|
Project Leader(s): Monika Roth, Agricultural
Extension Educator, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County
Cooperator(s): Pat Curran, Home Horticulture
Program Manager, CCETC
Steve Nicholson, EMC Education Committee
Chair
Mikel Shakarjian, EMC Coordinator,
TC Planning Dept.
John Anderson, Dir. Environmental Health,
TC County Health Dept.
Type of grant: Training practitioners
to use IPM techniques; Public Education
Project location(s): Tompkins
County, NY
Abstract: This project was undertaken
in response to County consideration of the adoption of the NYS Pesticide Notification
Law. County officials felt that additional information and public education
was needed. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County assumed leadership
for outreach efforts and applied for Community IPM funds to support the work.
The goal of this project was to use the NYS Pestcide Notification Law as a timely
opportunity to teach IPM principles and practices to turf and landscape industry
professionals, garden center staff, Master Gardener volunteers, and the general
public using a variety of outreach methods including workshops, field days,
meetings, newspaper and radio. As a result of the outreach efforts, all landscape,
turf and garden center operators in the county became informed about the Notification
law, about IPM practices and strategies for managing pests if the law was adopted.
A survey of pesticide applicators revealed
that only a very limited number and quantify of pesticides are used
in the County and that IPM practices are applied. As part of the effort
to educate the public, Master Gardener Growline volunteers were trained
to make recommendations that avoided or limited pesticide use. Records
of phone calls show that approximately 120 people were instructed on
how to manage pests in the landscape without pesticides. Additionally
20 people were reached at a public class on Lawn Care Without Pesticides
and via newspaper and radio reports. As a result of this outreach
effort, the County has evidence that further supports the need for public
education, moreso than to regulate the industry given limited pesticide
use.
In response to some of the above questions, Cooperative Extension initiated
a phone survey of the landscape and turf industry and garden center
operators to determine their level of awareness and understanding of
the law. While there was some awareness, many had not considered adjustments
they would make in their pest management practices or recommendations
if the law were locally adopted.
This demonstrated the need to educate
the industry on alternative pest management strategies including IPM
practices. Additionally county residents also had not been made aware
of how the law would impact them when treating their own properties.
The County’s decision to focus
on education during 2001 and reconsider the law in 2002 provided an
opportunity for CCETC to plan and implement several educationanl targeted
outreach activities.
Objectives:
1. Use the Pesticide Notification Law
as an opportunity to educate the public and members of the landscape
industry about IPM practices and alternatives to landscape pest management
and increase their adoption.
2. Increase public awareness of the
Pesticide Notification Law and how it will impact them, and make them
aware of pest management practices that do not require the use of pesticides.
3. Inform Master Gardener Growline volunteers
about the Pesticide Notification Law and train them in assisting callers
with making appropriate pest management choices that limit or eliminate
pesticide use.
4. Inform local government officials
about the extent to which pesticides are used in the county by the landscape
and turf industry and about the potential impact of the law, as well
as, about the experiences of other counties that have adopted or are
considering adoption of the law.
Procedures:
1. Efforts to inform/educate the landscape
industry included the following:
- Phone survey of industry members
to assess awarenss of Pesticide Notification Law (Feb. 1, 2001).
- Meeting of operators of Landscape
and Turf Companies, Grounds Maintenance Professionals and Garden Center
Operators to discuss law and present information about IPM practices
and alternatives for pest management if the law is adopted, Feb. 9,
2001, Ithaca.
- Sent information about Cornell Turf
Field Day, Aug. 21, Ithaca.
- Consultation provided throughout
the season as requested.
- Mail Survey of Landscape and Turf
Companies, and Grounds Maintenance Professionals about pesticide use
during 2001 season (Nov. 2001).
2. Efforts to inform/educate the public
included the following:
- Public Meeting — Chemical Free
Lawn Care — May 24, 2001, Ithaca.
- Radio interviews with Casey Stevens,
WHCU Radio, Aug. 30, 2001.
- Articles in newsletters: Ithaca Journal
press release-May; Caring for Children with Special Needs —summer
newsletter.
3. Efforts to inform/educate Master
Gardener volunteers included the following:
- Training for Growline volunteers
to inform them about the law, reinforce basic IPM practices and principles,
and instruct them on appropriate recommendations for managing landscape
pests. Also pointed out resource materials for their use in making
recommendations.
4. Efforts to inform/educate local officials
and agency staff included the following:
- Meeting with representatives of Cooperative
Extension, County EMC, Planning, Health Departments and County government
to discuss strategies for educating/informing both the public and
county officials about the impact of the law if adopted, April 3,
2001.
- Presentation to County Board of Health
about the Pesticide Notification Law to inform them about it’s
implications for enforcement if the law is adopted, April 10, 2001.
- Presentation to County Government
Planning Committee on results of survey of Pesticide Useage by county
landscape and turf industry, Nov. 28, 2001.
- Planning next steps: County Planning
Committee chair has requested a meeting of agency reps (CCETC, Planning,
Health, EMC) to further the education effort, December 2001 correspondence.
Results and discussion:
Impacts on Turf/Landscape Industry
Turf and Landscape industry professionals
attitdues about the Pesticide Notification Law and its impact changed
significantly between the phone survey conducted in early February and
the follow-up survey conducted in the fall. Phone survey results revealed
that only about half of the people (27 total) called were aware of the
law while the survey conducted in the fall revealed that most of the
members of the industry were aware of the law and were prepared to respond
to it if locally adopted.
24 business owners and key staff attended
an information meeting on Feb. 9 to learn about the pesticide law and
alternatives to use of liquid pesticides if the Notification Law is
adopted. Fall survey results show that liquid pesticides were used but
for limited purposes where the liquid materials are the preferred choice
for efficacious control, i.e., Round-up for general weed control and
the liquid turf herbicides for broadleaf weed control. From the survey
it is evident that industry members are selective about the type and
amount of pesticide applications. The total number of customers served
by the commercial industry in the County is only 500-600 properties
which indicates that the risk of exposure to pesticide applications
made by commercial applicators by the total population (100,000) is
minimal. However, depending on the size of the firm, the impact on the
business if a law was passed was moderate to major.
Impacts on Public Awareness
19 people attended the class on Lawn
Care without Pesticides and voiced their support for the Notification
law or their concern about having to notify neighbors. While the attendance
number is low, this is nonetheless significant because past experience
with hosting lawn care classes was dismal with only 3-5 people attending,
hence this represents a 400% increase in attendance and demonstrates
public interest in limiting pesticide use and exposure. At the class,
it was stressed that successful lawns can be established if attention
is paid to cultivar selection, pH and fertilizer management, and through
cultural practices such as proper mowing and irrigation. In addition
information on proper and safe use of pesticides was presented including
information on when and how to spray to reduce drift onto neighbors
property. It was also suggested that neighbors be voluntarily notified
by the person who is about to spray or have their property sprayed.
The class was publicized in the Ithaca
Journal Down to Earth Column and hence information about the notification
law reached many more people (circulation approx. 30,000) though the
impact is limited to those who took notice . The radio interview on
Casey Stevens show which reaches well over 100,000 people did result
in a few follow-up phone calls for clarification about the law and impacts.
Growline Training Impacts
A group of 12 Tompkins County Master
Gardeners work from April to November answering an average of 70 calls
per month from the public on pest management questions. Volunteers are
trained both on the job and in bi-weekly Growline staff meetings where
detailed information is presented on pests and management options. Volunteers
received training about the pesticide notification law at their April
meeting and were reminded of tools to aid them in proper diagnosis and
procedures in making pest management recommendations. Volunteers are
instructed to send written information in lieu of making pesticide recommendations
on the phone. On the phone they are to stress alternatives to pesticides
only. Information on each call is recorded and reviewed at the Growline
staff meetings where responses are discussed. In addition, Pat Curran,
Horticulture Program Manager is located within earshot of volunteers
and is able to guide them if they get stuck. Based on Growline phone
records, evidence exists that volunteers suggested non-chemical alternatives
when making pest management recommendations. This means that 120 of
the people calling about landscape pest problems were able to respond
to a problem in a more informed and eco-friendly manner.
Impact on Government Decision-Making
Throughout this year, County EMC and
the County Planning committee continued to stay abreast of this matter,
however, it was not brought back onto the County Planning committee
agenda until late in the year–too late for action that would result
in adoption of the law in 2002. Instead it was decided based on information
gathered both from the industry and from other counties, that the law
continue to be considered and that education efforts be further developed
in 2002. CCETC presented information to the County Planning Committee
and EMC that revealed what was already suspected, that pesticide use
by the turf and landscape industry is limited to relatively few operations
and that the products used are minimal and that on a per capita basis
pesticide use by the industry is very low. Further assessment of what
is used by homeowners is needed suggesting that homeowners should be
the target of educational efforts as the industry is already using limited
quantities and making appropriate choices as would conform with IPM
practices. Plans for a meeting to discuss educational activities in
2002 are underway.
Summary of Educational Needs identified
in the above outreach and education efforts:
Among the general public (including
government representatives) the conventional wisdom is that all pesticides
are bad. Yet there is the contradictory opposing view among some members
of the public, that when it comes to a problem that annoys me in the
least way, I will use whatever is needed at whatever dose to eliminate
the problem. Unfortunately both views are incorrect and this makes it
challenging to educate the public on this issue without appearing to
be an advocate pro or con for pesticides. In large part this is due
to the fact that the public lacks understanding of toxicology and environmental
fate of pesticides.
Some of the educational needs and opportunities
identified as a result of this outreach effort include:
-information that explains toxicity,
dose and exposure
-information on how pesticides breakdown
and time it takes
-information that eliminates painting
with a broad brush--all pesticides are not equally toxic--perhaps more
specificity is needed for a clearer understanding of the mode of action
or how the material is derived…eg growth regulators, botanicals,
etc.
-information that explains testing that
is required by the registration process
-recommendations that first stress cultural
and least toxic strategies for pest management that is made available
at point of sale; i.e. approach the problem completely opposite from
the product on the shelf mentality to a pest minimalization mentality
-information that explains proper pesticide
use for those who chose to use them including pesticide use "etiquette"
-information that enables pesticide
users to make more informed choices about least toxic alternatives (perhaps
a rating system for use on labels that is required for consumer-over-the-counter
materials)
-emphasis on risk management
Benefits of this Project
Public relations: This
project allowed CCETC to take the lead in working to fulfill County
government's request to focus on education and demonstrate resources
of the CU IPM program and extension system. The County looks to us for
this kind of information. Additionally it allowed us to partner with
County agencies and advisory groups such as the EMC and County Health
Dept. The cooperative approach to addressing this issue has been appreciated
by government officials who want to see agencies working together on
behalf of the public.
Furthermore it enabled us to act on
behalf of the industry of which they were aware and appreciative.
CCETC Horticulture Program:
As a result of this effort, Growline volunteers became more conscious
of their responses to caller questions which improves our reputation
with the public.
This program further helped to focus
our horticulture program work plan on eco-gardening and least toxic
practices given public concern and lack of understand of pesticides
and their use.
Factors that limited project impacts
The vision for this project in terms
of providing the public with a consistent message via the media was
not realized in part due to the inability to hire a work study student
with sufficient knowledge to develop copy and press releases on the
subject. So efforts fell back into the hands of staff members Monika
Roth and Pat Curran who made their best attempt at getting information
out. In the future, it will be worth it to hire someone with greater
understanding of pest biology and management in order to be able to
increase outreach. Given County interest in education, we hope to request
additional support from government to further develop our outreach efforts.
Additionally the training of Garden
center employees proved to be difficult since employers hire over a
long period of time without much lead time prior to the season when
the employers are reluctant to release staff from the job for off-site
training. A future idea is to host in-store training for staff rather
than to try to get staff to attend workshop in one location. This seems
feasible since there are not too many garden centers in the county.
Samples of Materials
Industry Outreach
Feb. 9 Meeting Announcement
Feb. 9 Meeting Agenda
Letter and Survey sent Nov. 7, 2001
Survey Results - presented to County
Planning Committee on Nov. 28, 2001
Public Outreach
Class Notice and Flyer
Article appearing in Caring for
Children with Special Needs newsletter, produced by County Health
Dept.
Radio show was not recorded
|
