Volume 19 , Number 3 Fall 1999 Pesticides and You€¦ · Florida: Pesticides Suspected” in the...

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

Volume 19 , Number 3 Fall 1999

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Protecting Children from Pesticide Exposure in Schools •Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools •

San Francisco’s Pesticide Phase-Out

Press Coference Unveiling the School Environment Protection Act, S. 1716, U.S. Senate, October 13,1999: (from left to right) Senator Robert Torricelli;Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc. (blocked); Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP executive director; Vicki Rafel, National PTA vice-president ofLegislation; Senator Patty Murray; Katharina and Alexandra’s mother; Katharina (age 11); Alexandra (age 7); Katharina and Alexandra’s father; RuthBerlin, MD Pesticide Network coordinator; Jesse Rifkin (age 13)

Photo courtesy of Senator Murray’s office

The School Environment Protection Act of 1999SEPA introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 1716) and

House of Representatives (H.R. 3275)

— Jay Feldman is Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP

Letter from Washington

Association’s repeated references in its press material topesticides as “safe.” This type of mischaracterization violatesthe federal pesticide law, which prohibits manufacturers fromdescribing pesticides as safe. Nevertheless, the tactic seems tobe in vogue these days.

The spraying of the New York City Region & SouthNew York City Mayor Rudolph Gulliani, at a City Hall

news conference, described the impact of spraying New Yorkwith malathion this Fall in this way: “There’s no point in notspraying, because there’s no harm in spraying.” After a deadlymosquito-borne virus quickly emerged as a public health crisisover Labor Day weekend in September, 1999, it has becomeclear that the broad scale pesticide-intensive response was notwithout public health risks of its own. As helicopters took tothe air and trucks rolled down residential streets sprayingpesticides regularly for over a month, many are left wonderingwhether the cure is worse than the disease. Meanwhile, manypublic officials gloss over the real dangers of indiscriminatepesticide spraying, betraying the public’s right to know thepublic health tradeoffs. We swung into gear, participating invarious media discussions, publishing letters on the dangers ofmalathion in the New York Times, and Newsday, testifyingbefore the New York City Council Committee on Health, anddistributing a strategy for defining a reasonable response toinsect-borne diseases.

Mosquitoes are best controlled through a preventionprogram that eliminates their breeding areas or disrupts theirbreeding cycle or larval stage through the use of biologicallarvacides. In a public health crisis, where infected adult bitingmosquitoes are carriers of a deadly disease, spray programs areintended to “knock-down” their population. However, there arelittle and often no regulations on the books that establish aprotocol for defining an insect-borne public health emergencyand documenting its threat.

After a true emergency is defined and documented, short-term, targeted pesticide spraying may be justifiable, assumingfull public disclosure and only if the program utilizes the leasttoxic materials available and is accompanied by strategicprevention efforts.

This issue is not going away and is expected to revisit theeastern seaboard in Spring 2000. With more public involve-

ment, the response can be morereasonable than it was in 1999.

Here’s to good health and ahappy new year. Thank you foryour support of Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP.

The School Environment Protection Act (SEPA), S. 1716 andH.R. 3275, was introduced in the U.S. Senate on October12, 1999 and in the U.S. House of Representatives on

November 9. This legislation grows out of a lot of effort andsuccess that has been achieved at the state and local level over thelast decade. I joined Senator Robert Torricelli and Senator PattyMurray in a press conference on October 13 announcing the bill’sintroduction. We brought together a group of 100 initial publicinterest and business endorsers, including the National ParentTeacher Association, the American Federation of Teachers,National Education Association and numerous environmental,health and local groups from across the country. This was anexciting day for all those associated with Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP! It could not have happened without your support of anorganization focused on action.

Now we are moving ahead with our outreach to educatepeople on the legislation. If your organization, other organizations,religious and civic institutions, elected officials or others you knowhave not yet endorsed the bill, consider it and let us know.

This legislation will give greater prominence to the issue ofchildren and the hazards of pesticides and provide an opportunityto educate on the availability of alternative practices that are notreliant on dangerous chemicals. While I believe strongly thatfederal law is required to provide a minimum of protection forchildren across the country, the bill will also provide support andlegitimacy for local efforts to adopt policies in your school,community or state. Our study earlier this year, The Schooling ofState Pesticide Laws, identified 30 states that are doing somethingprotective in the area of pesticides and schools, but protection isuneven from one community to the next.

S.1716/H.R. 3275 requires schools to develop plans thatutilize alternative methods of pest management that are not relianton toxic chemicals. If pesticides are used as a last resort, the schoolcommunity, including parents, teachers and school staff, would benotified of their use with hazard information in advance. The billclearly defines Integrated Pest Management (IPM), with specificacceptable materials. It also establishes a 12-member nationaladvisory board of parents, teachers and pest management practitio-ners to oversee the process and begin a comprehensive review ofall pesticides used in schools, prohibit the most toxic, and ensurethat any pesticide used does not endanger children’s health.

Children are at the heart of the issue. Our nation’s mostprecious resource is our children. And yet, we as a nation allow thepoisoning of our children. Sometimes the effects are vivid anddramatic, as captured by studies linking elevated rates of differenttypes of childhood cancers to pesticide use in the home. In otherinstances, the effects may be more subtle and develop in the formof learning disabilities or problems with sexual physiologicaldevelopment.

Don’t think that this press event went unnoticed by thepesticide lobby. Industry representatives were out in force at thepress conference, standing around at the press conference and inthe hallway outside with their own press releases and askingquestions during the press conference in an effort to discredit thelegislation. Of note were the American Crop Protection

Taking Action on Schools

Vol. 19, No. 3, 1999 Pesticides and You Page 1Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Pesticides and You ©1999 (ISSN 0896-7253), published 4 times a year by theBeyond Pesticides/National CoalitionAgainst the Misuse of Pesticides(NCAMP), is a voice for pesticide safetyand alternatives. Beyond Pesticides/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]: www.beyondpesticides.orgPrinted on recycled paper with soy ink

Articles in this newsletter may bereproduced without Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s permission unless otherwisenoted. Please credit Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for reproduced material.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP STAFFJay Feldman, Executive DirectorKagan Owens, Program DirectorGreg Kidd, J.D.Science & Legal Policy DirectorHilary Melcarek, Information CoordinatorJohn Kepner, Program AssociateTerry Shistar, Ph.D.,Science Consultant & Webmaster

PESTICIDES AND YOUJay Feldman, Publisher, EditorKagan Owens, Hilary Melcarek, JohnKepner, ContributorsFree Hand Press, Typesetting

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP BOARDOF DIRECTORSRuth Berlin, LCSW-C, MarylandPesticide Network, Annapolis, MDLaura Caballero, Lideres Campesinas enCalifornia, Greenfield, CANancy and Jim Chuda, Children’s HealthEnvironment Coalition, Malibu, CAMerrill Clark, Roseland Farms,Cassopolis, MIAlan Cohen, Biological PestManagement, Washington, DCShelley Davis, J.D., Farmworker JusticeFund, Washington, DCLorna Donaldson-McMahon, SilvertopFarm, Tiptonville, TNJay Feldman, NCAMP, Washington, DCTessa Hill, Kids for Saving EarthWorldwide, Plymouth, MNEric Kindberg, Organic FarmersMarketing Association, Fairfield, IAPaul Repetto, Horizon Organic DairyBoulder, COTerry Shistar, Ph.D., Kansas Chapter,Sierra Club, Lawrence, KSGregg Small, Pesticide Watch,San Francisco, CAAllen Spalt, Agricultural ResourcesCenter, Carrboro, NCJohn Wargo, Ph.D., Yale University, NewHaven, CT

page 4

2 Mail

The Effects of Lake Apopka Agricultural Con-tamination on Farmworkers, DursbanTM

(chlorpyrifos) Residue in South CarolinaMiddle School, Time-Release “Bug-Spray” Pos-sibly Linked to Various Illnesses at KansasHoliday Inn.

4 Washington, D.C.

New Legislation Will Gut Food QualityProtection Act, Methyl Parathion and Azinphos-methyl Uses Banned (Sort of), Chronic AdverseEffects Reporting Postponed, Environmental-ists Call for Cancellation of Pesticide Linkedto Golfer’s Death, Commonly Used Insecticide,DursbanTM, up for review under Food QualityProtection Act, New Board Members

6 Around the Country

Biotechnology in the News, Monsanto Co. WillNot Use the Terminator Seed, Happenings inOrganics, Illinois Passes School Pesticide andIntegrated Pest Management Bills, Seattle andKing County Phase out Most Hazardous Pes-ticides, Healthy Schools Act of 1999 Vetoed byCalifornia Governor Gray Davis, Hartz SettlesCase Over 11-Year-Old Girl’s Death Linked toFlea Shampoo

9 School Environment Protection Act

SEPA introduced in the Senate (S. 1716) andthe House of Representatives (H.R. 3275)

16 San Francisco’s PesticidePhase-Out:

What happens after the law is passed.

23 Resources

Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poi-sonings, A Survey of Private Drinking WaterWells for Lawn and Tree Care Pesticides in aConnecticut Town, From Your Backyard to theBay, Gardening With Children , Disrupting theBalance, Pesticide Report Card: Texas SchoolsScore from A to F in the Integrated Pest Man-agement Program, Whose Trade Organization?Corporate Globalization and the Erosion ofDemocracy, Protecting Groundwater from Pes-ticides: A Clean Water Action Guide

Contents

page 9

page 16

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover on

Quest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

Mail

Page 2 Pesticides and You Vol. 19, No. 3, 1999Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Lake Apopka AgriculturalContamination

Dear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,We were surprised and glad to see yourarticle “Massive Bird Kill in Lake Apopka,Florida: Pesticides Suspected” in theSummer 1999 issue of Pesticides and You(Vol. 19, No. 2, 1999, page 5). The pes-ticide problems impacting wildlife on thestate’s largest polluted lake, Lake Apopka,have received national and internationalattention. However, there is another sideof the story that the public never hears.That is the story of the over 2000 low-income and minority (African-American,Hispanic, and Haitian) farmworkers whoworked on the farms of Lake Apopka andwho lived in the nearby farming com-munities. These men, women and, yes,even children, worked on the lands,fished in the water, and lived in the la-bor camps where the same pesticides,that impacted birds and alligators, weresprayed and applied.

While state agencies are furi-ously scrambling to conduct tests on soiland water samples to determine the ex-act cause of the shocking bird deaths,none have called for tests and healthstudies on the farmworkers. The Depart-ment of Health insists that the peopleface no health threats from eating “nor-mal amounts” of fish from the lake. Thereality is 50 years of continued pesticideuse on the vegetable and surroundingcitrus farms, two Superfund sites involv-ing pesticides – one on the north and oneon the south shore of the lake – mixedtogether with oil and fuel spills and leaksfrom farm equipment, have made theland and water of Lake Apopka a toxicsoup. The bird deaths are only the mostvisible and dramatic of the pollution con-sequences. High percentages of cancer,diabetes, miscarriages, asthma, attentiondeficit disorder, and other problemsamong farmworkers and their childrenare the hidden killers and debilitatorsthat go unnoticed and unaddressed. TheFarmworker Association of Florida iscalling for a serious health survey andstudy of the Lake Apopka farmworkersto be undertaken and for state agency

officials to address the farmworkers con-cerns. What happens on Lake Apopkacould determine what direction environ-mental agricultural and human healthissues are handled in the future inFlorida, and perhaps, even the country.

Jeannie EconomosLake Apopka Project CoordinatorFarmworker Association of FloridaApopka, FL

Dear Ms. Economos,Thank you for pointing out the effects ofLake Apopka agricultural contaminationon farmworkers. The extensive bird deathsare environmental indicators that pesticidesare toxic chemicals not only to wildlife butin the end to public health. We look for-ward to working with you to stop the poi-soning of farm workers and their families.

DursbanTM Residue in MiddleSchool

Dear Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP,My daughter attended a middle schoolthat sprayed pesticides directly into twoof her classrooms with DursbanTM

(chlorpyrifos). After the students arrivedand settled in their homeroom, the teach-ers and students noticed a sticky sub-stance on the desks, counters, floors andcarpeting and the children were movedout. However, they were allowed to gointo the classroom to get their booksthroughout the day. The school at-tempted to clean up the rooms, with helpfrom teachers and students, and allowedthe students back in the classrooms. Mydaughter was one of the students whowas allowed to sit in the classroom dayafter day. No one was told that the stickysubstance was a pesticide. Approximatelytwo and a half months later a motherbecame aware of the pesticide applica-tion and the children were again re-moved.

Several strange things happened toAmanda during the time she was in thecontaminated classroom that didn’t makesense until we heard about the spraying.First, she came home with severe head-aches which she had never complained

about before. For three nights she tookpain medicine and I had to rub her headfor her to be able to sleep. Then she gotwhat looked like water blisters on herfeet and we thought she had gotten ath-letes feet. We applied the medicine forthat diagnosis but it took awhile for it togo away. During this time she becamevery sensitive to being in close proxim-ity to chemicals – she couldn’t stand infront of my kitchen sink without her feetturning red and itching. This reactioncontinues even today. As it turns out,Amanda’s Keds had been damp with thepesticide and, not knowing, she contin-ued to wear those shoes every day. Iwanted to share this with you.

TC HardwickMt. Pleasant, SC

Dear Ms. Hardwick,We are so sorry about the unfortunate pes-ticide incident your child was involved inat school. It is incidents like these that haveprovided the motivation for Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP to work with U.S. SenatorsTorricelli and Murray on the School Envi-ronment Protection Act (SEPA). (See pages9-15 and see www.beyondpesticides.org)

Time-Release “Bug-Spray”in Kansas Holiday Inn

The following letter was sent to a hotelowner and copied to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP. We think you will be as outragedby it as we are.

Dear Service Hotels and Resorts,My wife and I were guests in your hotelon July 24,1999, the Holiday Inn inLawrence, Kansas. In fact, for severaldays preceding that date, we had a num-ber of family members who were guestsbeginning on July 22, 1999 for the bal-ance of the week for a family wedding.

During a group dinner, we noticedthe odor of bug spray on several occa-sions. After the meal was concluded, weinvestigated a white plastic dispenser onthe wall near our table and discoveredthat it contained a pesticide that was be-ing dispensed every few minutes. Our

Vol. 19, No. 3, 1999 Pesticides and You Page 3

edited by Kagan Owens

Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

party included several children, includ-ing a toddler of 15 months, and a seniorcitizen aged 72.

Following the meal, we surveyed thehotel and discovered that these dispens-ers were located throughout the publicspace of the hotel. There was onemounted very close to the area in thelobby where omelets are prepared in themorning and a pasta bar is set up in theevenings. It was also reported to a mem-ber of our party that one of these dispens-ers had been placed inher confined office andwas disabled after shenoticed that it wasmaking her sick.

Several membersof our party have re-ported various ill-nesses following expo-sure to this pesticidefor a period of up toone week or longer in-cluding fatigue, nau-sea, sinus headaches,hot flashes, and upperrespiratory infections.These are incompletereports based on hear-ing from no more thanfour members of the party as of this date.A copy of the label from the can, whichcontains pyrethrins 1.76%, technical Pip-eronyl Butoxide 5%, and inert ingredi-ents 93.24%, reads: “CAUTION – Do notuse in nurseries or rooms where infants,ill or aged people are confined. Use 12feet or more from exposed food or foodhandling or dispensing surfaces. DIREC-TIONS FOR USE – It is a violation of fed-eral law to use this product in a mannerinconsistent with its labeling.”

Our table was about one foot fromthe wall where the appliance was at-tached making it clearly less than 12 feetfrom exposed food and water that we allconsumed over a two hour period. Thespray was settling on our table for theentire period of time and we inhaled andconsumed the pesticide with out meal.As I read the label, you were in violationof federal law on several counts. More-over, the routine application of this pes-

ticide is unnecessary and undesirablefrom the perspective of the members ofour party and by inference, the membersof your staff.

When we reported our finding to thehotel personnel, they were patronizingat first, suggesting to us that this wasmerely a room deodorant. After beingpresented with the physical evidence andunable to deny our claim as to the na-ture of the product that was sprayed onour dinner, the charges for the evening’s

meal were credited backand a small percent-age reduction wascredited to severalof our rooms. By nomeans do we acceptthis as a final settle-ment of the injuryand insult whichthis experience rep-resents. I wouldhereby invite asettlement offerfrom you that

would provide reasonablecompensation to themembers of our party andat a minimum provide forthe following actions to

be taken: 1)Remove this pesticide prod-uct and other related products and thedispenser appliances from the LawrenceHoliday Inn property and all other hotelproperties belonging to the corporation.2)Provide appropriate notice in plain En-glish to all employees of all hotel prop-erties of their potential exposure to pes-ticide products. 3)Investigate and intro-duce as needed non-toxic alternative pestcontrol methods. I would be happy toget you started with this research withappropriate referrals.

By sending a copy of this letter tothe National Coalition Against the Mis-use of Pesticides (NCAMP), we are plac-ing you on notice that we intend to pur-sue this claim vigorously. Of course, wereserve the right to pursue this claimthrough the courts as necessary.

Rick CaganHadensville, VA

Dear Mr. Cagan,You should also send the complaint to thestate agriculture department, the regionalEPA office, the pesticide incident responseofficer at EPA’s headquarters, and themanufacturer of the pesticide product. Be-yond Pesticides/NCAMP can help you withfollow up to this unfortunate incident inwhich you and your family were involved.The hotel’s corporate office should send outa warning to its hotel mangers to stop thispractice, or, to go even further, urge man-agers to reduce pesticide use where possible.Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP can suggest al-ternative pest management approaches aswell. We also request that you fill out oneof our Pesticide Incident Record formswhich we use to document pesticide inci-dents and health effects. For a copy of Be-yond Pesticides / NCAMP’s Pesticide Inci-dent Form, see www.beyondpesticides.org.

Kagan Owensis BeyondPesticides/NCAMP’sProgramDirectorWrite 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 andverifiable 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:

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP701 E Street, SEWashington, DC 20003fax: 202-543-4791email: [email protected]

Washington, DC


New Legislation WillGut Food QualityProtection Act

If you were getting frustrated withthe politics that have slowed implemen-tation of the Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA), now there is federal legislationto make this statute even more political– thanks to Representative RichardPambo (R-CA) and Ed Towns (D-NY),who introduced the Regulatory Fairnessand Openness Act of 1999, HR 1592 onApril 28, 1999. The bill will require EPAto use “actual data” and “scientificallysound information” when making regu-latory decisions under FQPA. Althoughthis sounds good on the surface, it is codelanguage for making it even more diffi-cult for EPA to make timely and accu-rate risk assessments for pesticides. Spe-cifically, the legislation will prohibit EPAto take any “adverse action against anexisting tolerance” based on basic as-sumptions about the public’s exposurewhen there is a lack of scientificallyproven data. Scientific studies of pesti-cides come primarily from industry labs.To view a copy, visit thomas.loc.gov andsearch for HR 1592. Take Action: Write toyour U.S. Senators and Representativesabout industry’s pressure to weaken FQPA.

Methyl Parathion andAzinphos-methyl UsesBanned (Sort of)

On August 2, 1999, Carol Browner,Administrator, EPA, announced thatmanufacturers of the organophosphate(OP) insecticide methyl parathion willwithdraw the chemical’s uses on all fruitsand some vegetables. The reported “ban”has left 75% of the chemical’s major usesin place. The move was made to protectchildren from exposures to methyl par-athion residues left on “common foodseaten by children,” such as peaches,apples, pears, plums and tomatoes. Theuses remaining for methyl parathion, aToxicity Class I (highest) pesticide, in-clude soybeans, corn, rice and wheat,which are commonly used in baby foods

and formulas, and cotton. Me-dia reported EPA’s action as aban that would eliminatemost uses of methyl par-athion.

EPA also announcedthat it would reduce the useof the OP insecticideazinphos-methyl. The tolerancelevel for azinphos-methyl on pomefruits (the apple family) will be loweredand its uses on cotton east of the Missis-sippi River and all sugarcane uses willbe canceled. The restrictions come aftercompleting reviews under the Food Qual-ity Protection Act (FQPA), which requiresEPA to review all OP pesticide registra-tions. EPA has failed to meet the August3, 1999 deadline set under FQPA to re-view the first third of the OP pesticides.

Organophosphates can over-stimu-late the nervous system, causing nausea,dizziness, confusion, and at higher ex-posures, respiratory paralysis and death.There are currently 39 OPs that are reg-istered in the U.S. and are still under re-view, all of which affect the body in thesame way. Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Chronic AdverseEffects ReportingPostponed

Over a year has passed since the EPAannounced that it would delay, for at leastone year, requiring pesticide companiesto report incidents of delayed or chronicadverse effects associated with their pes-ticides to the agency. This means thatEPA is currently unable to keep track ofreports received by pesticide companiesabout exposures that may lead to chronicor delayed effects suffered months oryears after the initial exposure to a pes-ticide. Thus, the agency does not haveadequate or complete product safety in-formation.

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fun-gicide and Insecticide Act (FIFRA), Sec-tion 6(a) (2), pesticide companies are re-quired to notify EPA about reports fromconsumers about adverse health effectssuffered due to exposure to their pesti-

cide. Acutereactions are

required to be re-ported, but these are only a portion ofthe total number of adverse health effectsdue to pesticide exposure. For example,neural diseases such as delayed neuropa-thy are known to surface long after ex-posure to organophosphate pesticides.

EPA appeared to violate the Admin-istrative Procedure Act when, withoutpublic notice or a public comment pe-riod, it changed the reporting rule elevenmonths after its publication in the Fed-eral Register. Originally, EPA issued arule (40 CFR 159) requiring adverse ef-fects reporting in September 1997 thatwas scheduled to take effect on June 16,1998. EPA further delayed the effectivedate until August 17, 1998. Then onAugust 4, 1998, the agency released Pes-ticide Registrant Notice (PRN) 98-4which delayed “for at least one year” therequirement for reporting incidentswhere a person “may suffer delayed orchronic effects in the future.” The adop-tion of this new policy, and the conse-quential delay in the rule’s effective date,came after several EPA-industry work-shops and discussions (sponsored by thepesticide industry) in Spring 1998.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP wrote toMarcia Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesti-cide Programs, EPA, inquiring when thereporting requirements for chronic anddelayed effects would be reinstated. Ms.Mulkey’s response letter stated that PRN98-4 did not exempt registrants from re-porting chronic or adverse effects. “If theregistrant learns of an exposure and aneffect, the incident is reportable, regard-less of whether the effect is immediateor delayed,” she states. According toMulkey’s letter, PRN 98-4 only elimi-nated the requirement for registrants toreport asymptomatic exposures (referredto as “may suffer” incidents). Addition-

by Hilary Melcarek


ally, Mulkey writes, “EPA does have theauthority to waive this reporting require-ment without going through notice andcomment rulemaking.” Take Action:Contact Marcia Mulkey, Director, Office ofPesticide Programs, EPA, 401 M St., SW,Washington DC 20460. Express your con-cern about the postponed reporting of pos-sible exposures associated with delayed andchronic health effects, and the lack of pub-lic input on this issue.

Environmentalists Callfor Cancellation ofPesticide Linked toGolfer’s Death

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP and theNorthwest Coalition for Alternatives toPesticides (NCAP) submitted commentsto EPA in response to the ReregistrationEligibility Decision (RED) forchlorothalonil (Case 0097), urging thatthe pesticide be banned. The commentspoint out that this fungicide and insecti-

cide is linked to the death of Navy Lt.George Prior, which was a direct resultof his having played several rounds ofgolf on a course treated with the pesti-cide. Chlorothalonil is a widely used pes-ticide in agriculture and on golf coursesand was identified by Navy pathologistDr. Jonathan Lord as being responsiblefor burning off the flesh of Lt. Prior’sbody, eventually leading to his death.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP identi-fied a series of deficiencies in EPA’s evalu-ation of chlorothalonil. For example, theagency did not evaluate the impacts oftoxic contaminants in products contain-ing chlorothalonil, which includehexaclorobenzene (HCB) and dioxin.The agency also neglected to apply a ten-fold margin of safety to protect chil-dren, as mandated by the FoodQuality Protection Act. An extramargin of protection is requiredin cases where incomplete datais available to determine achemical’s impact on children,which is the case withchlorothalonil. Additionally,EPA failed to consider the spe-cific risks that are faced byfarmworkers and theirfamilies.

In submitted comments, BeyondPesticides/NCAMP states that until EPAbegins to consider farmworkers and theirfamilies when making risk assessmentdecisions, all statements made by theagency regarding their attention to en-vironmental justice can only be consid-ered disingenuous.

View chlorothalonil’s RED atwww.epa.gov/oppsrrd/REDS/#C. For acopy of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’schlorothalonil comments, please send $3(ppd) to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Commonly UsedInsecticide, Dursban,Up for Review UnderFood QualityProtection Act

One of the most widely used insec-ticides, chlorpyrifos, (DursbanTM or

LorsbanTM), which douses homes andfarms across the U.S. to the tune of 20-24 million pounds a year, is on EPA’soperating table. The agency is in the pro-cess of determining which uses of theneurotoxic chemical will live or die. Thereview was announced in the FederalRegister on October 27 as part of EPA’sreview process under the Food QualityProtection Act (FQPA) and invited pub-lic comments on the insecticide betweenthe dates of October 27 and December27, 1999. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP hasasked for an extension of this date andencourages individuals to write in their

comments even after Decem-ber 27th. A U.S. News &World Report investigation,

“The Stuff In the BackyardShed” (Nov. 8, 1999,

pages 64-68), reportsthat since 1992, Dow

AgroSciences and pre-decessor manufacturers

have sent approximately7,000 reports of chlorpyrifos-induced reactions to EPA.The agency, according to thereport, suspects chlorpyrifos

in 17,771 incidents reportedto the U.S. Poison Control

Centers between 1993 and 1996. Thepreliminary risk assessment forchlorpyrifos indicates that risks from theuse of this pesticide in residential set-tings, as well as its risks to applicators,are of concern.

Take Action: Write to EPA, telling theagency to take chlorpyrifos off the market.It is especially important for EPA to hearfrom people who have been harmed by thispesticide. If you have been harmed,contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP for aPesticide Incident Record or seewww.beyondpesticides.org. Comments canbe sent to Public Information and RecordsIntegrity Branch, Information Resourcesand Services Division (7502C), Office ofPesticide Programs/EPA, 401 M Street, SW,Washington DC 20460. Note on you letterdocket control number OPP-34203. EPA’spreliminary risk assessments can be viewedat www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/. The FederalRegister announcement can be found atwww.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

New Board Members!

Two new members havejoined the Beyond Pesti-cides/NCAMP Board ofDirectors this fall — PaulRepetto, Vice President ofHorizon Organic Dairy ofBoulder, Colorado, andAlan Cohen, President ofBiological Pest Manage-ment of Washington, DC.We’re excited to have themas part of the Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP team. Theybring a wealth of experi-ence to the organization.We thank Don Wartenburg,Ph.D., who is taking a breakfrom his nine years of ser-vice to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP. We also thank KenOgwaro for his service tothe board.

Washington, DC


Around the Country

Biotechnologyin the News

Issues concerning genetically engi-neered (GE) crops have been in the fore-front of the news in recent months. Nu-merous scientific studies have come out,warning the public that crops that havebeen genetically modified to producetheir own pesticide in the form of Bacil-lus thuringiensis (Bt) need to be lookedat more carefully. Concerns focus onwhether these crops may damage the en-vironment or if insects will become re-sistant to them faster than scientists pre-viously thought. A study by John Losey,Ph..D. et al., at Cornell University, foundthat 44% of Monarch butterfly caterpil-lars in the study died within four days ofeating milkweed that had been sprinkledwith Bt corn pollen. Surviving larvae ex-hibited slow growth or reduced weightwhen compared to larvae that fed onmilkweed leaves with no Bt pollen. Thisstudy, published in Nature (May 20,

1999, Vol.399), is im-portant be-cause itchallengesthe safety as-

surances ofthe biotechnol-

ogy industry.A n o t h e r

study, “Develop-ment time and resis-

tance to Bt crops,” byBruce Tabashnik, etal., shows that insectsmay develop resis-

tance to Bt crops fasterthan scientists previously expected. Ref-uges, which contain non-GE plants andare planted to surround GE plants of thesame species, have been predicted to pro-vide mating grounds where insects resis-tant to Bt crops and non-resistant insectscan mate. The refuge theory states thatthis will achieve random mating patternsand will in turn slow insect resistance toBt crops. Results of the study, whichlooked at pink bollworm moths, a com-mon pest of U.S. cotton crops that canbe controlled with Bt cotton, contradictthe underlying refuge theory. The studyfound that resistant strains of bollwormlarvae on Bt cotton take longer to developthan non-resistant larvae on non-Bt cot-ton. This difference in timing may leadto non-random mating, meaning that re-sistant moths will be more likely to matewith other resistant moths. To achieverandom mating, which would preventthe recessive gene responsible for Bt re-

sistance in pink bollworms from emerg-ing, resistant and non-resistant boll-worms must reach developmental matu-rity at the same time, says the study. Thestudy’s results indicate that there is moreto preventing insect resistance to GEcrops than creating refuges. “There aresome real concerns that resistance couldevolve,” said Bruce E. Tabasnik, Ph.D.,head of the University of Arizona’s de-partment of entomology and an authorof the study. Send $2 ppd for a copy ofeach study to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Monsanto Co. Will NotUse the TerminatorSeed

Monsanto Company, a biotechnol-ogy giant, announced October 4, 1999,that it would not develop or sell the bio-technology known as the “terminatorseed.” The announcement came as a re-sult of Monsanto being targeted in in-creasing criticism of terminator technol-ogy, which would produce crops withsterile seeds. Terminator technologywould be especially damaging to smallfarmers and growers in developing coun-tries who cannot afford to buy new seedseach year and rely on using seeds thathave been produced by the previousyear’s crops. Monsanto does not currentlyown patents on terminator technology,but it has made an offer to purchase thecompany that does, Delta & Pine LandCo., the world’s largest cottonseed pro-ducer. The acquisition is currently be-ing held up by a lawsuit claiming the

Hello and Many Thanks

We say WELCOME to two new staff members of BeyondPesticides/NCAMP. Greg Kidd, our new Science and LegalPolicy Director, brings his skills with an MS in entomologyfrom Cornell University and as an attorney. John Kepner joinsus as our new Program Associate with a BS in biology fromPenn State University. We say goodbye and thank you to BethFiteni, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Program Coordinator fromSeptember 1997 to September 1999.Greg Kidd, J.D. John Kepner

by Hilary Melcarek


merger would give Monsanto an unfairadvantage over the agribusiness indus-try. Delta said it would continue to try tocommercialize the terminator seed, ac-cording to the New York Times, October5, 1999. Contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Happenings inOrganics

Baby Food.Largely due toconcern aboutchildren’s sus-ceptibility totoxics in the en-vironment, is-sues around or-ganic foods andfood productionhave become in-

creasingly important to consumers. Forexample, Gerber, the largest producer ofbaby foods in the U.S., has decided tostop using genetically engineered cornand soybeans in their baby foods, accord-ing to the Wall Street Journal, July 30,1999. In response to consumer demandand a written request from Greenpeace,the company is taking the change onestep further by promising to eventuallyuse only organic ingredients in theirproducts. Gerber is owned by NovartisAG of Switzerland, which is the world’slargest pesticide company and sells a lineof GE seeds. Both Gerber and Novartisbelieve that GE foods will at some pointreceive a “clean bill of health,” accord-ing to Al Piergallini, Novartis’ CEO andpresident of the North American Con-sumer Health Division, based in Summit,NJ. Until then, the company will giveconsumers what they want.

Schools. To protect children fromfood residues from consumed at school,Berkeley Unified School Board voted tomandate that organic foods be served tothe district’s 9,400 students as often aspossible. Also, two Boulder, Coloradoschool districts will offer organic food forstudents to purchase this year. The Ber-keley organic food policy is funded by aU.S. Department of Agriculture grant and

will eventually require all food served inBerkeley school cafeterias to be certifiedorganic.

Restaurants. On a similar note, Res-taurants Nora and Asia Nora in Wash-ington DC reports that they have becomeAmerica’s first certified organic restau-rants, meaning that 95% of all ingredi-ents used in the restaurants are certifiedorganic. The restaurants, owned by NoraPouillon, also use uniforms made fromorganic hemp fibers. Contact Beyond Pes-ticides/NCAMP.

lllinois Passes SchoolPesticide andlntegrated PestManagement Bills

This past spring,the state of Illinoisjoined the list of statesrestricting pesticide usein schools. Public Act91-0525, IPM inSchools, requires eachschool to adopt an in-tegrated pest manage-ment (IPM) program

when economically feasible. A 1992amendment to the IL Structural PestControl Act encouraged the adoption ofan IPM program, but a 1998 survey bythe Safer Pest Control Project, an Illinoisorganization dedicated to pesticide re-duction and promotion of safer alterna-tives to their use, found that 82% of Illi-nois schools continued to spray pesti-cides despite the encouragement. The actstates that when the adoption of an IPMprogram would be more expensive thanthe school’s current pest managementpolicy, the school district must submit aproposal outlining a cost comparison ofan IPM program. IPM in Schools alsostates that schools must maintain a reg-istry or they must provide universal no-tification to all parents when pesticideapplications occur. Notification in eithercase must occur 48 hours before pesti-cides are used and could be made innewsletters, bulletins, calendars or an-other form of correspondence published

by the school district.Illinois Public Act 91-0099, the

Parent’s Right to Know Act, also requiresthat school districts establish a registryor provide universal notification to par-ents prior to pesticide applications onschool lawns. Notification must occur 24hours before pesticides are used onschool lawns. The Act also states thatschool lawns must be posted immedi-ately after pesticide applications toschool lawns.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP does notsupport the establishment of registriesbecause they do not fulfill the publichealth function that universal notifica-tion does. Many parents do not under-stand the need to know when pesticideswill be applied, and thus may not ask tobe put on a registry. Contact Jill Viehweg,Safer Pest Control Project, 17 E. MonroeSt., Suite 212, Chicago, IL 60603, 312-641-5575.

Seattle and KingCounty Phase out MostHazardous Pesticides

On Octo-ber 6, 1999,the city of Se-attle and KingCounty, WAa n n o u n c e dthey wouldphase out the

use of pesticides that are considered“most hazardous.” This includes all pes-ticides that are known, likely, or prob-able carcinogens, endocrine disruptors,cause reproductive damage, are labeledas toxic to fish and wildlife, are RestrictedUse Pesticides, are persistent (the activeingredients have half lives of more than100 days), or leach quickly into streamsor groundwater. The phase out will takeeffect by the end of June 2000. The cityof Seattle also plans to reduce its overallpesticide use by 30% by 2002.

Puget Sound Chinook salmon wererecently put on the Endangered SpeciesList, and this is thought to be in part dueto pesticides leaching into salmon habi-

Mail


Around the Country by Hilary Melcarek

Hilary Melcarek isBeyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s informa-tion coordinator

tats. In response to salmon becoming anendangered species, the city of Seattleplaced a public announcement in city pa-pers, asking residents to “avoid usingweed killers or harmful pesticides in youryard” to save salmon. At the same time,city crews continued to spray parks androadsides with herbicides on a set sched-ule, sparking criticism from environmen-talists. The pesticides to be phased outwere labeled as “Tier 1” pesticides in acity study of pesticides used over the pastseveral years which rated the productsaccording to their hazards.

Seattle is continuing to use highlytoxic herbicides on golf courses until analternative to their use is found. “We willcontinue to monitor Seattle’s use of fun-gicides and pressure the city to settimelines for phase-outs of hazardousfungicides,” said Erika Schreder, direc-tor of pesticide reform, WashingtonToxics Coalition. The herbicideRoundupTM, containing the active ingre-dient glyphosate and extremely toxic in-

Healthy Schools Act of1999 Vetoed byCalifornia GovernorGray Davis

In an action that has angered envi-ronmentalists and public health advo-cates in California, A.B. 1201, the HealthySchools Act of 1999, authored by Assem-blyman Kevin Shelly (D-San Francisco/San Mateo), has been vetoed by Califor-nia Governor Gray Davis. The agro-chemical lobby weighed in heavilyagainst the bill. In its original form, thebill required a ban on school use of pes-ticides that were classified by EPA as sus-pected carcinogens, nerve toxins, as caus-ing birth defects or impaired growth anddevelopment. The Healthy Schools Actwas watered down this past summer to aright-to-know bill that would require no-tification to parents before pesticideswere used in schools, posting of signs,and central record keeping of pesticidesused in schools. A.B. 1207 also wouldhave provided schools with informationand training on environmental issues andwould have required the state to studyindoor air quality in portable classrooms.The bill passed the California Legislatureon September 10, 1999 in this form, andwas subsequently vetoed by GovernorDavis.

The bill was supported by over 50medical, environmental, parent andteacher organizations, including the Cali-fornia Parents and Teachers Association(PTA), the American Lung Associationand the American Academy of Pediatrics.“This healthy schools legislation wassupported by medical, parent and teachergroups across the state, and opposed onlyby the chemical and pesticide industry.By vetoing this bill, the Governor hasshown whose side he’s on,” commentedDr. Harvey Karp, spokesperson for theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics,District IX.

A 1998 California Public Interest Re-search Group study found that 87% ofsurveyed California schools reportedusing pesticides that have been identi-

fied as causing cancer, birth defects, neu-rological problems, or impaired growthand development.

Contact Gregg Small, Pesticide Watch,450 Geary Street, Suite 500, San Francisco,CA 94108, 415-292-1486.

Hartz Settles CaseOver 11-Year-OldGirl’s Death Linked toFlea Shampoo

Hartz Mountain Corporation has re-cently settled a lawsuit with Delbert andVirginia Campbell over the death of theirdaughter, Lisa, while shampooing theirpet beagle with a flea shampoo, accord-ing to the Associated Press, October 8,1999. The parents say that their 11-year-old daughter’s fatal asthma attack in 1996was brought on by using Hartz’ Two-in-One Rid Flea Shampoo containing syn-thetic pyrethroids in an enclosed area.The lawsuit called for monetary damagesand asked that warning labels be put onthe product, saying that products con-taining pyrethroids could cause breath-ing problems when used indoors. Hartzdenies that the shampoo caused theasthma attack and will not disclose theterms of the settlement. According tothe Associated Press, EPA is currentlyconsidering placing warning labels onpet products containing pesticides. TakeAction: Write Carol Browner, Administra-tor, EPA, 401 M St., NE, Washington DC20460. Tell her to immediately put warn-ings on products containing organophos-phates, carbamates and synthetic pyre-throids alerting the public that “ these prod-ucts can cause respiratory/ breathing prob-lems that can be deadly.”

ert ingredients, is the most frequentlyused herbicide in King county. UnderSeattle’s classification system,RoundupTM is classified as a “Tier 2”pesticide and will continue to be per-mitted.

Additionally, Lincoln ElementarySchool in Thurston County in Olym-pia School District 111 has developeda “zero pesticide policy,” developed byconcerned parents, that will eliminateall pesticides used in the school. Con-tact Erika Schreder, Washington ToxicsCoalition, 4649 Sunnyside Ave., North,#540E, Seattle, WA 98103, 206-632-1545, [email protected].


School Environment Protection Act (SEPA)

C ommunities across the county are acting in increasing numbers to protect children from pesticides used at their schools,yet there are no national protections or standards in this area for children. To correct this situation and ensure nationalleadership in protecting children from a daily dose of toxic chemicals in their classrooms, playgrounds and ballfields,

there is exciting federal legislation, entitled the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA). SEPA was introduced in the U.S. Senate(S. 1716) on October 12, 1999 by Senator Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and in the U.S. House ofRepresentatives (H.R. 3275) on November 9, 1999 by Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ).

SEPA is intended to set in place a process that creates incentives for schools to use pest management practices that do not rely ontoxic pesticides. The legislation clearly defines preventive and least toxic pest management strategies in schools. It also requiressafety findings on pesticides used in schools, specifically addressing adverse effects, such as cancer, genetic mutations, birthdefects, reproductive dysfunction, neurological and immune system effects, endocrine system disruption, as well as pesticidesrated as acutely and moderately toxic. Under the bill, if toxic pesticides are used in a school, parents, guardians, and staff willreceive advance notice of use and information on product hazards. The legislation establishes a National School Integrated PestManagement (IPM) Advisory Board to oversee implementation, review and issue recommendations on future proposals toamend a list of least toxic pesticides, and initiate recommendations to restrict or discontinue school use of pesticides that mayendanger the health of children.

This national effort has grown out of incredible success at the local and state level in adopting policies that protect children frompesticides and begin to establish pest management strategies that do no rely on pesticides. However the vast majority of schoolchildren in the U.S. remain unprotected. The time is right for national protection. Contact Kagan Owens, program director,Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, for more information on SEPA.

Speak Out on the School Environment Protection Act, S. 1716, H.R. 3275

n Let your Senators and Representative know how you feel about the necessity of protecting children and teachers frompesticide exposure at school. I will contact the following Senators and Representative to ask the he/she co-sponsor thelegislation. _________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________

n Sign my organization up as an endorser of the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA).

Name/ Title ___________________________________________________________________________________Organization __________________________________________________________________________________Street ________________________________________________________________________________________City State ________________________________________________________ Zip _________________________Phone ______________________ Fax ______________________ Email _________________________________

n I will pass this information to my mayor, city council, local PTA and civic associations to see if they will endorse SEPA.___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Please return this form to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street, S.E., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20003(202) 543-5450 voice, (202) 543-4791 fax, [email protected], www.beyondpesticides.org

Pesticides and You Vol. 19, No. 3, 1999Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

through non-chemical means — sealing cracks, fixing leaks— finding other means of keeping pests out of schools, otherthan using pesticides. And many report that they have virtu-ally eliminated problems with cockroaches or other pests with-out using pesticides. It may take more time and require moreleadership, but it is safer.

The fact is, most schools in America still do not havecomprehensive plans, or do not address the problem, or donot know it exists. That is why Senator Murray and I are in-

troducing S.1716, the School Environ-ment Protection Act. To state simply:children should not be exposed totoxic pesticides, and if they are, theirparents have a right to know, and im-mediately. Under the provisions of ourlegislation, each school district wouldbe required to develop a plan to dealwith pests and bug problems throughthe use of the least toxic method pos-sible. All pesticides are not the same.School districts would be required to

inquire which is the least potentially damaging. Second,schools would be barred from using pesticides that the EPAhas determined cause cancer, birth defects or neurologicalimpairments — a prohibition. Until EPA takes action, how-ever, if a school determines that all non-toxic pesticides areineffective, and toxic pesticides are required, the school canuse them, but only if all school staff and parents are notified72 hours in advance. So anyone who works in the school,any parent with a child in the school, will know that pesti-cides are used and that there is a real and present danger. Inan emergency, when the immediate health and safety of thechild is threatened, conventional pesticides still could be used,but only if the entire school community is notified within 24hours of use, giving parents and staff toxic information. Andfinally, the legislation creates a 12-member board, made up ofeducators, health professionals and industry representatives,to monitor the implementation of the bill and then to con-sider what else could be done and might be required to en-sure the highest level of safety.

There are, for America, two ways to go with this prob-lem. We can allow another generation of American childrento pass through our schools exposed to pesticides, theorizingon the rates of cancer or neurological problems that mightdevelop and wait for conclusive studies that will tell us pre-cisely how many lives will be lost and how children will be

Statement by Senator Robert Torricelli,Sponsor SEPA, S. 1716

Thank you for joining us today for the introduction ofour legislation on pesticides and their environmentaldangers in our nation’s schools. For most of us, the

most dangerous thing any of us remember facing in schoolwas a surprise test. I know personally I found this to be avery daunting experience. That is no longer the case. Theworst part and the most damagingpart of a student’s life may be in theirown school because of environmen-tal health dangers.

It is not surprising that as welearn more about the dangers of pes-ticides and other environmentalproblems, we find that they dispro-portionately affect children. Becauseof the early stage of their develop-ment and the growth of their organsand because of their small body sizeand weight, children are disproportionately impacted by pes-

ticide exposures. Indeed, studies haveshown that children exposed to pesti-cides have elevated rates of childhoodbrain cancers. Pesticides have beenlinked to respiratory problems. Ac-cording to the National Academy ofSciences (NAS), children in homes thatregularly use pesticides, are at a four-fold higher risk of leukemia and a six-fold risk if there are pesticides used intheir family’s garden. This is no longer

a theoretical problem. This isn’t simply a question of a groupof parents or teachers who are wondering whether there mightbe some connection. If these pesticides, based on studies bythe NAS, are causing real and lasting health impacts becauseof their use in homes and gardens, then they almost certainlyare having that impact on playgrounds and in schools, wherechildren spend much or most of their waking hours.

Thirty states have taken the leadership in having someform of protection for children from pesticides, though theyare almost all different, sometimes contradictory and with-out any uniformity. Many school districts, including 20 inmy own state of New Jersey, have adopted integrated pest man-agement programs, which require the need for pesticides

The School Environment Protection Act lntroducedSEPA Unveiled at Jammed Press Conference in U.S. SenateA press conference announcing the introduction of the School Environment Protection Act (SEPA) was held in the U.S. Senate onOctober 13, 1999, with the following speakers: Senator Robert Torricelli; Senator Patty Murray; Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP executive director; Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc., Mt. Sinai Medical Center; Vicki Rafel, National PTA vice president oflegislation; Jesse Rifkin (age 13); Katharina (age 11); and Alexandra (age 7).

SEPA Press Conference: (Left to right) Robert Torricelli, Philip Landrigan,Jay Feldman, Jesse Rifkin, and Patty Murray.

Senator Robert Torricelli


further impaired. Or we can act now based on the best scien-tific evidence available, which is overwhelming in the con-clusion that we recognize that there are cancer risks, neuro-logical problems, risks of asthma, and other developmentalproblems -- and act to prevent further impact on America’schildren. This is the route that Senator Murray and I havechosen. It is to some, I suspect, an unnecessary federal in-volvement. I couldn’t disagree more. What is a more appro-priate role for the federal government than to deal with expo-sure to what are federally registered products that are put into this environment, requiring some uniformity based on fed-erally-held knowledge for all of our children, asking districtssimply to develop plans, use good judgement, or when nec-essary provide notification and the best and safest alterna-tives. It’s an appropriate federal role. It’s the right thing to do.

The only thing wrong with this program, this legislation,is that it wasn’t done 20 years ago when we first had some ofthis knowledge. There is nothing we can do for so many ofthose who suffered unnecessarily while this knowledge washeld and never used to protect children, but there’s a lot wecan do to ensure this never happens again. I’m enormouslyproud that my partner in this effort, is the senator from Wash-ington, Patty Murray. She has so often been the leader in allchildren’s issues all over the country, the most recognized voiceon the floor of the United States Senate on the issues of fam-ily and children.

Statement by SenatorPatty Murray,Co-sponsor SEPA, S. 1716

Thank you so much to SenatorTorricelli for his tremendousleadership on this issue that I

think is so extremely important and socommon-sense. This bill should bepassed overwhelmingly by both housesand put into effect today so that no childunintentionally is exposed to pesticidesin any of our schools in the United States. I came to under-stand this issue quite personally in my own family some timeago. When my own son was about four years old, I was amom at home. My son was out playing in my own backyardwhen I happened to glance out the window to see a commer-cial pesticide company spraying my neighbor’s yard. My sonwas playing underneath a tree that hung over our fence and Iwatched in horrified astonishment as they sprayed him un-derneath that tree. I spent the next two weeks trying to findout what he was sprayed with, panicked because I didn’t knowif he was going to have an asthma attack, stop breathing orget cancer. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t know whom tocall and I couldn’t believe that no one had the courtesy to letme know so that I could bring him in before that happened. Iworked for a long time in my own state to get some common-sense laws to post notification in neighborhoods so that thiswouldn’t happen to any other child in my state. To know nowthat children go to school, where you can’t see them as a par-ent, and play in a playground, and you as a parent never know

A good integrated pest management (IPM) plan musthave a strong definition of IPM and least toxic pesti-cides. IPM and least toxic pesticides, as defined bySEPA, follow.

Integrated Pest Managementis a managed pest management system that:

A. eliminates or mitigates economic, health, and aestheticdamage caused by pests;

B. uses

1. integrated methods,

2. site or pest inspections,

3. pest population monitoring,

4. an evaluation of the need for pest control, and

5. one or more pest control methods, including sanita-tion, structural repairs, mechanical and biologicalcontrols, other non-chemical methods, and (if nontoxicoptions are unreasonable and have been exhausted)least toxic pesticides; and

C. minimizes the use of pesticides and the risk to humanhealth and the environment associated with pesticideapplications.

Least Toxic Pesticides include:A. boric acid and disodium octobrate tetrahydrate,

B. silica gels,

C. diatomaceous earth,

D. nonvolatile insect and rodent baits in tamper resistantcontainers or for crack and crevice treatment only,

E. microbe-based insecticides,

F. botanical insecticides (not including syntheticpyrethroids) without toxic synergists,

G. biological, living control agents, and

H. materials for which the inert ingredients are nontoxicand disclosed.

I. The term ‘least toxic pesticides’ does not include apesticide that is determined by the Administrator to beacutely or moderately toxic pesticides, carcinogen,mutagen, teratogen, reproductive toxin, developmentalneurotoxin, endocrine disrupter, or immune systemtoxin, and any application of the pesticide using abroadcast spray, dust, tenting, fogging, or baseboardspray application

that they may have been exposed to a pesticide and theycome home without your knowing is simply wrong. Whetherit’s your own backyard or your school, you have the right toknow as a parent and you have a right to have the knowl-edge of what your child is exposed to so that you can takecare of them and prevent them from being exposed, if you sochoose. This legislation is so common sense it should bepassed immediately. And I am really pleased to be here withSenator Torricelli to do all we can to protect our children inthis country from being exposed to pesticides.

Senator Patty Murray


tially in incidence since the mid-1970s.6 However, these find-ings were limited by small sample sizes and imprecise infor-mation on children’s actual exposure to pesticides. Other stud-ies have found that parental exposure to pesticides is associ-ated with certain birth defects such as neural tube defects.7 , 8

Why Focus on Children?Many pesticides may be more harmful to children, and at

lower doses, than they are to adults. Children breathe moreair per pound of body weight than do adults, and they aremore likely to put toys and hands in their mouths than adultsare. Both of these factors cause them to be exposed to a greaterquantity of chemicals in their environment.9

Moreover, the nervous system undergoes rapid growthand development in the first years of life. During this period,structures are developed and vital connections are established.Indeed, development of the nervous system continues allthrough childhood, as is evidenced by the fact that childrencontinue to acquire new skills as they grow—crawling, walk-ing, talking, reading, and writing.

A child’s developing nervous system is not well able torepair any structural damage caused by environmental tox-ins. Thus, if cells in the developing brain are destroyed bychemicals, there is a risk that the resulting dysfunction willbe irreversible. The consequences can be loss of intelligenceand alteration of normal behavior. Also, because childrenhave more future years of life than adults, they have moretime to develop chronic disease, such as adult forms of can-cer, triggered by early exposures to toxins.9

A 1993 National Academy of Sciences report, Pesticidesin the Diets of Infants and Children, called attention to the spe-cific vulnerability of children to many pesticides. This reportled to the Congress unanimously passing the 1996 Food Qual-ity Protection Act, which calls for the EPA to establish stan-dards for pesticide residues on foods that account for 1)children’s unique sensitivity to environmental toxins and 2)children’s exposure to multiple pesticides—both dietary andnondietary—with common toxic effects.9

Although there are no data on the levels of pesticide ex-posure in children, studies have demonstrated that adult ex-posure is widespread. For example, chlorpyrifos, an organo-phosphate pesticide, was found in 82% of approximately 1,000adults whose urine was tested through the National Healthand Nutrition Examination Survey.10 The detection ofchlorpyrifos in the majority of those tested indicates frequentexposure, since chlorpyrifos is eliminated from the body in3-6 days.11 If chlorpyrifos is common in adults, exposure inchildren is likely also to be common. Levels in children maybe even higher than those in adults given that children arepotentially exposed to a great quantity of chemicals.

afeguarding children’s healthwhile at school is a priority forparents, teachers, school ad-

ministrators, lawmakers, and clini-cians. Yet children are continuallyand unknowingly exposed to toxicchemicals while in and aroundschool buildings. Substantial scien-tific evidence indicates that childrenare at risk for disease as a result ofthese exposures.

Why Focus on Pesticides?Pesticides are commonly used in schools as well as homes

and day care centers to control roaches, rats, termites, ants,and other vermin. They are also used widely in agriculture inthe U.S. Despite widespread use of pesticides, little is knownabout the actual levels of pesticide exposure in children fromtheir food and environment. Consequently, little is knownabout the health effects of these exposures in children. Lim-ited available data do indicate, however, that pesticides arelikely to cause harm in humans even at low-level exposures.

Two of the most popular classes of insecticides used inthe U.S.—organophosphates and carbamates—are designedas neurotoxins, poisoning the nervous systems of unwantedinsects. These pesticides also affect the nervous systems ofpeople. Organophosphates and carbamates harm both insectsand humans by interfering with an enzyme in the brain,acetylchlolinesterase, which regulates signals in the insect andhuman nervous systems.1 Acute poisoning by these insecti-cides in humans has caused a myriad of short and long-termnervous system disturbances, including agitation, insomnia,muscle weakness, respiratory agitation, nervousness, irrita-bility, forgetfulness, confusion, and depression. 2 , 3

There is substantial evidence in animal studies and lim-ited evidence in studies of adult humans that chronic, low-level exposure to organophosphates may also affect neurologicfunctioning and neurodevelopment in humans.2, 3 Given thisevidence, there is a strong likelihood that low-level chronicexposure adversely affects children’s nervous systems, result-ing in lower cognitive function, behavior disorders, and othersubtle neurological problems. Studies also indicate that ex-posure to organophosphates disrupts the part of the nervoussystem that regulates the motor functioning of the lungs. Thishas lead researchers to hypothesize that pesticides are amongthe preventable causes of asthma in children.2

In addition to nervous system disruption, studies havenoted links between cancer in children and their exposuresto pesticides.4 , 5 Leukemia and brain cancer—the two mostcommon forms of childhood cancer—have increased substan-

Protecting Children from PesticideExposure in Schools

Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc.

Sby Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc.


Why Focus on Schools?Children are exposed to pesticides on a daily basis from

multiple sources. Fruits and vegetables contain residues ofpesticides applied in agriculture. Ninety percent of Americanhomes use pesticides.12 Schools are also common sites of pes-ticide use. A recent survey of Connecticut schools found that87% of the state’s school districts responding to a survey (77of 147 school districts) sprayed pesticides inside school build-ings; 32% sprayed pesticides routinely regardless of whetherthere was a pest problem.13 A 1998 survey of California schooldistricts found that 93% of 46 responding school districts usedpesticides.14 A 1993 survey of 261 New York schools foundthat 87% used pesticides.15

Eliminating pesticides from the school environment iscritical to lowering children’s total exposure. Children spendan average of 6-7 hours per day, 5 days per week, 180 days per

1 Ecobichon D. Organophosphorus ester insecticides. In: Pesticides and Neurologi-cal Diseases (Ecobichon DJ, Joy RM, eds). Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 1994;171-250.

2 Eskenazi B, Bradman A, Castorina, R. Exposures of children to organophosphatepesticides and their potential adverse health effects. Environ Health Perspect 1999;107(S-3):409-419.

3 Weiss, Bernard. Pesticides as a source of de velopment disabilities. MRDD Re-search Reviews 1997; 3:246-256.

4 Liess JK, Savitz DA. Home pesticide use and childhood cancer: a case-controlstudy. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:249-252.

5 Davis JR, et al. Family pesticide use and childhood brain cancer. Arch EnvironContam Toxicol 1993; 24:87-92.

6 Ries LAG, et al. (eds). Cancer incidence and survival among children and adoles-cents: United States SEER program 1975-1995. National Cancer Institute, SEERProgram. NIH Pub. No. 99-4649. Bethesda, MD, 1999.

7 Shaw GM, Wasserman CR, O’Malley CD. Maternal pesticide exposures as riskfactors for orofacial clefts and neural tube defects. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141(suppl11):S3.

year, in school. The only other place in which children spendmore time is their home. In order to protect children’s healthwherever they work and play, pesticide use in schools must bereduced, and families must be routinely notified wheneverpesticides will be applied in schools.

The Center for Children’s Health and the Environment(CCHE) at Mount Sinai School of Medicine supports efforts atthe local, state, and federal level to avoid pesticide use in andaround schools and to notify children and parents when pesti-cides will be used. CCHE’s mission is to promote the health ofchildren by conducting environmental health and policy research.CCHE was established in 1998 with the support of the Pew Chari-table Trusts. CCHE’s director is Philip J. Landrigan M.D., M.Sc.,a pediatrician who chairs the Department of Community andPreventive Medicine at Mount Sinai. Questions or comments maybe directed to Ashley Coffield in CCHE’s Washington, D.C. officeat (202) 776-1105 or e-mail [email protected].

8 Blatter BM, et al. Paternal occupational exposure around conception and spinabifida in offspring. Am J Ind Med 1997; 32:283-291.

9 National Research Council. Pesticides in the diets of infants and children. Wash-ington: National Academy Press, 1993.

10 Hill RH, et al. Pesticide residues in urine of adults living in the United States:reference range concentrations. Environ Res 1995; 71:99-108.

11 Bradway D, Shafik T, Lores E. Comparison of cholinesterase activity, residue lev-els, and urinary metabolite excretioni of rates exposed to organophosphorus pes-ticides. J Agric Food Chem 1977; 25:1353-1358.

12 Gurunathan S, et al. Accumulation of chlorpyrifos on residential sur-faces and toys accessible to children. Environ Helath Perspect 1998;106:1-6.

13 Addiss SS, Alderman NO, Brown DR, Each CN, and Wargo J. Pest control prac-tices in Connecticut public schools. Environment and Human Health, Inc., NorthHaven, CT, 1999.

14 Kaplan J, Marquardt S, Barber W. Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools.CALPIRG Charitable Trust. San Francisco: 1998.

15 Volberg DI, Surgan MH, Jaffe S, Hamer D, Sevinsky JA. Pesticides in Schools: Re-ducing the Risks. New York Office of the Attorney General. New York: 1993.

Endnotes

Those who argue that integrated pestmanagement (IPM) requires an abilityto spray pesticides immediately after

identifying a pest problem are not describingIPM. Take for example the General ServicesAdministration (GSA), the government agencythat manages federal buildings, and its defini-tion of IPM, “a process for achieving long-term,environmentally-sound pest suppressionthrough the use of wide variety of technologi-cal and management practices.” Control tech-niques in an IPM program extend beyond theapplication of pesticides to include structuraland procedural modification that reduce thefood, water, harborage, and access used bypests (GSA, Public Buildings Service, Specifi-cation No. BM-5-1, January, 1989, p.1). TheIPM policy encourages the avoidance of pesti-cide use with the requirement: “The Contrac-tor shall use non-pesticide methods of controlwherever possible.” The policy says that por-table vacuums rather than pesticide spraysshall be used for initial clean-outs and thattrapping devices rather than pesticide spraysshall be used for indoor fly control whenever

Alternatives to Using Pesticides in Schools: A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Factsheet

appropriate.Albert Greene, National IPM Coordina-

tor for the GSA, has successfully applied IPMin the 30 million square feet of indoor federalspace that comes under the GSA’s NationalCapital Region jurisdiction. Greene reportsthat since the initiation of the program in1988, pest problems in the buildings have gen-erally declined and occupant satisfaction hasincreased, all the while contractors use lessthan 2% of the pesticides that was routinelyused. Greene states that “GSA’s program is aconclusive demonstration that structural IPMworks; that is can be pragmatic, economical,and effective on a massive scale.”

In schools, we see repeated signs that al-ternatives work. Montgomery County PublicSchools in Maryland is one of the best knownexamples of school IPM. Reduction of pesti-cide use by 90% and use of least toxic pesti-cides when pesticides are required have madeschool and work safer. Bill Forbes adminis-ters a pest management program for 200 sites.He reduced pesticide use from 5,000 applica-tions in 1985 to none four years later, saving

the school district $1800 per school and$30,000 at the food service warehouse.School district employees who implement thesystem receive 60-100 hours of training peryear. The success of his program is largelydue to the preventive measures he uses andon-going monitoring to determine if, when,and where pest populations warrant action.

Steve Tvedten’s company, Get Set, con-tracts with hundreds of schools in Michiganto do least toxic IPM. When contacted by aschool, the company does an initial inspec-tion to find problem areas, which are ad-dressed immediately. They then meet withschool personnel to train them in IPM meth-ods and provide them with a manual. Theiron-going service consists of periodic inspec-tions and consultations. Parents are notifiedwhen any pesticides, including least toxicones, are used in schools.

The above examples are just a samplingof effective IPM programs that dot the country.For additional schools that have successfullyimplemented IPM without using toxic pesti-cides, please contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.


Hamilton-Wenham Pesticide Awareness Committee (MA)Healthy Schools Network (NY)Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition (MA)Hoosier Environmental Council (IN)Illinois Environmental CouncilIowa Parents and Teachers AssociationInstitute of Pest Management, Inc. (MI)Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (FL)Manasota 88 (FL)Maryland Pesticide NetworkMaryland Public Interest Research GroupMassachusetts Public Interest Research GroupMinnesota Center for Environmental AdvocacyMissouri – Safer Management of Pests and LandscapesMissouri – Safer Management of Pests and Landscapes Jr.Multiple Chemical Sensitivities: Health & EnvironmentNative Ecology Initiative, Inc. (MA)New Jersey Coalition for Peace and JusticeNew Jersey Environmental FederationNew York Coalition for Alternatives to PesticidesNorthwest Coalition for Alternatives to PesticidesOregon Environmental CouncilParents for Healthy Schools (NM)Pennsylvania Clean Water ActionPesticide Watch (CA)Protect All Children’s Environment (NC)SAFE SCHOOLS (LA)Safer Pest Control Project (IL)Saint Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium (MN)Sarasota/Manatee Citizens Rally Against Malathion (FL)Save the Bay (RI)Sierra Club, New Jersey ChapterToxicology International, Inc. (VA)Toxics Action Center (CT)Vermont Public Interest Research GroupVolunteers for a Healthy Valley (CA)Women’s Cancer Resource Center (CA)Women’s Voices for the Earth (MT)

Mothers & Others for a Livable PlanetMultiple Chemical Sensitivity Referral & ResourcesNational Center for Environmental Health Strategies, Inc.National Center for Policy Research for Women & FamiliesNational Coalition for the Chemically InjuredNational Education AssociationNational Environmental TrustNational Wildlife FederationNatural Resources Defense CouncilPesticide Action Network North AmericaPhysicians Committee for Responsible MedicinePhysicians for Social ResponsibilityPractical Allergy Research FoundationRachel Carson CouncilUnion of Concerned ScientistsU.S. Public Interest Research GroupWomen’s Environmental and Development OrganizationWorld Wildlife Fund

20/20 VisionAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal EmployeesAmerican Federation of TeachersAssociation of Birth Defect ChildrenBeyond Pesticides/ National Coalition Against the Misuse ofPesticidesCenter for Children’s Health & the Environment, Mount SinaiSchool of MedicineCenter for Health, Environment and JusticeCenter for Occupational & Environmental Medicine, P.A.Chemical Injury Information NetworkChemical Sensitivity Disorders AssociationChildren’s Health Environment CoalitionEndometriosis AssociationEnvironmental Working GroupFriends of the EarthGray PanthersKids for Saving Earth

1 in 9: The Long Island Breast Cancer Action NetworkAction for a Clean Environment (GA)Agricultural Resources Center (NC)American Public Information on the Environment (CT)Bio-Logical Pest Management, IncBURNT (TN)Californians for Alternatives to ToxicsCalifornia Public Interest Research GroupCancer Awareness Coalition (NY)Center for Environmental Connections (AZ)Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment (CA)Centro Independiente de Trabajoadores Agricolas (NY)Chemical Connection: Public Health Network of Texans Sensitiveto ChemicalsCitizens for a Better Environment (IL, MN, WI)Citizens for Alternatives to Toxins (MI)City of Evanston Environment Board (IL)Clean Action Alliance of MassachusettsCoalition Against Toxics (NJ)Coalition for Environmentally Safe Schools (WA)Colorado Coalition for Pesticide RestraintColorado for Alternatives to ToxicsColorado Pesticide NetworkCommittee for Alternatives to Pesticides of the Green DecadeCoalition (MA)Connecticut Fund for the EnvironmentEarth Justice Ministries (CA)Ecological Action of Rhode IslandEcological Health Organization (CT)Ecology Center (MI)Environment & Human Health, Inc. (CT)Environmental Advocates (NY)Environmental Defense Center (CA)Floridians Against Chemical TrespassGreat Swamp Watershed Association (NJ)Greater Boston Physician for Social Responsibility’s HumanHealth & Environment Project (MA)Green Party of Arkansas

Regional / Local Supporters

Partial list. If your organization has not yet signed on, please contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street, SE, Suite 200, WashingtonDC 20003, 202-543-5450 (voice), 202-543-4791 (fax), [email protected]

School Environment Protection Act (SEPA)

National Supporters


EDICITSEP RECNAC EVITCUDORPERSTCEFFE YTICIXOTORUEN REVIL/YENDIK

EGAMAD-TIRRI/REZITISNES

TNA STCEFEDHTRIB

EDICITCESNIetahpecA C X X X

nirhtellA X X X

nitcemrevA X X X X

bracoidneB X X

licamorB C X X

sofiryprolhC X X X X

nirhtulfyC C X X X X

nirhtemrepyC C X X X

nonizaiD X X X X

sovrolhciD X X X X

bracyxoneF 2B X X

etarelavneF X X

nonlyhtemardyH C X X X

sofnehposI X X

nirhtolahyCadmaL D X X

nirhtonehP X

edixotublynorepiP C X X X X

notemorP D

sohpmateporP X

ruxoporP X X X X

nirhteryP X X X X

nirhtemarteT C X

nofrolhcirT X X X X X

SEDICIBREH

enizartA )CRAI(B2,C X X X X

edilusneB X X X

D-4,2 X X X X X X

AMSD X X

lahtcaD C X X

abmaciD D X X X X

edimorbiDtauqiD X X X X X

llahtodnE X X X X

etasohpylG X X X

nebaxosI C X X

APCM X X X X

PPCM X X X X X

AMSM X X

nilahtemidneP C X X X

edimanorP 2B X X X

norudiS X

rypolcirT D X X X

nilarulfirT C X X X

SEDICIGNUF

lymoneB C X X X X X

linolahtorolhC X X X X X

benaM 2B X X X X X

BNCP C X X X

rufluS X

nofemidairT C X X X X

mariZ X X X X

latoT elbissop/elbaborp12 72 13 13 14 71

B2 = EPA’s “probable humancarcinogen, sufficient evi-dence in animals and inad-equate or no evidence in hu-mans”C = EPA’s “possible human car-cinogen” ratingD = EPA’s “not classifiable asto human carcinogenicity,”usually due to inadequate dataX = Adverse effect demon-stratedX* = based on National Can-cer Institute epidemiologicalevidence2B(IARC) = InternationalAgency for Research on Can-cer, World Health Organiza-tion (IARC) states that theagent (mixture) is possiblycarcinogenic to humans

Source: Environmental Pro-tection Agency, California De-partment of Pesticide Regula-tion, Extension ToxicologyNetwork, www.scorecard.org(Environmental DefenseFund).

1 C is EPA carcinogenic ratingunder EPA’s weight-of-evi-dence category, meaning it isa possible human carcinogen.

2 Based on National Cancer In-stitute epidemiological evi-dence.

3 EPA classifies chloro-thalonilas a “Likely” carcinogen, theavailable tumor effects andother key data are adequate toconvincingly demonstrate car-cinogenic potential for hu-mans.

Health Effects of 48 Commonly Used Pesticides in Schools:A Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Factsheet


Rec/Parks was thought to be the largest user, with over 80other departments within the city, their use of pesticides wasjust the tip of the iceberg.

Like many cities and school districts across the country,San Francisco City staff were caught on the pesticide tread-mill. Very few staff were aware of the health and environmen-tal impacts of their pesticide use. In addition, little or no train-ing was offered to encourage staff to seek less harmful pestmanagement practices such as monitoring, beneficial insects,and changing conditions to prevent pest problems from de-veloping in the first place. Successive budget cuts reducedfunding for preventive maintenance programs further tight-ening the grip of chemical pesticides.

Measuring Change:Has the Program Worked?

In terms of reducing product toxicity and risk, San Fran-cisco has achieved concrete successes. All spray applications

of pesticides used within publicbuildings have been replacedwith baits, insect growth regula-tors, exclusion, sanitation, andeducation. Pesticides linked tocancer and reproductive harm,and those that have been identi-fied as the most acutely toxic, areprohibited from use unless anemergency one-time applicationis approved by the citywide IPMCoordinator. Broadcast applica-tions of pesticides have beeneliminated from playing fields

and parks.Prior to the ordinance, public access to information had

been nearly non-existent - even the building managers hadno idea what was being applied at their sites though theyauthorized payment of the pest control bills. Now, a compre-hensive system of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Coor-dinators and site managers has been created. These individu-als are responsible for maintaining records and establishingphone numbers for public access to pesticide use informa-tion. Landscape staff are required to scrutinize and justify eachapplication of a pesticide and mandated annual reports to theCounty Board of Supervisors will hold whole departmentsaccountable for their pesticide use.

Despite these successes, San Francisco’s pest managementprogram is not a finished product and still has a long way togo to achieve all of its goals. Many pesticides of concern, in-cluding glyphosate (RoundUpTM) and several pre-emergentherbicides, continue to be used at relatively high levels. Col-

Three years after its passage in 1996, the San Franciscopesticide ordinance has effectively achieved its primary goal — reducing the health and environmental

impacts associated with the use of pesticides by San Fran-cisco City departments. The use of the most hazardous pes-ticides has been reduced to practically zero, the public’s right-to-know has increased significantly though the posting ofsigns prior to and after an application, and public awarenessof pesticide problems and alternatives has increased. Thisarticle is designed to provide an update on what has beenlearned over the past three years so that people in othercommunities can learn from San Francisco’s successes andchallenges.

The HistoryOn October 8, 1996, the San Francisco Board of Super-

visors voted unanimously to pass a cutting-edge ordinancethat would significantly reduce the use of hazardous pesti-cides by all city departments. Thepolicy, among other things, immedi-ately banned the use of pesticideslinked to cancer, reproductive harm,and those that are most acutely toxic;increased the public’s right-to-know byrequiring posting of most pesticideapplications 72 hours before and afteran application; established IntegratedPest Management (IPM) as the pestmanagement framework for all depart-ments; and, banned all pesticides ex-cept for a list of approved pesticideseffective January 1, 2000. This policywas the strongest local policy in the nation and has success-fully contributed to a movement to adopt similar policiesthrough cities and school districts across the nation.

Why Pesticide Reform Was Needed inSan Francisco

In 1995, staff from Green Corps and Pesticide WatchEducation Fund (PWEF) undertook an audit of pesticide useby the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (Rec/Parks). Concerned about the public’s exposure to pesticidesin areas managed by the department, including Golden GatePark and San Francisco’s heavily used public golf courses, aswell as potential pesticide run-off into the San Francisco Bay,staff from the organizations poured through reams of pesti-cide use reports, and found some shocking information. FromDecember 1994 through November 1995, Rec/Parks usedover 60 different pesticides, including 26 linked to cancerand 20 suspected of causing reproductive harm. Although

San Francisco’s Pesticide Phase-OutWhat happens after the law is passedby Gregg Small and Deborah Raphael

Flowers planted on a median strip outcompete roadside weeds inSan Francisco.


Record-keeping: Under the ordinance, each departmentis responsible for keeping detailed information of each pesti-cide application, including details on the target pest, the nameof the applicator, the application equipment used, the typeand quantity of pesticide used, and the site and date of theapplication.

This has turned into one of the more challenging aspectsof program implementation. In fact, not one department hasbeen able to provide complete information for its pesticideuse for the past three years. There have been two primarybarriers to accomplishing this important component of thepolicy. First, in most departments, pest management has notbeen centralized or coordinated. This means that many people,from the janitor to an outside pest control company togardeners, are responsible for managing pests within any one

department. Now there are IPMcoordinators in each department,which should improve the situa-tion.

The second major problemhas been designing an easy-to-use system for tracking records.With multiple departments andmultiple staff responsible for pestmanagement within most ofthose departments, designing asystem that is user-friendly andaccessible to everybody whoneeds it has been quite a task.

The first step to addressingthis problem was designing a database program to track pes-ticide use with the software program Access. The database isbased on a state mandated pesticide reporting form that eachdepartment must submit monthly to the County AgriculturalCommissioner’s office. Training sessions were given to ap-propriate supervisors and applicators and, in several cases,landscape staff were outfitted with computers in order to par-ticipate. The data system is designed to transmit the pesticideuse information via e-mail to the citywide IPM Coordinator’soffice where a central database is compiled.

However, this data collection program has faced somehurdles. First, the old saying “garbage in garbage out” be-comes a real issue when many people in a department areauthorized to use pesticides. Staff may not be comfortablewith computers and some still do not have workable systemsaccessible to them. In addition, the program is well-designedto track pesticide use but does not track prevention activitiesor non-chemical controls such as exclusion and vacuuming.The city is working to expand the database to better reflectthe range of options important to an IPM program.

To address the problems with the tracking of pesticideuse and pest problems, the city recently designed a computertracking system and form for structural pest control staff. Theform is easy to use and requires pest control staff to note notonly pesticide use, but also other pest management practicesthat they use, including monitoring, beneficial insects, andbaits. In addition, all new structural pest control contractswill require timely electronic submission of pesticide uses.

City staff are taking the timeto determine what is causing

the pest problem andidentifying the steps needed

to prevent the problemfrom occurring...

lecting data about what pesticides are being used remains achallenge. However, changes in behavior begin slowly andbuild in momentum as each barrier falls.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A GoodApproach to Pest Management?

Many people are well aware of the abuse of the term IPMover the past decade. Although the term has been used inap-propriately by people who continue to emphasize the use ofhazardous pesticides, the basis of IPM is sound, and manydepartments within San Francisco are using IPM appropri-ately.

IPM, at its core, is about changing pest management prac-tices to prevent problems from occurring in the first place,making the use of pesticides unnecessary. IPM programs re-quire more than simply ban-ning certain pesticides, al-though this is an importantcomponent. They require aparadigm shift within large bu-reaucracies. Institutional iner-tia must be overcome, and in-novation encouraged. Changesmust be adopted in how pur-chasing decisions are made,products are used, contractsare written, people are trained,information is provided to thepublic, and how staff at vari-ous levels and in various de-partments work together to find long term solutions insteadof the usual short fixes.

While IPM in San Francisco does not mean the elimina-tion of all chemical pesticides, the city’s IPM program em-braces a new paradigm for city workers around pest manage-ment decisions and tactics. City staff are not just replacingone toxic pesticide with another, but are taking the time todetermine what is causing the pest problem and identifyingthe steps needed to prevent the problem from occurring inthe future.

Protecting the Public’s Right-to-KnowThere are two major elements of the San Francisco right-

to-know provisions: record-keeping and notification.Notification: Under the ordinance, nearly all pesticide

use requires 72-hour notification before and after application.Generally, city staff who plan to apply pesticides post signswith information including pesticide name, activeingredient, target pest, area to be treated, date and time ofapplication, and who to contact for more information. Thenotification system has worked well in achieving its goal ofproviding warning to the public about pesticide use. The pri-mary problem with this system has been vandalism of signs.

The only pesticide applications that are exempted fromthe prior notification are baits. If baits are used as part of apest management program, a permanent sign indicating theuse of the bait and who to contact for more information, isposted in a conspicuous location within the building.


Coordinating a Large City ProgramFor a program to succeed in a city the size of San

Francisco, effective coordination between city departmentsis critical. Coordination has worked well and departmentsare working together on issues such as training, hiring ofpersonnel, and testing of equipment.

The key components to its success have been:Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): The basic idea

of the TAC is simple — bring together the major players in-volved in implementation of the policy for regular meetingsto share information and find cre-ative solutions to challenges.Within the first few months ofthe passage of the ordinance, theDirector of the San Francisco De-partment of the Environment,and the San Francisco Agricul-tural Commissioner, called thefirst meeting of the TAC. For thepast three years, this group hasmet on a monthly basis. Atten-dance at these meetings rangesfrom 15-30 people, and usuallyincludes: the seven major depart-ments within the city who tradi-tionally used the most pesticides;pest control companies who hold contracts with the city forservices; IPM experts; public interest advocates, and staff fromthe Department of the Environment and the County Agricul-tural Commissioner’s office.

The TAC has provided for regular, productive meetingswhich help to provide a sense of teamwork, and offers theopportunity for on-the-ground pest managers in different de-partments to share information and chronicle challenges. Italso provides an opportunity to identify shared problems andpossible solutions. For example, early in the process, depart-ments recognized a need for increased funding, primarily forstaff in some departments and training in all departments.After identifying this need within the group, Pesticide Watchworked with public interest, health, and environmental ad-vocates within the city to successfully lobby Mayor WillieBrown to provide increased funds for these needs.

Pesticide Reduction Coordinator: The City of San Fran-cisco has one full-time staff person who oversees the IPMprogram for the entire city. This person is responsible for co-ordinating all elements of the IPM program including devel-opment of the approved list of pesticides, data collection andpesticide tracking, contractor oversight, public relations, andtraining.

The existence of a single staff person accountable for pro-gram success is a critical part of any IPM program. The exactqualifications for this position will depend on the program,but certain skills have proven invaluable. The most impor-tant is the ability to coordinate and motivate a wide range ofpeople who represent disparate viewpoints, each with theirown set of barriers and challenges. The second is a firm un-derstanding of IPM principles and the ability to access tech-

nical information and professional expertise when needed.IPM Coordinators: As required under the ordinance,

each of the 80 departments within the city must appoint oneperson to serve as an IPM Coordinator. For most departmentsthis “coordinator” is really a contact person. Current IPM edu-cational efforts have focused on the seven “biggest user” de-partments. Each of these departments has designated severalIPM point people and one coordinator. The IPM Coordina-tors are responsible for data collection and for communica-tion between the citywide coordinator and department em-

ployees. For example, when a par-ticular department experienced amouse infestation, fact sheets weredistributed to the office staffthrough the department’s IPM Co-ordinator.

Training at All LevelsA common theme to most IPM

programs is the importance of train-ing. It is often said that all membersof an institution must receive train-ing to ensure the success of IPMefforts. San Francisco has demon-strated an on-going commitment totraining from the level of the

Department Head to the groundskeepers, custodians, andoffice staff who usually drive the pest control process by issu-ing the complaints.

“Non-Technical Training”: Working closely together, theoffice of the County Agricultural Commissioner and theDepartment of the Environment put together a trainingprogram aimed at building occupants, custodians, and sitemanagers. Roughly 17 of these “non-technical” training ses-sions have been conducted so far. Outside consultants arehired to lead the sessions and a specialized IPM workbookfor structural pest control was developed as a companion tothe presentations. Participants are taught the basics of IPMincluding the specific role each individual plays in the pestidentification and prevention process. These training effortshave been well received and are given to staff throughout thecity including the public hospitals, libraries, Public Worksand MUNI (public transit). Training also occurs in the formof presentations at regularly scheduled staff meetings.

Mayor Willie Brown helped to facilitate training of high-level staff by sponsoring a special training for departmentheads. The training was aimed at improving awareness of thespecific requirements mandated by the city’s ordinance as wellas increasing the high level buy-in necessary for program suc-cess. The San Francisco Airport offers an IPM component aspart of the regular safety training required of all new employ-ees. Airport staff also developed a training manual to broadlydescribe the pests commonly found on airport property, aswell as some of the exotics brought in by unsuspecting for-eign travelers.

Other non-technical training has occurred in the form offact sheets on the major insect pests, and the development of

Flowers on a median strip in San Francisco.


a web site whose goal is to link interested parties to the myriadof information on less toxic pest control now available on theworld wide web. Training can involve a combination oftactics that include written materials and actual control. Forexample, when the Station Agents (ticket collectors) in thesubway stations complained about mice in their booths, theresponse was two-fold. First, educational materials (factsheets) were distributed on the habits of rodents and the im-portance of sanitation and exclusion. Second, station mainte-nance staff placed traps and installed door sweeps on the bot-toms of all booth doors, techniques mentioned as part of thetraining materials.

Technical Training: In San Francisco, like most othercities, nearly all structural pest control is done by outsidecontractors while in-house staff perform landscape pest con-trol. Thus training has tended to focus on landscape issues,particularly weed and rodent control. For structural pest con-trol, the applicators are outside contractors, making the bidprocess, rather than city-sponsored training, the crucial stepin ensuring compliance with theIPM ordinance. A discussion of thebid process and working with out-side contractors appears below in thesection “Outside Contractors.”

Technical training of landscapestaff consists of presentations andproduct demonstrations in bothlarge conference-like venues andsmaller group workshops. Outsideexperts are brought in to discusscontrol issues relevant to landscapemaintenance in San Francisco’s of-ten foggy and windy climate. In ad-dition, training manuals prepared byoutside IPM experts have become asignificant tool for communicating control options other thanchemical pesticides.

One unexpected consequence of these citywide trainingprograms has been the opportunity for grounds-keepers withsimilar concerns and challenges to network with their peersacross departmental boundaries, something that is very rarein large bureaucracies.

In-house staff were responsible for some of the trainingmaterials, like the fact sheets, while experts in the IPM fieldwere contracted to create a variety of manuals and workbooks.The Public Utilities Commission worked with the Bio Inte-gral Resource Center and experts to create a series of work-books on pests of particular concern to the department. Eachworkbook walks the reader through an IPM decision makingprocess and offers a number of control options from mechani-cal and reduced-risk chemicals to prevention and exclusion.Each workbook was part of a hands-on training session. Top-ics include Gophers, Yellow Star Thistle, Argentine Ants,Gorse, Brooms, and General Vegetation Management. Whilethe Public Utilities Commission (PUC) developed the work-books for their own staff, they have made them availablethroughout the city further fostering a sense of interdepart-

lPM is about changingpest management

practices to preventproblems from occurring,

making the use ofpesticides unnecessary.

mental teamwork in our IPM efforts.

Budgetary RequirementsLimited resources often present the most significant

barrier to implementing an IPM program. IPM programsemphasize long term solutions to on-going problems, yet mostbudget processes reflect short-term fixes. Training, equipmentpurchases, and additional labor all cost money and depart-ment heads do not give priority to pest control in theirallocation of existing resources, given competing needs andbudgets.

In San Francisco, roughly 35,000 employees fall underthe ordinance. In addition, the IPM ordinance affects not onlythe 49 square miles of land within San Francisco’s city andcounty borders, but also the city-owned property in sevensurrounding counties, covering hundreds of miles.

San Francisco is utilizing an effective system to fund theIPM program. Even departments, identified as “big users” ofpesticides, were each asked by the Mayor to transfer $17,900

to the Department of the Environ-ment for program coordinationand development. This money isbeing used to fund the position ofthe citywide IPM Coordinator aswell as to fund training, expertconsulting fees, and materials forall seven departments and out-reach to the remaining 70 citydepartments.

Other funding sources includea start-up grant awardedto the County AgriculturalCommissioner’s Office by the En-vironmental Protection Agencyand private grants used to fund

specific projects. In addition, individual departments havedrawn upon existing budgets to implement specialized train-ing and pilot projects.

It is still too early to tell whether the short-term start-upcosts will result in long-term cost savings for the city in termsof real dollars. It is likely that it will save the city very diffi-cult to quantify but very real benefits including decreased costsfor health care for poisonings and clean-ups, increased mo-rale of city staff who are proud of an effective program, anddecreased costs in pesticide purchases.

The Year 2000 List: Developing a List ofApproved Use Pesticides

Under the ordinance, all pesticides are banned from useby San Francisco City departments effective January 1, 2000,except for a list of approved use pesticides. Compiling thislist has been one of the major challenges in implementation.The intent of the ordinance was never to ban all pesticides.Because the definition of pesticides is so broad, many materi-als and methods that are defined as pesticides are critical com-ponents of an effective pest management program, includingsome safer oils, biological controls, and others. Rather, the


intent of the list is to contain only those pesticides that arelow risk to humans and safe for non-target pests.

In the first year of the ordinance, all acutely toxic cat-egory I, labeled “Danger,” (as defined by EPA) pesticides andthose identified by government agencies as linked to cancerand reproductive harm were banned. By the end of the sec-ond year, all acutely toxic category II, labeled “Warning,” pes-ticides were banned except under specific exemption by thecitywide Pesticide Program Coordinator. Now a four-step pro-cess has been established to compile a list that not only de-fines which pesticides may be used on city property but alsosets parameters for how those pesticides are used.

Step 1 - Assembling a potential pesticide list (com-pleted): Each city department was asked to submit a list ofpesticides they wished to be considered for inclusion on theapproved list, excluding the most hazardous pesticides thathad been eliminated by previous bans.

Step 2 - Scientific review (in process): The city will as-sess the ecological impacts andhuman health concerns of eachpesticide requested for use. A sci-entifically defensible evaluationtool was needed to conduct sucha review. Philip Dickey of theWashington Toxics Coalition hasdeveloped an excellent system forassessing the potential effects ofmany commonly used urban pes-ticides, which is being used in boththe City of Seattle and KingCounty, Washington. San Fran-cisco will run each of the“desired” pesticides through thisrigorous analysis. Once the analy-sis is complete pesticides will be grouped according the riskand hazard factors.

Step 3 - Combining science with need: A small commit-tee composed of community members, city staff, and publicinterest advocates will be charged with reviewing thescientific analysis and sorting pesticides into tiers of relativetoxicity (see below). The committee will need to weigh theenvironmental and human health impacts with the need for aparticular pest management tool. Available alternatives willbe considered as well as mitigating factors such as self-con-tained bait stations or the ability to exclude public access,and hence reduce exposure, on a golf course. The public willbe invited into the process through publicly held meetings.

Step 4 - Final adoption: The San Francisco Commissionon the Environment will then make the final decision on whatwill be included on the approved list. The list will be revis-ited every six months to determine if new, safer pesticidesshould be added and if some more hazardous pesticides canbe dropped or their use further limited.

At the end of this process, a three-tier system for usingpesticides will be established:

Allowed Products: This list will include products thatare considered non-toxic, such as beneficial insects and bio-

logically-based pesticides, as well as those defined by the cityas reduced risk. Products on this list will likely include in-secticidal gels and containerized baits, some soaps and oils,organic acids, and inorganic salts like borates.

Limited Use: This list will include products that are ofpossible environmental and public health concern but whoseuse is required under the financial constraints and/or perfor-mance requirements of building and landscape maintenance.The list will dictate the specific circumstances under which aproduct may be used. For example, Roundup ProTM will mostlikely be found on this list. However, use of this product wouldbe limited to such situations as cracks in asphalt where useof a scraping tool would only expand the weakened areas ofthe surface and so increase the available area for future weedestablishment.

Requiring Exemptions: Some products are consideredto be of significant enough concern that their use must berestricted to emergency situations. For example, a fungal out-

break on golf course greens canrequire a swift solution that isusually chemically based. For aproduct on this list to be used, awritten request must be submit-ted to the citywide Pesticide Pro-gram Coordinator for approval.There currently is a debate withinthe Technical Advisory Commit-tee (TAC) about whether this listshould actually include specificpesticide products or whether itshould simply be the process forexemption requests.

Compiling this list and de-veloping a protocol has been ex-

tremely challenging. City staff have made tremendous stridesin eliminating the use of many highly hazardous pesticidesand have altered their practices to reduce the need for usingpesticides in many other cases. Yet many still believe thatthey should have access to pesticides that Pesticide Watchand other public interest advocates have serious concernsabout, including glyphosate, the active ingredient inRoundupTM. The challenge facing the subcommittee chargedwith assembling the list can not be underestimated. IPM pro-grams must balance the need for tools to cover a wide rangeof pest control problems with the imperative responsibilityof protecting human health and the environment.

Outside Contractors and Tenants on CityProperty

Ensuring compliance with an IPM ordinance means mak-ing sure all in-house staff are on board as well as any outsidecontractors who are hired for pest management purposes. Wehave discussed in detail the mechanisms for oversight ofin-house staff, largely training and reporting. Outside con-tractors, usually structural pest control operators, can offer aspecial challenge when procurement of these services is spreadacross a large number of departments or even individual sites

Mulch effectively curbs weeds on a median strip in San Francisco.


throughout a city. In San Francisco, a citywide pest controlcontract has greatly aided consolidation of the oversight ofboth procurement and contractor performance. No depart-ment may hire a pest control contractor outside of the citywidebid. This type of restriction is quite common in municipalpurchasing and so most departmentshave little trouble understanding thecontracting procedure and followingit closely.

Several sample contracts forIPM services are available (City ofSanta Monica, National Capitol Re-gion (Washington, DC), Santa ClaraCounty) and San Francisco will berefining its contract in the first partof 2000. An effective contract mustspecify which pest managementmethods are allowable and prefer-able for each target pest. In addition,the contract must address pest-proofing as either the responsibilityof the contractor or the contractingdepartment. For example, is caulk-ing or screen repair a reimbursable use of the pest controlcontractor’s time? Finally, the contract must spell out the re-porting requirements of the IPM program. Most contractorsare not used to filling out detailed reporting forms for theirclientele or submitting monthly summaries of pesticide prod-ucts used. If these elements are viewed as important, theymust be spelled out in the contract document.

Oversight of the contractor’s performance is best achievedby tracking customer satisfaction along with the pest moni-toring and control activities performed at each site. In largeinstitutional settings, such as cities and school districts, theQuality Assurance Form (QAF) becomes the key communi-cation and oversight tool for the IPM Coordinator. The QAFlists the number of traps, monitors, bait stations, etc. in placeat a given site and documents any lapses in sanitation or struc-tural deficiencies contributing to pest infestations.

One particularly successful program is at San Francisco’sInternational Airport, which includes roughly 2.5 millionsquare feet of building space on 7,000 acres, and is visited byabout 40 million passengers a year. Pest control on such alarge scale is no small feat. The Airport’s IPM Coordinatorreceives the QAF’s generated by the pest control contractorthroughout the airport. In addition, each week the Coordina-tor performs a detailed monitoring tour of the entire airportfacility. Combining the information on the QAF with his ownobservations, the IPM Coordinator generates a “MonitoringForm” detailing problem areas that require immediate atten-tion. This form is forwarded to the Head of EnvironmentalServices who then designates individual tasks to the appro-priate maintenance staff members. Because of this system, ratinfestations were curtailed by placing lids on all the trash cansat an open field used by the public for viewing airplane land-ings and takeoffs. Also, increased street sweeping has reducedthe need for herbicides or labor for mechanical methods to

Gregg Small is the Executive Director of PesticideWatch and Pesticide Watch Education Fund and the Presi-dent of the Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP Board of Directors.Gregg has served on the San Francisco Technical Advi-sory Committee since its inception. Gregg can be reachedPesticide Watch, 450 Geary Street, San Francisco, CA94102, 415-292-1488, [email protected], orwww.pesticidewatch.org.

Deborah Raphael is the Pesticide Reduction ProgramCoordinator for the Department of the Environment, Cityof San Francisco. Deborah can be reached at the Depart-ment of the Environment, 1540 Market Street, Suite 160,San Francisco, CA 94102, 415-554-6399 [email protected].

control weeds growing in curb areas.San Francisco faces a tremendous challenge in implement-

ing the IPM ordinance within city-owned properties that areleased by private tenants. Both the Port and Airport househundreds of private tenants (each

airline and shipping company isconsidered a private tenant). The IPMordinance does specify that when anindividual’s lease comes up forrenewal, the tenant must comply withall aspects of the ordinance. We hopeto develop a tenant education programsome time next year.

Oversight of individual tenantswill most likely be on a complaint ba-sis. In terms of outside contractors, thefinal challenge will be to implementthe IPM ordinance for city operationsthat occur in non-city owned build-ings. Again, the lease is the point ofopportunity to establish pest manage-ment related requirements.

It Takes A Team to Succeed: AcknowledgementsThe authors of this article are only two voices in a large

collection of individuals who are responsible for the IPMprogram in San Francisco. The authors would like to acknowl-edge the following individuals for their dedication andleadership in crafting and implementing San Francisco’s IPMprogram: Dave Frieders and Jay Seslowe of the San FranciscoCounty Agricultural Commissioner’s Department, Al Hom andBeryl Magilavy of the Department of the Environment, Cali-fornia State Assemblyman Kevin Shelley and San FranciscoCounty Supervisor Leslie Katz, and current Director of theDepartment of the Environment, Francesca Vietor. We wouldalso like to acknowledge the many members of the TAC whohave shown strong leadership in taking new approaches topest management within their departments.Experiments andSuccess Stories

San Francisco hasdemonstrated an

on-going commitmentto training from the levelof the Department Headto the groundskeepers,

custodians, andoffice staff...


prove turf health. In addition, the staff have set up a monitor-ing system to track weather conditions at various points inthe course as well as the presence of disease and prevalenceof weeds such as English Daisy. John hopes that such detailedrecords will allow him to better understand when a diseaseoutbreak can be waited out and when a chemical control isneeded. Staff use mulch to prevent weeds in flowerbeds andselects plants sturdy enough to handle the nearly continuousstream of salt air that blows in from the ocean adjacent to thecourse. John’s experiences on the golf course will be trans-lated to turf areas throughout the city’s neighborhood parks.

CockroachesMUNI (public transit): “There’s no roaches in these

coaches” is the word from Victor Lee and the maintenancedivision overseeing the “rolling stock” (buses, trains, trol-leys, etc). Several years ago, buses were routinely sprayed withinsecticides, whether insects were present or not. Now im-proved sanitation has been combined with a baiting programand the results have proved a success. Baits are applied onlytwice a year so the cost of pest control has been drasticallyreduced and the buses are filled with happy monitors (i.e.the passengers) who would definitely let staff know if cock-roaches were riding along with them.

RoadsidesPublic Works: Median strips are a very common chal-

lenge for an IPM coordinator. For beautification, many milesof these narrow planted areas are cropping up but rarely areresources planned for their maintenance and upkeep. Apply-ing herbicides to medians carries an additional risk for theapplicator - moving vehicles. The spray operator, Ralph Mon-tana, charged with maintaining San Francisco’s medians, anda great many other areas as well, decided to try planting wild-flowers in several areas that seemed heavily prone to weedinfestations. Three mixes of wildflowers were selected tomatch local climatic conditions and the resulting blooms re-quire little maintenance. In addition, any volunteer weedsblend in with the less manicured look of the flowers and sono herbicides have been needed to remove them.

In addition to the examples cited above, outside ven-dors are invited to present information on their “alternative”products and train San Francisco staff to implement pilot stud-ies to determine the efficacy of these technologies within theconstraints of our microclimate and bureaucracy. Productsthat have been tested include “flamers” and hot water sys-tems for weed control, corn gluten meal based products, andseveral predatory insects released as a means of biologicalcontrol in our greenhouses and nurseries. The city is nowexploring opportunities for working closely with local researchinstitutions to act as an experimental demonstration site fornew reduced risk technologies and products.

– Gregg Small and Deborah Raphael

One of the most successful elements of the San Fran-cisco ordinance has been the change in pest managementpractices that have occurred in a number of city depart-ments. Knowing that many of the traditional chemical toolswere no longer available, many staff have experimented withnew and innovative ways to reduce their reliance on chemi-cal pesticides. Below is a summary of some of these changes.

WeedsAnnual Flowerbeds in Golden Gate Park: The Rec/Parks

Department eliminated the use of pre-emergent herbicides inthe highly visible flowerbeds outside the park’s conservatory.First, staff experimented with solarization, a technique thatfailed in this site because the over-spray from sprinklers keptthe plastic wet which cooled the soil below. The gardenershave since developed a successful system where the emptybeds are watered and allowed to sit for two weeks to let weedseeds germinate. A flamer is then used to kill the seedlings asthey surface. The system works so well that only occasionalhand weeding is required to maintain the bed once the annu-als are planted.

Public Utility Commission: On the steep slopes that sur-round one of the city’s remote reservoirs a herd of goats isbeing used to clear brush including Poison Oak and YellowStar Thistle to reduce fire hazard. Robin Bruer, thedepartment’s IPM Coordinator has contracted the services ofthe goats along with two dogs and a herder for 18 months.

The herd will circle the reservoir three times creating anopen growth pattern in the vegetation. Using goats to clearvegetation will both reduce the risk of fire and protect thewater supply from potential pesticide contamination.

A series of pilot projects from installing weed barriers toan intensive gopher and mole monitoring and trapping pro-gram have all reduced the need for chemical controls. In oneheavy brush area, a fire road is being maintained by a set ofexperimental plots to test various mowing regimes and dozerblade removal techniques (in combination with and withoutpesticides). The project goal is to convert the vegetation pat-tern within the fire access area from dense brushland to pe-rennial grasses and wildflowers using the most efficient andchemical-free methodology.

Golf coursesRecreation and Parks: San Francisco owns and operates

a number of golf courses both within our county limits andin neighboring areas. Golf courses have traditionally been themost difficult settings to manage without the use of chemicalcontrols such as herbicides and fungicides. The supervisorfor Sharp Park and Golf Course, John Farley, has proved awilling partner in the search for less toxic management prac-tices. John and his staff well understand that healthy turfmeans disease resistant turf and that means less of a need forpesticides. They are experimenting with the use of slow-re-lease organic fertilizers and various aeration methods to im-

Experiments and Success Stories

Resources


Recognition andManagement of PesticidePoisonings, Fifth Edition,1999

(U.S. Environ-mental Protec-tion Agency,Office of Preven-tion, Pesticides,and ToxicSubstances,March 1999).

This fifth edition of Recognition andManagement of Pesticides Poisonings, an up-date and expansion of the previous edition,incorporates new pesticide products notnecessarily widely known among healthprofessionals. The manual examines tox-icity of classes of pesticides, signs andsymptoms of poisoning, confirmation ofpoisoning and treatment for insecticides,herbicides, and other pesticides and dealsmostly with short-term (acute) harmful ef-fects of pesticides. The manual also con-tains an index of pesticides’ commonnames and active ingredients. The Indexof Signs and Symptoms provides tables ofsymptoms for different parts of the bodyand type of chemical associated with spe-cific symptoms. The manual stresses thatprevention of pesticide poisoning remainsa much surer path to safety and healthrather than reliance on treatment antidotesand treatments that may themselves betoxic and not entirely risk free. For a copy,contact U.S. EPA, 800-490-9198, or seewww.epa.gov/pesticides/safety/healthcare

A Survey of Private DrinkingWater Wells for Lawn andTree Care Pesticides in aConnecticut Town

Susan S.Addiss, MPH,MUrS, et al.(Environmentand HumanHealth, Inc.,1999)

A new study of Connecticut privatewell water by EHHI finds six wells con-taminated with chlordane, chlorpyrifos,chlorthalonil, dacthal, diazinon, lindane,and trifluralin. The report is based on wellwater tests by 53 homeowners. Approxi-mately 500,000 people in Connecticutdrink water from private wells. Of thehomeowners surveyed, 72% used pesti-cides on their lawns and/or trees and 42%identified themselves as regular users ofpesticides. 11% of the tested wells (sixwells) contained trace levels of pesticides.One well, owned by a non-user of pesti-cides located near an orchard, containedfive different pesticides. The study alsostresses that there is no data available onhow pesticides react with one another.Also, because pesticides are tested for tox-icity one chemical at a time, synergistic ef-fects are unknown, says the study. For acopy, contact Nancy Alderman, EHHI, NorthHaven, CT 06473, 203-248-6582.

From Your Backyard to theBay: A bay area resourceguide for alternatives totoxic pesticides

(Pesticide WatchEducation Fund,San Francisco,CA, 1999)

Pesticide WatchEducation Fund’s re-cent publication,From Your Backyard

to the Bay, is an activist’s toolkit tostrengthen the movement away from theuse of toxic pesticides. The guide offers thereader information on less toxic alterna-tives to pesticides used in structures, lawnsand gardens for common pests such ascockroaches, aphids, and termites. Theguide also offers suggestions on how todeal with a neighbor or landlord who re-fuses to stop spraying pesticides that maydrift onto your property. From Your Back-yard to the Bay also provides contacts forthose seeking pest control operators thatuse non-toxic alternatives, stores and farmsto purchase organic foods and vegetables,

and organic nurseries and gardens. Theguide lists groups and resources for peoplewith multiple chemical sensitivities andlaboratories that can test for pesticide resi-dues. For a copy of the guide, send $7 to Pes-ticide Watch Education Fund, 450 GearyStreet, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102,415-292-1486.

Gardening With ChildrenBeth Richardson(Taunton Press,Inc., 1998)

Children andadults alike can ap-preciate this instruc-tional book on or-ganic gardening. The

author, Beth Richardson, is an experiencedgardener, and uses her techniques to drawchildren into the joys of gardening at anearly age, while giving not-so-experiencedadults the confidence needed to motivatechildren. The projects outlined in Garden-ing with Children include theme gardens inwhich children grow the ingredients fortheir favorite dish (recipes are also in-cluded) and crafts made from garden-grown materials. The instructions havebeen successfully tested on children ages4-14. Gardening with Children helps a par-ent teach their child about pesticides andthe importance of organic gardening, aswell as basic ecology of soils and plants.For a copy, send $19.95 to Taunton Books,63 South Main St., P.O. Box 5506, Newtown,CT 06470-5506, 800-926-8776, or seewww.taunton.com.

Disrupting the Balance:Ecological Impacts ofPesticides in California

Susan Kegley, etal. (PesticideAction NetworkNorth AmericanRegional Center,1999).

Expecting fewerpests and increased

Resources


crop yields with more pesticide spraying,farmers increased their insecticide use 10-fold between 1945 and 1989. Despite theaddition of these toxic chemicals to theirfields and our food, crop losses nearlydoubled in the same time period. Unfor-tunately, while the fields were being blan-keted with poisons, the natural balance be-tween pest and predator insects was up-set. While trying to knock down the pestpopulations, the natural controls were de-stroyed and the detrimental insects weredeveloping resistance to the insecticides.In the report, Disrupting the Balance, thePesticide Action Network and Californiansfor Pesticide Reform take a look at the ef-fects of pesticides use on birds, beneficialinsects, and aquatic life, while examiningtheir role in the web of life. The report con-cludes with a call to action by offering safe,ecologically sound alternatives in its finalchapter, Restoring the Balance. For a copy,which are free to CA residents and $10 foreveryone else, contact Pesticide Action Net-work, (415) 981-1991 or [email protected]

Pesticide Report Card:Texas Schools Score from Ato F in the Integrated PestManagement Program(Texas Pesticide Information

Network andConsumersUnion,September1999).

For the pastfour years, theparents of Texasschool childrenhave had their

minds at ease. They thought, after theadoption of a statewide Integrated PestManagement (IPM) program in 1995, thattheir children would be free to learn in anenvironment without poisons permeatingthe air they breathed. In this report, theTexas Pesticide Information Network andthe Consumers Union turn the report cardon seven Texas school districts, gradingthem on their implementation of the IPM

programs. On average, the districts rangedfrom fair to poor. Although the schoolswere supposed to be using least toxicmethods of pest control, five of the sevendistricts used category I or II pesticides,one lied about the chemicals it used, andanother used a highly toxic herbicide toburn lines in their football field. Eventhough the focus of this report was onTexas, it is useful and interesting to any-one concerned with pesticides in schools,because of the focus on common flawsand overlooked problems with many IPMprograms. For a copy, contact the Consum-ers Union Southwest Regional Office at(512) 477-4431 or write to 1300Guadalupe, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 78701

Whose Trade Organization?Corporate Globalizationand the Erosion ofDemocracy

Lori Wallachand MichelleSforza (PublicCitizen,1999).

When theWorld Trade Or-g a n i z a t i o n(WTO) was

founded in 1995, the U.S. Congress waspromised a major decline in the trade defi-cit and $1700 annual gain in real medianfamily income. Neither of these has hap-pened. Instead the WTO has taken poweraway from the people and their local gov-ernments and allowed corporations torule with an iron fist, according to WhoseTrade Organization, a book by RalphNader’s Public Citizen. This report docu-ments the troubling five-year record of theWorld Trade Organization. The bookpoints out that people around the worldare being stripped of their inalienablerights to good health and acceptable stan-dards of living, all in the name of freetrade. The WTO has empoweredunelected trade bureaucrats sitting behindclosed doors in Geneva to bypass locallaws and societal standards, when mak-

ing decisions that will affect the health andwell-being of people around the world.Among other topics, Whose Trade Organi-zation examines the WTO’S impact on foodsafety standards, genetically modified food,the availability of medicine, and humanrights. For a copy, contact Public Citizen at800-289-3787 or visit the Public Citizenwebsite at www.citizen.org

Protecting Groundwaterfrom Pesticides: A CleanWater Action Guide(Friends of the Earth,November 1999)

If you rely on an underground drink-ing water source, you may have assumedthat your well water was protected fromcontamination. After all, unlike streams,rivers and lakes, underground watersources lie beneath a protective barrier ofsoil and rock. Unfortunately, it is time tothink again. Legally applied pesticides havefound their way into our families’ drink-ing water all around the country. Becauseweedkillers and other pesticides are usedheavily in agriculture, lawncare, and util-ity right-of-ways, they have shown up withalarming regularity in our undergrounddrinking water supplies. This type of con-tamination has become a particular prob-lem in rural communities where nearly allhomes use well water. The health risks as-sociated with pesticide contaminationrange from cancer and Parkinson’s diseaseto birth defects and infertility. In 1991, theEPA adopted a plan to deal with the issueof groundwater contamination by legal pes-ticide application by requiring states toadopt pesticide management plans, but hasnot yet implemented this strategy. This is-sue requires action now. Friends of theEarth most recent publication, ProtectingGroundwater from Pesticides: A Clean Wa-ter Action Guide, is written for both noviceand experienced activists alike to providethe information necessary to get involvedwith pesticide management decisions inyour area. For a copy, visit the FOE websiteat www.foe.org/safefood/groundwater or call202-783-7400.

BEYOND PESTICIDES/NCAMP MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS

❏ YES, make me a member of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP (includes subscription to Pesticides & You).❏ $25 Individual ❏ $30 Family ❏ $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 Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’s monthly Technical Report. $20 with membership or subscription.If outside the United States, please add $10.00 each for memberships and subscriptions.

R E S O U R C E ST-Shirts❏ “Pollution Prevention Is the Cure.” full color graphic on 100% natural organic

cotton Beneficial-T’s by Patagonia™ T-shirt. $18 each; two for $30.❏ “Speak to the Earth, and It Shall Teach Thee.” In green, blue and peach on

100% natural organic cotton. $15 each; two for $25.❏ 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

❏ Toxic Deception. By Dan Fagin, Marianne Lavelle and Center for PublicIntegrity. Published by Common Courage Press. $21.00

Back Issues❏ Back issues of Pesticides and You $2.00 each❏ Back issues of Technical Reports $1.00 eachBrochures ($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 $4.00❏ Parents: Right-to-Know-Schools, 3/19/97 $3.00Other❏ Getting Pesticides Out of Food and Food Production $5.00❏ NCAMP’s Pesticide Chemical FactSheets; individual: $2.00, book: $20.00❏ Least Toxic Control of Pests Factsheets $6.00❏ Community Organizing Toolkit $12.00❏ Model Pesticide Ordinance $5.00❏ Pesticides and Schools: A Collection of Issues and Articles $15.00❏ Schooling of State Pesticide Laws $5.00❏ Building of State Indoor Pesticide Policies $4.00❏ The Right Way to Vegetation Management $4.00

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

Name Phone Fax Email

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: Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP, 701 E Street SE, Washington, DC 20003 Tax-Deductible Donation: ____________

Total Enclosed: ____________Vol. 19, No. 3, 1999

Stay updated on pesticide issues:Stay updated on pesticide issues:Stay updated on pesticide issues:Stay updated on pesticide issues:Stay updated on pesticide issues:watch for action alerts and otherpertinent information on BeyondPesticides/NCAMP’s improved websiteat www.beyondpesticides.org.

Non-Profit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDSilver Spring, MDPermit No. 1400

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

Fall, 1999 • Vol. 19, No. 3 a member of Earth Share SM

COMPLIMENTARY COPY

Please Subscribe!

Printed with soy-based inks onEcoprint Offset, and cover onQuest™, both 100% post-consumerwaste and processed chlorine free.

Top Ten New Years 2000 Resolutions

Write your U.S. CongressmembersWrite your U.S. CongressmembersWrite your U.S. CongressmembersWrite your U.S. CongressmembersWrite your U.S. Congressmembers aboutthe School Environment Protection Act(SEPA), legislation that will protectchildren from pesticides in schools.

Attend the 18Attend the 18Attend the 18Attend the 18Attend the 18ththththth National Pesticide Forum National Pesticide Forum National Pesticide Forum National Pesticide Forum National Pesticide Forumin the spring of 2000 in New York, watchfor more information in the next issue ofPesticides and You.

Survey your pest control and lawn careSurvey your pest control and lawn careSurvey your pest control and lawn careSurvey your pest control and lawn careSurvey your pest control and lawn carecompany company company company company with the Beyond Pesticides:Getting the Alternatives You Need Direc-tory Survey, so we can include their leasttoxic services in the national directory ofleast and non-toxic service companies.

Request your utility company completeRequest your utility company completeRequest your utility company completeRequest your utility company completeRequest your utility company completethe the the the the Utility Company EnvironmentalUtility Company EnvironmentalUtility Company EnvironmentalUtility Company EnvironmentalUtility Company EnvironmentalPractices SurveyPractices SurveyPractices SurveyPractices SurveyPractices Survey and adopt environmen-tal practices, including purchasingalternative pole materials (no woodtreated with wood preservatives).

Include us in your bequestInclude us in your bequestInclude us in your bequestInclude us in your bequestInclude us in your bequest. ContactBeyond Pesticides/NCAMP on details.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP will assist you with all of these resolutions.Contact us for your New Years 2000 Resolution packet today!

Support Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPSupport Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPSupport Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPSupport Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPSupport Beyond Pesticides/NCAMPwith a contribution because without

you we don’t exist!

How you can build the pesticide reform movement with Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Complete Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sComplete Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sComplete Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sComplete Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sComplete Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sPesticide Incident ReportPesticide Incident ReportPesticide Incident ReportPesticide Incident ReportPesticide Incident Report, if you have beenpoisoned by a pesticide, or pass it alongto someone you know. We will use it toprovide weighty and powerful testimonyin support of reforming the nation’spesticide policies and practices.

Subscribe to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sSubscribe to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sSubscribe to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sSubscribe to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sSubscribe to Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP’sTechnical ReportTechnical ReportTechnical ReportTechnical ReportTechnical Report, our monthly bulletin oncurrent pesticide science and policy,only an additional $20 a year.

Give a membershipGive a membershipGive a membershipGive a membershipGive a membership to your friends,family, or neighbors.

Volume 19 , Number 3 Fall 1999 Pesticides and You€¦ · Florida: Pesticides Suspected” in the...

Documents

Transcript of Volume 19 , Number 3 Fall 1999 Pesticides and You€¦ · Florida: Pesticides Suspected” in the...