Paul Helliker of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation states that pesticides are formulated to be "non-harmful" and/or "will not cause environmental or health damage"
Offers to allow citizen to spray his office with Raid
(Mr. Helliker should know the law on labeling. If not, everyone should encourage him to read THE LAW )
Click Here to Add Comment
A conversation with Paul Helliker, Director, California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Reported by Carol Sterritt, 415 331 3263, email address at c_dagg@yahoo.com
Background: the town of Fairfax CA, Marin County, recently enacted Ordinance 686, which requires that neighbors notify neighbors before a pesticide application of more than 9 square feet is applied to their property. A local newspaper, the Marin Independent Journal, reported that the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) was objecting to Fairfax doing this, and requesting that Fairfax void this ordinance within sixty days or face severe fines and penalties. (This department is headed by one Paul Helliker.) The office of DPR went on to state that California would help Fairfax with its pesticide situation by instructing the county agricultural commissioner, Stacy Carlsen, to educate the citizens there of important Integrated Pest Management techniques (IPM).
The story: On Tuesday May 8th, I called Paul Helliker repeatedly to discuss various comments that he made in regards to the
town of Fairfax CA and its "neighbor notification law".
At approximately 4 PM, Mr. Helliker returned my calls. He said that he had been out on the road traveling for most of the day. I offered my sympathy, as the day had been very hot.
Then I said that I had a few thoughts on the matter of the Fairfax situation. I said that it seemed odd to me that Helliker would get entangled in the whys and wherefores of the Fairfax Ordinance. It seemed far more important to me that Helliker worry about larger matters at hand: for instance the fact that during the week of April 30th thru May 6th, I had received many calls relating to people being sprayed illegally in the County of Marin overall. (During this time period, wind gusts were recorded at more than fifty miles an hour!) The most flagrant violations to me seemed to be those centered at the College of Marin, in an area where disabled young adults attended a school program. I offered the suggestion that Helliker might consider these sorts of incidents far more worthy of his attention than the "neighbor notifying neighbor" ordinance out in Fairfax.
Also, it seemed strange to me that he would fault the town of Fairfax for their ordinance and then turn around and say (or have someone in the office say) that the state would help Fairfax establish Integrated Pest Management by having Stacy Carlsen, Ag Commissioner, educate the Fairfax citizens. IPM, I pointed out, holds as its fourth principle the idea of neighbors notifying neighbors. So how could Helliker criticize Fairfax and then offer to provide, at a higher governmental level, the same thing?
I went on to say that I was interested in knowing for the record exactly what the charter and/or mission statement of the Department of Pesticide Regulations happened to be. I had already read legal text relating to the idea that the DPR was established to oversee the sale, registration, transportation and use of pesticides. But surely, in addition to that, the DPR had as its broader goal the need to look out for and to protect human health. Helliker somewhat hemmed and hawed. Finally he did say that the mission statement did apply to the department taking an interest in both human health and also safety.
Fine, I said. So included in the idea of providing for human health and safety, surely a subset of that interest must be in something called "the public's right to know."
"Well, now, why would that apply?" Helliker seemed at a loss as to my reasoning.
"Let's say you have your toddler out in the back yard and the kid is just a few feet shy of the fence separating your place from mine. And I am out in my backyard attempting to spray chemicals on my roses. That spray could impact your child. Wouldn't you want to know that I am about to undertake a pesticide application?"
"No, not really." We discussed the set-up of the fence for a while. He seemed to think that a wooden fence would offer protection to the child in question. I offered that in Marin people often have wooden fences consisting of wooden slats separated by open air spaces, and that a fence, though offering privacy, does not contain a substance like pesticide. Then I re-iterated the scenario about the toddler and the rose spray.
Helliker seemed to have a great deal of dis-belief that anyone would have any concern about the child in question. He wanted to know what sort of chemicals that I thought might be in products relating to rose sprays. He said all those sprays were formulated safely. I said perhaps I'd chosen a bad example, because I did not know exactly what was in the current crop of rose sprays, but I did believe that a few years ago, Diazinon was an ingredient. I pointed out that some people buy a product and because they buy a large economy size, still have product left (that they continue to use) years after the product is re-formulated because of manufacturer safety concerns or because of government bans on certain ingredients.
Helliker continued to say that the state oversees the licensing of pesticides and that they are specially formulated to be non-harmful and that they undergo rigorous testing. I was aghast and awestruck that I could be hearing this. "Oh come on, if you were the parent of that toddler, wouldn't you have some concerns?" He re-iterated that he would not. I said "Well, what if you and I are in the same room together and I decide to take out my can of Raid and blast it in the room we're in. Wouldn't you want to know before hand that I was about to do this?" "No, not really. There is nothing in that can of Raid that could possibly hurt me."
I repeated the question to him. He repeated his answer. Finally I said, "So in that case, I guess if I ever was there in Sacramento, I could visit you with my can of Raid and spray it in the same room with you while I was visiting, and you would not be upset?" He said that the product was licensed and undergone rigorous testing and that nothing in the can could affect him.
So I said, "In that case, can I invite myself to your office and bring my can of Raid, and while I am in a mask and protective clothing, spray the Raid in your office?" Helliker said that that would be okay with him!
I repeated the question. He repeated his answer. I said something to the effect of, "Well, I guess I'll be coming to visit you next week. And I'll bring my can of Raid."
I then said the conversation was too strange for me to continue and I hung up.
During this entire interlude, my friend, Mark Frost, was in the room where I was making the call. Most of the time, when Helliker answered me, I repeated his answer aloud and then added my comments. This way I have Mark as my witness as to both my remarks and Helliker's remarks.
Mr. Helliker's recollection below:
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov
To: <mauryshi@ix.netcom.com
Cc: <c.dagg@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: fox in the henhouse
Mr. Silverman - let me set the record straight on what my conversation with Ms. Sterritt consisted of. Ms. Sterritt expressed concern with our recent letter to the City of Fairfax concerning their ordinance on pesticide use. I noted that state law specifies that only the state can regulate the use of pesticides and that the Department of Pesticide Regulation is required to inform local government entities of this fact, should they adopt any such regulations.
Ms. Sterritt then expressed concern about a neighbor who uses pesticides and their potential impact on her family. I noted that our regulatory program is designed to address such risks, by requiring manufacturers to produce and distribute pesticidal products that will not cause environmental or health damage, when used according to the label. Ms. Sterritt then asked me if that meant that using Raid in a room such as my office would cause me health problems. I stated that, if she used it according to the label, it would not. Ms. Sterritt then abruptly hung up.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you may have. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or concerns about pesticides or our letters to the City of Fairfax.
Sincerely,
Paul Helliker
Director
California Department of Pesticide Regulation
1001 I Street
PO Box 4015
Sacramento, CA 95812-4015
(916) 445-4300
Comment from Steve Tvedten:
Seems like Mr. Helliker is changing what he said, but, even this "correction" is still against the federal law. Some people have been harmed by "Raid". Steve
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.