How are states helping schools with pesticide product selection? Kaci Buhl, Oregon State University

Outline The “Low-Impact List” for Oregon schools Who is selecting products for schools? “Least toxic” & “Last resort” Selected examples from state laws A few observations

Introduction Where is Kaci coming from? – National Pesticide Information Center – iSchool Pest Manager Project – The “Low-Impact” List for Oregon Schools

“The Low-Impact List” Who controls the list? – Schools can maintain their own lists – Oregon State University maintains a list What does the law say? – Products must not have the signal word WARNING or DANGER – Products cannot contain ingredients that are known or probable human carcinogens OSU adds additional criteria – Products must be registered for sale in Oregon – Products must be registered for use in school or on school grounds

General guidelines Pesticide applications may only be made when children and staff are not present Pesticides should be stored in a cool, dry place with access restricted Keep people out of treated areas until sprays or wetted granules have dried.

Signal Word CAUTION – Toxicity Category III (low) or IV (very low) No signal word – Some in category IV – Some that are exempt from registration under 25(b) A measure of whole-product toxicity – Not just the active ingredient(s) Tox category, also used by Arizona as legal criteria

The hardest part? Being certain about registered use sites Applying good judgment about potential exposure scenarios Filling gaps – Product is needed – None meet the criteria

Who is Selecting Products? Certification/licensing requirements are intimidating Over 90% of School IPM Coordinators in Oregon are not licensed applicators When products are needed, they typically call in professionals

Elements of state laws 2011 NPMA survey 32 states: Requirements for applicators (training, certification, supervision, etc.) 29 states: Outdoor posting about pesticide applications 25 states: Pre-notification sent to parents 23 states: IPM Law or rule 18 states: Interior posting about pesticide applications 18 states: Re-entry requirements beyond the label

Least Toxic A foundational concept in IPM Can be measured several ways – Acute or chronic toxicity – Cancer risk – Developmental or reproductive toxicity – Endocrine disrupting potential – Asthmagenic properties

Selected state examples CA: “It is the policy of the state that effective least toxic pest management practices should be the preferred method….” LA: “Schools are encouraged to use the least toxic method of pest control….” IL: “…chemical pesticides, with preference for products that are the least harmful….” IN: “…pesticides with lowest hazards to children are used whenever practical…”

Last resort A foundational concept in IPM Can be measured several ways – Other methods were tested, found insufficient – All available methods were evaluated – The situation was deemed

Selected state examples AK: “… ensure the use of nonchemical methods to control pests, including sanitation, structural repair, and window screens.” IL: “reliance to the greatest extent possible on nontoxic, biological, cultural or mechanical pest management methods or on the use of natural control agents…” ME: “…utilize non-pesticide control measures that have been demonstrated to be practicable, effective, and affordable.”

“… these are not the correct approaches to the pesticide component of an IPM program.”

Least toxic, last resort Proposed: “Least risky approaches to meet your goals” – “risk” includes toxicity and exposure potential – Efficacy matters, because ineffective pesticides pose a risk with no benefit – “Last resort” language causes delay, which can increase the harm caused by the pest problem

Exemptions set Precedent Exempt from certain provisions of each state law: – Antimicrobial pesticides (AZ, OR, CA, IN, IA, MD, MA, RI, WA, MI, MN, MT…) – Paste or gel bait insecticides (AK, AZ, IN, IA, MD, RI, MT…) – Block baits in tamper-resistant station (AK, AZ, GA, IA, MD, MA, RI, NY, WA…) – Personal insect repellents (AZ, IN, IA, RI…) – Insecticidal soap (OR, GA, NY…) – Public health pesticides with some caveats (AZ, RI…) – Silica gel (AK, NJ…)

Exempt from certain provisions of each state law: – Paints, stains, or wood preservatives (ME…) – Food based attractants, cedar wood products (CA) – Botanical insecticides, insect growth regulators (GA, NJ) – Ready-to-use pesticides applied by hand, or with non- powered equipment for biting/stinging insects… (ME) – Products exempt under 40CFR (25b) (RI, NJ, NY) – Boric acid, diatomaceous earth, biologicals (Bt) (NJ) – Pheromones (CA, GA, NJ…) Exemptions set Precedent

Federal oversight US EPA performs a risk assessment for all pesticides before uses are allowed Schools are not specifically listed on every label, but products may be used if: – There is no explicit prohibition for use in schools, and – An applicable site (lawn, ornamental plants, etc.) is listed on the label

Antimicrobial Concerns Swimming pool chemicals Disinfecting toys – NPIC incidents

Outline The “Low-Impact List” for Oregon schools Who is selecting products for schools? “Least toxic” & “Last resort” Selected examples from state laws A few observations

How are states helping schools with pesticide product selection? Kaci Buhl, Oregon State University