This commentary is by Mike Stannard, a resident of Fair Haven.
An open letter to Gov. Phil Scott: In the age of Vioxx, Roundup, BPA, military burn pits and the synthetic-opioid-spawned epidemic, who could blame a mother of three who lives on Lake Bomoseen, Lake George, or any body of water in the country for opposing the use of a new “EPA-licensed” herbicide?
As we are informed, it is practically nontoxic to fish, and only slightly toxic to other invertebrates. It is of a new subgroup of herbicides dubbed “auxins” that are able to shut down the reproduction of specific aquatic plants, and have little to no toxicity to fish and other vertebrates and invertebrates.
Even more impressive than this, ProcellCOR’s active ingredient is shown to be absent from the water column after a couple of days. It will also keep your great-aunt Edna from being grossed out by “seaweed” (aquatic plants) when she visits from Connecticut for her one weekend (and two boat rides) in Vermont this decade.
A number of us remain skeptical, at best. I believe my take on the treatment of Lake Bomoseen with herbicide to reduce the growth of Eurasian milfoil is simple and shared by many Vermonters who love and use this and other lakes. I am simply a “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) on this issue.
I do not see a single reason to risk this sacred ecosystem for a minority who don’t seem to be suffering in any way from the weeds that grow in a fraction of the lake. I, for one, don’t want to read the literature anymore or argue with my neighbors about the vocabulary related to treating lakes with herbicides. I also don’t want to read and analyze the results in five years or hear another sales pitch about SePRO, the makers of ProcellaCOR.
I am one of the Vermonters who feel that any risk outweighs the potential benefit in dosing these waters.
SePRO’s literature on its product seems out of compliance for a chemical that our Department of Environmental Conservation has approved for use in any large Vermont lake since: 1. It should be used only in a waterbody with little or no outflow. 2. It should not be used where commercial fishing will be occurring within the year of dosing. 3. It should not be used where harvested weeds will be used for agriculture. 4. It should not be used for irrigation.
One member of our community has experience in ecotoxicology and realized early on that there was a red flag in the pro-treatment argument. When she brought up a question regarding this at the joint meeting with the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Fish & Wildlife last month, she received a response of pure ignorance from the DEC lakes and ponds director.
Anna Ploof, who studied ecotoxicology at Castleton University under Professor Cynthia Moulton, used her time at the table to ask him if they were testing the waters for XDE-848 acid, the chemical that Florpyrauxifen-benzyl “turns into” during that 48 hours. Anna explains in her March 2022 analysis of the chemical:
“ProcellaCOR’s active ingredient, Florpyrauxifen-benzyl, has a primary metabolite called XDE-848 acid. According to a public release summary of Florpyrauxifen-benzyl, a study done on goats showed that after dosing them for just seven days, XDE-848 acid was present in the liver and kidneys. Additionally, in a laying hen metabolism study, two groups of hens were orally dosed every day for two weeks. This study has slightly different results in that there were Florpyrauxifen-benzyl levels in the egg, liver, muscle, skin, and fat of these animals.
“Based on another source, there was a two-generation reproduction and developmental toxicity study with Florpyrauxifen-benzyl and XDE-848 acid found in the milk and blood of maternal animals, and also in the blood of pups and fetuses, though at a lower level.
“Found within the same source there was a study done on Midge, a native benthic invertebrate. Florpyrauxifen-benzyl was chronically toxic to freshwater benthic invertebrates at all tested concentrations. This 10-day freshwater study raises a huge concern for high chronic toxicity to benthic invertebrates native to Vermont. An underlying concern for any toxin is when they have the ability to reside in vital organs or have genotoxicity potential (because of this chemical’s ability to pass through the placental barrier of maternal animals).”
I have spent many of the best days of my life on and around Lake Bomoseen, from the time I could walk. I’ve lived on its shores. I’ve been baptized in it. I was married there. I paddled next to my wife as she swam 5.5 miles of it during the supposedly “weedy” part of the summer. I have spent countless hours catching healthy fish, in all four seasons, from the lake and rivers that run out of it, all the way to Lake Champlain.
I feed my family vegetables grown in compost made from the weeds harvested from Lake Bomoseen for three seasons a year. I have watched them play in these waters for countless days in the summer and on the ice in winter. I hope the same for their children
The only studies of the use of this chemical on specific ecological communities are the experiments being done with our waters as we speak. The anecdotal evidence and testimony from thousands of residents, tourists and fisher people who have experienced negative changes in these treated lakes have not been sought.
You, the commissioner of Fish & Wildlife, the commissioner of the Department of Health, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources all need to “put the brakes on” and ask yourselves if you are collectively sure that the approval for use of Florpyrauxifen-benzyl in our waterways is truly sustainable and dead-to-rights safe for people and habitats over the coming decades.
If our Department of Environmental Conservation allows one more of the great lakes of our area to be compromised in the name of experimenting with a new “miracle chemical” and the experiment fails, it’s going to be tough to forgive any of you.
