D-Day

PCOs respond to Dursban’s day of reckoning.

By now you’ve heard the news. Dursban (chlorpyrifos) will be phased out of use during the next five years, with most uses canceled as early as December 31, 2001. And while few PCOs find fault with Dow AgroSciences, which under considerable pressure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chose to voluntarily withdraw chlorpyrifos, most say it will affect their pest management business by increasing material costs and decreasing effectiveness.

"I guess it was either give it up or have it taken away. (Dow AgroSciences) had little choice," says Forrest Spencer, owner, Circle S Pest Control, Burnet, Texas.

"I understand that the political pressure is probably extremely difficult to deal with and Dow probably made the best decision under the circumstances," says Rob Croteau, branch manager, Dewey Pest Control, Victorville, Calif.

Many PCOs place the blame on EPA. "I don’t blame Dow. As long as there is an EPA, it’s got to find things to do to justify its existence," says Dan Leach, Alpha Omega Pest Management, Saco, Maine.

And while many PCOs have directed their angst toward EPA, Dow is not without its critics. "(Dow) cut and ran. Dow did not put up as much of a fight as they could have, because structural applications are a small fraction of their overall business," says Roger Meitler, owner, World Pest Control of NW Kansas, Plainville, Kan.

Others worry what impression the move will have on consumers. "(Dow) should have fought harder for its con-tinued use. This will make more and more people question the safe use of chemicals," says John Gloske, co-owner, First Quality Pest Control, Northridge, Calif.

No matter who’s to blame, the reality is that chlorpyrifos will shortly be gone, a situation that will affect many businesses. In a fax and online survey conducted by PCT magazine and PCT Online, nearly half of respondents say their company currently uses a chlorpyrifos-based insecticide (Figure 4). Further, 58 percent said the move would affect their business by increasing the cost of treatments, while simultaneously lowering effectiveness (Figure 3).

"We will now have to use less effective pesticides that will require extra services," says Pete Schopen, Sr., owner, Mid-Central Pest Control Inc., East Dundee, Ill.

Not everyone, however, sees the withdrawal as a negative. "I’m pleased to see Dursban withdrawn from the general consumer market. Lacking currently available substitute products may well require customers to rely more heavily on pest management professionals for pest solutions," says Michael Hanscom, operations manager, Leupitz Pest Control Inc., Keizer, Ore.

AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. While PCOs determine ways to adapt to life without chlorpyrifos, many worry that his is just the first in a line of products that will be eliminated by EPA as it implements the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).

"This is only the beginning. Products will continue to be removed, not for true hazard nor for scientific reasons, but because the groups that want to do away with all pesticides are stronger and better funded than our industry," says Chuck Tindol, vice president, Allgood Services of Georgia, Lawrenceville, Ga.

In a recent PCT poll, 81 percent of PCOs said they think EPA will ban or severely limit other classes of insecticides in addition to chlorpyrifos. "EPA just keeps taking away good chemicals. Before too long, we’ll be doing pest control with fly swatters," says Lori Yoder, co-owner, Top-Notch Pest Control, Savanna, Ill.

Even PCOs not directly affected by the Dursban cancellation say the move may be a foreboding one for the industry as a whole. "Even though we have not used Dursban for several years, I don’t like the idea of useful products being taken off the market. Every time we lose a product it limits our treatment options in the future," says Rick Vessels, general manager, Eco Safe Pest Control, Dallas, Texas.

So what’s next on the chopping block? According to PCT’s survey, PCOs fear losing other OPs, pyrethroids and carbamates. "We fear that this new process (FQPA) is a witch hunt," says Blake Lavender, owner, Lavender Pest Control, Athens, Ga. "I just hope they will not pick any products we use."

BE PREPARED. Anticipating that FQPA will bring dramatic change in the types and diversity of products available, many PCOs have learned to be open to new treatment options. In fact, according to PCT’s survey, 56 percent of PCOs polled said they either no longer use Dursban or have decreased their use within the last two years. Dursban usage remained the same for just 30 percent of PCOs surveyed (Figure 1). "We were not surprised by the announcement and had discontinued the use of Dursban more than two years ago," said Kevin Pass, owner, Action Pest Control, Evansville, Ind.

It’s a trend that’s been building for several years. In 1997, PCT surveyed PCOs about Dursban. Then, 84 percent said they had decreased its use for general pest control. Three-quarters said they decreased the use of Dursban for termite treatments. In that same survey, 61 percent said they thought EPA would one day entirely remove chlorpyrifos from pest control use. Amazingly, 39 percent accurately predicted restrictions would come in 2000 (Figure 2).

One need look no further than the 1988 EPA action against chlordane to realize the impact outside influences can have on the industry. History shows it is wise for PCOs to anticipate changes in the availability of products and be prepared for regulatory action.

Mel Edelstein, executive director, Certified Pest Control Operators of Florida, hopes the recent EPA activity will inspire PCOs to become more active in regulatory affairs. "I believe the loss of Dursban should be a wake-up call to every member of our industry. It is a shame that the average PCO is not involved in the future of his of her livelihood. They sit back and watch a handful of others fight their battles. Today it was Dursban. What will it be tomorrow?"

It’s a question weighing on PCOs and product manufacturers alike.

Sidebar: Harming — Not Helping — Children

One medical professional says that EPA’s restrictions on Dursban will harm children more than it will help them because pests are more harmful than the pesticide.

By William O. Robertson, M.D.

Editor’s note: The following appeared in the June 13 edition of the Seattle Times and is reprinted with William Robertson’s permission.

The EPA is about to put another notch on its gun, having shot down most residential uses of Dursban, one of the country’s most important and proven insecticides. The hornets, wasps, ticks and ants should be pleased about this, but I fail to see how the action will help protect children, which is what pesticide opponents have been promising.

At the Poison Control Center I have directed for the past 30 years, I do not recall a single incident of Dursban-caused illness. As a matter of fact, we see very few incidents of poisoning that are symptomatic of any kind of pesticide exposure. But we see lots of children with bee stings and insect bites. The ratio has to be at least 100 insect incidents for every confirmed pesticide poisoning.

The truth is that if pesticides are used according to label instructions they are remarkably safe. This includes Dursban. It would be unfortunate if publicity over the Dursban decision resulted in parents being afraid to use insecticides to get rid of insects. The next problem they face could be a serious allergic reaction from insect bites or exposure to cockroach allergens. Even though you may not be able to purchase Dursban for home use, it will be perfectly fine to use the products you have on hand. If you have wasps, ants, fire ants, roaches or other pests you want to get rid of, I see no reason why you should not use a product that has been doing that effectively and safely for more than 30 years.

According to press reports, EPA agrees that Dursban products pose no imminent threat to public health and is not ordering a recall of products.

We at Poison Control Centers are prepared for an influx of calls as Dursban news and myths spread. Such is always the case when there is a "scare of the month" story, whether it be a pesticide, asbestos in crayons, silica in playground sand or something else. We encourage calls because they give us an opportunity to gather and provide information. If the symptoms of the caller do not match what would be expected from the suspected product or agent, we have an opportunity to educate the caller to look for another cause.

If the caller does have the symptoms we would expect, we can help the caller to understand exposure, dose and relative risk. Symptoms almost always are related to overexposure through misuse of the product. The basic rule of toxicology always applies: the dose makes the poison. If pesticide labels are followed correctly, the applicator and anyone nearby will not receive an overexposure or, in other words, an excessive dose.

Potential for overexposure is at the heart of EPA’s action against Dursban products. In the past, the Agency used data from human exposure studies to determine a dose or exposure level at which adverse effects don’t occur. To ensure protection of more sensitive groups, the allowable exposure was reduced by a factor of 10 — meaning that expected exposure from all uses of Dursban products had to be at least 10 times less than a dose that caused no effect in human studies.

Recently, however, EPA has decided that it will not use human data. Instead, it is using rodent studies. Because of the difference between rodents and humans, an additional 10 times safety factor is being applied.

In other words, the allowable exposure for humans became 100 times lower than a dose that causes no adverse effect in rodents.

When the Food Quality Protection Act was passed it added yet another 10 times safety factor for children. Suddenly, the allowable exposure level for Dursban was 1,000 times lower than a dose that caused no effect. If we did not have 30+ years of human experience, and a tremendous amount of real-world information on these prod-ucts, then it would be appropriate to use safety factors to compensate for our uncertainty. Today’s problem comes from EPA’s failure to use the best available science. In fact, EPA is disallowing data from human studies which showed that much higher doses had no adverse effect on people. Instead EPA turned to another rat study, which showed that female rats given extremely high doses of Dursban gave birth to baby rats with neurological problems. Scientific reviewers said the effect was the result of Dursban making the mother rats sick, rather than directly harming the fetal rat. I can conceive of no way Dursban could cause neurological problems in humans if label instructions are followed. But the study was just what anti-pesticide advocates masquerading as child advocates needed to turn Dursban into this month’s target.

The word came down from the EPA that Dow AgroSciences, the manufacturer of chlorpyrifos (the active ingredient in Dursban products), needed to find a way to lower overall exposure. Based on media reports, it seems likely that the company will voluntarily give up the right to sell Dursban for residential uses in order to keep many of the agricultural uses of the product (sold under the trade name Lorsban).

This whole conundrum is about numbers, far too many of which are unrealistic and misleading. It’s about using animal studies to draw conclusions about human exposure even when we have real-world human data. And it’s about political pressure. If this kind of regulatory approach continues, we will be getting more pest calls — insect stings, bites and asthma attacks — at the poison centers. The unintended victims of EPA’s actions will be the children we are trying to protect in the first place.