Protecting Children from Pesticide Exposure
in Schools
By Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc.

Safeguarding children's health while at school is a priority for parents, teachers, schools administrators, lawmakers, and clinicians.  Yet children are continually and unknowingly exposed to toxic chemicals while in and around school buildings.  Substantial scientific evidence indicates that children are at risk for disease as a result of these exposures.

[ California DPR denies grant for pesticide free schools ]
[ What to do if pesticides are being used ]
[ Pesticide Poisoning and Kids ] * [ Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning ]
[ MEMORIAL TO VICTIMS ]

Subject:     Protecting Children Rather Than POISON "Industry" Profits---
 Date:        Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:34:29 -0500
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
          State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
          Integrated Pest Management

Lyndon, I thought you might like to read an NCAMP article from Volume 19, Number 3, Pesticides and You, entitled:   Protecting Children from Pesticide Exposure in Schools - By Philip Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc.

Safeguarding children's health while at school is a priority for parents, teachers, schools administrators, lawmakers, and clinicians.  Yet children are continually and unknowingly exposed to toxic chemicals while in and around school buildings.  Substantial scientific evidence indicates that children are at risk for disease as a result of these 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 used widely in agriculture in the U. S. Despite widespread use of pesticides, little is known about the actual levels of pesticide exposure in children from their food and environment. Consequently, little is known about the health effects of these exposures for children.  Limited available data do indicate, however, that pesticides are likely to cause harm in humans even at low-level exposures.

Two of the most popular classes of insecticides used in the U. S. - organophosphates and carbamates are designed as neurotoxins, poisoning the nervous systems of unwanted insects.  These pesticides also affect the nervous systems of people.  Organophosphates and carbamates harm both insects and humans by interfering with an enzyme in the brain, acetychlolinesterase, which regulates signals in the insect and human nervous systems.⁽¹⁾ Acute poisoning by these insecticides in humans has caused a myriad of short and long-term nervous system disturbances, including agitation, insomnia, muscle weakness, respiratory agitation, nervousness, irritability, forgetfulness, confusion and depression. ^{(2) (3)}

There is substantial evidence in animal studies and limited evidence in studies of adult humans that chronic, low-level exposure to organophosphates may also effect neurologic functioning and neurodevelopment in humans.⁽²⁾⁽³⁾ Given this evidence, there is a strong likelihood that low-level chronic exposure adversely affects children's nervous systems, resulting in lower cognitive function, behavior disorders, and other subtle neurological problems.  Studies also indicate that exposure to organophosphates disrupts the part of the nervous system that regulates the motor functioning of the lungs.  This has lead researchers to hypothesize that pesticides are among the preventable causes of asthma in children.⁽²⁾

In addition to nervous system disruption, studies have noted links between cancer in children and their exposures to pesticides. ⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾ Leukemia and brain cancer - the two most common forms of childhood cancer - have increased substantially in incidence since the mid- 1970s.⁽⁶⁾ However, these findings were limited by small sample sizes and imprecise information on children's actual exposure to pesticides.  Other studies have found that parental exposure to pesticides is associated 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 more air per pound of body weight than do adults, and they are more likely to put toys and hands in their mouths than adults are.  Both of these factors cause them to be exposed to a greater quantity of chemicals in their environment. ⁽⁹⁾

Moreover, the nervous system undergoes rapid growth and 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 all through childhood, as is evidenced by the fact that children continue to acquire new skills as they grow - crawling, walking, talking, reading, and writing.

A child's developing nervous system is not well able to repair any structural damage caused by environmental toxins.  Thus, if cells in the developing brain are destroyed by chemicals, there is a risk that the resulting dysfunction will be irreversible.  The consequences can be loss of intelligence and alteration of normal behavior.  Also, because children have more future years of life than adults, they have more time to develop chronic disease such as adult forms of cancer, triggered by early exposures to toxins. ⁽⁹⁾

A 1993 National Academy of Sciences report, Pesticides in the Diets of lnfants and Children, called attention to the specific vulnerability of children to many pesticides.  This report led to the Congress unanimously passing the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, which calls for the EPA to establish standards for pesticides residues on foods that account of 1) children's unique sensitivity to environmental toxins and 2) children's exposure to multiple pesticides - both dietary and non-dietary with common toxic effects ⁽⁹⁾

Although there are no data on the levels of pesticide exposure in children, studies have demonstrated that adult exposure is widespread.  For example, chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide, was found in 82% of approximately 1,000 adults whose urine was tested through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. ⁽¹⁰⁾ The detection of chlorpyrifos in the majority of those tested indicates frequent exposure, since chlorpyrifos is eliminated from the body in 3-6 days. ⁽¹¹⁾ If chlorpyrifos is common in adults, exposure in children is likely also to be common.  Levels in children may be even higher than those in adults given that children are potentially exposed to a great quantity of chemicals.

Why Focus on Schools?

Children are exposed to pesticides on a daily basis from multiple sources.  Fruits and vegetables contain resides of pesticides applied in agriculture.  Ninety percent of American homes use pesticides ⁽¹²⁾.  Schools are also common sites of pesticide use.  A recent survey of Connecticut schools found that 87% of the state's school districts responding to a survey (77 of 147 school districts) sprayed pesticides inside school buildings; 32% sprayed pesticides routinely regardless of whether there was a pest problem. ⁽¹³⁾ A 1998 survey of California school districts found that 93% of 46 responding school districts used pesticides. ^(l4) A 1993 survey of 261 New York schools found that 87% used pesticides. ^(l5)

Eliminating pesticides from the school environment is critical to lowering children's total exposure.  Children spend an average of 6-7 hours per day, 5 days per week, 180 days per year, in school.  The only other place in which children spend more time is their home.  In order to protect children's health wherever they work and play, pesticide use in schools must be reduced, and families must be routinely notified whenever pesticides will be applied in schools.

The Center for Children's Health and the Environment (CCHE) at Mount Sinai School of Medicine supports efforts at the local, state, and federal level to avoid pesticide use in and around schools and to notify children and parents when pesticides will be used.  CCHE's mission is to promote the health of children by conducting environmental health and policy research.  CCHE was established in 1998 with the support of the Pew Charitable Trusts.  CCHE's director is Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., M.Sc. a pediatrician who chairs the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai.  Questions or comments may be directed to Ashley Coffield in CCHE's Washington, D.C. office at (202) 776-1105 or e-mail ac@acpm.org.

Endnotes
 

1. Ecobichon D. Organophosphorus ester insecticides. In: Pesticides and Neurologogical Diseases (Ecobichon D, Joy RM, eds). Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 1994; 171-250.
2. Eskenazi B, Bradman A, Castorina R. Exposures of children to organophosphate pesticides and their potential adverse health effects. Environ Health Perspect 1999; 107(S-3):409-419.
3. Weiss, Bernard. Pesticides as a source of development disabilities. MRDD Research Reviews 1997; 3:246-256.
4. Liess JK, Savitz DA, Home pesticide use and childhood cancer: a case-control study. Am J Public Health 1995; 85:249-252.
5. Davis JR, et al. Family pesticide use and childhood brain cancer. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1993; 24:87-92.
6. Ries LAG, et al. (eds). Cancer incidence and survival among children and adolescents: United States SEER program 1975-1995. National Cancer Institute, SEER Program. NIH publ No. 99-4649. Bethesda, MD, 1999.
7. Shaw, GM, Wasserman CR, O’Malley CD. Maternal pesticide exposures as risk factors for orofacial clefts and neural tube defects. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141 (suppl 11):53.
8. Blatter BM, et al. Paternal occupational exposure around conception and spina bifida in offspring. Am J Ind Med 1997; 32:283-291.
9. National Research Council, Pesticides in the diets of infants and children. Washington: National Academy Press, 1993.
10. 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. Bradyway D, Shafik T, Lores E. Comparison of cholinesterase activity, residue levels, and urinary metabolite excretioni of rats exposed to organophosphorus pesticides. J Agric Food Chem 1977; 25:1353-1358.
12. Gurunathan S, et al. Accumulation of chlorpyrifos on residential surfaces and toys accessible to children. Environ health Perspect 1998; 106:1-6.
13. Addis SS, Alerman NO, Brown DR, Each CN, and Wargo J. Pest control practices in Connecticut public schools. Environment and Human Health, Inc., North Haven, CT, 1999.
14. Kaplan J, Marquartd S, Barber W. Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools. CALPIRG Charitable Trust, San Francisco: 1998.

Volberg DI, Surgan MH, Jaffe S, Hamer D, Sevinksy JA. Pesticides in Schools: Reducing the Risks. New York Office of the Attorney General. New York: 1993.

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

Those who argue that integrated pest management (IPM) requires an ability to spray pesticides immediately after identifying a pest problem are not describing IPM.  Take for example the General Services Administration (GSA), the government agency that manages federal buildings, and its definition of IPM, "a process for achieving long-term, environmentally sound pest suppression through the use of wide variety of technologies and management practices." Control techniques in an IPM program extend beyond the application of pesticides to include structural and procedural modification that reduce the food, water, harborage, and access used by pests (GSA, Public Buildings Service, Specification No. BM5-1 January, 1989, p. 1).  The IPM policy encourages the avoidance of pesticide use with the requirement: "The Contractor shall use non-pesticide methods of control wherever possible." The policy says that portable vacuums rather than pesticide sprays shall be used for initial clean-outs and that trapping devices rather than pesticide sprays shall be used for indoor fly control whenever appropriate.

Albert Greene, a national IPM Coordinator for the GSA, has successfully applied IPM in the 30 million square feet of indoor federal space that comes under the GSAs National Capital Region jurisdiction.  Greene reports that since the initiation of the program in 1988, pest problems in the buildings have generally declined and occupant satisfaction has increased, all the while contractors use less that 2% of the pesticides that was routinely used.  Greene states that GSA's program is a conclusive demonstration that structural IPM works, that it can be pragmatic, economical, and effective on a massive scale."

In schools, we see repeated signs that alternatives work.  Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland is one of the best known examples of school IPM.  Reduction of pesticide use by 90% and use of least toxic pesticides when pesticides are required have made school and work safer.  Bill Forbes administers a pest management program for 200 sites.  He reduced pesticide use from 5,000 applications in 1985 to none four years later, saving the school district $1,800 per school and $30,000 at the food service warehouse. School district employees who implement the system received 60-1 00 hours of training per year.  The success of his program is largely due to the preventive measures he uses and on-going monitoring to determine if, when and where pest populations warrant action.

Steve Tvedten's company, Get Set, Inc. contracts with hundreds of schools in Michigan to do least toxic IPM.  When contracted by a school, the company does an initial inspection to find problem areas, which are addressed immediately.  They then meet with school personnel to train them in IPM methods and provide them with a manual.  Their on-going service consists of periodic inspections and consultations.  Parents are notified when any pesticides, including least toxic ones, are used in schools.

The above examples are just a sampling of effective IPM programs that dot the country.  For additional schools that have successfully implemented IPM without using toxic pesticides, please contact Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP.

Well Lyndon, the fact is that for many years, Get Set, Inc. has safely and far more effectively removed all pest problems inside and outside in over 350 schools without ever using any of your "registered" volatile pesticide poisons.  In point of fact, we have only made about 5 (or less) spot boric acid applications per year - and then only because "someone" did not follow our detailed directions.  Our schools are all now basically pest and pesticide POISON free, but, they were obviously not that way when they were routinely spraying POISONS!

Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten.

---

We (Safe2Use) had an opportunity to demonstrate to the DPR and the State of California that all volatile pesticide poisons (and pests) could be removed from schools with Steve Tvedten's program.  We applied for a DPR grant as they stated they were seeking alternatives to the volatile pesticide poisons.  One would believe that schools and kids had to be a priority.  However, their response is the first link at the top of this page.

TOP