By J. DAVID McSWANE
Published: Monday, January 3, 2011 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 10:20 p.m.
University of Florida researcher George Hochmuth is sick of defending his research, which is at the heart of a simmering battle over how much fertilizer people can put on their lawns during the rainy summer months.
Related Links:
"I think it's unfair and unprofessional to be charging good scientists who have their heart in the right place," says Hochmuth, an environmental science professor. "The science is almost being held hostage."
Hochmuth and a team of seven researchers at UF's Institute for Food and Agricultural Studies have been lambasted by environmentalist groups and other scientists for their study that suggests banning fertilizers in the rainy season does more harm than good in the effort to keep pollutants out of waterways.
Titled "Unintended Consequences Associated with Certain Urban Fertilizer Ordinance," the study was published in March 2009 amid virulent debate at the Capitol -- and at the request of industry lobbyists.
Though critics have been loud in their indictment of the study, which the institute acknowledges was funded by the fertilizer industry, it has been used at government meetings statewide to slow regulation.
Now Sarasota County, which in 2007 enacted the first strict fertilizer ordinance in Florida, has taken aim at the IFAS study.
"It's tobacco science," said County Commissioner Jon Thaxton, who is leading the way at the county to compel researchers to release documents associated with the study.
"At best, it's an unsubstantiated opinion piece, but that's not what they're using it for," claims Thaxton, who in 2007 was appointed to Gov. Charlie Crist's Florida Consumer Fertilizer Task Force to provide recommendations to the state.
"They're using it and calling it science and taking it to Tallahassee to write laws with."
Since Sarasota passed its fertilizer restrictions, 40 other cities and counties in Florida have passed similar ordinances. At the same time, legislators have tried but failed to pass a law that would pre-empt the local ordinances and weaken the restrictions on fertilizer use.
Such legislation is certain to be introduced again this year when legislators meet in March, said Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton.
"I can assure you there will be a war," said Bennett, who co-sponsored a bill last year that would have pre-empted local regulation of certain kinds of fertilizers. The bill ultimately was not approved by legislators.
As Bennett acknowledges, his stance will depend on what he hears from the experts on the subject, namely researchers at IFAS.
Access denied
Like several experts interviewed, Thaxton has been a long-time supporter of IFAS and, as a county commissioner, advocated to retain funding for an extension researcher here.
But the fertilizer study, he says, could mean sweeping changes in state environmental policy, and should be placed under a microscope.
"If there's something wrong with my ordinance, we need to see the data," Thaxton said, "so I can change my ordinance."
But UF and IFAS denied an open records request from the county to release pre-publication reviews of the study by independent scientists. A subsequent analysis by County Attorney Stephen DeMarsh concluded the school did not have grounds to deny the request for such peer reviews.
An identical request made earlier by the local chapter of the Sierra Club was also denied, as was a similar request by the Herald-Tribune.
"The scientific review process is confidential," said Jack Payne, a UF senior vice president and director of IFAS. "You have colleagues criticizing colleagues. If you put the names of reviewers in the public, you open them up to criticism."
Payne emphatically defends the study as hard science.
But last month, after the Herald-Tribune made calls to researchers, IFAS removed the study from its website.
When asked why the institute would unpublish a study it views as scientifically sound, Payne said, "Maybe that wasn't the best strategy."
This is the first time the institute has ever unpublished a study because of criticism, Payne said.
"I'm pulling it only because the paper that's going to replace it is even stronger," Payne said, referring to a new study that is expected this year. "I am trying to show our critics that I'm listening to them."
Critics abound
That residents might overload their lawns with fertilizer before the start of a summer ban was one of the paper's main points.
Such "unintended consequences" could increase fertilizer pollution in local waters, IFAS has told local governments statewide, and could escalate concerns of red tide and algae bloom off Florida's coast.
Hochmuth says his team denies allegations that he has lobbied alongside the turfgrass industry.
"We're not trying to badmouth blackouts," he said.
IFAS's opposition to summertime fertilizer blackouts was sparked by Sarasota County's 2007 ordinance, said Jack Merriam, water resources manager with the county.
"In Gainesville, they have been somewhere between hostile to local government fertilizer regulation, to at least critical," Merriam said. "I personally have never really understood why."
Sarasota County is specifically mentioned in the study as a potential area of concern.
To date, Merriam says, Sarasota County has not experienced any negative effects mentioned in the study.
"I have characterized it as a kind of indictment by innuendo," Merriam said. "I have to assume that there is not adequate science to it."
Mike Holsinger, a local environmental science consultant who worked for 19 years at the Sarasota IFAS extension office, calls the fertilizer study "disheartening."
"The whole gist of the publication appears, to me, to be to please the turfgrass industry or something," said Holsinger, who has done contract work for the Sierra Club.
With the next legislative session set to start in two months, the debate over the local fertilizer ordinances -- and Hochmuth's research -- is heating up again.
"We know that some of the ordinances are bad," said Bennett, who has not decided if he will introduce a new fertilizer bill in the spring.
Bennett said he has not read the IFAS study, but was surprised to hear the institute had unpublished it.
"Why would you pull it if you defend the science behind it?" Bennett asked.
Thaxton says it was about time IFAS removed it.
"You just don't get to say something without ultimately having to defend your methodology," he said. "If they are going to use this in Tallahassee, I'm going to be bold and say it's not worth the paper it's written on."
No comments:
Post a Comment