Earlier this year Representative Suzanne Smith introduced House Bill 1456 to the New Hampshire House of Representatives.  The Bill is very simply described as,

“AN ACT establishing a committee to study the use of pesticides, herbicides, and their alternatives in residential neighborhoods, school properties, playgrounds, and other places children congregate.”

If you know anything about the State of New Hampshire you are familiar with the slogan, “Live Free or Die.”  I’ve called New Hampshire my home for a long time now and I’m proud of our old fashioned Yankee ingenuity, spirit, saltiness and occasional bit of defiance.  When the bill was introduced I was approached by several involved parties to make my opinion public.  Because we at Fire Belly were in the midst of launching our new natural lawn care product business and I was only a few months removed from selling my shares at The Lawn Dawg, a very large chemical lawn care service I felt that any personal feelings I had on the matter would probably be met with a good deal of cynicism.  Because of that I took the advice of my two most trusted advisers, my attorney and my wife, and I kept my mouth shut.

As the bill was debated and passed (in a slightly different form) and through out the discussions regarding the study I kept a very close eye on the developments.  I remained tight lipped but my frustration grew as I continued to hear from those involved that the argument on both sides had grown emotional.  Having absolute inside knowledge and a career spanning close to two decades working directly with the products that were being scrutinized I certainly can see through much of the propaganda and fodder that was being bandied about.  In other words, I know who is telling the truth and who isn’t.  This isn’t a case of good versus evil as much as the extremists on each side of the argument would want you to believe.  It is however a case of liberties and freedom.   Can the government tell us what we can and can’t do on on our own private property and with our own bodies.  For the most part, here in New Hampshire the answer to that is a resounding “No” and I can’t say I’m not pretty proud of our revolutionary spirit.  However, when our own actions begin to cause harm to others and in the public domain I believe it is the job of government to take an active lead in protecting it’s citizens.  In New Hampshire you don’t have to wear a helmet when your on your motorcycle but you do need to keep your speed under sixty five miles per hour.  This argument about the use of pesticides should be firmly based on the potential for damage to unsuspecting victims and less about misdirected pride and over inflated egos.

Pesticides that are used to kill insects, weeds and diseases in lawns are dangerous to children.  I am a firm believer in that.

There is absolutely no way on Gods green earth that I would allow my young children to be in the presence of these products during an application nor would I allow them to play on turf treated with these products during a given period of time after the particular treatment was completed.  If any private citizen disagrees with me and would like to act in a different manner on their own private property I will not argue with them.  I believe they have the right to do so.  (I do believe that they probably don’t have all the facts and I think I could change their minds if given an MSDS and five minutes.)  However, I do not expect that my children should be exposed to these substances that are synthetically and chemically fabricated to kill on my states public property.  I am a firm believer and a first hand observer that there are safe alternatives.  I am also a first hand observer of the fact that many of the suppliers of these products deliberately mislead people into thinking that they are perfectly “safe.”  In my opinion they are not.  It is just my opinion and as a resident of New Hampshire and a citizen of our country I am absolutely entitled to it.

The following is the text of the letter that I wrote to the elected officials of New Hampshire that are now involved in the study of New Hampshire HB 1456.

New Hampshire House of Representatives

107 North Main Street

Concord, NH 03301

Attn: Environmental and Agricultural Committee

RE:  HB 1456 Study

Dear Representatives,

It is with much anticipation, pondering and limited hesitation that I contact you in regards to my feelings regarding the study created as a result of HB 1456.  Since I first heard rumors of its introduction and then through the initial hearings and now through the study itself I have watched the happenings with great interest and concern.  It has been somewhat difficult to keep my thoughts to myself as both sides of the argument have been in contact with me to ask that I make my opinion public.  I represent a somewhat unique perspective as I have spent my entire adult life working within the industry that is currently in question.  I have represented both sides of the issue as a former owner of a chemical lawn care service, The Lawn Dawg and a current owner of a chemical free lawn care supply company, Fire Belly Organic Lawn Care.  It is my seventeen years in the industry that I believe qualifies me to represent a logical and sensible perspective when it comes to the study you have embarked upon as a result of HB1456.

An Enigmatic Contradiction

I believe that it is commonly understood that our modern government tends to legislate along party lines but for the most part the end result is a somewhat moderate process.  It is always the voices of extremists that define that middle or moderate ground and the issue of the use of pesticides is following suit.  On one side we have what has been defined as the environmental extremists.  This is a group whose agenda includes the out right ban of chemical pesticides on both public and private property.  On the other side we have the chemical lobby whose job it is to keep their products as legal and free flowing as they possibly can.  It is your job to take into consideration the opinions and research of both sides and come to a logical conclusion.  (Not an enviable task.)  The contradiction I have found lies somewhere in the middle and is the opinion of the turf care professionals.

I simply cannot understand why this represents such an emotional response by lawn care service companies that have come to the defense of pesticides.  After all, these companies are in the business of providing public and private entities with an end product.  That end product is a healthy stand of turf grass.  It is very commonly known that the use of pesticides is not necessarily the largest factor in creating healthy grass but is more of a single factor of a larger process.  In fact, some could argue, and I will that the use of pesticides is not necessary when creating healthy turf.  I am unable to fathom why these lawn care companies are presenting their case as if they were “pesticide companies.”  It is this argument itself that should cause you the greatest concern.

My Opinion

After careful consideration, research and debate I have come to a conclusion that I would like to have heard considering the use of pesticides for aesthetic purposes in the state of New Hampshire.  It is my opinion that it is not sensible for the state to create legislation that would ban the use of pesticides on private property.  I do believe, that the use of chemical pesticides for aesthetic purposes is dangerous and not necessary but it is the job of “the invisible hand” of economic principal to reduce and eliminate the use of these poisons.  I can testify first hand that the business of applying these products has decreased significantly in the last five years and it is my opinion that it will continue to over the following five years.  It is also my opinion that in ten years the use of these products will be almost completely eliminated.  With that being said, I call upon you as legislators to consider with a great deal of seriousness a scaleable implementation of a ban of the use of pesticides for aesthetic purposes on public property with a concentration on areas where children congregate.   I believe that the body of research proving that pesticides are harmful along with the newer availability of alternatives combined with my knowledge that many applicators are reckless with their use and attitudes toward chemicals that a ban must be implemented immediately.

It is with that statement that my perplexity over most lawn care services resistance to change is most largely manifested.  I simply can not understand why a responsible person, party or business owner would want to put the health of children at risk while creating a healthy place of play when it can be done without the use of chemicals.  One would think and could argue that this is the true responsibility of a logical business owner or property manager.  In place of being defensive over what they believe is harmless I am of the belief that they should be open and optimistic about the future of turf care.  In other words, the argument that the pro chemical side is using is actually making the point of the opposition.  If there is nothing to hide why is a simple “study” under so much fire?

The Alternatives

Through out the course of this debate much has been said about why the existing methods of caring for turf are either safe or unsafe.  The health related concerns of the use of pesticides will continue to be debated but in the meantime it is my opinion that one should err on the side of caution.  With out going into too much technical detail I would like to offer the group the fact that the use of chemicals on turf is inherently incorrect.  Science and nature have proven that the best way to create a healthy plant is to have it grown from healthy soil.  It is a philosophy that goes back well beyond recorded history in terms of agriculture and is gaining more acceptance today as we as a society lean toward more sustainable farming and growing methods.  When the soil from which a plant grows is diverse with microbial activity the plant thrives and withstands infestations of insects, diseases and weeds.

The contradiction in terms of chemical lawn care is that the over use of synthetic pesticides as control products actually reduces the populations of microbial species, beneficial bacteria and insects.  The chemicals actually sterilize the soil creating an environment where additional chemical inputs are almost always required.  These chemical inputs are actually making the lawn look better temporarily but creating a long-term situation where more products are required to maintain its health.  This equation creates a cycle where the over use of chemical inputs is actually perpetuated.  The metaphor of a drug addict is certainly applicable.  Most chemically treated lawns are literally addicted to chemicals because the soil from which they grow is void of the system that nature intended to feed them.  The most visible and well know example of a successful chemical free turf environment is on the campus of Harvard University.  The world’s most famous yard has been chemical free for several years and is among some of the most beautiful turf in the country.

The Solution

As I stated before it is my opinion that the state NOT regulate the use of chemicals on private property but that it act swiftly in enacting legislation to eliminate the use of pesticides on public property.  It is the job of government to protect its citizens above all and the elimination of pesticides where children congregate would do just that.  I implore you to take a very close look at what the state of NY has done in terms of legislation in “The Child Safe Playing Field Act.”  I also suggest that you take a look at the New York Department of Environmental Conservations “Be Green” initiative.  It is a policy/program that identifies firms that offer true chemical free alternatives to turf care and promotes education and awareness around the use of pesticides.  The initiatives main goal is to spread the word that the argument over the use of pesticides really doesn’t even need to exist because the use and over use of these products simply is not necessary.

I truly appreciate your time and would like to offer my assistance in any way possible moving forward.

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas Kelly