Pesticide and Herbicide Use on the Goshen College Campus
Deborah Scott
Junior
Goshen College 2000
Goshen College (IN) is a small Mennonite liberal arts college. The town
of Goshen is surrounded by farmland and encroaching urban development.
It is located in Elkhart County, which has the distinction of being
fifth in the country for producing cancer-causing pollution (Sierra
Club, "Cancer"). Against this backdrop of industrial buildup and
agricultural dominance, Goshen College stands as a Christian community.
Although the campus of GC is not large by university standards, it does
have attractive grounds with trees, flowerbeds, and ample lawns. The
physical plant is in charge of the campus grounds maintenance. They
have made some ecologically sound decisions that depart from the normal
protocol of lawn care - for example, they mulch fallen leaves and grass
clippings and let them decompose on the lawn instead of sweeping them
away. But in many ways, the philosophy and practices of the lawn care
is in keeping with the dominant society's standards of lawn beauty and
the accompanying necessary chemical regimen.
This paper will address four of these pesticides and herbicides. The
ecological and human risks of using chlorpyrifos, 2,4-D, diazinon, and
glyphosate will be examined. Some suggestions will then be given on why
GC should stop using these chemicals and on possible alternatives for
lawn care.
But first, it is helpful to take a quick look at where this ideal of a
perfect lawn originated. For centuries, people in North America dealt
with their living spaces in ways that were conducive to their natural
environment. As new immigrants came, they brought their own ideas of
what lawns should be. Those coming from England were used to the lush,
green, rolling lawns possible in such a damp climate, and this ideal
began to take hold. In 1892, the senior agrostologist at the U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture defined the perfect lawn as "the growth of a single
variety of grass with a smooth, even surface, uniform color, and an
elastic turf which has become so through constant care, so fine and so
close in texture as to exclude weeds" (Jenkins, 52). At that time it
was virtually impossible to achieve such a lawn in the United States -
the majority of the country did not have the time, energy, or money. It
took money because the US did not have the proper biological conditions
for such lawns, and there was little point in spending energy to
achieve something most didn't care about. As the decades went on,
however, the upper classes aggressively forced their ideal onto the
masses. Publications stressed lawn care, advertising campaigns were
based on lawn care, and community contests for beautiful lawns were
held. Nonetheless, those lawns were still practically out of reach for
most people, and so the monoculture dream remained unrealized.
This schism between ideal and reality persisted until World War II,
when the chemical miracles began to appear. Chemical warfare research
led to the development of insecticides, and suddenly the masses were
equipped with weapons to wage a full out war on their natural
environment (153). And war it was. The new chemicals were marketed with
the same militant language the masses heard from their patriotic
government. The language was aggressive and violent, and Nature was
portrayed increasingly as a woman who could now be dominated and
controlled. Scientists and the public embraced methods of lawn care
that stepped further and further away from the natural (133). With
these new chemical and technological tools, a uniform lawn became
possible in places as unlikely as Arizona, and soon most of the country
had embraced an ideal which had formerly only belonged to a few.
Today the ideal of a golf-course-smooth and uniform lawn is firmly in
place and treated as an unquestionable standard. Nonetheless, this is
only possible with careful maintenance and poisoning. The Goshen
College campus is arguably far from achieving the desired "green
carpet" effect, but we work diligently towards it, attempting to
attract prospective students and parents who are assumed to take this
ideal for granted. Four of the tools in this struggle are chlorpyrifos,
2,4-D, diazinon, and glyphosate.
All four of these pesticides and herbicides are used widely by the rest
of the United States. In 1995, they held the number 1, 2, 5, and 6
spots for pesticides most commonly used in non-agricultural sectors of
the U.S. and the number 1, 2, 3, and 7 spots for industrial,
commercial, and government usage (EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs).
Although they are now a common presence, these are strong poisons that
do not only affect the "pests" in our lives.
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos is used on the GC campus in the form of "Dursban," sold by
Dow Chemical Company. It is a broad-spectrum organophosphate
insecticide of toxicity class II - moderately toxic. Body surface
contact, ingestion, or inhalation can introduce the chemical (EXTOXNET,
Chlorpyrifos). First developed as a nerve-gas agent for chemical
warfare, organophosphates work by inhibiting the enzyme cholinesterase
(Monks, 17). This leads to a build up of acetycholine at nerve
junctions that can cause uncontrollable spasms of the muscles. This
affects the central nervous system, cardiovascular system, and
respiratory system (EXTOXNET, Cholinesterase; EXTOXNET, Chlorpyrifos).
Because it is generally regarded as a safe alternative to more toxic
chemicals, it is applied widely and often with less caution by
homeowners. Every year 20 to 24 million tons of chlorpyrifos are
applied annually, and it can be found in over 800 products. It is,
essentially, everywhere and in everyone. In a recent study of 993
adults by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 80% had
"measurable concentrations" of chlorpyrifos in their urine. Of the
children, 90% had chlorpyrifos in their urine (Associated Press).
The human health effects of chlorpyrifos are currently being closely
reexamined by the EPA. Dow's spokesperson insists that, when used
properly, the chemical has "wide margins of safety" (Associated Press,
1999). Nonetheless, Dursban has a history of causing problems. In 1995,
Dow was fined $732,000 by the EPA for failing to report complaints of
chronic neurological effects caused by Dursban ("DowElanco fined", 54).
Between 1985 and 1992, 11,000 children under the age of five reported
to Poison Control Centers for chlorpyrifos exposure (NRDC,
Chlorpyrifos).
Part of the controversy involves the question of how much chlorpyrifos
is too much. The chemical is rather quickly broken down and passed
through the human body. On the other hand, it is very toxic at higher
amounts, and it possibly has chronic toxicity - particularly in the
cases of workers exposed to low levels on a daily basis (EXTOXNET,
Chlorpyrifos). Children, infants, and fetuses are more susceptible to
the chemical's effects. Exposure from multiple sources is also a
complicating factor in determining risk.
Chlorpyrifos is toxic to ecological systems. It is highly toxic to fish
and almost all aquatic life , both freshwater or marine. Deaths can
result from concentrations as low as 0.01 pounds per acre! Unlike warm
blooded animals, aquatic organism's tissue bioaccumulates the
chlorpyrifos, causing a build up of chemical concentration from 58 to
5100 times the environment's concentration (EXTOXNET, Chlorpyrifos).
This is relevant because the chemical does end up in aquatic
environments. Chlorpyrifos is one of two insecticides that have been
detected consistently in urban runoff and in urban streams. Studies on
urban streams have found the chemical to be acutely toxic to
Ceriodaphnia in runoff that contained chlorpyrifos concentrations at
the parts per trillion level (Schueler, 4).
Chlorpyrifos is also highly toxic to bees. It is moderately to highly
toxic to birds that are exposed to the chemical by grazing from treated
lawns and land. Both bees and birds are vital organisms in a healthy
ecosystem.
The half-life of chlorpyrifos in soil is generally between 60 to 120
days but can range from 2 weeks to 1 year. The rate of breakdown is
very much dependent on the type of soil, the climate, and other
environmental conditions. As a rule, the chemical adsorbs to soils
strongly and is therefore not likely to leach into groundwater systems.
But as it is regularly found in run off, its movement is not completely
limited (EXTOXNET, Chlorpyrifos).
2,4-D
2,4-D is a phenoxy compound with many derivatives and forms that is
commonly used in its acid form, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. It is a
post emergence broadleaf herbicide, targeting plants after they have
emerged from the soil. It is toxicity class III for oral exposure and
toxicity class I (highly toxic) for eye exposure (EXTOXNET, 2,4-D).
2,4-D works by acting like auxins, plant hormones that control growth.
It kills by causing excessive growth that crushes the xylum and phloem
of the plant (Cox, Spring 1999, 15).
The chemical was first put on the market in 1944, developed jointly by
the American Chemical Paint Company and the U.S. Golf Association.
2,4-D was hailed as a miracle weed killer that could transform any lawn
(Jenkins, 151). This "miracle" was the principle ingredient in Agent
Orange (though another ingredient, dioxin, caused the majority of
controversies) (EXTOXNET, 2,4-D). Today it is contained in over 1,500
over-the-counter weed-killing products, and 60 million pounds are used
annually in the U.S. (Jenkins, 164; Cox, Spring 1999, 14).
As with chlorpyrifos, the effects upon humans are not completely clear.
A National Cancer Institute study found that Kansas farmers spraying
2,4-D had 8 times the risk of developing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
(Jenkins, 166). Numerous studies done on rats and several case studies
have supported this link between exposure and cancer rates. Numerous
other studies, however, have not found a link. At present it is unclear
whether 2,4-D is a carcinogen.
Myotonia is the most common symptom of acute poisoning. Myotonia is a
neurological reaction to toxins that prevent muscles from relaxing
after contraction (Cox, Spring 1999, 16). At high doses, 2,4-D has
caused birth defects, and it will pass through the placenta in pigs and
rats. Humans repeatedly exposed suffer a number of medical problems -
mainly muscular effects such as loss of coordination or bladder
control, but also liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal effects
(EXTOXNET, 1996). Whether or not it causes peripheral neuropathy is
again unclear. Cases have occurred in which exposure seemed to lead to
problems caused by deadened nerves; nonetheless, there have not been
any reliable laboratory tests that substantiate these results (Cox,
Spring 1999, 16).
The ecological effects of 2,4-D and its breakdown chemicals can be
significant. Depending on the preparation of the chemical, it can be
highly toxic to fish (EXTOXNET, 2,4-D). One of its breakdown products
is acutely toxic to fish at 2 parts per million. Earthworms that
contact 2,4-D suffer acute toxicity (Cox, Fall 1999, 16). 2,4-D is
classified as slightly toxic to birds, but some studies have found that
young birds are killed or stunted by feeding off of contaminated
vegetation (Cox, Fall 1999, 14).
2,4-D has a low half-life in soil - generally less than 7 days
(EXTOXNET, 2,4-D). It does not pose a high risk of leaching into the
groundwater. Despite these positive characteristics, 2,4-D has
frequently been found in urban stormwater, which often runs untreated
into urban streams. A significant storm on a freshly treated lawn will
cause 90% of the applied 2,4-D to run off. While such conditions are
generally avoided, run off is a severe problem for such a highly toxic
aquatic herbicide (Schueler, 1995). Another problem occurs when grass
clippings that have been treated with 2,4-D are composted. Again,
despite its fast half-life, 2,4-D still in compost has been found to
reduce plant growth in concentration as low as 2 parts per million
(Michel, Graeber, et al, 64). And, as mentioned, the chemicals that
2,4-D decomposes into can be harmful to the environment as well.
Glyphosate
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is the active ingredient in
Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto Company. Glyphosate is a broad,
nonselective herbicide of toxicity class II (moderately toxic)
(EXTOXNET, Glyphosate). Glyphosate has been seen as the near-perfect
herbicide for years ú an herbicide that is practically nontoxic to
humans and wildlife, not carcinogenic, not mutagenic, not teratogenic,
and not at risk of leaching in soil (EXTOXNET, Glyphosate). Because of
its effectiveness as an herbicide and because of its ecologically
friendly reputation, an estimated 38-48 million pounds are used in the
U.S. annually (Cox, 1998, 3). In 1998, Roundup brought in half of
Monsanto Company's corporate profits, with annual sales rising by 20%
annually for the past few years (PANUPS, Glyphosate).
Recently, however, glyphosate has been the subject of much debate in
medical and scientific fields. A study released in March of 1999 found
that exposure to glyphosate was linked to increased risk for
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (Miller, 622). The European Union is currently
conducting a review of glyphosate, and preliminary results show that
even when used properly it harms beneficial species and reduces
biodiversity (PANUPS, Glyphosate). Studies by the International
Organization for Biological Control determined Roundup to be toxic to
several beneficial insects, including the ladybug.
In Roundup the glyphosate is combined with a surfactant to help the
chemical reach and invade the plant cells. This combination of
glyphosate and surfactant is much deadlier to aquatic life forms,
wildlife, and humans. The acute toxicity level for fish to Roundup is 2
to 5 parts per million - drastically lower than simply glyphosate.
Roundup harms nontarget plant life as well. Those plants that it does
not kill are harmed by the chemical's lethal effect on the mycorrhizal
fungi and nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Cox, 1998, 12).
Diazinon
Like chlorpyrifos, diazinon is an organophosphate, operating by
inhibiting cholinesterase. It is a Restricted Use Pesticide of toxicity
class II or III, depending on the formula. Diazinon is not itself a
potent cholinesterase inhibitor, but when introduced into an animal it
is broken down into diazoxon, a very strong cholinesterase inhibitor.
In humans and animals, the half-life is 12 hours, and it is excreted
quickly through the urine and feces. Still, high exposures have killed
humans. Ironically, because it is recognized as a dangerous pesticide
and therefore not available for the public to use, there is less
controversy about the dangers of it usage (EXTOXNET, Diazinon).
On an ecological level, diazinon is highly toxic to many organisms.
Treated open areas are a constant lethal threat to birds. In 1988 the
EPA disallowed the use of diazinon on golf courses and sod farms
because of massive die offs of congregating birds (EXTOXNET, Diazinon).
The toxic effects of diazinon on geese, songbirds, and amphibians have
been known for a number of years (Schueler).
Diazinon has a moderately long half-life in soil (EXTOXNET, "Movement
of"). Although it does not usually migrate in the soil, it has leached
into groundwater and contaminated wells in U.S. Western coast, Canada,
and Japan (EXTOXNET, Diazinon). It is regularly found in stormwater
runoff at concentrations of 0.5 to 5 parts per billion; yet that low
concentration is enough to be acutely toxic to a wide variety of
aquatic life forms. Fish, particularly freshwater fish, are highly
susceptible to diazinon. Once in the water, diazinon can breakdown
quickly (half-life of two weeks in highly acidic water) or very slowly
(half-life of six months in neutral water).
Diazinon does not only move by water and soil. In the Central Valley in
California the main source of diazinon has been rain and fog drifting
down from nearby treated orchards (Schueler, 1995).
WHY CHANGE?
The research on these pesticides and herbicides is ongoing, and
changing the groundskeeping practices at GC based on the potential long
term human effects is probably unrealistic. On the other hand, it does
appear that these chemicals have negative ecological effects on the
biodiversity of the GC campus, the aquatic life exposed through various
sources, and the health of the soil ecosystem. Officially, the
scientific and industrial communities have determined what they believe
those negative effects to be and have deemed them "acceptable." Other
communities of scientists, citizens, and professionals have measured
the risks as higher and find them unacceptable. Increasingly, those
voices of dissent are coming from official bodies, such as the European
Union and the EPA. The Goshen College administration has listened to
the dominant voice thus far. Why should our campus change these
practices?
Goshen College needs to change because we are a Christian community. We
need to change because no unnecessary damage to God's creation is
"acceptable."
In the 1991 Mennonite Central Committee commissioned book Earthkeepers,
Art and Jocele Meyer call the Mennonite church to take responsibility
for ecological destruction and injustice. They draw out two primary
themes in Biblical teaching: "Land is a gift from God. That gift is to
be received and cared for as a trust" (26). The Mennonite community
often talks about "stewardship," but do we recognize how much more of a
gift the earth is than mere money, or how much of an act of praise it
would be to restore our ecosystems? Do we recognize, as Paulos Mar
Gregorios does, that Christ's redemption is for all: the Church, the
human race, and all "orders of created existence" in the universe? (88)
Do we truly believe that our redemption is related to that of the whole
earth?
We cannot view our call to care for the land as a spiritualized call or
as an abstract concept. We have been placed in covenant with this
marvelous creation and with God (Dyrness, 64). Our love and respect for
the earth is a reflection of and connection to our love and respect for
the Creator. This call to be stewards of the land is deeply imbedded in
the Mennonite tradition, but the Mennonite community is broadening and
moving away from our former cultural definitions. It is time for us to
reclaim that tradition as part of our active theology.
At GC, living out this stewardship has taken form in the Merry Lea
Educational Facility and Nature Reserve, in the new Environmental
Studies program, and in the lives of many of the faculty, staff, and
students. Unfortunately, we are also continually defiling the land,
water, and air that we inhabit. The use of pesticides and herbicides is
one of the more blatant ways in which we are doing this. It is not
altogether clear how much we are harming our own bodies with these
practices, but it is certain that we are disrupting the natural
ecological cycle. Thankfully, this practice is one that we have the
resources to change.
Reducing Pesticide and Herbicide Use on the GC grounds
There are several changes that could lead toward a reduction and
perhaps elimination of pesticide and herbicide use on the grounds of
GC. These can be divided into two areas: changing lawn care practices
and reducing the amount of turf.
The changes in how we care for the lawns would focus on improving the
health and stability of the grass and ground. Adjusting the way we mow
is one simple change. Mowing at 3_ to 4 inches increases the grasses'
resistance to drought and pests because taller grass blades lead to
stronger, larger roots. In addition, taller grass chokes out a great
deal of the annual weeds (Sachs, 47). Sharpening the mower blades after
approximately every eight hours of mowing is another simple step that
helps. Sharper blades make for a cleaner cut and less evaporation or
chance of infection (Sachs, 48).
Applying a quarter inch of compost on the lawns in the fall of each
year would improve the soil and thus the health of the grass. This
compost could be produced within the campus using the food waste from
the cafeteria and the lawn waste that is not mulched. The notion of a
compost-covered lawn may make administrators and public relations
officials cringe, but within a few days the compost would not be
visible. For many it is a more attractive option than staying off the
lawns for a few days because of chemical sprayings. Another option
would be to apply a compost tea from water run through ripe compost.
Not having monoculture lawns would also help to cut down on weeds and
pest damage. If one grass out of three or four types of grasses is
targeted by a pest, the results are not as drastic as when that is the
sole grass (Sachs, 49). GC experienced the hazards of monoculture
landscaping when its locust trees were all infected and consequently
cut down. Mixing grasses would minimize pest damage and lead to a
stronger, healthier lawn.
At first some of these practices may take more money than our
traditional ones, particularly during our initial experiments. But
because many of these possibilities are preventative and restorative
instead of covering up problems, they would pay off for themselves.
Healthier grass in a more stable environment is less expensive to care
for. Large universities such as University of Wisconsin and small
colleges such as Warren Wilson College are in the process of
implementing these ideas and more. Such institutions are resources that
we can and should use.
As simple some of these ideas seem, they would require more than just a
few changes in the lawn care routine. They would require a change of
perception on the part of the physical plant, the administration, and
the campus community. For example, we would stop focusing on
eliminating the pests and concentrate on strengthening the health of
the lawn. Eliot Coleman, a master organic gardener, differentiates
these two focuses as "pest negative" and "plant positive." Infestations
of pests or weeds are a sign that the plant (grass, in our case) is
stressed and can not defend itself (Coleman, 173).
This stress can result from too much irrigation, harmful maintenance
practices such as mowing too short or with a dull blade, or the
pesticides and herbicides themselves. These chemicals, in addition to
killing off vegetation and wildlife, "suppress the soil's biological
activity," killing off the beneficial bacteria and fungus (as mentioned
in the sections on 2,4-D) and throwing off the natural balance (Sachs,
49). Another cause of stress is attempting to grow something that is
not fitted to the environment. This leads us to our second major area
of change, the amount of conventional lawn.
Cutting down on the amount of turf would right away reduce the need for
pesticides or herbicides. This turf reduction could be an ecological,
social, and spiritual improvement if we chose to redo those portions in
a spirit of bioregionalism.
Bioregionalism is a term that is becoming increasingly common. It comes
from bios, life, and region, territory. Bioregionalism means something
a bit different for every individual and community, but in general it
points towards listening to and respecting the natural systems of one's
area (Dodge, 5). It means digging in where you are and helping to
restore the ecological and human communities to which you already
belong. One way that this can occur at Goshen College is by restoring
sections of our lawn to natural grassland or wildflower meadows.
We could initially set aside a wildflower test area. The land would be
plowed and then either seeded with native wildflowers or let alone for
the dormant seed bank to reestablish itself. Once the plants were
established, additional watering would not be necessary. Pesticides and
herbicides are also not needed, and mowing need only be done one to
three times a year, depending on the type of landscape wanted (Woodier,
14).
Not only would introducing such a landscape area cut down on labor and
costs, it would also increase the native biodiversity of our campus. It
would serve as a buffer for polluted runoff since such landscapes more
effectively trap water and air pollutants than a grass lawn (Ahern and
Boughton, 174). It would also connect us with the actual community and
land of Goshen. Restoring a section of campus would foster a greater
awareness of this land's background. It would be a symbol of our
dedication to this place not only in spirit but also in flesh. It would
be a step towards identifying with this watershed, this ecological
area, this land.
The benefits of using chlorpyrifos, 2,4-D, glyphosate, diazinon, and
other such chemicals have been measured in terms of enrollment numbers
and the relative attractiveness of the campus to the outside. We can
turn that view on its head. We can turn our efforts towards a
bioregional, organic campus. We have the resources to make these
alternatives a reality, and if we involve the entire campus and local
community those changes can be done in a spirit of rejoicing. We can be
creative with our landscaping instead of slaving to achieve the norm.
We can attract students who support this concept. We can learn from our
own setting, and we can be an educational tool for those in the Goshen
and greater Mennonite community.
This won't be a simple process. But once we set our goals and start, we
will find that completely phasing out pesticide and herbicide use will
become less of a threat and more of a joyful prize. It will be an act
of hope in the midst of social and ecological helplessness. It will be
a call to the larger Mennonite community to live as stewards of and
even partners with the earth. Redemption can be ours, but not through
the "miracle" wonders of 2,4-D, nor through the effectiveness of
Roundup. Restoring our covenant with the land can happen on the Goshen
College campus. And the first step is to stop this poisoning of the
land, water, air, and spirit.
Ahern, Jack and Boughton, Jestena, "Wildflower Meadows as Sustainable
Landscapes" p 172-187 in The Ecological City: preserving and restoring
urban biodiversity Ed. by Rutherford C. Platt, Rowan A Rowntree, and
Pamela C. Muick. Univ. of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, 1994
Associated Press, "Widely used pesticide may pose health risk." October 29, 1999
"Cancer Pollution Hits Home," 1999. Sierra Club. Accessed November 18, 1999. http://www.sierraclub.org/toxics/cancer/map.asp
"Chlorpyrifos: How children are exposed to pesticides from multiple
sources," 1997, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Accessed
November 22, 1999. http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdcpro/ocar/chap5b.html
"Cholinesterase Inhibition," September 1993, EXTOXNET. Accessed
November 23, 1999. http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/tibs/cholines.htm
Cox, Caroline, "2,4-D: Toxicology," Journal of Pesticide Reform. Spring 1999 p 14-19.
Cox, Caroline, "2,4-D: Ecological Effects," Journal of Pesticide Reform. Fall 1999 p 14-19.
Cox, Caroline, "Glyphosate (Roundup)" Journal of Pesticide Reform. Fall 1998 p 3-17.
Dodge, Jim, "Living By Life: Some Bioregional Theory and Practice." p
5-12 in Home! A Bioregional Reader Eds. Van Andruss, Christopher Plant,
Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright. New Society Publishers: Philadelphia,
1990.
"DowElanco fined $732,000 by EPA," Chemical Week. May 10, 1995. p 54
Dyrness, William, "Stewardship of the Earth in the Old Testament" p
50-65 in Tending the Garden: Essays on the gospel and the earth Ed.
Wesley Granberg-Michaelson. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand
Rapids, 1987.
"Glyphosate May Harm Beneficial Organisms," October 27, 1999, Pesticide
Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS). Accessed November 17, 1999.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/panups/panup_991027.dv.html
Gregorios, Paulos Mar, "New Testament Foundations for Understanding the
Creation" p 83-92 in Tending the Garden: Essays on the gospel and the
earth Ed. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson. William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co: Grand Rapids, 1987.
Jenkins, Virginia Scott. The Lawn: A history of an American obsession. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1994.
Meyer, Art and Meyer, Jocele, Earthkeepers: environmental perspectives
on hunger, poverty, and injustice. Herald Press: Scottdale, 1991.
Michel Jr, Frederick, C., Graeber, Dan, Forney, Larry J., Reddy, C.
Adinarayana, "The Fate of Lawn Care Pesticides During Composting,"
BioCycle. March 1996 p 64-67.
Miller, Karl E. "Pesticide Exposure and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma," American Family Physician. Aug 1999 p 622-624.
Monks, Vicki "If you spray pesticides in your home, they might coat
your children's toys," National Wildlife. Apr/May 1999, p 16.
"Movement of Pesticides in the Environment," September 1993, EXTOXNET.
Accessed November 23, 1999.
http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/tibs/movement.htm
Office of Pesticide Programs, "Quantities of Pesticides Most Commonly
Used in Non-Agricultural Sectors of U.S." April 9, 1999. EPA. Accessed
October 31, 1999.
http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/95pestsales/Tables/Table9LJ.htm
Pesticide Information Profiles, "2,4-D," June 1996. Extension
Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). Accessed October 18, 1999.
http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/24-D.htm
Pesticide Information Profiles, "Chlorpyrifos," June 1996. EXTOXNET.
Accessed October 18, 1999.
http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/chlorpyr.htm
Pesticide Information Profiles, "Diazinon," June 1996. EXTOXNET.
Accessed October 18, 1999.
http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/diazinon.htm
Pesticide Information Profiles, "Glyphosate," June 1996. EXTOXNET.
Accessed October 18, 1999.
http://ace.orst.edu/cgi-bin/mfs/01/pips/glyphosa.htm
Schueler, Tom, "Urban Pesticides: From the lawn to the stream," Fall
1995 Watershed Protection Techniques. Accessed November 18, 1999.
http://www.pipeline.com/~mrrunoff/pest.htm
Woodier, Olwen, "Tired of Pursuing the Perfect Lawn? Consider these
alternatives," National Wildlife. June/July 1998 p 14-16.
Goshen College
1700 South Main Street, Goshen, Indiana 46526
Toll free: 1 (800) 348-7422 • Local: (574) 535-7000 • E-mail: info@goshen.edu
