Harvard School of Public Health entomologist Dr. Richard Pollack’s testimony before the New York City Council Consumer Affairs Committee on September 18, 2006 deserves reexamination. Actually, it will take some work to redeem his testimony, as it has not so much been forgotten as it was never properly noticed, but I think it’s worth it.
The bill that was the subject of the hearing, Intro 57, aka The Bed Bug Bill, would have banned the sale of reconditioned mattresses in New York City and created a five-member, one-year bed bug task force to study the health concerns associated with bed bugs and issue recommendations. As we know, it never made it out of committee.
When the press covered the hearing, two flawed analyses were presented to New Yorkers.
Here’s the New York Times:
Richard J. Pollack, an expert in parasitic insects at the Harvard School of Public Health who testified at the hearing, said he doubted that the proposed ban would be effective. “As long as used mattresses have value, they will remain a commodity despite attempts to regulate their movements,” he said.
Dr. Pollack’s testimony at the hearing effectively framed the issue and the debate, or non-debate, about reconditioned mattresses as one of ultimate futility.
I would summarize Dr. Pollack’s position like this: It won’t work, because it won’t be enough. Plus, the mattresses are not that bad anyway.
Here’s Dr. Pollack’s full prepared testimony on the matter:
Should New York City authorities ban the sale of second-hand mattresses? Whereas mattresses and box springs are amongst the most frequently and heavily infested items within a residence, bed bugs can, and do often, hide in and deposit their eggs on bedsprings, nightstands, dressers, desks, sofas, picture frames and wall hangings, rugs and diverse other items in home or apartment.
Restricting the sale or exchange of used mattresses might slow the rising tide of bed bug infestations, but it is doubtful that the strategy will effectively stem the flow.
As long as used mattresses have value, they will remain a commodity, despite attempts to regulate their movements. The sale of used mattresses is already regulated in many jurisdictions. These regulations specify which components may be reused and which must be new, the manner in which the mattress must be sanitized and the characteristics, size, color and text, of the mattress label.
Perhaps, but certainly not in New York. There are no mattress sanitizing regulations in New York. To be sure, the Council had just become aware of the absence of sanitizing regulations and the full import of the missing regulations was only established during the hearing.
Given the conditions in New York City, a strategy that would slow ‘the rising tide’ of bed bug infestations would be an effective strategy. By reducing the number of new infestations, which might potentially give rise to more infestations, the overall number of infestations would decrease. It is exactly what must occur. Stop the spread, reduce the number of new infestations, achieve control of existing infestations.
Further, while we know enough about the absolute lack of oversight of mattress refurbishing factories, no analysis has been made of the distribution of used mattresses in our city. Who are the primary consumers and what is the incidence of infestation in their facilities, if institutional purchasers, or homes, if individuals?
The most unfortunate error, in my view, came when Dr. Pollack was pressed, after his prepared testimony, for more suggestions on what the legislative solutions might be. He said:
Used mattresses by themselves, really are not necessarily a danger. They’re only a risk if they derive from an apartment or a home where there were bed bugs.
So, I think the vast majority of the mattresses that may be out there are essentially intrinsically safe. They may not be nice to look at, but they have value.
Dr. Pollack had no factual foundation upon which to assert that used mattresses are “not necessarily a danger.” And when he said they’re only a risk if they derive from an infested home, did he realize that used mattresses in New York City come from the street? That they’re discarded mattresses picked up at the curb by scavengers and sold to refurbishing factories for $5 a piece? (There is a footnote to this story, in a moment.)
Having framed the issue, that banning used mattresses would be ineffective, the administration’s analysis—failing as it did to account for the costs of bed bug remediation, especially in multi-unit housing, and the costs for medical treatment of illnesses that conceivably may be caused by unhealthy exposure to reconditioned mattresses—sailed by without scrutiny in the press reports. Here’s one example from the New York Sun:
While saying he was sympathetic to such bedbug victims, a representative of the Bloomberg administration told the committee that one component of a bill aimed at stopping the spread of bedbugs – a ban on refurbished mattresses – could be financially crippling to poor people.
A refurbished mattress priced at $40 might cost almost $100 when purchased new, the legislative director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Andrew Eiler, said.
At the very least, another witness said, the ban – which would affect the approximately 130 dealers of second-hand mattresses who operate in the state – would be ineffective.
[Dr. Pollack] said the ban would be ineffective because the bedbug, Cimex lectularius, doesn’t confine itself to mattresses.
Debate over.
That reconditioned mattresses in New York City pose actual health hazards for New Yorkers, never mind contain bed bugs, is now well understood, or should be. If you need a refresher, you can perhaps start with the recent Dateline NBC report.
The footnote? We can in fact add a footnote, two years too late, to Dr. Pollack’s remarks about used mattresses in New York City.
On February 27, 2006, just a few months before the New York City Council hearing, Dr. Pollack was interviewed for a bed bug story in The Somerville News and had this to say:
“I wouldn’t take any mattresses off the street.”
Of course!
Still, I think Dr. Pollack’s testimony at the hearing, excepting that on refurbished mattresses, is absolutely remarkable and New York City would do well to adopt even half of what he suggested.
I can only quote at length:
Legislative action may offer promising aiding efforts to abate current infestations to reduce opportunities for bed bugs to spread to new sites. The Boston and San Francisco regulations should be scrutinized with the aim of adopting those rules that would likely be most effective and practical in New York City.
Specifically regulations and appropriations should be considered that mandate and facilitate inspections of properties with reported infestations, written IPM requirements, training and certification of pest management personnel relevant to identification of bed bugs, and compliance with IPM procedures.
Means to ensure that used mattresses and furniture have been suitably disinfected prior to their resale, and securing of infested items destined for disposal to prevent spread of bed bugs to other residences.
Furthermore, in light of recent reports that some populations of bed bugs are resistant to certain insecticides, New York City authorities should reevaluate the current arsenal of insecticides authorized for use there, support efforts to ensure these products are efficacious against local bed bug populations, and weigh the risks and benefits of augmenting the spectrum of pesticides and their permissible use.
I’d bet no one remembers any of it. But it was excellent.
I’m sorry there is no online transcript of the hearing to point you to. If you’re curious, send me an email and I’ll send you the transcript I quoted from.
