Franklin County had an outsized presence at the State House at last week’s hearing by the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture about the chemical glyphosate, which is the main ingredient in herbicides like Roundup that Eversource sprays around utility poles. This was fitting, giving the pristine nature of our county’s rural environment. We have a lot at stake.
“The breadth of the state was represented,” said the Rev. Thaddeus Bennett of Conway, who organized transportation for Ashfield residents who are part of the group, People Against Toxic Herbicides (PATH). Also testifying were the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA), Atty. Gen. Maura Healey, Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, and Lawrence Pruyne of Warwick, Selectboard chairman of the first town in the state to ban the use of glyphosate in December 2017.
Echoing skepticism on the part of attendees from Western Mass. was Bennett’s warning, “Don’t trust the EPA.” Indeed, under President Donald Trump, the thrust of the EPA has been to roll back Obama-era policies that aimed to curb climate change and limit environmental pollution. Bennett testified that some of the scientific sources that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to regulate glyphosate use were funded by companies that make it. Pruyne said that Monsanto — the company that makes Roundup — has been deceptive in its dealings with legislators, EPA officials and consumers. “They have worked to skew the science away from negative conclusions,” he said.
Countering the chemical industry’s studies was testimony from Julie Rawson, executive director of NOFA Mass and farmer of Many Hands organic farm in Barre, who explained how herbicides hurt the soil. “Herbicides kill the soil life,” Rawson said, “… and then the soil becomes dead, (leading to) problems with runoff (and) erosion.”
In the hopper — and the reason for last week’s hearing — are 16 bills that range from banning glyphosate and other pesticides outright to limiting their use. Comerford cited three bills in particular: S.447 would allow each municipality to ban or adopt stricter standards of glyphosate and other pesticide use; S.499 would require state permits to apply glyphosate on public lands (like at parks, playgrounds, school buildings and on highway medians); and S.463 would greatly restrict the use of a pesticide, neonicotinoid, which has been found to contaminate pollen and nectar, a threat to county beekeepers.
Looking ahead, the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture can go on to rewrite the bills presented Nov. 19, and no outcome is guaranteed. Delta Carney of PATH-Ashfield said that ceasing spraying on school property appeared to be “a no-brainer. The overall feeling in the room (was) that (people) want to end glyphosate in the state, and the issue became the process of doing that.”
When it comes to process, Warwick offers a working example of how to go about this. Before the town banned the use of glyphosate, officials and supporters of the ban helped point out alternative, organic products as part of educating townspeople. Pruyne, who originally proposed the ban, said this was a key element in encouraging voters (to support the ban).
Coupled with Comerford’s call for a thorough review, the panel should be ready to propose safer alternatives as part of phasing out the use of glyphosate. This looks like a path that farmers and industry alike could get behind.