Teaching IPM: Why We Do It

Pesticide Use in American Households Is Prolific

Household toxins include insecticides, disinfectants, repellents, herbicides, fungicides, rat and mouse poison, and unregulated fumigants. In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that domestic users applied 1.1 billion pounds of active pesticide ingredients and that 90 percent of households used pesticides. The New York State Attorney General’s office found that 69 percent of urban dwellers used pesticides in their living space and 33 percent did so weekly.

Besides the risks posed to human and environmental health, pesticide use can promote resistance in weeds, insects, and diseases. In fact, over 530 insect species now show resistance to pesticides. New legislation in some areas is phasing out entire classes of pesticides, which means that communities need alternative ways to manage pests where people live, work, play, and learn.

return to top

Pesticide Use and Human Health

A wealth of publications examine the risks of environmental toxins to human and animal health. As many as 107 active ingredients in pesticides may cause cancer in animals or humans. Children are highly vulnerable to pesticides because they play close to the ground, place objects in their mouths, grow rapidly, ingest large quantities of previously sprayed foods, and have less ability to detoxify chemicals.

Children in cities are at special risk because chemicals that may alter neurological and reproductive development are most heavily applied there.

Pesticide-related illnesses in children rose significantly between 1988 and 2002.¹ In cases where the source of exposure could be traced, 69% were tied to chemicals used to control insect pests in schools—more than double the number linked to pesticide drift from neighboring farmlands. ¹ Pesticide use by farmers is heavily regulated; pesticide use by homeowners is not.

NYS IPM’s School IPM Program works with facilities managers to implement least-toxic management strategies for schools and grounds. There is an urgent need for public education since the majority of our population is urban, pest populations are elevated and concentrated in urban areas, and children in cities are at higher risks for pesticide-related illnesses. And since children are primary stakeholders, they deserve to be informed.

return to top

Pesticide Use and Environmental Challenges

Pesticide contamination of water resources is well documented. The United States Geological Survey reports that decades of pesticide use have resulted in widespread contamination. Seventy percent of New Yorkers—roughly 17 million—are served by public water. In urban areas, concentrations of more than one pesticide often exceed established water-quality guidelines. Non-point source pollution—pollution that’s hard to pin down where it comes from—is the dominant threat to water quality and contributes up to 65 percent of water pollution in the northeastern U.S. And neighborhoods are a major non-point source of pollution.

California’s IPM Program surveyed residents in 2003 about their attitudes towards pesticides and their practices. More than half had treated outdoor areas surrounding their homes in the past six months; 60 percent of the products were applied to hard surfaces such as sidewalks, home exteriors, or foundations. More than half were also aware that pesticides affected water quality, yet up to 15 percent acknowledged pouring mixed pesticides into inside or outside drains or street gutters.

return to top

The Need for IPM Education

Teaching people about the link between pesticide use, IPM, and water quality is crucially important. Public concern about health and environmental risks, especially for children, is increasing. Scientists at Rutgers University summarized four surveys from the Northeast, completed between 1989 and 2001, about the public’s perception of IPM.

Their conclusions? Despite its benefits, IPM is an underused pest control approach. And a major constraint to implementing IPM? Lack of public education. In fact, in New York, 73 percent of respondents had not heard of IPM.

Despite this, studies indicate that citizens are thinking about pesticides, aware of alternatives, and are willing to learn more.

IPM is endorsed by the EPA and national parent teacher groups. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health recommends IPM for schools. We can teach our citizens to prevent or reduce pest infestations using a combination of good science and good sense. To choose the least-toxic agents when pesticides are necessary as a last resort. To base their decisions on identifying pests correctly and understanding their biology. To think IPM.

return to top

Why Educate Children (K-12) About IPM?

School children are an enormous audience, one that’s both vulnerable to pesticide overuse and open to new ideas—and children carry the message far into the future. What they learn trickles out into the broader community because they take the message home.

We inspire students to discover science and IPM through interactive learning programs that are fun, engaging, and encourage conversation between adults and children. IPM is real world science in action and provides a fantastic opportunity to provide educational materials that are applicable to daily life.

New York’s 703 public school districts teach 3.5million schoolchildren in grades K-12. These schools are a focal point of urban communities. Preventing pesticide misuse starts with engaging children and through them, their families and communities—and so providing the input, education, and resources that help each person contribute to the solution.

IPM. The reasons are all around you

return to top

References:

Osterweil, N. 2005. School Kids and Teachers Bugged By Pesticide Exposure. Medpage Today, July 27, 2005.

EPA. 2002. Pesticide industry sales and usage: 1998 and 1999 market estimates.

Surgan, M., T. Congdon, C. Primi, S. Lamster, and J. Louis-Jacques, 2002. Pest Control in Public Housing, Schools and Parks: Urban Children at Risk. Environmental Protection Bureau of the NYS Attorney General’s Office.

Stapleton, D. H. 2000. The short-lived miracle of DDT. The American Heritage of Invention & Technology, Winter, 2000, pp. 34–41.

US Geological Survey 1999. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Nutrients and Pesticides: USGS Circular 1225, 82p

USGS 2000. Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota: current understanding of distribution and major influences. Fact Sheet 092-00 based on the book by L. Nowell, P. Capel, and P Dileanis, Pesticides in Stream Sediment and Aquatic Biota, CRC Press, Fla.

Volk, Timothy, A. 2003. Increasing benefits from riparian buffer strips by incorporating Willow bioenergy crops. A SUNY-ESF publication.

Connecticut River Joint Commission, 1998. Fact Sheets 1,2,4,6 and 8 in the Series: Riparian Buffers of the Connecticut River Watershed.

Natural Resources Defense Council. 2003. Children's Environmental Health Initiative.

Landrigan, P. 1999. Pesticides and Inner-City Children: Exposures, Risks, and Prevention. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 10, Supplement 3.Stapleton, D. 2000. The Short-Lived Miracle of DDT. Invention and Technology. Winter issue.

Alivanger et al., 2003. Use of Agricultural pesticides and prostrate cancer risk in the Agricultural health Study Cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 157, pages 800-814.

Sprecher Institute for Comparative Cancer Research. 2003.

Hamilton, G., 2002. Public Awareness Campaign—Making IPM a ‘Household Word.’ Unpublished, unfunded grant proposal. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901.

Burgess, R., J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt, A. Shelton, J. Tette. 1989. Results of an IPM marketing survey,” New York State IPM Program, NYS Dept. of Ag. and Mkts., NYSAES Geneva. Cornell University.

return to top