Can We Talk? Why Grumpy Doesn’t Hate Scott’s

January 29, 2012 | By | Comments (23)

Faithful readers, I know I promised to talk about great new plants in this week’s post, but a matter of greater urgency cropped up that demands attention. It reminds me of the time I was due to shoot a live gardening spot for local TV, when suddenly I was preempted by an event deemed more newsworthy.

Eight police cars with blue flashing lights were chasing OJ’s Bronco down the freeway.

I could not believe how twisted America’s values were. You mean to tell me you’re more interested in seeing if OJ shoots himself than learning about how to prune a mulberry tree? What is this world coming to?

Evil Steve copyMeet eco-terrorist Steve Bender, who foolishly insists on considering both sides of an argument.

The Raging Inferno

The issue that preempts “new plants for your garden” is the recent announcement of a new partnership between the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and garden products manufacturer Scott’s Miracle-Gro. I would say the pact has “ignited a firestorm of criticism” from environmental groups, but that phrase has already been used 1,147 times in the last four days and I pride myself in being original.

Instead, the issue has kindled a conflagration of controversy.

Environmental groups that practice 100% organic gardening, eschew all chemicals, and think everyone else should be forced to do the same excoriate NWF for forging an unholy alliance with an “evil” company like Scott’s. A recent posting on the web page of Native Plants & Wildlife Gardens makes this outrageous, over-the-top statement: “[The] fundamental problem with the partnership …is that Scotts Miracle-Gro’s revenues depend almost entirely on selling consumers products to kill wildlife and destroy wildlife habitat.”

Right. Every morning, Scott’s managers open their daily agendas and recite in unison Item 1: “Today I will do everything I can to destroy the Earth and in so doing pad our bottom line.”

Hogwash. (If I didn’t work at Southern Living, I would substitute a common barnyard term for hogwash here, but you get what I mean.)

Full Disclosure

Before you leap to the conclusion that Grumpy has been bought by Scott’s to defend it, let me address this forthwith. Grumpy gets no $$$ nor anything of material value from Scott’s Miracle-Gro. I do use some of their products, but I do so because I believe they’re safe and effective, and I pay for them.

Miracle-Gro-Water-Soluble-All-Purpose-Plant-Food-stdGrumpy does have a long, one-sided relationship with the company, however. Centuries ago when Grumpy was but a wee lad learning how to garden, our family used Miracle-Gro. That was back when it was called “Stern’s Miracle-Gro,” before Scott’s bought the original company. We used Miracle-Gro on our flowers, vegetables, and other plants for one primary reason. It worked.

I’ve used Scott’s lawn products for a long time too, because they’re high-quality, they work, and I like having a nice lawn. (Sorry, lawn-haters. If you want to live in the forest, in the desert, or on the prairie, feel free. I don’t care. But Grumpy won’t be your neighbor.) I remember that once I was a teenager, I sent in a little card that came with the fertilizer that would bring me seasonal updates on lawn care. I thought that was cool.

Logical conclusion — Scott’s obviously poisoned my mind at a tender age, convincing me to embark upon a misguided career of writing about the joys of gardening. The fiends!

What We Hate About You

The enraged environmental groups are vilifying the new partnership for two reasons. First, Scott’s makes lawn and garden chemicals, which necessarily earns them the title, “Messenger from Satan.” Second, the MFS is now in a position to corrupt and taint a respected environmental organization, the NWF, whose leaders are so malleable and hungry for cash that they’ll abandon their core values to do their new master’s bidding.

Let Grumpy address the first issue. A lot of people out there don’t believe in using any non-natural manufactured pesticide, whether it be insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, whatever. Fine. No problem. It’s a free country and your garden is your own. But I reject the notion that people who choose to use “chemicals” to target specific, hard-to-control pests in a responsible manner are evil. (By the way, organic fertilizers are chemicals too.) I don’t spray Sevin on my vegetables, but I see nothing wrong with zapping the poison ivy on my oak tree with Roundup applied according to directions. So sue me.

Now to THE BIG ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM (hereafter referred to as TBEITR — Grumpy loves anagrams): Roundup (glyphosate). The most successful, most widely used, and most profitable garden chemical ever. Millions of people throughout the country use it every year to control weeds in their gardens. It has been thoroughly tested by government regulatory agencies and found to be safe when used as directed.

Roundup-Pump-N-Go-Refill-stdNonetheless, many environmentalists revile Roundup. One reason is that its manufacturer, Monsanto, is the worldwide leader in developing genetically modified crops, such as Roundup Ready corn, wheat, soybeans, and alfalfa, that can sprayed with Roundup to control weeds without killing the crops. Grumpy doesn’t like genetically-modified crops, because there is real danger their engineered genes may wind up in other plants, creating super-weeds that nothing will kill. And he doesn’t like Monsanto’s heavy-handed tactics that involve trespassing on private property to search for Roundup Ready crops the farmer hasn’t paid for.

So how does Scott’s figure into all this? Well, Monsanto licensed Scott’s to sell Roundup for use in home gardens in this country. Important note: Scott’s doesn’t market Roundup to farmers. Monsanto still supplies the farm industry, which sprays tons of the stuff over Roundup Ready fields. Some studies suggest such widespread spraying can harm fish and amphibians, but label directions specifically warn against using Roundup near or on water. Quote: “Environmental Hazards. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the high water mark.” I think that’s pretty clear.

I’ve also read posts on the web that say Roundup causes miscarriages in farm animals. The charge goes pretty much like this. Cow has miscarriage. New microorganism found in field where cow has miscarriage. Field where miscarriage occurred was treated with Roundup. Conclusion: Roundup responsible for microorganism that caused miscarriage.

Ummmmmm………..maybe it’s just me, but I think that’s a stretch. In any case, I’m not interested in defending Monsanto. My mission is to advise and help home gardeners.

Do You Use Roundup? A Grumpy Survey

To find out how home gardeners across the country use Roundup, I recently posted the following questions on Grumpy’s Facebook page: “How many of you use Roundup in your gardens? Do you read and follow the directions before using it? Do you feel safe using it?”

The responses (and I thank every one of you who took the time to answer) were very interesting. A number of you said you would never use it for any reason. Even more said you do use it for very specific reasons. You use it on weeds that grow in the cracks in your sidewalk and driveway. You use it to kill tough weeds, like poison ivy, English ivy, Johnson grass, and Bermuda grass. You use as little of it as possible and you follow the label directions.

Of course, some of you don’t use it the right way. You say you mix it to double-strength in the belief that if the recommended dosage kills a weed, twice as much kills it twice as good. THIS IS INCORRECT. Roundup kills weeds by being absorbed by leaves and stems and then transported by the plant’s vascular system to the roots. When you double the dosage, you destroy the vascular system before translocation occurs. The chemical never reaches the roots and the weed grows back. SO FOLLOW DIRECTIONS.

Don’t Want No Scott’s People ‘Round Here

A lot of people take the attitude that all those in corporate America are devils. Thus, anyone who works at Scott’s is a devil. And the best way to defeat these devils is to shun them, make them pariahs, and shut off any possibility of civil discourse to avoid contamination.

Hogwash. (Oh nuts! Just dropped the H-bomb again!)

I’ve met some of the people who work at Scott’s. Not the bigwigs, but the rank-and-file. Want to know what they’re like?

Well, they have two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, two arms, and two legs. Just like you. They get married and have kids. Just like you. They want their kids to eat the best food, drink the purest water, and get the best education. Just like you. Employees at Scott’s HQ don’t work under a dome supplied with pure, filtered air, while the rest of Marysville, Ohio breathes dirty, industrial air. Scott’s people don’t get special key cards that let them shop in the “Food Not Tainted By Roundup” section of the grocery store. I’m sure not all of them agree with every decision their company makes. But the best place to effect change is from within.

Strange Bedfellows

Much of the hostility directed at the Scott’s-NWF partnership comes from supporters of NWF who feel betrayed. After all, why would an organization promoting certified backyard wildlife habitats that forbid the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers get in bed with Scott’s?

The answer is that the goal of the partnership is something NWF very much desires — the success of NWF’s nationwide “Be Out There” campaign that seeks to reconnect children with the natural world, create green spaces that attract wildlife, and foster the next generation of environmentalists. Scott’s financial support furthers this worthy cause.

Critics call Scott’s money dirty money, as if their dollars are made from Roundup. I say a dollar is a dollar, so why not let it do good? Grumpy is reminded of an organization that partners with big business to preserve critical wildlife habitats — the Nature Conservancy. Rather then demonizing the business community, the Nature Conservancy engages them, often convincing them to donate their own property to wildlife sanctuaries. The result is more land that’s protected.

So which do you think is better — more land protected or less land? Hmmmm. I’ll go with more.

Changes at Scott’s

The relationship between Scott’s and NWF is a two-way street. NWF gets needed dollars. In return, NWF affects Scott’s business plan. NWF’s CEO Larry Schweiger points to three positive initiatives. First, Scott’s is developing a full line of natural gardening products. Second, Scott’s is phasing out the use of sphagnum peat moss in its potting soils, because mining peat moss in Canada destroys vital wildlife habitat. Third, and most important, after 2012, Scott’s chemical lawn fertilizers will no longer contain phosphorus. When phosphorus gets into bodies of water, it causes the rapid growth of algae that rob the water of oxygen and suffocate marine life. This decision is a big deal.

Lawns 016
As for you lawn-haters out there who condemn Scott’s for promoting environment-killing lawns, I say have you ever considered what a lawn is? It’s a solid mat of mostly leaves and roots. Turfgrass absorbs pollutants and greenhouse gases. It filters out nutrients before they get into water better than even forests do. It traps dirt and dust before you walk it into the house. It provides a beautiful, pleasant surface for recreation. In return, grass releases oxygen for us to breathe and water vapor to cool the air around us. Lawns are a major reason why the suburbs are 6-10 degrees cooler than city centers in the summer.

In Conclusion

I don’t agree with everything Scott’s says or does. For example, I don’t like their Bonus S Southern Lawn Weed & Feed, because it contains atrazine, a herbicide that’s a serious water pollutant. I don’t think lawns need to be fertilized any more than twice a year. I think using winterizer fertilizer on Southern lawns is a waste of money, because grass that’s going dormant doesn’t need extra nutrients. And I think any chemical that’s been banned in the U.S. after being judged unsafe should not be sold to other countries with laxer standards.

But am I going to demonize Scott’s and the NWF without talking to them and listening to their side? No way. Shouting your opinion into a mirror doesn’t change anyone’s mind. It does, however, give you a really good look at yourself.

And the Answer Is….

Now to something you’re all dying to know that I briefly hinted at as I began this lengthy diatribe.

Question: When is the best time to prune a mulberry tree?

Answer: Whenever you can find a chain saw.












  1. za mrsavljenje

    Pretty! Thhis has been a really wonderful post. Many thanks foor supplying this information.

    November 14, 2014 at 10:45 pm
  2. Grumpy Gardener (His Magnificence)

    Thank you.

    February 27, 2012 at 11:55 am
  3. Claudia Fay

    great article….informative….thanks for keeping us aware!

    February 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm
  4. Grumpy Gardener (His Magnificence)

    No, I haven’t tried it, but it sounds like a good product. Thanks for the info. I’ll give it a shot.

    February 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm
  5. Mari

    Have you tried Sea Minerals FA?
    The product is loaded with trace minerals and no poisons.
    It is used by farmers, gardeners, and people who want great lawns without wondering what they may end up with. It is even organically certified!

    February 17, 2012 at 4:42 pm
  6. Nell Jean

    Big tempest, small teapot. I never pay money to NWF for their endorsement of my garden; I let the wildlife decide for themselves.

    January 30, 2012 at 5:06 pm
  7. Grumpy Gardener (His Magnificence)

    I doubt if my critics will read my response, but I enjoyed hearing their viewpoints. Whether we’re talking about chemicals or politics, I think we’re all better off and better informed when we lower the volume and allow people to express ideas different from ours without labeling them as nut jobs or idiots.
    So here is what I have to say about various points raised so far.
    1. Scott’s birdseed settlement — This really makes Scott’s look bad and couldn’t have come at a worse time for NWF. Obviously, someone at Scott’s made a very poor decision and my advice to them is to openly fess up about what happened, because the truth always comes out anyway. However, if you want to change a company’s behavior, vitriol is not the way to go. Engagement is.
    2. Monsanto — As I said before, I don’t like genetically modified foods, like Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, nor the practice of blanketing entire farms with Roundup. I fully support the Slow Food people, Community Supported Agriculture, buying local, and maintaining genetic diversity by preserving heirloom varieties of flowers, vegetables, fruits, and livestock.
    3. If no testing overseen by the government can be trusted, then we have a much bigger problem here than Roundup. We probably should stop drinking city water, taking drugs or medicines of any kind, using appliances, driving cars, heating and cooling our houses, and eating. Please show me an independent study not funded by a group with an agenda that shows that proper use of Roundup in the home garden is killing the environment and I will read it.
    4. No matter how the Scott’s – NWF partnership looked, I believe NWF entered into it with good intentions. I also believe Scott’s has taken some positive steps in making some products more environmentally friendly. I encourage them to continue.
    5. And to Gardenmaster, who says he abruptly stopped reading my blog when he came to a line with which he disagreed, I would simply say, I read all of your statement. Why can’t you read mine?

    January 30, 2012 at 3:58 pm
  8. Jess

    I agree with you, for all the same reasons. I don’t keep a lawn but appreciate those who do, I don’t use sevin, but definitely use roundup on my gravel drive, I work for a large corporation, and yes, I still work my butt of every day, and do so with good intentions and a clear conscious. I am glad people here have the ability to have different opinions… and I look forward to a time period where others are willing to listen to what the other side is saying. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are evil or stupid. A lot more can get done with compromise than can ever be accomplished by digging in ones heels and refusing to listen.

    January 29, 2012 at 6:14 pm
  9. Christopher C NC

    The thing is Steve it was never about Miracle Grow or Roundup or organic purists versus folks who use a dash of chemicals now and then. It was always about Scotts much larger chemical arsenal that is the antithesis of wildlife gardening. It was about an unwillingness of many to buy the line that NWF was going to change Scotts ways and turn them into an environmentally friendly chemical company. Profits trump all other concerns for a corporation like Scotts. You have noticed the Occupy movement? That truth was not going to be dislodged by NWF providing cover.
    And in short order the corporate liars were unmasked (Bird Killers!) and the NWF no longer trusts they can change a huge corporations profit first making ways.
    Occupy the Garden!

    January 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm
  10. Jan (Thanks for today.)

    Well, Steve, the ‘partnership’ is being severed. Apparently NWF had no idea about the lawsuit involving Scott’s toxic bird seed.
    They did the right thing and backed out. I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with the harassment they were receiving, though. Many people who were saying hateful things now think it is due to their own ‘activism’, but NWF says on their FB page: “For further clarification: this decision is about the recently announced settlement about the legal case – not about the philosophy about whether or not we should be working with companies like Scotts.”

    January 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm
  11. Anna Flowergardengirl

    I have been posting my support for days now. I wanted NWF to know that we want to give them a chance to make a difference. I trust NWF to do the right thing. I’m linking to your article on my blog. Today’s post is about my support. Thank you Steve. Thank you so much. I want to see these projects be successful. A beautiful park is being built in Charlotte, NC. I very much want to see that. I want to see more just like it.

    January 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm
  12. UrsulaV

    *cough* Since I never can leave these alone…
    Let me say, for the record, that Scotts products are not actually what I’m miffed about here. I think reasonable people can disagree about the appropriateness of fertilizer and pesticides (Lord knows, I’ve sprayed Japanese honeysuckle in my time…) and regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, Scotts really hasn’t changed their behavior at all.
    The problem I have with this whole partnership is that it’s obvious to me that Scotts saw the toxic-birdseed debacle coming down the pike. Now, “Scotts Sells Killer Birdseed!” is a BAD headline from a PR point of view, falling just short of “Scotts Pesticides Made Of Puppies” and “Scotts Spokesman Says South “Totally Deserved It” In Civil War.” This sorta thing can be a major PR problem. (I actually think that the falsifying EPA paperwork thing was way worse, but it isn’t as visceral a headline.)
    So they pick an organization and offer them money to lend their respectability to their birdseed. (If you listen to the interviews with the NWF people, they do bring up how awesome the birdseed is.)
    And the NWF goes “Wow, that’s a lot of totebags!” and agrees. They’re using their good name to clear up the reputation of a product with a sketchy environmental history…and that’s the very definition of greenwashing.
    So I’m really not any more ticked at Scotts. Scotts is what it always is. But I think reasonable people can be understandably upset that the NWF is apparently willing to be greenwashing for hire.

    January 29, 2012 at 1:30 pm
  13. Don S

    This is a remarkably disparaging article about those of us who believe Scotts business practices should be of real concern to anyone who cares about the environment. I am an IGC owner who does not sell Scotts products.
    Scotts to pay $500,000 fine over biotech bentgrass…
    … failed to comply with U.S. rules while testing a genetically engineered grass varietyThe civil penalty is the largest allowed by the Plant Protection Act of 2000, according to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)….failure by Scotts to follow proper equipment-cleaning procedures and to have all required buffer zones around the genetically engineered crop to prevent mixing with traditional crops…
    Nov. 26 2007
    Scotts Miracle Gro Fined $4.5 Million for Toxic Bird Seed, Falsifying Records
    ….the company will pay millions of dollars in fines for selling bird seed it knew was tainted with pesticides toxic to birds.
    … pleaded guilty to charges that it sold 73 MILLION UNITS of tainted bird seed from 2005 to 2008. According to an article in today’s Columbus, Ohio, newspaper, the company continued to sell the bird seed “despite warnings in the summer and fall of 2007 from a pesticide chemist and an ornithologist, both of whom worked for the company.”
    …also pleaded guilty yesterday to falsifying documents with the Environmental Protection Agency so that it could rush new weed ‘n feed and ant killing products to market back in 2006.
    Jan. 27 2012
    If those things don’t bother you about a company, what would? Anything?

    January 29, 2012 at 1:25 pm
  14. Loret

    I don’t consider myself an extremist, and I don’t hate Scotts either, but I think the partnership was a poor choice for NWF. Regarding the “Save the songbirds” initiative: 1. Scotts lawn products kill insects and plants that support insects. 2. baby birds feed exclusively on insects. 3. All the scotts birdseed in the world won’t help “save the songbirds”, since: see (2) above and then read (1) above again. NWF and Scotts going public with the partnership at the same time Scotts is being fined for toxic bird seed, just is suspicous. Brand name recognition is the biggest concern I have. It can seem that NWF endorses Scotts. Scotts isn’t stupid. They know that this partnership is a major coup, public relations-wise. I listened to NWF’s reasons, but they don’t outweigh my belief that this really doesn’t follow the values I thought NWF stood for. I asked an environmental-type guy what his thoughts were on the partnership. His reply “There seems to be no clean money.” Enough said.

    January 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm
  15. randy r

    Sorry man. You are way off. Tolerance of Scott’s and Monsanto’s policies is a death sentence for wildlife, as well as soil life. The folks that manage there may as well be saying let’s go kill some stuff today. Sorry if the truth hurts. The people that you think are knee-jerk reacting are just sick of the same old crap. Scott’s Organics. Are you kidding? Monsanto “Round-Up Ready” having positive environmental impact. Wake up and smell the compost dude. Oh, you can’t if it’s made right because it’s good old fashioned humus that’s full of microbes, major and minor nutrients and trace minerals. Try some of that on your lawn. Your wildlife and waterways will thank you. Peace

    January 29, 2012 at 1:20 pm
  16. randy

    Sorry man. You are way off. Tolerance of Scott’s and Monsanto’s policies is a death sentence for wildlife, as well as soil life. The folks that manage there may as well be saying let’s go kill some stuff today. Sorry if the truth hurts. The people that you think are knee-jerk reacting are just sick of the same old crap. Scott’s Organics. Are you kidding? Monsanto “Round-Up Ready” having positive environmental impact. Wake up and smell the compost dude. Oh, you can’t if it’s made right because it’s good old fashioned humus that’s full owith microbes.

    January 29, 2012 at 1:18 pm
  17. Gardenmaster

    I stopped reading at your line: “It has been thoroughly tested by government regulatory agencies and found to be safe when used as directed.” Sorry. That’s false information. The US Government allows the company itself to do the testing. There is no independent government testing before products are released to the public. Our country depends on the fox to guard the hen house. Which then leads us to your second commenter on the questionable ethics of Scott’s. Scott’s products are not needed and evidence continues to build that this model of ‘garden’ is not benign. I produce a large amount of my own produce and do so without chemicals at all. It takes more thought, but it is not only possible, it is preferable. If you use the product according to the label (which few do!) you are welcome to use it in your own garden, but are fast becoming considered a poorer, less informed class of gardener – much the way I was considered a kook for refusing the use chemicals in 1970. My garden is not pristine, but is full of life (some of which I don’t want). It is my contention that if I resort to a pesticide or fertilizer of any kind, I have not succeeded in gardening at all. Rather than label the anti-Scott’s faction as woo-woo nut cases, a more honest look at the entire garden/farm chemical industry reveals that it is at best a superfluous affectation and at worst a cynical foisting of a dangerous reality on consumers simply to make a (tainted) buck. I am not an extremist; I am concerned and willing to be vocal in that concern.

    January 29, 2012 at 1:02 pm
  18. Jan (Thanks for today.)

    I absolutely agree Steve, and you helped me make the decision to add the Certified Wildlife Habitat sign & link back to my blog. I never did remove it from my garden, but I was feeling very confused at first. Then when the ‘extremists’ continued to blow this out of proportion, & the hateful words kept coming, I changed my mind. Nothing gets solved with hate, condemnation, attacks, harassment, etc. I am a Master Gardener (intern) and we recognize the need for using RoundUp and other products from time to time. I stand behind you with this article, and I thank you.

    January 29, 2012 at 12:32 pm
  19. Betsy S. Franz

    I am SOOO glad that you wrote this very informative article about the NWF/Scotts initiative. I have been trying to NOT step into the controversary for fear of alienating some of my readers, but I agree with you whole-heartedly. Yes, chemicals CAN be evil. But so can extreme gardeners or any other extremists who don’t take the time to understand both sides of an issue before immediately condemning someone whose beliefs don’t completely jibe with theirs. So glad that you had the peach pits to stand up and say something that I was reluctant to. AND, as I’ve said a million times in the things I write: We are ALL in the learning stages when it comes to creating environmentally friendly landscapes. And it probably isn’t the best way to learn and teach each other by bashing each other over the head when our opinions disagree.

    January 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm
  20. jen in nc

    Interesting read Grumpy, there are definitely pros and cons here. I think my biggest issue is exactly what you said “why would an organization promoting certified backyard wildlife habitats that forbid the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers get in bed with Scott’s?”
    I definitely agree with you that judicial use of roundup or fertilizer is fine, and not inherently Earth destroying, but this alliance just doesn’t make sense to me.

    January 29, 2012 at 12:16 pm
  21. Benjamin Vogt

    Hey Grumpy, I love you, I’ve followed you for a while, but here it sure feels like you took the low road with some of us knee-jerk reactionaries towards the alliance. I find your snarky-ness off putting. And I think, at the end, you failed to consider as evenly as you did elsewhere in this piece the negatives of lawn for wildlife habitat. A lawn is a desert–proven by the respected likes of Doug Tallamy and many biologists. If NWF wants to promote songbirds, as is part of the reason for their alliance with Scotts, it’s about shrinking lawns–something I doubt Scotts would really be in favor of. We need shrubs and trees that produce berries, and more importantly, we need native forbs and insects evolutionarily adapted to one another–insects comprise up to 90% of a bird’s diet, and 100% for the newborn and young being fed by the parent. Lawns aren’t awash in insects of diverse habitat to raise young. This, to me, is the larger issue–that and Scotts has recently been fined millions of dollars for falsifying records about selling pesticide-tainted bird seed. That’s not good for birds, or people handling the seed (and do you know how chemically-aggressive most bird seed is grown?). We won’t see eye to eye, but I wish you’d approach the subject with a bit less glibness (I know I know, that’s who you are, and why I like you).

    January 29, 2012 at 11:18 am
  22. UrsulaV

    I dunno, man. Even if you like Miracle-Gro, there’s no getting around the fact that Scotts just got slapped with the biggest fine of a lawn chemical company in history for selling toxic birdseed and falsifying EPA paperwork.
    You don’t have to think fertilizer is the devil to think that’s some real shady business practices there.

    January 29, 2012 at 11:15 am
  23. Jean

    I would use either company’s products.There are always those who think they know better than the manufacturer and misuse it all only to cause problems for themselves and others. If you don’t like the company don’t use their stuff…just let the ivy wrap around your neck!

    January 29, 2012 at 10:30 am

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s