Op-Ed: Ornamental campus, at a cost

April 4, 2019

How many hazardous chemicals are required to maintain one of the most beautiful campuses in USA?

Michelle Gilmore-Grier, Ph.D. / Department of Philosophy

The University of San Diego has enjoyed its status as a most beautiful campus; indeed, if one looks at reviews and comparisons, it is declared to be one of the most beautiful campuses in America. And why not? With its Spanish Renaissance architecture and its location on a mesa overlooking Mission Bay, with the crisp San Diego climate and the canyon views, its sprawling exotic commercial grade ornamental turfs, plants, flowers and trees (all impeccably maintained), the campus is indeed lovely; why, it’s enough to take your breath away! Literally.

How can a campus in the drought-ridden region of Southern California sport such lush and ornamental environs? I went to Environmental Health and Safety on campus for a list of chemicals used on our grounds. This list, unfortunately, is far too long to include here. The majority of these chemicals are pesticides, insecticides, and fungicides, virtually all of them (as with most industrial chemicals) carrying warnings of toxicity. Anyone who has worked here for any length of time has become acquainted with the routine spraying, and the use of chemicals and pesticides. With the more recent upgrades to the mesa, and the addition and expansion of lawns on what used to be Marion Way, the need to maintain the ornamental commercial grade turfs has expanded. All of this adds to the wonderful experience of being at USD, and it is, moreover, an important marketing tool. There are, however, costs and obligations attending to such landscaping choices. These costs are perhaps worth noting, for we – unlike visiting parents or trustees or conference participants, etc. – spend years on campus; our faculty and staff and other essential employees will have been exposed to these chemicals over the course of a career for potentially, if not already actually, decades.

Round-up Pro, (Monsanto Corp.) is one product deployed by USD grounds-keeping. The active ingredient in Round-Up (Glyphosate) has been repeatedly affiliated with non-Hodgkins lymphoma among those who undergo long exposure over time. In a lawsuit in 2018, Monsanto was instructed to pay Dewayne Johnson 289 million. The jury found that Monsanto acted maliciously by failing to warn consumers of cancer risks posed by the herbicide. Other suits have followed, and continue still. Currently, it appears that there are many thousands of cancer patients suing Monsanto in numerous state courts for failure to warn the public about the risk of cancer associated with glyphosate-based weed-killers.

It must be noted that Monsanto vehemently rejects the causal connection between Glyphosate and cancer. Bayer, which rather recently purchased Monsanto, also rejects the legitimacy of the charges, and is thus now confronted with thousands of similar lawsuits of its own. My aim is not to enter into the details of the arguments. One thing is certain: The toxicity of Round-Up increases when mixed with other chemicals. USD does indeed use a variety of chemicals. We also use Criterion 0.5g Insecticide (Bayer Corp.), with the active ingredient being Imidacloprid 0.5%; it is used for ornamental landscaping and turf-grass. Reported adverse affects gathered by the EPA documents over 22,000 minor poisoning incidents, mostly identified among those working directly with the product in grounds-keeping. (nrdc.org). Reported reactions include skin irritation, numbing on fingers, facial numbness and swelling, among others. Apart from toxicity to humans, Imidacloprid is very toxic to honey bees and other beneficial insects. USD also uses Spray Fast, a product of the Simplot Corporation for use along with various insecticides, miticides, fungicides, herbicides, fertilizers, defoliants, and dessicants in order to maintain healthy turf. In addition to all of the above, USD uses (among numerous others) Simplot’s Right on Blue and Dimension 270G. Although warnings are not always on the packaging, a simple search of the active ingredients (e.g. Dithiopyr, Thiamethoxam) suggests that these chemicals are hazards to humans and domestic animals. Simplot, one of the largest, private companies in America, located in Idaho, itself has a long history of suits and complaints on various

Obviously, many of these issues flow from the university’s choice to landscape with ornamental and non-native turf, and so on. Quite apart from any factors stemming from climate change, Southern California is, and always has been, a drought sensitive region. Aside from whether our use of natural resources, such as water, is responsible, a real problem is that this decision carries with it the seeming necessity of a full panoply of chemicals needed to maintain the grounds.

Here we may simply note that the chemicals are toxic in general. They are toxic even if they remain legal, and enjoy popular commercial use at golf courses, public parks, etc.. It is naturally difficult to measure and quantify exactly how toxic each individual chemical is, or what practices might exacerbate toxicity. The difficulty of measuring toxicity is evidenced by glancing at the case of Simplot’s Right on Blue. On the list of products used by USD, this is a colorant for use in spray application of pesticides (e.g. Round-Up). An examination of the toxicological information is distressing: acute toxicity, germ cell mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity, specific organ toxicity, and more. So far as I know, none of this toxicological information has resulted in a process of classification as of yet, meaning that its hazardous “status” is undetermined. Even Simplot does not appear to be able to classify the product in this regard! Perhaps it wishes not to. And of course, individuals vary widely in their chemical sensitivities. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Simplot is willing to state: “AVOID ALL UNNECESSARY EXPOSURE.”

Of course, the hazards are not limited to humans. USD has become increasingly welcoming to animals on campus, and we thus might want to consider whether the voluptuous use of chemicals on the lawns and plant beds is consistent with our welcoming these animals. Then, too, the insecticides used (especially Meridian 0.33G and Fusilade ll as well as Criterion) are extremely toxic to native and helpful insects. This is particularly unfortunate for the threatened California honey-bee. Ditto the lady-bug, the mantid, and so on, insects beneficial for controlling other pests and, obviously, in the case of the honey-bee, essential for pollination. Considering that a number of the chemicals used at USD appear to be used to treat the soil directly in order to kill pre-emergent insects that might mar the appearance of the pristine lawns, one thing seems clear: there are far-reaching implications attending to the use of industrial chemicals.

I do not enjoy, indeed I decry, alarmist activism. No doubt there are studies and arguments producible by those on the other side of the issue. But this is in a sense irrelevant to the question. The debate is not about whether our use of pesticides, etc., is in itself acceptable/unacceptable or even desirable/undesirable. The question is whether there are better, or less risky, methods for maintaining the landscape in a way that uses natural resources more responsibly, and sustains itself with a decrease in the use of chemicals. The question is whether implementing a long-term and measured plan to reduce the use of industrial chemicals is worth it. It is possible.

Noting with concern the amount of chemicals used on university campuses, some students are stepping up to the plate. Finding that the chemicals used at the University of California, Berkeley were hazardous, especially to young women of reproductive age, for example, two female student athletes pursued the issue. The result is that UC Berkeley is now a “pesticide-free” campus. A number of fore-thinking colleges and universities are following suit, if they hadn’t already done this themselves. There thus now appears to be a network of campuses together working on minimizing the use of industrial chemicals.

The reasons for pursuing pesticide-free environments vary across campuses. Aside from the universal desire to avoid the obvious health risks appended to exposure, some campuses additionally see pesticide free environments as a means of putting into practice what they “preach.” Some see cost benefits, citing the high cost of synthetic pesticides. Then, too, there is the commitment to helping to reduce the toxicity of their community, to practice good stewardship over the environment, knowing that the birds and the bees and the seeds, and so on, that are on campus inevitably influence the environments surrounding campus, etc. In short, these colleges and universities take their commitments on this score to be demanded by the Missions of their institutions.

Given the success enjoyed by so many campuses thus far, it appears to be the case that one needn’t sacrifice the beauty of a campus in order to promote alternative methods of maintaining its grounds. It may be that the most beautiful campuses in America are also the most healthy and responsible.

What does it mean to be a “Change-Maker?”

Op-Ed Sources:

http://fortune.com/2019/03/30/bayer-monsanto-merger-roundup-cancer/

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/updated-ag-health-study-glyphosate-and-cancer

http://fortune.com/2019/03/30/bayer-monsanto-merger-roundup-cancer/