IPM Institute News: IPM in the Marketplace
August, 2003
Volume 4 Issue No. 3
Contents
I. San Francisco Takes the Lead in Reducing
Pesticide Risks
II. Websites
III.
New York City Public
Schools: An IPM Success Story
IV.
Publications
V. About the IPM Institute and IPM Institute
News
VI. Event - Fourth
National IPM Symposium/Workshop Proceedings Available Online!
Produced by the IPM
Institute of North America.
I. San Francisco Takes the Lead in Reducing Pesticide Risks
How
do you address pesticide risks in a bureaucracy that includes
35,000 employees, more than 80 different departments and dozens of
unique sites including 2,100 miles of pipeline right of way?
Throw in a total ban on pesticide use within four years,
and you have the challenge faced by the city and county
of San Francisco
in 1996.
In
that year, San Francisco
was challenged by
activists to address pesticide risks.
These activists, including Green Corps and Pesticide Watch,
reviewed county pesticide use records, peeked in storage sheds and
orchestrated a public relations blitz culminating in newspaper
headlines such as “Parks are for People, not Pesticides.”
The
activists then collaborated with politicians and others to pass a
1996 ordinance calling for IPM on all city/county properties and a
total ban on pesticides by
January 1, 2000.
Responding
to immediate reaction from staff as well as community members, the
ordinance was quickly revised to allow limited use of “approved
pesticides.” Debbie
Raphael was hired by the San Francisco Department of the
Environment in August of 1999 and tasked with developing an
approved product list. “By
then, much of the groundwork was laid for the IPM program,”
according to Raphael, “but there was a high level of fear and
frustration among staff, that come the first of the new year, they
would lose effective chemical tools without practical
replacements.”
Identifying
Least-Risk Options
How
do you determine which pesticides are acceptable?
Raphael contracted with Dr. Philip Dickey, toxicologist
with the Washington Toxics Coalition, to evaluate 160 pesticides
selected by city staff. Those
products
were either currently being used, or under consideration for
future use.
In his analysis,
Dickey considered:
Acute
toxicity
- Indicated by the signal word on the product label (Danger,
Warning, Caution), with Danger signifying the most toxic.
Restricted
use status -
EPA-required product label language restricting use to
professional applicators rather than the general public.
Carcinogenicity
- Results of analysis by state, federal and international
organizations, including chemicals “known to the State of
California
to cause cancer,” a
formal listing mandated by the state’s Proposition 65.
Reproductive/developmental
toxicity
- Proposition 65 list of reproductive and developmental toxicants.
Endocrine
disrupting potential -
Active ingredients listed by Illinois'
state EPA as known,
probable or suspected disruptors of human or wildlife hormone
systems.
Clean
Water Act pollutants -
Under the federal Clean Water Act, states identify water bodies
with excessive contamination.
Pesticide contaminants listed for the
San Francisco
area included boron,
copper, chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion.
Ecotoxicity
– Impacts on aquatic organisms,
bees, birds and other wildlife indicated by the product label, Farm
Chemicals Handbook and EXTOXNET, a web-based resource.
Persistence,
water pollution hazard, and leaching and runoff potential were
also analyzed using public data sources.
Much of the work was limited to
active ingredients because most inert ingredients are not
disclosed bye product manufacturers.
The outcome was a four-tiered ranking, identifying products
of highest concern, moderate concern, lowest concern or
“insufficient data” to assign.
This ranking was then translated into an approved product list by a process that also considered availability of
effective, lesser-risk alternatives.
Today, the
approved list includes 28 products, plus 43 designated as
“Limited Use” and 11 as “Limited Use of Special Concern.”
These limited use products must be applied according to
restrictions specified for each product.
The list is reviewed and updated in a formal process
involving Dickey, community members, city/county staff and
Raphael’s department.
Effective
Alternatives to Chemical Options
The
City/County’s IPM policy specifies monitoring, thresholds and
prevention as the first line of defense.
Pesticides on the approved list are a last resort, to be
used only after non-chemical alternatives are exhausted.
Some of the tools used to reduce reliance on pesticides
include:
·Innovative
biological controls, including goat herds which manage vegetation
on hillsides, in public parks and in the county airport.
Shepherds, electric fences and trained dogs keep the goats
in line.
·A
rigorous, IPM-based selection process and contract specifications
for pest management firms working on city/county property.
·A
model golf course project in which Recreation and Parks Department
staff achieved an 80% reduction in fungicide use through the use
of compost tea brewers, organic fertilizer and an emphasis on
monitoring, timing, thresholds and spot treatment.
A complete renovation of
Harding
Park, including a golf course on the PGA Tour, incorporated pest
prevention in the design.
Bottom
Line Results
“Initially, our
program was funded by a contribution from each department that
uses pesticides,” reports Raphael.
“That fee has dropped by 10% in the last year, as our
program increased in efficiency.”
Have pest
management costs dropped? “That’s
hard to say because we haven’t tracked costs for individual
departments,” Raphael continues. “However,
we’ve not had complaints about costs, and departments are very
happy with the value they get from their IPM program contribution.
These include training, access to
expert consultants, meetings
and our annual IPM conference.”
Outside consultants are used as troubleshooters and are
called on much less frequently now than in earlier years.
The fact that 80%
of the indoor pest problems reported to the City’s structural
pest control con-tractor were resolved without pesticides is testimony to the effectiveness of the program.
Overall, pesticide use in parks and public spaces was
reduced by 55% between 1996 and 2001.
“Our
toughest problems have been dealing with weeds, especially on busy
streets where weed whackers, flamers and steamers are difficult to
use. We’ve had a lot
of success with these tools in other areas, along with mulches,
barriers and working with landscape architects to design weed
prevention into new and renovated sites.”
Keys
to Success
Raphael cites a
two-prong approach as critical to the effort in San Francisco. “The ordinance
provided the stick. The
carrot is recognizing the great work by staff,” she reports.
“We’ve worked vary hard to identify these folks and
recognize them through awards to individuals and commendations to
departments. If you
look at our program brochure, you’ll notice the photos are of
real people that we want to honor.”
Others have built
on San Francisco’s success, including Marin and Santa Clara
counties, which have adopted IPM policies similar to San
Francisco’s, and the IPM pages on the department’s web site
are among to top most-visited.
Graduating
to Broader Toxics Reduction
In October of
2002, Raphael was moved from her position as Pesticide Reduction
Program Coordinator to a newly created post as Toxics Reduction
Program Manager. “IPM
is an example of toxics reduction, and we’re interested in
reduction across the board into custodial products, disinfectants,
vehicle maintenance and other areas, so we’re figuring out how
we can take what we’ve learned in IPM to help all city
departments reduce our overall use of toxic chemicals.
Further, now that we have a success story to tell, how can
we get city residents to ask for, and providers to offer,
landscape and structural pest and landscape management services
that minimize toxics?”
II. Websites
San
Francisco’s current list of
approved pesticides is located at online. www.sfenvironment.com/aboutus/innovative/ipm/pest_list06/RRPL_2006_by_product.pdf.
Products are designated as Allowed (A), Limited Use (L),
and Limited Use of Special Concern (L*). Each limited use product
is accompanied by the specific circumstances under which it is
approved for use.
San
Francisco Integrated Pest Management Program, in Municipal Code
Chapter 39, declares that it shall
be the policy of the City and County
of
San Francisco
for City departments and City contractors who apply pesticides to
City property to eliminate or reduce pesticide applications on
City property to the maximum extent feasible.
Available on the web at
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/sfenvironment/aboutus/policy/legislation/ipm.htm.
Our
Water, Our World Program, developed
by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and now supported by
a group of San Francisco Bay Area clean water agencies to promote
less toxic pest control, the program has developed a series of
fact sheets designed to protect the Bay Area from lawn and garden
pollution. Fact sheets
and more information at are available at http://sfwater.org/detail.cfm/MSC_ID/78/MTO_ID/NULL/MC_ID/4/C_ID/1402/highlightKeyword/Our%20Water%
20Our%20World.
EXTOXNET,
a collaborative effort of five
universities, provides various types of pesticide toxicology and
environmental chemistry information.
EXTOXNET is available at http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/.
Pesticide
Watch and Pesticide Watch
Education Fund are organizations dedicated to fighting
dangerous pesticide use in California
communities, including pesticides in schools, parks, home and
garden and agriculture. For
more information, visit http://www.pesticidewatch.org/.
III.
New
York City Public Schools: An IPM Success Story
Editors Note: This story is excerpted from Safer
Schools, see review at left.
Catalyst
for Change
The
director of pest control for the New York City Department of
Education, Dan Dickerson, began implementing IPM in 1985 when he
was the pest control supervisor of the schools in
Queens. Now the director, he oversees the nation’s largest school
system, with 1,263 school buildings and a population of 1.2
million students.
Implementation
Strategies
At
the onset of his program, improvements were made in training,
equipment and materials used.
His staff now use practices that include sanitation to
prevent pests from reaching food and water resources.
New trash and recycling rooms are refrigerated to keep
pests out. "High Efficiency Particulate Air" (HEPA)
vacuums with special attachments are used to suck up pests and
pest debris when an occasional infestation is found.
This technique eliminates the need for pesticides to
"knock down" the infestation.
Staff
also use an enzyme-based cleaner, "Super-C
Professional," to remove pheromones left by ants and
cockroaches on surfaces to attract other pests.
By disrupting this “chemical communication” between
pests, large infestations are avoided.
Repairing pest
entry points and harborages is also a key strategy.
The staff has used more than 8,000 tubes of silicon caulk
since 1998 to seal up cracks and crevices that provide pests entry
into school buildings and hiding/nesting places once they arrive.
Snap traps for rodents are also used.
These are used only inside tamper-resistant bait stations,
typically placed in areas inaccessible to children and/or glued to
the floor to prevent removal and can only be opened with a special
key.
The
program has eliminated spray and fogging applications in favor of
ready-to-use baits and traps. No pesticide concentrate
formulations have been used in the past three years.
Organophosphate, carbamate or pyrethroid pesticides are not used.
IPM Effectiveness
The
New York City
system has reduced overall pesticide use by over 90 percent, with
a 95 percent reduction in service calls since the adoption of its
IPM program. These accomplishments have been recognized by EPA,
which awarded the program a certificate for outstanding efforts
towards risk reduction in 2002.
Mr.
Dickerson participates in the school IPM working group of the
National Foundation for IPM Education. He has also helped shape a
new school IPM certification program offered by the IPM Institute
of
North America
, which uses third-party evaluators who visit the school and
"grade" the school on the effectiveness of their IPM
program in managing pests with least-hazardous options. Mr.
Dickerson’s program is part of EPA's Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program and files reports to EPA’s website, http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP/.
IV.
Publications
Safer
Schools: Achieving a Healthy Learning Environment through
Integrated
Pest
Management
is a 60-page report that documents the IPM practices in 27
school districts in 19 states.
The report, published by Beyond Pesticides and the newly
formed School Pesticide Reform Coalition,
contains an in-depth look at the history, policies,
implementation, costs/benefits and keys to success and expansion
for each school district. The
report also includes a how-to guide to help schools to adopt IPM
programs, a list of school IPM contacts, a list of states that
have IPM or pesticide policies and a 2-page IPM checklist for
schools.
Says
Kagan Owens of Beyond Pesticides, “Safer Schools is intended to
inform school community members and activists, policy decision
makers and pest management practitioners, all of whom play
critical roles in getting schools to implement effective IPM
programs.”
Copies
are available from the IPM Institute or Beyond Pesticides for $5
each, including shipping and handling.
To order, contact the IPM
Institute or email Beyond Pesticides
or call 202-543-5450. For
more information, visit the Beyond Pesticides website at http://www.beyondpesticides.org/main.html.
Pest Management at the Crossroads,
written by Charles M. Benbrook and others, presents viable,
currently available alternatives to high-risk, chemically
dependent pest management strategies.
The book details the threats chemicals pose to people and
the environment, examines costs and benefits of pesticide
regulation and documents successful IPM programs.
Published by
Consumers Union in 1996, copies of Pest
Management at the Crossroads are now available for $12.50
each, including shipping and handling, from the IPM Institute.
For more information on the book, visit the Pest Management
at the Crossroads website at http://www.pmac.net/.
V. About the IPM Institute and IPM Institute News
The
IPM Institute of North America, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt,
non-profit organization formed in 1998 to promote and support
marketplace recognition for goods and service providers who meet
high standards for IPM. Consumer
support for IPM provides a powerful incentive for increasing IPM
adoption in agriculture and communities!
The
IPM Institute provides services to ecolabel programs including IPM
research, standards development, program management and inspector
training and certification. The
Institute operates certification programs for IPM professionals,
schools and other organizations and IPM products and services.
IPM in the Marketplace
is produced and distributed periodically with support from IPM
Institute members. For
editorial comments or questions, or to unsubscribe, contact us.
Content
may be reproduced and/or distributed for non-commercial purposes
with attribution to the IPM Institute.
To join the IPM Institute, visit our Web site or e-mail
us.
VI. Event - Fourth
National IPM Symposium/Workshop Proceedings Available Online!
Proceedings from
the 2003 National IPM Symposium Workshop, attended by more than
700 participants in Indianapolis this past April, are available
online at http://cipm.ncsu.edu/symposium/.
The proceedings
contain presentations on a wide variety of IPM topics, including
recognition and incentives, marketing IPM, new management
technologies, evaluation and impact assessment, building
partnerships, community IPM, education and outreach, biological
control and bio-based IPM, vertebrate and wildlife IPM, strategic
planning and visioning for IPM, invasive species, bio- technology,
international IPM, systems approach and landscape interactions,
IPM in organic systems, successes in agriculture & urban IPM,
and commodity related issues.
