News
Faculty and Students angry over use of pesticide
By Rylee Carrillo-Wagner ’19
September 22, 2016
Tags news
On Sept. 2, Grounds Services Manager Donald Croft sent out the following email to the entire campus: “Millers Turf will be treating weeds in and around the KTSA pond this morning. The product being used is Round Up, EPA registration number 71995-25. The water level will be returned to normal as soon as possible after the application.”
Since, students and faculty alike have responded with serious environmental concerns about the treatment. Professor Franklin Sciacca of the Russian Studies department, who also teaches an annual seminar called Food for Thought, began his response email being blunt: “Round Up is poison, plain and simple.”
Environmental Studies major, Sarah Zeiberg ’18, commented on Round Up as well, explaining, “I have come to understand Roundup and the company that makes it, Monsanto, as deeply problematic in terms of modern environmentalism. The use of Roundup globally has been shown to be a factor in the decline in plant populations used by pollinators, the development of genetic resistance to Roundup in the species targeted by the pesticide, and as potentially damaging to aquatic animal populations.”
Sciacca’s email went on to mention the aquatic life, specifically “a colony of frogs/toads at that pond, which I imagine is now destroyed.” Zeiberg added that she “thought the original purpose of the pond was to allow for a cohabitation of the human and animal inhabitants of the environment,” and thus the application “seemed contradictory.” The toads were not the only ones affected by this, however. Sciacca reflected “It was my understanding that when the pond was created, it was to restore the watershed flow down the hill. That means we let grow what grows, or if we find a proliferation of cattails so devastating, we find environmentally sound methods to reduce them… That poison has now entered the water-table and is on its way down the hill, passing through the Root Glen.”
In addition to the toads and the glen, Zeiberg also mentioned, “As a theatre student who regularly uses the amphitheater immediately in front of the pond, including for rehearsals and performances the weekend of the application, I feel like my interests were not particularly considered. Although there continues to be scientific debate on the health risks of Roundup, the fact that there is a debate at all makes me hesitant to expose myself to it. Unfortunately, I did not have much of a choice in this instance.”
Round Up is not Monsanto’s only problematic product. Zeiberg went on: “Monsanto is a company with an ethically murky past as a major producer of chemicals like DDT, PCBs and Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. Currently, they are also a global leader in producing GMO seeds. The use of chemicals in the environment, in military conflicts and the use of genetic engineering in the global food system are major issues for many on campus and off.” With all that to be acknowledged, Zeiberg said “for Hamilton to support Monsanto by using their products without considering the ethical dimensions of that decision is deeply frustrating.”
When questioned, Croft responded, “We use the least toxic and the minimum amounts of those pesticides possible. We don’t use anything higher than a ‘warning’ label... ‘Warning’ means moderately hazardous. Conversely, ‘Frontline,’ that is commonly used on our pets to control fleas, carries a ‘danger’ label and is considered a poison.”
When asked why Hamilton uses pesticides at all, Croft explained, “We use the pesticides to protect our students, faculty, staff and visitors from stinging wasps, ants and other bugs that enter our buildings. We use some to protect our athletic turf from fungi, weeds and insects that would cause the fields to be unsafe for our athletes. We use some to protect our trees and shrubs from insects and decay and we do use some in the mulch beds and hardscapes to safeguard our landscapes from weeds.”
So what is being done about it? When asked for their thoughts, HEAG President Jack Wright ’19 responded, “The pesticide application is something we’re still looking into at the moment, but it is a topic HEAG plans to focus on this semester.”
In his email to Croft, Sciacca offered to research “environmentally sound methods” if we really do find “a proliferation of cattails so devastating,” that they must be reduced. He added, “I would also happily volunteer my food seminar students to help pull them out by hand if need be.” This method has already been acted upon, according to Croft, who explained, “During the summer we employ numerous summer student workers to hand pull weeds to minimize the amounts of herbicide used.”
Croft also clarifies, “While the pesticides we utilize are safe when used in accordance with the label, we continue to evaluate alternative methods to try and deal with the various issues on campus.” He ended his comment restating and emphasizing his first point that “we use the least toxic, smallest amount possible.”
Zeiberg offers understanding, yet stays firm with her stance, ending, “I do not doubt that Physical Plant is mindful of the health of students, but I wish that they had elected to use a product that is not so controversial or potentially damaging since there are alternatives available.”
Sciacca affirmed, “I think it is time for a college-wide discussion about the use of toxic poisons on campus” and in doing so, set the tone of the debate moving forward.