The Future Of Pest Control

I'm not a PCO, nor an extension entomologist, so one might ask what business

I have making predictions about the future of pest control in the United States. And I probably have no right to prognosticate, but I feel compelled to anyway. These comments are based primarily on two things: 1) my role as a public health entomologist (I have to deal with both people wanting pesticidal treatments and those not wanting spraying — people claiming that pesticides are poisonous to the general public) and 2) my frequent travel and resulting discussions with PCOs, regulators, health care providers and the public.

Unfortunately, many of these predictions are in line with the goals of anti-pesticide groups. My intent in writing this article is not to arouse anger in the reader. I’m only trying to give an honest assessment of what the future holds for pest control. I’m certainly not saying I agree with these changes or think they’re right; it’s just what I think will happen (whether I like it or not).

WHAT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE. The following is what I think will not be allowed in the future for the pest control industry:

Treatments without IPM. Before too long, integrated pest management will be mandated in all state and federal contracts, as well as in the food service industry. Sooner or later the public will demand that pesticides be used only under strictly controlled circumstances in hospitals, schools, day-care centers, etc. Accordingly, unless you can demonstrate that you will draw from a wide variety of pest control methods — including non-chemical methods — you will not be allowed to service a facility.

Widespread spraying. As pesticides become increasing perceived (that’s the key word) as being bad for society, obviously there will be pressure to use less of them. Accordingly, I see less and less general spraying — things like power- spraying shrubs, trees or yards for fleas, ticks or ornamental pests, etc. This also includes less, if any, "surface" spraying inside a house, whether it is carpet, walls, a desktop, the floor, etc.

Over-the-counter pesticides. Regulators — and I’m speaking here mainly of those at the federal level — can’t stand something they can’t control. One group of pesticides that’s obviously not under their complete control right now is over-the-counter products. People (including those who don’t know how to properly apply pesticides) can buy these products and apply them recklessly. They might misapply a product on their property and ultimately expose other people in the neighborhood. In other words, it will be in the interest of the public’s health to eliminate most of these except for the most benign products like pyrethrins, boric acid, some baits and the like.

Routine mosquito control. Routine spraying of towns or cities for mosquito control will go away. What I mean by "routine" is spraying such-and-such streets three times a week (or whatever the schedule is) from April to October. I think mosquito spraying in the future will only be allowed if there is a clear, documented need for it. The need for spraying will fall into two categories: 1) mosquito-borne disease transmission in local areas or 2) extreme nuisance effect (mosquito landing counts or light trap numbers that are high).

Uncertified persons applying pesticides. As it stands today, there are several avenues for uncertified people to apply pesticides. This varies from place to place depending upon state and local laws. For example, hospital employees (i.e., housekeeping or maintenance) can apply general-use pesticides in the facility at the direction of their management. Since the employees are not using restricted pesticides or getting paid for pest control services, they are not required to be certified or licensed. The same is true for apartments, some other industries and even municipal mosquito control.

In Mississippi, at least, if a town’s employee (i.e., a public- works employee) also sprays for mosquitoes at night, using non-restricted-use pesticides, he or she is not required to be certified. This loophole is bound to be closed soon, which benefits the pest control professionals who are certified to apply pesticides.

WHAT WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE FUTURE. Here are some aspects of pest control that I think will continue to be practiced by PCOs in the future.

Crack and crevice treatments. Most regulators feel comfortable with crack and crevice treatments with approved pesticides, even in food facilities. Some currently used residual pesticides labeled for "general use" will probably be restricted to crack and crevice. But even with crack and crevice applications, I think in the future there will be required documentation for all such uses. Monitoring, trapping and inspections will have to be done prior to all treatments. In addition to crack and crevice techniques, there may also be other "precision-targeting" methods developed in the future for applying pesticides to make sure that only those areas containing pests are treated.

Baits and pyrethrin products. Pyrethrin compounds are considered "safe pesticides" because they leave no residual. After a couple of hours, the treated area can be cleaned back up to an acceptable level (even almost sterile in hospitals). Baits for cockroaches, ants and termites, as long as they’re used per label instructions, will probably be around for a long time.

Perimeter treatments. The trend toward pest control "from the outside" will continue. PCOs will make monthly or quarterly visits to residences only to inspect and treat/bait outside around the perimeter of the house if needed. Again, as mentioned previously, this will not include power spraying the entire yard — only the perimeter of the building(s). These perimeter treatments will probably still be made with traditional residual pesticides like pyrethroids and what’s left of organophosphates and carbamates.

Non-chemical control methods. The future is bright for non-chemical devices/methods for pest control such as vacuuming, heat treatments, pheromone-sticky trap combinations, etc. There will always be a need for chemical control, but written mandates (laws?) will dictate that non-pesticidal methods be tried first. That’s why alternative products will be in demand.

prescription-only Application. Pest control by prescription is not a new idea and I think at least some form of it is on its way to the industry. At the very least, in the future, a licensed operator will likely have to write out instructions for each facility (account) and the service technician will be mandated to follow those written instructions.

Also, I think in the future we’re going to see another level added to the pest control management scheme — added mainly due to liability issues. There will be certified technicians, licensed operators and (the new level) "super" PCOs — consultants, advisors or whatever they may be called. This "higher" level PCO will be the one who actually walks through an establishment inspecting and writing out exact, prescribed instructions for pesticide application.

Or, alternatively, a licensed PCO may inspect a facility, write up a detailed pest management plan and then submit it to the consultant (prescriber, advisor, etc.) to sign off on.

This prescriber/consultant then is the one who is assuming liability for the use of pesticides. Can’t you just see it now...the PCO submitting his or her plans to the consultant/advisor and getting it stamped and sealed with an "official" seal to make it legal to use pesticides? As I said earlier, I don’t necessarily agree with this idea; I just think it will ultimately happen.

Manufacturers/Distributors. Chemical manufacturers and distributors aren’t going away, but their roles may be changed or expanded. There will continue to be efforts toward developing and selling pesticide chemistries that are more target-specific and less toxic to non-target organisms.

Also, as less actual (traditional) chemical is purchased and used, there will an opportunity for other goods and services to be manufactured and sold. All of the various non-chemical or hormone-related pest control devices and products will become hot items — things like pheromone traps, insect growth regulators, UV traps, HEPA vacuums, heat treating systems, etc.

Also, there will be a great need in the future for technical services for PCOs. Publicly funded technical services — advice, insect identification, etc. — currently available through universities and cooperative extension services will likely be cut back. University researchers are increasingly under the gun to do big dollar research projects so they have less time for community service. I can foresee private consultants or chemical companies/distributors providing these services.

For example, Acme Chemicals Incorporated (a fictitious name) may start a new division — or even a new company — named Acme Environmental Services. The Environmental Services Division would employ entomologists, industrial hygienists, experienced former PCOs, etc., as consultants who could do identifications, present training seminars, visit shops for liability management inspections and the like. This wouldn’t be a free service.

If, for example, a client has a recurring brown recluse infestation and Acme Environmental Services Division has to send out an entomologist for a consultation/on-site visit, then that visit will be billed to the customer. Accordingly, pest control in the future will be much more labor intensive and technical . . . and expensive.

Conclusion. I believe that PCOs are going to continue the transformation from "once-a-month bug sprayers" to professionals who understand insect biology and behavior and who know how to use a wide variety of control measures to prevent/manage pests. In this increasingly "sanitized" society there will always be a need for pest control services — even with residual pesticides. The need for our industry is not going to fade away.

However, pesticides will probably continue to be feared (even demonized) by the public and placed in the same category as cigarettes. I say this with sadness, because pesticides are important public health tools that can protect us from deadly diseases carried by pests.

I hope, at some point, that the public will cease to view pest control as a threat and begin to see the industry as a protector of public health.

The author is a medical entomologist for the Mississippi Department of Health and clinical assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Miss. He can be reached at 601/576-7512 or via e-mail at jgoddard@pctonline.com.