Background

In the 1940s, farmers, foresters, and public health officials across the country sprayed the pesticide DDT (dicloro-diphenal-trichloro-ethane) to control pests such as Mexican boll weevils, gypsy moths, and suburban mosquitoes. DDT proved to be highly effective, but extremely persistent. Widespread public opposition to DDT began with the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which documented the tremendous risks posed by pesticide exposure. Within just a few years, several states had banned the use of DDT. The Environmental Defense Fund, a group of concerned scientists, spearheaded a campaign that led to the federal suspension of DDT registration, effectively banning its use in the United States. In 1964, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), an act governing U.S. sale and use of pesticide products was enacted. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the pesticide registration functions formerly handled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).(1)

About 50 years later, in 1996, the 104th Congress enacted significant changes to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which had been enacted in 1938. The vehicle of these changes was HR 1627, the “Food Quality Protection Act of 1996” (FQPA), enacted August 3, 1996, as Public Law 104-170. This law established a “health-based safety standard for pesticide residues in all foods.” It also required the EPA to “consider all non-occupational sources of exposure, including drinking water, and exposure to other pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity when setting tolerances,” and established tolerance thresholds safe for children. Other provisions of this act are safety tolerance evaluations, endocrine disruptor testing, enforcement standards for pesticide residues, right-to-know procedures for grocery stores, and a section stating that states must not tolerate pesticide residue levels higher than federal standards (unless an exemption is filed).

Most states have pesticide regulations restricting the storage and registration of pesticides and licensing of pesticide applicators. The FQPA of 1996, on the other hand, only establishes standards for states to obey regarding the monitoring of pesticide residue and dissemination of information. In recent years, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies and neighborhood notification laws have become more popular as people begin to understand the importance of non-food related pesticide exposure. Please see SERC’s State Activity Page on pesticides for more information on state laws.

Extension offices in many states promote IPM strategies and encourage farmers and homeowners to use IPM techniques. Additionally, public pressure for better school indoor air quality has led to an increase in pesticide notification requirements. Many school notification policies incorporate IPM strategies. States like New York and Texas have addressed the notification issue through neighborhood or worker right-to-know laws. For more information on schools and children’s health, please see SERC’s “Safe Health Standards for Children” Policy Issues Package.

Six IPM Program Essentials(2)

• Monitoring: This includes regular site inspections and trapping to determine the pest types and infestation levels at each site.
• Record-Keeping: A record-keeping system is essential to establish trends and patterns in pest outbreaks. Information recorded at every inspection or treatment should include pest identification, population size, distribution, recommendations for future prevention, and complete information on the treatment action.
• Action Levels: Pests are virtually never eradicated. An action level is the population size which requires remedial action for human health, economic, or aesthetic reasons. The goal of IPM is to reduce pests to and maintain pests at an acceptable population level.
• Prevention: Preventive measures must be incorporated into the existing structures and designs for new structures. Prevention is and should be the primary means of pest control in an IPM program.
• Tactics Criteria: Under IPM, chemicals should be used as a last resort only. When used, the least-toxic material necessary should be chosen, and applied in a manner that minimizes exposure to humans and non-target organisms.
• Evaluation: A regular evaluation program is essential to determine the success of the pest management strategies.

IPM maintains pest population levels below those causing economically significant injury. It is a systems approach to pest management, relying on accurate pest identification and monitoring, the use of economic and/or aesthetic thresholds, and the use of suitable control measures (both pesticidal and non-pesticidal) in an ecologically compatible manner. If no effective non-pesticidal control measures are available, IPM mandates that the pesticides selected result in the lowest possible risk to health or the environment.(3)

Sources:
(1) “Pesticides and Public Health.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Last updated on 11 June 2002. 14 September 2004 <http://www.epa.gov/history/publications/formative6.htm>.
(2) “Integrated Pest Management.” Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Spokane County Extension. 14 September 2004 <http://spokane-county.wsu.edu/smallfarms/Crops/99AG005%20Integrated%20Pest%20Management.htm>.
(3) “IPM Overview.” University of Massachusetts - Amherst, UMass Extension. 14 September 2004 <http://www.umass.edu/umext/ipm/ipm_projects/administration.html>.