Abramson: Davis Vote to Spray More Pesticides is Disappointing

The Davis City Council voted to increase the City of Davis's use of pesticides, with only Will Arnold voting no, on Tuesday January 28th at almost 11pm. This rolls back the Councils previous decision on November 7, 2017 to move the city away from using a range of pesticides. No City Commissions were consulted before the item came to council, despite extensive involvement from Parks, Open Space, and Natural Resources Commissions prior to the 2017 decision.

 

County Supervisor  Candidate David Abramson provided Davisite a letter he wrote to the City Council following the decision. Abramson is a Candidate for Yolo County Supervisor for the 4th district.

---

 

Hi City Council Members Brett, Gloria, Dan, Lucas, and Will.

I am quite disappointed in the 4-1 decision of council to green-light the pre-emergent pesticide. Had I known this was going to be an action item instead of an "informational item" as highlighted in the agenda, I and likely many others would have been there to speak out against it.

Please read through the health and safety information for this pesticide. It is not safe, especially when we're talking about spraying in public parks and greenbelts where children and pets play, and where wildlife forage and take refuge.
Please also consider the long history of pesticide use and consider the difficulty in finding a single one that has withstood the test of time in terms of health, safety, and environmental concerns.

I also find it quite concerning that none of the commissions were informed or brought into the process. I know you are all doing your best, as is staff, but this is not what democracy looks like. I know many people who have sent in complaints and concerns about pesticide use in public areas, and the staff couldn't even provide you with a number when you asked them how many complaints there were regarding weeds.

I know it was a long night but I hope you are able to review the decision. Be sure that there will be lots of public input coming. I do hope you consider it as it comes in.
http://www.cdms.net/ldat/mp5JC002.pdf

Here's some excerpts that I found especially troubling:
Classifications:

Skin Sensitizer: Category 1B
Carcinogenicity: Category 2
Specific Target Organ Toxicity: Repeated Category 2 Specific Target Organ Toxicity: Drowsiness Category 3

Warnings:

May cause an allergic skin reaction
May cause drowsiness or dizziness
Suspected of causing cancer
May cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure

Reproductive/Developmental Effects
Prodiamine: Fetal toxicity at high dose levels (rats); developmental and maternal toxicity observed at 1g/kg/day. These were congenital anomalies occurring in test and control animals that are not considered to be treatment related.
Chronic/Subchronic Toxicity Studies
Prodiamine: Liver (alteration and enlargement) and thyroid effects (hormone imbalances) at high dose levels (rats); decreased body weight gains.

Carcinogenicity
Prodiamine: Possible human carcinogen based on limited animal evidence in the absence of human data. Information is insufficient for classification.

Attapulgite Clay
Prolonged or repeated inhalation of dust may cause a disabling, progressive pulmonary fibrosis. Inhalation

Prodiamine:
The information presented here is for the active ingredient, prodiamine. Does not bioaccumulate. Persistent in soil. Stable in water. Immobile in soil. Sinks in water (after 24 h)

Thank you for your consideration,
David Abramson