Reader Feedback

In as much as I appreciate the August PCT article "PCOs Told to Clean Up Their Yellow Pages Ads," I think there were some serious gaps left for PCOs.

The article stated that in Massachusetts, "the state attorney general has gone after all pesticide advertisements that feature families and children because, in his opinion, the ads imply that pesticides are safe in front of children." However, nothing was mentioned about the fact that such pictures exemplify "protection of public health." We need to assert — and I hope NPCA is asserting — that as protectors of public health it makes sense to show healthy families.

The list of phrases that were found to be "false and misleading" included "environmentally conscientious." How can anyone regulate a statement of one’s convictions? Once again, I hope we can take a stance on our right to have a conscience, to be ethical, to be responsible citizens and that being able to declare this — so long as we are being honest — is our right. A PCO declaring a responsible position of stewardship is an honorable thing. It is very unfortunate, and perhaps illegal, to have anyone discriminate against us for declaring our professional "creed." In my state association (Washington State Pest Control Association, Inc.) we adopted a "Statement of Environmental Commitment." For example, all of us who have adopted and agreed to the statement would have a legal right to declare we are "committed to the environment" — unless, and only unless, any of us had been found to practice otherwise. Once again, I hope that every pest control association defends our right to declare our honest professional commitments, whatever they may be.

Finally, although I would avoid using the statement "We use only EPA-registered chemicals," I question how any individual, group or government agency can stop a PCO from making such a true statement. It seems to me we have a Constitutional right to make a statement of fact — all our pesticides are indeed EPA registered. And as for any implication that registration implies some measure of safety, the EPA can’t have it both ways. After all, the EPA does indeed require extensive testing of chemicals, not the least of which pertains to harm humans, pets and wildlife. Also, EPA has a firm history of suspending, revoking or canceling the registration of pesticides if there is even some evidence of harm to human health. With such a history, and as EPA looks closer at urban use of pesticides, how can they deny that they do indeed offer some measure of security to the public?

I hope that those PCOs who utilize many of the examples from the article, particularly those who use "safe" or "safety" — will change their advertising ways. At the same time I hope we as an industry know how to assert our professional and personal rights.

I was surprised to find "Harry Katz Responds" in Reader Feedback in the August issue of PCT. It is a general convention in many publications that letters to the editor are "one off" comments on a particular article. Mr. Katz has the forum of your magazine each month, whereas I, as reader, do not have this regular lunar opportunity. Indeed, I had sent a number of letters on the subject before one was printed.

Points of view are not necessarily truths, but they are the perspectives or beliefs that people hold as individual interpretations of available facts. Unfortunately, sometimes scientific information can be filtered through subjective interpretations instead of factual expressions. Subjective interpretations are influenced by belief systems, interest groups or politics. We then face the persuasion of vested arguments and demagoguery. The decades old (now disreputable) argument of cigarette manufacturers against the causative link between tobacco and heart/lung disease is an extreme case. It takes great care to sift through all of this and eventually get to the truth.

This is the difficulty I have experienced with Mr. Katz’s "Myth Conceptions" columns when he enters the arena of pesticide regulation. Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, mentioned by Mr. Katz as a resource of information, is an icon for pro-pesticide groups. The American Council for the Advancement of Science, whose president also has attacked Rachel Carson’s works, is viewed by environmental organizations as being supported by the chemical industry. Supporting Mr. Katz’s concerns about human life threatened by disease I found an enlightening research paper on the effect of reduced use of DDT on the incidence of malaria (Roberts, D.R.; Laughlin, L.L.; Hsheih, P.; and Letgers, L.J. DDT, Global Strategies, and a Malaria Control Crisis in South America, On Medscape, From Emerging Infectious Diseases). It supports the continued use of DDT (indoors) only for malaria control and brings us back to the risk/benefit consideration. This is not a contradiction to the alarm sounded by Rachel Carson at a time when few were voicing concerns about the environment. I have no doubt that if Professor Carson were alive today, she would arrive at a conclusion based on risk/benefit realities and moral considerations.

How does this apply to the structural pest control industry? Is the removal of either DDT or chlordane of significance in the U.S. and Canada in the context of risk/benefit? We need to remember the kernel of IPM is using the least toxic products only when necessary on the basis of good "intelligence" (i.e., monitoring) to achieve the best result. If Mr. Katz wishes to lobby for the restoration of DDT for malaria control when other methods are not cost effective, I do not think that PCT is the forum for this.

There were studies in the U.S. more than 10 years ago in three states examining the presence of residual insecticides in housing and the results indicated that the chronic repetitive use of pesticides, particularly in cockroach control, resulted in a background level of organophosphate insecticide. If there were no other method of control, pesticide use could still have been reduced by IPM practices. Who is to be held responsible? These were the realities not long ago.

When Mr. Katz uses terms such as "press" legislators and "force" the EPA to base their decisions, it sounds like nothing more or less than lobbying. Yes, there are zealots, but they exist on both sides. I am sorry that Mr. Katz appears to be a zealot in favor of products that are gone and will not be back. Insofar as his claim that "no valid scientific studies support the cancellation of DDT and chlordane," many scientists would disagree.

The last uses of DDT in Ontario were for mouse control in unusual situations and for bat control. The use for mouse control was easily substituted by more conventional methods. Bat exclusion is a far safer, more permanent and bat-friendly solution. We’re doing fine without DDT, thank you.

We need pest control in the world at large. We are, in a sense, the Pied Piper’s children, needed when we are needed, and at times, dismissed when the crisis has passed. I have trust in scientists at universities and medical researchers in the world who strive to understand the environment and protect it and us as part of it. The development of methods of controlling vectors remains a most critical need in the world at large. In our industry we would be wiser to be more efficient, smarter and more professional.

Mr. Katz, I appeal to you to let go of old paradigms. It’s old news. Our industry needs your rich experience, sharpness of approach and practical wisdom. It also needs the continued input from media like PCT, both in print and online, and the continued work of NPCA and other supporting institutions. Education is the answer. Growth. Learning. Change. Railing against the tides supports the old "spray jockey" mentality which we need to get rid of totally. As much as I see the full spectrum of the pest control industry for better and for worse, I am always hopeful and expectant of our getting better. This is because of the people in the industry who are committed to doing a good job, doing it well, committed to doing a good job, doing it well, doing it smart, doing it safely and giving the customer good value

After reading Sam Bryks’ letter, I was delighted to find that there is much on which we agree. We agree that there are zealots on both sides of the pesticide controversy.

Perhaps Mr. Bryks has helped me realize that it is the zealotry that I fear most. What is most important is our agreement that we need actual IPM for pesticide reduction strategies and not just lip service. I may have an irrational fear of zealotry just as Mr. Bryks and others may have an irrational trust in governments. Remember that eugenics was and still is a practical and appropriate national policy in much of the world. As a genealogist for my mother’s shtetl in Russia, I know first hand of the tragic cost of zealotry by governments.

My concern is not the return of DDT, but the smug rationalism and pseudo-science that was used to demonize and destroy the right to continue appropriate uses. It was zealotry that killed DDT and with it many millions of humans. Sam quotes a research paper by Roberts et al., that supports the use of DDT indoors for malaria control. DDT, the deadly carcinogen? I can’t imagine Miss Carson approving the use of such a "deadly carcinogen," especially indoors!

We also agree that each side selects data they favor. Examples: "Eagles are making a comeback in the absence of DDT." Overlooked is that for decades, bounties were paid to kill eagles. Also, tons of polychlorinated biphenol (PCB) have been polluting the atmosphere for decades. PCB was once mistaken for DDT with early analyses. PCB is toxic to marine life and resists degradation for decades. DDT has been proven to degrade in sunlight and in seawater in months, not years. Overlooked also are the valid reports that eggshells have been getting thinner for decades before DDT was in use.

After reading Mr. Bryks’ letter, I don’t know which side of the fence I am on. I deplored the use of pesticides by baseboard jockeys before Whitmire MicroGen coined the term "crack and crevice" in 1961. Decades ago I warned of possible danger of potentiation by exposure of pets to several pesticides applied at the same time. I suggested that the dumping of tanks of current termiticides in the backfill would not leave a continuous and lasting barrier against subterranean termites.

My concern is not the return of DDT but the environmental bigotry and the political climate in which our remaining choice of toxicants may follow. Diazinon, chlorpyrifos and malathion are in danger of falling under a tidal wave of public opinion created by well-meaning pressure groups. The present mood in Congress and EPA to please this constituency with only lip service to the risk/benefit factor scares me.

Deerfield Beach, Fla.