Where Have All The Flowers Gone? To Politicians Everywhere

What motivates politicians to regulate industry? Their desire to better society? Their desire to be in the limelight? Their desire to represent constituents’ interests? One thing is certain — it is not a desire to exercise common sense.

It wasn’t that long ago that industry regulations benefited us, consumers and the environment. But lately the tide has shifted, and the flower children (i.e. politicians and anti-pesticide groups) of the 1960s have found a cause — pesticides.

Having spent several years working in regulatory compliance, I found that regulations resulted in changes that strengthened our industry. The by-product of these changes reshaped consumer perceptions of our industry and the benefits of our services to society.

The two most notable changes during these early years were regulations regarding training and certification and pesticide registration. For the first time, minimum national standards for training and certification were established, and states were required to develop their own training and certification plans, or have one developed for them by the Agency. It was no longer possible for just anyone off the street, especially someone with no experience or training, to set up a pest control company.

CUMBERSOME LABELING. Pesticide labeling and registration requirements also underwent significant changes. At one time, nearly 50,000 pesticide products were being manufactured within the U.S., most with little oversight and standardization. New registration standards and improved labeling significantly changed the industry by protecting the safety and health of technicians, customers and the environment. Previously, labels left much of the mixing, application rates and safety procedures to the discretion of technicians, who often lacked the training to make appropriate decisions. Today, in fact, manufacturers have moved to the other end of the spectrum: In an effort to cover every contingency, many of the labels have become so cumbersome that it is difficult to find the essential information. However, the new labels are significant improvements over their predecessors.

Product registration standards have also changed the industry by removing many products that pose significant risks to the environment and human health. This resulted in the development of a wide array of new products, including new active ingredients, improved formulations, and very low dosage products. Thus, there have been many product casualties throughout this process, most for the better. However, during the mid-1980s, rational thinking and common sense within the regulatory environment began to stray from the path and politics became the dominant factor in the regulation of our industry.

POLITICIZED PEST CONTROL. The shift to politically motivated regulation began with the decision to prohibit the use of chlordane in 1988. Very few politicians and regulators considered the consequences of this decision (i.e. during the ensuing years we would pump millions of gallons of other termiticides into the soil). The longevity of the currently registered termiticides is remarkably less than chlordane, necessitating more frequent retreatments.

However, the upside is that we have a better understanding of termite biology and behavior, a direct result of bait development. In addition, other chemistries are being developed which use significantly lower application rates and have unique modes of action.

The next major politically motivated regulation, proposed in 1991, was the Community Right to Know Act, or the “Lieberman Bill.” This bill, as written, would have required PCOs making indoor pesticide applications to notify everyone within a quarter-mile radius of the application. It would also have required the posting of signs on entrances to public buildings and restaurants to indicate the premises had been treated with a pesticide. Imagine that you have to make a pesticide application in a small restaurant within a 40-story building in a major metropolitan area — the number of people to be notified is incomprehensible!

Since that time we have seen the proposal of numerous regulations requiring posting and notification, as well as local regulation of pesticide use. Several states have implemented notification and posting regulations by incorporating them in legislation mandating IPM in schools and other public buildings. West Virginia is a good example of how this can go astray. Rather than simply requiring IPM in schools, a regulation was developed which created a certification category for IPM while leaving all of the traditional categories as they were. This makes absolutely no sense, as all pest management programs and certification and training should be IPM-based.

On April 14, 1998, the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring IPM in schools. However, in reality, it is a notification law driven by environmental activists and emotion, poorly conceived, and with little consideration given to the science of pest management. The law requires notification of all parents of elementary school children at least 24 hours prior to pesticide application; notification of middle and high school students who request it; and postings of treated areas within middle and high schools. The law also states that pesticides do not include disinfectants, sanitizers or deodorizers and are not used for cleaning purposes, nor do they include bait stations.

Not to be outdone, we now have the Maryland Legislature’s definition of IPM: “Integrated Pest Management means a managed pest control program in which methods are integrated and used to keep pests from causing economic, health-related or aesthetic injury through the utilization of site or pest inspections, pest population monitoring, evaluating the need for control, and the use of one or more pest control methods including sanitation, structural repair, non-chemical methods, and when non-toxic options are unreasonable or have been exhausted, pesticides in order to minimize the use of pesticides; and minimize the risk of pesticides to human health and the environment associated with pesticide applications.” In reality, pest management is so encumbered by these requirements and the increased costs of implementing them that little pest management will be accomplished. Thus, children will be put at risk of exposure to stings, pest-borne diseases, allergies and related pest problems.<

I want to make one point perfectly clear: I wholeheartedly support responsible legislation and regulation of our industry. However, I do hope that one day common sense finds its way back into politics. We do have a voice in this process, and it is our privilege to exercise this voice when we elect our representatives and governors. I fully intend to exercise my privilege in the next Maryland election and certainly will not support the incumbents. What about you?

Dr. Richard Kramer is president of Innovative Pest Management, Olney, Md.