Steve Tvedten of Get Set, Inc.'s email to Lyndon Hawkins of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation "Poisoning the Air: Airborne Pesticides in California" report by the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) and Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR).

Questions have been asked of the California Department of Pesticide Control since Fontana Unified School District declined to consider a pesticide free IPM program because of the Department of Agriculture's opinion about only utilizing registered pesticides to eliminate pests.  The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has remained silent and not responded to these issues:

         CC:
            "Marion Moses, M.D." <pec@pesticides.org>, "Doris J. Rapp, M.D." <drrappmd@aol.com>,
            Jay Feldman <ncamp@igc.apc.org>, Will Snodgrass <lookusup@bigsky.net>,
            Robert McClintock <rmcclintock@northmont.k12.oh.us>,
            "Robert L. Laing" <"71674,1365"@compuserve.com>, "Robert K. Simon, Ph.D." <ETIRKS@aol.com>,
            Cynthia Stoddard Fitzgerald <cfitzge562@aol.com>, Norma Grier <info@pesticide.org>,
            Linda Jensen-Pascarella <info@safe2use.com>, "Claire W. Gilbert" <blazingt@concentric.net>,
            Donnelly Hadden <dwhadden@umich.edu>, "Eric W. Acosta" <EBugs@aol.com>,
            "Janette Sherman, M.D." <toxdocjs@aol.com>, Milton Weiss <lkweiss@juno.com>,
 

Lyndon Hawkins:

In 1993 the EPA, FDA and Department of Agriculture agreed to find alternatives to dangerous, "registered" pesticide
poisons.  When you say it is "illegal" to use any alternative in California you are ignoring this agreement, common sense
and needlessly endangering lives.  Jim Wells has just resigned as head of the Department of Pesticide Regulation because
of the people's cry that he be removed.  The attached press release shows you are not alone in your lack of concern for the
children's health.

  Study Finds States Do Not Protect Children from Pesticides Used in Schools, Group Calls on Federal Government to Act

NCAMP PRESS RELEASE
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
701 E Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003
202-543-5450 (voice)  -  202-543-4791 (fax)
email: ncamp@ncamp.org

Study Finds States Do Not Protect Children from Pesticides Used in Schools, Group Calls on Federal Government to Act

State governments are not adequately protecting children from pesticides used in and around schools, concludes a study released by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP). The study evaluates five categories covering critical areas of protection, including (i) buffer zones to restrict pesticide drift, (ii) posting warning signs, (iii) prior written notification of pesticide use, (iv) prohibition of certain products or use patterns, and (v) use of integrated pest management (IPM) in deciding appropriate pest management approaches. Of the 30 states that offer protection in one or more of these categories, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides. Overall the level of protection varies widely across the states. NCAMP calls on the federal government, which it says offers no protection in these areas, to institute national standards to protect children.

        Washington, DC, January 28, 1999 - Children are not adequately protected from pesticides used in schools, according to a new study released by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP). The study, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws, looks at the laws of the 50 states and finds that 30 offer a limited degree of protection. NCAMP called on the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner, and Secretary of  Education, Richard Riley, to adopt regulations to protect children from pesticides in school.

Five categories are evaluated in the study: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones around schools to prevent drifting of chemicals on to school property; (ii) posting warning signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior written notification of pesticide use to parents and school staff; (iv) prohibiting when and where pesticides can be applied at schools; and, (v) integrated pest management. Of the 30 states that offer protection in one or more of these categories, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides. Overall the level of protection varies widely across the states.

 "The five categories of protection evaluated in the study are essential ingredients in a program to protect children from pesticides at school," said Kagan Owens, co-author and information coordinator for NCAMP. "No state has acted in every category and where steps have been taken, they are often much too limited," Ms. Owens said. "The study signals a tremendous need for improved standards for protecting children from pesticides at their schools," states Jay Feldman, co-author and executive director of NCAMP. "While states need to take stronger action, it is time for the federal government to step up to the plate and institute national standards," he said. "The study identifies a patchwork of laws that provide uneven and inadequate protection of children. Our children deserve more than this," said Mr. Feldman.

Study Findings
- Only six states recognize the importance of controlling drift by restricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school. These restricted spray zones range from 300 feet to 2 ½ miles. Only Arizona and New Jersey require buffer zones for both ground and aerial pesticide applications.

- Ten states require posting of signs for indoor school pesticide applications. Posted notification signs warn those in the school when and where pesticides have been or are being applied. Texas is exemplary in requiring posting indoor notification signs 48 hours before the application is to begin.

- Twenty-two states require posting of signs for pesticide applications made on school grounds. Rhode Island is exemplary in requiring signs to remain posted for 72 hours after the application commences. Seven states require posting for both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications at schools.

- Nine states have requirements to notify students, parents, and/or employees of the school before a pesticide application occurs. Arizona and Maryland require that the schools provide prior notification to each parent, guardian and staff member. Eight states require schools to inform parents or guardians of their right to be listed on a registry. Registries are viewed by the authors as a less effective notification method because they may eliminate individuals who do not know about toxic exposure. Two of the eight states, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, create the extra barrier of requiring medical verification to be listed on a registry. This is even more limiting since it does not allow people to avoid exposure.

- Seven states restrict when and what pesticides may be applied in schools. These prohibitions on use are important in reducing pesticide exposure.

- A strong integrated pest management (IPM) program can eliminate the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides, thereby protecting children. Thirteen states define, recommend or require IPM in their state pesticide laws. Of these, only five states (Connecticut [institutions], Maryland, Oregon [higher education], Texas and West Virginia) require IPM, and only four states (Illinois, Louisiana, Maine and Montana) recommend it. Three states (Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) simply define IPM in their law.

NCAMP says children are at high risk to the adverse effects associated with pesticide exposure. Studies are numerous which document that children exposed to pesticides suffer elevated rates of childhood leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and brain cancer. Studies link pesticides to the childhood asthma and respiratory problems. Because of their affect on the central nervous system, scientists increasingly associate learning disabilities or attention deficit disorders with low level toxic exposure.
                                ##

  Mr. Hawkins:  When will you make it legal to wash your can in California?  When will you stop protecting the profits of the ("registered") poison producers and start protecting the health of the people of Calfornia, especially the students?

Respectfully,

Stephen L. Tvedten