School Pest Management
Amendment: Small victory for Schools and Children... Big
Victory for Poison Industry
Allen James, president, Responsible
Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), said, "Because schools are not
required to hire a PCO, it is up to PCOs themselves to capitalize on this
opportunity by offering their expertise to schools, while at the same time
enhance their own businesses."
[Read
More About RISE and Schools] * [ RISE
and Politics ]
Subject: Pest Control Technology's Breaking News.........................
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:17:56 -0400
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
I thought you might like to
read how the pesticide industry views the School Pest Management Amendment:
PCT BREAKING NEWS ...
SENATE APPROVES HISTORIC SCHOOL PEST MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT
DUNN LORING, Va. — "It's one of those moments when
the all the stars align and everyone works together for the same important
cause."
That was what Bob Rosenberg, director of government
affairs, National Pest Management Association (NPMA), said about the amendment
to the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act (H.R. 1) that was approved
by the U.S. Senate on June 19. The Association had joined with the National
Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP)/Beyond Pesticides to support
the amendment, which was sponsored by Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.)
The amendment, titled the School Environment Protection
Act, is the result of negotiations between NPMA, NCAMP/Beyond Pesticides,
several other industry groups, Torricelli, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
(D-S.D.) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Both NPMA and NCAMP/Beyond Pesticides had long debated
about the best approaches to managing pests in and around schools. "We were
in negotiations with NCAMP since late April," Rosenberg said. "We
believed the Torricelli amendment encompassed all the components of responsible
and workable school pest management legislation."
According to Rosenberg, the legislation involves a
coalition of many diverse groups, including Democrats, Republicans, the National
Parent/Teacher Association, National Teachers Association and several teachers'
unions. "The fact that everyone signed off on this is what makes this
legislation so unique," he said.
The amendment requires each state to develop a school pest
management plan, which school districts must adopt and a certified applicator or
other person authorized by the state-lead pesticide agency must oversee.
"The plan [the school districts adopt] must be consistent with the
legislation," Rosenberg said.
All pest management plans must include a contact person, an
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, notification of applications must be
sent out twice a year and a registry must be established for parents and staff
who wish to be notified 24 hours prior to any pesticide application. A sign must
also be posted 24 hours prior to and following any pesticide application.
"It is important to note that all baits, gels and pastes are exempt from
notification to parents and staff on the registry as well as signage
posting," Rosenberg said.
The legislation has the potential to create more business
for PCOs by requiring school districts to hire certified applicators or someone
authorized by the state regulatory agency to help develop and implement an IPM
plan for each school in the district. "Some schools will already be
proficient in IPM and will understand what that means. However, most schools do
not know what IPM is and that creates a big opportunity for PCOs to market
themselves to those people," Rosenberg said.
Allen James, president, Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment (RISE), said, "Because schools are not required to hire a PCO,
it is up to PCOs themselves to capitalize on this opportunity by offering their
expertise to schools, while at the same time enhance their own businesses."
According to Rosenberg, "The most important thing
about this legislation is that it ensures that pest management in schools will
be done in a professional manner and we, as an industry, have advocated for this
for a long time."
It is especially important when one thinks about the
alternatives to the NPMA-supported amendment. "I think there certainly
would have been an amendment that required notification, but it would have
required that all parents be notified prior to any pesticide application,
instead of just those on the registry. Also, [the alternative amendment] would
have required that pesticides only be used as a last resort, which may have made
it difficult for some PCOs to do business," Rosenberg said.
H.R. 1 still has one final step: the House/Senate
conference committee must make final negotiations and work out any differences
between the House bill and the Senate bill. Then, the bill's new language will
be given to President George W. Bush to sign into law.
"If all goes well, the bill will be signed into law by
this summer and the law will take effect on October 1," Rosenberg said.
"Then, every state has 12 months to adopt a school pest management plan.
Then, each school district must implement it within 12 months of the state's
adoption of that plan."
To view the school pest management amendment to H.R. 1,
click here: www.pctonline.com/features/feature.asp?ID=198&SubCatID=54&CatID=9
For additional information visit www.pctonline.com and
www.pestworld.org.
Just a few final comments,
it seems to me that this new "agreement" only assures us parents that
we now will have "some" people "notified" (if they so
request) when "some" "registered" pesticide POISONS are
sprayed or otherwise placed inside our school buildings.
This means that "some" children will continue to be needlessly
exposed to "some" "registered" volatile toxins.
I say "needlessly", because I have successfully removed all
pest problems inside and outside in over 350 schools without ever having to use
any volatile, "registered" pesticide POISONS.
I do not think this is the "aGREED answer" we should be trying
to obtain. I also do not think that
we should have been the least concerned that "if ("registered")
pesticides (could) only be used as a last resort, (this) may have made it
difficult for some PCOs to do bu$INess,"
Of course, these are only my opinions!
Respectfully,
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.
TOP