Heads Up Tennessee - Herbicide Bill

[bdeneke]

This is just to let those in the industry know of a bill that has been introduced in Tennessee (HB2802, SB3351) that seeks to establish a license category for herbicide application. There are a few of problems with this bill:
1) It states that the *only* authorized herbicide will by Glyphosate. (Thus no other herbicides, organic or otherwise will be authorized for commercial application on lawns.)
2) It pre-supposes that all herbicides will be liquids and deals only with the kinds of equipment that would spread liquids.
3) It exempts the same category of licensees that it seeks to license (probably just really bad wording but makes me wonder if the main reason for the bill was to limit authorized heribicides to include only Roundup)
Unfortunately, the Ag staff at the TN Dept of Agriculture fundamentally mischaracterized and minimized the effect of this bill in their discussions with me and others and clearly do not understand the bill - maybe haven't really read it carefully at all - but their recommendation to the Gov. was to be neutral on the bill. The state wants to make sure that people applying herbicides are licensed and trained and feel that a "teen doing yard work as a summer job should not have to be licensed to spray weedkiller along someones driveway." If you read the bill you will see that this is nonsense.
This one is under the radar - check it out on the TN legislative website and act if you agree that this is an exceptionally bad bill, which seems to have been drafted by the Monsanto lobby. I don't think the legislators that are sponsoring the bill understand it either and I cannot get them to explain to me what they hope to accomplish with it. There will be discussion and/or action on it in the House Agriculture Committee next Tuesday.
Thanks for your attention. I'm just a concerned citizen with no real agenda here other than to promote public health and try to protect our environment.

[ICT Bill]

I would call one of these folks and ask them, they have always been very helpful with us. I notice its your first post, lurker? come back and get in the discussion. They are all in Florida right now at the biannual meeting, but should be back in the office Feb 25

TENNESSEE
*Dan Danielson Phone: 615-837-5148
Adminstrator, FAX 615-837-5012
Ag Inputs, Reg. Svcs. Div.
Box 40627 - Melrose Station E-Mail: Dan.Danielson@state.tn.us
TN Dept. of Agriculture Website: http://state.tn.us/agriculture/
Nashville, TN 37204

Jace Burch Phone: 615-837-5187
Supervisor, Pesticide Registration & Operations FAX 615-837-5012
Ag Inputs, Reg. Svcs. Div.
Box 40627 - Melrose Station E-Mail: Jace.Burch@state.tn.us
TN Dept. of Agriculture
Nashville, TN 37204

Jimmy Hopper Phone: 615 837-5150
Director, FAX 615 837-5335
Regulatory Services
Box 40627 Melrose Station E-Mail: Jimmy.Hopper@state.tn.us
TN Dept. of Agriculture
Nashville, TN 37204

[Organic a go go]

1) It states that the *only* authorized herbicide will by Glyphosate. (Thus no other herbicides, organic or otherwise will be authorized for commercial application on lawns.)


Yikes. Sounds like the Glyphosate lobby made a major contribution to someone's campaign fund.

[ICT Bill]

Like my Pappy use to tell me, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear (or read in this case)

I would have to read the verbiage before making a comment on that one

[bdeneke]

Thanks Bill - I appreciate your suggestions and the contacts you provide although I am not sure what I am supposed to ask them since this is proposed legislation and not a problem with an existing policy or rule, and I have already spoken to their superiors and already have a better understanding of the bill than they have. Since you indicate you would like to read the proposed legislation for yourself and add some other somewhat disparaging comments about believing half of what you read I am providing you a link here: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/. Just navigate to HB2802 which is where the fiscal note is filed. (I would probably prefer to read things for myself too although I would have taken the initiative to do so before making editorial comments like yours.) If you live in Tennessee, I would appreciate you contacting your State Senator and your Representative (and any / all of the bill sponsors) to let them know your opinion on the matter. I believe that the bill *can* be amended to serve the Ag. Dept interests and still be in the public's best interest but not unless the bill sponsors are willing to take a look at the problems with the bill and understand that the public *wants* to be able to choose organic methods from commercial lawn care companies. If you live in or near Nashville and can attend the Ag. Committee meeting on Tuesday, that would be great too. I am working on expanding public awareness of the situation and a few other things that I think might help. If you don't live in Tennessee, then I wish you well in your own state. Good bye.

[ICT Bill]

Apologies I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers
I'll look it over, Monsanto and such have very long and strong arms

[Organic a go go]

You know Bill I just might have to check into this "read first" thing. Summary is a below and a bit more nuanced. Basically creates a sub-category for the small time guy.
Bigger operators would still be free to use whatever they want as apply under the existing license category.

Present law requires that pest control operators and aerial applicators be licensed through the department of agriculture. This bill establishes a new license category for commercial lawn maintenance herbicide applicators to authorize them to apply herbicides for controlling weeds in conjunction with commercial lawn maintenance practices as spot treatments adjacent to fencing, driveways, parking lots, cemetery markers, and landscape borders and areas in lieu of or in conjunction with mechanical weed trimming or edging.

Herbicides authorized for use under this bill would be limited to those having the sole active ingredient "Glyphosate." The application equipment allowed is limited to portable, handheld three-gallon compressed air sprayers or backpack sprayers having no more than a five-gallon capacity. Powered application equipment would be limited to no more than a 25 gallon tank with a 12-volt pump limited to a maximum of one gallon per minute and limited to a 3/8 inch discharge hose up to 15 feet in length with a handheld spray.

To obtain a license pursuant to this bill, a person must be at least 18 years old, pay a $100 license fee, and otherwise meet the requirements applicable to commercial applicators under present law, except that the business charter requirement applicable to commercial pest control operators would not apply to licensees under this bill. Applicants must be insured for damages to persons and property in the following amounts: $10,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $10,000 each occurrence and $50,000 in the aggregate for property damage; or combined single limit coverage of $100,000 in the aggregate.

This bill specifies that a person does not have to be licensed under the pest control provisions in order to apply an herbicide having the sole active ingredient of "Glyphosate" and the only application equipment used is a five-gallon or less hand-held compressed air sprayer or a five-gallon or less backpack sprayer.

[ICT Bill]

actually what it states is

"This bill specifies that a person does not have to be licensed under the pest control provisions in order to apply an herbicide having the sole active ingredient of "Glyphosate" and the only application equipment used is a five-gallon or less hand-held compressed air sprayer or a five-gallon or less backpack sprayer. "

Present law requires that pest control operators and aerial applicators be licensed through the department of agriculture. This bill establishes a new license category for commercial lawn maintenance herbicide applicators to authorize them to apply herbicides for controlling weeds in conjunction with commercial lawn maintenance practices as spot treatments adjacent to fencing, driveways, parking lots, cemetery markers, and landscape borders and areas in lieu of or in conjunction with mechanical weed trimming or edging.

Herbicides authorized for use under this bill would be limited to those having the sole active ingredient "Glyphosate." The application equipment allowed is limited to portable, handheld three-gallon compressed air sprayers or backpack sprayers having no more than a five-gallon capacity. Powered application equipment would be limited to no more than a 25 gallon tank with a 12-volt pump limited to a maximum of one gallon per minute and limited to a 3/8 inch discharge hose up to 15 feet in length with a handheld spray.


That is a bit different than what you stated, you said that the only herbicide that could be used was Glyophosate

[ICT Bill]

we posted at the same time

[corey4671]

actually what it states is

"This bill specifies that a person does not have to be licensed under the pest control provisions in order to apply an herbicide having the sole active ingredient of "Glyphosate" and the only application equipment used is a five-gallon or less hand-held compressed air sprayer or a five-gallon or less backpack sprayer. "

Present law requires that pest control operators and aerial applicators be licensed through the department of agriculture. This bill establishes a new license category for commercial lawn maintenance herbicide applicators to authorize them to apply herbicides for controlling weeds in conjunction with commercial lawn maintenance practices as spot treatments adjacent to fencing, driveways, parking lots, cemetery markers, and landscape borders and areas in lieu of or in conjunction with mechanical weed trimming or edging.

Herbicides authorized for use under this bill would be limited to those having the sole active ingredient "Glyphosate." The application equipment allowed is limited to portable, handheld three-gallon compressed air sprayers or backpack sprayers having no more than a five-gallon capacity. Powered application equipment would be limited to no more than a 25 gallon tank with a 12-volt pump limited to a maximum of one gallon per minute and limited to a 3/8 inch discharge hose up to 15 feet in length with a handheld spray.


That is a bit different than what you stated, you said that the only herbicide that could be used was Glyophosate

:dizzy: ok so now I am utterly confused. UNder this new legislation, what would be required in order to spray freakin roundup on a customers sidewalk. English version please!!

[ICT Bill]

To me it looks like they are try to make a seperate license for people that kill weeds with backpack sprayers. I haven't read the entire law of Tennesee but they have probably relaxed the insurance or bonding requirements as well.

I would imagine it is for a particular state or county contract where they spray weeds by the roadside. It may even be part of an initiative to support the little guy.

[Organic a go go]

:dizzy: ok so now I am utterly confused. UNder this new legislation, what would be required in order to spray freakin roundup on a customers sidewalk. English version please!!

Im no lawyer but it seems to say that if you're a smaller operation not exceeding the stated equipment limitations then you can apply for this lesser license as long as your apps are limited to Glyphosate. Anything beyond that and you'll have to apply for the existing license.

[bdeneke]

OK - you've hit on some of my other objections, which, in my experience would provide a costly enforcement / court challenge nightmare for the state. The paragraph that defines who will be regulated states (in my own words) that the application methods will be limited to 3 gal or less compressed air sprayer or 5 gallon or less backpack sprayer (assumed compressed air also) and then goes on to define the specs for a 25 gallon tank. . . however, the exemptions paragraph exempts 5 gallon or less compressed air sprayers or 5 gallons or less backpack sprayer, etc. So, this language exempts the same thing they are trying to license. The state guys thought that the exemption was limited to 1 gallon containers - not so. Also, although the fiscal note for the bill states that the existing Horticulture, Lawn and Turf license would not be required to be supplemented with this new license, the bill does not currently specify that (and I think it must since the bill lays out the exact language of an entirely new statute section.) I meant to say that the bill is very poorly written and would have to be heavily amended to be acceptable on many levels. My biggest concern remains that those licensed under this new proposed statute would not have the option of using anything except Glyphosate in clients yards. According to a local natural lawn care company that I sometimes use, I am correct in saying that this is a *huge* growing demand in Tennessee. (Up 1000% in the last 15 years.) I am an environmentalist and don't like chemical pesticides at all I must admit. I specifically think that Glyphosate is dangerous and local doctors treating landscapers and farmers even now recognize that it is Roundup that has sickened or even caused Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. But I am also willing to work with people on reasonable change and I very simply think that this is bad public policy and that our children, adults, pets, and soil are worth consideration in this matter.
Bill - I think you're right that they're trying - however misguidedly - to support the little guy but they just need to think this through again and take another stab at it.
Corey - I hope you'll check into other alternatives! Why not get one of those flame weeders? They're just as fast, more effective, much more environmentally friendly - especially on sidewalks and driveways, and waaaaaay cheaper to boot. Plus, you don't risk getting yourself or your clients sick.

[ICT Bill]

My biggest concern remains that those licensed under this new proposed statute would not have the option of using anything except Glyphosate in clients yards. According to a local natural lawn care company that I sometimes use, I am correct in saying that this is a *huge* growing demand in Tennessee. (Up 1000% in the last 15 years.) I am an environmentalist and don't like chemical pesticides at all I must admit. I specifically think that Glyphosate is dangerous and local doctors treating landscapers and farmers even now recognize that it is Roundup that has sickened or even caused Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.


I appreciate your enthusiasm but I believe that you have the basis of the legislation stated incorrectly
I also agree that glyophosate (isn't it glyophosphate?) should be eliminated but unfortunately that is not an option, yet.:D
The fact is that you are misrepresenting the law trying to be passed, that is the issue that I have. By using the rhetoric that you are using you are actually losing people that would have helped you.
What you are claiming is not the case, you lost me for sure

[corey4671]

Im no lawyer but it seems to say that if you're a smaller operation not exceeding the stated equipment limitations then you can apply for this lesser license as long as your apps are limited to Glyphosate. Anything beyond that and you'll have to apply for the existing license.

so...if all I have is a compressed air 5 gallon backpack with glyophosphate(roundup), I can apply for this proposed license and keep the g men off my tail? Am I understanding this correctly?

[bdeneke]

Bill - I am not misrepresenting the bill and since you don't live in Tennessee you are not in a position to help anyway, so your motives are suspect from the beginning. It is apparent you do not understand legal implications of the proposed statutory language at issue. The plain language of the bill **as I stated repeatedly** would have the effect of making commercial application of non-glyphosate herbicides unlawful. What *I* and probably many others have an issue with is the fact that you apparently would rather a bad law be passed rather than respect others valid opinions. Pretty obvious your agenda is personal and self-serving since you repeatedly find the need to say untrue and hateful things to discredit me, who you don't even know. And, maybe if you had done any research on the subject or even read the bill that I went above and beyond to make accessible to even you, you would know that it is spelled *glyphosate* on both the Monsanto Ingredient list (http://www.monsanto.com/products/ag_productivity.asp) and the bill, just as I said, rather than "glyophosphate". Again, you ought to do your homework before you make comments about people and try to do harm rather than good. There's one on every list serve!

[Kiril]

The plain language of the bill **as I stated repeatedly** would have the effect of making commercial application of non-glyphosate herbicides unlawful.

I believe this would only be the case if and only if an applicator chose to use this new license. In any other case, you would need to get the "old" or full blown commercial applicators license. I don't see anything that says they are eliminating current regulations and license requirements, but simply are adding a new license category to the existing regulations for people who need to use ONLY glyphosate in their landscape care programs.

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HB2802.pdf

And a summary of the existing regulations.

http://eppserver.ag.utk.edu/psep/secondlevel/info/EPP714.pdf

I have to agree with Bill in that it looks like they are just trying to make it easier for the little guy to comply with the law.

I do however agree with you that the language of the bill is more than a little confusing, and the exemption would appear to contradict half of the equipment restrictions of the license. I think some clarification of the exemption is needed, since it looks to me like you can spray glyphosate with a 5 gal or less sprayer without a license, or can you?

(h) Notwithstanding any of any other provision of this section or other provision of law to the contrary, no person shall be required to obtain a license for the purpose of applying a herbicide having the sole active ingredient of “Glyphosate” and the only application equipment used is one (1) of the following:

(1) Five (5) gallon or less hand-held compressed air sprayer; or
(2) Five (5) gallon or less backpack sprayer.

Perhaps what it is stating is that under the new license you can use sprayers per the listed restrictions in addition to the non-regulated equipment. Well at least that is the way I read it. :)

[corey4671]

Why not get one of those flame weeders?

FIRE..COOL..FIRE..HEH HEH HEH HEH

[bdeneke]

Bless you for your thoughtful response. You are correct that they are not eliminating any existing licenses through this bill. And, yes, I have read all of those regulations before I posted the first message. Frankly, that this bill does not per se eliminate the HLT license does not make a big difference to me or to many other locals. Think about it from our perspective. Why would you want "the little guy" to *only* be allowed to spray roundup? This makes no sense and I am at a loss to understand how any farmer / landscaper / product vendor - especially one who was interested in organic or sustainable practices - could support such a bill. We have hundreds or thousands of small operators out on our streets daily during about 9 months of the year and only a few big trucks with huge tanks on them from chem lawn and other similar large companies. On my own street I often have to dodge 4 or 5 "little guy" trucks & trailers just to go two blocks. Multiply that by the whole state. The bill provides for no distinction other than application equipment between who should go for a HLT license and who should apply for this one. There's no amount of lawn business too big under this bill to go for this license. If we're going to have "small" operators, held to lower standards, out spraying any herbicide at all, shouldn't we at least *allow* them to make the most healthy choices possible? Also, if you were choosing between these two licenses, and didn't need a big tank, why would you voluntarily choose the more expensive license that requires more insurance, etc.? That would be a bad business choice, financially. Are we saying that organic landscapers should be held to a higher standard than those who want to spray Roundup? In Tennessee we are not blessed with good environmental laws like you are in California - or even Oregon or Washington. You would not believe the rhetoric and games that are engaged in by some of our lawmakers here. That bill is more than just confusing, it's defective and bad public policy. It is frankly believable that this bill is not defective by accident. I assure you these things happen here. The old adage "crazy like a fox" applies to many of these individuals. They might seem harmless and even a little dense or kindof funny or eccentric but it's just a ploy to get what they want - have you heard of the Tennessee Waltz legislative corruption case? Also, some of these legislators take bills written by various lobbyists and literally don't even bother to read them before they sponsor them, they just take the explanation given to them by the lobbyist about what the bill is for.
Moreover, I really don't get the argument that you two seem to be making that we should let the "little guy" be prohibited from spraying *anything* except glyphosate based herbicides and that organics should be forced to choose the more expensive / more insurance route. It simply defies logic in my opinion.
Laws are supposed to protect the public. When well done, they are clear and difficult or impossible to manipulate or evade. This proposed law neither protects the public nor is difficult or impossible to manipulate or evade. This bill is problematic from so many angles that I wish it would be abandoned and if they want to accomodate the "little guy" with cheaper licenses & lower standards a better one should be introduced next year.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I really have nothing to gain by doing this work and am just trying to help my state be a healthier and better place. When people like Bill just try to publicly discredit me they are discrediting what I am trying to do even more and make it seem like this bill is harmless or might even be a good idea, indirectly promoting the bill. I find it hard to believe that anyone who makes a living on any aspect of organic / sustainable growing would be in favor of this bill even if they didn't like me personally. Harm vs. good and all that. . . .
Cheers.

[Whitey4]

I was thinking about this. It made me wonder if RoundUp with a much higher LD50 than vinegar, must be more dangerous than vinegar, while the LD50 test data would not support that assumption? Is that because LD50 does not take into account long term exposure? Have there been any studies to compare long term exposure to glyphosate vs. vinegar in terms of adverse systemic reactions in people?

While it is true that glyphosate breaks down into harmless compounds in 7 days, that does not really mean that accute exposure before it volitizes is safe. I mean we know vinegar is safe, and that means that the LD50 data means squat, right?

[corey4671]

OK..I've been biting my tounge on this but I'm gonna let it fly. Anybody wanna guess why we have $3.00+ per gallon gas? Anybody? Why do we have fewer and fewer refineries? TREE HUGGERS. The dirt people have ruined the nation. There I said it. Crucify me!

[Kiril]

I am not familiar with restricted use pesticides in TN, nor can I find a list of them. Can you provide a link?

[ICT Bill]

OK..I've been biting my tounge on this but I'm gonna let it fly. Anybody wanna guess why we have $3.00+ per gallon gas? Anybody? Why do we have fewer and fewer refineries? TREE HUGGERS. The dirt people have ruined the nation. There I said it. Crucify me!

corey4671, I personally have not seen people hugging trees in this forum, maybe turf because it pays for their child's tuition but trees? I believe that is another forum.

arborists maybe

If you would care to make a succinct point or trade arrows on the benefit of sustainable practices in lawn care, great

I am afraid there were about 40,000 before you that said the same thing and it is still a broad and unanswerable statement