Thanks so much, Liz Wielinski, for copying that letter to us. I had also been
forwarded that letter, but did not copy it to the list because I thought it
might be a private e-mail and I didn't have permission to make it public. I
did write directly to that person this afternoon, but got an automatic "out of
the office" reply.
In my own e-mail, I asked some follow-up questions, which I might also ask you
now. To quote my questions:
"First, the notice said the warning period expired July 3, which is today. Are
the juneberries now safe to harvest and eat? In other words, if there is a
difference between the danger from glyphosate dermal contact and glyphosate
ingestion (as on agricultural applications), has the stricter time limit now
passed?
"Second, I ran into a man yesterday who told me that he and his daughter has
harvested juneberries from that Minnehaha Falls location last week and he
wanted me to tell him exactly when the glyphosate application had taken place.
Of course, I couldn't tell him. Would you mind letting me know? I don't know
the man and I have no contact information for him, but it is entirely possible
that I will run into him again in the next few days as we nibble on juneberries
along the Greenway.
"Third, a broader question. My understanding is that those particular
Amelanchier bushes were planted with express consideration for their edible
fruits. Can you tell me if you have different protocols for this and other
edible areas than you might have other areas?"
This last question to the glyphosate applicator touches on a point made earlier
by my own park commissioner and which touched me. I quote Scott Vreeland: "The
serviceberries on this strip of land by the parking lot are one of the best
collection of edibles in our parks. As part of the urban agriculture policy
that will be completed in the next few months, this would be the kind of place
that should be identified as one that should exclude pesticide use."
I realize that this is a new way of looking at park land, but I am aware that
it is an area of recent discussion. In addition to Scott Vreeland's comments
(above), I have had several discussions with John Erwin, who seems to very much
favor planting edibles as part of the mix of plants in our parks. I have also
done some small bit of research with Ginger Cannon, who is researching park
policy regarding edibles, looking into what other cities have done relating to
fruit orchards in public parks.
I will tell you very frankly that I have a specific dream of what might happen.
I see a long-term plan where dying trees are replaced with a particular species
of fruit trees, one to each city park. Powderhorn might have raspberries,
Minnehaha Falls have juneberries, Longfellow have pears, Phillips have
cherries, Pearl have apples, and so on. No healthy trees would be cut down to
accommodate the new fruit arrivals. But imagine that each of those
neighborhoods would then a yearly summer festival with a focus on that
particular fruit. Instead of a zillion parks having an August corn feed, it
might be a raspberry festival with pies and fruit with yogurt and various cakes
with fruits in them. Even fruit smoothies maybe.
After eating entirely too much with our friends and neighbors, we all might get
together for a community sing with such luminaries as Betty Tisel, Bret Hesla
and Joe Hesla, who have been organizing events like this for the past year or
so.
Can you see how this would add an entire new and wonderful dimension to our
city parks? Can you see how this would make our city neighborhoods safer? Can
you see how neatly this would fit into the Homegrown Minneapolis healthy food
initiatives?
There are some kinks to work out, mostly concerning stewardship, maintenance
and distribution of the harvest, but other cities have already tried various
models (Seattle and Madison come to mind), and I assure you that it is a
soluble problem.
I don't wish to be too confrontational with you, but I did find myself tensing
up a bit when you suggested that there is an "ick factor" in eating foraged
fruit. I would gently suggest to you that such a concern usually indicates
that one has not thought very much about what sort of contamination exists on
the food we typically buy at the supermarket. And surely you don't want to
suggest that our wonderful Minneapolis parks are contaminated to some "ick"
degree. But even if the urban environment presents some special
considerations, the health hazards that occur incidentally from passing cars
seems fundamentally different than intentionally spraying a bush that was
planted partly as food. With all due respect, freshly sprayed glyphosate does
not belong on our food and I believe this incident should trigger a complete
review of park policy regarding pesticide use.
Liz, I invite you to consider all this, to talk with your fellow commissioners
and staffers, to determine how the Minneapolis parks might add this new
dimension without additional costs or cuts to other programs. If we can all
just get a little past the idea that fruit comes from supermarkets and begin to
understand that it comes the sun and the rain (and perhaps from the soil in our
parks), then I believe there is an entirely new and wonderful aspect to our
parks, without losing a single thing that already makes them so great.