INDUSTRY OBSERVER

This article originally appeared in the May 1996 issue of PCT magazine.

In last month’s Industry Observer I discussed the idea of sharing the wealth — providing information to people about what we do and how we do it and being forthright with our customers, professionals in other industries, and the public about our pest control programs. Another item we have to deal with which also falls into this category is our old friend the sanitation report.

Years ago, as I recall, when pest control companies first started discussing sanitation reports for the commercial accounts they serviced — most of which were commercial kitchens and food handling accounts — the fear we had was that the customer would get disturbed by these reports and find another PCO. And that did in fact happen in some cases. I heard stories about lawsuits over these reports because they implicated management companies and/or were potential fodder for claims against a company or an employer.

But as a whole, the industry adopted the idea, and some excellent training programs were produced that discussed “the sanitation inspection.” In more recent times we have seen the “report” become part of an IPM program. Again we had the idea; we just didn’t act on it.

But we still had — and to this day still have — problems. Even though we do these inspections, getting the customer to pay attention to the recommendations and/or conditions in our reports is somewhat more difficult. Then the industry started to develop pest control materials that could possibly circumvent sanitation problems!

A NEW FOCAL POINT. At the same time that the pest control industry was centering on these inspection reports, food processors and health departments were developing a “new” concept in doing their inspections. The program that emerged is known as Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, or HACCP. (For the acronym-weary, HACCP is commonly pronounced HAS-ap.)

The HACCP concept changed the focal point for health inspectors. Instead of them being so concerned about rats, mice, cockroaches, leaking pipes, grease, and so forth, they became more concerned about the way food is “held” for preparation. After all, even though a pest could carry a disease organism, the “proper conditions” for the organ­ism’s growth are still necessary for it to be able to flourish and become a health problem for consumers.

In any event, this HACCP program has been adopted, and it can be a royal headache for food processors — and for us as well.

PESTS VS. HEALTH PROBLEMS. It would seem to me that our responsibility here is to keep doing the sanitation reports because there is still a need to clean things up. As we know, grease, food debris and water can aid in the development of a pest problem — but not necessarily a health problem if the food is being held under the proper conditions.

Have you ever wondered why a “dirty” restaurant stays in business? There seems to be less concern about a pest problem unless the customer sees it. In those cases the “critical control point” for us becomes the dining area rather than the kitchen. Obviously cockroaches on a plate of food — deep-fried or not — can also come from the kitchen. But cockroaches crawling on the wall in the eating area could lose an account faster than those in the kitchen.

The first question, however, should always be, “How do we get them to listen?” Pick ten companies. Or a hundred companies, for that matter. They can all have different report forms. They fill them out, hand them in, and wait for the “sanitation problem” to go away. It doesn’t. What do we do? Keep treating and complaining. Should we do more? My opinion is yes, we should do more. But it has to be done diplomatically. Going over someone’s head is difficult and usually does not sit well with the person who was “bypassed.”

I believe this is why all contracts in commercial accounts — no matter what type of account it is — should have quarterly reviews scheduled with the management of the account. This way the wealth of knowledge is shared, and favorable results are far more likely to be achieved. Again, this has become a standard of many IPM programs.

SKIRTING SANITATION? Now, let’s address something I mentioned earlier. Has the industry developed methods to control pests that can circumvent sanitation? It depends on the pests involved.

Baits for cockroach control can work in a variety of unsanitary conditions — especially if the cockroaches have not been exposed to a bait previously. It becomes something new for them to munch on, and it will kill them. However, researchers will tell you that food debris can interfere with the baiting process. Now you say, “But I have seen it work.” So have I. Does it work in all situations? Good question.

Certainly, monitoring does become less of a problem with better sanitation. We don’t have to crawl around, or slide around, on those greasy or wet floors to put out sticky traps. It sometimes gets to be a hard sell if the cockroaches are controlled and the sanitation is still not being addressed. But when that happens, you can bet on a fly problem or two to get you out of the woods.

I have found that a lot of companies are not well-versed on their fly identification or control methods. Certainly, to the work­ers in food handling accounts, a fly is a fly is a fly. We need to share the wealth with them, too, and post information sheets on their bulletin boards about the flies commonly encountered in these types of accounts and where they come from. But don’t do this until you have cleared it with the account’s management!

CRITICAL POINTS. To add to all of this, I find it interesting that as I was putting this column together, an article appeared in PCT on spatial distribution of infestations and precision targeting of insecticides (“Bulls-Eye!”, March 1996, p. 32). I have seen this program before and have heard USDA researcher Richard Brenner talk about it. It certainly is “new age” stuff.

But without much of a stretch of the imagination, sanitation profiles could also be incorporated into a computer program in a similar manner. I would bet that we would see some interesting data if we compared the infestation “targets” and a sanitation profile. This would also mean, however, that a lot of people would have to become computer-literate.

I would offer this as fuel for discussion: Management companies would be more likely to understand a computer printout than a neatly filled out, handwritten sanitation report.

For those who think all of this may be too much of an imagination-stretcher, I leave you with the following quote, which a friend recently e-mailed to me. In 1977, Ken Olsen, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, said these immortal words: “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”                                                                                 

PCT contributing editor George Rambo can be contacted at George Rambo Consulting Services, 1004 Van Buren St., Herndon VA 22070, 703/709-6364.