Public school districts learning to reduce pesticide risks to children
Author(s) -
Stumbos John
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
california agriculture
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.472
H-Index - 25
eISSN - 2160-8091
pISSN - 0008-0845
DOI - 10.3733/ca.v059n04p201
Subject(s) - pesticide , business , environmental science , geography , environmental health , agricultural economics , toxicology , biology , medicine , economics , ecology
Geiger’s study, conducted in 2002, found that under the HSA California public schools are making progress toward an IPM approach, but he found differences between larger, urban schools and smaller, rural schools. In addition, preliminary results from a more recent survey conducted by DPR in 2004 show continued to progress. “The most important thing,” Geiger says, “is that compliance has continued to increase.” Belinda Messenger, a DPR research scientist analyzing the 2004 data, says 64% of the districts surveyed are now in full compliance with the law, up from 50% in 2002. “We found really high compliance (92%) with use of warning signs before and after spraying,” she says. “We also found 68% of the school districts have adopted an IPM program.” Messenger attributes the higher success rates to the ongoing workshops and pressure from parents. As of September 2005, about 39% of the state’s approximately 1,000 school districts had sent personnel to a workshop. A faculty lounge poster is also being developed to encourage teachers not to use sprays on their own. Geiger described the hands-on training program as very effective, especially given its small budget. “It’s quality over quantity,” he says. “The university’s role is absolutely essential. UC IPM is the only program of its kind that provides a central repository of peer-reviewed, science-based information.” — John Stumbos G are the days when the school custodian casually reached into the broom closet for a can of insecticide spray to kill a column of unwanted ants slurping up a spilled soda. “California’s school districts are making more intelligent decisions about how they control pests,” says Chris Geiger, a former research scientist at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) who conducted a study on integrated pest management (IPM) in California public schools (see page 235). Recent research supports the need for IPM in schools. In July, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported a significant increase in the number of acute illnesses associated with pesticide exposure among students and school employees nationwide (from 1998 through 2002). It recommended implementation of IPM practices and other measures to ensure reduced exposure to toxic chemicals in school settings. California is among 17 states that have already passed legislation to address the issue. The Healthy Schools Act (HSA) of 2000 (AB 2260) calls upon public school districts throughout the state to identify IPM coordinators, maintain pesticide use records, notify parents and staff, and post before-and-after warnings of pesticide treatments. Although the law does not specifically require IPM practices, their use is encouraged through an educational effort spearheaded by DPR, which frequently turns to the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program (UC IPM) for expertise.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom