Industry Observer

The 1992 Entomological Society of America (ESA) Annual Conference in Baltimore, MD., offered hundreds of research papers, many of them of interest ot the structural pest control industry. Aside from the usual research reports in the urban entomology section of the conference, which I'll discuss later, there were two additional symposia presented on integrated pest management (IPM) and termiticides.

IPM FOR THE FUTURE. A symposium on IPM, organized by Dr. Michael Potter of the University of Kentucky, brought together research, industry and manufacturing representatives for a forum to discuss where the industry currently stands with regard to IPM. There were a variety of positions on IPM, but the essence of the presentations focused on the public's acceptance of IPM, whether or not the term IPM is accurate as it relates to the structural pest control industry, the success of current programs and what new products will fit into these pest control programs.

People who have followed the IPM craze realize that we've been burdened with a term that isn't necessarily applicable to our industry. An agricultural term, IPM really doesn't define what we do as pest control professionals. So then why do we use it? Well, we're sort of stuck with it for the time being.

IPM has become a politically correct acronym. In most cases, PCOs use IPM as a marketing tool rather than a control strategy. There ahas been much written and discussed about integrated pest management, but as someone pointed out to me at the meeting, we don't manage pests, we control them. This point was also emphasized by manufacturing representatives participating in the IPM symposium. They're working to develop environmentally friendly tools for PCOs and the consumer, but do these tools manage pests? The answer is no; they ultimately kill them. Yet we continue to sell IPM to our customers, particularly to sensitive commercial accounts.

These customers want it don't really understand it, but ultimately buy the concept, even though it is based on programs we have always had available to us. It was also reported that residential customers are, for the most part, opposed to IPM if they believe it will be too difficult to implement with over-the-counter products or take more time than is convenient. As a result, PCOs should emphasize that they can do the work and the results will be long term.

However, there is another aspect of so-called IPM that should be a goal of such a program. That goal is to reduce the amount of pesticides applied during the treatment process. This was pointed out by symposium speaker and fellow PCT contributing editor Jeffrey Tucker. Less pesticide use should be the goal of every PCO once a population has been controlled or eliminated. Modern IPM definitions make this a little clearer now than they used to, but the pest control industry needs to define and support this concept even more aggressively in the future.

It was pointed out by Dr. Michael Potter that the lack of education for consumers and the public in general is holding back our industry's progress towards a solid definition of IPM. Everyone needs to do their part in the education process of their customers. If we do a good enough job we might be able to convince the customer that pest control isn't too bad when it's called IPM.

Dr. George Rambo is a contributing editor to PCT magazine. Part II of Dr. Rambo's ESA Annual Meeting coverage will appear in the February issue.