Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools. CPR Series Report

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 450 558 EF 005 939

AUTHOR Kaplan, Jonathan; Marquardt, Sandra; Barber, Wendy TITLE Failing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools. CPR Series Report. INSTITUTION Californians for Pesticide Reform, San Francisco.; California Public Interest Research Group, San Francisco. Charitable Trust. SPONS AGENCY Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA.; Mott (C.S.) Foundation, Flint, MI.; Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, San Francisco, CA. PUB DATE 1998-00-00 NOTE 36p.; Funding also received by True North Foundation, Columbia Foundation, and the Foundation for Ecology and Development. For another CPR report on pesticide use in California schools, see EF 005 790. AVAILABLE FROM For full text: http://www.pirg.org/calpirg/reports/toxics.html. PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Elementary Secondary Education; *Pesticides; *Pests; Poisons; *Public Schools; Surveys IDENTIFIERS *California; *Health Hazards; Policy Issues

ABSTRACT This report presents a statewide assessment of pesticides used in California's school system. Of the 46 school districts responding to the statewide survey, 40 claimed using one or more of 27 particularly hazardous pesticides that can cause cancer, affect the reproductive system, mimic the endocrine system, or act as nerve toxins. Forty-three school districts reported routinely using pesticides. The report suggests that not only have California school districts not embraced opportunities for using least-toxic methods to combat pests, but that the state also has no law requiring notification of parents or teachers before applying pesticides in schools. The report recommends: that state policymakers eliminate the use of pesticides that cause cancer; that school managers take the initiative from state agencies to implement reforms; and that teachers, parents, and students request information about pesticides used in and around schools and participate in school pest management decision- making to ensure that least-toxic pest management is practiced. Appendices provide survey methodology, the survey response information by school district, a list of active ingredients found in surveyed schools, a list of resources for further information, and descriptions of the top five pesticides used by the surveyed schools. (Contains 41 references.) (GR)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Failing Health Pesticide Use In California Schools

by Jonathan Kaplan, MES, Toxics Program Director Sandra Marquardt, Pesticide Policy Advisor Wendy Barber, Summer Research Fellow

Research Assistance provided by Noah Carlson, Research Intern

CALPIRG Charitable Trust

Full text available at:

http://www.pirg.org/calpirg/reports/toxics.html

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy.

CPR BEST COPYAVAILABLE

One in a series of reports by Californians for Pesticide Reform 2 Principal Authors Jonathan Kaplan, MES, Toxics Program Director, CALPIRG Charitable Trust Sandra Marquardt, Pesticide Policy Advisor, CALPIRG Charitable Trust Wendy Barber, Summer Research Fellow, CALPIRG Charitable Trust Research Assistance provided by: Noah Carlson, Research Intern, CALPIRG Charitable Trust

California Public Californians for Interest Research Group Pesticide Reform Charitable Trust Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a coalition of public interest organizations committed to protect- The CALPIRG Charitable Trust is the 501(c) (3) sister ing public health and the environment from pesticide organization of the California Public Interest Research proliferation. CPR's mission is to: 1) educate Califor- Group (CALPIRG), a non-profit, non-partisan re- nians about environmental and health risks posed by search and advocacy organization working on behalf of pesticides; 2) eliminate the use of the most dangerous consumers and the environment. With over 70,000 pesticides in California and reduce overall pesticide members and 14 offices statewide, CALPIRG is the use; and 3) hold government agencies accountable to largest consumer group in California. protecting public health and Californians' right to 450 Geary Street, Suite 500 know about pesticide use and exposure. San Francisco, CA 94102 116 New Montgomery, Suite 800 tel: (415) 292-1487 San Francisco, CA 94105 fax: (415) 292-1497 tel: (415) 495-1149 or (888) CPR-4880 email: [email protected] fax: (415) 495-1141 webside: www.pirg.org email: [email protected] website: www.igc.org/cpr

Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed their comments, insights, experience and hard work to this report. In addition to the efforts contributed by the principle authors, Noah Carlson provided data coding, data analysis, general research and fact-checking. Special thanks to Leo O'Brien, Esq., for contributing his invaluable legal services and guiding our information request under the California Public Records Act.

Our thanks to James Liebman (Pesticide Action Network) for providing the methodology for classifying the toxicity of pesticides and to Ellen Hickey, Yenyen Chan and Steve Scholl-Buckwald (Pesticide Action Network), Jeanne Merrill (Pesticide Watch Education Fund), David Chatfield and Kelly Campbell (Californians for Pesticide Reform), Becky Riley and Caroline Cox (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides) and Tanya Drlik (Bio-Integral Re- source Center) for guidance and critical comments on the manuscript. Special thanks to Gregg Small (Pesticide Watch Education Fund) and Joan Clayburgh (Californians for Pesticide Reform) for helping to shape the project. The cover was designed by Public Media Center. Internal layout was done by Brenda Willoughby of Pesticide Action Net- work:

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of the CALPIRG Chari- table Trust and Californians for Pesticide Reform. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.

This report was supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, C.S. Mott Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, True North Foundation, Columbia Foundation and Foundation for Ecology and Development.

The paper of this report is 100% recycled and acid free. No elemental chlorine was used in the de-inking and manu- facturing process. it 3 Table of Contents

Executive Summary

I. Introduction 1

II.Highly Toxic Pesticides Are Used in California Schools 2 Possible, probable and known carcinogens Reproductive and developmental toxins Hormone-mimicking pesticides Nervous system toxins Table 1. Highly toxic pesticides used in surveyed California school districts Sidebars Pesticide illnesses in California schools: The tip of the iceberg "Inert" ingredients: Packaging poison with poison Children are uniquely susceptible to pesticide poisoning Pesticide residues are highly persistent indoors III. Least-Toxic Pest Management Strategies are Effective but Not Used in California Schools 7 Least-toxic pest management is proven to be effective State and national education advocacy organizations support least-toxic alternatives Lack of IPM definition invites "greenwashing" Commercial pesticide applicators are not trained in least-toxic pest management Sidebar Examples of least-toxic pest management IV. Parents, Teachers, Students and Public Are Kept in the Dark About Pesticide Use in Schools 11

V. State Officials Have Failed to Address Pesticide Use in Schools 12 VI. Conclusion and Recommendations 13 Endnotes 14 Appendices 15 Appendix A: MethodologyAssessing Pesticide Use in the Face of Inadequate Use Reporting Appendix B: Survey Response Information by School District Appendix C: Active Ingredients Found in Surveyed California School Districts Appendix D: Resources for Further Information Appendix E: The Top Five Pesticides Used in Surveyed School Districts iii

4 Pesticides are not "safe." They are produced specifically because they are toxic to something. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Citizen's Guide to Pesticides, 1987

iv Executive Summary Twenty five years ago, the California Parent quantity of pesticides used in the school dis- Teacher Association passed a resolution call- tricts surveyedsome may have applied pes- ing for the reduced use of pesticides in ticides listed in this report infrequently or in schools, calling on policymakers to consider small amounts while others may have applied all possible alternatives before using any pesti- large quantities. cides and to use pesticides only as an emer- However, by scrutinizing the pesticide use gency measure. Since then, the National Par- records and school invoices for pesticide pur- ent Teacher Association, the National Educa- chases and contracted services for 46 re- tion Association and a wide array of public sponding school districtsrepresenting ap- interest organizations across the nation have proximately one in four of all children en- announced support for reducing pesticide use rolled in California's public schools grades K- in schools. 12this report is able to provide the first- Meanwhile, the overall incidence of child- ever statewide assessment of pesticides used hood cancer increased 10% between 1974 in our school systems. and 1991, the most recent statistics available, making cancer the leading cause of childhood We found that: death from disease. Approximately 4.8 mil- 1. Highly toxic pesticides are used lion children in the U.S. under the age of 18 in California school districts. have asthma, the most common Chronic ill- Of the 46 school districts responding to our ness in children and one which is on the rise. request for information, 87% (40) reported Numerous scientific studies have linked both using one or more of 27 particularly hazard- diseases to pesticide exposure. ous pesticides that can cause cancer, affect the Unfortunately, neither public interest advo- reproductive system, mimic the hormone cates nor ominous health trends have con- (endocrine) system or act as nerve toxins. The vinced authorities to remove toxic pesticides percentage of surveyed school districts using from California schools. In an attempt to each of these most-hazardous pesticides is characterize the current use of pesticides in provided in Table A below. our schools, researchers at the California Pub- The use of highly toxic chemicals in schools lic Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) is of significant concern. According to the Charitable Trust recently requested pesticide National Academy of Sciences, children are use information from 54 California school districts statewide, representing urban, suburban and rural areas. This research effort was hindered by the Table A: Use of toxic pesticides in surveyed absence of state pesticide use report- California schools. ing and notification requirements for schools. Reluctance on the part of school staff, lack of pesticide Health Effect (s) Percentage & (number) of Responding record keeping by schools and lim- School Districts Reporting Pesticide Use ited school resources all made it dif- "Probable" or "known" human carcinogens 20% (9) ficult to obtain pesticide-related "Possible" human carcinogens 70% (32) records. CALPIRG Charitable Trust Developmental and reproductive toxins 52% (24) eventually resorted to legal counsel Hormone mimicking pesticides 50% (23) to obtain this information. Because EPA Category I Nerve Toxins 26% (12) of incomplete, illegible and missing pesticide use information, it was EPA Category II Nerve Toxins 41% (19) not possible to assess the overall

8 highly susceptible to the effects of toxic cost than using hazardous pesticides, and chemicals and may not be protected from may even reduce school absenteeism. pesticides under current regulations. Not simply "little adults," children are in the 4. Parents, policymakers and the midst of highly complex, and vulnerable, de- public are prevented from getting velopmental processes that regulate tissue basic information about pesticide growth and organ development. They may use in schools. also receive greater pesticide exposures than Unlike several other states, including Arizona, adultsboth because of their physiology and Texas and Michigan, California has no law because childhood behaviors may increase requiring notification of parents or teachers contact with surfaces sprayed with pesticides. before applying pesticides in schools. With- out notification, parents and teachers are un- 2. In California schools, pesticides able to take precautionary measures or par- are the rule, not the exception. ticipate in pest management decision-making. Ninety-three percent(43)of the responding Similarly, there is no requirement for schools school districts reported using pesticides. to report their own overall pesticide use. Combined, these school districts reported When school districts contract with commer- using over 70 different pesticide active ingredi- cial applicators, the applicator reports pesti- ents in over 170 pesticide product formulations. cide use to the Department of Pesticide At least30% (14)of the surveyed school dis- Regulation. However, unlike agricultural pes- tricts contracted with commercial extermina- ticide use reports, this information is not tors who applied pesticides on a regular coded in a way to identify the location (name monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly basisin of school) where the pesticides were used. In some cases even when no pests were present. effect, pesticide use is better documented for So-called "calendar spraying" may also have an acre of cabbage than for a California class- occurred in any of another28surveyed room. As a result, finding information about school districts which submitted more am- pesticide use in schools is next to impossible. biguous records. According to data col- It is therefore extremely difficult for school lected by the Department of Pesticide Regu- managers, state regulators and the public to lation in late1993,only2%of the 556 re- obtain the most basic information necessary sponding California school districts were able to ensure that our children's health is protected. to document plans or programs for practicing least-toxic pest control or Integrated Pest Recommendations

Management (IPM). When it comes to protecting our children's health from the use of pesticides in California 3. Least-toxic pest management is schools, Governor Wilson and the California proven to be effective. legislature get a failing grade. Under the Wil- The above findings suggest that California son Administration, the Department of Pesti- school districts have not embraced opportu- cide Regulation has continued to permit the nities for using least-toxic methods to combat use of highly toxic pesticides in our class- pests. Combinations of techniques, such as rooms while keeping parents and teachers in improved sanitation, mechanical exclusions the dark about school pesticide use. Oppor- (screens, caulking), inspections and traps can tunities for using least-toxic alternative meth- eliminate the need for applying highly toxic ods of pest management have been all but chemicals. Three of the surveyed school dis- ignored. In1992,State Senator Nicholas tricts are already managing pest problems Petris (D-Oakland) introduced legislation without toxic chemicals. In addition, a recent that would have banned the use of highly survey of21Pennsylvania school districts toxic pesticides in California schools. Unfor- that have adoptedIPMprograms found that tunately, his bill was weakened in the legisla- these programs are effective, of equal or lower ture and finally vetoed by Governor Wilson. vi 7 The CALPIRG Charitable Trust, together identifiably reported under the state pesti- with the statewide coalition Californians for cide use reporting system; and require Pesticide Reform, urges swift action to pro- prior-notification to parents and school tect our children from the unnecessary risks staff before the application of pesticides. posed by using dangerous pesticides in School managers should not wait for lead- schools. ership from state agencies to implement Policymakers should eliminate the school these reforms. use of pesticides which cause cancer, ad- Teachers, parents and students should re- verse reproductive and developmental ef- quest information about pesticides used in fects, disrupt hormones or harm the ner- and around schools and participate in vous system; provide training, incentives, school pest management decision-making materials and quantifiable reduction goals to ensure that least-toxic pest management to promote the reduction of pesticides in is practiced. schools; ensure that school pesticide use is

vii 8 I.introduction In 1972, the California State ParentTeacher school districts) reported using one or more Association passed a resolution calling for the of 73 different pesticides to control pests. reduced use of pesticides in schools.asking Eighty seven percent (40) reported using one policymakers to consider all possible alterna- or more of 27 highly toxic pesticides tives before using any pesticides and to use chemicals that can cause cancer. reproductive pesticides only as an emergencymeasure.' disorders, hormone disruption. neurological Since then. the National Parent TeacherAsso- toxicity and acute (single dose) poisonings. ciation, the National EducationAssociation Fortunately, we do not have to perpetuate an and a wide array of public interest organiza- ongoing experiment with the health of our tions across the nation have announced sup- childrenleast-toxic pest man- port for reducing pesticide use inschools. agement programs are already Never-the-less, pesticides continue to be used practiced in California and by in a number of school settings including schools around the nation. At a time when classrooms, cafeterias, athleticfields and even Three schools responding to the childhood cancer rates survey (Arcata UnifiedSchool school buses. The use of pesticides in our are increasing, and District. Mendocino Unified children's environment is of particular con- cancer is the leading uniquely vulnerable School District and Placer Hills cern because children are cause of death by to toxic chemicals.According to the National Unified School District) re- Academy of Sciences, children are more sus- ported using no pesticides at all. disease among non-infant ceptible to the effects of toxic chemicals than This strongly suggests that the children under the age of adults and may not be protected from pesti- vast majority of school pesticide 15, our need to protect cides under current regulations.2Not simply use is unnecessary. children's health is "little adults," children's bodies are in the Changing the pest management greater than ever. midst of highly complex, and vulnerablede- practices of school districts away velopmental processes that regulate tissue from toxic pesticides will require growth and organ development. They may leadership by state officials and also receive relatively greater pesticide expo- school managers. To date, GovernorWilson's sures than adultsboth becauseof their administration and the California legislature physiology and because of childhood behav- get failing grades for permittingthe use of iors which increase contact with surfaces highly toxic pesticides in schools and not pro- sprayed with pesticides. viding sch000ls with adequate information, In a first-ever attempt to characterize the use training and incentives for using least-toxic of pesticides in California's public schools, pest management strategies. researchers at the California Public Interest At a time when childhood cancer rates are Research Group (CALPIRG) Charitable increasing, and cancer is the leading cause of Trust recently requested pesticide use infor- death by disease among non-infant children mation from 54 randomly selectedCalifornia under the age of 15, our need to protect school districts, representing urban, suburban children's health is greater than ever.3 It's time and rural areas. Forty-six school districts re- that we use common sense and move toward sponded. representing approximately one in least-toxic methods of managing pests. four of all children enrolled in California's public schools grades K-12. Our children are waiting. The survey results are indicate that pesticide use is the rule and not the exceptionwhen it comes to pest management in ourpublic school system. Of the responding school districts surveyed for this report. 93% (or43 9 ILHighly ToxicPesticides Are Used in California Schools This Of the 46 California school districts respond- sible, probable and known carcinogens. ing to our survey, we found that87% (40) is of particular concern as childhood cancer is disease used one or more of 27 highly toxcpesti- now the leading cause of death due to cideschemicals that health authorities be- among non-infant children in theU.S. under lieve can cause cancer, reproductiveharm, the age of 15,4 with about 8,000 children un- mimic hormones or are acutely toxic tothe der the age of 15 developing cancer each year.' Between 1974 and 1991, the overall nervous system. incidence of childhood cancer increased Specifically, we found that 20% 10%,6 and the rate is increasing approxi- (9) of the responding school dis- mately one percent on average peryear! tricts used one or more of three "known" or "probable" human Scientific studies suggest that pesticide use in Eighty-seven percent of carcinogens: 70% (32) used one and around homes may increase risk of child- surveyed California or more of ten"possible" human hood cancer.' For example, a 1987 study of schools use one or more carcinogens: 52% (24) used one children ten years and younger in LosAnge- of 27 highly toxic or more of ten developmental les County linked usage of pesticides in the pesticides. and reproductive toxins: 50% home to increased likelihood ofleukemia.' (23) used one or more of four Similarly, a 1995 study correlated home ex- pesticides suspected of mimick- terminations and the use of pest strips with ing human hormones and dis- childhood cancer, finding increased risk of rupting the endocrine system: 26%(12) used childhood lymphomas with increased house- one or more of four highly acutelytoxic hold extermination. The authors of the study nerve poisons, ranked inCategory I, U.S. also found an association between soft tissue EPA's highest acute toxicity rating; and 41% sarcomas and yard treatmentwith herbicides. (19) used one or more of two EPA Category Reproductive and developmental II organophosphate and carbamate nerve toxins. The pesticides found in each of these cat- toxins Of the 46 responding school districts.52% egories and the percentage of school districts (24) reported using one or more pesticides using them is presented in Table 1.Summary identified by the U.S. Environmental Protec- information for each school district, includ- tion Agency or the State ofCalifornia as a ing a district-specific list of reported pesti- reproductive or developmental toxin.Expo- cides used, is provided in AppendixB: Survey jeopardize a Response Information by School District. sure to these chemicals may child's physical and mental development, in- Note that because of incomplete, illegible creasing risk of behavioral andneurological and missing pesticide use information, it was disorders, immune system suppressionand not possible to assess the overall quantityof damage to the reproductive system.Unborn pesticides used in the school districts sur- children carried by pregnant teachers may veyedsome may have applied pesticides also face increased risk of a varietyof physical listed in this report infrequently or in small and mental birth defects."Other effects in- amounts while others may have appliedlarge cluded spontaneous abortion or miscarriage quantities frequently. in humans, low birth weight andsterility or infertility." Possible, probable and known carcinogens in California schools Hormone-mimicking pesticides The surveyed California school districts re- Fifty percent of the school districts sur- ported using 12 pesticides identified as pos- veyed reported using pesticidessuspected dannuen on pa?, 10 Table 1. Highly Toxic Pesticides Used in Surveyed California School Districts

Sources: Health Effect Pesticide Percent of Responding school districts a. "Known to the State of Cali- (Active Ingredients)responding schoolusing one or more of these fornia to cause cancer" districts using pesticides (oxadiazinon): California one or more of Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesti- these pesticides cide Regulation, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause "Known" or fenoxycarb 20% Imperial, Irvine, Lompoc, Los Cancer or Reproductive Taricity, "probable" propoxur Angeles, Madera, Sacramento, May1, 1997. "Probable hu- carcinogens (a) oxadiazon San Diego, San Jose, Stockton (9) man carcinogens" (fenoxycarb, TOTAL: 3 propoxur): U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency,List of "Possible" human acephate 70% Alameda, Alhambra, Chico, Chemicals Evaluated for Carci- carcinogens (b) cypermethrin Conejo Valley, Downey, Esparto, nogenic Potential,February 19, hydramethylnon Fremont, Fresno, Glendale, 1997. isoxaben Imperial, Irvine, Jurupa, Linden, b. U.S. Environmental Protection oryzalin Lompoc, Los Angeles, Madera, Agency,List of Chemicals pendimethalin Manteca, Mojave, Monterey, Evaluated for Carcinogenic permethrin Napa, River Delta, Rowland, Potential,February 19, 1997. piperonyl butoxide Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, c. U.S. Environmental Protection simazine San Marino, Santa Monica- Agency,Fedeml Register,Vol. tetramethrin Malibu, Shasta, Siskiyou, 59, No. 229, 61436, Novem- TOTAL: 10 Southern Humboldt, Stockton, ber 30, 1994 and California Vista (32) Environmental Protection Agency,Chemicals Known to Developmental and diazinon 52% Alameda, Conejo Valley, the State to Cause Cancer or reproductive toxins (c) dicamba Downey, Fresno, Inglewood, Los ReproductiveToxicity, May I. diuron Angeles, Madera, Manteca, 1997 (methyl bromide). EPTC Modoc, Mojave, Monterey, d. Illinois Environmental Protec- fenoxycarb Napa, New Haven, River Delta, tion Agency,IEPA:s Endocrine methyl bromide Rowland, Sacramento, San Disruptor Strategy: Preliminary hydramethylnon Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, List of Chemicals Associated oxadiazon Santa Monica-Malibu, Shasta, with Endocrine System Effects in simazine Stockton, Vista , Woodland, (24) Animals and Humans or In tebuthiuron Vitm, February 1997. We have TOTAL: 10 included "possible" and "probable" endocrine disruptors Hormone mimicking cypermethrin 50% Alhambra, Chico, Conejo Valley, from this list. pesticides (d) 2,4-D Downey, Fresno, Glendale, e. Meister,Farm Chemicals Hand- (endocrine disruptors) esfenvalerate Linden, Lompoc, Los Angeles, book,1997, DPR online Prod- permethrin Madera, Manteca, Modoc, uct/Label Data Base: TOTAL: 4 Mojave, Monterey, New Haven, www.cdpr.ca.govidocs/ Rowland, Sacramento, San database.html. Only Category Diego, San Jose, Santa Monica- I pesticides bearing the label Malibu, Siskiyou, Southern "Danger/Poison," the designa- Humboldt, Ventura (23) tion reserved for highly toxic systemic (toxic through inges- U.S. EPA Category I aluminum phosphide 26% Conejo Valley, Downey, tion, absorption or inhalation) Extremely High chloropicrin Fremont, Irvine, Jurupa toxins, were included. The same active ingredient may Acute Toxicity/ strychnine Madera, Manteca, Monterey, have several different classifica- Systemic Pesticides sulfuryl fluoride Rowland, San Jose, Santa tions. Only those active ingre- Labeled TOTAL: 4 Monica, Ventura (12) "Danger/Poison" (e) dients used in products designated with a "Danger/Poison" label are included in this table. Category II chlorpyrifos 41% Chico, Conejo Valley, Downey, organophosphate or propetamphos Fresno, Glendale, Inglewood, f.Meister,Farm Chemicals Hand- book,1997. EPA Category II carbamate nerve TOTAL:2 Jurupa, Los Angeles, Madera, pesticides must carry the toxins (0 Manteca, Modoc, Mojave, "Warning" label. Several school Monterey, Sacramento, San districts reported using the Francisco, San Jose, San Marino, same active ingredients which Ventura, Woodland (19) are listed above as requiring a "Warning" label, but because the chemical is formulated into a weaker concentration. it does not require such a listing and as such is not included here. Only those products designated with a "Warning" label are included in this table.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

3 11 Pesticide Illnesses in California Schools:The Tip of the Iceberg or that may not be manifested until There have been numerous medical attention with symptoms years after exposure, such as cancer, complaints about illnesses including eye. nose and throat reproductive and developmental stemming from pesticide use in irritation; coughing; skin rash on effects. California schools in recent years. exposed areas of the face, lips and Among them: arms; nausea and upset stom- achs.4 The San Bernardino County Ag- Anderson. T. 'Death Fuels Pesticide riculture Commissioner is cur- In terms of actual pesticide-related Probe.-Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. October 22. 1997: Frazier. J.. 'Parents Complain rently investigating the potential health impacts, these stories most about Pesticide Spray. Fontana School Offi- misuse of pesticides at Southridge likely represent the tip of the cials Say Rooms at Southridge Middle School iceberg. Illnesses resulting from Do Not Pose Health Risks to anthem' The Middle School after complaints lies-Enterprise. October 25. 1997. last October by both students and acute (short term) pesticide 2 Ibid. tracked teachers of allergic reactions, ill- exposure are only partially 3 Goldsmith, S.. 'Bugged by Pesticide Spray- nesses and the death of one stu- by national and state agencies.The ing: The Signal and SalgurEnterprite. Janu- EPA found that at least 2,766 ary 7, 1993. dent who suffered severe seizures 4 Sesbne. D., et al.. Irritative and Systemic at the school. The school had pesticide poisoning incidents Symptoms following Exposure to Microban occurred in schools nationally from Disinfectant through a School Ventilation been using four different pesti- System. Archives of Environmental Kish's cides in classrooms, cafeterias and 1985 to 1992, according to data November/December Vol. 49. No 6, 1994. kitchens, even spraying one pesti- collected from Poison Control pp. 439-444 and Health and Safety Code. Chapter 3 Pesticide Poisoning; Section cide from an automatic dispenser Centers around the nation.5 105200: Reports by Physicians and local into classrooms.' Similarly, the California Pesticide health officers: treatment deemed first aid: Illness Surveillance Program, that violations. Last April, six families with chil- 5Personal Communication wit/SWitliOr. requires doctors to report any Jerome Blondell. US. EnvIrotanental Prater dren at Jurupa Hills Elementary illnesses that may be caused by iron Agency (EPA). October 31:1997. The filed suit against Stanley Pest exposure to pesticides, reports58 Agency is not able to explain significant Control alleging that their chil- details about the Incidents, such as which poisonings of workers, teachers, pesticide caused the problem. which symp- dren became ill from the use of students and even a school toms were reported. how the situation was pesticides in the school between remedied or even in which school the poison- principal in California schools ing took piece. New data covering 1993 1994 and 1995.2 between 1992 and 1994, the most through 1996 will be available In March recent data available.6 1998 and will be fully searchable electroni- In December of 1992, Theresa cally. Tye's son was having problems Both reporting systems are likely to 6Health and Safety Code. Chapter 3 Pesticide Poisoning. Section 105200: Reports by Physi- with chronic fatigue, frequent under-report actual poisonings for ciam and local health officers: treatment urination and headaches. Her a variety of reasons, including deemed first aid; violations and Mehler. L investigation of pesticide use at Gee Reports Received by the California Pesti- inadequate training of doctors in cide &nen Surseillance Protium in Which Mitchell Elementary in the Sul- identification and diagnosis of Health Effero wer e Attributed ro Feticide phur Springs School District in Exposure Identified by the Word 'School' in the pesticide illnesses.7 Under the iVanvoir Summary or by SIC Code 8211 and Canyon Country showed that the California reporting program, few lnduding all Cam that Reference Cara so school routinely treated with identified: 1992-1994. California Environ- doctors report non-worker mental Protection Agency Department of Dursban (chlorpyrifos). This pesticide illnesses (such as those Pesticide Regulation, November 14, 1997. same product had caused similar incurred by children in schools) 7 Robinson. J., at al.. 'Pesticides In the Home health effects when used at home because most physician reports are and Community' California Polity Seminar Berkeley. CA. 1994: Personal Communica- previously.3 administered through workers' tion with Dr. Bill Pease. Environmental compensation programs which Defense Fund. Berkeley. CA. November In September of 1992, a pesticide 1997. reimburse doctors preparing reports which was not registered for use 8 Personal Communication with Dr. Louise in California was sprayed into the of work-related injuries.6 Mehler. Department of Pesticide Regulations. November 13. 1997. ventilation system of a San Fran- Most importantly, government cisco elementary school, forcing reporting programs do not even the evacuation of more than 450 attempt to capture pesticide-related school children and staff. Several illnesses that have unmeasurable of the staff and students sought effects, such as learning disorders.

4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE wormedinnupar of disrupting hormonal processes inhumans. Ironically, use of these toxins in schools may Four pesticides used by the school districts. impair the learning process itself. Low levels cypermethrin. 2,4-D, esfenvalerate and of neurotoxic pesticide exposure to the devel- permethrin, may block, mimic orotherwise oping brain may adversely affect memory, interfere with the human hormonesystem.12 intelligence, judgment and even personality 56 Hormones act as chemical messengers in the and behavior.° For example, in a study of human body. triggering a wide arrayof men exposed to organophosphates,scientists highly complex and sensitive biological pro- reported disturbed memory and difficulty in maintaining alertness and focus.° Unfortu- cesses. As such, they areresponsible for a nately, few pesticides have been evaluated for range of importantfunctions, including de- termination of height and weight, genderdif- their ability to cause permanent damage to ferentiation, development of reproductive children's developing central nervous systems. organs, energy levels, skinhealth and other though several researchers suggest biological processes. Because hormones can that harmful effects should be "switch" on and off biological processes at expected." extremely low levels, hormone mimicking An estimated 5% to 10% of Low levels of neurotoxic pesticides may be harmful at very lowlevels school-age children suffer from pesticide exposure to the of exposure.° symptoms of hyperactivity and developing brain may attention deficit, making it diffi- Nervous system toxins adversely affect memory, cult for them to pay attention Of the 46 surveyed school districts,54% (25) intelligence, judgment and learn. In addition, many oth- used pesticides identified byU.S. EPA as ers experience learning problems and even personality and Category I or Category II poisonsthe ranging from difficulties with behavior. Agency's highest and second highest ranking memory to impaired fine motor for acutely toxic nerve poisons.These pesti- skills such as learning to hold a cides are designed to disrupt the cholinest- pen and write.° erase enzymes that controlthe nervous system of insects. Because humanshave these same enzymes, these pesticides pose apriority health concern."

"Inert" Ingredients: Packaging PoisonwithPoison EPA to Pesticide products are actually formulations made up of a Eight inert ingredients are considered by the U.S. 75 are "poten- mixture of "active ingredients"chemicalswhich are be "of toxicological concern" and another the U.S. intended to kill the pestand "inert" ingredients tially toxic." Because of concerns about toxicity, EPA "strongly encourages registrants to substitute or re- chemicals which make the product more potent or easier move" these products from pesticide products.2 to use. Inert ingredients often make upthe bulk of an applied pesticide. It is not uncommon, for example,for a Because manufacturers claim that the formulation of pesticide to be 99% "inert" ingredients and one percent these mixtures is "confidential businessinformation." it "active" ingredients. is difficult or impossible for the public toidentify inert the Ironically, "inert" ingredients are often toxic as wellin a ingredients. Thus, we were not able to characterize in California schools few cases they are more toxic than the activeingredient. use of "inert" pesticidal ingredients Moreover, many inert ingredients may be used by them- as part of this report. the U.S. selves as pesticides: at least 382 chemicals on IKnight. H,. 'Hidden Toxic 'Inerts.: A Tragecomedy of Errors." Journal of EPA list of pesticide inert ingredients are currently. or Pesucide Reform. Vol. 17. No. 2. 1997. pp. 10.11. 2 Meister Publishing. "[netts.' farm Cher:Urals Handbook1996. pp, D27-028. once were. registered as pesticide activeingredients)

5 13 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Special Problems of Pesticide Exposure for Children

Children are less tolerant to toxic to examine children's exposure to pesti- 1 Wargo,J., Our Children's Toxic Legacy: How Sci7 cides indicate that the largest number of ence and Law Fail to Protect Ik from Pesticidex chemicals. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven. CT, 1996. chemicals and the highest concentrations Children are not simply little adults. Early 2 National Research Council,Pesticides in the Diets developmental stages of their organs, ner- are often found in household dust.7 of Infants and Children.National Academy Press. Washington. DC, 1993. vous systems, and immune systems, Carpets act as long-term reservoirs for pes- greater rates of cell division, and their 3 Wyatt, R., 'Intolerable Risk: The Physiological ticides that are sprayed indoors." A study Susceptibility of Children to Pesticides. 'Journal lower body weight increase their suscepti- assessing pesticide exposure from carpet of Pesticide Reform, Fall1989. bility to pesticide exposure. Immature or- dust in homes found that the average 4 Mott, L.,Our Children at Risk: The Five West gans and other developing biological sys- number of pesticides found in the carpet Environmental Threats to Their Health.Natural Resources Defense Council. November 1997, p. 5 tems are particularly vulnerable to toxic dust samples was 12, compared to 7.5 in contaminants. Furthermore, pesticides citing Principles for Evaluating Health Risks from air samples collected in the same resi- Chemicals during Infancy and Early Childhood. may become more concentrated in the dences. Moreover, in all residences (no author or date provided) , p. 56: see also Schettler. T., op cit.. p. 50. fatty tissues of young children because sampled, 13 pesticides were found in car- 5 Mott, L.. op. cit. their fat as a percentage of total body pet dust that were not detected in the air. weight is lower than for adults.' 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Diazinon, a neurotoxic insecticide, was de- Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances, A 1993 report by the National Research tected in nine of 11 carpets tested." In our Questions and Answers: Chlorpyrifos.February 1997. Council of the National Academy of Sci- survey, diazinon was used in 34% (16) of 7 Schettler,T . Generations at Risk How Environ- ences has shown that children are more the surveyed school districts. mentalTaCillSMay Affect Reproductive Health in susceptible than adults to the health effectsExposure may be further exacerbated Massachusetts.Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility andMASSPIRG.Boston. from low-level exposures to pesticides over when carpets are cleaned, allowing pesti- the long term.7 Animal studies also suggest MA 1996, p. 51, citing Whitmore.R.et al.. cides to become airborne again and avail- 'Non-occupational exposures to pesticides for that the young are more susceptible to the able for inhalation)" residents of two U.S. cities,'Archives of Erwin:in- effects of toxic chemicals. A review of 269 mental Contamination and ToxicologyVol. 26, drugs and toxic substances, including a Not all of the residues in dust stem from pp.1-13. 1993. See also. Roberts. W. et al., 'De- number of pesticides, found that the lethalthe indoor use of pesticides. One study velopment and Field Testing of a High Volume Sampler for Pesticides and Maio in Dust."Jour- dose was lower in newborn rodents than showed residues of 2.4-D and dicamba, nal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental E.pide- in adult rodents in 86% of the cases.' herbicides used by 15% (7) of the sur- miology.Vol. 1. No.2. 1991. veyed California schools, can be tracked in 8 Simcox. N.. et al., -Pesticides in Household Dust from outside on shoes. Even areas which and Soil Exposure Pathways for Children of Children receive relatively greater Agricultural Families."Environmental Health exposure. were not treated, including lawn area and Perspectives.Vol. 103. No. 12. December 1995. In addition to being more vulnerable to carpets, showed levels of 2,4-D after the pp. 1126-1134. pesticide toxicity, children's behavior and sprayingmost likely the result of spray 9 Whitmore, R. W. et al.. Non-Occupational drift during application. Researchers esti- Exposure to Pesticides.Archiver of Emironmental physiology make them more likely to re- Contamination and ToxicologyVol. 26, 1994, pp. ceive greater pesticide exposures, relative tomated that residues of 2,9-D can persist in 47-59. adults. For example, significant exposure household carpet dust for as long as one 10 Esteban. E.. et al.. -Association Between Indoor to pesticides occurs through the skinthe year." Residential Contamination with Methyl Par- largest organ in the human bodyand athion and UrinaryPara-Nitroplienol." Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology children have much more skin surface for Children are exposed to pesticides 1996. p. 384.

their size than adults.' Similarly, children through ventilation systems. 11 Nishioka. M. et al., -Measuring Transport of have a higher respiratory rate, enabling A building's ventilation system may also Lawn-Applied Herbicide Acids from Turf to them to inhale airborne pesticides at a ratecontribute to greater pesticide exposure. Home. Correlation of Dislodgeable 2.9-D Turf Residues with Carpet Dust and Carpet Surface faster than adults.' Children's increased Some pesticides can become airborne and Residues.-Environmental Science and Technology. contact with floors, lawns and play- spread throughout heat and air condition- Vol. 30. No. 11, 1996. grounds also increases exposure. Very ing systems, potentially causing a repeat- 12 Mehler. L.,Case Reports Received by the California young children who put fingers and other ing source of exposure. Pesticide illness Surveillance Program in Which Health Effects overt Attributed to Pesticide Exposure objects in their mouths may face even In 1994. the insecticide propoxur was evi- Identified by the Word -School' in the Nam, tive greater exposure. Finally, the breathing 511177171aly or by SIC Code 8211 and Including all dently distributed through a California zone for children is usually closer to the Cases that Reference Cases so Identified: 1992.1994. floor where pesticides are re-suspended school via the building's air conditioning California Environmental Protection Agency. system. A teacher's aide entered the build- Department of Pesticide Regulation. November into the air after floor surfaces are dis- ing immediately after application and be- 14. 1997. DPR staff would not disclose the name turbed." of the school. came ill with nausea, headache, nose and Children are exposed to pesticide eye irritation and breathing difficulty.12 residues in dust and carpets. Although pesticides contaminate air, soil. food, water and surfaces, studies designed 14 6' 1111. Least-Toxic PestManagement Strategies are Effective but NotUsed in CaliforniaSchools

Least-toxic pest management is a decision- 2% (12) submitted plans or policies which IPM making process for managing peststhat uses the Department identified as meeting monitoring to determine pestdamage levels criteria:2' 62% of the responding school dis- and combines biological, physicaland chemi- tricts had no pest management plan or pro- environmental 22 . cal tools to minimize health, and financial risks.'9 The method uses exten- The picture does not look much brighter in sive knowledge about pests,such as infesta- 1997. Of the school districts surveyed for this tion thresholds, pest life histories,environ- report, 93% (43) reported using mental considerations and naturalenemies to toxic pesticides; only three school complement and facilitate biologicaland districts reported "no pesticide" other natural control of pests.Improved sani- policies, with exceptions for ex- Of 556 school districts tation, mechanical exclusions.inspections, treme situations. Invoices and that responded to a traps and baits, and naturalsubstances, ben- record keeping provided by sur- state survey in 1993, only eficial organisms, freezing and flame treat- veyed school districts also indicate 2% demonstrated model ments, among others, areall examples of that 30% (14) apply pesticides on IPM plans or programs. least-toxic pest control strategies.Pesticides a regular monthly,bi-monthly or not identified as carcinogens,reproductive quarterly basis. So-called "calendar toxins, endocrine disruptors orcholinesterase spraying" practices are incompat- last inhibiting nerve toxins are used only as a ible with least-toxic pest manage- resort and then only in serious,pre-defined ment programs in which pesticidespraying conditions. Least-toxic pest managementis should be a measure of last resort, and used often called Integrated PestManagement only under certain carefully evaluated contin- (IPM) though some IPM programs do not gencies. Because 60% (28) of the surveyed fully embrace these methods. school districts provided records which do absence, of cal- Laws and ordinances encouraging IPM in not indicate the presence, or applying schools have sprouted up across the country, endar spraying, the actual number both locally and through state implementa- pesticides on a calendar basis may be much tion. Texas, Michigan andFlorida have higher. adopted policies mandating schools toadopt Calendar spraying may result in the applica- IPM programs designed to reduce pesticide tion of toxic pesticides even when pestsaren't use. Montana now requiresthat school pest present. For example, invoices ofTerminix control applicators pass an IPMcertification visits to Alameda UnifiedSchool District course."3 show that the company sprayed two tothree insecticide Tempo' Unfortunately. the Wilson Administration quarts of the nerve toxin has not moved California schools in the di- (cyfluthrin) despite the noted absence of any pest. Calendar spraying with no pest present rection of least-toxic pest management.In records provided by late 1993, the Department ofPesticide was also documented in Joint Regulation surveyed all 1.002 school districts Alhambra School District and Modoc in California by mail to determine the extent Unified School District. All three school dis- for cal- to which California schools haveadopted tricts employ commercial applicators IPM. The Department requested each school endar service visits. district to provide its pest managementplan Schools that contract with commercial appli- or policy, if available.Of the 556 school dis- cators are unlikely to receiveleast-toxic pest tricts that responded to the state survey,only management. Neither federal nor statelaw 7 15 required to try every other method available requires commercial applicators tobe trained to manage pests. "even to the pointof no ac- in IPM or least-toxic methodsof pest man- tion." and has found other methods to be agement. In fact, neither state norfederal successful.2'' Arcata School District's policy agencies have ever formallydeveloped a defi- bans the use of pesticides, unless authorized nition of Integrated PestManagement. de- by the school board: none were reported spite publicized support for theconcept. sprayed during the survey period.25 is Least-toxic pest management California school districts practicing pesticide proven to be effective reduction are not alone. A recent survey of21 for ur- The efficacy of least-toxic alternatives Pennsylvania school districts that have already been ban pest management has adopted IPM finds that alternatives are effec- and around the nation. proven in California tive, less than or equal to the cost of using Three of the school districts sur- pesticides and may even reduce school absen- veyed for this report are currently teeism.26 School district staff report that IPM managing pest problems without methods deal with pest problems in a"more toxic chemicals. PlacerHills permanent way." Most(86%) districts in the Twenty-five years ago, Union School District in Pennsylvania survey were able to control pests the California PTA issued Meadow Vista "has a pesticide with little or no spraying. The majorityof a resolutionurging use committee andpolicy which districts reported little or no change in the members to "develop an favors prevention measures to cost of the pest management program:nearly awareness and respect eliminate the use of pesticides."23 a quarter reporteddecreased costs. Mendocino Unified school for the dangers inherent State and national education in pesticides and district's Board policy states "sani- enforced advocacy organizations support promote the use of tary measures shall be and buildings regularly cleaned least-toxic alternatives alternate methods of pest and repaired in order to prevent Several key children's educational associations control." infestations, minimize the use of have issued resolutions over the years in sup- pesti- pesticides and eliminate routine port of reducing children's exposure to spraying." The school district is cides used in schools.

Pesticide residues are highly persistentindoors after hours while students are not Many school districts frequently attempt toreduce exposure risk by applying pesticides periods of time. and may be present.' However, numerous studies indicate thatpesticides may persist indoors for long sources of exposure days.weeks or even months after application. them away, pesticide Because sunlight. rain, and soil microbes areunable to break indoor pesticides down or carry in the indoor environment formonths residues persist much longer indoorsthan outdoors.? Some pesticides can persist kinds of pesticides may be more than10 to 100 times or even years afterapplication: indoor air concentrations of several longer indoors where they are not higher than outdoorconcentrations.3 Even non-persistent pesticides last much susceptible to degradation fromenvironmental factors.4

citing Lewis. R.. and Lee. R.. "AirPollution 2 Simcox. N.. et al.. -Pesticides in Household 1 Responses to CALP1RG phone/fax survey. from Pesticides: Sources. Occurrence and Dust and Soil Exposure Pathways for Children Summer. 1997. Several school districts. includ- Indoor Air Pollution from Pesticides ofAgricultural Families.Environmental Health Dispersion." ing Fresno. Irvine. San Diego. SanFranciso. and eignatural Processes. CRCPress. Boca linspeceives.Vol. 103. No. 12. December 1995. San JoseandSouthern Humboldt reported Raton. FL. 1976. pp. 51-9.1. applying pesticides early in the morning before p. 1126. Baker. S. R. and Wilkinson. C.F.The &Teen of students arrive. in the evenings or over the 3 Wilkinson. C. and Baker. S..The Effects of 1 Infielder an Human Health.Princeton Scientific weekend in attempt to avoid student exposure. Pesticides on Human Health.Princeton Publishing Co.. Princeton. NJ. 1990. p. 33. See Appendix A: Methodology. Scientific Publishing Co.. Princeton. NJ. 1990.

8 16 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Twenty five }ears ago, the California Parent Integrated Pest Management and pesticide Teacher Association (PTA) issued a resolution use reduction in andaround schools and "Pesticides are. by urging the members of theCalifornia PTA to child care centers. noting low "develop an awareness and respect for the nature, poisons. and exposure even at dangers inherent in pesticides and promote levelsmay cause serious adverse effects.... the use of alternate methods of pestcontrol." The National PTA is particularly concerned around They also urged that after determining the about the use of pesticides in and identity and toxicity of pesticides used on schools and day care centers because children school property, that the school district are there for muchof their young lives."29 should "consider all possible alternativesbe- As a result of lobbying by the community only fore using any pesticides: use pesticides organizations PesticideWatch and the Bay as an emergency measure orwhen a health Area Beyond Pesticide Coalition inSan Fran- hazard has been determined by the public cisco, city officials there are phasing out use health department: have pesticides applied of pesticides in all municipal buildings and only by personnel trained in their use:and parks as part of a tough municipal pesticide give appropriate notice when pesticideappli- reduction program. In the last year,San Fran- cations are to be made."27 cisco has managed to virtually eliminateits re- More recently, in 1991. the NationalEduca- use of pesticides that can cause cancer or don Association endorsed a statementdirect- productive effects. and reduced its use of all ing the association to "inform stateand local pesticides by two-thirds with the goal of affiliates about Integrated Pest Management eliminating use of all pesticides by the year policies, which are designed to eliminate or 2000.3° substantially reduce the exposure of students Lack of IPM definition invites and school personnel to toxic pesticides in "greenwashing" the school. "28 Many regulators at the federal, state and local The next year, the National Parent Teacher level espouse the merits of IntegratedPest Association developed a policy supporting Management. However, there is currently no

Examples of least-toxic pest management determine where Ants used selectively to trap roaches and Ants invade classrooms and cafeterias for food and water. problem areas are. Good sanitation removes food attractants. Caulking up cracks and crevices reduces entry points.Some Weeds problem? One classrooms store student lunches in sealed containers to The first question is what defines a weed dandelion? Establishing tolerance levels for weeds prevent attracting ants. To stop antsfrom trailing into a Healthy lawns can room some schools have providedteachers a bottle of eliminates the need for some action. types. water and dish soap to wipe up anttrails and destroy the also out compete weedsthis requires proper grass mowing scent trail until the attractant can beremoved. soil aeration and balanced watering and schedules. For areas that need to beweed-free methods include: mulching, competitive interplantingof flowers Cockroaches mechanical pulling of Cockroaches invade rooms for food as well. Prevent to conceal weeds, manual and the tops entry by repairing, caulking. andsealing points of entry weeds; flaming (killing young weeds by searing solarization (covering such as cracks and crevices. Remove sourcesof food and of the plant with a torch) and soil which water by cleaning up food wasteimmediately. Boric acid the soil with clear plastic to raise soil temperatures weeds). baits and gels can be used to kill roaches in areas kills soil pathogens and annual inaccessible to children and pets. Sticky traps can be 1i law at either the federal or state level that de- derscores the need for state officials to define fines IPM or sets standards that would have and implement a comprehensive least-toxic to be met to prove IPM is being practiced. IPM program for California schools. Many IPM programs lack firm provisions stating pesticide use reduction goals, limita- Commercial pesticide applicators tions on the types and toxicity of pesticides are not trained in least-toxic pest used or even a declaration that pesticides are management to be used only as a last resort. Because there Several of the pesticides found in the school are no "bright line" criteria defining IPM districts surveyed for this report are "re- programs, any person or institution can claim stricted" by state and federal agencies and to be practicing IPM while using highly toxic may only be applied by a certified applicator pesticides. or someone under a certified applicator's di- rect supervision. To get certified, applicators For example, several school dis- must pass a state-run program mandated by tricts surveyed for this report the federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecti- have won "IPM Innovator Several schooldistricts cide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Awards" from the Department of (FIFRA). surveyed for thisreport Pesticide Regulation while using have won "IPMInnovator numerous highly toxic pesticides. Ironically, FIFRA actually prohibits testing Awards" from the DPR has granted Fremont Uni- applicators on the subject of least-toxic pest Department ofPesticide fied School District, Los Angeles management as part of the certification pro- Regulation whileusing Unified School District, New ha- gram, missing an opportunity to spread vital numerous highlytoxic ven Unified School District and information that would ostensibly result in pesticide use reduction. The statute says that pesticides. San Diego Unified School Dis- trict awards since 1994 for prac- applicator certification and training pro- ticing and promoting IPM. grams, which are conducted by the states, These schools should be com- must include provisions for "making instruc- mended for demonstrating lead- tional materials concerning Integrated Pest ership in moving toward more sensible pest Management techniques available to indi- management programs.31 However, accord- viduals at their request...but such plans may ing to documents provided in response to our not require that any individual receive in- survey, these school districts used a surprising struction concerning such techniques or be assortment of possible and probable human shown to be competent with respect to the carcinogens, reproductive toxins, hormone use of such techniques."32 mimicking pesticides and acute nerve toxins Analysis of the California Structural Pest (See Appendix B: Survey Response Informa- Control Board's applicator examination top- tion by School District for District-Specific ics shows merely that applicators must have Pesticide Use). "sufficient knowledge in pesticide equipment, These findings suggest that some IPM pro- pesticide mixing and formulation, pesticide grams may not actually include a system of application procedures and pesticide label least-toxic pest management and further un- directions. "33

10 Parents, Teachers,Students and PublicAre Kept in theDark AboutPesticide Use inSchools California schools are notrequired ing the public from exposure to someproducts, schools do to inform parents orteachers the vast majority of pesticides used in all. As such, little before applying pesticides not have re-entry intervals at California law does not require adequate posting is required by the regulation. public notification prior to applyingpesti- Monitoring and reporting of school notifica- cides in schools.34 Support for prior pesticide use is inadequate that par- tion is based on the basic premise California law does not require school dis- ents and teachers have aright to know about jeopar- tricts to systematically monitor the use of toxic chemicals which may and report the use of pesticides in of their chil- dize their health or the health their schools. As discussed in Ap- dren and enables them to take precautionary pendix A: Methodology, school Under existing California notification, par- measures. Without prior districts that do not have to moni- law, we know more abou. community mem- ents, teachers and other tor pesticide use often do not, in pest which pesticides are bers are prevented from participating making it virtually impossible to sprayed on an acre of management decision-making intheir schools. obtain useful information about cabbage than the While no comprehensive information is school pesticide use. Without this pesticides used in our Califor- information, parents. teachers and available indicating the percentage of classrooms. nia school districts that have policiesrequir- policymakers cannot begin to ing prior notification, a preliminarytele- characterize potential health risks. phone survey conducted for this report pro- identify problem school districts vides some anecdotalinformation.35 Esparto or chart progress made byschools Unified School District merely notifies the practicing least-toxic alternatives. Unified school staff "as needed." Fresno Commercial applicators, who are required to School District reports providing "verbal no- report pesticide use to the state,including Glendale Unified pro- tice to the Principal." pesticides used in schools, are not required to vides verbal notification of contracted spray- report where they apply thesechemicals ex- Southern ing to the administration. cept within broad categoriessuch as "struc- Humboldt Unified, Napa Valley Unified, tural pest control" or "landscape mainte- River Delta Unified and Walnut Creek nance." Thus even when a school contracts School Districts provide no prior notifica- With professional exterminators, pesticides tion.36 After a number of meetings with con- sprayed in and around the school are not Environmen- cerned parents and staff of the identifiably reported to the state. In contrast, organi- tal Health Coalition, a public interest agricultural pesticide use must be reportedby zation based in San Diego, SanDiego Uni- crop and location, down to squaremile. This fied School District now sends written warn- means that, under existingCalifornia law, we 48 hours ings to both parents and teachers know more about which pesticides are prior to a scheduled application.31 sprayed on an acre of cabbage thanthe pesti- While there are no statewide requirements cides used in our classrooms. exist for prior notification, limited regulations State agencies in California. including the which require posting of an area after spray- Department of Pesticide Regulation, do not ing. Commercial applicators arerequired un- know which pesticides are used inschools der California law to post warning signsafter and have not tried to find out.In surveying applying pesticides only when using highly all 1.002 California school districtsaboutIPM toxic pesticides for which the statehas estab- programs and plans in1993. DPR did not ask lished a 24 hour re-entry interval...isWhile schools which pesticides rere beingused.39 I I such notification is useful in the case of protect- 19 V.State OfficialsHave Failed to Address PesticideUse in Schools ing least-toxic alternative methods of pest Both the Governor and theCalifornia legislature have demonstratedlittle willingness to management. address the problem of pesticidesin schools. In 1992, State Senator Nicholas Petris (D- Under the Wilson Administration,the De- Oakland) introduced legislation that would partment of PesticideRegulation has contin- have banned the use of highly toxic pesticides ued to permit the use of highly in California schools but his bill wasweak- toxic pesticides in our classrooms. ened in the legislature to require only that Hundreds of different pesticide DPRgather a list of the names of pesticides Hundreds of different formulations are available for used in schools that can cause cancer and re- pesticide formulations are school use. Many are used productive effects and mail that information throughout schools, in class- permitted for school use. to the schools. Despite theoverwhelming rooms, cafeterias,playgrounds. support for the bill from institutionssuch as Many are used fields and even school buses. the California Parent TeacherAssociation, the throughout schools, in Meanwhile, inadequate or absent March of Dimes and a wide array of environ- classrooms, cafeterias, mental organizations, GovernorWilson ve- playgrounds, fields and regulation has kept parents and teachers in the dark about school toed the measure. stating it was"needlessly even schoolbuses. pesticide use and ignored or ne- burdensome on business."40 glected opportunities for promot-

AVAILARI RF RI.COPY

12 VI.Conclusion and Recommendations It is time that regulators, elected officials and Develop a least-toxic Integrated Pest school managers renew their commitment to Management Program that prioritizes protecting our children from the unnecessary pest prevention and non-toxic methods risks of using pesticides in schools. While of pest control. state officials are responsible for addressing Halt routine "calendar" pesticide applica- pesticide use in schools through comprehen- tions. sive statewide policy, school managers need not wait for state leadership to implement Ensure only trained personnel are al- least-toxic pest management plans. Parents lowed to apply pesticides on school and teachers also have an important role to grounds. play in reforming school pesticide use. We Keep records of all pest management ac- urge all of these constituencies to take action: tivities, including any pesticide use; make this information readily available State policymakers: Eliminate the use of pesticides in schools to the public. that cause cancer, adverse reproductive Develop a program for notifying parents, and developmental effects, hormone dis- teachers and the public before and after ruption and high nervous system toxicity. applying pesticides. Develop and provide training, incentives Work toward establishing a more natu- and materials to promote pest prevention ralized school landscape that minimizes and least-toxic pest management. the need for weed control. Require schools to develop a program for Parents, teachers and students: notifying parents, teachers and the pub- Request information about pesticide use lic before and after applying pesticides. and toxicity in school. Ensure that school pesticide use is identi- Monitor school pest management deci- fiably reported under the state pesticide sion-making processes. use reporting system. Insist on receiving prior notification be- Earmark funds to implement these pro- fore pesticides are sprayed in school. grams effectively. Advocate for a district-wide pesticide use School managers: reduction program. Adopt a policy which prohibits the use of pesticides in schools which cause can- Urge school managers to eliminate the cer, adverse reproductive and develop- use of highly toxic pesticides and adopt mental effects, hormone disruption and least-toxic pest management strategies. high nervous system toxicity.

13 21 Endnotes

1 National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Overview of Pest Management Policies, Programs and Practices in Children, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1993. Selected California Public School Districts, California Department 2 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Overview of Pest of Pesticide Regulation, March 1996. DPR staff coded the data to Management Policies, Programs, and Practices in Selected California indicate which school districts had submitted model IPM programs Public School Districts, Sacramento, CA, 1996, p. 39. or plans but noted that this designation was "subjective" as no written standards defining IPM were used. Personal communication with 3 American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts and Figures, Oakland, CA, Sewell Simmons, DPR, September 14, 1997. 1996. 22 Simmons, S., et al., Overview of Pest Management Policies, Pro- 4 Ibid. grams and Practices in Selected California Public School Districts, 5 Cushman, J., "U.S. Reshaping Cancer Strategy as Incidence in California Department of Pesticide Regulation, March 1996. Children Rises," New York Times, September 29, 1997. 23 Personal communication with Ken Poulsen, Superintentent of 6Ries, L., edited by Harras, A., Cancer Rates and Risks, National Placer Hills Union School District, June 30, 1997. Institutes of Health Publication No. 96-691, May 1996. 24 Personal communication with Cathy Burt, Business Manager, 7 Gurney, J., et al., "Trends in Cancer Incidence Among Children Mendocino Unified School District, June 26, 1997. in the U.S.," Cancer, Vol. 78, 1996, pp. 532-541. 25 Personal communication with David Hochman, Superintendent, 8 The scientific literature assessing health risks in schools is ex- Arcata School District, July 30, 1997. tremely meager. In the absence of school-specific epidemiological 26 Clean Water Action, "Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management studies, the authors reviewed several studies focusing on children (IPM) Use in Pennsylvania School Districts," October 1997. and pesticides in and around the home since factors such as spray applications and length of time spent in each place are so similar. 27 California Parent Teacher Association, Pesticides, Adopted May 11, 1972. 9 Lowengart, P., et al., "Childhood Leukemia and Parents' Occupa- tional and Home Exposures," Journal of the National Cancer 28 National Education Association, "Integrated Pest Management Institute, Vol. 79, No. 1. pp. 39- 45, 1995. Policies," New Business Adopted by the 1991 Representative Assem- bly National Education Association Handbook, 1991. 10 Schettler, T., et al., Generations at Risk: How Environmental Toxins May Affect Reproductive Health in Massachusetts, Greater Boston 29 National Parent Teacher Association, Position Statement: The Use Physicians for Social Responsibility and MASSPIRG, Boston, of Pesticides in Schools and Child Care Centers, 1992. MA, 1996, pp. 52-53. 30 City and County of San Francisco and Pesticide Watch, City of 11 Moses, M., Designer Poisons: How to Protect Your Health and San Francisco Cute Use of Most-Toxic Pesticides to Near Zero, Octo- Home from Toxic Pesticides, Pesticide Education Center, San ber 15, 1997. Francisco, 1995. 31 California Environmental Protection Agency, "CAUEPA Pre- 12Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, "Preliminary List of sents Awards for Getting the Bugs out of Schools, Parks, Golf Chemicals Associated with Endocrine System Effects in Animals Courses and Fine Art," News Release, October 18, 1994 and and Humans or In Vitro," IEPA:s Endocrine Disruptor Strategy, "IPM Innovator Award Winners 1994-1996," DPR website: February 1997. www.cdpr.ca.gov. 13 Benbrook, C., Growing Doubt: A Primer on Pesticides Identified as 32 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Endocrine Disruptois and/or Reproductive Toxicants, National Section 11(c), Washington, DC. Campaign for Pesticide Policy Reform, Washington, DC, 1996. 33 California Code of Regulations, Section 8564.5.5, Examination 14 Liebman, J., et al., Rising Toxic Tide: Pesticide Use in Califoimh 1991- for Unlicensed Employees of Registered Companies, p. 66. 1995, Pesticide Action Network. San Francisco, CA, 1997, p. 8. 34 Except as required under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic 15 Moses, M., op. cit., p. 167. Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Under this statute, prior warning must given before causing exposure of "significant 16 Sharp, D., et al., "Delayed Health Hazards of Pesticide Expo- risk" for chemicals listed under the Act. Only two pesticides sure," Annual Review of Public Health, Vol. 7, 1986, p. 461. found in the 46 surveyed school disticts, oxadiazon and methyl 17 Mott, L., et al., Our Children at Risk: The Five Worst Environmen- bromide, are listed under Proposition 65. tal Threats to Their Health, Natural Resources Defense Council, 35 The telephone survey was abandoned after surveying fewer than November, 1997, p. 56; see also Schettler, T., op. cit., p. 50. half of the 46 school districts which responded to a written Public 18 Colbum, T., et al., Our Stolen Future, Penguin Group, New York, Records request because interviewed school staff often could not 1996, p. 186, citing Hauser, P. et al., "Attention Deficit-Hyperac- provide specific pesticide-related information. tivity Disorder in People with Generalized Resistance to Thyroid 36 Responses from listed school districts, Summer 1997. Hormone," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 328, No. 14, 1993, pp. 997-1001. 37 Personal communication with Ray Palmer, San Diego Unified School District, Summer 1997. 19 Bio-Integral Resource Center, IPM in Schools: A How-to Manual, Berkeley, CA, 1997. 38 California Food and Agricultural Code, Section 12978: Pesticide applications on specified public property; posting of warning 20 Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, "Where there's signs in English and Spanish; application of section. a Will, There's a Way," Journal of Pesticide Reform, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1994 and Riley, B., Unpublished database of School IPM poli- 39 Simmons, S., op. cit. cies, 1997. 40 Statement by Governor Pete Wilson on Senate Bill 926, Senate 21 Unpublished data used by DPR to publish Simmons, S.. et al., Journal, October 2, 1992.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 14 22 Appendix A Methodology: Assessing Pesticide Use in the Face of Inadequate Use Reporting In the summer of 1997, the CALPIRG legal action could be taken to obtain the re- Charitable Trust conducted a survey to char- quested materials. Over a period of approxi- acterize the use of pesticides in California mately four months, the CALPIRG Chari- schools. We identified 54 school districts table Trust received 46 responses. from around the state, randomly selected Even after this extraordinary effort, the infor- within three categories to ensure representa- mation received was by no means adequate. tion from urban, suburban and rural school Several responding school districts provided districts) Survey data provided by DPR was only photocopies of Material Safety Data used to determine the appropriate category Sheets, purchase invoices or simply wrote out for each school district. Schools were ran- a list of pesticide products used. For the pur- domly selected from the California Public poses of this analysis, we assumed that these School Directory and the selected school's pesticides were actually used by the submit- district was added to our survey list until each ting school district. Obviously, these docu- category was filled.' Because the directory ments do not permit any analysis of the lists schools individually, larger school dis- quantity, frequency or location of the pesti- tricts had a greater chance of being selected. cides used. We initially attempted to contact school dis- Other school districts provided invoices from trict staff directly by telephone to assess pesti- the visits of commercial applicators or use cide use, pest control decision making pro- logs maintained by school staff. In many in- cesses and to discuss obstacles and opportuni- stances, these too were inadequate for assess- ties related to the implementation of least- ing the amounts and locations of pesticides toxic alternatives. Unfortunately, this effort usedor if pests were actually present. Such proved ineffective and was abandoned after records might indicate the use of onebox" surveying approximately 12 school districts. of a particular product, with no way to deter- Obstacles included: reluctance of school staff Mine the size, weight or concentration of the to discuss potentially controversial issues; lack box or product. Even for those schools that of knowledge by school staff about the types, provided records bearing the pesticide name locations, amounts and frequency of pesticide and amount used, a quantitative analysis was applications; multiple pest management deci- all but impossible because of inconsistent sion-makers within school districts and the units (reported by weight, volume, pellet, lack of centralized pest management pro- "can," etc.) and unreported concentrations. grams within school districts. All of these problems highlight the need to Our survey effort then resorted to a request apply existing pesticide use reporting require- under the California Public Records Act for ments to school pesticide use. pesticide invoices and purchase receipts for 1 The San Diego and Los Angeles Unified school districts were each of the 54 school districts for the first five deliberately included because they have been identified by DPR as "IPM Innovators" and because they represent the two largest months of 1997. Unfortunately, few school school districts in the state according to the California Depart- districts responded to this request even ment ofEducation, Enrollment in California Public School Dis- tricts Ranked by Highest Enrollment,October 1996. though a response was legally required within 2 California Department of Education,California Public School ten days. The CALPIRG Charitable Trust Directory,Bureau of Publications, Sacramento, CA, 1992. then consulted with an attorney who issued a second request under the Public Records Act, informing the selected school districts that

15 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 23 Appendix B Survey Response Information by School District

Data Matrix Key District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Alameda Alameda U 15 10,055 U/R/S: U= Urban School District Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class S = Suburban School District Glue boards R = Rural School District Glue traps Maxforce Ant killer bait hydramethylnon b, c Maxforce roach bait hydramethylnon b, c Class: Mice tray I = Insecticide Snap Traps H = Herbicide Talon G brodifacoum R Tempo cyfluthrin R = Rodenticide M = Molluscicide F = Fungicide District Fm= Fumigant County # Schools # Students IF = Insecticidal fumigant Alhambra Los Angeles S 13 10,782

Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Toxicity: BP-100 piperonyl a = "Known" or "probable" carcinogens BP-100 pyrethrins and Demon b = "Possible" human carcinogens cypermethrin b, d Dursban Pro chlorpyrifos c = Developmental and reproductive toxins "Dursban, Empire 20" chlorpyrifos d = Hormone mimicking pesticides (endocrine Empire 20 chlorpyrifos disruptors) Enforcer brodlfacoum e = U.S. EPA Category I Extremely High Acute Toxic- Hot shot logger tetramethrin ity/Systemic Pesticides Labeled "Danger/Poison" Real Kill chlorpyrifos f = Category II organophosphate or carbamate nerve Tempo cyfluthrin toxins

Sources: District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students a. "Known to the State of California to cause cancer" Arcata Humboldt R 3 995 (oxadiazinon): California Environmental Protection Agency, No pesticides used Department of Pesticide Regulation, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity May 1, 1997. "Probable human carcinogens" (fenoxycarb, propoxur): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, List of Chemicals Evaluated District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students for Carcinogenic Potential, February 19, 1997. Big Valley Lassen R 4 368 b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential, February 19, 1997. Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class RoundUp glyphosate H c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 229, 61436, November 30, 1994 and California Environmental Protection Agency, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity May I, 1997 District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students (methyl bromide). Cajon Valley San Diego S 24 18,373 d.Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, IEPAs Endocrine Disruptor Strategy: firliminary List of Chemicals Associated with Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Endocrine System Effects in Animals and Humans or In Vitro, 7 February 1997. We have included "possible" and "probable" endocrine disruptors from this list. e. Meister, Farm Chemicals Handbook, 1997, DPR online Prod- District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students uct/Label Data Base: www. cdpr .ca.gov. /docs/database.html. Only Category I pesticides bearing the label "Danger/Poison," Chico Butte S 19 13,447 the designation reserved for highly toxic systemic (toxic Product Active Ingredient Toxicity through ingestion, absorption or inhalation) toxins, were Class Catalyst included. The same active ingredient may have several differ- propetamphos Demon ent classifications. Only those active ingredients used in prod- cypermethrin b, d Empire 20 ucts designated with a "Danger/Poison" label are included in chlorpyrifos Gentrol this table. hydroprene Round Up Plus glyphosate H f. Meister, Fans Chemicals Handbook, 1997. EPA Category II Round Up Pro glyphosate pesticides must carry the "Warning" label. Several school districts reported using the same active ingredients which are listed above as requiring a "Warning" label, but because the chemical is formulated into a weaker concentration, it does not require such a listing and as such is not included here. Only those products designated with a "Warning" label are included in this table. 16 24 Glue Board District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Misty Fog It piperonyl butoxide b Conejo ValleyVentura S 26 17,587 Misty Fog It pyrethrins and No Crab calcium propanearsonate H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Rat-Tat-Tat bromadiolone R 5481-91 metaldehyde M Roundup glyphosate H 7173-188 bromadiolone R Swat It Insect Bomb pyrethrins Demon TC cypennethrin b, d Wasp & hornet Spray Diazinon diazinon Diazinon diazinon Drione piperonyl butoxide b District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Drione pyrethrins and Drione silica gel Fort Sage Lassen Fumitoxin aluminum phosphide e IF Did not respond Fusilade fluazifop-P-butyl H Gentrol hydroprene PCQ diphacinone R District CountyU/R/S #Schools # Students Round Up glyphosate H Rozol chlorophacinone R Fremont Alameda S 39 28,928 Safrotin propetamphos f Simazine-y-I simazine b, c H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Surrian oryzalin b Ant Kill Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin Boric Powder boric acid Trimec "2,4-D multi AI" d H C638 Trimec dicamba and H Fumitoxin aluminum phosphide IF Trimec mecoprop multi AI H No Foam Pendulum pendimethalin b H Rat traps Round Up Pro glyphosate H District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Round Up Pro glyphosate H Davis RoundUp glyphosate H Did not respond Rozol chlorophacinone R Tempo cyfluthrin

District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Downey Los Angeles S 18 17,160 Fresno Fresno U 81 76,200 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Product Active Ingredient Toxicity chloropicrin chloropicrin Class Bond Cynoff cypermethrin b, d boric acid Diazinon diazinon BP-I00 piperonyl Dragnet permethrin b, d BP-100 pyrethrins and Catalyst propetamphos f I Drione piperonyl butoxide b I Drione pyrethrins and Cynoff EC cypermethrin b, d Drione silica gel Cynoff W5B cypermethrin b, d Eptam EPTC H Dragnet FT permethrin b, d Drax Gel boric acid Florel ethephon Drione piperonyl butoxide b 1 Fumitoxin aluminum phosphide e IF Drione pyrethrins and Fusilade II fluazifop-P-butyl H Grotard II diethanolamine Drione silica gel Dual Choice sulfluramld GrotardII mefluidide Makr methyl bromide Dursban chlorpyrifos Dursban 2.5G chlorpyrifos Manage halosulfuron-methyl F-I Merit imidacloprid Gentrol IGR Conc hydroprene Pendulum pendimethalin b H Glue board Inspection only PT 270 chlorpyrifos and f I Rodeo glyphosate H Kicker piperonyl butoxide b I Round up glyphosate H Kicker pyrethrins and Strychnine strychnine R Maxforce Ant Killer G Bait hydramethylnon b, c Subdue metalaxyl F Mice Tray Tempo cyfluthrin Promot Plus fermentation of trichoderma Tempo cyfluthrin PT 230 piperonyl butoxide b I Tirnbor disodium octaborate PT 230 pyrethrins and tetrahydrate H PT 230 silica gel Turflon triclopyr H PT 240 boric acid PT 565 piperonyl butoxide b I Vikane sulfuryl fluoride e Fm Weed hoe MSMA H PT 565 pyrethrins and Rat Tray Roundup glyphosate H Tempo cyfluthrin District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Tempo 20 WP ( power-pack) cyfluthrin Esparto Yolo R 3 876 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Ant & Roach Spray CGK 89 calciurh acid methanearsenate Ferrate ferrous sulfate heptahydrate

17 25 District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Glendale Los Angeles U 27 28,637 Kerman Fresno R 6 3,206 Did not respond Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Catalyst propetamphos 1

Cynoff cypermethrin b, d 1 Dragnet perrnethrin b, d District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Glue Board Linden San Joaquin R 5 2,165 RoundUp glyphosate H Product Active Ingredient.Toxicity Class DemonCup cypermethrin b, d District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Dragnet permethrin b, d Imperial Imperial R 5 1,870 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students CB 405 Insect Fogger Lompoc Sta. Barbara R 15 10,756 Misty Ant Roach piperonyl butoxide Misty Ant Roach propoxur a Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Misty Ant Roach pyrethrins and Aqua A Roach Flush piperonyl butoxide Blitzem (assumes notBlitzem piperonyl butoxide Roach Flush pyrethrins Blitzem (assumes notBlitzem propoxur a Talon brodifacoum Blitzem (assumes notBlitzem II) pyrethrins and Tempo cyfluthrin Dead Sure d-trans allethrin and Waxie Bug-Off Ant and Dead Sure permethrin b, d Roach Killer propoxur a

District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Los Angeles Los Angeles U 607 635,163 Inglewood Los Angeles U 18 16,379 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class pyrethrins Catalyst propetamphos Avert avermectin Empire chlorpyrifos Conquer esfenvalerate d H Glue Traps Contrac bromadiolone R Knoxout diazinon Demize linalool Roundup glyphosate H Demize piperonyl butoxide and b Strikeforce chlorpyrifos Diphacinone diphacinone R Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin Dragnet permethrin b, d Drax Ant Bait boric acid Drione piperonyl butoxide District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Drione pyrethrins and Drione silica gel Irvine Orange 29 21,519 Dursban chlorpyrifos Empire Lo chlorpyrifos Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Epoleon/Epolian Bait Blocks diphacinone R Ficam bendiocarb Dursban chlorpyrifos Gentrol hydroprene Fusilade fluazifop-p- butyl H Knox Out diazinon HS 167 mecoprop H MAGB/DACB? Montar cacodylic acid H Maintain maleic hydrazide H(PCR) Orthene acephate Max Force hydramethylnon b, c Ramik diphacinone R Niban boric acid Round-Up glyphosate H Orthene acephate Scythe pelargonic acid H PT 270 chlorpyrifos Subdue 2E metalaxyl F PT 515 Wasp Freeze d-trans allethrin and Tempo cyfluthrin PT 515 Wasp Freeze phenothrin Vikane sulfuryl fluoride Fm PT 565 XLO d-trans allethrin and Waxie Bug-Off Ant PT 565 XLO piperonyl butoxide and Roach Killer propoxur a PT 565 XLO pyrethrins XL 2G benefin and H Safrotin propetamphos XL 2G oryzalin H Talon brodifacoum R Tempo cyfluthrin Baygon propoxur a District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students furupa Riverside S 15 16,514 District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Madera Madera R 15 14,899 Dursban 50 chlorpyrifos Fumitoxin aluminum phosphide a IF Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Killer magnesium chloride Contrac bromadiolone Roundup glyphosate Dursban 50% W chlorpyrifos Surfian oryzalin Eaton Mouse/Rat Trap Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin Glue Trap Waxie Bug- Off chlorpyrifos Princep DF simazine b, c Ronstar oxadiazon a, b, c Round Up glyphosate 18 26 Surf lan oryzalin b H Dursban 50W chlorpyrifos f I Tox II piperonyl butoxide b Kicker piperonyl butoxide b I Tox II propoxur a Kicker pyrethrins and Tox II pyrethrins and Maxforce hydramethylnon b. c Trimec 2,4-D (multi Al) d H Maxforce ant killer granules bait hydramethylnon b, c Trimec dicamba and c H PT 3-6-10 aerocide piperonyl butoxide b I Trimec mecoprop (multi AI) H PT 3-6-10 aerocide pyrethrins and Victor T boric acid PT 515 Wasp Freeeze d-trans allethrin and Victor TL boric acid 1 PT 515 Wasp Freeeze phenothrin

Weed B-Gon Safrotin propetamphos f I Weed Hoe 108 MSMA H Tempo cyfluthrin Wilco Gopher Getter I strychnine e R Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin Wilco Gopher Squirrel Bait strychnine R Dursban Pro chlorpyrifos District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Monterey Monterey U 20 12,163 District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Manteca San Joaquin S 16 14,290 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Aluminum Phosphide aluminum phosphide a IF Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Bond boric acid BP-300 piperonyl butoxide b Catalyst propetamphos BP-300 pyrethrins and Dragnet FT permethrin b, d Contrac bromadiolone R Drione piperonyl butoxide Cynoff cypermethrin b, d Drione pyrethrins and Dragnet permethrin b, d Drione silica gel Fumitoxin aluminum phosphide e IF Dursban chlorpyrifos Gentrol hydroprene 1 KnoxOut diazinon Kicker piperonyl butoxide b Maxforce hydramethylnon b, c Kicker pyrethrins and Precor IGG Concentrate propetamphos Knox out 2FM diazinon PT 515 d-trans allethrin and Maxforce hydramethylnon b, c PT 515 phenothrin (multi AI) Pathfinder triclopyr H Strychnine (non-restricted) strychnine Precor methoprene Talon brodifacoum PT 3-6-10 piperonyl butoxide b Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin PT 3-6-10 pyrethrins and PT-270 chlorpyrifos PT-565 Plus piperonyl butoxide b District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students PT-565 Plus pyrethrins 1 Round Up glyphosate H Napa Napa S 26 14,886 Tempo WP cyfluthrin Trimec "2,9-D (multi Al)" d H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Trimec dicamba and c H Direx 9L diuron H Trimec mecoprop (multi Al) H Gallery isoxaben b H RoundUp glyphosate H Scythe pelargonic acid H Surflan oryzalin b H District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Mendocino Mendocino R 6 1,011 No pesticides used District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students New Haven Alameda S 11 12,941

District County # Schools # Students Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Modoc Modoc R 7 1,208 RoundUp glyphosate Trimec "2,4-D (multi Al)" Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Trimec dicamba and Conquer esfenvalerate d FI Trimec mecoprop (multi) Dursban 2E chlorpyrifos Turflon triclopyr Dursban G chlorpyrifos Dursban Pro chlorpyrifos I Enforcer brodifacoum District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin TKO diazinon Oakland Alameda U 85 51,532 Did not respond

District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Mojave Kern R 7 3,037 Pajaro Santa Cruz S 24 17,187 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Bond boric acid Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class BP-300 (ULD) n-octyl bicycloheptene bait traps dicarboxamide Roundup glyphosate FI BP-300 (ULD) piperonyl butoxide Roundup glyphosate BP-300 (ULD) pyrethrins and Tempo cyfluthrin 1 Cynoff WSB cypermethrin b. d Cynoff WSB cypermethrin b. d Dursban 2.32G chlorpyrifos

19 27 BP 300 (ULD) n-octyl bicycloheptene District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students dicarboxamide Placer Hills Placer R 2 1,597 BP 300 (ULD) piperonyl butoxide b BP 300 (ULD) pyrethrins and No pesticides used Dexol Weed and grass diquat dibromide H Dipel 2x bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Dragnet permethrin b, d River Delta Sacramento R 9 2,405 Florel ethephon Fusilade II fluazifop-P-butyl H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Granular Bait Drione Dust piperonyl butoxide b Knoxout diazinon Drione Dust pyrethrins and m-pede mecoprop (MCPP) H Dursban chlorpyrifos Maxforce roachkiller baitgel hydramethylnon b,c

Tempo WP cyfluthrin 1 Mecomec mecoprop H TKO diazinon National Deadline metaldehyde M Ornamec fluazifop-p-butyl H Orthene acephate b Ortho Supreme Spray District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Princep 80W EPTC and H Riverside Riverside U 38 33,607 Princep 80W simazine b, c H Did not respond PT 170A pyrethrins PT 240 boric acid Rose Defense neem Roundup glyphosate H District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Simazine 80W simazine b, c H Rowland Los Angeles S 21 18,659 Spike tebuthiuron H Surflan oryzalin b H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Trimec "2,4-D and d H

Cynoff EC cypermethrin b, d 1 Trimec dicamba and H Cynoff WP cypermethrin b, d 1 Trimec mecoprop (multi) H Diazinon diazinon XL2G benefin and H Dursban Pro chlorpyrifos XL2G oryzalin b Gopher Getter (3602-1) strychnine e R Roundup Pro glyphosate Squirrel Bait (6128-W-L-1) chlorophacinone R District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Tempo cyfluthrin San Francisco S. Francisco U 105 61,631

Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students "Baits (Avert Gel/PT 320, Avert/PT, Sacramento Sacramento U 73 49,997 Drax Gel, Dual Choice)" avermectin Borid boric acid Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Empire chlorpyrifos BP-100 *ULD) piperonyl Knox-Out 2FM diazinon BP-100 *ULD) pyrethrins and Precor IGR Concentrate propetamphos Dexol diquat dibromide H PT 240 boric acid Diazinon diazinon c I PT 265A diazinon Drax boric acid 1 PT 515 d-trans allethrin and

Drione piperonyl butoxide b I PT 515 phenothrin Drione pyrethrins and Tempo 20 WP cyfluthrin Drione silica gel Dursban chlorpyrifos Holiday Fogger (975-286) n-octyl bicycloheptene District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students dicarboxamide inactive? Holiday Fogger (475 -286) permethrin and b, d San Tose Santa Clara U 41 30,905 Holiday Fogger (475-286) pyrethrins and inactive? Knox Out diazinon Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Lo Ban chlorpyrifos Ant Bait Maxforce hydramethylnon b, c Bait Box Mop-Up disodium of octaborate tetrahyrdrate Baygon 2% Bait propoxur a Diazinon diazinon PT 400 chlorpyrifos and 1 PT 400 fenoxycarb a, c Diazinon diazinon R C Spray phenothrin Dragnet permethrin b, d Talon G brodifacoum R DRI-DIE silica aerogel/ammonium fluosilicate to 3% Vikor cypermethrin and b, d flourine Dursban TC chlorpyrifos Vikor esbiothrin (multi) 1 Vikor piperonyl butoxide and Fumitoxin tablets aluminum phosphide e IF Central hydroprene KnoxOut cliazinon Large Glue Board District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Maxforce hydramethylnon b San Diego San Diego S 151 127,087 Mouse Bait station Mouse trap (snap) Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Mouse/rat sticky board Ant Kill Gel Pioneer Bee Spray Baygon propoxur a Pioneer Lice Killer

Borid boric acid (EPA 33176-19-1511 piperonyl butoxide b I

20 28 Pioneer Lice Killer [EPA 33176-19-15I1 pyrethrins and District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Rat trap Siskiyou Siskiyou R 4 890 Roach Bait Roundup glyphosate H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Roundup Plus glyphosate H FT Termiticide permethrin b, d Sul-flan oryzalin b H RoundUp glyphosate Talon brodifacoum R Tempo cyfluthrin Tempo 20WP cyfluthrin Trimec "2,9-D and" d H District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Trimec dicamba and H Sonoma Sonoma R 7 4,942 Trimec mecoprop (multi) H Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Pyrethrum ContactInsecticide pyrethrins District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students San Marino Los Angeles S 4 2,827 District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Southern Catalyst propetamphos f I Humboldt Dursban Pro chlorpyrifos I Humboldt R 9 1,603 Insecticide ? Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class RoundUp glyphosate H Ace Anti roach killer tralomethrin Surflan oryzalin b H Ant Traps Tempo 20WP I cyfluthrin Hornet & Wasp killer Hornet Killer Jacket Trap District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Mouse traps Raid Ant San Mateo 17 permethrin and b, d San Mateo U 9,915 Raid Ant pyrethrins Did not respond

District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Stockton San JoaquinU 37 34,251 San Rafael Marin S 7 2948 Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Bivert petroleum distillate RoundUp glyphosate H BP 100 Insecticide piperonyl BP 100 Insecticide pyrethrins and Hi-Light Liquid District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students HS 167 mecoprop H Santa Monica IC 232 pyrethrins Knox Out diazinon c I -Malibu Los Angeles S 13 9,997 MaxForce hydramethylnon b, c Maxforce Bait Stations hydramethylnon b, c Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class No Retreat Cynoff cypermethrin b, d ProControl IV Aerosol Dragnet permethrin b. d Ronstar Granular oxadiazon a, b, c Drax Ant Bait Gel boric acid Roundup glyphosate H Fumitoxin aluminum phosphide e IF Surflan oryzalin b H Knoxout diazinon Tri-Power Herbicide dicamba and c H PCQ diphacinone R Tri-Power Herbicide MCPA (multi AI) H Roach & Bait Tri-Power Herbicide mecoprop (multi Al) H Strychnine strychnine R Wasp Freeze Il sulfluramid Tempo cyfluthrin Zinc Phosphide zinc phosphide R District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Vallejo Solano U 24 19,818 Did not respond Shasta Shasta R 3 4,495

Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Blitz waterborn residual diazinon and District CountyUIR/S # Schools # Students Blitz waterborn residual piperonyl butoxide b Ventura Ventura S 23 15,409 Blitz waterborn residual pyrethrins Bolt Ant Spray Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Mor- Act Foaming Adjuvant Dexol hornet killer diquat dibromide H Remedy triclopyr H PCQ Rodent Cake diphacinone R Round -Up glyphosate H PT-270 chlorpyrifos Surflan oryzalin H Round Up glyphosate H Tempo 20 WP cyfluthrin Talon-G brodifacoum R Tempo cyfluthrin Weed-Be-Gone "2,4-D and" H Wilco Gopher Getter I strychnine R

21 29 District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Vista San Diego S 18 21,851

Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Maxforce hydramethylnon b, c Round up glyphosate Rozol chlorophacinone squirrel bait type 2 gopher bait XL benefin and oryzalin (inactive)

District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Walnut CreekC'tra Costa U 6 2,930

Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Dursban chlorpyrifos Roundup glyphosate Rozol Gopher Bait chlorophacinone Tempo cyfiuthrin Turfion triclopyr unidentified over-the-counter insecticides

District CountyU/R/S # Schools # Students Woodland Yolo S 15 8,725

Product Active Ingredient Toxicity Class Catalyst propetamphos f I Knox out diazinon c I Safrotin propetamphos I I Tempo WP cyfluthrin I

22 30 Appendix C Active Ingredients Found in Surveyed California School Distric (Total: 73 active ingredients)

Active Ingredient Toxicity Category Active Ingredient Toxicity Category 2,4-D d ioxadiazon a, b, c acephate b pelargonic acid aluminum phosphide e pendimethalin b avermectin permethrin b bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki phenothrin (multi AI) bendiocarb piperonyl butoxideb benefin potassium salts of fatty acids boric acid propetamphos f brodifacoum propoxur a bromadiolone pyrethrins cacodylic acid silica aerogel calcium acid methanearsenate simazine b, c calcium propanearsonate strychnine e chlorophacinone sulfluramid chloropicrin e sulfuryl fluoride e chlorpyrifos f tebuthiuron cyfluthrin tetramethrin b cypermethrin b, d tralomethrin d-trans allethrin trichloro 2-pyridyl phosphorothiaote diazinon c triclopyr dicamba c zinc phosphide diethanolamine diphacinone diquat dibromide Toxicity: disodium octaborate tetrahydrate a = "Known" or "probable" carcinogens diuron b = "Possible" human carcinogens EPTC c c = Developmental and reproductive toxins esfenvalerate d d = Hormone mimicking pesticides (endocrine disruptors) ethephon e = U.S. EPA Category I Extremely High Acute Toxicity/Systemic Pesti- fenoxycarb a, c cides Labeled "Danger/Poison" fermentation of trichoderma f = Category II organophosphate or carbamate nerve toxins ferrous sulfate heptahydrate Sources: fluazifop-butyl a. "Known to the State of California to cause cancer" (oxadiazinon): California Envi- glyphosate ronmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation,Chemicals halosulfuron-methyl Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity, May1, 1997. "Probable human carcinogens" (fenoxycarb, propoxur): U.S. Environmental Protection b, c hydramethylnon Agency,List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential,February 19, 1997. hydroprene b.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,List of Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic imidacloprid Potential,February 19. 1997. soxaben b c.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Federal Register,Vol. 59, No. 229, 61436, linalool November 30, 1994 and California Environmental Protection Agency,Chemicals magnesium chloride Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity,May 1, 1997 (methyl bromide). maleic hydrazide d.Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, MCPA IEPA1 Endocrine Disniptor Strategy Preliminary List of Chemicals Associated with Endocrine System Effects in Animals and mecoprop Humans or In Vitro,February 1997. We have included "possible" and "probable" methfluidide endocrine disruptors from this list. metalaxyl e.Meister,Farm Chemicals Handbook,1997, DPR online Product/Label Data Base: metaldehyde www. cdpr .ca.gov. /docs/database.html. Only Category I pesticides bearing the label methoprene "Danger/Poison," the designation reserved for highly toxic systemic (toxic through ingestion, absorption or inhalation) toxins, were included. The same active ingredi- methyl bromide C ent may have several different classifications. Only those active ingredients used in MSMA products designated with a "Danger/Poison" label are included in this table. n-octyl bicylcoheptene dicarboximide f.Meister,Fain, Chemicals Handbook,1997. EPA Category II pesticides must carry neem the "Warning" label. Several school districts reported using the same active ingredients which are listed above as requiring a "Warning" label, but because the chemical orthoboric acid is formulated into a weaker concentration, it does not require such a listing and as oryzalin such is not included here. Only those products designated with a "Warning" label are included in this table. 23 31 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Appendix D Resources for Further Information For further information on ordering this Information on Pesticides and report or for other pesticide-related Alternatives information, contact: Bio-Integral Resource Center California Public Interest Research Group P.O. Box 7414 (CALPIRG) Charitable Trust Berkeley, CA 94707tel: (510) 524-2567 450 Geary Street fax: (510) 524-1758 San Francisco, CA 94102 website: www.igc.apc.org/birc/ tel: (415) 292-1487fax: (415) 292-1497 BIRC publishes two journals: The IPM Practicioner and Common email: [email protected] Sense Pesticide Control Quarterly. The organization also publishes the The CALPIRG Charitable Trust is the 501(c) (3) sister organization Annual Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control Products and recently of the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), a wrote IPM in Schools: A How-to Manual, available for $45 plus $5 non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy organization work- postage/handling from BIRC. BIRC is available for consultation and ing on behalf of consumers and the environment. With over 70,000 training in IPM. members and 14 offices statewide, CALPIRG is the largest consumer group in California. National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides Californians for Pesticide Reform 701 E Street, SE 116 New Montgomery, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20003 San Francisco, CA 94105 tel: (202) 543-5450fax: (202) 543-4791 tel: (415) 495-1149 or (888) CPR-4880 email: [email protected] fax: (415) 495-1141 website: www.ncamp.org email: [email protected] NCAMP has information on individual pesticides, pesticide policy website: www.igc.apc.org/cpr/ and alternative methods of pest management. The organization CPR is a coalition of public interest organizations committed to publishes the quarterly "Pesticides and You" journal and the protecting public health and the environment from the proliferation monthly "Technical Report" newsletter and hosts an annual orga- of pesticides. CPR provides: information on pesticides, reports on nizing conference. NCAMP also offers "Pesticides and Schools: A pesticide use in the state and resources on how individuals can work Collection of Policies and Articles" ($15). to eliminate pesticide use. CPR also publishes the quarterly newsletter "CPResources." Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides P. 0. Box 1393 Other organizations to contact: Eugene, OR 97440 Children's Health and Pesticides tel: (541) 344-5044fax: (541) 344-6923 email: [email protected] Children's Environmental Health Network website: www.efn.org/--ncap 5900 Hollis Street, Suite E NCAP provides information on pesticides and pest management al- Emeryville, CA 94608 ternatives, including information on risks of pesticides used in tel: (510) 450-3818 x 117fax: (510) 450-3773 school settings, and strategies for reducing their use. Specific publi- email: [email protected] cations include "Getting Pesticides Out of Our Schools," ($5 ppd.). website: www.cehn.org. Their website includes such school related documents as a list of CEHN has a wide variety of information on the effects of toxic school pesticide incidents, a model school pest management policy, chemicals on children. The organization recently published the first the "Safer School Pest Control Pledge," "School Pesticide Use Ques- national resource guide on children and environmental health. tionnaire," "Steps Parents and Teachers can Take to Reduce School Pesticide Use" and "Interview Questions." NCAP also publishes the Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet quarterly Journal of Pesticide Reform. 870 Market Street, Suite 654 San Francisco, CA 94102 tel: (415) 433-0850fax: (415) 433-0859 or call the New York headquarters (888) ECO-INFO email: [email protected] website: www.mothers.org/mothers Mothers & Others publishes the Green Guide"newsletter on such issues as childhood asthma and pesticides in schools.

24 32 Pesticide Action Network National Parent Teacher Association 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 810 700 North Rush Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Chicago, IL 60611-2571 tel: (415) 541-9140fax: (415) 541-9253 tel: (312) 787-0977 email: [email protected] fax: (312) 787-8342 website: www.panna.org /panna website: www.pta.org PAN publishes the quarterly journal Global Pesticide Campaigner In 1992, the National PTA announced its support for Integrated and "PANUPS," a weekly online news service highlighting pesti- Pest Management to lower children's exposure to pesticides in cides and sustainable agriculture. Their website has over 100 links to schools. other useful sites as well as up-to-date information on PAN's cam- paigns and information resources. PAN most recently published the National Education Association/Health report Rising Toxic Tide which documents the dramatic increase in Information Network pesticide use in California between 1991 and 1995 ($5 ppd. or Suite 521 available online). 1201 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-3290 Pesticide Education Center tel: (800) 718-8387 Dr. Marion Moses fax: (202) 822-7775 P.O. Box 420870 website: www. nea.org\hin San Francisco, CA 94142-0870 The Health Information Network arm of NEA disseminates infor- tel: (415) 391-8511 mation on indoor air quality (IAQ) as well as other health issues. email: [email protected] HIN has a packet "IAQ and You" with information on various in- The PEC offers the book Designer Poisons: How to Protect Your door air contaminants and pollutants, including pesticides. For a Health and Home from Toxic Products. The organization also makes copy of the Healthy School Handbook, contact the NEA Profes- presentations, develops curricular materials, and provides other ser- sional Library (800) 229-4200 or write P.O. Box 509, West Haven, vices targeted to the need of average citizens and workers concerned CT, 06516 (21.95 plus 2.50 shipping and handling). about health risks of pesticide exposure. Pesticide Watch Education Fund State and Federal Agencies 450 Geary Street San Francisco, CA 94102 California Environmental Protection Agency tel: (415) 292-1488fax: (415) 292-1497 Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) email: [email protected] 1020 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5624 Pesticide Watch works with individuals and community groups to tel: (916) 445-4300 assist in local efforts to reduce the use of pesticides and promote website: www. cdpr.ca.gov safer methods of pest management. The group provides educational materials, organizing skills trainings, strategy consultation, technical DPR regulates the use of pesticides in California. In 1996, DPR referrals and networking opportunities so groups do not have to re- published "Pesticides in Schools," and annually grants "IPM Innova- invent the wheel. They have prepared several organizing kits includ- tor" awards to institutions in both urban and agricultural settings. ing: Parks are for People, Not Poisons; Reducing Pesticide Use in DPR's website provides access to information on all the formulations Schools; and A Pesticide Drill Kit. of pesticides registered for use in the U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency School Organizations Office of Pesticide Programs 401 M Street, SW California Parent Teacher Association Washington, DC 20460 930 Georgia Street website: www.epa.gov P.O. Box 15015 Provides information on individual pesticides. Copies of Pest Control Los Angeles, CA 90015-0100 in the School Environment: Adopting Integrated Pest Management. tel: (213) 620-1100 (EPA 735-F-93-012) are available by calling (800) 490-9198, EPA's fax: (213) 620-1411 National Center for Environmental Publications and Information. website: www.capta.org California State PTA announced its support for reducing the use of pesticides in schools and prior notification of any treatments 25 years ago.

33 25 Appendix E The Top Five Pesticides Used in Surveyed School Districts

Of the 46 school districts responding to in indoor air, and levels have actually piperonyl butoxide, a possible human our survey, the most frequently reported been found to increase over time.7 The carcinogen (liver cancer).18 pesticides were chlorpyrifos, cyfluthrin, estimated half-life (the period by which diazinon, glyphosate and pyrethrins. half of the product is expected to have Only two of the five pesticides, broken down) of chlorpyrifos is 30 Active Ingredient: diazinon chlorpyrifos and diazinon, were given days,8 but studies have shown the Products(s): KnoxOut, TKO, Diazinon, toxicity categories in our tables and insecticide can persist up to eight years PT 265 charts (see Appendix B) since they after application.9 Surveyed School Districts Using: 37% appear on the state and federal lists that Use: insecticide In 1995, EPA fined manufacturer we consulted to determine such Toxicity Information: Diazinon is an DowElanco $876,000 for failing to categories. However, there are numerous organophosphate nerve toxin and report to EPA more than 250 incidents studies in the scientific literature inhibits the action of cholinesterase, an involving chlorpyrifos. In January 1997, addressing concerns with the remaining enzyme critical to nervous system EPA and DowElanco agreed that the three pesticides which suggests that function. Acute symptoms include chemical would no longer be allowed these chemicals may also pose health headaches, dizziness, nausea, weakness, for many uses including indoor fogging. risks when used around children. blurred vision, vomiting, wheezing, Final Agency review of chlorpyrifos is coughing and pulmonary edema Active Ingredient: chlorpyrifos not scheduled until 1998.10 (swelling in the lung).19 Diazinon Products(s): Dursban, Empire, PT 270, ranked eleventh in the number of Strikeforce, Waxie Bug-Off, others poisoning-related incidents reported to Surveyed School Districts Using: 43% Active Ingredient: cyfluthrin the state.2° Use: insecticide Products(s): Tempo Toxicity Information: Chlorpyrifos is Surveyed School Districts Using: 58% Diazinon also poses long-term effects. an organophosphate nerve toxin that Use: insecticide Tests show diazinon can cause inhibits cholinesterase, an enzyme Toxicity Information: Cyfluthrin can reproductive effects in laboratory critical to nervous system function. harm the human nervous system animals21 and use of diazinon by Several chlorpyrifos formulations found causing coordination loss, muscle farmers in Iowa, Minnesota and in responding school districts records are trembling, jerky movements, behavioral Nebraska has been linked to increased considered Category II pesticides, EPA's changes and convulsions.11 It can also risk of one type of cancer, non- second highest ranking for acute cause irritation of the nose, throat and Hodgkin's lymphoma.22 An toxicity. Chlorpyrifos can cause upper respiratory tract12 leading epidemiological study of workers at a headaches, dizziness, mental confusion manufacturer Mobay Corp. to state that diazinon production facility found that and inability to concentrate, blurred "Persons with a history of asthma, chromosome aberrations (genetic vision, vomiting, stomach cramps, emphysema, or hyperactive airways damage) were more common than in a uncontrolled urination, diarrhea, disease may be more susceptible to group of non-exposed workers.23 Two seizures,' birth defects and multiple exposure."13 Testing in laboratory EPA surveys found diazinon to be the chemical sensitivities.2 This insecticide animals suggests reproductive toxicity sixth most frequent cause of both has also been associated with peripheral including miscarriages.14 There is also accidental death due to pesticides and neuropathy, a nervous system disorder concern that cyfluthrin can bind with pesticide-related illnesses.24 In one resulting in burning and tingling in the receptors in the testes potentially study, residues of diazinon were found limbs, muscle weakness and decreased affecting the action of hormones.15 in the urine of pest control operators coordination.3 In 1994, chlorpyrifos Between 5% and 100% of cyfluthrin workers who had sprayed diazinon, ranked third for highest number of residues are not removed by machine despite their use of protective clothing.25 poisoning-related incidents reported to washing, presenting an exposure threat Another study, monitoring a crack and the state.4 to applicators.16 crevice treatment in a school dormitory, showed that diazinon can persist indoors Chlorpyrifos is easily absorbed via Cyfluthrin breaks down into 4-fluoro-3- for as long as 42 days after application.26 inhalation, ingestion or through the phenoxybenzoic acid which is more skins though symptoms may not be acutely toxic than the parent Diazinon has proven to be highly toxic evident for as long as one to four weeks compound.17 In the formulation Tempo to birds feeding on lawns, sod farms, after exposure.6 It is frequently detected WP, cyfluthrin is also mixed with 26 34 and golf courses which mistake diazinon POEA, is more acutely toxic than designed to quickly paralyze the pest granules for seeds. After reports of glyphosate itself and the combination of and contain allergens that cross-react several massive bird-kills, US. EPA the two is even more toxic. POEA is with ragweed and other pollens. forced manufacturer Ciba Geigy to halt irritating to eyes and skin and causes Pyrethrins are absorbed most easily the use of diazinon on golf courses and gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, through ingestion or inhalation.36 sod farms, yet the Agency continues to vomiting, and diarrhea.33 Another People with asthma can have severe permit its use on lawns and turf.27 chemical, isopropylamine is also added reactions to pyrethrins.37 to Roundup despite the fact that it is Pyrethrins can also cause male "extremely destructive to tissue of the reproductive effects by binding with the Active Ingredient: glyphosate mucous membranes and upper androgen (a male sex hormone) Products(s): Roundup respiratory tract," with inhalation able receptors, disrupting the normal Surveyed School Districts Using: 58% to cause fatal spasms, chemical function of the hormone.38 Use: herbicide pneumonia, and excess fluids in the Toxicity Information: Glyphosate can lungs. In addition, isopropylamine Because pyrethrins degrade quickly, they cause acute symptoms including eye and exposure can cause headaches, dizziness, are often used with other pesticides skin irritation, cardiac depression, nausea and burns.34 which may be more toxic. Examples gastrointestinal pain, vomiting and include piperonyl butoxide, a possible Misleading advertising has led many accumulation of excess fluid in the human carcinogen, n- applicators to consider glyphosate nearly lungs.28 California statistics show that in octylbicycloheptene dicarboximide non-toxic. In 1996, the New York State 1994, glyphosate ranked tenth in the (MGK 264), a possible human Attorney General won an injunction state for numbers of reported poisoning carcinogen39 and chemical capable of against the chemical's manufacturer, incidents.29 causing reproductive damage,40 and Monsanto, for falsely claiming that the chlorpyrifos (see above). One product Glyphosate can also drift off -site during pesticide is as safe as table salt.35 discovered in a surveyed school district ground applications, potentially combined pyrethrin with propoxur, a exposing children in classrooms far from probable human carcinogen.41 the point of application. Studies show Active Ingredient: pyrethrins that from 14%-78% of glyphosate can Products(s): Blitz, BP-100, Drione, PT- drift off-site30 as far as 1300 feet 565, others downwind.31 Once on the ground, Surveyed School Districts Using: 41% glyphosate can persist in soils from three Use: insecticide days to a year.32 Toxicity Information: Pyrethrins are derived from dried chrysanthemum The surfactant used in Roundup, flowers. They have a rapid action polyethoxylated tallowamines, or

I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Recogni- tion," op. cit., p. 2. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Questions tion and Management of Pesticide Poisonings," 6 Blondell, op. cit., p.3. & Answers: Chlorpyrifos," February 1997. Fourth Edition, EPA-540/9-88-00I, Washington. 7 Cox, C. , Chlorpyrifos, Part 2: Human Exposure, 11 National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides, DC March 1989, pp. 1-4 Journal of Pesticide Reform,Vol. 15., No. 1, Spring "Cyfluthrin,"Pesticides and You,Washington, DC 2 Donnay, A., "Researchers Link Common House- 1996 citing Wright, C. et al., Chlorpyrifos in the air October 1991 citing Whalen, J. Memorandum to hold Insecticide with Serious Birth Defects and and soil of houses four years after its application for LaRocca, G. "Review of acute toxicity data in sup- Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," Press Release, No- termite control,Bulletin of Environmental Contami- port of the registration of Tempo wettable powder vember 20, 1996, Baltimore, MD. nation and Taricology,Vol. 46. 1991, pp. 686-689. for use in food handling establishments," Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 3 Blondell, J.. "Review of chlorpyrifos-associated cases 8 Cox, C. , "Chlorpyrifos, Part 2: Human Exposure," 1987. of delayed neuropathy," Memorandum. January 19, Journal of Pesticide Reform,Spring 1995 citing Cali- 1995. fornia Department of Health Services, "Hazards of 12 Ibid., citing He. W. et al., "Clinical Manifestations 4 Mehler, L. , "List of case reports identified during indoor-use pesticides under investigation," Tox-Epi and diagnosis of acute pyrethroicl poisoning,"Ar- 1994 classified as definitely, probably or possibly Review, Berkeley, CA, 1987. chives of Taricology,Vol. 63, pp. 54-58, 1989. related to pesticide exposure, including both agricul- 9 Ibid., citing Wright, C., "Chlorpyrifos in the air and 13 ibid., citing Mobay Corporation, "Cyfluthrin," tural and non-agricultural uses of pesticides," De- soil of houses eight years after its application for Material Safety Data Sheet ,1988. partment of Pesticide Regulation. December 2. termite control,"Bulletin of Environmental Contami- 14 Cox, C.. "Cyfluthrin,"Journal of Pesticide Reform, 1997. nation and Taricology,Vol. 52, 1994, pp. 131-134. Eugene. OR, Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 1994, p. 30 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Recogni- citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 27 35 BEST COPY AVAILABLE of Pesticide Programs, Tox One-Liners: Cyfluthrin, 26 Ibid., citing Wright, G et al., "Chlorpyrifos and Washington, DC, 1989. diazinon detections on surfaces of dormitory 15 Cox, C., "Cyfluthrin," Journal of Pesticide Reform, rooms," Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Eugene, OR, Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 1994, p. 30 and Toxicology, Vol. 32, 1984, pp. 259-264. citing Ramadan, A. et al., "Actions of pyrethroids on 27 Ibid., citing Reilly, W., In the matter of Ciba-Geigy the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor," Pesticide Corporation, et al., petitioners. FIFRA Docket Nos. Biochemistry and Physiology, Vol. 32, 1988, pp. 106- 562 et al., Washington, DC, 1990. 113. 28 Cox, C., "Glyphosate," Part 2, Human Exposure 16 Cox, C., "Cyfiuthrin," citing Laughlin, J. et al., and Ecological Effects, Journal of Pesticide Reform, "Pyrethroid insecticides and formulations as factors Winter 1995 in residues remaining in apparel fabrics after 29 Mehler, op. cit. laundering,"Bulletin of Environmental Contamina- tion and Toxicology, Vol. 47, 1991, pp. 355-361. 30 Cox, C., "Glyphosate," op. cit., citing Freedman, B., "Controversy over the use of herbicides in forestry, 17 Op. cit., National Coalition Against the Misuse of with particular reference to glyphosate usage," Jour- Pesticides. "Cyfluthrin," citing Mueller-Beilschmidt, nal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol. C8, D., "The chemistry, development and economics of No. 2, pp. 277-286, 1990-1991. synthetic pyrethroids,"Journa/ of Pesticide Reform, Vol. 10, 1990. 31Ibid., citing Yates, W et al., Drift of glyphosate sprays applied with aerial and ground equipment, 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "List of Weed Science, Vol. 26. No. 6, 1978, pp. 597-604. Chemicals Evaluated for Carcinogenic Potential," 32 Ibid., citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, February 19, 1997. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED): Glyphosate, 19 Op. cit., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 1993. Recognition, pp. 3-4. 33 Monsanto Co. Material Safety Data Sheet: Roundup 20 Mehler, L. , op. cit. herbicide, St. Louis, MO, 1992. 21U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal 34 Cox, C., "Glyphosate" citing Sigma Chemical Co., Register, Vol. 59, No. 229, November 30, 1994, p. Aldrich Chemical Co., and Fluka Chemical Corp., 61435. "Material Safety Data Sheet: Isopropylamine," St. 22 Cox, C., "Diazinon," Journal of Pesticide Reform, Louis, MO, Milwaukee, WI, and Ronkonkoma, Vol. 12, No. 3, Fall 1992, p. 31., citing Cantor, K. et NY. 1994. al., "Pesticides and other risk factors for non- 35 Press release from New York Attorney General's Hodgkins's lymphoma among men in Iowa and Office, Dennis C. Vacco, presiding Attorney Gen- Minnesota," Cancer Research, Vol. 52, 1992, pp. eral. The Capital, Albany, New York, November 25, 2447-2455; and Zahm, S., "A Case control study of 1996. non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and agricultural factors in Eastern Nebraska (Abstract)," American Journal of 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Recogni- tion," op. cit., pp. 25-26. Epidemiology, Vol. 128, 1988, p. 90. 37 Moses, M., "Designer Poisons," Pesticide Education 23 Op. cit. Cox, C., "Diazinon," citing Kiraly, J. et al., Center, San Francisco, CA, 1995. "Chromosome studies in workers producing organophosphate insecticides," Archives of Environmental 38 Op. cit., Cox, C., "Cyfiuthrin," citing Eli, C. et al. Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 8, 1979, pp. 309- The binding properties of pyrethroids to human 319. skin fibroplast androgen receptors and to sex hor- 24 Op. cit., Cox, C., "Diazinon," citing U.S. Environ- mone binding globulin, Journal of Steroid Biochemis- try, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, 1990, pp. 409-414. mental Protection Agency, Guidance for the reregisuation of pesticide products containing diazinon 39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "List," op. cit. as an active ingredient, Washington, DC, 1988. 40 Moses, op. cit. p. 164. 25 Ibid., citing Hayes, A. et al., "Assessment of occupa- 41U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "List," op. cit. tional exposure to organophosphates in pest control operations," American Hygiene Association, Vol. 41, 1980, pp. 568-575.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

28 36 U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) IC National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)