document resume ef 006 203 title fact sheets on pesticides … · 2014-06-09 · ed 472 775. title...
TRANSCRIPT
ED 472 775
TITLE
INSTITUTION
PUB DATE
NOTE
AVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPEEDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
EF 006 203
Fact Sheets on Pesticides in Schools.
National Coalition against the Misuse of Pesticides,Washington, DC.
2002-00-0017p.
Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse ofPesticides, 701 E. St., S.E., Washington, DC 20003. Tel: 202-543 -5450. For full text:http://www.beyondpesticides.org/SCHOOLS/publications/index.htm.Guides Non-Classroom (055)EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.Educational Facilities Improvement; Environmental Standards;*Pesticides; Physical Environment; *School Buildings;Ventilation*Integrated Pest Management
This document consists of a collection of fact sheets aboutthe use of pesticides in schools and how to reduce it. The sheets are: (1)
"Alternatives to Using Pesticides in Schools: What Is Integrated PestManagement?"; (2) "Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools";(3) "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws--2002 Update: A Review of StatePesticide Laws Regarding Schools" (Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman); (4) "TenMyths behind Pesticide-Dependent Pest Management in Schools"; and (5)"Schools Save Money with Integrated Pest Management." (EV)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
71-
toNNN
44
Fact Sheets on Pesticides in Schools
Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E St. SEWashington, DC 20003202-543-5450wvvw.beyondpesticides.org
2002
Full texts available at:http://www.beyondpesticides.org/SCHOOLS/publications/index.htm
Cr)C) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
CN ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION, . CENTER (ERIC)
CD This document has been reproduced as
C)received from the person or organizationoriginating it.
C) Minor changes have been made to
U...improve reproduction quality.
1.1.1 Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
_Kagan_Owe.n_s
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
2BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Alternatives to Using Pesticides in SchoolsWhat is Integrated Pest Management?A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Fact Sheet
A strong integrated pest management (IPM) definition and policy is one of the best ways to minimize or eliminatechildren's exposure to pesticides while at school. IPM is a term that is used loosely with many different definitionsand methods of implementation. IPM can mean virtually anything the practitioner wants it to mean. Beware ofchemical dependent programs masquerading as IPM.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program of prevention, monitoring, and control which offers theopportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticides in schools, and to minimize the toxicity of and exi.:)6ure toany products which are used. Education, in the form of workshops, training sessions and written materials, is anessential component of an IPM program for everyone from administrators, maintenance personnel, cafeteriastaff and nurses to parents and students.
IPM is a managed pest management system that: (a) eliminates or mitigates economic and health damagecaused by pests; (b) minimizes the use of pesticides and the risk to human health and the environmentassociated with pesticide applications; and, (c) uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections, pest populationmonitoring, an evaluation of the need for pest control, and one or more pest control methods, including sanitation,structural repairs, mechanical and living biological controls, other non-chemical methods, and, if nontoxic optionsare unreasonable and have been exhausted, least toxic pesticides.
The Six IPM Program Essentials
Monitoring. This includes regular site inspections and trapping to determine the types and infestationlevels of pests at each site.
Record-Keeping. A record-keeping system is essential to establish trends and patterns in pestoutbreaks. Information recorded at every inspection or treatment should include pestidentification, population size, distribution, recommendations for future prevention, and completeinformation on the treatment action.
Action Levels. Pests are virtually never eradicated. An action level is the population size whichrequires remedial action for human health, economic, or aesthetic reasons.
Prevention. Preventive measures must be incorporated into the existing structures and designs fornew structures. Prevention is and should be the primary means of pest control in an IPM program.
Tactics Criteria. Under IPM, chemicals should be used only as a last resort only, but when used, theleast-toxic materials should be chosen, and applied to minimize exposure to humans and all non-target organisms.
Evaluation. A regular evaluation program is essential to determine the success of the pestmanagement strategies.
3
How to Implement a School IPM Program
Least Toxic Pesticides include:
(a) boric acid and disodium octobrate tetrahydrate,(b) silica gels,(c) diatomaceous earth,(d) nonvolatile insect and rodent baits in tamper resistant containers or for crack and crevice treatmentonly,(e) microbe-based pesticides,(f) pesticides made with essential oils (not including synthetic pyrethroids) without toxic synergists, and(g) materials for which the inert ingredients are nontoxic and disclosed.
The term 'least toxic pesticides' does not include a pesticide that is
(a) determined by EPA to be a possible, probable, or known carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen,reproductive toxin, developmental neurotoxin, endocrine disrupter, or immune system toxin;(b) a pesticide in EPA's toxicity category I or II; and,(c) any application of the pesticide using a broadcast spray, dust, tenting, fogging, or baseboard sprayapplication.
Decision-making Process. Create an IPM decision-making process that draws on accurate, timely infOrmation tomake pest prevention and management decisions. Determine the needs of the site, and set "action thresholds;"levels of pest populations at which remedial action is necessary. This will vary depending on the site what type ofstructure it is, who is using it, and how it is being used. For instance, cafeterias will need to be more pests freethan the equipment room. This decision should be made with someone knowledgeable about the pest needingcontrol and the risks of pesticides, someone who does not have a financial interest in selling a pesticide product.
Monitor. Implement a monitoring program designed to provide accurate, timely information on pest activity - toestablish whether there is in fact a pest problem and to identify its causes. Implement a schedule and a plan formonitoring pest populations and the success of pest control efforts. This will help determine acceptable pestpopulation levels, effective reduction measures, and breach of the action threshold. The best way to monitor formany pests, like cockroaches, is with sticky traps. They should be placed throughout the school structures atmany different levels. Set the traps for 24 hours, and then record your results. The traps should be used on aregular schedule, such as monthly.
Pest Prevention Practices. Use practices that eliminate the need for hazardous pesticides - changing theconditions to prevent problems, including occupant education, careful cleaning, pest-proof waste disposal, andstructural maintenance. Learn about what the specific pest needing control needs to live - food, water, and habitat.Reduce the sources of food and water. For instance, always clean up food and food areas, place food in airtight,sealed containers, dispose of food and food wrappers in sealed garbage containers, repair leaky pipes andfaucets, caulk up cracks and crevices, and eliminate clutter whenever possible. Remember that it can take sometime for these methods to be effective.
Mechanical, Biological, and Least Toxic Controls. If all other methods have failed, and monitoring shows thatyour pest population is still above your action thresholds, use mechanical traps, such as sticky traps, andbiological controls, such as pheromones and parasitic insects. Then, and only then, should you consider spottreatment of the least toxic pesticides. You must weigh the risks associated with the use of a pesticide against theproblems caused by the pest. Consider your options carefully, being mindful not to blindly jump at a solution thatmay have risks without first collecting the facts.
4
If you must use a pesticide, you should the least toxic pesticide available. Boric acid, formulated from a naturalmineral, is an effective ant and cockroach stomach poison. When properly applied, it has a relatively low toxicitycompared to other pesticides. Further, it does not evaporate into the indoor air of the structure, unlike many otherpesticides. Look for boric acid that has less than one percent of inert ingredients, therefore you have a better ideaof what you are applying and its risks than with most other pesticides. While boric acid is somewhat slower actingthan other materials, it is highly effective over a long period of time. But remember, all pesticides are poisonesdesigned to kill, and should be handled carefully and with respect. Boric acid should be applied only in areaswhere it will not come in contact with people cracks and crevices, behind counters, and in baseboards.Applicators should wear protective clothing, gloves, and a filter mask.
Also see Schools Save Money with IPM.
5
Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools. A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Fact Sheet
Pesticide Cancer Reproductive Neurotoxicity Kidney / Liver Sensitizer / Birth DefectsEffects Damage Irritant
r r --1,
Insecticide 1, 11 it, 1[ L 1',---1
J I J
Acephate C X' X2 X'
1
1Ft XT r
111X1Allethrin
Avermectin X' X' XI X'Bendiocarb j [ xr
Bromacil Cr--L Chlorpyrifos 7[
Cyfluthrin
x' x3
II x4 11 k2 1 1r xl 11 x4 1
x' xl x' x'Cypermethrin IL C
DiazinonL Dichlorvos C. 2B jj1
1
x5
JFenoxycarb B2
Fenvalerate
1 1 1:1
t.
x2 x5 x'x2 1 Pc
x' x'1[1 xl L
lLXl
1L ir x' IL
Hydramethylnon C X2
r Isophenfos -I,1 i 1 [
Lamda Cyhalothrin D
jj PhenothrinPiperonyl butoxide C X5
(a synergist)D 71FNometon i
r
Propetamphos
L Propoxur [ B2 JPyrethrinTetramethrin II c --,
Trichlorfon
JL xxi
J
X2
Irx5 x5 x6
Lx2
Jil X2 JI .)I1 11
XI X' x' x'L
x'
XI x2 XI XI
Herbicides JL L IL JLAtrazine C, 2B XI X1 X1
j Bensulide -11- 1,[ --E-- x3 jr x8 1; XI.
2,4-D X9 X' XI X' XI,
1: xmI [ Iii X2I DSMA II. IL 1 1
Dacthal C XI X3r
L Dicamba '' 13 711 Xi jjDiquat Dibromide X3
Endothall xT ILGlyphosate
Isoxaben
MCPAMCPPMSMA
Pendirnethalin
Pronamide
Siduron
XI
X3
C1
11
,
,
xiX1
., --,-c :,,i x' j :
B2 X3
)77e. 1,1, )7t7 I I
X3
X'"X
xi8
X3
I
L
11
i
i ,.
XI
-1 1
1 r
i
1:
X3
X1
X 1
X3
X1
X3
x2
XIir_EL
X3
Beyond Pesticides/ National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, SE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003, (202) 543-5450 voice, (202) 543-4791 fax, [email protected], www.beyondpesticides.org
zEsT COTT1 1'.
Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in SchoolsA Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Fact Sheet
Pesticide
TriclopyrTrifluralin
FungicidesBenomyl
ChlorothalonilManeb
PCNBSulfurTriadimefonZiram
TOTAL
Cancer ReproductiveEffects
Neurotoxicity Kidney / LiverDamage
IF g3- iLC X1
C
r x3X'
Sensitizer / Birth DefectsIrritant
i
X3
rX'xT 1'
X' x'
1
x'4 P ir x iF IP x'4X' x'
21 probable or 26 31possible
Xl X1
31 41 16
B2 = EPA weight-of-evidence category, "probable human carcinogen, sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence inhumans."
C = EPA weight-of-evidence category, "possible human carcinogen" rating.D = EPA weight-of-evidence category, "not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity," usually due to inadequate data.2B = International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization (IARC) category, the agent (mixture) is possibly
carcinogenic to humans.X = Adverse effect demonstrated.
'Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET) Pesticide Information Profiles, ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/ghindex.html.2 California Department of Pesticide Regulation.3 EPA's Office of Pesticide Program Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Factsheet, www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDs/.4 EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Revised Risk Assessments on Chlorpyrifos (Released 8/16/00).5 Environmental Defense Fund, Scoreboard Database, www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/.6 Farm Chemicals Handbook, 2000.7 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Hazardous Substances Factsheet.8 Human Health Risk Assessment for Bensulide, EPA's OPP Health Effects Division.9 Based on National Cancer Institute epidemiological evidence.I° Material Data Safety Sheet for DSMA, www.horizononline.com/MSDS_Sheets/195.txt.
National Library of Medicine, TOXNET, Hazardous Substances Database, http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/.12 Classified under California Department of Pesticide Regulation's Proposition 65.15 EPA classifies chlorothalonil as a "Likely" carcinogen, under proposed EPA weight-of-evidence category, because the availabletumor effects and other key data are adequate to convincingly demonstrate carcinogenic potential for humans.
Beyond Pesticides/ National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, SE, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003, (202) 543-5450 voice, (202) 543-4791 fax, [email protected], www.beyondpesticides.org
7 EST COPY HAMA LZ
The Schooling of State PesticideLaws 2002 UpdateA review of state pesticide laws regarding schoolsBy Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman
eyond Pesticides surveyed state pesticide laws regard-ing pesticide use in schools in 1998 and 2000. Sincethe report's publication in 2000, six states' have passed
laws that address one or more of the following five evaluationcriteria: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones to address chemicalsdrifting into school yards and school buildings; (ii) posting signsfor indoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior writtennotification for pesticide use; (iv) prohibiting when and wherepesticides can be applied; and,(v) requirements for schools toadopt an integrated pest man-agement (IPM) program.These five criteria are essentialingredients in a program toprotect children from pesti-cides used in schools.
Although there continuesto be growing movement onthis issue, including pend-ing federal legislation, theSchool Environment ProtectionAct, pesticide use policiesand practices remain defi-cient in the protection ofchildren. Without minimum federal standards, the protec-tion provided children is uneven and inadequate across thecountry. Just two-thirds of the states, or 33 states, haveadopted pesticide acts and regulations that address the pro-tection of children by specifically focusing on pesticide usein, around or near schools. Of these, only 24 states ad-dress indoor use of pesticides.2
Beyond Pesticides' survey of state laws regarding pesticideuse in schools shows that:
10 states restrict when or what pesticide may be appliedin schools; and16 states recommend or require schools to use 1PM.
These laws are instrumental in improving protections fromschool pesticide use. However, to the extent that these lawsdo not prohibit the use of toxic pesticides around childrenand do not treat pesticide exposure as a public health issue
by providing universal priornotification of pesticide use,they all to some degree com-promise the protection ofchildren. Massachusetts isthe only state in the nationto prohibit the use of themost dangerous pesticidesin and around schools. Al-though the Massachusetts'law has some weaknesses, itshould be considered, alongwith Maryland's and Penn-sylvania's school pesticidelaws, a model for other states.
7 states recognize the importance of controlling drift by re-stricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school;
16 states require posting of signs for indoor school pesti-cide applications and 25 states require posting of signsfor pesticide application made on school grounds;
21 states require prior written notification to students, par-ents, or staff before a pesticide application is made to schools;
This report is the third edition of the report released in Pesticidesand You, "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws 2000" (vol-ume 20, no. 2, 2000) and "The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws"(volume 18, no. 3, 1998).
Restricted spray (buffer) zones aroundschool propertyBuffer zones can eliminate exposure from spray drift on toschool property. In order to adequately protect against drift,buffer zones should, at a minimum, be established in a 2-mile radius around the school's property and be in effect at alltimes of the day. Aerial applications should have a larger bufferzone, at least 3 miles encircling the school. Seven states haverecognized the importance of controlling drift by restrictingpesticide applications in areas neighboring a school that rangefrom 300 feet to 2 1/2 miles.
Posting notification signs for indoor andoutdoor pesticide applicationsPosted notification signs warn those at the school when andwhere pesticides have been or are being applied. It is impor-tant to post signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide applica-tions because of the extensive period of time students and schoolemployees spend at school. Signs posted days before, ratherthan simply at the time or just after a pesticide application, aremore protective. Prior posting may enable people to take pre-cautionary action. Because of the residues left behind after anapplication, signs should remain posted for 72 hours.
Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, S.E. Washington DC 20003 * 202-543-5450 phone * 202-543-4791 fax info ebeyondpesticides.org * www.beyondpesticides.org
BEST COPY AVAIL BL
0 Dl
rn cn in
CI:
7 (1q
ft, g cc *e
l
I, F
.:0 Az E
.=
*fc ""
N3'
s g'e
7 C
D-0
0 *tn
eE
.:
o (Pa
E:
a g" 0 tlt 0 On
Now
Sta
tes
Aro
und
the
Cou
ntry
Pro
tect
Chi
ldre
n F
rom
Pes
ticid
e E
xpos
ure
in S
choo
lsS
tate
Ala
ska
Buf
fer
Zon
esP
ostin
g S
igns
t
Indo
or &
out
door
, pos
t sig
n, r
emai
n fo
r24
hou
rs. W
hen
scho
ol o
ut o
f se
ssio
n &
open
to p
ublic
, pos
t not
ific
atio
n si
gn 2
4ho
urs
prio
r to
app
licat
ion.
Prio
r N
otifi
catio
n2IP
M2
Pro
hibi
tion
of U
se
Chi
ldre
n pr
ohib
ited
from
ent
erin
g tr
eate
dar
ea f
or 2
4 ho
urs,
or
the
reen
try
inte
rval
stat
ed o
n th
e la
bel.
Pare
nt &
sta
ff r
egis
try
or u
nive
rsal
no-
tific
atio
n, s
choo
l dec
isio
n,24
hou
r no
tice.
Ala
bam
aA
eria
l app
licat
ion,
400
fee
t.
Ari
zona
Gro
und
& a
eria
l app
licat
ion,
114
mile
, cer
tain
odo
rife
rous
&hi
ghly
toxi
c pe
stic
ides
.
Indo
or S
t out
door
, sch
ool d
istr
ict e
stab
-lis
h po
stin
g re
quir
emen
ts.
Pare
nt&
staf
f,un
iver
sal 4
8 ho
ur n
otic
e,
Cal
ifor
nia
Indo
or &
out
door
, pos
t sig
n 24
hou
rspr
ior
to a
pplic
atio
n, r
emai
n 72
hou
rs.
Pare
nt &
sta
ff r
egis
try,
72
hour
notic
e.R
ecom
men
ds.
Con
nect
icut
Out
door
, pos
t sig
n, n
o sp
ecif
ics
on ti
me
to r
emai
n po
sted
.Pa
rent
s &
sta
ff r
egis
try,
24
hour
not
ice.
Rec
omm
ends
.Pe
stic
ide
appl
icat
ions
pro
hibi
ted
duri
ngop
erat
ing
hour
s.
Flor
ida
Out
door
, pos
t sig
n be
ginn
ing
of a
ppli-
catio
n, n
o sp
ecif
ics
on ti
me
to r
emai
npo
sted
.
Req
uire
s.
Geo
rgia
Indo
or, p
rior
pos
ting,
rem
ain
24 h
ours
.O
utdo
or, p
rior
pos
ting,
rem
ain
until
the
follo
win
g da
y.
Illin
ois
Out
door
, pos
t sig
n, r
emov
e fo
llow
ing
day.
Pare
nt r
egis
try
or u
nive
rsal
not
ific
a-tio
n, s
choo
l dec
isio
n, 4
8 ho
ur n
otic
e.R
equi
res.
'
Ken
tuck
yO
utdo
or, p
ost s
ign
imm
edia
tely
fol
low
-in
g ap
plic
atio
n, r
emai
n un
til th
e fo
llow
-in
g da
y.
Pare
nt &
sta
ff r
egis
try,
24
hour
not
ice.
Req
uire
s.
Lou
isia
naA
eria
l app
licat
ion,
100
0 fe
et,
duri
ng s
choo
l hou
rs.
Pare
ntre
gist
ry, m
edic
al v
erif
icat
ion
re-
quir
ed, n
o tim
e sp
ecif
ied.
Req
uire
s.A
pplic
atio
ns o
f re
stri
cted
use
pes
ticid
es, e
n-tr
y re
stri
cted
for
8 h
ours
aft
er a
pplic
atio
n.
Mai
neO
utdo
or, p
ost p
rior
to a
pplic
atio
n, r
e-m
ain
48 h
ours
.Pa
rent
& s
taff
can
req
uest
not
ific
atio
n,ou
tdoo
r ap
plic
atio
ns .$
Rec
omm
ends
.
Mar
ylan
dIn
door
& o
utdo
or, "
in-s
choo
l not
ific
a-do
n."
Out
door
, pos
t sig
n at
tim
e of
ap-
plic
atio
n, r
emai
n 48
hou
rs.
Pare
nt &
sta
ff, e
lem
enta
ry s
choo
l,un
iver
sal 2
4 ho
ur n
otic
e, s
econ
dary
scho
ol, r
egis
try,
24
hour
not
ice,
Req
uire
s.
Mas
sach
uset
tsA
eria
l cro
p ap
plic
atio
n, 1
50fe
et.
Indo
or, p
ost p
rior
to a
pplic
atio
n. O
ut-
door
, pos
t sig
n 48
hou
rs p
rior
to a
ppli-
catio
n, r
emai
n 72
hou
rs.
Pare
nt &
sta
ff, u
nive
rsal
not
ific
atio
n,ou
tdoo
r ap
plic
atio
ns. P
aren
t & s
taff
regi
stry
, ind
oor
appl
icat
ion,
no
time
spec
ifie
d.
Req
uire
s.Pe
stic
ide
use
proh
ibite
d w
hen
child
ren
pres
ent.
Out
door
, pes
ticid
es th
at a
rekn
own,
like
ly o
r pr
obab
le c
arci
noge
ns,
cont
ain
a "L
ist I
" in
ert i
ngre
dien
t or
for
aes-
thet
ic r
easo
n al
one
are
proh
ibite
d fr
om u
se.
Indo
or, c
erta
in p
estic
ides
are
pro
hibi
ted.
Mic
higa
nIn
door
, pos
t sig
n af
ter
appl
icat
ion,
re-
mai
n 48
hou
rs. O
utdo
or, p
ost s
ign
afte
rap
plic
atio
n, r
emai
n 24
hou
rs.
Pare
nt r
egis
try,
24
hour
not
ice.
Req
uire
s.°
Indo
or, s
pray
or
aero
sol i
nsec
ticid
e, e
ntry
rest
rict
ed f
or 4
hou
rs a
fter
app
licat
ion.
Out
door
, pro
hibi
ts s
pray
inse
ctic
ide,
100
ft o
ut-
side
occ
upie
d ar
ea,
Fiv
e st
ates
req
uire
pos
ting
notif
icat
ion
sign
s fo
r ou
tdoo
r la
wn
appl
icat
ions
: Col
orad
o, In
dian
a, Io
wa,
Ohi
o, a
nd V
erm
ont.
The
se s
tate
s ar
e no
t inc
lude
d be
caus
e th
is is
the
on y
req
uire
men
t the
sta
tes
have
ado
pted
reg
ardi
ng s
choo
ls.
Doe
s no
t inc
lude
pro
visi
ons
rega
rdin
g un
iver
sal n
otifi
catio
n of
the
scho
ol's
pes
t man
agem
ent p
rogr
am a
t the
sta
rt o
f the
sch
ool y
ear
or p
rovi
sion
s re
quiri
ng s
choo
ls to
prov
ide
writ
ten
notic
e af
ter
appl
icat
ions
hav
e ta
ken
plac
e.D
oes
not i
nclu
de s
tate
s (li
ke H
awai
i, In
dian
a, O
klah
oma,
Sou
th C
arol
ina,
and
Ten
ness
ee)
that
hav
e de
velo
ped
mat
eria
ls o
n sc
hool
IPM
. The
sec
tion
only
app
lies
to th
est
ates
that
hav
e ad
opte
d ac
ts o
r re
gula
tions
req
uirin
g or
rec
omm
endi
ng s
choo
ls a
dopt
IPM
.Ill
inoi
s re
quire
s IP
M fo
r st
ruct
ural
pes
t man
agem
ent o
nly.
Mai
ne's
law
allo
ws
for
indi
vidu
als
to r
eque
st to
be
notif
ied
of a
n ou
tdoo
r ap
plic
atio
n by
con
tact
ing
the
scho
ol d
irect
ly a
nd s
ettin
g up
an
agre
ed u
pon p
reno
tific
atio
n tim
e. L
aw d
oes
not r
equi
re s
choo
ls to
est
ablis
h a
form
al r
egis
try.
Mic
higa
n re
quire
s IP
M p
lans
be
deve
lope
d fo
r in
door
pes
t man
agem
ent o
nly.
0 torn in
nn
E 00= 71
O .
O w. N I? 2
o :4
;
g
>ca
CD
ro
st0 o. e
s. cs<a
Cl, 0
0- Ti
`14
eDn to -
r6o; oc
00
Vl
S 0 0
Now
Sta
tes
Aro
und
the
Cou
ntry
Pro
tect
Chi
ldre
n F
rom
Pes
ticid
e E
xpos
ure
in S
choo
lsS
tate
Min
neso
ta
Buf
fer
Zon
esP
ostin
g S
igns
'P
rior
Not
ifica
tion2
Par
ent r
egis
try,
not
ifica
tion
at -
reas
on-
able
" tim
e be
fore
app
licat
ion.
iPM
3
Req
uire
s.
Pro
hibi
tion
of U
se
Mon
tana
Indo
or, p
ost s
ign
at ti
me
of a
pplic
atio
n,re
mai
n "u
ntil
dry.
"R
ecom
men
ds.
New
Ham
pshi
reA
eria
l app
licat
ion,
dur
ing
com
mut
ing
hour
s &
out
door
activ
ity in
sen
sitiv
e ar
eas.
Out
door
, pos
t sig
n, r
emai
n 24
hou
rs.
Pes
ticid
es c
anno
t be
appl
ied
"whe
re e
xpo-
sure
may
hav
e an
adv
erse
effe
ct o
n hu
man
heal
th."
'
New
Jer
sey
Gro
und
& a
eria
l gyp
sy m
oth
appl
icat
ion,
dur
ing
com
mut
-in
g ho
urs,
2 m
iles
grad
esc
hool
, 2 I/
2 m
iles
high
sch
ool.
Aer
ial a
pplic
atio
n, 3
00 fe
et.
Indo
or, p
erm
anen
t pos
ting
at c
entr
al b
ul-
letin
boa
rd, s
tate
s ne
xt a
pplic
atio
n. O
ut-
door
, pos
t sig
n at
sta
rt o
f app
licat
ion,
re-
mai
n 24
hou
rs.
Par
ent &
sta
ff re
gist
ry, n
o tim
e sp
ecifi
ed.
Pes
ticid
e ap
plic
atio
n pr
ohib
ited
durin
g no
r-m
al s
choo
l hou
rs o
r w
hen
area
will
be
occu
-pi
ed w
ithin
tim
e fo
r pr
oduc
t to
dry.
New
Mex
ico
Indo
or &
out
door
em
erge
ncy
appl
ica-
dons
onl
y, n
o sp
ecifi
cs o
n tim
e.P
aren
t reg
istr
y no
tim
e sp
ecifi
ed. P
ar-
ent a
nd s
taff
univ
ersa
l not
ifica
tion,
chi
ldca
re c
ente
r, 4
8 ho
ur n
otic
e.
Pro
hibi
ts u
se o
f cer
tain
pes
ticid
es w
hen
area
occ
upie
d or
will
be
for
next
6 h
ours
.Li
cens
ed c
hild
care
cen
ters
use
of p
estic
ides
proh
ibite
d w
hen
child
ren
on p
rem
ises
.
New
Yor
kIn
door
& o
utdo
or, d
ayca
re c
ente
r, p
ost
sign
48
hour
s pr
ior
to a
pplic
atio
n. O
ut-
door
, pos
t sig
n, r
emai
n 24
hou
rs.
Par
ent &
sta
ff re
gist
ry, 4
8 ho
ur n
otic
e.R
ecom
men
ds.
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Aer
ial a
pplic
atio
n, 3
00 fe
et,
whe
n sc
hool
occ
upie
d.
Pen
nsyl
vani
aIn
door
& o
utdo
or, p
ost s
ign
72 h
ours
prio
r to
app
licat
ion,
rem
ain
48 h
ours
.P
aren
t reg
istr
y or
uni
vers
al n
otic
e, 7
2ho
ur n
otic
e. S
taff,
uni
vers
al 7
2 ho
urno
tice.
Req
uire
s.P
rohi
bits
pes
ticid
e ap
plic
atio
ns w
hen
stud
-en
ts w
ill b
e pr
esen
t in
the
scho
ol b
uild
ing
or o
n sc
hool
gro
unds
for
seve
n ho
urs
follo
w-
ing
the
appl
icat
ion.
Rho
de Is
land
Out
door
, pos
t sig
n, r
emai
n 72
hou
rs.
Par
ent &
sta
ff re
gist
ry; 2
4 ho
ur n
otic
e.
Tex
asIn
door
, pos
t sig
n 48
hou
rs p
rior
to a
p-pl
icat
ion,
no
spec
ifics
on
time
to r
emai
npo
sted
.
Par
ent r
egis
try,
indo
or &
per
imet
erap
plic
atio
n, n
o tim
e sp
ecifi
ed.
Req
uire
s.P
estic
ides
are
gro
uped
into
list
s. N
o in
door
appl
icat
ion
of c
erta
in G
reen
Lis
t whe
n st
u-de
nts
in a
rea.
Oth
er G
reen
Lis
t & Y
ello
w&
Red
Lis
ts, r
estr
ict e
ntry
for
12 h
ours
af-
ter
appl
icat
ion.
Out
door
app
licat
ions
,G
reen
Lis
t: st
uden
ts m
ust b
e 10
feet
aw
ay,
Yel
low
Lis
t: 10
feet
aw
ay, 1
2 ho
urs
re-
stric
ted
entr
y, R
ed li
st: 5
0 fe
et a
way
, 12
hour
res
tric
ted
entr
y.
Was
hing
ton
Indo
or &
out
door
, pos
t sig
n at
tim
e of
ap-
plic
atio
n, r
emai
n po
sted
for
24 h
ours
.P
aren
t & s
taff
regi
stry
or
univ
ersa
lno
tice,
48
hour
not
ice.
'
Wes
t Virg
inia
Indo
or, d
ay c
are
cent
er, p
ost s
ign
24ho
urs
prio
r to
app
licat
ion,
no
spec
ifics
on ti
me
to r
emai
n po
sted
.
Day
car
e em
ploy
ees,
aut
omat
ic 2
4 ho
urno
tice,
leve
l 3 o
r 4
pest
icid
e. P
aren
t reg
-is
try,
sch
ools
& d
ay c
are
cent
ers,
24
hour
not
ice
of le
vel 3
or
4 pe
stic
ide.
Req
uire
s.P
estic
ides
are
gro
uped
into
leve
ls.
Stu
dent
s &
em
ploy
ees
rest
rict e
ntry
for
4ho
urs
afte
r le
vel 3
pes
ticid
e &
8 h
ours
afte
rle
vel 4
pes
ticid
e.
Wis
cons
inIn
door
& o
utdo
or, p
ost s
ign
at ti
me
ofap
plic
atio
n, r
emai
n 72
hou
rs.
Wyo
min
gIn
door
& o
utdo
or, p
ost s
ign
12 h
ours
prio
r to
app
licat
ion,
rem
ain
72 h
ours
.P
aren
t & s
taff,
uni
vers
al p
rior
notic
e.'
7A
lthou
gh th
is la
ngua
ge is
ope
n to
inte
rpre
tatio
n, it
is a
str
onge
r sa
fety
sta
ndar
d th
an c
onta
ined
in th
e F
eder
al In
sect
icid
e, In
sect
icid
e, F
ungi
cide
and
Rod
entic
ide
Act
(F
IFR
A),
whi
ch p
rote
cts
for
"unr
easo
nabl
e ad
vers
e ef
fect
s."
°W
ashi
ngto
n la
w s
tate
s th
at a
sch
ool -
as a
min
imum
, not
ifies
inte
rest
ed p
aren
ts o
r gu
ardi
ans
of s
tude
nts
and
empl
oyee
s at
leas
t 48
hour
s pr
ior
to a
pest
icid
e ap
plic
atio
n."
°W
yom
ing
scho
ol p
estic
ide
notif
icat
ion
act r
equi
res
the
pest
icid
e ap
plic
ator
pro
vide
72
hour
prio
r no
tice
to th
e sc
hool
dis
tric
t, w
hich
is r
equi
red
to "
furt
her
notif
y st
uden
ts,
teac
hers
and
sta
ff."
Sixteen states require posting of signs for indoor school pes-ticide applications. Pennsylvania, the strongest state in this regard,requires posting warning signs at least 72 hours in advanceof the application, while three states, California, Wis-consin and Wyoming, require that signs remain posted for 72hours, the longest time frames among the states.
Twenty-five states have posting requirements when pesticideapplications are made on school grounds. Pennsylvania requiressign posting 72 hours in advance of the application. NewYork and Massachusetts require signs be posted 48 hours prior toapplications to school grounds and buildings. Five states requiresigns remain posted for at least 72 hours. Thirteen states requireposting for both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications.
Prior written notificationWritten notification prior to each pesticide use is a good way tomake sure that all parents, children and staff are aware andwarned. There are basically two types of notification registriesand universal, and modified systems that incorporates elementsof both. Notification-based registries are a less effective means ofnotifying people and do not qualify as true right-to-know be-cause of their limited scope. Requiring that individuals placethemselves on registries affords only those who already knowabout toxic exposure the opportunity to be informed about pes-ticide use in the school. Registries also tend to be more costlyand time consuming for the school because of the time associ-ated with list management. Prior notification should be 72 hoursin advance to make sure the information has been received, toget further information regarding the pesticide, and to make ar-rangements to avoid the exposure, if necessary.
Twenty-one states have requirements to notify parents orschool staff in writing before a pesticide application is to oc-cur. Of these, ten states have provisions for universal notifi-cation prior to each pesticide application.3 Nineteen stateshave provisions that establish a registry, allowing individualsto sign up for prior notification.4 The widest range of notifi-cation activities, requiring posting signs for indoor and out-door applications and providing prior notification of a schoolpesticide application, are met by only eleven states.
Prohibitions on useLimiting when and what pesticides are applied in and aroundschools is important to the reduction of pesticide exposure. Pes-ticides should never be applied when students or staff are, orlikely to be, in the area within 24 hours of the application. Tenstates restrict the type and/or timing of pesticides that may beused in a school. In reality, certain types of pesticides, such ascarcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxins, devel-
opmental toxins, neurotoxins and pesticides listed by EPA as atoxicity category I or II pesticide should never be used aroundchildren. Massachusetts is the only state that bans the use ofcertain pesticides by schools. Alaska has the longest re-entry re-strictions, requiring that the area treated with certain pesticidesremain unoccupied for 24 hours after the application.
Integrated pest managementA good integrated pest management (IPM) program can elimi-nate the unnecessary application of synthetic, volatile pesticidesin schools. The main elements of a good 1PM program include:1) monitoring to establish whether there is a pest problem, 2)identifying the causes of the pest problem, 3) addressing the causeby changing conditions to prevent problems, 4) utilizing pestsuppression techniques, if necessary, that are based on mechani-cal and biological controls, and 5) only after non-toxic alterna-tives have been tried and exhausted, use the least toxic pesticide.
Sixteen states address IPM in their laws, but only elevenof those require that schools adopt an IPM program. Unfor-tunately, IPM is a term that is used loosely with many differ-ent definitions. More and more, we hear pest control pro-grams inaccurately described as IPM. Of the sixteen states,California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota,have comprehensive definitions of IPM, and allow only theleast toxic pesticide to be used as a last resort. It is importantto incorporate a strong IPM definition into policies and lawsto achieve effective, least-hazardous pest management.
ConclusionRaising the level of protection across the nation to meet the high-est possible standard of protection for children is essential. Wherea state offers protection not provided by your state, advocate forit. Where policies exist, make sure that they are enforced. En-forcement of existing pesticide laws is also critical and often themost difficult phase of community-based efforts. Both the adop-tion of laws and ensuring their enforcement once adopted, re-quire vigilant monitoring and public pressure. Exemptions thatwaive notification requirements before or after pesticide use, suchas during school vacations, undermine protection.
Parents and community members can help school districtsimprove their pest management practices by contacting dis-trict officials and encouraging them to implement an IPM andnotification program. School administrators will be more con-scious of their pest management policy if they know parentsare concerned and tracking their program.
For information on state pesticide laws, school district policies, andtools on how to get such policies at the federal, state and local level adopted,
please contact Beyond Pesticides or see wwwbeyond pesticides.org.
' The six states that have passed school pest management laws since "The Schooling of Pesticide Laws- 2000" include Alaska, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
2 States that "address" indoor use of pesticides are based on whether the state requires schools post notification signs for indoor pesticide applications,provide prior notification of an indoor pesticide applications prohibit the use of certain pesticides in school buildings or recommend or require inte-grated pest management.This includes the four states that give the schools the choice of providing notice either via a registry or universal notice, the four states thathave provisionsfor both registries and universal notice, and the two states that specifically require schools provide universal prior notification.
4 This includes the four states that give the schools the choice of providing notice either via a registry or universal notice, the four states that haveprovisions for both registries and universal notice, and the 12 states that specifically require schools maintain a registry.
Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street, S.E. Washington DC 20003 202-543-5450 phone * 202-543-4791 fax [email protected] www.beyondpesticides.org
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
A BEYOND F'ESTiCID /NCAMP FACTSHEET e A BEYOND ICIDESiNCA P FACTSHEET A BEYOND P ICIDES/NCAMP FA YSNEET
Ten Myths Behind Pesticide-DependentPest Management in SchoolsDebunking opponents to school integrated pest management,pesticide bans and notification programs.
The pro-pesticide lobby has engaged in an all-out effortto convince local school districts that pesticides canbe used safely in schools and therefore fully integrated
into school pest management programs. One such group, Re-sponsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), distributeda letter containing misleading and inaccurate information onschool pesticide use to 25,000+ school facility managers aroundthe country.
To halt the pro-pesticide lobby from continuing to un-dercut community activists' efforts to reduce or eliminatepesticide use in favor of alternative strategies, Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP has developed this fact sheet as a guide tobetter understanding the issues. No-tification of pesticide applicationsand elimination of toxic pesticideuse where possible can be accom-plished in our schools. Invalidatethe pro-pesticide lobby's top tenmyths with the facts.
MYTH #1Pesticides are a vital ingredient to anIntegrated Pest Management (IPM)program.
FACT #1:Those who argue that IntegratedPest Management (IPM) requires an ability to spray pesti-cides immediately after identifying a pest problem are notdescribing IPM. IPM is pest management that is sensitiveto the health of students, school staff and the environment.Pesticide use is unnecessary because safer alternatives cansuccessfully control pest problems. The goal of an IPM pro-gram is to minimize the use of pesticides and the associ-ated risk to human health and the environment while con-trolling a pest problem. IPM does this by utilizing a varietyof methods and techniques, including cultural, biologicaland structural strategies to control a multitude of pestproblems. (See box on page 16).
Essential to the control of a pest problem are solutionsbased on preventing pest outbreaks to occur in the firstplace. For example, improving a school's sanitation caneliminate cockroaches and ants. Many techniques are rela-tively simple, such as mulching to prevent weeds or caulk-ing cracks and screening openings where insects and ro-dents can enter a building. Constant monitoring ensuresthat pest buildups are detected and suppressed before un-acceptable outbreaks occur.
Conventional pest control tends to ignore the causes of
pest infestations and instead rely on routine, scheduled pes-ticide applications. Pesticides are often temporary fixes, inef-fective over the long term. Most common pests are now resis-tant to many insecticides. For effective pest control, it is ab-solutely necessary to identify the source of the problem, de-termine why the pest is present zlnd modify its habitat. Forexample, since weeds tend to like soils that are compacted,the solution is not the temporary control achieved by killingthem, but the adoption of practical strategies to make the soilless attractive to the weeds.
Alternatives to conventional hazardous pesticides are be-ing implemented in over 100 school districts around the
country and, thus, prove that alter-natives work. Non-toxic and leasttoxic control products are a majorgrowth area and new materials anddevices are increasingly available inthe marketplace.
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001
MYTH #2:Pesticides pose no risk to the healthof children.
FACT #2Student and staff poisoning atschools is not uncommon. Adversehealth effects, including nausea, diz-
ziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mentaldisorientation, may appear even when a pesticide is appliedaccording to label directions. Low levels of pesticide expo-sure can adversely affect a child's neurological, respiratory,immune and endocrine system. Of the 48 commonly usedpesticides in schools, 22 can cause cancer, 26 can adverselyaffect reproduction, 31 are nervous system poisons and 16can cause birth defects.'
The General Accounting Office (GAO) in 2000 docu-mented over 2,300 reported pesticide poisonings in schoolsbetween 1993 and 1996.2 Because most of the symptoms ofpesticide exposure, from respiratory distress to difficulty inconcentration, are common in school children and may beassumed to have other causes, it is suspected that pesticide-related illness is much more prevalent.
EPA and Dow AgroSciences agreed in June 2000 tophase-out Dursban (chlorpyrifos), one of the most com-monly used insecticides in schools, because of its high risksto children, even if used according to the label directions.The product has been marketed for the past 30 years withclaims that it could be used safely. Even though EPA andthe manufactures of Dursban agreed to phase-out its use
Pesticides and You Page 15Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a managedpest management system that: (a) eliminates or miti-gates economic and health damage caused by pests;(b) uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections,pest population monitoring, an evaluation of the needfor pest control and one or more pest control meth-ods, including sanitation, structural repairs, mechani-cal and biological controls, other non-chemical meth-ods, and, if nontoxic options are unreasonable or havebeen exhausted, least toxic pesticides.
Least toxic pesticides include: boric acid and di-sodium octobrate tetrahydrate, silica gels, diatoma-ceous earth, nonvolatile insect and rodent baits intamper resistant containers or for crack and crevicetreatment only, microbe-based insecticides, biological,living control agents, and materials for which the in-ert ingredients are nontoxic and disclosed. The term`least toxic pesticides' does not include a pesticide thatis determined by the EPA to be an acutely or moder-ately toxic pesticide, a probable, likely or known car-cinogen, mutagen, teratogen, reproductive toxin, de-velopmental neurotoxin, endocrine disrupter, or im-mune system toxin, and any application of the pesti-cide using a broadcast spray, dust, tenting, fogging, orbaseboard spray application.
in many settings, including schools, it can continue to beused until existing stocks are used up. The EPA chlorpyrifosannouncement begins the process of getting high consumerand children exposure uses of Dursban off the market, butputs people at risk by not stopping its uses immediately.'
MYTH #3:Without pesticides, pests pose a serious health and safety riskto children.
FACT #3:The pro-pesticide lobby wants people to think that if we stopusing toxic pesticides, our schoolbuildings and lawns would be over-come by disease-carrying pests andweeds. However, this is not true.School pest problems can be effec-tively managed without toxic pes-ticides, as discussed in fact #1.Most insect and weed pests may bea nuisance, or raise aesthetic issues, but they do not pose athreat to children's health. Children should never be exposedto potentially harmful pesticides for this reason.
Increasingly the public is calling into question the use ofpesticides for cosmetic results alone. The unleashing of these
toxic chemicals into our environment for aesthetic gain isresponsible for countless human suffering and untold envi-ronmental consequence. In the words of Rachel Carson, "Howcould intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted spe-cies by a method that contaminated the entire environmentand brought the threat of disease and death even to their ownkind? Future generations are unlikely to condone our lack ofprudent concern for the integrity of the natural world thatsupports all life."
Toxic pesticides and certain pests do pose a health risk tochildren,; which is why schools need to implement a com-prehensive school IPM program. A school IPM program isestablished to prevent and manage pest problems, not to letpests rui. rampant.
MYTH #4:School IPM programs are too costly for schools.
FACT #4:According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), "preliminary indications from IPM programs in schoolsystems suggest that long term costs of IPM may be less thana conventional pest control program."5 Because IPM focuseson prevention of the pest problem, and properly monitoringto determine the extent of the pest problem, school IPM pro-grams can decrease the amount of money a school will spendon pest control in the long-term. Some economic investmentis usually required at the outset of an IPM program. Short-term costs may include IPM training, purchasing new equip-ment, hiring an IPM coordinator, or making preliminary re-pairs to a school's buildings. Chemical-intensive methods onlyprove to be less expensive in the short-term. The long-termhealth of our children is not worth short-term economic sav-ings that just do not add up over time.
A well-known example of school IPM is the MontgomeryCounty, Maryland public schools. The IPM program in Mont-gomery County covers 200 sites and reduced pesticide usefrom 5,000 applications in 1985 to none four years later, sav-ing the school district $1800 per school and $30,000 at theCounty's school food service warehouse.6
In Indiana, Monroe County Schools implemented an IPMprogram that decreased the school's pest management costsby $6,000 in two years. Pesticide use has reportedly droppedby 90% with the IPM program, and all aerosol and liquid pes-
ticides have been discontinued.'At Vista de las Cruces School
in Santa Barbara, California, pestmanagement was contracted outwith a pest control company for$1,740 per year for routine pesti-cide applications. After the schoolswitched to an IPM program, their
costs were reduced to a total of $270 over two years.Albert Greene, Ph.D., National IPM Coordinator for the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), has implementedIPM in 30 million square feet, approximately 7,000 federalbuildings, in the U.S. capital area without spraying toxic in-
EPA has stated that no pesticide
can be considered 'safe.'
Page 16 Pesticides and You Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
A BEYOND P /NCAMP FACTSHEET A BEYOND. PE 1CIDES/NCAMP F IGT5NEM' A BEYOND PESTICIDES / NCAMP FACTS
secticides. Dr. Greene states that IPM, "can be pragmatic, eco-nomical and effective on a massive scale."8
MYTH *5:Pesticides are extensively tested and regulated. Before a pesti-cide product is approved for use, it must undergo over 120government-mandated tests.
FACT *5:Suggestions that pesticides in wide use have been subjectedto full and adequate health and safety testing belies thewidely acknowledged deficiencies in EPA's pesticide regis-tration process. In addition, thesafety standard in pesticide lawallows elevated rates of diseaseunder a risk assessment-basedstandard. As a result, EPA hasstated that no pesticide can beconsidered 'safe.'
Pesticides products containformulations of a number of dif-ferent materials, including ac-tive and inert ingredients, aswell as contaminants and impu-rities. Additionally, pesticides,when subject to various envi-ronmental conditions, breakdown to other materials, knownas metabolites, which are some-times more toxic than the par-ent material. So-called inert in-gredients can be as or more toxic than the active ingredi-ent active ingredients in other pesticides, toxic chemi-cals, chemicals regulated under other legislation, or haz-ardous wastes, solvents, propellants, wetting agents, pet-rochemicals and synergists. Inerts, often petrochemicalslike toluene or xylene, are generally the largest percentageof ingredients of apesticide product.
0
ernments have never been fully tested for the full range ofpotential human health effects, such as cancer, birth de-fects, genetic damage, reproductive effects and neurologi-cal disorders, and endocrine disruption. Indeed, pesticidescan be registered even when they have been shown to causeadverse health effects. Due to the numerous pesticide for-mulations on the market, the lack of disclosure require-ments, insufficient data requirements, and inadequate test-ing, it is impossible to accurately estimate the hazards ofpesticide products, much less lifetime exposure or risk.There is no way to predict the effects in children solelybased on toxicity testing in adult or even adolescent labo-
ratory animals, which is EPA'sprocedure for evaluating ad-verse effects.
Despite this, inert in-gredients are treatedas trade secret infor-mation and not dis-closed on product la-bels. Contaminantsand impurities are of-ten a part of the pes-ticide product and re-sponsible for theproduct hazards. Di-oxin and DDT havebeen identified ascontaminants in pesticide products.
Existing pesticide use patterns and a deficient regula-tory process add up to inadequate regulation of pesticidesis not protection of public health. The vast majority of allpesticide products registered for use by EPA and state gov-
MYTH #6:Each school board should only beresponsible for maintaining a reg-istry of individuals interested inbeing notified and not be overlyburdened with providing univer-sal notification.
FACT #6:Parents are often kept in the darkabout pesticide use at schools.Without notification, parents areunable to make important deci-sions about whether they wanttheir children to go to school
when potentially hazardous pesticides have been applied.Universal notification is a good way to make sure that
all parents, guardians, children and staff are aware andwarned about pesticide applications. Providing prior noti-fication to all individuals attending or working at a schoolis less obtrusive to the school's administrative staff. Uni-
versal notificationdoes not require a
By providing prior written notification to all parties
that would otherwise unknowingly be exposed to the
chemicals and posting notification signs, affected
parties can take the necessary precautions to avoid
the exposure and potential harm it may cause.
separate database.Several school dis-tricts around thecountry, such as AnnArundal CountyPublic School sys-tem in Maryland,agree that it is muchless cumbersome toprovide universalnotification. Manyschools already sendhome notices and
school announcements about lice infestation, field trips,book fairs, and crime at school. Schools can simply senduniversal pesticide notices as they would other such an-nouncements or they can be attached to notices alreadybeing sent home.
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001 Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
4
Page 17
Notificationbased registries are a less effective means ofnotifying people and does not qualify as right-to-know be-cause of its limited scope. Requiring that individuals placethemselves on registries, affords only those who already knowabout toxic exposure the opportunity to be informed aboutpesticide use in the school. Registries are more costly andmore resource consuming for school districts to implement.It may even require an extra staff person to keep the registryup to date and coordinate the notification.
MYTH #7:Notification of pesticide applications are unnecessarily alarm-ing parents and is a scare tactic by environmentalists.
FACT #7:Parents and school staff have a basic right-to-know when pes-ticides are being used at school. By providing prior writtennotification to all parties that would otherwise unknow-ingly be exposed to the chemicals and posting no-tification signs, affected parties can take the nec-essary precautions to avoid the exposure andpotential harm it may cause. Pro-pesticide lob-byists may be concerned that if parents andschool staff know that a school is applyingan EPA classified probable carcinogen, neu-rotoxin or other type of hazardous pesticide,they may be activated to advocate for alter-native approaches that prohibit these chemi-cals. As discussed above, schools do not needto use toxic pesticides in the buildings or onthe grounds where children spend their timelearning and playing. IPM, if properly imple-mented, enables a safe learning environmentfor children, one that does not introduce unnec-essary and routine use of toxic pesticides.
72 hours in advance to make sure the information has beenreceived by the student's parents or guardians and by schoolstaff, allowing them to obtain further information regardingthe pesticide application, and, if necessary, to make arrange-ments to avoid the exposure.
MYTH#9:Schools should not have to notify parents and teachers priorto the use of baits, gels, pastes pesticide applications.
FACT#9:As long as the bait, gel or paste falls under the "least toxicpesticide" definition (see box on page 16), schools do notneed to provide prior notification. However, advance notifi-cation should occur for any formulation containing pesti-cide or other toxic ingredients that are volatile or toxic syn-
ergists. Just because a pesticide is applied in baits, gelsand/or pastes does not mean these products do not
contain a chemical that is a carcinogen, mutagen,teratogen, reproductive toxin, developmental
neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor, or an im-mune system toxin.
MYTH #8:Parents and staff only need to be notified 24 hours prior to theuse of pesticides at schools.
FACT #8:Twenty-four hour prior notification of pesticide use does notprovide enough time react. Prior notification should be made
MYTH #10:As long as the pesticide is not applied whilethe area is occupied, once the students andteachers return to the area, the pesticide hasdried and will not affect their health.
FACT #10:Pesticides should never be applied when
students or staff are, or are likely to be, inthe area within 24 hours of the application.
Pesticides residues can linger for hours, daysand even months after an application is made. It all
depends on the type of chemical applied and the conditionsthat may apply to its degradation. For example, airborneconcentrations of seven insecticides were tested three daysfollowing their application in separate rooms. Six of the sevenpesticides left residues behind through the third day.") A1998 study found that Dursban (chlorpyrifos) accumulatedon furniture, toys and other sorbant surfaces up to two weeksafter application."
' Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.2000. Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools: A BeyondPesticidesINCAMP fact sheet. Washington, DC.
2 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1999. Use, Effects, and Alterna-tives to Pesticides in Schools. RCED-00-17. Washington, DC.U.S. EPA. 2000. Chlorpyrifos Revised Risk Assessment and Agreement withRegistrants. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Wash-ington, DC.
4 Gurunathan, S., et al. 1998. "Accumulation of Chlorpyrifos on Residen-tial Surfaces and Toys Accessible to Children." Environmental HealthPerspectives 106(1).
5 U.S. EPA. 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Inte-grated Pest Management. 735-F-93-012. Office of Pesticide Programs.Washington, DC.
Page 18
6 Schubert, J.D., et al. 1996. Voices for Pesticide Reform: The case for safepractices and sound policy. Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Againstthe Misuse of Pesticides. Washington, DC.Safer Pest Control Project. 1998. Cost of IPM in Schools: A fact sheet fromthe Safer Pest Control Project. Chicago, IL.
8 Greene, A. 1993. "Integrated Pest Management for Buildings." Pesticidesand You 13(2-3). Washington, DC.
9 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1990. Lawn Care Pesticides: RisksRemain Uncertain While Prohibited Safety Claims Continue. RCED-90-134. Washington, DC.
19 Wright, C., et al. 1981. "Insecticides in the Ambient Air of Rooms Fol-lowing Their Application for Control of Pests." Bulletin of Environmen-tal Contamination & Toxicology 26.
" Gurunathan, S., et al. 1998.
Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
15
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2000-2001
Schools Save Money WithIntegrated Pest ManagementA Beyond Pesticides Fact Sheet
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a program of pre-vention, monitoring and control which offers the oppor-tunity to eliminate or drastically reduce pesticides in
schools, and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to anyproducts which are used. Habitat modification, the corner-stone to any IPM program, is key to eliminating and prevent-ing pest outbreaks.
Because IPM focuses on prevention of the pest problem, andproper monitoring to determine the extent of the pest prob-lem, school IPM programs can decrease the amount of moneya school will spend on pest control in the long-term. Chemi-cal-intensive methods, a symptomatic approach to managingpest problems, may only prove to be less expensive in the short-term. The long-term health of our children is not worth someshort-term economic savings that just do not add up over time.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Schools across the nation thathave adopted such programsreport successful, cost-effectiveconversion to IPM. IPM can re-duce the use of chemicals andprovide economical and effec-tive pest suppression ...IN reliminary indications fromIPM programs ... suggest thatlong term costs of IPM may beless than a conventional pestcontrol program."'
In a report entitled, PesticideUse At New York Schools: Reduc-ing the Risk, the Attorney Gen-eral of New York State, EliotSpitzer, says the following:
We often hear that imple-mentation of integrated pest management...can be expen-sive. Because it is easy to envision costs associated withestablishing new policies and practices, re-training per-sonnel and educating building occupants, this can be apowerful argument to school administrators trying tosqueeze the most out of admittedly tight budgets. Whilethe argument might have some initial appeal, experiencetells a different story. In case after case, schools and otherinstitutions have reduced their pest control costs early inthe transition, often in the first year.2
The Washington State Department of Ecology has done acareful analysis of the costs of pest control that considers someof the "hidden" costs, such as regulatory compliance, wastedisposal, insurance, and liability for health effects, environ-
mental damage and compliance violations.'Depending on the school's current maintenance, sanitation
and pest management practices, some economic investment isusually required at the outset of an IPM program. Short-termcosts may include IPM training, purchasing new equipment,hiring an IPM coordinator, or making preliminary repairs tobuildings. Whether the pest management services are con-tracted out, performed internally by school staff, or both mayalso affect the cost of implementing a school IPM program.
Activities that can be absorbed into a school's existing bud-get include training of maintenance, cleaning and food ser-vice staff and educating students and teachers to modify theirbehavior. In addition, some school maintenance and struc-tural repair funds may already be budgeted for activities suchas replacing water-damaged materials, landscaping, wastemanagement, and physical barriers.
Monitoring is critical to re-ducing pest management costsbecause it helps pest managersdetermine if, when and wherepest populations warrant actionand therefore requires more pre-cise and strategic pest manage-ment approaches. For example,instead of spraying the entireschool building for a pest,monitoring may determine thatthe pest problem is concen-trated in the food service area,thus decreasing the amount ofresources needed to control thepest population. Without moni-toring, conventional pest man-agement spray programs tend tospend a lot of time spraying ma-
terials into all sites. Monitoring can also help determine if dam-age thought to be caused solely by pests is actually caused byother factors; like poor drainage or leaky pipes.
The fact that pest control is not often a large part of theschool's budget should not hinder the school's transition to anIPM program. It is not necessary for the entire school to bemonitored, just those areas with the potential for a pest prob-lem, leaving the other areas to be monitored and managed on acomplaint basis. In addition, certain facets of an IPM programcould be implemented over time in order to keep costs down.
Pests can be managed effectively and economically with-out toxic chemicals through the implementation of a clearlydefined IPM program. For more information about IPM andschool pest management, contact Beyond Pesticides.
Integrated Pest Management
a)
b)
c)
eliminates or mitigates economic and health dam-age caused by pests;
minimizes the use of pesticides and the risk to hu-man health and the environment associated with pes-ticide applications; and,
uses integrated methods, site or pest inspections, pestpopulation monitoring, an evaluation of the need forpest control, and one or more pest control methods,including sanitation, structural repairs, mechanicaland living biological controls, other non-chemicalmethods, and, if nontoxic options are unreasonableand have been exhausted, least toxic pesticides.
Page 18 Pesticides and You Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
6 BEST COPY AVAILAITI,IF,
ll
Across the country, schools and communities thatare currently using 1PM strategies indicate that awell-managed IPM program is saving them money.
Following are just a few examples.
A school board member in Illinois has stated that "most[of the] schools utilizing IPM strategies [in his schooldistrict state] that IPM does not cost more, it just costsdifferently. Thus, a school having a problem with micemight install door sweeps to deny access instead ofcontinuously allocating funds for a pest control pro-fessional. Additionally, an 1PM program need not beburdensome with regard to personnel. Typically, it willrequire some light training, and it then integratesseamlessly into existing roles and responsibilities."
The Boulder Valley School District in Colorado hassaved thousands of dollars for pest management afterhiring a company that has successfully controlled theschools' pest problems with the implementation of anIPM program that does not use any toxic pesticides.5
Before Monroe County Schools in Bloomington, INimplemented an IPM program in 1995, it was spend-ing about $34,000 on pest management. With the hir-ing of an IPM Coordinator in 1997, and spending lessthan $1,000 per year on products, the school districtis saving around $13,600 a year in pest management.6
A survey of 21 Pennsylvania school districts foundthat 81 percent were able to control pest problemsusing 1PM with little or no change in costs.'
At Vista de las Cruces School in Santa Barbara, Cali-fornia, pest management was contracted out with apest control company for $1,740 per year for routinepesticide applications. After the school switched toan IPM program, their costs were reduced to a totalof $270 over two years.8
A school in Susquehanna, New York implemented
an IPM program after students were poisoned from apesticide misapplication. The school engineer statesthat they have cut costs by more than $1,000 per year"and the turf looks better than ever."
Mt. Lebanon School District in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania'sIPM program is "manageable and no more expensivethan using pesticides." The school district has imple-mented their IPM program since 2000 "at a relativelylow cost with improved playing surfaces." i°
A well-known example of school IPM is the Montgom-ery County, Maryland public schools. The 1PM pro-gram in Montgomery County covers 200 sites used byover 110,000 students and 12,000 employees. AlthoughGerman cockroaches are the biggest problem thecounty faces, they also manage rodents, termites, andstored food pests. The county successfully reduced pes-ticide use from 5,000 applications in 1985 to none fouryears later, saving the school district $1,800 per schooland $30,000 at the food service warehouse."
In another county in Maryland, the Anne Arundel SchoolDistrict reduced its pest control budget from $46,000 to$14,000 after its first year of IPM implementation.12
An 1PM program at the University of Rochester re-sulted in a 50 percent reduction in material costs anda substantial reduction in personnel costs."
The City of Santa Monica, California's IPM programfor the city's public buildings and grounds reducedthe cost of pest control services by 30 percent."
Albert Greene, Ph.D., National IPM Coordinator forthe U.S. General Services Administration, has imple-mented IPM in 30 million square feet, approximately7,000 federal buildings, in the U.S. capital area with-out spraying toxic insecticides. Dr. Greene states thatIPM, "can be pragmatic, economical and effective on amassive scale. "15
' U.S. EPA. 1993. Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. 735-F-93-012. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC.2 Spitzer, E. 2000. Pesticides Use at New York Schools: Reducing the Risk. Environmental Protection Bureau, Attorney General of New York State, p.20.3 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1999. Calculating the True Costs of Pest Control. Publication No. 99-433. Olympia, WA.4 Kusel, R. 2001. Member of the Board of Education, East Prairie District #73, Skokie, IL. Letter to U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee.
Gilpin, T. 2002. Personal Communication. Native Solutions, Inc., Boulder, CO.6 Carter, J. 2001. Personal Communication. Director of Planning, Monroe County Community School Corporation, Bloomington, IN.7 Wendelgass, B. 1997. Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management Use in Pennsylvania School Districts. Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. Philadelphia, PA.
Boise, P. et al. 1999. Reducing Pesticides in Schools: How Two Elementary Schools Control Common Pests Using Integrated Pest Management Strategies.Community Environmental Council. Santa Barbara, CA.
e Safer Pest Control Project. 1998. Cost of IPM in Schools. Chicago, IL. Citing Angelo Ranieri. 1998. Building Engineer, Susquehanna, NY. Personal Communication.'° Smartschan, G.F. 2000. Superintendent of Schools, Mt. Lebanon School District, Pittsburgh, PA. Letter to U.S. Senator James Jeffords." Schubert, S. et al. 1996. Voices for Pesticide Reform: The Case for Safe Practices and Sound Policy. Beyond Pesticides, National Coalition Against the Misuse
of Pesticides and Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Washington, DC.'2 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1999. Calculating the True Costs of Pest Control. Publication No. 99-433. Olympia, WA." 3 Spitzer, E. 2000. Citing Castronovo, P. 1999. Personal Communication. University of Rochester.14 Washington State Department of Ecology 1999. Citing U.S. EPA. 1998. The City of Santa Monica's Environmental Purchasing A Case Study. EPA 742-R-98-001.15 Greene, A. 1993. "Integrated Pest Management for Buildings." Pesticides and You 13(2-3). Washington, DC.
Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002 Pesticides and YouBeyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
7-rrrs rrl invcc7 ANITA ITN A TO IT l
Page 19
n
(9/92)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
RIC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").