The control of pests in and around schools has attracted the attention of the public for several years. Concerns run high among parents about the presence of insecticides, rodenticides, and other pesticides near their children. At the same time, research has proven that allergens produced by cockroach exudates, bodies, feces, and molted skins are a major factor in the development of asthma and other allergic conditions in children.

School boards, in an attempt to be frugal, commonly award pest-control contracts to the lowest bidder. To keep labor costs down, this low bid frequently relies on pesticides as the basis for control. Due to lack of funds, school boards are reluctant to make the physical changes necessary to reduce reliance on pesticides for pest control.

Recent legislation in Illinois has resulted in two new laws that took effect August 1, 2000. Legislation on school IPM has also been passed this past summer by Congress.

Illinois Senate Bill 529 amended the Structural Pest Control Act, 225 ILCS 235. Highlights of these changes follow:

1.Under the law, public schools must implement an IPM program as defined in the Structural Pest Control Act. A school employee should be appointed to oversee pest-management operations and record keeping. If financial restrictions prevent a school from implementing an IPM program, a letter and supporting documentation must be filed with the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH).

2.There are certain notification provisions in the law. Public schools must provide notification as defined in the law even if the school cannot conduct an IPM program due to financial restrictions.

3.Under the law, insecticide/rodenticide baits are excluded from notification requirements. Please note that scheduled routine spraying is not considered to be consistent with an IPM program as defined in the act and the following guidelines.

IDPH, the Illinois Pest Control Association, the Structural Pest Control Advisory Council, and University of Illinois Extension published A Practical Guide to Management of Common Pests in Schools in 1999. In that publication, the following is given as a definition of IPM for schools: Integrated pest management (IPM) in schools involves the cooperation between school staff and pest-control personnel or other specialists to use a variety of nonchemical methods as well as pesticides, when needed, to reduce pest infestations to acceptable levels and to minimize children's exposure to pesticides. As defined by the Structural Pest Control Act (225 ILCS 235/3.24), IPM is a pestmanagement system that includes the following elements whenever possible:

•identifying pests and their natural enemies;
•establishing an ongoing monitoring and record-keeping system for regular sampling and assessment of pest and natural enemy populations;
•determining the pest population levels that can be tolerated on aesthetic, economic, and health concerns, and setting action thresholds where pest populations or environmental conditions warrant remedial action;
•preventing pest problems through improved sanitation, management of waste, addition of physical barriers, and the modification of habitats that attract or harbor pests;
•reliance to the greatest extent possible on nontoxic, biological, cultural, or mechanical pest-management methods, or on the use of natural control agents;
•when necessary, the use of chemical pesticides, with preference for products that are the least harmful to human health and the environment; and
•record keeping and reporting of pest populations, surveillance techniques, and remedial actions taken.

Notification is required 2 days prior to any pesticide application in a school, excluding antimicrobial agents and insecticide or rodenticide baits. Notification is to be via a school registry of those participants (for example, parents, guardians, and teachers) who want to be contacted; or, in its absence, notification is to be to all parents, guardians, and teachers in a school. It allows for a variety of notification formats: school newsletters, bulletins, calendars, other school-published correspondence. Notification may be postponed if appropriate school personnel deem there to be an "imminent threat to health or property," sign a statement attesting this, and provide notification as soon as practical.

Exterior pesticide applications on school grounds, such as weed control, are regulated by the Illinois Department of Agriculture, (217)785-2427.

Exterior pesticide applications on school grounds are under Senate Bill 527 (now P.A. 91-0099), which amends Section 3 of the Lawn Care Products Application and Notice Act, 415 ILCS 65/3. That bill became law when signed by the governor on July 9, 1999, and is administered by the Illinois Department of Agriculture. As before, school grounds (just like any other area treated by a commercial or public applicator) must be posted with lawn markers. In addition, there are notification requirements for outdoor school grounds applications that are very similar to those required indoors.

Federally, Senate Bill 1134 concerning pesticide application in schools appears slightly less restrictive than the Illinois laws discussed above.

If you wish to review these state laws directly, refer to the Illinois General Assembly Web site at http://www.legis.state.il.us/publicacts/pubact91/acts/91-0525.html for the law addressing indoor IPM and pesticide use in schools; and the following Web site for the law addressing outdoor pesticide applications to school grounds: http://www.legis.state.il.us/publicacts/pubact91/acts/91-0099.html.

Additional information concerning the creation of a school IPM program can be obtained by referring to the following two manuals available on the IDPH Web site, http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/entpestfshts.htm

•A Practical Guide to Management of Common Pests in Schools (1999, PDF Format, 241K). This manual examines the practical aspects of pest management for school staff.
•Integrated Management of Structural Pests in Schools (1994, PDF Format, 71K). This manual discusses IPM policies and also includes a sample school pest-management policy statement and contract specifications.

Due to grant funding from the USEPA, Al Fournier of Purdue University is available to assist school districts in both Indiana and Illinois in setting up IPM programs. Call (800)988-7901 and ask for the IPM in the Schools Program. Phil Nixon, University of Illinois Extension entomologist, is also available for assistance at (217)333-6650.

- Phil Nixon

Resistance is often blamed for the failure of an insecticide or miticide to manage a given pest or pests. However, another possible reason for lack of control may have to do with the pH of the spray solution, pH being a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in a solution. It is a scale indicating the degree of acidic and basic properties of water. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A pH value below 7 is acidic, whereas a pH value above 7 is basic, or alkaline. A pH of 7 is considered neutral.

Many common insecticides and miticides are susceptible to breakdown if the pH of the water is not within an acceptable range. When the pH is greater than 7, a process known as alkaline hydrolysis occurs. Alkaline hydrolysis is a degradation process in which the alkaline water breaks apart insecticide or miticide molecules. This process releases individual ions (electrically charged atoms), which may then reassemble with other ions. These new combinations may not have any insecticidal or miticidal properties.

Insecticides and miticides are more susceptible to alkaline hydrolysis than fungicides and herbicides. Many insecticides and miticides degrade under alkaline conditions. For example, Malathion, Kelthane, Dylox, and Turcam are very sensitive, degenerating within a few hours after diluted in alkaline water. In general, the carbamate and organophosphate chemical classes (for example, Sevin and Dursban, respectively) are more susceptible than chlorinated hydrocarbons or pyrethroids (for example, Lindane or Talstar, respectively). However, other pest-control materials can be affected by high pHs. For example, a pH above 8 can reduce the efficacy of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Dipel, Thuricide, and Javelin) toxin and the insect-growth regulator azadirachtin (Azatin).

Higher temperatures can increase the rate of insecticide degradation. Alkaline hydrolysis occurs more rapidly when temperatures are high. For example, at a pH of 9 and a water temperature of 77°F, acephate (Orthene) loses 50 percent of its activity in approximately 5 days, and fenvalerate (Mavrik) loses 50 percent of its activity in one to two days.

The ways to avoid water pH problems include:
1.Follow manufacturer directions on the desired water pH. The ideal pH range for most insecticides and miticides is between 5.5 and 6.0.
2.Regularly test the pH of water because it can change during the season.
3.Apply insecticides and miticides as soon as possible after mixing. It is advisable to use a spray mixture within 6 hours or less to avoid potential pH problems.
4.Don't leave insecticides or miticides sitting in a spray tank for an extended period of time.
5.Adjust water pH with buffers or water-conditioning agents. Buffers or water-conditioning agents are compounds that reduce the damage caused by alkaline hydrolysis, and adjust the pH of the spray solution to maintain it within a pH range of 4 to 6. In addition, other materials such as vinegar (acetic acid) are often used to acidify water.

- Raymond Cloyd

No justification currently exists for completely abandoning chemical pesticides, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. However, more government-sponsored research and incentives are needed to spur the development and use of alternative pesticides or new chemical pesticides that pose fewer risks to humans and the environment, and that are not too costly to use.

"Chemical pesticides should remain part of a larger toolbox of diverse pest-management tactics in the foreseeable future," said May Berenbaum, professor of entomology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who chaired the committee that wrote the report. "No single pest-management strategy will work in all ecosystems, so chemicals need to be part of an ecologically based framework that can safely increase crop yields."

The committee concluded that chemical pesticides will continue to play a significant role in U.S. agriculture for at least the next decade, not only because the environmental compatibility of pesticides is increasing but also because effective and affordable alternatives are not universally available.

Although plants that are genetically modified to resist pests probably are safer for the environment than traditional synthetic pesticides, questions remain about how fast pests evolve resistance to them, how they affect nontarget species, and how their pest-resistant genes may be transferred to weedy relatives. Until more is known about the ecological impact of transgenic plants, a need will remain for chemical pesticides, especially in the effort to manage and slow pest resistance, the committee said. By using multiple pest-control tactics, instead of relying on a single method, farmers will face limited rates of pest adaptation to pesticides.

The reluctance of some countries to accept imported products derived from genetically modified foods also means that the United States will have to maintain a reliance on chemical pesticides, the report says. Moreover, recent reductions in trade barriers increase the chances that nonnative pests will find their way onto American soil. New, environmentally compatible chemical pesticides will be needed to complement a variety of prevention strategies to combat such pests.

Scientific advances and tougher regulations have driven some of the riskiest chemical pesticides from the marketplace, the report says. But finding alternatives has proved difficult for some farmers, especially those who harvest so-called "minor crops"–which include most fruits and vegetables and which grow on fewer acres than major crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat.

Historically, pesticide manufacturers have focused on developing safer products for use on major crops because treating vast numbers of acres offers a greater promise of profits. To overcome this disincentive to developing safer pesticides for minor crops, the report calls for the government to invest in pest-management research that is not currently–and for the most part never has been–undertaken by private industry.

In particular, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should increase the amount of money it directs toward competitive grants to encourage basic research in pest management, the committee said. New discoveries also can be accelerated by broadening the scope of grant programs at federal agencies other than USDA. Biological, biochemical, and chemical research that can be applied to ecologically based pest management is consistent with the funding missions of several agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the report notes.

NSF and EPA should fund research aimed at improving understanding of pest behavior on actual farms, which could provide farmers with the missing information they need to implement environmentally friendly pest-management practices. For example, if farmers knew ahead of time which plants would be vulnerable to which pests that season, they could rotate their crops accordingly without resorting to chemical pesticides. Researchers also should take advantage of satellite technology to conduct long-term, large-scale "on-farm" studies.

The federal government should foster innovation in the pest-management business and speed up the approval process for new pesticides, the report says. The U.S. Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program, for example, which typically awards grants to companies involved in cutting-edge research and development that has commercial potential, should be encouraged to fund new efforts to develop safer pesticides. And if EPA can do so without jeopardizing human health and the environment, it should register new biopesticides within 6 months, so small companies reap financial benefits sooner and farmers have earlier access to new products. USDA should continue to develop crop-insurance programs for farmers who adopt environmentally sound pest-management practices.

The organic food market is growing at a rate of 20 percent each year in the United States, but only 0.1 percent of agricultural research in this country is devoted to organic farming practices. Government research focused on providing alternatives to chemical pesticides will be critical for farmers hoping to compete in this market, the report says.

Although some incentives are needed to bolster the discovery of new and safer pesticides, disincentives are needed to discourage reliance on chemical pest-control strategies that are deemed riskier, the report says. For example, higher-risk pesticide practices could be subject to special taxes and fees, payment of government entitlements could be made on the condition that farmers meet certain criteria of environmental stewardship, and regulations designed to protect workers could be more strictly enforced.

Agricultural worker safety remains a serious concern, particularly for people working with minor crops, where exposure to pesticides is more likely. In 1992, EPA reinforced its Worker Protection Standards with stricter rules for the safety of workers who handle or come in contact with pesticides. But without more detailed, objective information on compliance, there is reasonable doubt as to whether these standards are accomplishing their goal, the report says. It calls for funding to conduct an unbiased, sophisticated study of worker safety and compliance with the standards.

The study was sponsored by the USDA and EPA. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides scientific and technical advice under a congressional charter. Copies of The Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture will be available in the fall from the National Academy Press, (202)334-3313 or (800)624-6242.

(May Berenbaum, Committee on the Future Role of Pesticides in U.S. Agriculture, Chair; National Research Council.)

GAUCHO 480F (imidacloprid)–Gustafson–Added to their label the seed treatment on corn and the on-farm use as a seed treatment on canola, wheat, barley, sorghum, and cotton. [insecticide]

GAUNTLET (sulfentrazone/cloransulam-methyl)–FMC–A new preemergence herbicide has received EPA registration for use on soybeans to control broadleaf weeds.

(Michelle Wiesbrook, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, July and August, 2000.)

ABOUND (azoxystrobin)–Zeneca–To cover a specific exemption, EPA has extended time-limited residue-tolerance requirements on strawberries, soybeans, and sugarbeets. They now expire on 12-30-01. (FR, vol. 65, 7-19-00) [fungicide]

ACRAMITE (bifenazate)–Uniroyal–This trade name was spelled wrong in the last issue of the newsletter. (insecticide)

BOA (paraquat)–Griffin–A new 2.5-lb/gal ai formulation will be marketed by this company throughout the United States. [herbicide]

DURSBAN/LORSBAN (chlorpyrifos)–Dow AgroSciences–The company has voluntarily cancelled numerous uses for this product due to EPA's goal of reducing exposure to children. Use as a termiticide spot and local treatment will be allowed until 12-31-02. As a pre-treat termiticide, it will be allowed until 12-31-05. It will remain available on nonresidential uses such as golf courses and ornamental nurseries and on all agricultural crop uses except tomatoes. There will be reduced-use restrictions on apples and grapes. Retail sales of chlorpyrifos products will be allowed until 12-31-01.

ETHYL BLOC (1-MCP)–BioTechnologies for Horticulture–A new growth regulator being developed for use on harvested crops to counteract the undesirable effects of ethylene. These include accelerated ripening and softening, loss of green color, russeting, etc. Used as an indoor postharvest treatment.

TETRAMETHRIN–Aventis–Due to the high cost of reregistration, they have proposed to EPA to delete from their label all greenhouse uses. Unless withdrawn, this change will be effective on 11-27-00. (FR, vol. 65, 5-31-00) [insecticide]

THIODAN (endosulfan)–FMC/Aventis–Due to the high cost of re-registration, the companies have requested from EPA to delete from the label all home and residential uses and any use other than commercial agricultural crops and commercial ornamentals. Uses to be discontinued include all fogger, smoke, impregnated material, dust, aerosol formulators, citrus (except nonbearing trees and nursery stock), clover (except grown for seed), corn, endive, evening primrose, garden beets, garlic, rape seed, douglas fir, forest plantings, wood treatments, greenhouse crops, and public buildings. Unless withdrawn, this change will be effective on 1-16-2001. (FR vol. 65, 7-19-00) [insecticide]

TRIGGRR (cytokins)–Westbridge–The company has expanded the label for this growth regulator to include stone fruit, pome fruit, citrus, berries, avocados, mangos, pineapple, kiwi, tropical fruit, hops, tree nuts, herbs, coffee, cucurbits, and vegetables.

(Michelle Wiesbrook, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, July and August, 2000.)

AGRI BIO TECH–The company, in bankruptcy, has reached an agreement to sell all its turf seed assets and specialty division to Simplot and Kenneth R. Budd.

AVAST (fluridone)–Grifin–A new formulation available for aquatic weed control.

AVENTIS–The company has sold its isoproturon herbicide business to Griffin LLC, which is trade marketed as Arelon.

BASF–The company announced it would move its global headquarters for its agricultural chemical operations to Mount Olive, NJ.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS–USDA estimates the United States planted 61% of its cotton, 54% of its soybeans, and 25% of its corn to genetically engineered crops. Also, it is estimated that 40 million hectares of genetically engineered crops were planted worldwide in 1999.

ZENECA AGROCHEMICALS–The company plans to divest worldwide its acetochlor corn-herbicide business for its proposed formation of Syngenta, which is a merger of Zeneca and Novartis. Products involved would be Surpass, Topnotch, Fultime, Trophy, and Relay.

(Michelle Wiesbrook, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, July and August, 2000.)

BAYLETON 50 (triadimefon)–Bayer–Added to their label the control of gray leaf spot on turf.

CHOPPER (imazapyr)–American Cyanamid–Added to their label the control of manzanita and elderberry.

CONFIRM T/O (tebufenozide)–Rohm & Haas–A new formulation developed to be used on ornamental crops.

PP2 1.55 HG (propiconazole)–Novartis–A new formulation developed for home and garden use to control various diseases on ornamentals, turf, and trees.

PHYTON 27 (copper sulfate)–Source Tech. Biologicals–New ornamental uses include lisianthus, impatiens, periwinkle, zinnias, snapdragon, hydrangea, and Indian hawthorne. Also added to the list of diseases controlled were rust, downy mildew, phytophthora, and entomosporium.

VENDEX (fenbutalin-oxide)–Griffin–Received EPA registration to use on greenhouse and outdoor ornamentals, including nursery stock, to control mites.

(Michelle Wiesbrook, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, July and August, 2000.)

APOGEE (prohexadione-calcium)–BASF–This growth regulator is being marketed on apples for the first time to reduce vegetative growth, which reduces pruning costs and improves light penetration to the canopy. Also, it reduces the tree's susceptibility to fire blight. Growth suppression lasts for 2 to 5 weeks after application. Two applications are recommended at 10- to 17-day intervals; observe a 21-day preharvest interval.

BIO SAVE (Pseudomonas syringae)–Eco Science–The company plans to expand the use of this bio-fungicide as a postharvest treatment on stone fruits, cranberries, and bananas.

BRAVO ULTRA (chlorothalonil)–Zeneca–Added to their label the use on cherries and plums to control black knot.

CHAMP 2F (copperhydroxide)–Agtrol–Added to their label the control of phomopsis on grapes.

CONFIRM (tebufenozide)–Rohm & Haas–To cover a specific exemption, EPA established temporary residue tolerances on grapes at 3 ppm. Expires 12-31-01. (FR, vol. 65, 7-6-00) [insecticide]

EVOLVE (thiophanate-methyl/mancozeb/cymoxanil)–Gustafson–Received EPA registration as a seed-piece treatment on potatoes to control late blight, black scurf, stem canker, and dry rot.

FRUIT GUARD-V/NUT GUARD-V (Indian meal moth granulosis virus)–Agri Vir–Proposed to EPA to establish an exemption from residue-tolerance requirements for this new microbial pesticide used to control the Indian meal moth in stored dry commodities, such as dried fruits and nuts, and as a crack treatment where these commodities are handled. The comment period expired 8-7-00.

GAVEL (zoxamide/mancozeb)–Rohm & Haas–Registration is expected by the 2001 season for use on potatoes to control late blight.

MH-30 (maleic hydrazide)–Uniroyal–Added to their label for this growth regulator the use on shallots and garlic.

OMEGA 500E (fluazinam)–Zeneca–Being developed to control Sclerotinia blight, Southern blight, and limb and pod rot on peanuts at late blight and white mold on potatoes.

RALLY (myclobutanil)–Rohm & Haas–Received EPA registration for use on asparagus, tomatoes, snap beans, mint, strawberries, cucurbits, and caneberries to control powdery mildew and rust.

SUCCESS (spinosad)–Dow AgroSciences–Added to their label the use on potatoes, tuberous and corm vegetables, dry beans, peas, tree farms, and pistachios. [insecticide]

TOPSIN-M (thiophanate-methyl)–Elf Atochem–Added to their label the suppression of vine decline on cucurbits.

VANGARD (cyprodinil)–Novartis–To cover a specific exemption, EPA extended time-limited residue tolerances on strawberries at 5 ppm. Expires 5-31-01. (FR, vol. 65, 6-12-00) [fungicide]

(Michelle Wiesbrook, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, July and August, 2000.)

ANVIL (phenothrin)–Clarke Mosquito Control–A new formulation synergized with PBO to use for adult mosquito control.

(Michelle Wiesbrook, unless otherwise noted, adapted from Agricultural Chemical News, July and August, 2000.)