[Technically Speaking] What Does “Full Treatment” Mean?

Regarding post-construction termite treatments — what does "full treatment" mean? Recently, this issue was revisited during a major revision of the NPCA-1 Form (Wood-Destroying Insect Inspection Report), soon to be renamed Form NPMA-33. A draft of the new form said: "FHA and VA require full treatment when any active evidence of subterranean termites is found."

MANY QUESTIONS. This statement generated a variety of comments, some in support and some against. Ultimately it was dropped from the new form; however, the final verdict rests with HUD/VA (they have yet to approve the form). Until our industry steps up and addresses this issue, it is probably best left off the form.

Nonetheless the issue of full treatment for post-construction termite infestations raises some important issues:

• What is a full treatment?

• Why in this age of enlightened professionalism within our industry has our association continuously skirted this issue?

Beauty is in the mind of the beholder. Such is the case with full treatment for active termite infestations; full treatment is in the mind of the beholder, homeowner, pest management company, the product label (registered with the EPA), the Federal Trade Commission and state regulatory agencies.

To me, a full treatment means providing the customer the most comprehensive treatment available to address the termite infestation and ultimately resolve the termite problem. This does not mean going out and doing a spot treatment or using a compressed air sprayer to treat around the foundation of the building. My personal belief is that the customer is entitled to long-term treatments that serve to protect their home from infestation and damage. And, if I were to put a time frame on it, I would say for a minimum of five years.

I suspect that most customers would expect nothing less than what I previously stated. Yet there are companies that prey on customers’ naivete and do only what is necessary to get by, perhaps suppressing the infestation for a short period of time. Even with no treatment, the cryptic behavior of termites makes this easy to do, because once swarming season has passed, in many cases there is only a remote possibility that mud tubes and/or live termites will be discovered for a year or more (and longer) when drive-by inspections are conducted.

From a pest management company’s perspective, full treatments may include treating around the foundation with a compressed air sprayer (this actually is done), spot treatments in critical and active areas, exterior treatments, interior treatments, block void treatments, drilling interior slabs, etc. In many cases this is based on years of experience and is unquestionably determined by many variables. But how often is a detailed treatment plan presented to the customer and then executed completely? With the advent of some new products that are being touted in professional and research circles as "silver bullets," how many companies are already cutting the recommended rates of application and/or concentration to remain competitive or minimize costs?

Years ago EPA had an opportunity to address post-construction termite treatments with PR Notice 96-7 on termiticide labeling. Thus, labels have undergone very little modification in post-construction language. Failure of the agency to take a position on minimum treatment standards for post-construction termite infestations leaves the door open for substandard treatments, e.g., low concentrations and application rates. This is so incongruous considering their position on pre-treatments. The obvious reason — property owners requiring post-construction termite treatment typically have an infestation and deserve the most comprehensive and effective treatment.

THE CORRECT FOCUS. Then there are the FTC and various states’ attorneys general who have jumped into the fray, insisting that companies perform treatments in accordance with their contracts and advertising. While this overcomes some of the problems, it is a backdoor approach that reflects poorly on the industry and certainly is not proactive.

Why our industry and association continue to skirt this issue is incomprehensible. The National Pest Management Association and Professional Pest Management Alliance have spent two years developing the Quality-Pro Program and a subcategory in IPM in schools. Why? The industry has identified a need to raise our professional image.

If this is the case, then why are we focusing on the areas where we have rarely fallen short, i.e., GPC and IPM in schools? In recent years, the only major events that have unjustifiably tarnished our image involved uncertified individuals using unregistered products, e.g., lindane in schools and parathion in public housing.

NPMA seems to dance around important issues, proclaiming we are professionals while ignoring the cancer that perpetually drags our industry down. Termite control has garnered more negative publicity than PPMA and QualityPro will ever be able to overcome unless we do something about it. I hope this column will stimulate dialogue among association members and prompt action to ultimately standardize full treatments and further raise the industry’s professionalism. It is time to quit treating the symptoms and remove the cancer.

The author is technical director of American Pest Management, Takoma Park, Md. He can be reached at 301/891-2600.