[Cover Story] Could it Happen Here?

Canadian municipalities are banning the “cosmetic” use of pesticides on private and public lawns and gardens in growing numbers. To date, 127 communities have passed bylaws affecting homeowners, public greens keepers and lawn care professionals, and 12 more have them in draft stages, according to environmentalist Mike Christie, Ottawa. Many say it’s only a matter of time before structural pest control comes under fire, as bylaws already are limiting how some Canadian pest management professionals perform perimeter and broadcast applications.

If you’re wondering whether this could happen in the United States, you may be behind the game.

“It’s here and it’s real,” said Karen Reardon, communications director for Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), which represents producers and suppliers of specialty pesticides and fertilizers. “We’re starting to see already in the Northeast sweeping proposals for (pesticide) bans in counties that include everyone, including agriculture.”

In fact, 240 pending bills in the United States mention pesticides, said RISE President Allen James. “We’re tracking 125 to 150 of those intensely because they have a direct impact on the specialty or non-agricultural pesticide market,” but none specifically target structural pest control. Pest management professionals who offer lawn care services — 16.3 percent according to a 2006 PCT readership survey — could feel the effects first.

OH, CANADA. More than 39 percent of Canada’s population lives with laws restricting pesticide use, said Christie, who maintains a list of municipalities with bylaws. This includes Toronto (population 2.5 million), and more than 100 municipalities in Quebec. Two provinces, Prince Edward Isle and Quebec, have strict, province-wide pesticide sales restrictions. Quebec has removed 20 active ingredients from the market, and allows eight products for indoor and outdoor pest control where children’s activities occur.

Bylaw adoption gained momentum in 2001 after the Canadian Supreme Court granted municipalities the right to manage pesticide use over provincial and federal governments. Its decision, following a 10-year battle between ChemLawn and Spraytech versus Hudson, Quebec, cited the precautionary principle, and was interpreted to apply to most Canadian municipalities. In 2005 the Court refused to hear a similar case brought by CropLife Canada against the City of Toronto, which passed its own bylaw in 2003, thus reinforcing the Hudson ruling.

Another turning point came when the Canadian Cancer Society took a public position against the “ornamental” use of pesticides, said Jill Fairbrother, director of regulatory and stakeholder relations, Scotts Canada. “(The anti-pesticide push) was no longer an activist movement, but it was legitimized and went mainstream.”

Most bylaws have exceptions for severe weed or insect infestations, but special circumstances vary by municipality, as do the pesticides that may be used, said Fairbrother. Some only allow use of naturally derived products, and most require permits before pesticide application.

“It is a huge challenge for Canadian lawn care operators, and a lot of pest control operators do perimeter work in Canada, as well as offer lawn care services,” said Gene Harrington, government affairs director, National Pest Management Association. “It’s definitely a big challenge for them.”

And, it’s caused Canadian pest management professionals to take action. The increase in municipalities with bylaws “created a lot of concern for us as an industry,” said John Abell, president and CEO, Abell Pest Control, Toronto. “But I think there is a definite line between cosmetic pest control in lawn care and what we do as a structural industry. I haven’t seen anything happening in that venue.”

Michael Goldman, president, Purity Pest Control, Toronto, agrees. “It’s a bit of a gray area. The (Ontario provincial) government said if pests are affecting your quality of life, then you’re allowed to treat for them. The municipalities may turn around and say something else. It hasn’t affected us yet, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a matter of time.”

Fairbrother agrees. “The wedge-point is lawns, or lawn and garden use, particularly by homeowners, but it is the thin edge of the wedge,” she said.
As such, Canadian pest management professionals have actively supported the lawn care industry. As president of the Structural Pest Management Association of Ontario, Goldman worked with the Environmental Coalition of Ontario and Landscape Ontario to raise funds to fight the bans. “Part of the reason (we) got involved was because (municipalities) started saying you can’t use pesticides outdoors,” said Goldman. “Does that mean we can’t do exterior treatment for pavement ants or earwigs? That is an exterior treatment, and it’s not a cosmetic use, but it only takes some politician looking to get his name out there to say that they want to ban all pesticides used outside.”

Abell said Canadian associations also have lobbied successfully against a proposed 24-hour notification period for commercial establishments. The Urban Pest Management Council and an IPM Accreditation Program representing golf, municipal, structural and agriculture interests also were created.

According to Karen Furgiuele, president, Gardex Chemicals, a distributor in Etobicoke, Ontario, Canadian pest management professionals have lost some products originally labeled for outdoor use. “Ottawa has not approved any soft technology that we should have to … use outside,” she said. The unwillingness to approve new pesticides for outdoor use is telling, she said.

At the same time, some bylaws work in favor of the industry, Abell said. Toronto requires restaurants be inspected for insects and vermin and the evaluation posted on the building’s front. “I don’t think we’re at particular risk right now for an all-out ban or even for that matter a control of our industry. But, I’ve seen it swing. Right now we’re in lull, which is a good thing,” Abell said.

DIFFERENT U.S. TACTICS. South of the border, some U.S. communities also are pushing anti-pesticide bans, especially in the hot spots of New York, Minnesota and New England. Most are aimed at reducing pesticides by the lawn care industry or on public land. The town of Schaghticoke, N.Y., near Albany, however, is pushing for a town-level permitting process requiring every application — by homeowner, professional or farmer — to have a permit, said RISE’s Reardon. “So if you’re leaving your facility in the morning with your tanks ready to treat for ants, you’ve got to have permits for every stop you’re going to make,” she said.

New York also approved a state law authorizing counties to pass local bylaws. A county now can require lawn care operators to notify land owners adjacent to a property to be treated. Several counties have chosen to enact such bylaws, said Harrington.

Forty of the proposed laws RISE is following are in New York, said James. “One or two of those would overturn or undermine preemption in New York, so we’re pressing very hard to avoid enactment. It’s a constant battle in New York for our industry,” he said.

Forty-one states have preemption laws that prevent municipalities from passing their own pesticide laws. However, some localities are passing ordinances and winning the legal battle, said James. Most of these laws restrict fertilizer use. In Madison, Wis., officials won the right in 2005 to restrict combination pesticide-fertilizer products. Although Wisconsin preemption laws prohibit municipalities from restricting pesticides, the court ruled they can restrict fertilizers, resulting in the ban of combination products.

Overturning preemption is a major effort of activists, said James. “They then would have the green light to function as in Canada and convince local communities to pass ordinances banning pesticides. It isn’t easy and we’ve been lucky in that regard,” he said. State legislators generally recognize the need for preemption in many areas, not just pesticides.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, formerly the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), agrees preemption prevents the adoption of local laws in most states, but “our strategies have really worked around that.” As for challenging preemption, “it’s not really clear that that is the biggest return on our efforts down the road,” he said. Beyond Pesticides supports local anti-pesticide groups by providing them research and support materials.

“Activists just want to pass that precedential, legislative piece,” said RISE’s Reardon. “It doesn’t matter if it makes sense. It doesn’t matter if it’s enforced. Once it’s passed in one state, then that model can be leveraged everywhere else.”

UNIVAR Technical Sales Specialist George Williams, Woburn, Mass., agreed. “We’re trying not to let the precedents be set,” he said. Williams, who is active in RISE and NPMA grassroots efforts, said the New England Pest Management Association’s lobbyists in Massachusetts and Maine pay big dividends to the industry. “They have their finger on the pulse of what’s going on at the legislative level and if they hear about something being proposed, they can get back to us … and we act,” he said.

Activists also are being elected to local boards. Purity’s Goldman, Toronto, said it’s easy to convince local elected officials to restrict pesticides, regardless if the products have passed federal and provincial or state requirements. “People with no background in toxicology are able to say you can’t use products that have been registered already for us. It’s very frustrating, and it’s only going to get worse,” he said.

Ken Perry, general manager, PARATEX Pied Piper Pest Control, Anchorage, Alaska, said major environmental issues, like mining, oil and fishing, rage in Alaska and restricting pesticides is “the carrot (legislators) can give these groups to get them off their more lucrative sources of income.”

STRUCTURAL IN THEIR SIGHTS. Structural pest control is not immune from future scrutiny, agree environmentalists and pest management professionals.

“I feel it coming, because once (activists) do their work outside, where’s the next place they’re going to go?” asks Gardex Chemical’s Furguiele. “The light bulb is going to go on and they’ll say, (children) live inside more than they do outside, and there’s pesticide use there.”

Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) Campaigns Director Katrina Miller agreed that structural pest control could become a target, especially with growing interest in improving indoor air quality. “If they’ve got an easy target in structural pest (control), they’ll go after that. I can see structural pests being an easier and more immediate target than agricultural use,” she said. Miller said, though, she doesn’t believe this is imminent, and is not aware of any Canadian bylaw targeting the structural industry.

Michel Gaudet, president of Quebec’s Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, said he has had “talks with the structural pesticide industry and they, themselves, have reduced their use of pesticides” by using traps, baits and IPM methods.

Most local laws don’t directly impact pest management professionals, said Harrington. “You do get a school board here and there that takes up the issue of school pesticide use and adopts a fairly restrictive policy, but we’re not seeing anything on a regular basis that impacts the use of pesticides on private property,” he said. States considering school IPM or pesticide-use legislation in 2007 include Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas and Washington.

California’s ongoing reevaluation of pyrethroids, which have been found urban creek sediment, could result in use restrictions on properties both private and public.

POWER OF THE MARKET. Not all pest management professionals see pesticide-use bans as bad for the industry. Bill Melville, quality assurance director, Orkin Canada, said the bylaws create greater public awareness of the structural pest control industry. “We can still create the pest-free environment they’re asking for. We just have to change the tactics. We have to use more baits, more cooperation from the customer with housekeeping, maintenance, sanitation, the whole IPM program,” he said.

With good training technicians become “pesticide ambassadors,” added Melville, who faced use restrictions in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, in the 1970s. “(Customers) used to hire us to back the truck up and spray. Now they hire us to back the truck up and consult with them and partner with them,” he said.

Market forces may affect the greatest change in the structural industry, said Beyond Pesticide’s Feldman. “The market does a far and away a better job of driving the changes that we would like to see than many of these policy changes. I think there’s an incredible opportunity out there to leverage public concern about the environment,” he said. Feldman, who is evaluating pest management practices at regional commercial facilities, said his group’s goals include educating buyers of pest control services on non-pesticide alternatives, and supporting local groups’ push for pesticide bans on public lands.

THE TIPPING POINT? Opinions vary whether the anti-pesticide movement is a threat to structural pest control. According to NPMA’s Harrington, the idea of a spill-over effect from Canada is unlikely. “I know a lot of activists try to use the momentum that they’ve built up in Canada and try to use it to their benefit in the states, but I don’t think it’s worked all that effectively for them,” he said, adding that he does feel there is a “possibility that some of these local ordinances or bylaws will impact PCOs.”

And although consumer use of pesticides far exceeds professional use, deflecting attention to homeowner use may not help in the long run. “All that’s going to mean is you’ve got a stay of execution until the next legislative session or the next year or two years. Activists aren’t just coming after homeowners and the lawn, they want all pesticides banned,” said Reardon.

However, joining the fight against legislation that doesn’t directly affect structural pest control may be wasted effort, said Harrington. “It’s hard to fight something that is completely irrelevant to you and legislators will point that out,” he said.

And, the battleground is subtly changing. Activists are now for organic control methods rather than just being against pesticide use, a tactical shift that could result in a very different endgame, said Reardon. Growth in Organic Pest Management (OPM) adoption by school districts, and pesticide-free green building initiatives and public lands should concern pest management professionals, said James.

A similar groundswell led to Canada’s multitude of provincial and municipal bylaws, said TEA’s Miller. “You had a lot of policies where public parks weren’t spraying anymore, school boards weren’t spraying any more, all these agencies had policies and guidelines on not to do this anymore, and then people said, OK, let’s just make it across the whole city or the whole town. I can see that being feasible with structural pesticides,” she said.

The anti-pesticide movement will accelerate in the U.S. once the secondary impact of pesticide use on private property is better defined, said Beyond Pesticide’s Feldman.

The focus on protecting public health and IPM may be the industry’s saving grace. Environmentalists always have been a little scared of Integrated Pest Management for lawn and ornamental care, said Miller. However, IPM in structural pest management “actually seems to work quite well. I think if it’s in a structural setting, IPM is very relevant and very justified,” she said.

The sticking point, said Beyond Pesticides’ Feldman, is agreement on “safe practices” and the definition of IPM. “That’s where we should be working together with the industry.” He said association leadership that wants the industry to “walk in lockstep and apart from the environmental community” is a roadblock to collaboration.

Because various IPM definitions are asserted by different groups, the Professional Pest Management Alliance (PPMA), the consumer outreach arm of NPMA, created its own definition of IPM based on consumer research. PPMA is educating the public on IPM’s role in controlling pests through public service announcements and its newly launched Web site, www.whatisIPM.org.

The next few years may be the most challenging in the pesticide industry’s history, cautioned RISE’s James. The new Democratic Congress and committees with oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency “are led by individuals who have traditionally been very opposed to our industry,” he said. NPMA Senior Vice President Bob Rosenberg agreed. With Senator Barbara Boxer now chairing the Committee on Environment and Public Works, “bills limiting pesticide use at schools and day care centers and in other settings now have a much easier path to the Senate floor,” he wrote in the November/December 2006 issue of PestWorld.

Ongoing pesticide reevaluations by EPA under the Food Quality Protection Act likely will result in label changes and new use restrictions. Major EPA initiatives like the Endangered Species Protection Program would require pest management professionals to follow enforceable, geographically specific use restrictions, and a proposed globally harmonized system of classifying and labeling pesticides could alter current hazard classification criteria and key label elements, requiring massive applicator retraining.

In addition, activists are “super inspired” from federal and state elections, and their successes in Canada and U.S. municipalities, said James. “I think the cards are in line for a very difficult time for our industry from a legislative and regulatory standpoint.”

The author is a frequent contributor to PCT magazine. She can be reached at anagro@giemedia.com.

Grassroots Challenge

Faced with growing anti-pesticide challenges on the municipal front, national trade groups are taking a cue from environmentalists and going grassroots. Both the National Pest Management Association and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) have initiatives to build a local, unified voice for responsible pesticide use.

The Professional Pest Management Alliance , the consumer outreach arm of NPMA, has created tools so local pest management professionals can communicate effectively with their communities, said NPMA Vice President of Public Affairs Cindy Mannes. “The importance of a unified voice is crucial,” she said.

So is a local one. “We’ve learned, as they did in Canada, if we go to a local community in Washington and testify as RISE, our voice is rejected immediately because we’re the big, outside industry coming into their local community,” said Allen James, president of RISE, which represents producers and distributors of specialty pesticides and fertilizers.

The Canadian anti-pesticide movement has provided critical insights. A 2004 Pesticide Action Network North America article cited the Canadian industry’s response as “the single biggest factor that contributed to the success of the campaigns.” The industry, it said, was slow to react and unable to work at the grassroots level, and when it did was “clumsy, arrogant and even threatening.”

“I would say that’s all true,” said James. “We took a lesson from that down here, and are taking quite a different approach to the grassroots development (in the U.S.).”

Both associations urge industry members to talk with elected officials and educate customers on responsible pesticide use. Jill Fairbrother, director of regulatory and stakeholder relations, Scotts Canada, suggested pest management professionals meet with family doctors and veterinarians to determine their level of knowledge on the subject. Begin the dialogue, she said, and explain the measures you take to ensure no one is at risk.

NPMA and RISE also have outreach efforts to encourage two-way communication on local ordinances and hearings. Monitoring the activities of more than 85,000 communities can be real challenge, said Mannes. “That’s why all industry professionals must help alert local, state and national association leaders of local legislative issues and negative press affecting the industry,” she said.

Univar Technical Sales Specialist George Williams, Woburn, Mass., said association efforts have ramped up in the past two years. “There’s a big network of sharing information, so if one person can’t act, we can forward it on to someone else,” he said. “It’s really a team effort.” Williams has participated in grassroots summits to help identify activist threats at state and local levels, and has helped combat proposed notification legislation in New England.

Ken Perry, general manger of PARATEX Pied Piper Pest Control, Anchorage, Alaska, found association support essential when working with state and city officials. Due to his involvement, Alaska’s 150-foot notification requirements for exterior pest control applications were reduced to 35 feet. Perry also helped quash legislators’ push to have manufacturers solely fund the state’s pesticide regulatory agency. He said RISE insights and supporting documentation helped achieve concessions.

Unifying the industry, however, remains a challenge, said RISE’s James. “Our industry does not work effectively together across the industry lines and even within some of the individual segments.”

Testifying at local hearings on behalf of other industry segments, like lawn care, often is a moot effort, said NPMA Government Affairs Director Gene Harrington. “If you can’t show some bonafide rationale other than philosophical (for testifying), I don’t know how much impact you’re going to have,” he said.

“It’s our responsibility as an industry to educate the public,” said Abell Pest Control President and CEO John Abell, Toronto. “As an industry we do have to take an offensive posture in educating the people, not fighting the people, not fighting the (environmental) groups.”

Manufacturer Reaction

Could the Canadian trend in which municipalities are imposing bans on cosmetic uses of pesticides eventually make its way south of the border? PCT checked  with leading industry manufacturer representatives to get their opinions.

“Absolutely it could happen here. In many different areas there are citizens  working with their local governing bodies to limit or eliminate use of certain pesticides. The big thing from our perspective is to take an active role, and share the message of what we do — we enhance quality of life.” — Bill Baxter, business manager, BASF

“The biggest challenge that the U.S. will face will be to ensure that pre-emption laws continue to prevent local pesticide ordinances. If pre-emption laws are not protected then local by-laws will likely become a reality in the United States. Unlike federal and state legislation that is based on science, local pesticide legislation is based on politics and fueled by emotion.” — Darcy Olds, territory sales manager and technical support, Bayer Environmental Science

“Our biggest threat in the U.S. currently comes from local municipalities which seek to limit product use, generally driven by the political demographic within the local area. Overall, the U.S. is still fundamentally different from Canada politically. We also have a large geographic area that experiences considerally greater pest pressure than anywhere in Canada, due to climate.” — Cisse Spragins, CEO, Rockwell Labs Ltd

“With such strong regulatory oversight in the U.S., professional pesticide use does not warrant the consumer skepticism that we’re observing. Most people don’t understand the extensive safety testing that goes into every product before it ever goes to market.” — Pat Willenbrock, senior marketing manager, Syngenta Professional Products

“It can happen here because people are concerned about health and the environment particularly as issues like global warming and the Green movement continue to gain momentum due to the constant attention these issues receive in the press.” — Mark Sargent, senior VP, sales & marketing, Waterbury Companies

Biomonitoring: Equating Existence with Harm

An emerging trend that could impact the pest management industry is biomonitoring, which allows citizens’ urine and blood to be screened for trace amounts of synthetic and naturally occurring substances. California has passed a biomonitoring law, Massachusetts is pushing for one, and the Environmental Protection Agency is discussing the issue, said Allen James, president, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE).

After screening a sample of people in a community, the data are made public. This is where misinterpretation and misinformation could become troublesome, said RISE Communications Director Karen Reardon. Although federal agencies say the ability to detect substances far exceeds the ability to draw scientific conclusions, activist groups could use this data to further their agendas, she said. If a sample is found to contain parts per trillion of a pesticide, non-scientists could incorrectly assume exterior perimeter, termite pretreatment or other pest management activities are the cause.

No federal biomonitoring law has been passed and no official action by the EPA taken, said James. But Congress, which currently is stacked against the pesticide industry, can often persuade the EPA to take action without actually passing a law, he said.

“If you’re in a business that uses chemistry, this should be of great concern to you,” said Reardon. “This is where (PCOs) really should be on the alert.”

Local Leverage

While the political climate varies by province, state, county, city, township, school board or parish, the tactics of grassroots communication are universal. National Pest Management Association Vice President of Public Affairs Cindy Mannes shares tips on how to promote the industry in your own backyard.

• Get to know your state and local legislators and their platforms. Build a relationship with them to keep your initiatives on their agendas.
• Pay attention to local legislation and media coverage on our industry.
• Communicate with other industry stakeholders. Share information with fellow industry members, such as when pesticide-related ordinances are introduced and public hearings will be held.
• Proactively pitch positive stories to local media on pest issues.
• Alert state or national association leaders of negative media coverage or possible legislation affecting the industry.
• Be concise and avoid using industry jargon like “pretreat” or “crack-and-crevice treatment” when speaking to elected officials and media. Do not assume others have a working knowledge of the industry. Provide a one-page, bullet-point document highlighting your two to three core messages.
• Maintain a consistent, industry message. Contact NPMA or its consumer outreach arm, the Professional Pest Management Alliance (PPMA), for guidance and support.
• Visit www.npmapestworld.org for a list of legislations and laws organized by state.