Question
Thanks for your response to an earlier reader about the use of herbicides near edible fruit trees. I have the same problem: my husband insists on using pre-emergent (Snapshot, they tell me) on our garden roses, grass, perennial beds. I've refused to have it put in the organic garden or my herb garden. However, we have a lemon, lime, orange, grapefruit and apricot tree, who don't get spared with the liberal sprinkling of that stuff. Now we've planted four blueberry bushes, and he thinks it won't hurt the fruit if the stuff is sprinkled "outside of the drip line" of the trees. I'm concerned. I need information with which to fight this battle. I want to eat the fruit, but I don't want to be poisoned. I also am concerned about all the critters in my yard (birds, squirrels, wild turkeys, my cat) and want to know the hard facts about the safety of this wonderful savior of all who don't ever want to pull a weed. I'd appreciate anything you can give me to dissuade my husband from using the stuff in my yard, but I really need to know the truth about the hazards of using it on my edible plants.

I live in Zip code 95662, Orangevale, CA

Thanks so much in advance,

Fran Zeiner

Answer
Thank you for writing, Fran.  I apologize for being so delayed in my response, but it is a very busy time of year and I am quite overextended.  Your question is important.

There are two problems with these chemicals.

First, there's the weak government regulations and even weaker enforcement.  Under the Reagan administration, many of the pro-earth strides were simply erased, quietly, with no publicity and no argument.  The economy and inflation were the big issues.  Pro-enviroment translated to anti-business.  That's the first problem.

Then there's the skill at which these companies pitch their poisons.  I try not to lose patience with people who put so much trust in television commercials, but there is a sort of naivety about someone who treats these like they were some sort of PSA.  Then, in an economy like this, you have desperate print and broadcast media losing money hand over fist; they can't afford to turn off advertisers.  Scotts and their friends send many, many millions of dollars on advertising, and these profit-starved media need every penny of it.

So what can you do with someone who tells themself, This must be OK or it would not be for sale?

There's no question that these chemicals are damaging.  Will you die if you eat the fruit off those trees and shrubs?  No.  Is it good for you?  No.  Is it good for ANYONE?  No.

Here's the MSDS for Dow AgroScience Snapshot: www.cdms.net/ldat/mp0B6007.pdf

Crystalline Silica is deemed IN CALIFORNIA to be carcinogenic, but only in California.  That's what the lawyers have decided.  This is noted in the last line on the MSDS.  

Trifluralin (C13H16 F3 N3O4), also known as  L-36352, Treflan and Triflurex, accumulates in your Soil, degrades very slowly, is highly toxic or very highly toxic to fish, slightly toxic to highly toxic to amphibians.  Farmers who use it have a higher rate of non-Hodgkins lymphoma:

www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/docs_state/batch1.html

See page 43 of the aforementioned report, a study done in California: 'There is a HIGH level of concern over the extent of exposure to Trifluralin. It is used on a large number of California crops... Most usage is on cotton and alfalfa, indicating that, like other agricultural chemicals, occupational exposures are possible. The general public may consume food crops treated with Trifluralin, especially Tomatoes, Carrots and Grapes, and could be additionally exposed by dermal and inhalation routes from Lawn products. Trifluralin may also bioaccumulate in fish.' And by the way, the word 'may' used here means 'does when possible' - not 'might'.

Like most things today, Trifluoralin appears to be made primarily in China, so you won't be reading about illness and death rates of plant workers and their families.

The effects of Trifluralin: www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/trifluralin-page.htm

Environmentalists in California trying to protect the red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) have been trying to get Trifluralin off the market for years.  This chemical is one of their targeted 66 pesticides allowed there.  

The effects of Isoxaben: www.beyondpesticides.org/gateway/pesticide/isoxaben.htm

Toxic to birds.  Bad for kidneys.

Fluoride Action Network is an interesting organization with some surprising information about these chemicals: www.fluoridealert.org

Bottom line:  Unless you stand there and inhale next to the equipment that applies your husband's Transition, you probably won't notice anything.  You are likely eating it on a regular basis unless you're buying organic fruits and vegetables (although if I lived at your house, it seems like I would just go outside and pick my breakfast off the trees).  Pity your husband shrugs this organic option off like he was picking out the color of his socks.

It's sort of like garbage disposal.  If everyone goes out and tosses their empty Starbucks container on the street, or throws used plastic wrappers and their garbage out on the sidewalk, we'd be looking at a big mess.  But we can see all that garbage.  If only one person does it and everyone else is careful, there's less to see.  But the garbage is out there, somewhere.  Why make it worse?

Besides, who knows what they'll find out next about this weedkiller?

Remember, there was a time when people thought cigarettes were good for you.

Based on what we already know, using it is bad for the frogs, the birds and the planet.  If your husband noticed dead baby birds the next morning after the stuff goes down, he would probably wish he'd listened to you.  But that likely will not happen.

Peace, and God bless our green earth,

L.I.G.