Marc Lame
AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IN
2005, 238 pp.
Price: $13.50, soft cover
ISBN: 1-4208-3935-7 (sc)

 

Do you know how pests are managed in your community’s schools? According to Marc Lame, you’re likely to be greatly disappointed if you investigate the matter. He argues convincingly that we’re doing a poor job of protecting our children from exposure to pesticides and pests.

Lame, an entomologist and faculty member at Indiana University, reports that pesticides are overused, while pest problems persist unnecessarily. He finds that what often is claimed to be IPM consists of “preventative” residual spray and broadcast granular pesticides to surfaces kids are exposed to day in and day out. Applications often are made without inspection, monitoring, or any attempt to address the root cause of pest problems.

Scientific studies illustrate the need for further adoption of IPM in school systems, the main theme of Lame’s book. Alarcon et al. (2005) reported an increasing frequency of child pesticide exposure incidents in schools. In my own work with collaborators in several states, including Lame, more than one-quarter of school systems we evaluated were violating state laws or their own published policies about pesticide use. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005) found more than one pesticide and/or their metabolites in more than 90% of tested human subjects. Children’s immature and rapidly developing body systems may greatly reduce the dose of pesticides required for toxic effects (relative to adults) (National Research Council 1993). Children’s behavior—frequent hand-to-mouth contact, and contact with the ground, floors, and walls—increases the opportunity for exposure. There is tremendous uncertainty about the effects of the combinations of chemicals found in adults’ and children’s bodies, combinations that have never been tested. Given the recent research on the topic, Lame’s book is a timely editorial on how these pest control tactics may affect our schoolchildren.

Lame faults nearly everyone for the sorry state of IPM in our schools and reserves special attention for pesticide manufacturers and pest control service providers. He derides those among the industry who give lip service to IPM while spending millions of dollars to spread fear about insects, promote the broad-spectrum effectiveness of their latest product, or recommend pesticides “at the first sign” of pests or simply as “insurance” against pest problems. Lame does recognize the contributions that pesticide manufacturers have made with new bait formulations that reduce exposure risk, and new, less-toxic active ingredients. Lame is careful to distinguish between “exterminators,” a term he uses for those who apply pesticides as their primary pest control strategy, and “pest management professionals” who view their primary role as diagnosticians and prevention educators and deserve support as true IPM practitioners.

Some agricultural interests also have focused on pesticide use in school systems. Lame cites an editorial in Western Farm Press about pesticide risk reduction efforts in schools, exhorting farmers to “talk to your local school administrators and tell them you support pesticide use…because it is a battle agriculture must join to ensure victory.”

Lame draws parallels between the current lack of a national policy commitment to school IPM and experiences he had early in his career in Arizona. In one of his many memorable war stories, a county extension director told the then-novice IPM specialist, “Don’t start that IPM crap. IPM is communism.” Lame contends that IPM continues to suffer from industry and public agencies intimidating those who question the sanity of routine pesticide applications.

Although state legislatures are increasingly active in the field of pesticide use in schools, new laws too often end up creating underfunded mandates, with no dollars for education or enforcement. Most galling are new rules in several states that dictate “IPM policies,” “IPM plans” or “IPM programs” without specifying changes in practice. These documents often become window dressing, misleading parents and others.

There is hope. Lame’s “Monroe Model” teams, (Carter 2000) currently working in several states, have meticulously documented almost 90% reductions in pest complaints and pesticide use with no increase in management costs. Nearly all of the schools promptly resolved issues that my collaborators and I identified in our program. Lame’s experience is similar—only a couple of poorly managed systems have “flunked out” of the Monroe Model process. Lame’s experiences in schools parallel those observed in government buildings (Greene and Breisch 2002) and public housing (Miller and Meek 2004), where routine application of pesticides were ineffective in reducing pest problems. Instituting IPM practices greatly reduced pest complaints and pesticide use.

Making the change to IPM is not rocket science. Lame emphasizes that IPM is about people management as much as pest management, and he lays out a prescription. The script includes making administrators aware of the issues, persuading them to make a commitment to improve, and focusing training on front-line custodial, kitchen, and grounds maintenance staff. These workers need to be reassured that IPM does not mean more work for them, but rather a transition to thinking about pests when performing their normal sanitation and maintenance duties. Simple changes in their practices that deny pests access to food, water, and shelter make an enormous difference. When pest complaints decline, everyone is the happier for it.

Our children deserve healthier schools. Along with Silent Spring and The Pesticide Conspiracy, this book is another reminder of work to be done coupled with a strong and realistic vision of the potential we can achieve. So read the book, pass it on to the principal at your child’s school, make an appointment to discuss the issues together, and forge a plan to make progress along the IPM continuum.

References Cited
Alarcon, W.A., G.M. Calvert, J.M. Blondell, L.N. Mehler, J. Sievert, M. Propeck, D.S. Tibbetts, A. Becker, M. Lackovic, S.B. Soileau, R. Das, J. Beckman, D.P. Maile, C.L. Thomsen, and M. Stanbury. 2005. Acute illnesses associated with pesticide exposure in schools. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 294: 455–465.

Carter, J.  2000.  Extension of a Successful IPM Model to Pilot School Districts in States Not Currently Practicing IPM in Public Schools - Final Report.  Monroe County Community Schools Corporation. http://www.pesp.org/2000/mccsc00-final.htm Viewed on March 2, 2006.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. Third national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta.

Greene, A., and N. Breisch. 2002. Measuring integrated pest management programs for public buildings. J. Econ. Entomol. 95: 1–13.

Miller, D., and F. Meek. 2004. Cost and efficacy comparison of integrated pest management strategies with monthly spray insecticide applications for German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) control in public housing. J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 559–569.

National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the diets of infants and children. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Thomas A. Green
IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
Madison, WI, 53726
E-mail: ipmworks@ipminstitute.org
American Entomologist
Vol. 52, No.1, Spring 2006