Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

MA Pesticide Bureau- Investigation & Findings of Illegal Activity

In March of 1997, following a complaint, the Massachusetts Pesticide Bureau initiated an investigation into the use of the herbicide Pathway, by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Pathway is listed on the Pesticide Bureau web site as a restricted use product, meaning that a license is required to purchase, and posses the material and anyone applying the material must be licensed by the state as a commercial pesticide applicator. Although not widely known, a report was issued in November of 1997.

The results of their findings are as follows:

-Illegal purchase, possession, and use of a restricted material without a license.

-Illegal use of unlicensed, untrained persons as applicators.

-Violation of MGL 111F (Right to Know)

-Violations of MGL 132B and 333 CMR

Violations of MGL 132B and 333CMR are as follow:

333CMR

13.03 (2) use inconsistent with label

10.04 training requirements for a restricted use material

10.02 violations dealing with application, storage, transport and disposal***

***Most waste was placed in the landfills of Bourne, Sandwich, and Falmouth with household trash, in violation of EPA standard U-240

.

MGL 132B sec 6A dealing with license requirements

Of interest, MGL 132B sec 14 carries a maximum penalty of $25,000 in fines and/or one year incarceration for each indivdual violation. Multiply that by ten years of use and the figure is astronomical. There were 104 documented illegal applications in a four year period. Those alone could result in penalties of $2,600,000 and/or 104 years incarceration. Yet only a "Warning" was issued to a field supervisor in the Westboro office at that time. This warning certainly seemed to have made an impact, as in the August 9th 2001 edition of the Boston Globe this same person was exposed as having demolished a building filled with asbestos, again without any of the required permits or safety regulations being followed. Once again "Your Government, Your Way." This apparently is not the mindset of the responsible individuals, yet they do interpret this to mean "Their Way." Perhaps you or I, in the same set of circumstances, would also receive a warning. Do you believe that would be the result? The Attorney General's web site lists a similar violation, yet that resulted in a $25,000 fine to an individual. Now that's equal treatment under the law!

Last, yet certainly not least, the Pesticide Bureau state "They have no idea as to the possible health effects", yet why was this not refered to the Department of Public Health for evaluation? How many Cape residents,seasonal visitors,employees, animals both wild and domestic, and people simply out to enjoy nature have been affected, some possibly not even aware of it yet !

Certainly can make you wonder about the recent investigation into the increased incidence of childhood cancer in the general vacinity of these areas.

Given the above facts, it can certainly make you wonder why the Pesticide Bureau did not refer unprotected employees to Public Health for evaluation of possible health effects, both those that may have been present at the time of the report was issued, and a followup for a period of time for delayed effects. Since I was the person who made the complaint it certainly makes you wonder if any agency can be trusted as the report was issued in November 1997 and I could not get a copy untill early 2001, when it was obtained by a reporter at the Cape Cod Times under the Freedom of Information Act.

.

Links

MGL 132B
333 CMR