Benefits of IPM

There are many benefits to introducing IPM in schools and childcare centres. IPM not only provides wonderful opportunities for environmental education, it is also an essential aspect for the sustainable management of any school or childcare centre in the 21st century. Perhaps the most urgent reason for introducing IPM is to minimise the unnecessary use of pesticides to better protect community health and the environment from pesticide exposures.

As the community is becoming more aware and concerned about the dangers of chemical exposure they are demanding safer environments. Employers have a duty of care to provide safe working environments. Governments have responded by ensuring chemical risks are assessed and minimised under occupational health and safety legislation and hazardous substances regulations. Yet, many schools and childcare centres still needlessly use hazardous pesticides when safer alternatives exist.

Schools and childcare centres have many responsibilities to ensure the safety of children in those environments. Childcare centres are licenced and as part of the licence requirements, they must be 'free of vermin'. It is important to note however, that this does not mean that regular pesticide applications need to occur. Rather, a regular pest status audit and localised treatment for any infestations fulfils legal requirements and pest management objectives.

IPM is ideally applied at the design stage of any construction, as it is far cheaper and more effective to 'build out' pests than to implement IPM retrospectively. Australia for instance, leads the way in the use of low-risk termite design and non-chemical termite barriers using materials such as granite and steel mesh. New schools and childcare centres are now being built using non-chemical methods for termite protection. The next stage is to apply IPM for the full range of common pests in schools and childcare centres.

Reducing Pesticide Exposure And Risk

Everybody is exposed to pesticides to varying degrees. We are exposed to pesticides through eating food or drinking water contaminated with pesticide residues, inhaling pesticide vapours, and absorbing or ingesting residues from carpets, benches, soil, etc.

There is an urgent need to reduce pesticide exposure and the pesticide load in our bodies and environment. By adopting integrated pest management, the risk of pesticide exposure from this source will be reduced, as will residues around our homes and the environment. As with antibiotics, hazardous pesticides should never be overused or applied as a 'preventative' measure, they should only be used in emergency situations or as a last resort if other IPM methods have not been effective.

What is a pesticide?

The term 'pesticide'is legally defined in Commonwealth and State legislation under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, commonly referred to as the 'Agvet Code'. The term 'pesticide'includes insecticides, herbicides, termiticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and even disinfectants that are used to kill, repel, or attract pests.

‘Vermin free’ Childcare centres in NSW must be licenced, and under the regulations require the premises to be free of vermin. It is important to note however, this does not mean that regular pesticide applications need to occur. Rather, a regular pest status audit and localised treatment for any infestations fulfils legal requirements and pest management objectives.

 

Pesticide use in schools and childcare centres

It is important for pests to be managed in schools and childcare centres for the safety and comfort of the whole school community. Unfortunately, many pest control contracts in schools involve regular, broad-scale application of residual pesticides, sometimes up to four times a year to gardens, paths, eaves, under floors, etc. This type of treatment is akin to using a swimming pool full of water to put out a match! Needless to say, it is a gross overuse of pesticides. It is also common for teachers and other staff members to apply over the counter pesticides in specific areas such as canteens, staff rooms and classrooms, adding to the pesticide load.

Organising pest control in schools commonly involves a call to a pest control company and a scheduled spray during the school holidays. It is rare that the school community is notified about intended pesticide treatments. Despite the fact that treatments are usually done during school holiday periods, pesticide residues can remain active for long periods of time, exposing children and staff. Children and staff spend an average of 6-7 hrs a day, 5 days a week, 180 days a year in the school and childcare environment and it is essential that they are not continuously exposed to pesticide residues. By using an IPM program to manage pests, chemical pesticides can be dramatically reduced and effective control of pests achieved.

Chemical Sensitivities

Children and staff with chemical sensitivities need to be accommodated along with other people with disabilities. Unfortunately, there is a growing number of people with chemical sensitivities or other illnesses such as asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, or immune disorders which are exacerbated by exposure to chemicals. Children with severe chemical sensitivities may not be able to attend school at all, or they may require large periods of time away from the school environment. With careful management and an active commitment to reducing chemicals in the school and childcare environment, many chemically sensitive children will be able to attend school.

Chemical Sensitivity - Andrew's Story "Andrew, who is chemically sensitive, is now in Year 11. This is an achievement in itself, as his quality of life and his ability to attend school is completely dependent upon the attitude and compassion of people around him. Due to his chemical sensitivities, pesticide use both in and around the school has been an important issue. His primary school years saw the principal and staff very accommodating of his needs. The school ceased scheduled pesticide application - finding they didn't need the regular applications of the past. Our request was for spraying to occur at the beginning of the holidays, preferably the beginning of the Christmas holidays, if needed at all. Herbicide use in the grounds around the school also ceased. At one stage a new garden bed was proposed and rather than use herbicides, they covered the area with black plastic, leaving it for a couple of months before successfully planting their new garden bed. Herbicides had previously been used for line marking of sporting fields. This was eliminated by using boiling water to mark the lines which proved to be just as successful, if not better. Pesticide use surrounding the school was also addressed. The Council would spray roadside verges at the beginning of the holidays and not through the school term. NorthPower, the electricity carrier at the time, also ceased pesticide use around its poles for a distance of a kilometre around the school, manually maintaining the weeds around their poles instead. One incident showed the monetary savings possible with the implementation of the manual removal of insects compared to pesticide use. Andrew was about to begin Year 6 and was school captain, when we received a phone call from the principal. The cleaning staff had returned to school to discover red-back spiders had taken up residence over the holidays - both inside and out. The principal had a pest control company assess the situation, who suggested blanket spraying of a synthetic pyrethroid called Deltamethrin. As this pesticide has a half-life of at least 6 weeks, we knew Andrew would be out of school for at least the whole of first term if this occurred. We investigated the prospect of manually removing the spiders, vacuuming the inside thoroughly and steam treating the outside. As it turned out, the cost of hiring a high-pressure steam unit and the wages of the groundsman for the day to thoroughly 'clean' the outside of the school, was cheaper than the quote for spraying pesticides. The cleaner manually removed the spiders with the vacuum cleaner and the groundsman steam cleaned the outside of the school - an added bonus being that the school was cleaned and looked great. The no pesticide solution was a win-win with Andrew able to attend school that term. His high school years saw many problems due to the sheer number of people involved and the disbelief that greeted Andrew's chemical sensitivity. We managed to get an agreement for any pesticide application, both inside and outside the school, to occur at the beginning of the holiday period. It was less than ideal, as the return to school always saw Andrew sick as the residues still remained. Andrew finally had to be withdrawn from school in Year 8 and enrolled in Distance Education when the neighbouring farmer refused to give us prior notification of pesticide use on his farm, which adjoined the school. If we knew when he was spraying, and what was being sprayed, we could have kept Andrew home for a period of time. With the cooperation of his teachers, we could have worked with him at home. However, this pesticide pollution saw Andrew•s health decline dramatically, and we had to withdraw him. Whilst at home, we never gave up the hope of him returning to school, as he is a very social boy who thoroughly enjoyed and needed the company of his peers. We worked through the relevant authorities and the school in order to have Andrew•s rights respected and catered for. Year 9 saw Andrew return to school, the farm around the school changed hands, and we got prior notification of pesticide and fertiliser use. The farmer does not seem to spray pesticides or apply fertilisers during school hours. Andrew is now in Year 11, thoroughly enjoying school, and is doing well academically and proving to be very popular amongst both teachers and students. If pesticides do need to be applied inside or outside the school, it is done at the beginning of the school holidays. Not ideal, but Andrew•s health is coping". Ann Want, Parent

 

Reasons For Adopting IPM In Schools And Childcare Centres Provides environmental education opportunities Contributes to sustainable school and childcare centre management Minimises pesticide exposure - especially of children Protects human health from pests that may spread disease Saves valuable school resources and reduces pest control costs Limits potential liability Protects and enhances the school environment and surroundings Protects wildlife from pesticide exposures and reduces environmental pollution

Environmental education opportunities

The Australian environment and the organisms that inhabit it are unique and it is essential we educate children about its wonders. We need to equip future generations with the tools to manage problems, such as pests in complex environments, without resorting to the use of environmentally and socially destructive technologies.

We draw on many subjects and skills, including science, writing and mathematics to understand our place in the environment. IPM introduces a useful framework for understanding and managing the complexities of natural systems. It is inconsistent to teach children about the wonders of insects inside the classroom, while destroying them unnecessarily outside in the school grounds.

Protect human health from disease

Many pest organisms can be vectors of disease and must be effectively managed. Cockroaches, flies, fleas and some ants for example, are considered public health pests because of their disease spreading potential. The broad-scale application of residual pesticides to control these pests tends to give people a false sense of security. They may ignore other important pest management tools because they believe pesticide residues will protect them. IPM can effectively manage pests that may be vectors of disease.

Save school resources

It is a common adage that prevention is better than cure! A pesticide-intensive method of pest management is a cure-orientated approach. IPM, on the other hand, focuses on minimising pest problems and providing long-term solutions through effective monitoring and management.

A report by the Attorney General of New York State Pesticide Use At New York Schools: Reducing the Risk3, indicates that while there may be short-term costs associated with establishing new IPM policies and practices in schools, those that have implemented IPM have reduced their pest control costs, often in the first year.

Additional activities required by an IPM program can be absorbed into existing training, waste management and maintenance budgets. When the indirect costs of pesticide use, such as future liability, public relations and occupational health and safety are also taken into account, IPM programs can be even more cost efficient 4. Even if pest control is not a large part of a school's budget, the other benefits IPM provides are an incentive to implement it.

Protect and enhance the school environment

Physical structures such as buildings, fences and playground equipment need to be designed, maintained and monitored to protect against structural pests such as termites and borers, which can cause significant structural damage.

In the past fifty years or so, protection from structural pests has usually involved the application of residual pesticides such as organochlorines to create 'chemical barriers'. Organochlorines were phased out in 1995 for this use because of their health and environmental risks, and organophosphates and synthetic pyrethroids became the pesticides of choice. Chemical barriers however, regardless of the pesticides used, involve large volumes of pesticides applied under and around the perimeters of buildings which creates unnecessary risks.

The application of IPM to manage structural pests in new and existing structures ensures that valuable assets are effectively protected from structural pest damage. The natural surroundings and interiors of buildings will also be protected from the negative impacts of pesticide residues. Minimising pesticides also enhances the school surroundings, helping to protect biodiversity and contributing to the restoration of degraded environments.

Minimise exposure to pesticides - especially of children

Pesticides are designed to kill living organisms and humans and other animals are not immune to their impacts. It is well documented in the scientific literature that pesticides cause a range of health and environmental problems. Pesticide exposure has been linked to a range of acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) health and environmental effects.

Acute symptoms of exposure to pesticides include headache, nausea, dizziness, skin rash, asthma attack and respiratory irritation. These are common symptoms often associated with illnesses such as the flu, which can make pesticide over-exposure difficult to diagnose.

Chronic health effects from pesticides can remain undetected for weeks, months, or even years after exposure. Scientific studies have linked pesticide exposure to cancer, birth defects, nervous system disorders, immune deficiency and hormonal effects.

It is now widely recognised that children are especially vulnerable to the health impacts of pesticide exposure. Health professionals, educators, and public health advocates acknowledge that pesticide exposure can seriously affect children's immediate and long-term health.

According to the report, In Harm's Way, by the Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility 5, "An epidemic of developmental, learning, and behavioural disabilities has become evident among children. These disabilities are clearly the result of complex interactions among environmental, genetic and social factors that impact on children during vulnerable periods of development. Toxic exposures deserve special scrutiny because they are preventable causes of harm".

In Harm's Way also states "Animal tests for the commonly-used organophosphate class of pesticides show that a small, single dose on a critical day of development can cause hyperactivity and permanent changes in neurotransmitter receptor levels in the brain. One of the most commonly used organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, decreases DNA synthesis in the developing brain, resulting in deficits in cell numbers".

There is a multitude of pesticides in common use, some of which were assessed many years ago before children's greater sensitivity to chemical exposure was understood and accounted for.

As there is little scientific information available on the impacts of exposure to aggregates of pesticides from dietary and other sources, we may never know the exact threats to children's health from pesticide exposure. Often it is only after years of exposure that some adverse effects are finally recognised. We therefore have a duty of care to take a precautionary approach and minimise children's exposure to pesticides.

Children are not little adults » Pesticide concentrations in their fatty tissues may be greater because their fat as a percentage of total body weight is lower. » Greater cell division rates and early stage of organ, nervous, reproductive, and immune system development make children more susceptible to adverse effects. » Higher skin surface area for their size than adults means greater exposure through the skin, the largest organ of the body. » Higher respiratory rates mean they inhale airborne pesticides at a faster rate. » Children characteristically are in more contact with floors, lawns, and playgrounds, which if treated, lead to greater exposure. » Young children put objects, dirt, etc in their mouths and don’t know to wash their hands. » The skin of babies and young children is thinner, softer and has a higher water content, making it a less effective barrier to chemicals. » The breathing zone for children is closer to the floor, where pesticides re-enter the air after floor surfaces are disturbed.

 

5 Schettler, T.,Stein, J., Reich, F.,Valenti, M., 2000, In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development,
Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Protect wildlife pesticide exposure and reduce environmental pollution

Urban and domestic use of pesticides, including over the counter products, accounts for roughly 20-30% of all pesticides used in Australia6.Despite the fact that pesticides are extensively used, there is very little known about their movement, degradation, and impact on Australian species and the environment. Pesticide pollution occurs in soil, air, rivers and ground water, particularly in agricultural areas, parks and sporting fields.

Pesticide residues have been found in Australian wildlife, such as birds and fish. Given that basic scientific data is missing about the effects and fate of pesticides, it is far wiser that we act to minimise pesticide use to protect our unique wildlife and environment. The application of IPM in the school environment not only protects wildlife around the school, it also contributes to broader community-based environment initiatives to protect wildlife and their habitats.

Pesticide Use in Australia According to a review undertaken by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering on Pesticide Use in Australia7, there is no detailed and publicly available information in Australia on usage of individual pesticides, either nationally or by regions. Based on sales figures alone, it was reported that the broad-spectrum herbicide, glyphosate, is the most extensively used pesticide in Australia, followed by atrazine and simazine, also both herbicides. Of the insecticides, the most commonly used are the organophosphates including parathion methyl, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, profenofos and diazinon. For fungicides, mancozeb, dithiocarbamate and captan are the most extensively used. NB: Not all of these pesticides are used in urban pest control. They are also used in agriculture, forestry and horticulture.

 

6 Hazlehurst, C. & Immig, J. & Copeman, R. (1999) A National Health Monitoring Program for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals:
proposal for development and implementation, National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals.

7 Radcliffe, Dr. J.C., (2002) Pesticide Use in Australia, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.