Who's Helping Whom?

Many states have already recognized IPM by defining it, enacting regulations or requiring all state building contracts to adopt their definition of IPM. Remember the "preemption battles" fought during the late ’80s and early ’90s? Cities and municipalities wanted to regulate pesticide use and notification of pesticide use. Much of this proposed legislation was defeated and we sat back and said, "Wow, we did a great job!" But did we?

Since then, numerous states have passed regulations and/or directives on the use of certain pesticides or IPM in schools and other buildings with no-tification. Some states have directives for all of their government-owned buildings; others just have notification laws for posting and advising parents of applications. Many cities have made news by setting goals for the significant reduction or elimination of pesticides. It should be pointed out that not all pesticides are considered in these directives; rodent and insect baits, boric acid and some others are usually exempt.

The battle cry of such proponents is "children’s health" and "child exposure." Schools have become a battleground. "IPM" proponents now refer to schools as "child-sensitive facilities." This can be easily expanded into "child-sensitive environments." This term can apply to many different situations, for example, doctors’ and veterinarians’ offices, shopping malls, public parks, swimming pools, gymnasiums, etc.

Who is coordinating this effort from the environmental side? Groups like BIRC (Bio-Integral Research Center in Berkeley, Calif.) have been. This group has been instrumental in promoting boric acid for pest control and their publications are exemplary for articles covering common sense pest control methods. More radical groups like NCAMP get the big press.

WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT? Interestingly, in 1993 when Bob Berns wrote the article in PCT called IPM Goes to School, EPA took a position that IPM could be implemented by in-house staff or contracted by a PCO or a combination of the two. Obviously, EPA was skirting a sensitive issue. They published a booklet concerning IPM in schools and it was widely distributed. But since then they continued to monitor and evaluate child exposure. EPA representatives attended a meeting in March of 1999 on IPM in schools and the discussions about possible certification categories were more then just exploratory considerations. They have a group assessing child exposure to pesticides. There were special workshops held in region four of EPA on school IPM.

Now, Congress has gotten into the act. The Children’s Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) has been proposed to eliminate pesticide use in federally funded schools. Also, the most recent introduction of the School Environmental Protection Act by Torricelli (D-N.J.) and Murray (D-Wash.) will try to limit pesticide use and initiate notification regulations for schools nationwide.

PRESSURE ON THE STATES. If you haven’t heard of this yet, you’re not going to like it. There is a movement to set criteria for IPM — criteria that will be used to measure companies’ ability to perform IPM. In California, the BIRC group has received funding to send out letters to licensed PCOs and ag applicators asking them to resolve certain pest problems. Their answers will be evaluated by BIRC. Then, companies will either make the "green list" or not. The green list will be published and you take it from there. We will piecemeal our way to a national IPM focus. But who will lead this movement? Let’s consider some options.

Cooperative Extension — Our long-time educators within the states have taken economic hits over the last several years and they are woefully understaffed for this endeavor. Money would have to be appropriated. Many of our urban entomologists that do research in our industry have responsibilities in this arena, and this would just add another thing for them to fit into their research/teaching/extension duties.

Private industry — There have been many successes with individual companies working within their trade area and with school systems. As with any endeavor there needs to be a little bit of science along with the art and a lot of education. Mistakes can cost money — a little more research would save time and frustration.

Regulatory groups — After an excellent presentation at the August ASPCRO meeting, about how the Maryland IPM program came about, ASPCRO decided that they will become involved in this issue. In many cases it is they who will have to develop the "IPM program" and enforce its implementation.

CONCLUSION. What’s the bottom line? Well there is lots to talk about but unfortunately space is limited — the wake-up call on this issue came years ago and we largely ignored it. And we keep reinventing the wheel. In addition, some companies in our industry are willing to let this segment of work go. Surveys in state school systems have indicated that 75% of the pest control work is contracted out to PCOs. At a time when the industry is striving for increased recognition and an increased customer base, why would we be willing to let this segment of business go? The Los Angeles school district will eliminate pesticide use, at a cost of $2.5 million in labor and training. If I had a company in Los Angeles, I would hire a crew and train them how to identify weeds and pull said weeds from the football fields. I can do it cheaper than they can in hiring, training and managing. Yet we do not seem to see that opportunity. Instead, we lament the loss of a pesticide application contract. This isn’t going to go away like a bad dream; it has to become an ingrained part of our thought processes.