NCAMP PRESS RELEASE
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
701 E Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003
202-543-5450 (voice) - 202-543-4791 (fax)
email: ncamp@ncamp.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Kagan Owens or Jay Feldman
202-543-5450
Study Finds States Do Not Protect Children from Pesticides Used in Schools, Group Calls on Federal Government to Act
State governments are not adequately protecting children from pesticides used in and around schools, concludes a study released by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP). The study evaluates five categories covering critical areas of protection, including (i) buffer zones to restrict pesticide drift, (ii) posting warning signs, (iii) prior written notification of pesticide use, (iv) prohibition of certain products or use patterns, and (v) use of integrated pest management (IPM) in deciding appropriate pest management approaches. Of the 30 states that offer protection in one or more of these categories, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides. Overall the level of protection varies widely across the states. NCAMP calls on the federal government, which it says offers no protection in these areas, to institute national standards to protect children.
Washington, DC, January 28, 1999 - Children are not adequately protected from pesticides used in schools, according to a new study released by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP). The study, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws, looks at the laws of the 50 states and finds that 30 offer a limited degree of protection. NCAMP called on the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner, and Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, to adopt regulations to protect children from pesticides in school.
Five categories are evaluated in the study: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones around schools to prevent drifting of chemicals on to school property; (ii) posting warning signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior written notification of pesticide use to parents and school staff; (iv) prohibiting when and where pesticides can be applied at schools; and, (v) integrated pest management. Of the 30 states that offer protection in one or more of these categories, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides. Overall the level of protection varies widely across the states.
"The five categories of protection evaluated in the study are essential ingredients in a program to protect children from pesticides at school," said Kagan Owens, co-author and information coordinator for NCAMP. "No state has acted in every category and where steps have been taken, they are often much too limited," Ms. Owens said. "The study signals a tremendous need for improved standards for protecting children from pesticides at their schools," states Jay Feldman, co-author and executive director of NCAMP. "While states need to take stronger action, it is time for the federal government to step up to the plate and institute national standards," he said. "The study identifies a patchwork of laws that provide uneven and inadequate protection of children. Our children deserve more than this," said Mr. Feldman.
Study Findings
Only six states recognize the importance of controlling drift by restricting
pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school. These restricted spray
zones range from 300 feet to 2 ½ miles. Only Arizona and New Jersey require
buffer zones for both ground and aerial pesticide applications.
Ten states require posting of signs for indoor school pesticide applications.
Posted notification signs warn those in the school when and where pesticides
have been or are being applied. Texas is exemplary in requiring posting indoor
notification signs 48 hours before the application is to begin.
Twenty-two states require posting of signs for pesticide applications made on
school grounds. Rhode Island is exemplary in requiring signs to remain posted
for 72 hours after the application commences. Seven states require posting for
both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications at schools.
Nine states have requirements to notify students, parents, and/or employees
of the school before a pesticide application occurs. Arizona and Maryland require
that the schools provide prior notification to each parent, guardian and staff
member. Eight states require schools to inform parents or guardians of their
right to be listed on a registry. Registries are viewed by the authors as a
less effective notification method because they may eliminate individuals who
do not know about toxic exposure. Two of the eight states, Louisiana and Pennsylvania,
create the extra barrier of requiring medical verification to be listed on a
registry. This is even more limiting since it does not allow people to avoid
exposure.
Seven states restrict when and what pesticides may be applied in schools. These
prohibitions on use are important in reducing pesticide exposure.
A strong integrated pest management (IPM) program can eliminate the unnecessary
use of toxic pesticides, thereby protecting children. Thirteen states define,
recommend or require IPM in their state pesticide laws. Of these, only five
states (Connecticut [institutions], Maryland, Oregon [higher education], Texas
and West Virginia) require IPM, and only four states (Illinois, Louisiana, Maine
and Montana) recommend it. Three states (Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania)
simply define IPM in their law.
NCAMP says children are at high risk to the adverse effects associated with pesticide exposure. Studies are numerous which document that children exposed to pesticides suffer elevated rates of childhood leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and brain cancer. Studies link pesticides to the childhood asthma and respiratory problems. Because of their affect on the central nervous system, scientists increasingly associate learning disabilities or attention deficit disorders with low level toxic exposure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter Written to the EPA
January 28, 1999
The Honorable Carol Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Administrator Browner,
We are writing to urge the Environmental Protection Agency to begin rulemaking to protect children from the use of pesticides at schools across the country. Our formal request to initiate rulemaking in this regard is borne out of the data collected by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), to be released today in a study which documents uneven and inadequate protection of children from school pesticide use in the 50 states. Given your and the administration's interest in protecting children, we know that you do not want to see this situation continue unabated. We are also filing this request with Secretary of Education Riley in the hope that the agency can work with the Department of Education to make our children's schools a safer place to learn.
NCAMP's study, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws, reveals a striking lack of protection in five basic areas that together would constitute an adequate standard for protecting children from pesticides at school. While 30 states offer some limited degree of protection in these areas, the federal government has been silent in these areas, allowing children to go off to school each morning facing an unnecessary threat of pesticide exposure in their classrooms and on school grounds. When you break down the number of states that institute some protections in the key areas of exposure and right-to-know, as cited below, the totals shrink considerably. For example, only six states establish buffer or restricted spray zones around schools to try to protect against chemicals drifting into the classroom and school yard. Only five states require that measures are instituted to use less toxic pest management methods in schools through integrated pest management, although the definitions vary considerably.
NCAMP's study evaluates five categories covering critical areas of protection, including: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones around schools to prevent drifting of chemicals on to school property; (ii) posting warning signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior written notification of pesticide use to parents and school staff; (iv) prohibiting when and where pesticides can be applied at schools; and, (v) use of integrated pest management (IPM) in deciding appropriate pest management approaches. Of the 30 states that offer protection in one or more of these categories, only 16 states address indoor use of pesticides. Overall the level of protection varies widely across the states.
The five categories of protection evaluated in the study are essential ingredients in a program to protect children from pesticides at school. No state has acted in every category and where steps have been taken, they are often much too limited.
The study signals a tremendous need for improved regulatory standards for protecting children from pesticides at their schools. While states need to take stronger action, it is time for the federal government to step up to the plate and institute national standards. The study identifies a patchwork of laws that provide uneven and inadequate protection of children. Our children deserve more than this.
Study Findings
- Only six states recognize the importance of controlling drift by restricting
pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school. These restricted spray
zones range from 300 feet to 2 ½ miles. Only Arizona and New Jersey require
buffer zones for both ground and aerial pesticide applications.
- Ten states require posting of signs for indoor school pesticide applications. Posted notification signs warn those in the school when and where pesticides have been or are being applied. Texas is exemplary in requiring posting indoor notification signs 48 hours before the application is to begin.
- Twenty-two states require posting of signs for pesticide applications made on school grounds. Rhode Island is exemplary in requiring signs to remain posted for 72 hours after the application commences. Seven states require posting for both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications at schools.
- Nine states have requirements to notify students, parents, and/or employees of the school before a pesticide application occurs. Arizona and Maryland require that the schools provide prior notification to each parent, guardian and staff member. Eight states require schools to inform parents or guardians of their right to be listed on a registry. Registries are viewed by the authors as a less effective notification method because they may eliminate individuals who do not know about toxic exposure. Two of the eight states, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, create the extra barrier of requiring medical verification to be listed on a registry. This is even more limiting since it does not allow people to avoid exposure.
- Seven states restrict when and what pesticides may be applied in schools. These prohibitions on use are important in reducing pesticide exposure.
- A strong integrated pest management (IPM) program can eliminate the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides, thereby protecting children. Thirteen states define, recommend or require IPM in their state pesticide laws. Of these, only five states (Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, Texas and West Virginia) require IPM, and only four states (Illinois, Louisiana, Maine and Montana) recommend it. Three states (Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) simply define IPM in their law.
As you know, children are at high risk to the adverse effects associated with pesticide exposure. Studies are numerous which document that children exposed to pesticides suffer elevated rates of childhood leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and brain cancer. Studies link pesticide exposure to the alarming childhood asthma rate and respiratory problems. Because of their affect on the central nervous system, scientists increasingly are associating learning disabilities or attention deficit disorders with low level toxic chemical exposure. The National Academy of Sciences, in its 1993 report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, recognized the increased vulnerability of children to pesticide exposure. The Food Quality Protection Act, passed in 1996, may result in additional restrictions on some pesticides to which children are now exposed in the schools. However, these changes are not focused on the five critical categories that are needed to stop children's involuntary exposure at school to toxic pesticides across the board. If the government were to institute these protections, it would no longer have to point to a lengthy pesticide registration and registration process, with often mostly incomplete data on children, as evidence of some possible future protection. This rulemaking would offer comprehensive protection for children in the near term.
The current situation cries out for federal intervention. On behalf of the children, we urge you to take immediate action to initiate rulemaking in these five areas and begin a process that can ensure that all children can have the benefit of a safe learning environment. We appreciate your commitment to the safety of children and look forward to achieving our mutual goals.
Sincerely,
Jay Feldman Kagan Owens
Executive Director
Information Coordinator
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
701 E Street, SE #200
Washington, DC 20003
ph 202-543-5450
Fax 202-543-4791
http://www.ncamp.org
ncamp@ncamp.org
Membership in NCAMP is $25 for individuals and includes a subscription to our quarterly newsletter "Pesticides and You" For an additional $20/month, you can receive NCAMP's Technical Report, our monthly news bulletin!