As tick sprays become more commonplace on the Island and their ecological effects remain understudied, health officials in the town of Chilmark drafted regulations to put guardrails on all-natural blends of the product. But the state won’t let them make it official.
Chilmark board of health agent Anna McCaffrey sent the draft regulation to the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) for guidance after hearing from numerous residents in the town who had allergic and nuisance reactions to all-natural, essential-oil blends of tick sprays from their neighbors’ yards. Tisbury board of health agent Drew Belsky, who is also a board of health member in Chilmark, drafted the potential regulation.
“We had a lot of phone calls from residents,” McCaffrey told The Times in late August. “It’s a problem. It’s a gap; 25(b) substances should be regulated.”
Those all-natural blends are categorized as “25(b) minimum-risk pesticides” by the state, and use of them doesn’t require a permit or educational course. Since the ingredients in all-natural sprays are found in a variety of household products, 25(b) products aren’t considered an ecological threat like chemical insecticides. That doesn’t mean they’re harmless, however, according to Island conservationists and town officials, who said they’re concerned about the long-term ecological and health effects of all-natural tick sprays.
The proposed regulation in Chilmark sought to address rising concerns about 25(b) products, like all-natural tick sprays, by requiring operators to notify neighbors with two days’ notice before spraying, among other requirements.
“Applicators shall take reasonable measures to prevent application, drift, runoff, or deposition into sensitive areas,” one part of the proposed regulation stated.
McCaffrey and Belsky heard back from the state department responsible for agricultural oversight and safe practices on August 25, and the verdict is in: 25(b) sprays can’t be regulated by towns.
“The local boards of health do not have the authority to establish the provisions in the draft you sent, as they are still considered pesticides, and therefore, MDAR has regulatory authority over them,” Taryn LaScola, director of the Division of Crop and Pest Services at MDAR, stated in the letter to the town of Chilmark. “Municipalities have no authority to regulate the use of pesticides.”
The letter stated that the state Pesticide Applicator Advisory Council recommended to MDAR that a license be required for 25(b) products. But the state regulations would have to be updated.
“MDAR is currently in the process of updating those regulations for other reasons, [and] will take what Council has recommended into consideration as it updates the regulations,” LaScola stated in the letter.
In the Massachusetts Code of Regulations (CMR), Section 333 is related to pesticide usage. In it, pesticides and insecticides are regulated based on their potential harm to humans, animals, and the environment. Operators who spray chemical blends of insecticides have to go through licensure and potential inspections because of 333 CMR.
The regulations are due to a federal and state push to put guardrails on chemical sprays and products in 1972 through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act following widespread DDT usage in the 1940s through the early 1960s. Massachusetts passed the pesticide-usage CMR in 1978.
There was major public outcry about the toxic effects of the insecticide DDT, which was sprayed from helicopters across much of the country. Jeremy Houser, director of science and policy at the Vineyard Conservation Society, told The Times that the Island wasn’t sprayed as much as some other places across the country. This was largely because Islanders back then couldn’t afford the high cost of DDT sprays, according to an article in Bluedot Living.
It took decades for the state and federal government to substantially regulate the chemical sprays after the substance was misted overhead. And as all-natural aerosolized products rise in usage and fears about ticks increase, getting the sprays included in regulatory practices may take longer than town officials thought.
LaScola even pointed out in the letter that the outreach the town of Chilmark has already done regarding tick and mosquito mitigation through spraying is not allowed. The board of health allegedly sent a letter to Chilmark businesses urging them to use best practices when spraying.
While LaScola wrote that MDAR “appreciates towns encouraging companies to use best practices when applying pesticides and 25(b) minimum-risk pesticides,” MDAR has “exclusive authority” over pesticides under Massachusetts law. “As a result, municipalities are pre-empted from regulating or enforcing matters,” the letter continued.
these unregulated sprays all over the island are having a huge and detrimental effect on our pollinator population. there was a massive drop in the activity in the early part of the season and I’ve seen it and talked with other people who also seen it as well. This is really bad and we need to think seriously about the consequences of these actions.
I have canceled my “organic non chemical” spraying in my yard because I noticed a substantial decrease in bees and butterflies. I also had one tick bite this summer in my yard even when out had been sprayed and got alpha gal. I don’t know if my neighbors are spraying chemicals but I am concerned about the pollinators. Got beautiful plants in my veg garden but no pollination prevented fruit from developing except the tomatoes which self pollinate. Something must be done before the bee population is decimated on the island from these sprays.
i grew up on causeway rd in tisbury when i was 5 or 6 used to watch them spray the swamp with choppers , loved watching as a kid, just didnt know what they were spraying!