What's Next In Washington?

Bob Rosenberg is the industry's point man in the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. Will this 11-year veteran of the National Pest Management Association ultimately be successful in returning a sense of balance to the pesticide debate or will other products go the way of chlordane? Only time will tell. In the meantime, the conflict rages on.

PCT: What is the current status of the Food Quality Protection Act?

BOB ROSENBERG: Sadly, things have changed very little. The Environmental Protection Agency still has very little data about the risks of pesticide exposure in residential settings. So, instead of data, EPA continues to use what it calls "standard operating procedures," which are really worst-case scenarios that greatly exaggerate the risks associated with PCO uses. What this means for PCOs is that they are either going to lose products or the products will bear new labels that are so restrictive that it won’t be practical for PCOs to use the products.

What has changed is that up until a few months ago this was only hypothetical. Now it’s real. Since this past fall, EPA has begun making regulatory decisions about products we use, like Ficam, DDVP, Orthene, Dursban and Catalyst.

But there have also been a number of positive developments. Congress has grown increasingly alarmed about what’s happening. Almost half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have cosponsored H.R. 1592 and a third of the U.S. Senate has cosponsored S. 1464. These are bills supported by industry that require that EPA base its FQPA decisions on sound science and real data.

Despite Congress’ collective concern, this is an election year which means that passing any kind of legislation is difficult, especially if the bill’s opponents can portray it as harmful to the environment and childrens’ health. So, we’re not putting all our eggs in one basket. The National Pest Management Association (NPMA) continues to work with the current administration, encouraging them to refine the way they measure residential exposure risk. For instance, NPMA is in the process of collecting credible data about PCO product use. We have also joined with the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Crop Protection Association and a handful of other national trade associations in a lawsuit against EPA, which we filed in federal court last summer.

PCT: Based on your familiarity with the regulatory process, what do you think is the "best case" and "worst case" scenario for the pest control industry as it relates to FQPA?

BR: That’s easy. The "best case" will be that EPA figures out how to do this right, which, by the way, does not mean that we won’t lose products. It simply means that EPA will figure out how to accurately measure risk. If EPA develops a credible risk assessment process that has the confidence of the pest control industry and EPA determines that a particular product poses an unreasonable risk, we’ll walk right away from that product. I’ve yet to meet a PCO who would use a product that he or she believed would harm their employees or customers.

PCT: If you were a betting man, do you think PCOs will have organophosphate pesticides in their control arsenal in five years? Why or why not?

BR: I spent eight years regulating gambling in Florida and that taught me that it was better not to be a "betting man." But, I do believe that unless EPA alters its course we’re likely to lose lots of tools — and not just organophosphates and carbamates. Under FQPA, EPA’s next statutory deadline is August of 2002, by which time they’ve indicated that they will also have reassessed all of the pyrethroids. If they continue to use phony "worst-case" scenarios, it’s hard to imagine any indoor-use product surviving.

PCT: What do you consider the major trends in pest control regulation/legislation? What are the key factors "driving" these trends?

BR: I believe there are two important but curiously countervailing legislative/regulatory trends. The first, of course, is the growing concern about the use of pesticides. Driving this issue is an effective, well-organized network of anti-pesticide activists. Right or wrong, these people are passionate about this issue and they’re not going to go away.

Currently, they are focusing their attention on several things: pest management in schools, banning pesticide use by municipalities and requiring full use reporting by applicators. Any PCO who thinks that he or she is not affected because they do not do work at schools or contract work for municipalities is missing the big picture. Schools and city buildings are only the beginning, the "low hanging fruit." For the activists, this is a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people and they won’t stop until they’ve succeeded in altering public opinion about the work we do.

The second trend is very different and has to do with consumer protection. Though it’s only been two years, some people have forgotten about the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys’ general investigation of the pest control industry. The fact that these government agencies generally did not take action against PCOs should not be construed to mean that they did not have concerns about industry practices. They did and still do. As an industry we were fortunate to get a forceful wake-up call, which gives us the ability to "clean up our own house." If they have not done so already, PCOs need to be attentive to the concerns raised by these consumer protection agencies: inadequate termite treatments, contracts and false or misleading sales practices. And even though it was not a part of the FTC/AG investigation, these same agencies are also concerned about health, safety and environmental claims made by PCOs in their advertising.

PCT: Can you update our readers on the status of rodenticide regulations? What impact are these regulations likely to have on PCOs involved in the rodent control market?

BR: Just to remind readers, last year EPA issued a Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) on what it called the rodenticide cluster. In that document, the Agency expressed a concern about children being exposed and/or poisoned by incidental exposure to these products. As a result, they proposed a number of risk mitigation measures, including the addition of indicator dyes and bittering agents to rodenticides and significant restrictions on their placement. EPA also proposed measures to protect workers — significant additional personal protective equipment.

While I’ve been highly critical of EPA for its handling of FQPA, there are many things that the Agency does quite well. The rodenticide reregistra-tion is a good example of that. Instead of just imposing unjustified, unreasonable or unworkable restrictions on the use of these products (which they could have done), EPA instead chose to reach out to affected stakeholders to get their input. Last spring, EPA formed an advisory committee, the Rodenticide Stakeholders Workgroup, which met a number of times over a six-month period. After a lot of discussion and deliberation, the workgroup concluded that to the extent that there was a childhood exposure problem, it was a homeowner issue and not a PCO issue. Based on the recommendations of that workgroup, EPA will issue a revised RED that will require better consumer labels and education, but should not have a major impact on PCOs.

While you didn’t ask about it, there’s another good recent example of EPA working with NPMA and other affected stakeholders to produce a reasonable regulatory outcome. I’m referring to the reregistration of aluminum and magnesium phosphide (phosphine). In the RED that EPA issued last year, it expressed concerns about "bystander" exposure. They proposed a number of restrictions which, like the rodenticide RED, would have made it impractical to use the product. For instance, they proposed that the product not be used within 500 feet of a residential structure, that users pre-notify anyone living or working within 750 feet of an application site, that rodent burrows not be treated within 100 feet of a residential structure, and most important, they proposed dropping the clearance level from .3 ppm to .03 ppm. We met a number of times with EPA on this issue and provided workshops for the Agency on rodent control and grain fumigation. As a result, we’re expecting a revised RED that will not contain any of the unworkable restrictions I mentioned above, but which will result in a better label.

PCT: What can PCOs do to affect their own future from a regulatory standpoint?

BR: In my opinion, there are two things PCOs should do. The first is to get actively involved in their state and national pest control associations and the second thing is to become more informed and get involved in their association’s legislative/regulatory activities. For instance, they should be attending NPMA and their state association’s legislative days, making contributions to state and federal industry political action committees and developing and maintaining relationships with their state regulators, legislators and members of Congress. Any more, it’s as much a part of doing business as making payroll or buying supplies. Any PCO who isn’t doing these things is shortchanging his or herself and his or her industry.

PCT: What percentage of PCOs, in your opinion, are doing those things?

BR: Unfortunately, too few. But, we’re lucky as an industry to have an established core of PCOs who do take public affairs seriously and who make a significant personal sacrifice for the betterment of everyone in the industry. It’s just time for the others to stop riding their coattails and get involved too.

PCT: In your experience, do regulators (and our elected officials) have a thorough understanding of the pest control industry? Why or why not?

BR: I think that it varies a great deal, but I think the people who directly regulate the structural pest control industry tend to be pretty knowledgeable about the business. I may be a little biased since I used to be a regulator myself, but I believe that most regulators are diligent and have a genuine interest in producing good public policy. Oftentimes, though, they don’t know enough about our business to make well-informed decisions. This is why attending state and national legislative days is so important. It’s an opportunity to educate policy makers about issues that are important to you. Along the same vein, NPMA has provided workshops for EPA personnel on a variety of topics, including termite control, grain fumigation and treating rodent burrows. In every instance, I think the regulators appreciated the information and produced better policy as a result. That’s something that PCOs can do with local or state officials.

PCT: You’ve been at NPMA for more than ten years. How would you rate the effectiveness of the program?

BR: Generally, I think we’ve done a pretty good job. For instance, I think we made a difference on things like termiticide labels, the FTC issue, product reregistrations, the exemption from DOT regulations and a whole host of things at the state and local levels. But, in this business, sometimes you measure your success by the things that didn’t happen, rather than those that did. And I think we’ve done OK there, too.

None of the success would have been possible, however, without the help of an awful lot of people. The thousands of PCOs who have attended Legislative Day, contributed to the NPMA-PAC, written to EPA and members of Congress and lobbied their state legislators and regulators. And there’s three people, in particular, I’d like to mention: Mike Katz, who has chaired the NPMA Government Affairs Committee for most of the past 10 years and provided the wisdom and leadership to keep us on the right course; Rob Lederer, whose leadership and unwavering support of the government affairs program has been invaluable; and last, but I don’t think least, Gene Harrington, who has been with NPMA for more than five years and who is the backbone of the program. I tend to be more out front, while he’s working tirelessly behind the scenes to make it all happen.

PCT: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the pest control industry’s future as it relates to regulatory issues?

BR: I’m afraid I’ve portrayed a really grim future for the industry and I didn’t mean to. I think we face enormous challenges, but I also think we’re capable of meeting those challenges.

Despite the many attacks on our industry, the reality is that Americans are becoming increasingly affluent, better educated and less tolerant of cockroaches, rats, termites, fleas and other pests. PCOs are uniquely positioned to offer a safe and effective service to handle these threats to people’s homes and their health.

If I were a "betting man," I’d be betting on the PCOs.

Sidebar:

An Association By Any Other Name…

The National Pest Control Association has a new name: it’s now called the National Pest Management Association.

"In light of the work of the Professional Pest Management Alliance (formerly known as the Industry Awareness Council) for our industry awareness campaign, the name change is more consumer friendly," said Rob Lederer, executive vice president of NPMA.

The name change took effect Jan. 1. NPMA sent out two surveys to its members discussing the idea and according to the association, many members felt the word "management" had a less negative connotation than did "control."

The new logo looks the same as the old logo with the exception of the new word "management." NPMA’s new logo will carry a tagline for six months that says "formerly known as the National Pest Control Association." The association reports that there is no reason for state associations to consider a similar name change unless it’s something the group has already been considering.

NPMA has created new logo slicks for companies that use the logo in their literature, letterhead, etc. For a copy of the logo, contact NPMA at 800/678-6722.

Sidebar:

Chlorpyrifos Update

As reported in the December issue of PCT, Dow AgroSciences’ chlorpyrifos-based insecticide Dursban has recently been reevalutated as part of the Food Quality Protection Act. Part of that reevaluation process involved a public comment period.

As a result of the comment period, Dow AgroSciences estimates there were about 3,000 comments made about Dursban and Lorsban (a lawn care product), said Tim Maniscalo, manager for government and public affairs for Dow AgroSciences. Most of the comments have been favorable about the two products, he said. "We haven’t seen a huge amount of comments on the negative side, although there have been some."

EPA’s initial evaluation reported that the residential exposures of chlorpyrifos to be too high. Because of concern surrounding EPA’s assessment, Dow Agro-Sciences established a website where people could directly write to EPA.

"The response is lower than we expected, but it’s hard for us to judge," Maniscalo said. "It takes a little bit for the word to get out. For the most part, the trade associations, and in particular NPMA, have been very, very supportive," he said.

Since the comment period ended on Dec. 27, 1999, EPA has been reviewing the public comments and will release a revised risk assessment around March 1, Maniscalo said. That reviewed risk assessment will also have a public comment period, ending about 60 days later.