Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999 Pesticides and You · Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999 The Schooling...

Pesticides and YouNews from the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)

Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999

The Schooling of State Pesticide LawsReview of State Pesticide Laws Regarding Schools

— Jay Feldman is ExecutiveDirector of NCAMP

Letter from Washington

Building State Pesticide Policy to ProtectChildren, Call for a National StandardThe variety of state statutes regarding the protection ofchildren at schools is almost mind boggling. They varyfrom good to bad and from somewhat comprehensive toincomprehensible. While 29 states have taken somelegislative action, 21 have taken no statutory action. Of the29, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides. Lessthan one-third of all the state legislatures have decided thatchildren are important enough to take a special look athow pesticides are used in the schools. The federal govern-ment is silent.

All of this information is detailed in a new NCAMPreport, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws, contained inthis issue of Pesticides and You.

At NCAMP, we are often asked, “How is our state doingwhen compared with others?” or, “Which state offers thebest protection?” When the Governor of Maryland satdown with environmental, labor, public health andeducation leaders on school pesticide legislation in thestate last year, he asked us how the proposed legislationcompared with other states. Not an unreasonable question.Another question we often get is why doesn’t the federalgovernment provide this basic level of protection or right-to-know? Also, a good question.

To better answer the state questions (I’ll take on thefederal government question after these), we beganupdating our files and analysis of the states’ pesticide lawsthis summer. Our analysis of state pesticide laws regardingpesticides and schools evaluates five categories: bufferzones, posting of signs, written notification, integrated pestmanagement (IPM), and the prohibition of certain uses.Certainly, all of these categories should be addressed if astate law is to fully and comprehensively protect childrenfrom pesticides while at school. While we describe eachcategory in the report and while many states have ad-dressed many of these categories, no one state addresses allthe categories fully.

Clearly, what a state law says in these five categories isonly part of the larger issue. The report does not evaluatethe implementation or enforcement of these laws. That is anext and much needed step. In fact, there most certainlyare state administrative programs that grow out of general-ized statutory language that addresses some or all of thesecategories. Local governments and school districts havealso taken it upon themselves to provide protection not

provided by their state or the federal government. It is ourbelief, however, that sound pesticide law should, wherepossible, be codified in state statute to give it more perma-nence and protection. These laws should serve as a floor,providing an opportunity for localities to exceed thesestandards when they deem it necessary.

From a community perspective, the first step to betterprotection is knowing the law. The second is making surethat it is enforced. If the law is deficient, knowing the lawmay be cause for changing or improving it. Our goal hereis to spark new discussions in the states and assist existingones to move along.

As you consider the variety of laws and the range ofprotections, you cannot help but wonder why the federalgovernment does not provide the most basic of protections–the protection of children while at school. Incredible, buttrue. When EPA’s Lawn Care Pesticides Advisory Commit-tee, of which I was a member, met in the early 1990’s, theenvironmental and public health groups on the committeesupported a mandatory national standard for posting andnotification of lawn care pesticide applications that wouldnot prevent states from setting higher standards. No, theproposal did not go anywhere, but that is what is neededhere – a national standard to protect children from pesti-cides at school.

Without a doubt, NCAMP will continue to support localaction, community-by-community, state-by-state, to adoptstandards that protect children at school. However, it isunconscionable that the federal government sits on thesidelines while children go unprotected.

We will be issuing additional reports that track statelaws regarding other aspects of pesticide restriction and

use, such as structuralpesticide use and rights-of-way. Please contact us tolet us to let us know whatyour state is doing (goodor bad) and what youthink others should knowabout.

Vol. 18, No. 3, 1998 Pesticides and You Page 1

Pesticides and You ©1999 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year by theNational Coalition Against the Misuse ofPesticides (NCAMP), is a voice forpesticide safety and alternatives.NCAMP is a non-profit, tax-exemptmembership organization; donations aretax-deductible.

National Headquarters:701 E Street, SE,Washington DC 20003ph: 202-543-5450 fx: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]

Printed on recycled paper with soy ink

Articles in this newsletter may bereproduced without NCAMP’s permis-sion unless otherwise noted. Pleasecredit NCAMP for reproduced material.

NCAMP STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorBeth Fiteni, Program CoordinatorKagan Owens, Information CoordinatorTerry Shistar, Ph.D.,Science Consultant & WebmasterHilary Melcarek, Information AssistantKara King, Intern

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorBeth Fiteni, Kara King, Kagan Owens,Hilary Melcarek, ContributorsFree Hand Press, TypesettingEric Cline, Cover Art

NCAMP BOARD OF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, Maryland

Pesticide Network, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas

en California, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s

Health Environment Coalition,Malibu, CA

Merrill Clark, Roseland Farms,Cassopolis, MI

Shelley Davis, J.D., FarmworkerJustice Fund, Washington, DC

Lorna Donaldson-McMahon, SilvertopFarm, Tiptonville, TN

Jay Feldman, NCAMP, Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving Earth

Worldwide, Plymouth, MNEric Kindberg, Organic Farmers

Marketing Association, Fairfield, IAKenuel Okech Ogwaro, Ph.D., ECO-

CARE International, San Diego, CATerry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,

Sierra Club, Lawrence, KSGregg Small, Pesticide Watch,

San Francisco, CAAllen Spalt, Agricultural Resources

Center, Carrboro, NCJohn Wargo, Ph.D., Yale University,

New Haven, CTDaniel Wartenberg, Ph.D., R.W.

Johnson Medical School,Piscataway, NJ

Affiliations shown for informationalpurposes only

page 4

2 MailActivists in Minnesota Meet NCAMP Board ofDirectors, Marching to Prevent CancerThrough the Reduction of Toxics, Looking forLawn Care Alternatives to Protect Pre-Schoolers

4 Washington, D.C.EPA Releases for Public Comment Risk As-sessments for 17 Organophosphate Pesticides,Bioengineered “Terminator” Seed TechnologyGets USDA Approval, 171 of 612 PesticideReviews of Old Chemicals Completed (Sortof), EPA Weakens Adverse Effects Reportingby Chemical Companies, Methyl BromidePhaseout Delayed Four Years, USDA Releases“Issue Papers” and Delays Release of ProposedOrganic Rule, Intern Reflects on NCAMP Ex-perience

7 Around the CountryAirlines Spray Planes with Pesticides, Even forDomestic Flights, Misleading and DeceptivePest Control Ads Found in Phone Book’s Yel-low Pages, Great Progress on Alternatives toPesticide Use in Upstate New York, DowWorker Death in Michigan Linked to 2,4-DExposure, Environmental Resort for theChemically Sensitive Opens in Florida, Re-search on Pesticides and Children Around theCountry Funded by Gore Initiative, AT&TEmployees in Georgia Evacuate Building Af-ter Dursban Application

9 The Schooling ofState Pesticide LawsReview of State Laws Regarding Schools

23 ResourcesPlagued by Pesticides, 1996 Toxic ReleaseInventory: Public Data Release - Ten Years ofRight to Know, Natural Enemies Handbook:the Illustrated Guide to Biological Pest Con-trol, Poisoning the Air: Airborne Pesticides inCalifornia, Tobacco, Farmers and Pesticides:The Other Story, Passing Grade: A Report onPesticide Use in Maryland Schools

Contents

page 9

page 23

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Vol. 18, No. 3, 1998

Activists in MinnesotaMeet NCAMPDear NCAMP,

It was so great to meet you [at theNCAMP Board of Directors meeting inOctober]. I have been a NCAMP mem-ber for many years and use your materi-als, data, and articles so often in ourmailings! It is good to connect now andthen; it sometimes feels like I am all alone“out there,” trying to convince the pub-lic of the outrageous practices in uses ofpesticides. I realize after seeing and meet-ing those great people doing the samething - we are not alone!!

Bette KentMinnesota Herbicide Coalition

Dear Ms. Kent,It was great to finally meet you also. Weknow that you have been a member ofNCAMP almost since its inception in 1981.The meeting in Plymouth, Minnesota, hostedby NCAMP board member Tessa Hill, presi-dent of Kids for Saving Earth Worldwide,proved to be a success. The NCAMP Boardenjoyed sharing ideas and strategies withyou and local activists, and learning first-hand what everyone is up to. We are gladthat we could bring together local activistsworking on pesticide issues and hope thatsome important synergy results. As youknow, organizing with others is the key tosuccess. The materials that you put out areterrific tools for change and we’re delightedyou put NCAMP materials to such great use!

Marching to PreventCancer Through theReduction of ToxicsDear NCAMP,

The recent cancer MARCH in Washing-ton got quite a bit of coverage in Sunday’s

newspapers (9/27/98)and for good reason. Theincidence of most can-cers continues to esca-late among all ages, eth-nic groups, and bothsexes. We continue to in-vest billions upon bil-lions into research andstill come up emptyhanded. The elusive curealways seems to hidestealthily out of reach.Other headlines appear-ing on the same day read:“PCB warnings inadequate...” “Air stan-dards cheered in Northeast, jeered inMidwest,” “Environmental group suesstate over chlorine discharge atBelleayre.” We continue to lose millionsof lives to the enemy while spending bil-lions of dollars in our feeble attempt toeliminate its presence from afflicted pa-tients. The more money we spend oncancer research, the greater seems to bethe incidence of cancer in our society. Ina real war it would seem that a change intactical maneuvering would be in order.Maybe the time has come for us to lookin the direction of cancer prevention. Ifthe old saying still holds true, “an ounceof prevention is worth a pound of cure,”imagine how many lives and dollarscould be saved and how much pain andsuffering could be avoided. The new mil-lennium will soon be upon us. It may beup to the health consumer to push for achange in attitude in cancer research withmore emphasis on prevention than detec-tion. Consumers vote with their dollars.Just as complementary and alternativehealth practices are making inroads intomainstream health care, so too can con-sumers push their legislators and healthcare providers to take a closer look at en-vironmental risk factors associated withimmune dysfunction, genetic damage, tu-mor initiation and promotion. One holis-tic practitioner has described a tumor asthe body’s waste dump for storing excesstoxins. If we can succeed in reducing en-vironmental toxins, perhaps we will be re-

warded by a reduction in cancer inci-dence. What have we got to lose?

Rose Marie Williams (Pres.)and Helena Baldyga (V.P.)Cancer Awareness Coalition, Inc.New Paltz, NY

Dear Ms. Williams and Ms. Baldyga,Thank you for your letter. NCAMP partici-pated in THE MARCH: Coming Together to

Conquer Cancer event on September 26,1998 in Washington, D.C. A main focus atthe MARCH was funding for research. Cer-tainly, finding a cure and reducing suffer-ing from this horrible disease are necessarygoals. However, dealing with the cancerissue is a two-part effort. We agree withyou. We need to pay more attention to thecause of the cancers that almost half of allAmericans will fall victim to during theirlifetimes. We already know that certaintoxic substances regularly released into theenvironment are carcinogenic to humansand laboratory animals, so part of the so-lution to the cancer epidemic is pollutionprevention. NCAMP’s table at the MARCH,entitled “Pollution Prevention is the Cure,”was inundated with supporters of our mis-sion: to reduce carcinogenic pesticides inour homes, schools, and in agriculture. Wemet many, many people who were happyto see a group such as NCAMP at theMARCH distributing information on alter-natives to toxic pesticides. We even carriedour banner, “No Cancer-Causing PesticidesIn Our Food,” at the MARCH and our mes-sage made the Washington Post national

Beth Fiteni (left) and Kagan Owens (right) created and staffedthe NCAMP booth for THE MARCH: Coming Together to Con-quer Cancer on September 26, 1998.


edited by Kagan Owens

news. The next NCAMP conference, co-sponsored by the statewide Californiagroup Pesticide Watch, has taken the title“Pollution Prevention is the Cure.” It willbe held in Santa Barbara, CA on May 14-16, 1999. Hope you can join us!

Looking for Lawn CareAlternatives to ProtectPre-SchoolersDear NCAMP,

The St. James Preschool is a private, part-day preschool, sponsored by St. JamesEpiscopal Church. Currently, the churchhas a contract with a lawn maintenancecompany that uses herbicides and fertil-izers on a regular basis. Because the pre-schoolers, as they play, are more likelyto come in contact with these toxins, theBoard of Directors is researching organiclawn care options. Can you help?

Melanie VangsnesChair, St. James Preschool BODLeesburg, VA

Dear Ms. Vangsnes,Thank you for contacting NCAMP on al-ternatives to pesticides. It is essential thatwe eliminate our children’s exposure to pes-ticides. Of the 36 most commonly used lawnpesticides: 13 can cause cancer, 14 cancause birth defects, 11 can cause reproduc-tive effects, 21 can damage the nervoussystem, 15 can injure the liver or kidney,and 30 are sensitizers or irritants. Chil-dren are particularly vulnerable to pesti-cides because they are still developing andmore active than adults, and because theytake in larger quantities of air and foodthan adults relative to their size. Thus, theyreceive a higher dose of toxins per poundof body weight. Not only do younger andsmaller people by nature receive a higherdose of toxins, children have a decreasedability to eliminate toxins and their targetorgans may be more sensitive to toxic ef-fects. This issue of PAY reviews the issuesand the activities that are taking place instates across the country to protect children.

The best way to control lawn pests is tomaintain a healthy, vigorous soil and lawnthat can resist pest problems on its own.This can be achieved by developing healthysoil, planting well-adapted and pest resis-tant grass varieties, aerating the lawn regu-larly, not allowing too much thatch to buildup, maintaining proper soil pH and fertil-ity, keeping the lawn properly watered, andmowing the grass with sharp blades set ashigh as possible. To keep ahead of the pestproblems, it is important to monitor thelawn weekly. When pest problems occur ata level that cannot be tolerated, choose theleast toxic method available to combat theproblem. Please see NCAMP’s brochure,Least Toxic Control of Lawn Pests and ourinformation packet on the subject.

1999 Conference in LADear NCAMP,

Hello from Los Angeles! We’re prettyexcited about having next year’s nationalconference here. We take walks throughour neighborhood and it’s amazing howmany pesticide atmospheres we run into.It’s not enough that we buy organic andkeep our own premises clear of toxics.We have a hard time with the prevailinguse around us. Our bodies are dosed with“medicines” without our consent andsubstantially beyond our control. Thefuture belongs to the reservation of allthese chemicals for use against plagueand emergency (catastrophic) epidemics.Our current policy will deny us this abil-ity in the future. How glad we are for thepeople of NCAMP and their efforts onbehalf of us all. Things have been abso-lutely wild for the last couple/several

Write Us!Whether you love us, hate us, orjust want to speak your mind, wewant to hear from you. All mailmust have a day time phone and averifiable address. Space is limitedso some mail may not be printed.Mail that is printed will be editedfor length and clarity. Please ad-dress your mail to:

NCAMP • 701 E Street, SEWashington, D.C. 20003fax: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]

months in the efforts to bring safe pestmanagement practices to the Los Ange-les Unified School District (LA USD). Youshould be very proud of the LA SafeSchools Coalition. These folks have beenin amazing contact with school boardmembers, local reporters, California De-partment of Pesticide Regulation, muck-raking lawyers, Pacifica radio, PTAs, etc.and are really stirring things up.

John NelsonLos Angeles, CA

Dear Mr. Nelson,Great job! We are all looking forward tothe conference in southern California - seeyou there!

Washington, DC


EPA Releases forPublic Comment RiskAssessments for 17OrganophosphatePesticidesAs the EPA and USDA continue withtheir Tolerance Advisory ReassessmentCommittee (TRAC) agenda to imple-ment the Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA), they have attempted to beginthe phaseout process for organophospatechemicals which arebelieved to be themost toxic pesti-cides currentlyused in food pro-duction in theU.S. At the firstTRAC meeting inlate May 1998,EPA Deputy Ad-ministrator, FredHansen, who hassince left theagency, announcedthat EPA had al-ready completed 40 preliminary risk as-sessments on organophosphates and thatthey would be released by name at thenext meeting in July. The agency, how-ever, decided to keep both environmen-talists and the industry at the edge oftheir seats for two more months. Finally,on August 12, 1998, the first nine werepublished in the Federal Register for com-ment: azinphos-methyl, bensulide,ethion, fenamiphos, isofenphos, naled,phorate, profenofos, and terbufos. OnSeptember 9, 1998, the next seven werereleased, including ethoprop, tribufos,sulfotep, temephos, dimethoate,cadusafos, and fenthion. The commentperiods for these 16 have now passed,and NCAMP submitted comments oneach set. However, the risk assessmentfor methyl parathion has now been re-

leased, and comments aredue by February 15, 1999.The environmental fateand ecological assess-ments for temephos,ethoprop, and terbufosare also now open forcomment, as only thehuman health assess-ments had been released be-fore. After discussing thephaseout of the most harmfulorganophosphates, the agency’s nextpriority turns to carbamate pesticides

and other B2 (probable human)carcinogens. Though there wereonly scheduled to be four origi-nal TRAC meetings, two moreTRAC meetings are scheduledtentatively for early 1999. Thedates for the first meeting areFebruary 25 and 26, 1999 atthe Hotel Washington inWashington, DC. Dates for the

second meeting are yet unde-termined but will likely be set

for late May. To view risk assess-ments and for information on

where to comment, see www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/. For more information on theTRAC and implementation of FQPA, con-tact NCAMP or see Pesticides & You, Vol.18 #1-2, or contact Marjorie Fehrenbach,U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs,703-308-4775, [email protected].

Bioengineered“Terminator” SeedTechnology GetsUSDA ApprovalJust when you thought it couldn’t getworse: the seed company Delta &Pineland (now merged with Monsanto)obtained a patent this March for a seedvariety that will not germinate if re-

planted—with USDA approval. The newdevelopment, called “Terminator SeedTechnology” thus prevents farmers fromsaving seed from one year to the next anddeveloping seeds that are suited to thelocal environment. Right now, commer-cial seed companies own 30-50% of theworld’s seed supply, and companies aremerging all the time. A USDA spokes-man says that the goal is to promote these

seeds in developing countries, to increasethe value of proprietary seed owned byU.S. companies. Farmers in these coun-tries may be forced to use the seeds be-cause of credit schemes and governmentrestrictions. The Rural AdvancementFoundation International (RAFI) is call-ing for a worldwide ban on this seed tech-nology, and is asking governments toprotect their seed varieties for the secu-rity of their food supply. Contact RAFI,110 Osborne Street, #202, Winnipeg,Manitoba, Canada, R3L 1Y5, 204-453-5259, [email protected], http://www.rafi.org.

by Beth Fiteni


171 of 612 PesticideReviews of OldChemicals Completed(Sort of)EPA released its Pesticide ReregistrationProgress Report for 1997, which revealedthat of the 612 chemicals originally un-der review to comply with modern safetystandards, 171 are completed (sort of),231 of the requested reviews have beencancelled by the registrants, and there are210 more todo. The agencypredicts thecompletion ofall ReregistrationEligibility Decisions (REDs) by the year2006. The chemicals were originallyslated for review in 1972 under FIFRA,and then the review standards were ex-tended in 1976, repealed in 1978, andreinstated in 1988. The report says thatchemicals used on foods reviewed beforethe 1996 FQPA will be revisited. It isimportant to note that many of theseREDs are not true assurances of a com-plete data set. REDs are sometimes is-sued for chemicals even though moredata is required. Seventy of the 171 com-pleted REDs are associated with chemi-cals with food uses. About 1,569 foodtolerances of an existing 9,635 have beenreassessed. In this report, EPA acknowl-edges the high risk of organophosphatesand explains why it is prioritizing thosealong with carbamates and B2 (probablehuman) carcinogens. The report alsohighlights chemicals that are under spe-cial review, which are chemicals that ex-ceed acceptable risk criteria, due to acuteand chronic toxicity, for example. Thereport states that the EPA prefers to en-ter into negotiations with the regulatedindustries instead of taking a traditionalregulatory approach, in order to cutdown on risk from chemicals under spe-cial review. For a copy, contact the Na-

tional Center for Environmental Publica-tions and Information, P.O. Box 42419,Cincinnati, OH 45242, 800-490-9198, orsee http://www.epa.gov/pesticides.

EPA Weakens AdverseEffects Reporting byChemical CompaniesOn August 4,1998, EPA reversed itself ona decision regarding the extensiveness ofthe adverse effects information required

to be submitted to the agencyby chemical companies. Ad-verse effects reporting on pes-ticide chemicals is subject tosection 6(a)(2) of the Federal

Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.A new rule on adverse effects reportingwas slated to take effect in June,but implemen-tation was de-layed until Au-gust 1998. Therule requiredthat chemicalregistrants dis-close any reports of acute toxicity, as wellas any chronic or delayed effects. Deathsmust be reported within 15 days. As ofnow, registrants do not have to relay theinformation in the “may suffer” (in the fu-ture) category. This resulted from com-plaints from the chemical industry at sev-eral meetings with the agency this Spring.The industry says it does receivecalls from the public re-garding pesticide prod-ucts, but only a minorityof them would be useful tothe agency for the purposeof protecting publichealth. Formerly, EPA saidit recognized this but wanted the infor-mation anyway. Now, in a decision madewithout any public notice and comment,registrants have at least one year to comeinto compliance with the new chronic/de-

layed requirements. Contact Kate Bouve,6(a)(2) Officer of the Office of PesticidePrograms, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SWWashington, DC 20460, 703-305-5032.

Methyl BromidePhaseout DelayedFour YearsThe Clinton Administration has delayedthe phaseout of methyl bromide from itsoriginal 2001 goal to the year 2005. The2001 goal was mandated under the CleanAir Act. The reasoning behind the post-ponement is to make the phaseout con-sistent with the international treatycalled the Montreal Protocol and to pre-vent other countries from having an eco-

nomic advantage over the U.S. TheTreaty also scheduled for interim

cutbacks of25% in 1999,50% by 2001,and 70% by2003. The delaylanguage wasintroduced byRep. Vic Fazio

(D-CA) as a rider on to the Fiscal Year1999 agricultural appropriations bill.Several European countries have alreadyopted to ban the dangerous chemical,and alternative treatments have beenfound effective in nine out of ten cases.Air samples in California find methyl

bromide at levelswhich exceedstate safety re-quirements infarming areas,and the chemical

has been linked inCalifornia to thousands of poison-

ings as well as several deaths. ContactKristin Schafer, Pesticide Action NetworkNorth America Regional Office, 49 PowellStreet, #500, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-981-1771, [email protected].

EPA

Mail


Washington, DC

USDA Releases “Issue Papers” and DelaysRelease of Proposed Organic Rule

On October 25,1998, USDA published three Issue Pa-pers in the Federal Register regarding the upcoming pro-posed organic rule in order to allow for public inputinto the process. Unfortunately, as a result, the rule wasnot finalized by January 1, 1999 as promised. The spe-cific issues raised in the Papers reference back to thefirst proposed organic rule released in December 1997,which elicited thousands of negative responses from or-ganic producers and consumers and thus was retracted.The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) met onOctober 27-28, 1998 to discuss the various options pro-posed by the USDA in each Issue Paper.

The first issue pertains to farmed animal confinement,and whether it is acceptable for certain exceptions suchas inclement weather, protection from predators, andfor attending sick livestock. Also at issue is whether or-ganic animal products should be allowed to display ad-ditional label claims such as “free-range” or “pastureraised.” The second issue deals with the use of antibiot-ics and paraciticides in animals being raised organically.The options here include a use prohibition on all ani-mal medications, or allowing therapeutic use of animal

medications under certain animal health conditions. TheNational Organic Standards Board (NOSB) supports theformer option, after several changes in its position. Thethird issue covers the termination of certification au-thority for private certifiers and considers various meth-ods of handling enforcement of organic standards. Com-ments on the Issue papers were due December 14,1998.NCAMP worked with the Organic Farmer’s MarketingAssociation to produce a comment form that was dis-tributed widely to organizations and activists.

Overall, while participating groups do appreciate theability to comment during USDA’s development of thenext rule, many activists view these papers as a delay inthe process, since these issues have already been underdiscussion since the passage of the Organic Foods Pro-duction Act in 1990. NCAMP’s Jay Feldman addressedthe NOSB at its October meeting to support a rejectionof synthetic inerts and a prohibition on animal medi-cines except for those which meet National List crite-ria. At this time, it is unknown when the proposed rulewill be published for comment in the Federal Register.Contact NCAMP.

Intern Reflects onNCAMP Experience“Kagan, where would I find…,” “Beth,can you tell me how to…,” “Jay, there’ssomeone on the phone who….” Thesewere the most common phrases from mysummer internship, except for, “Hello,this is NCAMP. Can I help you?” With asmall staff, I was allowed to jump rightinto the middle of all of NCAMP’s activi-ties (quite overwhelming at first!) Myentire summer was spent quickly learn-ing about chemicals, alternatives, regu-lations and the government. I did noteven realize how much I had learneduntil I was able to stop and reflect backon the experience. My eyes have beenopened to just how many lives are ru-ined or altered by exposures to pesticides

— anyone whobelieves differ-ently shouldcome and an-swer the phoneat NCAMP for aweek! I felt ex-tremely satis-fied when I wasable to helpsomeone whod e s p e r a t e l yneeded information, ideas or support.Frustration was also a part of the experi-ence on occasions when I could offerlittle or no help to someone with a pesti-cide caused problem. I witnessed first-hand the industry influence over EPAand lack of action from the governmentin the area of pesticide regulation while

attending the EPA/USDA Tolerance Re-assessment Advisory Committee meet-ings and work group sessions. Because Iwas at the center of all the action atNCAMP I feel like I have truly experi-enced an environmental interest groupat its core. Somehow, among all the of-fice chaos, constant ringing of the phone,minor crises and major accomplish-ments, I discovered that working for theenvironment will be a lifetime priorityand hopefully my career.

Kara King is a senior at the University ofKansas. She is majoring in EnvironmentalPolicy and will graduate in May of 1999.Kara plans to pursue a career in the envi-ronmental field after receiving her degree.NCAMP welcomes interns at any time.Contact us for details.

by Beth Fiteni


edited by Kagan OwensAround the Country

Airlines Spray Planeswith Pesticides, Even forDomestic FlightsSome major American airline carriersspray pesticides on domestic flight air-liners, according to the July/August is-sue of Mother Jones magazine. Passengersused to be subjected to spraying whileseated in the cabin, but now sprayingonly takes place on empty planes as theyawait flight in the hangar. However, asair is recycled throughout the cabin, trav-elers may still be breathing in significantdoses of airborne pesticides. Among thecompanies that acknowledged regular oroccasional spraying are US Airways,American, Delta, Continental andTWA, though they wouldnot reveal whichchemical they use. Useof spray is merely a pre-ventive measure; no airlines reported toMother Jones an actual pest problem, andthere is no federal law that requires it. Asfor international flights, certain countriesstill require the spraying while passengersare on board, but this practice has beenreduced dramatically from twenty-fivecountries to only four. This reduction ispartially due to the work of then-Secre-tary of Transportation, Frederico Pena,who wrote letters to all the Transporta-tion Ministers around the globe request-ing them to cease this practice. Fifteencountries still require spraying of planesbefore flights, usually with permethrin—a neurotoxin and possible carcinogen.Critics say that traps should be used in-stead of chemical sprays to reduce publichealth risks. Contact NCAMP.

Misleading andDeceptive Pest ControlAds Found in PhoneBook’s Yellow PagesMaryPIRG investigated the advertisingpractices of pest control operators inMaryland and found 29 companies whoseads could mislead customers into believ-

ing that chemical treatments are “safe.”Some of the ads even state the treatmentsare specifically safe for homeswith children and pets. Onepest control operator, who re-tracted his ad once he heardof MaryPIRG’s campaign, saidhe feels the treatments aresafe—relative to longer-last-ing chemicals that he used toapply in the past. The office of the MDAttorney General, Joseph Curran Jr., saysit will pursue an investigation of the ads,if necessary. On an encouraging note,some of the ads state that integrated pestmanagement (IPM) is available. Though

IPM is not a completely toxic-free approach, if properlyimplemented, it can signifi-cantly reduce pesticide use.

Contact MaryPIRG, 3121 St.Paul St., #26, Baltimore, MD

21218, 410-467-0439, http://www.pirg.org/marypirg.

Great Progress onAlternatives to PesticideUse in Upstate New YorkIn both Albany and Monroe Counties,New York, activists’ pressure to convincetheir towns to reduce pesticide use hasrecently been successful. In Albany,county officials voted in June 1998 tophase out pesticide use within threeyears. Albany’s plan is to start off by phas-ing out the worst chemicals first. Envi-ronmental Advocates, NYPIRG, and NYCoalition for Alternatives to Pesticides(NYCAP) all were active in helping topass the legislation, and the latter twowill be represented on the committee thatis developing the town’s pest manage-ment plan. In Monroe County, the De-partment of Transportation decided towork with residents to find alternativemethods of pest control along roadsides.This set a good example for the towngovernment, which also sprays road-sides, and the town—after some reluc-tance—agreed to stop spraying herbi-cides along roadways, scuttling plans to

move ahead with a $65,000 spray planfor roadsides. Since chemical methods

are generally less labor inten-sive than mechanical methods,the benefit to both counties isnot only in public health butalso in new jobs. For Albany,contact NYCAP, 353 HamiltonStreet, Albany, NY 12210, 518-426-8246, [email protected],

for Monroe County, contact RochestariansAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides, 50Landstowne Lane, Rochester, NY 14618,716-383-1317.

Dow Worker Death inMichigan Linked to 2,4-DExposureTwenty-nine year old James Keeley waswashing a pipe with hot water at the DowChemical plant in Midland, MI, when acrack in the pipe leaked 2,4-D on to hisarm and leg. Though Keeley rushed to theshower to decontaminate himself, he col-lapsed and was taken to a nearby hospitalwhere he was pronounced dead shortlyafterwards, according to the Midland DailyNews. Co-workers who witnessed the in-cident said they could smell the chemicaland called the emergency response crewimmediately. A spokeswoman for Dowsays Keeley had safety training and wasnot wearing the proper gear when the ac-cident happened. She also said he ne-glected to sign a required permit prior todoing the cleaning. The event is definitelya wake-up call for the company and thussafety training will be increased for allworkers, but no effort is being made toreduce the production of the chemical,which is a known carcinogen and nervoussystem toxin. Contact NCAMP.

Environmental Resort forthe Chemically SensitiveOpens in FloridaA new resort has opened in SouthMelbourne Beach, FL and advertises itselfas specifically serving people who suffer

Mail


Around the Country

from multiple chemical sensitivity or GulfWar Syndrome. It is often difficult forchemically sensitive people or others seek-ing a clean environment to find lodgingwhen traveling, but there is now a placecalled “Pride & Joy Environmental Resort.”The owner of the resort, which opened inOctober 1998, ValGaccione, is chemi-cally sensitive her-self. The resort fea-tures a non-chlo-rine pool, tile floors,all non-fuming andnon-toxic cleaners,and has taken extraprecautions against ir-ritants from bedding (it offers or-ganic cotton beds), curtains, carpets, andfurniture. It is located next to the beach,and is about a one hour drive from bothDisney World and the Kennedy Space Cen-ter. There are nine one-room apartments.A one week stay costs $700. If you checkthe place out, please let us know what youthink. For more information, contact Prideand Joy Environmental Resort, 5685 SouthA1A Highway, South Melbourne Beach, FL32951, http://www.pridejoyresort.com, 407-733-7804.

Research on Pesticidesand Children Aroundthe Country Funded byGore InitiativeVice President Al Gore announced fed-eral grants for eight “Centers of Excel-lence in Children’s EnvironmentalHealth” around the country on August10, 1998. These centers will investigatethe effects of pesticide exposure on chil-dren as well as the causes of childhoodasthma. The grant money, which totals$10.6 million, is a combined grant fromthe Environmental Protection Agencyand the Department of Health and Hu-man Services. As reported in the Los An-geles Times, the eight centers are: Uni-versity of Michigan School of PublicHealth, University of Iowa College of

Medicine, University of Southern Cali-fornia and UCLA, University of CA-Ber-keley,* Johns Hopkins Children’s Cen-ter in Baltimore, University of Washing-ton Department of EnvironmentalHealth,* Columbia University School ofPublic Health, and Mount Sinai School

of Medicine in New York.* (Thosemarked with an asterisk are the threethat will focus on pesticides.) Theywere chosen to do this work as a re-

sult of an Executive Order on the Pro-tection of Children from Environmen-

tal Health Risks, No. 13054, whichwas issued by President Clinton

in 1997. This Order callsfor improved research inthe area of children’s en-

vironmental health. Gore ex-pressed concern about increased respi-ratory problems related to greenhousegasses and smog, and said, “Our childrenare our most precious resource, and wemust do all we can to provide them witha safe, healthy environment.” ContactElaine Koerner, Senior Liaison Specialist,MC1702, U.S. EPA Office of Communica-tions, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC20460, 202-260-2623.

AT&T Employees inGeorgia EvacuateBuilding After DursbanApplicationFor four days, workers at the DeKalb, GAAT&T building were reporting symp-toms of nausea and difficulty breathingto the staff doctor after the building wastreated for insects with Dursban(chlorpyrifos). The company finallycalled 911 when nine workers com-plained to the doctor about the odor. Tenpeople were removed for treatment at alocal hospital, and emergency techni-cians arrived to treat twelve more. Onewoman said that an odor could be de-tected throughout the building, and thatshe began to break out in a rash. Onespokesperson for AT&T said that thebuilding’s carpets were also cleaned that

week, “to get the spray out.” The chiefof the DeKalb County fire services saysno one is sure whether the respiratoryproblems were caused by the Dursbanalone or a combination of the Dursbanand the carpet cleaning agent. This wasthe fourth time this month that the build-ing was treated for insects. ContactNCAMP.

New York’s AmericanMuseum of NaturalHistory’s BiodiversityExhibit Opens withMonsanto’s SponsorshipThe American Museum of Natural His-tory, praised for a new exhibit onbiodiversity, has found itself in themiddle of a controversy over one of itscorporate sponsors, the Monsanto Com-pany. Monsanto has been criticized byenvironmentalists because of its market-ing of genetically modified organisms(GMOs), which are said to threatenbiodiversity. Jean Halloran, with the Con-sumer Policy Institute in New York, says,“Monsanto’s sponsorship is a PR job andhypocritical considering the potentialharm of gene pollution associated withthe company’s products.” She points tothe contradiction in Monsanto exclaim-ing the safety of genetic engineeringwhile refusing to label its products, thusmaking it difficult to attach liability tothe company should problems arise.While the exhibit does not mention bio-technology at all, Monsanto ran a 12-page pullout section in the New YorkTimes in June announcing the exhibit,with an advertisement extolling the vir-tues of biotechnology. The Museum con-tacted NCAMP to obtain copies of thegroup’s pamphlet on food safety and theexhibit seeks to give visitors tools forchange. A “Solutions Hall” consists offive alcoves that demonstrate successesin conservation. Contact the museum at212-769-5742, email [email protected], or see website at http://research.amnh.org/biodiversity/.

by Beth Fiteni


The Schooling of State Pesticide LawsReview of State Pesticide Laws Regarding Schools

T he state of public health and environmental protectionfrom pesticides is deficient. Children, as a subpopula-tion, are among the least protected. The federal regula-

tory system, since the publication of Pesticides in the Diets ofInfants and Children1 in June 1993, is just beginning to con-sider the special vulnerabilities of children. It remains to beseen whether the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), passedin 1996, will adequately address children. At this point, EPAgenerally lacks data on children and has failed to adopt thetenfold additional safety margin in the statute, provided forsituations where data on children is not available. Less than adozen out of 91 tolerances set since the passage of the FQPAhave used the tenfold safety factor for children in their riskassessments. EPA standard setting is bogged down in discus-sion of exposure assumptions and margins of safety. Mean-while, state governments have, in some cases, attempted tostep into the breach by regulating pesticide use and in somecases type of pesticides used.

What are states doing and is their action sufficient to offerthe level of protection truly needed? In a series of reportsover the year, NCAMP is reviewing the states’ laws on pesti-cides. In this piece, we look at issues that specifically pertainto schools, including: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones toaddress chemicals drifting into school yards and school build-ings; (ii) posting signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide ap-plications; (iii) prior written notification for pesticide use;(iv) prohibiting when and where pesticides can be applied;and, (v) requirements for a strong integrated pest manage-ment (IPM) program that limits the use of certain toxic mate-rials. These are essential ingredients in a program to protectchildren from pesticides at school.

One might ask, why doesn’t the federal government offersome minimal standards regarding the right-to-know whenpesticides are being used in schools, protection from pesti-cide drift in school yards, requirements for least toxic inte-grated pest management, and special protection for children?

By Kagan Owens and Jay Feldman

Pesticides and You Vol. 18, No. 3, 1998

These are all basics not provided for un-der federal law. It represents a seriousfailure of EPA and one that reflects a po-liticized decision making process at theagency. Without minimum federal stan-dards in these areas, the protection pro-vided children is uneven across the coun-try. Just over half of the states, or 30 states,have adopted pesticide acts and regula-tions that address the protection of chil-dren by specifically focusing on pesticideuse in, around or near their schools. Ofthese, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides.2 Thisreview is intended to determine what each state is required todo under its statutes and regulations. It does not evaluate theenforcement or quality of the program that may be in place.This report does not fully examine all the administrative ma-terials that have been developed. Rather it illustrates the statelaws themselves and the requirements established.

Fed Allows State and Local Authority;40 States Preempt Local PowersAnd so, the role of states and local jurisdictions is absolutelycritical as a means of exerting a level of protection that chil-dren deserve. The role of states is well established. There areno federal prohibitions on states exceeding the federal stan-dards. States have the authority to regulate the sale or use ofpesticides as long as the state regulation does not permit asale or use prohibited by section 24(a) of the Federal Insecti-cide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), USC 136v(a). Theauthority of local governments is a different story. While thechemical industry had argued for over a decade in the 1980sthat FIFRA prohibits local regulation of pesticides, the U.S.Supreme Court affirmed the rights of cities and towns to regu-

late pesticides under FIFRA. The courtfound on June 21, 1991 that FIFRA“leaves the allocation of regulatory au-thority to the ‘absolute discretion’ of thestates themselves, including the optionof leaving local regulation of pesticidesin the hands of local authorities.” How-ever, since the Supreme Court ruled, 40states (see chart), whose legislatures havebeen subject to chemical industry lob-bying, have acted to preempt local au-thority to regulate pesticides. This pro-

hibition of local laws has always been viewed by NCAMP asantithetical to public health protection and local police pow-ers (such as smoking ordinances, building codes, etc.). How-ever, despite attempts to squelch local action, increasinglylocal governments and other public bodies with land hold-ings, such as school districts, have chosen to adopt policiesproviding notification of pesticide spraying and alternativeapproaches to pest management. In these cases, the schoolboard or town government is acting as a property owner inwhat many believe is the best interest of children.

State governments can and, in some cases, do play a lead-ership role in protecting the public from pesticides. This piece,based on a review of the current state pesticide laws, looks atwhat the states have done as it affects children and schools.

The Case for Protecting ChildrenChildren are especially sensitive to pesticide exposures. Chil-dren take in more pesticides relative to body weight than adultsand have developing organ systems that are more vulnerableand less able to detoxify toxic chemicals.3 Low levels of pes-ticide exposure can adversely affect a child’s neurological, res-piratory, immune and endocrine system. One of the most com-

Table 1. States that preempt local governments from regulating pesticides.Alabama YesAlaska NoArizona YesArkansas YesCalifornia NoColorado YesConnecticut YesDelaware YesFlorida YesGeorgia YesHawaii NoIdaho YesIllinois Yes

Indiana YesIowa YesKansas YesKentucky YesLouisiana YesMaine NoMaryland NoMassachusetts YesMichigan YesMinnesota YesMississippi YesMissouri YesMontana Yes

Nebraska YesNew Hampshire YesNew Mexico YesNew Jersey Yes1

New York YesNevada NoNorth Carolina YesNorth Dakota YesOhio YesOklahoma YesOregon YesPennsylvania YesRhode Island Yes

1 Local ordinances must be submitted for approval to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture.

2 Local ordinances must go to the Washington Office of the Attorney General for interpretation and approval. Generally, userestricted ordinances are not approved.

South Carolina YesSouth Dakota NoTennessee YesTexas YesUtah NoVermont NoVirginia YesWashington Yes2

West Virginia YesWisconsin YesWyoming No

Just over half of the states, or 30

states, have adopted pesticide

acts and regulations that address

the protection of children by

specifically focusing on pesticide

use in, around or near their

schools. Of these, only 16 states

address indoor use of pesticides.


monly used insecticides in schools, chlropyrifos (Dursban) isa nervous system poison. It poisons children by reducing thebody’s production of the enzyme cholinesterase, necessary tothe transmission of nerve impulses, triggering a range of symp-toms from nausea, dizziness, headaches, aching joints to dis-orientation and inability to concentrate.4 Other widely usedinsecticides, synthetic pyrethroids, stimulate nerves causing hy-persensitivity and are associated with asthma. Many pesticidesaffect the immune system, which can result in increased prob-lems with allergies, asthma, hypersensitivity to chemicals anda reduced ability to combat infections and cancer.5 Many in-

secticides, herbicides and fungicides are linked to cancer. Thecommonly used weed killer 2,4-D has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in scientific studies of farmers.6 Studiesshow that children living in households where pesticides areused suffer elevated rates of leukemia, brain cancer and soft tis-sue sarcoma.7 The probability of an effect such as cancer, whichrequires a period of time to develop after exposure, is enhancedif exposure occurs early in life.8

Children’s exposure to pesticides at school occurs as a re-sult of applications made before children enter the buildingand sometimes while they are present. The chemical fills theair in the room and settles on desks, counters, shades and walls.Exposure occurs from breathing contaminated air or touchingcontaminated surfaces. The residues can remain for days andsometimes break down to other dangerous compounds.

Concerns about the known and unknown hazards of pes-ticide use, as well as deficiencies in the regulatory review pro-cess, have prompted a variety of legislative and administra-tive responses by states across the country. We must improvethe protection of children from pesticide use in schools. Thefollowing is a tool for those advocating public policies thatprovide greater protection for children while attending school.Raising the level of protection across the nation to meet thehighest possible standards is an important goal. Where a stateoffers protection not provided by your state, advocate for it.Where policies exist, make sure that they are enforced. En-forcement of existing pesticide laws is also critical and oftenthe most difficult phase of community-based efforts. Both the

adoption of laws and ensuring their enforcement once adoptedrequire vigilant monitoring and public pressure.

Restricted Spray (Buffer) ZonesAround School Property␣ OVERVIEW␣Pesticides move off the target site when they are sprayed,whether inside or outside. When sprayed outside, pesticidesdrift on to nearby property resulting in off target residues.Buffer zones can eliminate unconsented exposure from spraydrift on to school property. As a result, states require bufferzones around schools. In order to adequately protect againstdrift, buffer zones should, at a minimum, be established in a2 mile radius around the school’s property. Aerial applicationsshould have a larger buffer zone, at least 3 miles encirclingthe school. Buffer zones should be in effect at all times of theday. It is especially important, as the states below require, forspray restrictions to be in place during commuting times andwhile students and employees are on school grounds.

Six states have recognized the importance of controlling driftby restricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring aschool. These states, Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, New Hamp-shire, New Jersey, and North Carolina create spray restrictionzones that range from 300 feet to 21⁄2 miles. Only in the case ofgypsy moth spraying does New Jersey require the largest bufferzone of 2 and 21⁄2 miles, depending on the grade levels of theschool. Otherwise, New Jersey sets a 300-foot buffer aroundschools. All five states require spray restriction zones for aerialapplications. Only Arizona and New Jersey require buffer zonesfor both ground and aerial pesticide applications.

␣ ST ATE REVIEW␣Alabama Department of Agriculture and IndustriesRules for Application of Pesticides by Aircraft, section80-1-14-.07(8)(a), prohibits pesticide spraying from an

airplane within 400 feet of school grounds.Arizona Administrative Code, section 3-365(D),requires buffer zones around schools for applicationsof odoriferous pesticides profenofos, sulprofos, def,

merphos and other pesticides with similar odoriferous char-acteristics. These types of pesticides are not to be sprayedwithin 1⁄4 mile of a school or day care facility, whether groundor aerial application. This section also states that highly toxicpesticides cannot be applied within 1⁄4 mile of a school or daycare facility.

Louisiana Advisory Commission on Pesticides,section 149(B), restricts commercial aerialapplications within 1,000 feet of any school grounds

during normal school hours, with the exception of aerial mos-quito control applications. Schools include, public or private,day or residential, and elementary to secondary schools.

New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, section506.09, states that aerial applications cannot occur whenchildren are commuting to and from school and when there

is outdoor activity. This section also prohibits aerial applica-


tions in sensitive areas, including day care centers and schoolbuildings and property, playgrounds and athletic fields. Dis-tance to the school is subject to the aerial application permit.

New Jersey Pesticide Control Regulations, section7:30-10.3, states that community or areawide pesticideapplications for the control of gypsy moths must not

occur within 2 miles of a kindergarten through 8th grade schooland within 21⁄2 miles of grades 9 through 12, or when stu-dents are commuting to and from school. Section 7:30-10.5(q)restricts aerial applications 300 horizontal feet around anyschool property when people are on school property.

North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 2,subchapter 9L, section .1005, prohibits aerial

application within 300 feet of schools and cited buildings.

Posting Notification Signs forIndoor Pesticide Applications␣ OVERVIEW␣States use different approaches in providing school pesticideuse information to parents, students and staff. Some forms in-clude the posting of notification signs and/or the distributionof notices directly to the affected population. Posted notifica-tion signs warn those in the school when and where pesticideshave been or are being applied. This is a vehicle for basic right-to-know if theposting occurs inan area where it iseasily seen by par-ents, students (oldenough to under-stand, perhaps 12or older) and staff.It is important topost signs for in-door pesticide ap-plications becauseof the extensiveperiod of time stu-dents 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 at least 72 hours.It takes time for pesticides to start breaking down and somepesticide residues can remain for weeks or more. Signs shouldalso be posted at all main entrances of the building and thespecific area sprayed, on the main bulletin board, and, for morecomprehensive notification, in the school newspaper or on thedaily announcements. Posted signs should state when andwhere a pesticide is applied, the name of the pesticide appliedand how to get further information, such as a copy of the ma-terial safety data sheet (MSDS)9 and the product(s) label.

Ten states require posting of signs for indoor school appli-cations. Texas and West Virginia require posting before com-mencement for a specific time period. Texas, the stronger ofthe two, requires the posting of warning signs at least 48 hoursin advance of the application. Students and school employ-ees warned ahead can avoid exposure. Georgia requires post-ing signs outside when a structural application continuesoutside the structure.

␣ ST ATE REVIEW␣Arizona Education Code, title 15 section 152, statesthat the governing board of each school district is toadopt a policy on the procedures for posting signs for

pesticides applied to the school’s property. No further detailsare included in the Code.

Georgia 1996 House Bill 1317 requires posting signswhen an applicator, including building operator orcommercial applicator, applies restricted use pesti-

cides10 in public buildings. Public buildings include thoseused for educational purposes, schools, dormitories, and uni-versity buildings. The sign must be posted before the appli-cation in a noticeable place at a building’s entry and remainfor 24 hours following the application. The posted notice in-cludes the location of treatment and how to obtain a copy ofthe MSDS on the pesticide(s) applied.

Maine Board of Pesticides Control regulations, chapter22 section 2(G), requires posting signs for structuralpesticide applications when the application occurs in an

area of “likely human use,” including any area within 150feet of a building used for commercial or institutional pur-poses or is regularly used. The sign must be posted before thecommencement of the application and remain for 48 hours.

Maryland 1998 House Bill 286, an act concerningPublic Schools – Integrated Pest Management,requires middle and high schools to develop “in-

school notification to students and staff members before a pes-ticide is applied” (1998 Md. Laws 286 § 1(I)(4)). It also statesthat “in-school notification” is required for bait stations usedin elementary or secondary schools. Such notification “mayinclude a sign posted on the door of the room or the room inwhich the bait station is placed” (1998 Md. Laws 286 § 1(L)).Information regarding the application is available upon request.

Massachusetts Code of Regulations, title 333,section 13.10(3)(c), requires posting signswhen commercial applicators apply pesticides

to public buildings. Public buildings include schools, day carecenters, nursery schools, and institutions. Signs are to beposted at all entrances to the area where pesticides are to beapplied before the application begins. The signs are to remain“posted after the application” (MASS. REGS. CODE tit. 333,§ 13.10(3)(c)(2) (1996)). No exact amount of time is speci-fied. Enclosed baits and traps and wood preservatives are ex-empt. The applicator must provide information regarding thepesticide application, including the pesticide product’s label,to anyone that requests it.

Signs posted days before, rather

than simply at the time or just

after a pesticide application, are

more protective. Prior posting

may enable people to take

precautionary action. Because of

the residues left behind after an

application, signs should remain

posted for at least 72 hours.


Michigan Pesticide Use Regulation, section285.637.11 of the Michigan Administrative Code,requires posting by the commercial applicator

making a broadcast, foliar, or space application of restricted-use insecticide to a day-care center or school. Schools, in-cluding public or private, kindergarten through 12th grade,must post a sign at the primary point of entry to the building.Posting is required upon completion of the application andmust remain in place for at least 48 hours.

Montana Pesticide Act, section 80-8-107 ofthe Montana Code Annotated, requiresposting signs when a building operator or

commercial applicator applies pesticides to any building usedfor education or institutional purposes, schools, dormitories,and university buildings. Signs must be posted at the time ofthe application at each entrance to the building or room. Signsare to remain posted “until the pesticide is dry or the reentryinterval has expired” (MONT. CODE ANN. § 80-8-107(3)(1997)). Signs state how information regarding the applica-tion, including how to obtain a copy of the MSDS and labelfor the product(s) used,may be obtained. Postingis not required for pestbaits, pastes and gels.

New Jersey Pesti-cide Control Reg-ulation, section

7:30-9.10(c) of the NewJersey AdministrativeCode, requires permanentposting at the central bul-letin board for indoorschool pesticide applica-tions. The notice must in-clude a contact for receiv-ing more information andthe next application date. The posted sign may be removed 60days after the last treatment if no more applications are planned.

Texas Structural Pest Control Board Regulations,section 595.8(b), states that posting is required forschools, educational institutions, and day care cen-

ters in common access areas at least 48 hours prior to theapplication. The school is responsible for posting the notifi-cation signs. A “Consumer Information Sheet” is given to anyemployee working in the building at his/her request. Schoolsare defined as public, private, and parochial primary and sec-ondary schools. The length of time for signs to remain postedis not specified.

West Virginia Code of State Rules, title 61 section12J, requires day care centers to post signs whencrack and crevice, spot, broadcast or space pesti-

cide applications are made in the center. Section 12J-8.3.2states that the notice must be posted at least 24 hours in ad-vance at the place where the parent or guardian signs the childin and out of the facility.

Posting Notification Signs forOutdoor Pesticide Applications␣ OVERVIEW␣For a wider range of protection, states should require postingpesticide notification signs for outdoor pesticide applicationsas well. Students who play sports or people continually onthe lawns are at high risk when pesticide applications occuron school fields. Dermal exposure can occur when a footballplayer gets tackled, a soccer player slides to make a block ora student sits on the grass to eat lunch or watch a game. Inha-lation exposure can occur when a player breathes in kickedup dust and dirt and pesticide residues. Even spectators at agame or passersby face inhalation exposure to pesticides thatvolatilize or vaporize off the treated area.

Twenty-two states have posting requirements when pesti-cide applications are made on school grounds. States shouldrequire signs to be posted for at least 72 hours, as Rhode Is-land requires. Seven states require posting for both indoorand outdoor pesticide applications. (See Tables 2 and 3) Six-teen of the following states have posting requirements forlawns, with definitions that include school grounds.11

␣ ST ATE REVIEW␣Arizona Education Code, title 15 section 152, statesthat the governing board of each school district is toadopt a policy on the procedures for posting signs

for pesticides applied to the school’s property. No further de-tails are included in the Code.

California Food & Agricultural Code, section 12978,requires posting on school grounds, when the pesticideapplied has a worker reentry interval12 of at least 24

hours. The school is responsible for posting the sign for thelength of the restricted-entry interval.

Colorado Pesticide Applicator’s Act Rules andRegulations, Part 13, requires commercial orpublic turf and ornamental applicators to post

notification signs at the time of an application. Lawn applica-tions, including athletic fields, playgrounds, and “other simi-lar recreation or common property,” require sign posting ad-jacent to the specific area treated. No time for signs to remainposted is specified.11

Connecticut General Statutes, section 22a-66a(c),requires posting signs when general use or restricteduse pesticides are applied by any individual, regardless

of certification or commercial status, to lawns within one hun-dred yards of any property line. “Noncommercial applications toan area less than one hundred square feet or to a fenced area”(CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22a-66a(c)(1) (1997)) are exempt fromthe posting requirement. The statutes also require posting signsfor structural applications made to the surrounding grounds. 11

Florida Statutes, chapter 482 section 2265, requirelicensed or certified applicators to post signs at thecommencement of an application to a lawn. No

amount of time for the sign to remain is specified in the stat-utes or administrative code.11


State Buffer Zones Posting Signs: Posting Signs: Prior IPM ProhibitionIndoor Outdoor Notification Defined of Use

Alabama Yes

Arizona Yes Yes Yes Yes

California Yes

Colorado Yes

Connecticut Yes Yes

Florida Yes Yes

Georgia Yes Yes

Illinois Yes Yes

Indiana Yes

Iowa Yes

Kentucky Yes

Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Yes

Maine Yes Yes Yes

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes Yes

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Montana Yes Yes

New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New York Yes

North Carolina Yes

Ohio Yes

Oregon Yes

Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes

Rhode Island Yes

Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes

Vermont Yes

Washington Yes

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wisconsin Yes

Georgia Department of Agriculture Pesticide Use andApplication Rules, chapter 40-21-9, requires commer-cial and non-commercial applicators to post notifica-

tion signs when applying pesticides to nonresidential proper-ties. Signs are to be posted at the commencement of the ap-plication and removed “the day after the application.” Infor-mation regarding the application is left with the buildingmanager or custodian.11 Georgia Rules and Regulations, sec-tion 620-3-.02(k)(2)(iv), require posting at the primary pointsof entry to the treated area when structural applications ex-tend 6 feet outside of the structure. The building operator is

responsible for providing, upon request, information regard-ing treatment and a copy of the MSDS and the label.

Illinois Lawn Care Products Application and Notice Act,chapter 415 section 65/3 of the Illinois CompliedStatutes, requires an “applicator for hire” to post signs

when applying pesticides to turf or ornamentals. The signmay be removed the following day.11

Indiana Administrative Code, section 1-5-1, requireslicensed applicators for hire to post signs when apply-ing a pesticide to a lawn. The signs are to remain posted

until the following day.11

Table 2. State School Pesticide Policies — Summary


Iowa Administrative Code, section 21-45.50,requires “commercial and public applicators whoapply pesticides within urban areas in munici-

palities” (IOWA ADMIN. CODE r. 21-45.50 (1998)) to postsigns before the commencement of an application to com-mercial or public lawns. Signs must be posted immediatelyadjacent to the treated area and at the entrance to the park,athletic field, playground or “other similar recreational prop-erty.” The sign is to remain posted for at least 24 hours. Struc-tural pesticide applications that occur outside the perimeterof the structure are exempt from this posting requirement.Signs include contact information to receive more informa-tion on the pesticide(s) applied, upon request.11

Kentucky Pesticide Use and Application Act,chapter 217 section 300 of the KentuckyRevised Statutes, requires an applicator for

hire to post signs immediately following a lawn application.The sign is to remain until the following day. 11

Maine Board of Pesticides Control regulations, chapter22 section 2(G), requires certified applicators to postsigns for applications to turf and ornamentals when the

application occurs in an area of “likely human use,” includ-ing any area within 150 feet of a building used for commer-cial or institutional purposes or is “regularly used.” The signmust be posted before the commencement of the applicationand remain for 48 hours.11

Maryland Department of Agriculture PesticideUse Control Regulations, section 15.05.01.15,require licensed or permitted lawn applicators

to post notification signs at the time of application. Signs areto be placed at the entrance to the treated area or if only asmall area is treated, adjacent to the treated area. The sign isto remain posted for 48 hours.11

Massachusetts Code of Regulations, title 333section 13.07(2), requires the commercial orcertified applicator to post signs when appli-

cations are made “for the control of turf pests on public orprivate non-residential properties” (333 CMR § 13.07(2)(1996)). No amount of time for the signs to remain posted isspecified. Signs are required for restricted use as well as gen-eral use pesticides. 11 Massachusetts Code of Regulations, sec-tion 13.05(3)(h), requires the posting of signs at the borderof treated agriculture property 10 hours before aerial applica-tions that occur within 500 feet of a school’s property. Thesign is to remain posted for 48 hours.

Michigan Administrative Code, section 285.637.11,requires commercial applicators applying a broad-cast, foliar or space restricted use pesticides to turf

or ornamentals to post notification signs. Signs are to be postedimmediately following the application and remain posted for24 hours.11

New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, section508.01, requires signs to be posted when commercialapplications are made to turf areas. The signs are to re-

main posted for 48 hours.11

New Jersey Pesticide Control Regulation, section 7:30-9.11(d), requires any commercial pesticide turf orornamental application to school grounds, such as

athletic fields, playgrounds and recreation areas, to post signsat the start of the application. Signs are to remain posted forat least 24 hours at themain entrance points tothat area. Signs includecontact information toget more information onthe pesticide(s) applied.

N e w ␣ Y o r kEnvironmen-tal Conserva-

tion Law, sections 33-09and 33-10, require certi-fied and commercial lawn applicators to post signs for appli-cations made to lawns. Signs are to remain posted for 24 hours.Information regarding the application is available upon re-quest.11

Ohio Rule 901:5-11-09, promulgated under OhioRevised Code chapter 119, requires posting signs forpesticide applications made to public lawns, which

include “school yards.” The sign must remain for at least 24hours after treatment. The sign includes information on howto obtain facts regarding the pesticides used in the application.

Rhode Island Rule T, promulgated by the RhodeIsland Pesticide Control Law, requires signs to beposted before a commercial applicator begins a pes-

ticide application to school grounds, playgrounds or athleticfields. The signs must remain posted for 72 hours. The schoolis responsible for posting the signs. The signs state the nameof the pesticide(s) applied.

Vermont Regulations for Control of Pesticides, sectionIV(8), requires certified commercial and non-commer-cial applicators to post signs at the commencement of a

turf and ornamental application made to “public non-resi-dential properties.” The sign is to remain posted for 24 hours.Such areas that are fenced require posting in the visitor re-ception area and the main employee entrance. Informationregarding the application is available upon request.11

Washington Pesticide Application Act, section17.21.410 of the Revised Code of Washington,requires that an individual, not just a certified

applicator, that applies pesticides to the grounds of a school,nursery school or day-care center, must post a sign at the timeof the application. Details on whom to contact for informationregarding the pesticide application is included on the sign. Nolength of time for the sign to remain posted is specified.

Wisconsin Administrative Code, section 29.56,requires a person applying pesticides to turf orornamentals on “public or commercial facilities,”

parks, workplaces, recreational areas and public lands to postnotification signs. Signs are to be posted prior to commence-ment of the application and remain until sunset the follow-


ing day. The applicator will provide information regardingthe application upon request.11 Farms within 300 feet ofschools, playgrounds and day care facilities must post signsfor restricted entry pesticides during restricted period.

Prior Written Notification␣ OVERVIEW␣Written notification prior to each pesticide use in the schoolsis a good way to make sure that all parents, children andstaff are aware and warned. Limited notification-based reg-istries is a less effectivemeans of notifying peopleand does not qualify asright-to-know because ofits limited scope. Requiringthat individuals placethemselves on registries,sometimes only with adoctor’s letter, affords onlythose who already knowabout toxic exposure theopportunity to be informed about pesticide use in the school.Prior notification should be 72 hours in advance to makesure the information has been received, to get further infor-mation regarding the pesticide and to make arrangementsto avoid the exposure, if necessary. Notification should in-clude the name of the pesticide(s), the day and time, andarea of the application and how to obtain a copy of the MSDSand label.

Nine states have requirements to notify students and/oremployees of the school before a pesticide application isto occur. Arizona and Maryland require that the schoolsgive prior notification to each parent, guardian and staff.This is the most comprehensive and effective approach towritten notification. Arizona is the only state that addresseswhat should be done for students and staff who are notable to attend the school because of the application. WestVirginia requires automatic prior notification of applica-tions of certain pesticides to all employees. Eight statesrequire schools to inform the parent or guardian of theirright, if they choose, to be listed on a registry. Two of thesestates, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, require medical verifi-cation to be listed on a registry. Seven states require bothposting signs and prior notification of a school pesticideapplication, which provides the widest range of notifica-tion activities. Virginia addresses the issue of pre-notify-ing people when pesticides are used in schools but doesnot actually require it. Maine’s requirements enable peopleto request to be notified of an application on property sur-rounding a school.

␣ ST ATE REVIEW␣Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission Rulesand Administrative Regulations, section 32-2307 ofArizona Administrative Code, requires the pest con-

trol operator to notify the school 72 hours before any pesti-cide application and again immediately before the applica-tion is to begin. Arizona Education Code, title 15 section 152,requires the school to then notify parents and staff of the pro-posed pesticide application within 48 hours of the commence-ment of the application. This section of the Education Codealso requires that the governing board of each school districtdevelop a policy and procedure for notifying parents, guard-ians, students and employees during the school’s regular ses-sion, procedures for posting signs to identify pesticide appli-cation areas, and procedures for providing for continuing in-struction for pupils who are absent because of pesticide ap-plications on school property.

Louisiana State Pesticide Law, section 3389 of theLouisiana Revised Statutes, requires all schools tomaintain a pesticide sensitive student registry.

Schools include public or private, day or residential, and el-ementary to secondary schools. Parents must submit in writ-ing their request to be pre-notified. Medical verification of astudent’s sensitivity is also required.

Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and RuralResources, Board of Pesticide Control Regulationschapter 22 section 5, states that an occupant of a sensi-

tive area, including a school, can request to be notified of apesticide application that will occur within 500 feet of aschool’s property. Notification will occur only if the applica-tion is on surrounding land and not when the school itself isapplying the pesticide.

Maryland 1998 House Bill 286, an act concern-ing Public Schools – Integrated Pest Manage-ment, requires 24-hour notice to all parents,

guardians and staff of pesticide application in elementary schoolbuildings. Prior notification includes a statement that warns ofpesticide exposure hazards to pregnant women and infants aswell as a short description of the potential adverse effects ofthe pesticide used. In the case of middle and high schools, thelaw sets up a registry-based notification system. Parents, guard-ians and staff are informed how to be included on the registryat the beginning of each school year. A person on the registrywill be notified at least 24 hours before a pesticide is applied inthe school building. In addition to the registry, middle and highschools are required “to develop an appropriate means of in-school notification to students and staff members before a pes-ticide is applied” (1998 Md. Law 286 § 1(I)(4)). Written noti-fication, one week in advance of an application, will be givento everyone in the school when a space spraying applicationoccurs in a school building. Before a bait station is used, schoolsmust develop a method of “in-school” notification. If an emer-gency pesticide application occurs, notification is given within24 hours after the application.

Massachusetts Code of Regulations, title 333,section 13.10(3)(c), states that when pesticidesare applied to public buildings, including

schools, day care centers, nursery schools, and institutions,by commercial applicators, the applicator must provide prior

Written notification prior

to each pesticide use

in the schools is a

good way to make

sure that all parents,

children and staff are

aware and warned.


notification to any person who requests it. There are no spe-cifics on how long before the application notification will beor notification procedures.

Michigan Regulation No. 637, Pesticide Use,section 285.637.15 of the Michigan Administra-tive Code, requires the school district’s adminis-

trator to provide written information to parents or guardiansof students of the school or day-care center on how to beincluded on the list for prior notification. This information isgiven at the beginning of the school year, in September for aday-care center, or when a new student enrolls. Prior notifi-cation is provided by mail or by telephone and given the daybefore the application. During the months when school isnot in regular session, school administrators may utilize amessage notification system.

New Jersey Pesticide Control Regulation, section7:30-9.12, states that “a person” may request to benotified prior to any pesticide application made to a

school’s structure, turf or ornamentals. No specific notifica-tion times are indicated.

Pennsylvania Code sections 128.111 and128.112, describes the rules and regulationspromulgated under the Pesticide Control Act

regarding the pesticide sensitivity registry, which includesprior notification for one’s residence, work and school. Pesti-cides applied within 500 feet of or on the school property,elementary, secondary or day care center, by a commercial orpublic pesticide applicator, are covered by the law. A physi-cian must verify a person’s sensitivity to pesticides in order tobe on the registry. Notification will be made between 12 and72 hours before the application begins. Notification of pesti-cides will not occur for tamper resistant bait stations.

Texas Structural Pest Control Board Regulations,section 595.8(c), requires schools, educational in-stitutions and day care centers to inform parents or

guardians of students in writing that pesticides are periodicallyapplied indoors and that notification of the times and types ofapplications is available upon request. This notification is madewhen the student registers, at the beginning of the school yearor whenever a student enrolls. The regulation does not specifythe period of time for notification although sign posting require-ments call for signs to be posted at least 48 hours in advance.School official, employees or parents may request 24-hourprior notice of agricultural spraying within 1⁄4 mile of school.

Virginia does not have specific laws regardingpesticides and schools. However, the Pesti-cide Control Board has adopted a resolution,

“Virginia Control Board’s Recommended Procedures for Post-ing and Notification of Pesticides Applications In and AroundSchools” which states that schools should consider establish-ing notification and posting requirements.

West Virginia, Legislative Rule 61-12J section 8.1.2,requires that all schools and day care centersnotify employees at least 24 hours before an ap-

plication of higher toxicity pesticides, identified by the state

as level 3 and 4. Sections 8.2. and 8.3 require that at the be-ginning of every school year, or at the time a student enrolls,for schools and day care centers, school administrators mustnotify parents or guardians of their right to be informed whenlevel 3 or 4 pesticides are applied. If a parent or legal guard-ian request to be notified, the school official must do so 24hours prior to the application.

Prohibitions on Use␣ OVERVIEW␣Limiting 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 employees arein the area or may be in the area within at least 24 hours of theapplication. Seven states specifically restrict the type and timingof pesticides that may be used in a school. In reality, certain typesof pesticides, such as carcinogens, endocrine disrupters, repro-ductive toxins, developmental toxins, neurotoxins, persistentcompounds and substances, bioaccumulative compounds andsubstances, toxicity category 1 acutely toxic pesticides and groundwater contaminants should not be used around children. Spraysinvade the indoor ambient environment. Baits must be evalu-ated carefully for off-gassing or volatility.

␣ ST ATE REVIEW␣Louisiana Pesticide Law, section 3384 of theLouisiana Revised Statutes, states that restricteduse pesticides applications are not allowed if stu-

dents will be within the school or on the school’s grounds fornormal school activities for at least 8 hours after the applica-tion occurs. Schools include public or private, day or resi-dential, and elementary to secondary schools.

Michigan Administrative Code, regulation no. 637Pesticide Use, section 285.637.15, restricts thetype of pesticides to be used in and around schools

and day-care facilities. Neither liquid spray nor aerosol in-secticide can be used in a school unless the area is unoccu-pied by students at least 4 hours after the application. It alsodoes not permit outdoor ornamental and turf applications ofliquid spray pesticides be made within 100 feet of an occu-pied room or building during school hours or when peopleare using the application area.

New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, section506.09(b) and (c), states that pesticides are not to beapplied in sensitive areas, such as school buildings, play-

grounds, athletic fields and any other property of the school“where exposure to the pesticide(s) may have an adverse ef-fect on human health, wildlife, and the environment” (N.H.CODE ADMIN. R. DIV. PEST. CNTRL. § 506.09(b) (1998)).

New Jersey Administrative Code, section 30-10.3(1),restricts when or where pesticides may be used. Itstates that no pesticide applications, except rodenti-

cides, roach baits and antimicrobial agents can be appliedwithin any school’s (preschool to 12th grade) property, duringthe school’s normal hours. “After normal school hours, ap-


STATE

Alabama

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Montana

New Hampshire

BUFFER ZONES

Aerial spraying,400 feet.

Ground & aerialspraying, 1⁄4 mile,certainpesticides.

Aerialapplications,1000 feet, duringschool hours.

POSTING SIGNS2

Indoor & Outdoor, eachschool district authority to setup posting requirements foreach school.

Outdoor and structuralapplications made to perimeterof school building.

Outdoor, prior posting.

Indoor, prior posting, remainfor 24 hours.Outdoor and application toperimeter— prior posting andremain until following day.

Outdoor, posted sign removedfollowing day.

Indoor & Outdoor, post priorto application & remain for 48hours.

Indoor, “in-school notification”in middle & high schools. “inschool notification” for baitstations used in elementary &secondary schools.Outdoor, post signs at time ofapplication, remain 48 hours.

Indoor, post signs beforeapplication.Outdoor, lawn postingrequired. Post 10 hours priorto aerial agriculturalapplication, remain 48 hours.

Indoor, post sign afterapplication, remain for 48hours.Outdoor, post sign afterapplication, remain for 24hours.

Indoor, post sign at time ofapplication, remain “until dry.”

Outdoor, signs posted for 24hours.

PRIORNOTIFICATION

Parents & staff,automatic 48 hournotice.

Student registry,medical verificationrequired, no timespecified.

Elementary school,automatic 24 hournotice.Middle & highschool, registry, 24hour notice.

Student &employee registry,no time specified.

Student registry, 24hour notice.

IPM

Requires

Defines,only

Recommends

Recommends

Recommends

Requires

Defines,only

Training,only

Recommends

PROHIBITION OF USE

Indoor & outdoor applicationsof restricted use pesticides,entry restricted for 8 hoursafter application

Indoor, spray or aerosolinsecticides, entry restrictedfor 4 hours after application.Outdoor, prohibits liquidspray, 100 feet outside ofoccupied area.

Pesticides cannot be applied“where exposure may havean adverse effect on humanhealth.”

Table 3. How States Around the Country Protect Children from Pesticide Exposure in Schools1

Aerial spraying,duringcommuting hours,outdoor activity,in sensitive areas.


STATE BUFFER ZONES POSTING SIGNS2 PRIORNOTIFICATION

IPMPROHIBITION OF USE

Indoor, permanent posting atcentral bulletin board & statesthe next application date.Outdoor, post sign at start ofapplication & remain postedfor 24 hours.

Indoor, post sign 48 hoursprior to application, nospecifics on time to remainposted.

Indoor, day care centers mustpost sign 24 hours prior toapplication, no specifics ontime to remain posted.

Outdoor, post prior untilsunset next day.Farms within 300 feet ofschool, during duration ofrestricted entry pesticides.

Student &employee registry.Warning for indoor& outdoorapplications. Notime specified.

Student &employee registry,indoor & outdoorschool applications& within 500 feet ofschool property, 12to 72 hour warning.

Student registry,indoor applications,no time specified.School official,employees, parents,24-hour notices,farm sprayingwithin 1⁄4 mile ofschool.

Day care employees,automatic 24 hournotice, level 3 or 4pesticide.Student registry,schools & day carecenters, 24 hourwarning of level 3or 4 pesticide.

No pesticide is permitted tobe applied during normalschool hours. After normalhours, applications canoccur if not in use for timeneeded for product to dry,settle.

No applications in “commonaccess areas” during normalschool hours orextracurricular activities, 7hours restricted entry afterapplication.

Pesticides are grouped intoGreen, Yellow & Red Lists.No indoor application ofcertain Green List whenstudents in area. OtherGreen List & Yellow & RedLists, restrict entry for 12hours after application.Outdoor applications, GreenList – students must be 10feet away, Yellow List - 10feet away & 12 hoursrestricted entry, red list 50feet away & 12 hoursrestricted entry.

Pesticides are grouped intolevels. Students &employees restrict entry for4 hours after level 3pesticide & 8 hours afterlevel 4 pesticide.

New Jersey

North Carolina

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Texas

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Requires

Defines,only

Requires

Requires

Ground & aerialgypsy mothapplications,during commutinghours, 2 milesgrade school, 2 1⁄2miles high school.Any aerialapplication, 300feet.

Aerial sprayingwithin 300 feet ofschool.

1 This analysis reviews what each state is required to do under its statutes and regulations. It does not fully examine all the administrative materials thatmay have been developed by the states or local policies adopted within the states.

2 The following 10 states require posting notification signs for outdoor lawn applications: California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, New York,Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. These states are not included because this is the only requirement the states have adopted to protectchildren and staff while at school.


plications can be made in areas where students will not con-tact treated areas until sufficient time is allowed for the pesti-cide to dry or settle or longer if the label requires” (N.J.ADMIN. CODE tit. 7 §30-10.3 (l) (1997)).

Pennsylvania Codes, title 7, section 128.106,restricts the timing of pesticide applications inschools, elementary and secondary, and day care

centers. It states that pesticides cannot be applied in “a commonaccess area” of a school when students are expected to use thespace within seven hours during school hours or organized ex-tracurricular activities. “Common access areas” include areaswhere normal activity to “congregate, assemble or frequent.”

Texas Structural Pest Control Board Regulations,section 595.11, classifies pesticides by their EPAtoxicity category and are color coded, green, yel-

low and red. Each color represents different precautions andreentry times. Some Green List pesticides may not be appliedwhen students are in the application area. All other GreenList pesticides, Yellow list pesticides and Red list pesticidescan only be applied 12 hours before students will be in thearea of application. For outdoor applications, Green List pes-ticides can only be applied if students will be at least 10 feetfrom the application site. Yellow List pesticides can only beapplied if students will be at least 10 feet from the applicationsite for the following 12 hours. Red List pesticides can onlybe applied if students will be at least 50 feet from the applica-tion site for the next 12 hours.

West Virginia Legislative Rules, title 61 section12J-7.1.3.c and 12J-7.1.4.c, require students andemployees to remain out of application areas based

on deferred levels of toxicity and application method. Level 3pesticides require a four hour waiting period during whichstudents and employees must remain out of treated areas. Level4 pesticides require at least an eight-hour waiting period. Sec-tion 12J.9 states that employees and students of schools andday care centers must not be present at the time of a pesticideapplication, but that “pesticides may be applied to a localizedarea of infestation when students, children or school and daycare center employees are present if the infestation causes animminent threat of bodily harm” (W.VA. CODE ST. R. tit 61 §12J.9.1 (1996)).

Integrated Pest Management␣ OVERVIEW␣A good integrated pest management (IPM) program can elimi-nate the unnecessary application of synthetic, volatile pesti-cides in schools. The main elements of a good IPM programinclude: 1) monitoring to establish whether there is a pestproblem, 2) identifying the causes of the pest problem, 3)addressing the cause by changing conditions to prevent prob-lems, and 4) utilizing pest suppression techniques, if neces-sary, that are based on mechanical and biological controls.An IPM policy should include a written policy guide and aprohibited and acceptable materials list. Materials that couldbe considered after using other methods include boric acid

and disodium octoborate tetrahydrate, silica gels, diatoma-ceous earth, nonvolatile insect and rodent baits in tamper re-sistant containers or for crack and crevice placement only,microbe-based insecticides, botanical insecticides (not includ-ing synthetic pyrethriods) without toxic synergists, and bio-logical (living) control agents.

A strong IPM definition and policy is one of the best waysto minimize or eliminate children’s exposure to pesticideswhile at school. IPM is a term that is used loosely with manydifferent definitions and methods of implementation. Manystates have supporting material describing their IPM plan,which details the principles of IPM where the statute or lawdoes not. Thirteen statesdefine, recommend or re-quire IPM in their statepesticide statutes or regu-lations. Of these, only fivestates (Connecticut,Maryland, Oregon, Texas,and West Virginia) re-quire IPM in the schools.Four states (Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, and Montana) recom-mend IPM. Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania law de-fine IPM, but do not require implementation of it in theirschools. Michigan requires school pesticide applicators to betrained in IPM. Many of the statutes and regulations mandatethat the specific details of the program be developed admin-istratively. If you live in one of these states listed below, con-tact your school district or state government to see if andhow IPM is being implemented. It is important to get a strongdefinition adopted for effective management.

␣ ST ATE OVERVIEW␣Connecticut Pesticide Control Act, section 22a-66lof Connecticut General Statutes, requires thedevelopment of a policy for each state department,

agency or institution to use IPM. The definition of IPM, foundin Public Act No. 97-242, is vague and does not emphasizemonitoring and other controls to eliminate pests. Connecti-cut Public Act No. 98-229 requires the Commissioner of En-vironmental Protection to prepare an IPM plan and right-to-know feasibility study.

Florida Statutes, chapter 482, section 021(14), definesIPM to maximize use of naturally occuring pestcontrols. Not required to be used in schools.

Illinois Structural Pest Control Act, section 235/3.25of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, has a very thoroughdefinition of IPM. The act defines IPM as “a pest man-

agement system that includes the following elements: a) iden-tifying of pests and their natural enemies; b) establishing anongoing monitoring and record keeping system for regularsampling and assessment of pest and natural enemy popula-tions; c) determining the pest population levels that can betolerated based on aesthetic, economic, and health concerns,and setting action thresholds where pest populations or envi-ronmental conditions warrant remedial action; d) the preven-

Limiting when and what

pesticides are applied in

and around schools is

important to the reduction

of pesticide exposure.


tion of pest problems through improved sanitation, manage-ment of waste, addition of physical barriers, and the modifi-cation of habitats that attract or harbor pests; 5) reliance tothe greatest extent possible on nontoxic, biological, culturalor mechanical pest management methods, or on the use of natu-ral control agents; 6) when necessary, the use of chemical pes-ticides, with preference for products that are the least harmfulto human health and the environment; and 7) record keepingand reporting of pest populations, surveillance techniques, andremedial actions taken (225 ILL. COMP. STAT235/3.25 (1997)). Section 235/10.2 of the Struc-tural Pest Control Act requires the Departmentof Public Health to prepare IPM guidelines forschool buildings and property. The schools arethen encouraged to adopt these guidelines andhave a designated person, a specialist, to over-see the implementation in the school. It alsostates that the Department of Public Health maydevelop a training program for the designatedspecialists.

Louisiana Pesticide Law, section 3382-3388 of theLouisiana Revised Statutes, discusses primary andsecondary school pesticide safety by encouraging

least toxic alternatives to pesticides. The law does not defineIPM directly. Instead, “least toxic method is the integral part ofan integrated pest management plan that may include pest con-trol other than the application of pesticides” (LA. REV. STAT. §3385 (1996)) and goes on to discuss the main points of an IPMprogram. Schools are encouraged to adopt “the least toxicmethod of pest control.” Section 3386 of the law states thatpest management at schools must be done by a trained IPMapplicator. Annually, each school authority is to develop andsubmit a plan on how IPM will be implemented for schoolstructures and property. This plan as well as a written record ofall restricted use pesticides used is available to the public.

Maine Board of Pesticides Control, title 22 section 1471-X of the Maine Revised Statutes, includes ambiguouslanguage regarding the state’s IPM policy. Neither the

laws nor the regulations specifically require or suggest thatschools should adopt principles of IPM. The law and regula-tions do not define IPM. The law does state that “it is thepolicy of the State to work to find ways to use the minimumamounts of pesticides. The agencies of the State involved inthe regulation or use of pesticides shall promote the prin-ciples and implementation of integrated pest management,”and goes on to state that “these agencies, in cooperation withprivate interest groups, shall work to educate pesticide usersand the general public in the proper use of pesticides and todetermine other actions needed to accomplish the state policy”(ME. REV. STAT. tit. 22 §1471-X (1998)).

Maryland 1998 House Bill 286, entitled PublicSchools – Integrated Pest Management, priori-tizes non-chemical solutions, stating that IPM

uses “one or more pest control methods including sanitation,structural repair, nonchemical methods and when nontoxic

options are unreasonable or have been exhausted, pesticides”(1998 Md. Law 286 § (A)(6)). This law requires the Mary-land Department of Agriculture to develop uniform standardsand criteria for implementing IPM and the county boards willthen implement its schools procedures once approved by thesecretary. A person is designated to maintain and make avail-able information on the pesticides that may be used.

Massachusetts Code of Regulations, section11.05(2)(h), defines IPM, giving equal weightto chemical pest management controls and the

use of alternative pest control methods, whilenot addressing monitoring. For VegetationManagement Plans, applicants wanting tospray rights-of-way must submit to the depart-ment every five years, “a description of IPMprograms or other techniques/programs tominimize the amount and frequency of herbi-cide applications” (333CMR §11.05(2)(h)(1996)). Although this does not directly in-clude schools, it would be relevant if this type

of area bordered school grounds. All plans must go through apublic hearing and comment process. Massachusetts PesticideBureau in the Department of Food and Agriculture has produceda booklet on IPM, which includes a section on implementingIPM in school buildings.

Michigan has one of the weaker official definitions of IPM. For a pesticide application inschools, the applicator must be trained in IPM. De-

tailed elements of the training, found in Regulation No. 637Pesticide Use, section 285.637.14 of the Michigan Administra-tive Code, are similar to the main methods associated with IPM,but does not give priority to non-chemical approaches.

Montana Model School Integrated Pest andPesticide Safety Program Act directs theMontana Department of Agriculture to es-

tablish a model IPM program and encourages its adoption byschools and day care centers. Through this act, the Depart-ment in cooperation with the Montana Cooperative Exten-sion Service and the Montana Model School Technical Work-ing Group developed IPM program guidelines, as well as anIPM study manual for pesticide applicators in schools. IPM isnot defined in the act but is defined thoroughly in the pro-gram guidelines and manual.

Oregon State Pesticide Control Act, section634.660 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, definesIPM without giving priority to non-chemical pest

management methods. The following agencies are requiredto implement IPM: “State Department of Agriculture, includ-ing the control of noxious weeds, State Department of Fishand Wildlife, Department of Transportation, State Parks andRecreation Department, State Forestry Department, Depart-ment of Corrections, Oregon Division of Administrative Ser-vices and each Oregon institution of higher education, forthe institution’s own building and grounds maintenance” (OR.REV. STAT. § 634.660 (1995)). A person is designated from


each agency to coordinate the IPM program for that agency.It also requires that each person responsible for pest manage-ment in each agency is trained in IPM.

Pennsylvania’s definition of IPM,found in title7 section 128.2 of the Pennsylvania Codes, doesnot give non-chemical pest control methods pri-

ority and does not discuss monitoring. There are no require-ments or recommendations to use IPM in schools.

Texas Structural Pest Control Board Regulations,section 595.11, require each school district toadopt IPM policies and designate an IPM coordina-

tor who has taken special IPM training courses. Each schoolboard’s adopted policy is on file with the district superinten-dent and IPM coordinator. Each policy must base its IPM defi-nition on the one defined by the US EPA. The definition shouldinclude strategies that rely on the best combination of pestmanagement tactics that are compatible with human healthand environmental protection, use of non-chemical manage-ment strategies whenever practical and preferential use ofleast-toxic chemical controls.

West Virginia Legislative Rules, title 61 section12J-3, defines IPM, but does not prioritize alterna-tive pest control methods in its definition. Title 61

section 12J of the Legislative Rules also establishes proce-

dures to provide IPM in schools and day care centers. Theschools must then file plans with the Commissioner. The WVDepartment of Agriculture has produced an IPM guide forschools and other buildings.

ConclusionIf we do not want to harm or poison our children, our lawsshould reflect this. This review is intended to serve as a guideto move states and localities forward in their efforts to pro-tect children. While the review shows that over half the stateshave taken some action, it describes limited action. Nearlyhalf the states are silent on these critical issues. The federalgovernment has neglected the entire issue and turned its backon children and the daily pesticide assault in the schools. Thedegree of state activity suggests a level of concern that canand should lead to increased protection in the future.

For information on the above discussed statutes and regu-lations, local governments and school districts that havepassed school policies, and tools on how to get such policiesat the state or local level adopted, please contact NCAMP.

Kagan Owens is information coordinator at the National Coali-tion Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP). Jay Feldman isNCAMP’s executive director.

Endnotes1 National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Pes-

ticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press, 1993.

2 The use of the word “address” casts a wide net of recommendedand required activities. States include Arizona, Connecticut,Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Penn-sylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.

3 Calabreses, E.J., Age and Susceptibility to Toxic Substances, JohnWiley & Sons, 1986; Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC),Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children’s Food, February, 1989;Spyker, J.M. and D.L. Avery, “Neurobehavioral Effects of Prena-tal Exposure to the Organophosphate Diazinon in Mice,” Jour-nal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 3:989-1002, 1977;Paigen, B., “Children and Toxic Chemical” Journal of PesticideReform, Summer 1986.

4 Volberg, D.I., et al., Pesticides in Schools: Reducing the Risks, Rob-ert Abrams, Attorney General of the New York State, New YorkState Department of Law, Environmental Protection Bureau, NewYork, March 1993; Bushnell, P.J., et al., “Behavioral and Neuro-chemical Effects of Acute Chlorpyrifos in Rates: Tolerance toProlonged Inhibition of Chloinesterase,” Journal of Pharmacol-ogy. Exper. Thera. 266(2):1007-1017, 1993.

5 Paigen, B., “Children and Toxic Chemical” Journal of PesticideReform, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Sum-mer 1986.

6 S.K. Hoar, et al., “Agricultural Herbicide Use and a Risk of Lym-phoma and Soft-Tissue Sarcoma,” Journal of the American Medi-cal Association, 256(9):1141-1147, 1986; Wigle, D.T., et al., “Mor-tality Study of Canadian Farm Operators: Non-Hodgkin’s Lym-phoma Mortality and Agricultural Practices in Saskatchewan,”Journal of the National Cancer Institute 82(7):575-582, 1990;Woods, J.S. “Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Among Phecoxy Herbi-cide-Exposed Farm Workers in Western Washington State.Chemosphere 18(1-6):401-406, 1989; Zahm, S.H., et al., “A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and the Herbicide2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) in Eastern Nebraska” Epi-demiology. 1(5):349-356, 1990.

7 Gold, E. et al., “Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Children,”American Journal of Epidemiology 109(3):309-319, 1979;Lowngart, R. et al., “Childhood Leukemia and Parents’ Occupa-tional and Home Exposures,” Journal of the National Cancer In-stitute 79:39, 1987; Reeves, J.D., “Household Insecticide-Associ-ated Blood Dyscrasias in Children,” (letter) American Journal ofPediatric Hematology/Oncology 4:438-439, 1982; Davis, J.R. etal., “Family Pesticide Use and Childhood Brain Cancer,” Arch.Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24:87-92, 1993;Leiss, J.K. and D.A. Savitz, “Home Pesticide Use and ChildhoodCancer: A Case-Control Study,” American Journal of Public Health85:249-252, 1995.

8 Vasselinovitch, S.D., et al., “Neoplastic Response of Mouse Tis-sues During Perinatal Age Periods and Its Significance in Chemi-cal Carcinogenesis,” Perinatal Carcinogenesis, National Cancer In-stitute Monograph 51, 1979.

9 Material Safety Data Sheets are regulated by the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration and detail the hazards of theproduct ingredients. MSDS’s are sometimes limited by the factthat they are completed by the product manufacturer.

10 Restricted use pesticides is “determined by the U.S. EPA or astate agency. [It is] a pesticide which is available for purchaseand use only by certified pesticide applicators or persons undertheir direct supervision. This group of pesticides is not availablefor use by the general public,” as defined in Farm ChemicalsHandbook ’98, Willoughby, OH: Meister Publishing Company,1998.

11 Although states in this category do not specify schools outrightin its definition of lawn, school grounds are included. The 16states in this category include Colorado, Connecticut,Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, NewYork, Vermont and Wisconsin.

12 The restricted-entry interval is “the time which must elapse af-ter pesticide application before it is safe to enter the treated areawithout wearing protective clothing and equipment,” as definedin Farm Chemicals Handbook ’98, Willoughby, OH: Meister Pub-lishing Company, 1998. “Safe” is loosely used here. The statu-tory standard is interpreted by EPA to allow for “acceptable risks.”

Resources


1996 Toxic ReleaseInventory: Public DataRelease - Ten Years ofRight to Know

(EPA, Officeof PesticideP r o g r a m s ,May 1998).This docu-ment reportson wastemanagementactivities andtoxic chemi-cal releases

from federal facilities and manufacturersaround the U.S. for the year 1996. It dis-closes where toxic chemical releases werein the greatest and least amounts in thenation, as well as identifies specific fac-tories in an area. In response to the fatalchemical release accident in Bhopal, In-dia, the Emergency Planning and Com-munity Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) es-tablished the Toxic Release Inventory(TRI). Since TRI reporting was firstimplemented in 1987, reporting of toxicchemical use has doubled, while actualindustrial on- and off-site releases oftoxic chemicals has decreased by almost50%, or by 1.5 billion pounds. All manu-facturing and federal facilities with 10 ormore full-time employees must reporttheir releases, transfers and waste man-agement quantities. Each reporting facil-ity must also have thresholds of 25,00pounds for manufacturing and process-ing each listed chemical or 10,000pounds for otherwise using each listedchemical. Chemical releases to air, wa-ter, land, and injection wells are reportedseparately. The data disclosed in this re-port is represented in numerous graphsand tables. Amounts of chemicals trans-ferred off-site for recycling, energy recov-ery, treatment, and disposal are also in-cluded. For a copy (408pp), contact U.S.EPA EPCRA Hotline, 800-424-9346, EPAdocument # 745-R-98-005, or see websitehttp://www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri.

Plagued by Pesticides( E n v i r o n -mental Advo-cates and NYPublic Inter-est ResearchGroup, Octo-ber 1998).The highestlevel of pesti-cide use inNew York is

taking place in the areas of the highesthuman population: New York City andthe surrounding region, including LongIsland. This is according to Plagued byPesticides, which is an analysis of pesti-cide use in the state of New York, basedon the 1997 data released in July 1998by the State Department of Environmen-tal Conservation. In total, 16.7 millionpounds and 2.4 million gallons of pesti-cides were used in the state in 1997. Amajor finding documents that statewidenonagricultural pesticide use is higherthan agricultural use. According to thereport, over 30% of the pesticides usedin the state contain carcinogens. The re-port explains several reasons why pesti-cides are hazardous and gives a brief ex-planation of key elements of the FoodQuality Protection Act. For a copy (38pp),send $10ppd to NYPIRG, 107 WashingtonAvenue, Albany, NY 12210, 518-436-0876.

Poisoning the Air:Airborne Pesticides inCalifornia

(Californians forPesticide Re-form (CPR) andCALPIRG, 1998).W h i l e ␣ m a n ypeople are awareof pesticide resi-dues in food andwater, CPR andCALPIRG show

that pesticides also linger in the air webreathe. In California, the Toxic Air Con-

taminant Program (TACP), enacted in1983, monitors air pollutants but cur-rently only tests for 26 of the over 100pesticides ranked as potential air con-taminants. The TACP is also supposedto rank chemicals according to humantoxicity, and then take action to regulatethose that are the most harmful. How-ever, CPR and CALPIRG found that, asof now, only the insecticide ethyl par-athion has been subjected to a completereview under this program. The reportalso asserts that pesticides may be car-ried in wind for miles and are very likelybeing inhaled by several million peoplein California. According to the report, thefumigant methyl bromide, used prima-rily for weed control, can seep into theair in homes even when the windows areclosed. For a copy (30pp), send $10ppd toCALPIRG, 450 Geary Street, Ste 500, SanFrancisco, CA 94102, 415-292-1487,[email protected], or CPR, 49 Powell Street,Ste 530, San Francisco, CA, 94102, 415-981-3939, [email protected].

Natural EnemiesHandbook: theIllustrated Guide toBiological Pest Control

Mary LouiseFlint and SteveDreistadt. (Uni-versity of Cali-fornia, 1998).The 180 colorp h o t o g r a p h sand 140 linedrawings makethis handbook

an essential guide in finding, identifyingand using natural enemies to controlpests on farms, gardens and many land-scape situations. The text begins with anoverview of the benefits of biologicalcontrol and a ‘quick guide.’ The ‘quickguide’ lists specific pests, their corre-sponding natural enemies and page num-bers to find more detailed informationin the following chapters. The remain-

Resources


ing chapters specifically address biologi-cal controls for plant pathogens, nema-todes, weeds, and arthropods. Not onlydo these chapters identify natural en-emies, but they also discuss how to ef-fectively use them in different settings.The handbook explains life cycles, habi-tats and other important details regard-ing the biological control species. Infor-mation covering arthropods is the mostextensive, with over half the text specifi-cally discussing their parasites, preda-tors, and pathogens. For example, theTrichogramma nubilale has been success-ful in controlling the European cornborer. Mosquitoes can be controlled withmicrobial insecticides Bacillus sphaericus,Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. Israelensis, andLagenidium giganteum, predatory flies,phantom midges, predatory mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis and aquatic preda-ceous bugs and beetles. The text also dis-cusses how natural enemies are oftensusceptible to pesticides. The back of thetext contains a supplier list, cited refer-ences and a comprehensive index. Thisexcellent resource would be useful forany farmer or gardener looking for alter-natives to pesticides.

For a copy (154 pp.) send $35ppd toUniversity of California, Division of Agri-culture and Natural Resources, 6701 SanPablo,Ave, Oakland, CA 94608, 510-642-2431, 800-994-8849, [email protected],http://www.ipm.usdavis.edu

Passing Grade:A Report on PesticideUse in Maryland Schools

Lea Johnston,(MaryPIRG, Sep-tember 1998).MaryPIRG inves-tigated pesticideuse in Marylandschools (prior tothe new prior-notification and

pesticide reduction law passed Spring1998) and found that many of the schools’policies are protective, but there is stillroom for improvement. Though routinespraying is not common, some highlytoxic pesticides are still used. MaryPIRGcollected information from 17 of the 24school districts, and of these, 18% re-ported using probable or known carcino-gens, 88% reported using possible car-cinogens and reproductive toxins, and41% used nerve toxins. The 17 districtsthat responded to the inquiry encompass988 schools in urban, suburban, and ru-ral areas. Twelve school districts submit-ted their integrated pest management(IPM) plans, but 42% of these plans didnot mention reducing outdoor pesticideuse, such as on playing fields. As of Spring1998, Maryland Public Assembly passedHB 286 which requires prior notificationof pesticide applications to staff and par-ents, and IPM plans that include pesti-cide use only “when nontoxic options areunreasonable or have been exhausted,” inelementary schools for the school year1999-2000. As of the time this report waswritten, only 24% of the schools were of-fering prior notification, so activists hopethat implementation of the 1998 law willraise this number to 100% and decreasetoxic hazards in Maryland schools. Anappendix charts each school district’s in-dividual responses on chemicals used. Fora copy (22pp), send $20ppd to MaryPIRG,3121 St. Paul Street, Suite 26, Baltimore,MD 21218, 410-467-0439, [email protected], http://www.pirg.org/marypirg.

Tobacco, Farmersand Pesticides:The Other Story(Pesticide Action Network, NorthAmerica Regional Center (PANNA), May1998). A timely background paper giventhe current sanctions against the tobaccoindustry, PANNA points out that addic-tion to nicotine is not tobacco’s only

harmful effect. According to thefactsheet, at least 25.6 million pounds ofpesticides are used on tobacco each yearin the U.S., and 450 different pesticideproducts are registered for use on tobaccoby the EPA. This ranks tobacco amongthe top crops regularly sprayed with pes-ticides. It is also a very valuable crop: in1995 it was the seventh largest cash cropin the U.S. Many of the pesticides usedon tobacco are toxic to wildlife includ-ing insecticides aldicarb and ethoprop.In 1997, over 5.5 million pounds of me-thyl bromide were applied to tobaccofields worldwide, according to PANNA.Now tobacco companies are moving todeveloping countries to produce the cropmore cheaply, often to places with fewerrestrictions on pesticide use and lowerlabor standards. This is alarming be-cause, for example, an instruction leaf-let distributed to Kenyan farmers recom-mends 16 separate pesticide applicationsper three month growing season. “Oversix million tons of tobacco are grown inthe developing world” according toPANNA. Many times pesticide labels arenot written in the native language of theuser or the users are illiterate, so theyare left unaware of the toxic dangers ofthe pesticides. Also, protective gear is ex-pensive and too hot to wear in warm cli-mates. It is not uncommon to see tobaccogrowers in shorts and t-shirts while mix-ing or applying pesticides.

Of course this means even more of apublic health concern for smokers aswell: smokers may be inhaling pesticidesresidues because the USDA only tests onesample for every 100,000 pounds of pro-cessed tobacco. The agency also onlytests for residues of chemicals no longerused in the U.S., with no tests being donefor chemicals legally registered for useon tobacco in the U.S. For a free copy(6pp), contact PANNA, 49 Powell Street,San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-981-1771,[email protected], or get it from theirwebsite at http://panna.org/panna.

NCAMP MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS

❏ YES, make me a member of NCAMP (includes subscription to Pesticides & You).❏ $25 Individual ❏ $30 All Volunteer Organizations ❏ $50 Public Interest Organizations ❏ $15 Limited Income

❏ YES, I’d like to subscribe to Pesticides & You.❏ $25 Individual ❏ $50 Government ❏ $100 Corporate

❏ YES, I’d like to receive NCAMP’s monthly Technical Report. $20 with membership.If outside the United States, please add $10.00 each for memberships and subscriptions.

R E S O U R C E ST-Shirts❏ NEW – “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green, blue and peach

on 100% natural organic cotton. $18 each; two for $30.❏ Tell the world that FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT in teal,

purple, and yellow. On 100% natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.Bumper Sticker❏ “Is Your Lawn Toxic Green?” White letters on green background.❏ FREEDOM FROM PESTICIDES IS EVERY BODY’S RIGHT. White letters on blue.

Stickers $2.00 each ($.50 each when ordering 100+)Books❏ A Failure to Protect. Landmark study of federal government pesticide use and

pest management practices. $23.00. Summary and Overview $5.00.❏ The Chemical-Free Lawn: The newest varieties and techniques to grow lush,

hardy grass with no pesticides no herbicides, no chemical fertilizers. By WarrenSchultz. Published by Rodale Press. $17.95 (14.95 + $3.00 shipping).

❏ Unnecessary Risks: The Benefit Side of the Risk-Benefit Equation.Understand how the EPA’s Risk-Benefit Analyses falsely assume the need forhigh-risk pesticides. Explains how “benefits” are inflated, how alternativesmight be assessed, and the public’s right to ask more from its regulators. $10.00.

❏ Safety at Home: A Guide to the Hazards of Lawn andGarden Pesticides and Safer Ways to Manage Pests.Learn more about: the toxicity of common pesticides; non-toxic lawn care; whycurrent laws offer inadequate protection. $11.00

❏ Voices for Pesticide Reform: The Case for Safe Practices and Sound Policy. Newstudy documenting stories of tragic pesticide poisoning and contamination, andsuccessfully used alternatives that avoid toxic chemicals. $20.00

❏ Poison Poles: Their Toxic Trail and the Safer Alternatives. New study on largestgroup of pesticides, wood preservatives, and contamination associated withtreated wood utility poles, and the availability of alternatives. $22.00

Compilations❏ Pesticides and You, 1981 - 1991

450 pages, with comprehensive index. $50.00❏ NCAMP’S Technical Reports, 1986-1990. $50.00Brochures ($2.00 each; bulk discounts available)

❏ Pest Control Without Toxic Chemicals❏ Least Toxic Control of Lawn Pests❏ Agriculture: Soil Erosion, Pesticides, Sustainability❏ Organic Gardening: Sowing the Seeds of Safety❏ Estrogenic Pesticides❏ Pesticides and Your Fruits and Vegetables❏ Pesticides: Are you being poisoned without your knowledge?❏ Pesticides in Our Homes and SchoolsTestimony❏ Children & Pesticides, 9/13/90 $4.00❏ Lawn Care Chemicals, 5/9/91 $4.00❏ FIFRA - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 6/8/93 $4.00❏ Food Safety, 8/2/93 $3.00❏ National Organic Standards Board, 10/13/94 $4.00❏ Food Quality Protection Act, 6/7/95 $4.00Other❏ NCAMP’s Pesticide Chemical FactSheets; individual: $2.00, book: $20.00❏ Least Toxic Control of Pests Factsheets $6.00❏ Taking Action to Control Pesticides and

Promote Alternatives – “How-To” series $5.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance $5.00❏ Pesticides and Schools: A Collection of Issues and Articles $15.00

Method of Payment: ❏ Check or money order ❏ VISA/Mastercard # ___________________________ Expiration Date: ________

Name Phone Fax

Title (if any) Organization (if any)

Street City State Zip

Quantity Item Description (for T-shirts, please note size S,M,L,XL) Unit Price Total

MEMBERSHIP

Mail to: NCAMP, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Tax-Deductible Donation: ____________

Total Enclosed: ____________Vol. 18, No. 3

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDDulles, VA

Permit No. 056

Pesticides and YouNational Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides701 E Street SE, Suite 200Washington, DC 20003202-543-5450

Printed with soy inkon recycled paper

Vol. 18, No. 3a member of Earth Share SM

P L E A S E J O I N U S F O R

The Seventeenth National Pesticide Forumand Eighth Annual California Pesticide Organizing Conference

BEYOND PESTICIDES:POLLUTION PREVENTION IS THE CURE

May 14-16, 1999 • Santa Barbara, CaliforniaS P O N S O R E D B Y

National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)and Pesticide Watch Education Fund

NCAMP is teaming up with the California statewide

group Pesticide Watch again in 1999 to bring

people together for one of the most impor-

tant pesticide meetings and only national

grassroots pesticide conference of the year.

The range of people␣ —␣ activists to scientists,

farmers to policy makers␣ —␣ who will be at-

tending this conference is awesome and in-

spiring. It will charge your batteries and in-

spire you to move ahead with your local and

statewide campaign or start a new one. There

is no better person to lead the inspirationalchorus than the keynote speaker SandraSteingraber␣ —␣ a Ph.D. biologist and an accomplishedpoet, activist, and author of Living Downstream. Otherexciting speakers will be announced.

The ultimate protection from the adverse effects ofpesticides is avoidance of exposure and elimination of use.

This solution may or may not be possible in various situa-tions at the present time, but it is certainly a goal for many

communities and school districts that arenow seeking to better protect people from en-vironmentally induced diseases, like cancer,neurological disorders, respiratory illness,and others.

Our theme this year calls for a deeper lookand commitment to moving away from a re-liance on pesticides in pest management sys-tems across the board. It is also a warningthat new technologies, such as bio-engineered food crops, may be bringing us

a new genetic pollution, insect resistance and productiv-ity problems that will create more pesticide dependencyin the future, not less.

We hope to see you in May. Watch your mail for a pre-liminary program with details or contact NCAMP.

YES

Sandra Steingraber

Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999 Pesticides and You · Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999 The Schooling...

Documents

Transcript of Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999 Pesticides and You · Volume 18 , Number 3 1998-1999 The Schooling...