San José continues to rely on glyphosate-based herbicides in public parks despite health warnings, safer alternatives, growing community concern, and increasing uncertainty at the federal level.
Most mornings I take my two beagles, Bailey and Parker, to Williams Street Park. They sniff every corner, pull toward the same patch of grass, and treat the place like their second home. One morning last year, I noticed small warning signs posted near a corner of the park. They announced chemical spraying that day, but there were no barriers, no guidance about where it was happening, and nothing about wind drift. Homes sit across the street on two sides of the park. After years of visiting that park, it was the first time I’d ever seen a posted warning.
Williams Street Park entrance sign
In recent neighborhood discussions, people have been raising concerns about Roundup and asking why the city is still using it. At a community meeting, our new councilmember said he needed the city auditor to weigh in before the council could act. That answer surprised me. San José likes to present itself as a leader in technology, sustainability, and innovation, yet we’re still using a chemical that the World Health Organization classifies as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
(WHO source: https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/)
Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, has been under scrutiny for years. Juries have awarded billions of dollars to plaintiffs who developed cancer after long-term exposure. Countries such as France, Germany, and Austria have banned its use outright. Many U.S. cities, including Davis and Santa Monica, have adopted pesticide-free park maintenance programs. Meanwhile, San José continues to spray glyphosate in places where children play, pets roam, and city workers are exposed on a daily basis.
The city has talked about reducing pesticide use for years. Talk isn’t action. Residents deserve an honest explanation: why hasn’t San José taken the step that so many other cities already have?
Even the federal government has pulled back
Supporters of continued glyphosate use often point to federal approval as a reason for inaction. That argument no longer holds up.
In 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally withdrew its interim decision on glyphosate after a federal appeals court rejected portions of the agency’s health and environmental review. While the EPA maintains that it is re-evaluating the analysis, the withdrawal itself was a clear acknowledgment that earlier conclusions could not stand as written.
More recently, a widely cited glyphosate safety study was retracted due to undisclosed industry involvement, raising further questions about the scientific foundation used to defend the chemical’s safety. Even if regulators dispute how much weight that study carried, the retraction reinforces a basic point: the federal position on glyphosate is unsettled and still evolving.
Waiting for definitive federal certainty is not a neutral stance. It is a choice to continue exposure while the science and regulatory framework remain in flux.
Health and environmental costs outweigh convenience
The case against glyphosate is not theoretical. San José’s own Integrated Pest Management policy acknowledges health and environmental risks and emphasizes minimizing chemical use whenever possible. Continuing to rely on glyphosate contradicts both the spirit and intent of that policy.
Beyond cancer concerns, research has shown that glyphosate harms pollinators, degrades soil health, and can contaminate waterways through runoff into creeks and storm drains. These impacts matter in a city that claims sustainability and environmental stewardship as core values.
Safer and proven alternatives already exist. Nearby jurisdictions successfully use organic herbicides derived from essential oils, thermal steam systems, mulching strategies, and mechanical weed removal. The East Bay Regional Park District and the City of Davis have eliminated glyphosate while maintaining clean, accessible, and well-used parks. These approaches may require more labor or upfront investment, but protecting public health and worker safety justifies the cost.
Anticipating the city’s response
City officials may argue that alternatives are more expensive, less effective, or harder to scale. Yet other large agencies have already made the transition. San José is not being asked to invent new practices, only to adopt ones that are already working elsewhere.
The city may also argue that it follows state and federal guidance. But when federal regulators withdraw prior conclusions and revisit safety analyses, deferring responsibility upward becomes an excuse rather than a rationale. Local governments routinely act more conservatively than minimum federal standards when public health is at stake.
If the city won’t act, residents can
If city management and the City Council continue to hesitate, residents have a clear path forward. A voter-approved ordinance banning glyphosate on city-owned land is both legal and achievable.
To qualify for a regular municipal ballot, residents would need signatures from roughly 10 percent of registered voters, about 44,000 people. The ordinance language could be straightforward:
“The City of San José shall not purchase, apply, or authorize the use of any herbicide containing glyphosate on property owned, leased, or managed by the City.”
Other cities have adopted similar measures. A voter mandate would send an unmistakable message that residents expect public spaces to meet the same health standards many already apply in their own yards.
Leadership means more than slogans
San José’s identity is built on innovation. Continuing to rely on a 1970s-era herbicide that has become a global legal and regulatory liability does not align with that image. Leadership means acting decisively when science is uncertain, risks are real, and safer alternatives exist.
A complete ban on glyphosate in city parks and on city property is not radical. It is responsible. Cities across the country have shown that beautiful, safe, and sustainable public spaces do not require chemicals linked to cancer and environmental harm.
If City Hall will not take the initiative, San José voters can. One way or another, it is time for Roundup to go.
Why It Matters
San José is one of the largest cities in the United States. When a city of this size changes how it manages public land, other jurisdictions notice, including the California Legislature.
Local bans on harmful chemicals have often preceded broader state action. With federal regulators re-examining glyphosate and retreating from earlier conclusions, cities like San José are positioned to lead rather than wait. A voter-backed prohibition here could help build momentum for statewide standards that phase out glyphosate on public property altogether.
This is not just about one park or one chemical. It is about whether San José chooses precaution, public health, and leadership when higher levels of government are still sorting things out.
It’s Time for San José to Stop Using Roundup in Our Parks
San José continues to rely on glyphosate-based herbicides in public parks despite health warnings, safer alternatives, growing community concern, and increasing uncertainty at the federal level.
Most mornings I take my two beagles, Bailey and Parker, to Williams Street Park. They sniff every corner, pull toward the same patch of grass, and treat the place like their second home. One morning last year, I noticed small warning signs posted near a corner of the park. They announced chemical spraying that day, but there were no barriers, no guidance about where it was happening, and nothing about wind drift. Homes sit across the street on two sides of the park. After years of visiting that park, it was the first time I’d ever seen a posted warning.
Williams Street Park entrance sign
In recent neighborhood discussions, people have been raising concerns about Roundup and asking why the city is still using it. At a community meeting, our new councilmember said he needed the city auditor to weigh in before the council could act. That answer surprised me. San José likes to present itself as a leader in technology, sustainability, and innovation, yet we’re still using a chemical that the World Health Organization classifies as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
(WHO source: https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/)
Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, has been under scrutiny for years. Juries have awarded billions of dollars to plaintiffs who developed cancer after long-term exposure. Countries such as France, Germany, and Austria have banned its use outright. Many U.S. cities, including Davis and Santa Monica, have adopted pesticide-free park maintenance programs. Meanwhile, San José continues to spray glyphosate in places where children play, pets roam, and city workers are exposed on a daily basis.
The city has talked about reducing pesticide use for years. Talk isn’t action. Residents deserve an honest explanation: why hasn’t San José taken the step that so many other cities already have?
Even the federal government has pulled back
Supporters of continued glyphosate use often point to federal approval as a reason for inaction. That argument no longer holds up.
In 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally withdrew its interim decision on glyphosate after a federal appeals court rejected portions of the agency’s health and environmental review. While the EPA maintains that it is re-evaluating the analysis, the withdrawal itself was a clear acknowledgment that earlier conclusions could not stand as written.
More recently, a widely cited glyphosate safety study was retracted due to undisclosed industry involvement, raising further questions about the scientific foundation used to defend the chemical’s safety. Even if regulators dispute how much weight that study carried, the retraction reinforces a basic point: the federal position on glyphosate is unsettled and still evolving.
Waiting for definitive federal certainty is not a neutral stance. It is a choice to continue exposure while the science and regulatory framework remain in flux.
Health and environmental costs outweigh convenience
The case against glyphosate is not theoretical. San José’s own Integrated Pest Management policy acknowledges health and environmental risks and emphasizes minimizing chemical use whenever possible. Continuing to rely on glyphosate contradicts both the spirit and intent of that policy.
Beyond cancer concerns, research has shown that glyphosate harms pollinators, degrades soil health, and can contaminate waterways through runoff into creeks and storm drains. These impacts matter in a city that claims sustainability and environmental stewardship as core values.
Safer and proven alternatives already exist. Nearby jurisdictions successfully use organic herbicides derived from essential oils, thermal steam systems, mulching strategies, and mechanical weed removal. The East Bay Regional Park District and the City of Davis have eliminated glyphosate while maintaining clean, accessible, and well-used parks. These approaches may require more labor or upfront investment, but protecting public health and worker safety justifies the cost.
Anticipating the city’s response
City officials may argue that alternatives are more expensive, less effective, or harder to scale. Yet other large agencies have already made the transition. San José is not being asked to invent new practices, only to adopt ones that are already working elsewhere.
The city may also argue that it follows state and federal guidance. But when federal regulators withdraw prior conclusions and revisit safety analyses, deferring responsibility upward becomes an excuse rather than a rationale. Local governments routinely act more conservatively than minimum federal standards when public health is at stake.
If the city won’t act, residents can
If city management and the City Council continue to hesitate, residents have a clear path forward. A voter-approved ordinance banning glyphosate on city-owned land is both legal and achievable.
To qualify for a regular municipal ballot, residents would need signatures from roughly 10 percent of registered voters, about 44,000 people. The ordinance language could be straightforward:
“The City of San José shall not purchase, apply, or authorize the use of any herbicide containing glyphosate on property owned, leased, or managed by the City.”
Other cities have adopted similar measures. A voter mandate would send an unmistakable message that residents expect public spaces to meet the same health standards many already apply in their own yards.
Leadership means more than slogans
San José’s identity is built on innovation. Continuing to rely on a 1970s-era herbicide that has become a global legal and regulatory liability does not align with that image. Leadership means acting decisively when science is uncertain, risks are real, and safer alternatives exist.
A complete ban on glyphosate in city parks and on city property is not radical. It is responsible. Cities across the country have shown that beautiful, safe, and sustainable public spaces do not require chemicals linked to cancer and environmental harm.
If City Hall will not take the initiative, San José voters can. One way or another, it is time for Roundup to go.
Why It Matters
San José is one of the largest cities in the United States. When a city of this size changes how it manages public land, other jurisdictions notice, including the California Legislature.
Local bans on harmful chemicals have often preceded broader state action. With federal regulators re-examining glyphosate and retreating from earlier conclusions, cities like San José are positioned to lead rather than wait. A voter-backed prohibition here could help build momentum for statewide standards that phase out glyphosate on public property altogether.
This is not just about one park or one chemical. It is about whether San José chooses precaution, public health, and leadership when higher levels of government are still sorting things out.
Search
Categories
Post