training in recognition and management of pesticide poisoning for emergency responders, and ensures the payment of medical costs of uninsured victims who are poisoned. (See Californians for Pesticide Reform’s website for more information on SB 391). Also in California, several groups have sued the state Department of Pesticide Regulation for its failure to reduce pesticide contributions to air pollution, as mandated by California's State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act.
In North Carolina, the Agricultural Resources Center blocked an attempt by the Pesticide Board to make drift legal and raised awareness about the problems of pesticide drift. Alaska Community Action on Toxics posed a legal challenge to widespread forestry spraying and won. In Maine, residents living near blueberry farms are working with Toxics Action Center (TAC) to block aerial applications of pesticides that contaminate waterways. TAC has also recently launched a "Refuse to Use" campaign against lawn-care chemicals.
National Policy Reform
There are also opportunities for national action to change pesticide laws and regulations. PANNA is spearheading an effort to address the use of fumigants, a group of toxic, gaseous pesticides used as pre-plant soil sterilants and for commodity fumigation that are extremely prone to drift. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently assessing the risks posed by fumigants as a group (the Fumigant Cluster Assessment) and released detailed preliminary risk assessments in mid-July 2005. We are now waiting to see the revised risk assessments, anticipated sometime in late 2006 or early 2007. See our Fumigants page for more detail. PANNA also tracks other opportunities to address pesticide regulation nationally. Sign up to be on our Action Alert list at www.panna.org so you can be notified when issues are up for public comment.
Drift Catching
One important tool in community and regional organizing around pesticide drift is air monitoring data that describes the concentrations of pesticides in air after an application. The Drift Catcher is a device that PANNA has developed to monitor pesticides in air, and the data are being used to strengthen campaigns addressing pesticide drift with information about the scope and magnitude of the drift problem in local areas. For more information, visit the Drift Catcher page.
Contact Information
If you have questions please call (415) 981-1771 or contact the Drift Catcher .
Resources
Our Community Resources page provides information on specific pesticides in easy-to-understand format, pesticide use profiles of some Central Valley California cities, and links to other pages on this web site that communities may find useful.
See the complete list of resources about pesticide drift.