Comments on: One more ICUP paper http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/ A bed bug policy advocacy group Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:38:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Sam Bryks http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6526 Sam Bryks Mon, 18 May 2009 22:17:01 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6526 Thanks Renee... good dialogue.. For those who like a good read, i think it has useful content. I hope you're feeling better soon.. take care Sam Thanks Renee… good dialogue..
For those who like a good read, i think it has useful content.
I hope you’re feeling better soon..
take care
Sam

]]> By: Renee Corea http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6522 Renee Corea Mon, 18 May 2009 21:30:22 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6522 We'll see how all of this plays out then. I hope people will support and cooperate on various levels and that the leadership vacuum will end. We’ll see how all of this plays out then. I hope people will support and cooperate on various levels and that the leadership vacuum will end.

]]> By: Sam Bryks http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6501 Sam Bryks Mon, 18 May 2009 00:32:47 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6501 Renee, I did not mean to misrepresent your view on IPM by using the word anathema... the word means something that is loathed or distrusted, and the fact you did state that you purposely avoid the word gave me that notion of your attitude towards the terminology. I always try to explain what i know of this, and you know i have tried hard to explain this from the very start of our dialogue. I read the paper by Albert Greene - in fact, i have had the pleasure over the years of meeting and communicating with Dr. Greene and am familiar with his work in Washington. We even were presenters at the same meeting at our Regulatory Agency speaking on (guess what.... IPM!!). I am not much on ideology in this as I have a clear scientific understanding of the purpose of IPM (prevention, reduction and/or elimination of pests by best practice approaches intended to reduce use of pesticides as much as possible (and sometimes TOTALLY). The purpose is based on cost-effectiveness originally in agriculture due to cost of pesticides and development of resistance in both insect and plant pests, but in the urban sector it is about limiting exposure of people to pesticides due to repetitive and/or unnecessary pesticide treatments as well as best practices in both prevention and treatment instead of reliance on heavy applications of pesticides on a repetitive and chronic basis (that has been the outcome often in past of so called conventional treatments). I know that Albert Greene speaks of how IPM is taken ideologically, but I don't see the protection of the environment and human health as an ideological issue. Sometimes opponents of one or other idea put "ideology" labels on it. |There are still some ideologues who hate FDR because of his approach to helping people during the depression and instituting regulation for the first time to prevent a repetition of the stock market disaster of 1929. Most historians consider what he did as being remarkably smart and of course the people of the U.S. trusted him enough to elect him four times even against all the rants of the opposition. I only use this example in relation to the use of ideological labels. Just one example – there are many. The other that I think is most appropriate is that of the cigarette industry that actively tried to block any suggestion that smoking was linked to lung cancer. This is very well documented and their campaign had a similar “ideological” bent using though at end it failed miserably and they had to make huge settlements . Their campaign was particularly insidious because the marketing strategy of the tobacco industry was to lure people to smoking by paying Hollywood studios to show smoking in films, as well as the whole range of ads making it seem manly or “cool”. I know that the concerns about lost pesticides is sincere and the pest control industry is not in this category, but Allen Caruba is most definitely a demagogue in this category of deception by misinformation. I also met Dr. Chang the main author of the second paper you noted at the EPA bed bug summit and we had some lively discussion about the situation. I can only presume from his paper that they had not found all the refugia of the bed bugs in the units in which control was not achieved. I don’t think his paper gives the impression that 50% control is satisfactory.. While we know that resistance is a major factor, i also know from field experience that other factors are critical and you have certainly posted that here in many forms.. such as education, preparation, quality of treatment. Achieving control can be very difficult with bed bugs due to their behaviour but also equally due to human behaviour. I have observed bed bug hiding places that would have escaped usual treatment (such as folds of upholstered furniture) that would have been hard to treat). Others have reported similar aspects of bed bug behaviour such as their going to curtains when conventional spraying is done to avoid the chemicals. |PM is not so hard to understand. I go back to Kogan's definition that you have read.. in brief outline my variant\ IPM is an information based system of pest management that INTEGRATES a variety of approaches that can include habitat modification, sanitation practices, housekeeping, and human behaviour as this relates to knowledge of the specific pest and its behaviour as well as the careful use of pesticides when appropriate. this will vary depending on the pest , and it may include pesticides (it most often does). But not always. That is the simplest way I can put it. It is a lot more than that of course. All of the recommendations of the EPA Summit can be put in an IPM context, and I believe that we need that context in order to understand the bigger picture and to apply the best approaches possible. Otherwise, one might support the use of fumigation with Vikane as a total approach, and not worry about preparation or prevention techniques, but just do a full building fumigation every two or so years. I know you would disagree with this … So coming full circle, the idea of IPM is to look at the problem in the bigger picture, research the problem from existing knowledge, support research to understand the problem, look at preventive measures in all elements, review treatment protocols, facilitate support for people who need this, monitor and assess, track infestations, develop best practices which may vary depending on the type of structure, Support development of better techniques and products or combination of products. This may seem complicated to define, but all these elements are incorporated in the notion of an “information based system” that “integrates” - a “variety of approaches”.. as well as the goal of “careful” use of pesticides when appropriate.. with that idea of reducing pesticide use and not having this old style of kill ‘em by soaking the place down. This is what we don’t want to see happen. I have given examples of this Renee, but I don’t seem to be getting the point across. I did give the example of ants feeding on dead flying insects adjacent to a hospital day surgery and how the modification of the habitat (changing lights) contributed to solving the problem. This is very simple, of course, when compared to bed bugs, as it was a specific situation in a specific location, but the generality applies to bed bugs as well both in terms of broad approaches that are useful everywhere as well as specific local practices that could depend on building structure, or tenant population. Your own reflections and excellent material support the concept.. It is not anti-pesticide, but it is definitely careful use of pesticide within a risk/benefit and cost/benefit context, with risk benefit taking priority as it should. In my discussions with various professionals at universities and the EPA, there is a huge pressure to prove that IPM is not more expensive in the long run, but I tend to take a different position. I say “ it is MORE expensive in the context of hourly cost to provide an IPM program, but the goal should be to reduce needless costs of repetitive treatments that increase the pesticide load without achieving good results, so that in the long term IPM is more cost-effective for the outcome achieved. That is hard for most property managers to grasp, but I know this is the reality. If I were them, I would rather pay more for achieving better control and prevention, than be dealing with complaints and unresolved infestations and repetitive treatments. There is a huge cost that is not usually accounted for in budgets - time for staff to deal with complaints not to mention the bigger cost and that is the impact on tenants. That is the hardest sell of IPM and I do not believe it will happen until it is legislated as a requirement with some real enforcement. My view is quite different from Allan Caruba’s.. and not the simplistic ignorant attitude he presents that less regulation will allow use of these banned products and solve the problem. My view is that we need to use intelligence and wisdom in protecting the health of citizens. And I know that IPM is the approach that works. There is no silver bullet in bed bug management yet. And if there were, well, some of the elements we address in this would still need to be handled. And thinking of how insects have survived through the millennia, I would not count bed bugs out… They managed to survive in spite of all the best efforts even with use of DDT and all the other products… And the likelihood of eradicating them like polio or smallpox is truly infinitesimal. If we could get back to pre- 90’s status, that would be a mini miracle, but I am convinced that it will only happen if the IPM approach is adopted and taught. Heat is a great way to eliminate bed bugs, but you're right about the expense, but there are researchers working on this, and I think it will become more feasible in heavy infestation cases, sooner than later, and I think it will be preferred to the use of Vikane Fumigant. If i were to give one key point to the situation beyond the broader picture of controlling the meta-population, it would be this.......... early detection and treatment along with intelligent monitoring offer the possibilty of control of infestation in individual units as well as limiting spread. But to make this work, takes a lot of effort in education, and in enforcement... and of course in the entire spectrum of IPM considerations and thinking.. Renee, I did not mean to misrepresent your view on IPM by using the word anathema… the word means something that is loathed or distrusted, and the fact you did state that you purposely avoid the word gave me that notion of your attitude towards the terminology. I always try to explain what i know of this, and you know i have tried hard to explain this from the very start of our dialogue. I read the paper by Albert Greene – in fact, i have had the pleasure over the years of meeting and communicating with Dr. Greene and am familiar with his work in Washington. We even were presenters at the same meeting at our Regulatory Agency speaking on (guess what…. IPM!!). I am not much on ideology in this as I have a clear scientific understanding of the purpose of IPM (prevention, reduction and/or elimination of pests by best practice approaches intended to reduce use of pesticides as much as possible (and sometimes TOTALLY). The purpose is based on cost-effectiveness originally in agriculture due to cost of pesticides and development of resistance in both insect and plant pests, but in the urban sector it is about limiting exposure of people to pesticides due to repetitive and/or unnecessary pesticide treatments as well as best practices in both prevention and treatment instead of reliance on heavy applications of pesticides on a repetitive and chronic basis (that has been the outcome often in past of so called conventional treatments). I know that Albert Greene speaks of how IPM is taken ideologically, but I don’t see the protection of the environment and human health as an ideological issue. Sometimes opponents of one or other idea put “ideology” labels on it. |There are still some ideologues who hate FDR because of his approach to helping people during the depression and instituting regulation for the first time to prevent a repetition of the stock market disaster of 1929. Most historians consider what he did as being remarkably smart and of course the people of the U.S. trusted him enough to elect him four times even against all the rants of the opposition. I only use this example in relation to the use of ideological labels. Just one example – there are many. The other that I think is most appropriate is that of the cigarette industry that actively tried to block any suggestion that smoking was linked to lung cancer. This is very well documented and their campaign had a similar “ideological” bent using though at end it failed miserably and they had to make huge settlements . Their campaign was particularly insidious because the marketing strategy of the tobacco industry was to lure people to smoking by paying Hollywood studios to show smoking in films, as well as the whole range of ads making it seem manly or “cool”. I know that the concerns about lost pesticides is sincere and the pest control industry is not in this category, but Allen Caruba is most definitely a demagogue in this category of deception by misinformation.
I also met Dr. Chang the main author of the second paper you noted at the EPA bed bug summit and we had some lively discussion about the situation. I can only presume from his paper that they had not found all the refugia of the bed bugs in the units in which control was not achieved. I don’t think his paper gives the impression that 50% control is satisfactory.. While we know that resistance is a major factor, i also know from field experience that other factors are critical and you have certainly posted that here in many forms.. such as education, preparation, quality of treatment. Achieving control can be very difficult with bed bugs due to their behaviour but also equally due to human behaviour. I have observed bed bug hiding places that would have escaped usual treatment (such as folds of upholstered furniture) that would have been hard to treat). Others have reported similar aspects of bed bug behaviour such as their going to curtains when conventional spraying is done to avoid the chemicals.
|PM is not so hard to understand. I go back to Kogan’s definition that you have read..
in brief outline my variant\
IPM is an information based system of pest management that INTEGRATES a variety of approaches that can include habitat modification, sanitation practices, housekeeping, and human behaviour as this relates to knowledge of the specific pest and its behaviour as well as the careful use of pesticides when appropriate.
this will vary depending on the pest , and it may include pesticides (it most often does). But not always.
That is the simplest way I can put it. It is a lot more than that of course. All of the recommendations of the EPA Summit can be put in an IPM context, and I believe that we need that context in order to understand the bigger picture and to apply the best approaches possible. Otherwise, one might support the use of fumigation with Vikane as a total approach, and not worry about preparation or prevention techniques, but just do a full building fumigation every two or so years. I know you would disagree with this … So coming full circle, the idea of IPM is to look at the problem in the bigger picture, research the problem from existing knowledge, support research to understand the problem, look at preventive measures in all elements, review treatment protocols, facilitate support for people who need this, monitor and assess, track infestations, develop best practices which may vary depending on the type of structure, Support development of better techniques and products or combination of products. This may seem complicated to define, but all these elements are incorporated in the notion of an “information based system” that “integrates” – a “variety of approaches”.. as well as the goal of “careful” use of pesticides when appropriate.. with that idea of reducing pesticide use and not having this old style of kill ‘em by soaking the place down. This is what we don’t want to see happen.
I have given examples of this Renee, but I don’t seem to be getting the point across. I did give the example of ants feeding on dead flying insects adjacent to a hospital day surgery and how the modification of the habitat (changing lights) contributed to solving the problem. This is very simple, of course, when compared to bed bugs, as it was a specific situation in a specific location, but the generality applies to bed bugs as well both in terms of broad approaches that are useful everywhere as well as specific local practices that could depend on building structure, or tenant population.
Your own reflections and excellent material support the concept.. It is not anti-pesticide, but it is definitely careful use of pesticide within a risk/benefit and cost/benefit context, with risk benefit taking priority as it should. In my discussions with various professionals at universities and the EPA, there is a huge pressure to prove that IPM is not more expensive in the long run, but I tend to take a different position. I say “ it is MORE expensive in the context of hourly cost to provide an IPM program, but the goal should be to reduce needless costs of repetitive treatments that increase the pesticide load without achieving good results, so that in the long term IPM is more cost-effective for the outcome achieved. That is hard for most property managers to grasp, but I know this is the reality. If I were them, I would rather pay more for achieving better control and prevention, than be dealing with complaints and unresolved infestations and repetitive treatments. There is a huge cost that is not usually accounted for in budgets – time for staff to deal with complaints not to mention the bigger cost and that is the impact on tenants. That is the hardest sell of IPM and I do not believe it will happen until it is legislated as a requirement with some real enforcement. My view is quite different from Allan Caruba’s.. and not the simplistic ignorant attitude he presents that less regulation will allow use of these banned products and solve the problem. My view is that we need to use intelligence and wisdom in protecting the health of citizens. And I know that IPM is the approach that works. There is no silver bullet in bed bug management yet. And if there were, well, some of the elements we address in this would still need to be handled. And thinking of how insects have survived through the millennia, I would not count bed bugs out… They managed to survive in spite of all the best efforts even with use of DDT and all the other products… And the likelihood of eradicating them like polio or smallpox is truly infinitesimal. If we could get back to pre- 90’s status, that would be a mini miracle, but I am convinced that it will only happen if the IPM approach is adopted and taught.
Heat is a great way to eliminate bed bugs, but you’re right about the expense, but there are researchers working on this, and I think it will become more feasible in heavy infestation cases, sooner than later, and I think it will be preferred to the use of Vikane Fumigant.
If i were to give one key point to the situation beyond the broader picture of controlling the meta-population, it would be this………. early detection and treatment along with intelligent monitoring offer the possibilty of control of infestation in individual units as well as limiting spread. But to make this work, takes a lot of effort in education, and in enforcement… and of course in the entire spectrum of IPM considerations and thinking..

]]> By: Renee Corea http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6461 Renee Corea Sat, 16 May 2009 05:21:42 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6461 Anathema is a strong word, Sam, and misrepresents my position. I'm not a professional and I have no stake in this otherwise. My interest is in advocating good bed bug control practices, and if you say IPM but then you have to explain what it means and on top of that clarify that you don't mean this but you do mean that, that you repudiate this but embrace that, what's the point? Plain English is easier. As you know there are people out there who hold that there should be no pesticides used under any circumstances, certainly not for bed bugs, and that "IPM" is the alternative to pesticides. IPM is many things to many people -- the ideology vs methodology problem described by <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493(2002)095%5B0001%3AMIPMPF%5D2.0.CO%3B2" rel="nofollow">Greene and Breisch</a> -- but it is not a control method, or I should say, I as a layperson struggling to understand what all of this means don't consider it a control method. You still need to kill the bed bugs with something, with a particular set of tools, as by the way is evident in this just published <a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/033.046.0322" rel="nofollow">IPM study</a>. I have yet to read the paper but 50% eradication is not a success. It's pretty depressing actually. Heat is a real alternative to pesticides, but it's unaffordable. I'd like to see real investment in alternatives. Anathema is a strong word, Sam, and misrepresents my position. I’m not a professional and I have no stake in this otherwise. My interest is in advocating good bed bug control practices, and if you say IPM but then you have to explain what it means and on top of that clarify that you don’t mean this but you do mean that, that you repudiate this but embrace that, what’s the point? Plain English is easier. As you know there are people out there who hold that there should be no pesticides used under any circumstances, certainly not for bed bugs, and that “IPM” is the alternative to pesticides. IPM is many things to many people — the ideology vs methodology problem described by Greene and Breisch — but it is not a control method, or I should say, I as a layperson struggling to understand what all of this means don’t consider it a control method. You still need to kill the bed bugs with something, with a particular set of tools, as by the way is evident in this just published IPM study. I have yet to read the paper but 50% eradication is not a success. It’s pretty depressing actually.

Heat is a real alternative to pesticides, but it’s unaffordable. I’d like to see real investment in alternatives.

]]> By: sam http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6443 sam Fri, 15 May 2009 03:07:01 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6443 I am truly sorry that the word IPM is anathema to you. As you know, to me IPM is central to how we should approach the entire issue of bed bug control with the goal of knocking these nasties back to the oblivion in which they were for 50 years. I am not the only one who sees it like this, but at times it is a tough road. I see this as a matter of perspective on how to manage this because I believe that a more effective pesticide is only a part of the solution, and in the context of the reality of protecting the health of citizens, there needs to be a recognition that pesticide regulation in the urban environment is truly critical, and the health of people living in non-profit, or social housing needs to be protected. I have seen the excesses over the years, and this is really part of my commitment to reducing pest problems in that environment while minimizing the use of pesticides. IPM is the way that this can happen.. I can only say, Renee, that your website supports IPM in so many amazing ways,, because you impart knowledge and you share information, and that is a huge part of what IPM is about. You are actually a very strong advocate for IPM without realizing that this is what you are doing.. Renee,, keep doing what you are doing... it doesn't matter that you don't call it IPM.... it still does what it should do.... and it helps.. that is my close on this. Sam I am truly sorry that the word IPM is anathema to you.
As you know, to me IPM is central to how we should approach the entire issue of bed bug control with the goal of knocking these nasties back to the oblivion in which they were for 50 years. I am not the only one who sees it like this, but at times it is a tough road. I see this as a matter of perspective on how to manage this because I believe that a more effective pesticide is only a part of the solution, and in the context of the reality of protecting the health of citizens, there needs to be a recognition that pesticide regulation in the urban environment is truly critical, and the health of people living in non-profit, or social housing needs to be protected. I have seen the excesses over the years, and this is really part of my commitment to reducing pest problems in that environment while minimizing the use of pesticides.
IPM is the way that this can happen.. I can only say, Renee, that your website supports IPM in so many amazing ways,, because you impart knowledge and you share information, and that is a huge part of what IPM is about. You are actually a very strong advocate for IPM without realizing that this is what you are doing.. Renee,, keep doing what you are doing… it doesn’t matter that you don’t call it IPM…. it still does what it should do…. and it helps..
that is my close on this.
Sam

]]> By: Renee Corea http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6442 Renee Corea Fri, 15 May 2009 02:30:09 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6442 Thanks, Sam. Pesticides can be blunt tools, certainly, and I know that many people do unsafe things. We hear about it all the time. This is a real concern. But this is already the situation now. It's already happening, with whatever is available, precisely because people are desperate. There is an interest in reducing the number of infestations, knocking them down quickly, to slow the spread. And I think the history of bed bugs suggests an effective control method is of great importance. But I guess we'll find out. I purposely avoid the word IPM, actually. I know that's not what you want to hear but it's the truth. Thanks, Sam.

Pesticides can be blunt tools, certainly, and I know that many people do unsafe things. We hear about it all the time. This is a real concern. But this is already the situation now. It’s already happening, with whatever is available, precisely because people are desperate. There is an interest in reducing the number of infestations, knocking them down quickly, to slow the spread. And I think the history of bed bugs suggests an effective control method is of great importance. But I guess we’ll find out.

I purposely avoid the word IPM, actually. I know that’s not what you want to hear but it’s the truth.

]]> By: Sam Bryks http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6440 Sam Bryks Fri, 15 May 2009 00:38:25 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6440 Renee, I will try to respond to your questions and explain what I have learned over the years. first regarding the issue of training or specialized training, i never disagreed with this though i do recall stating that a special licence is not necessary as the the good firms make sure their staff are kept updated, and even one man operators who have a sense of professional pride make sure they learn about how to do the job well. As i have noted before, different licences are usually based on the need for specialized technical information such as in termite control, or mosquito control, whereas the general techniques used in bed bug management are part of the general training. Having said that, I do agree that there should be a certifcation process, and an ongoing continuing education process that some U.S. states have now. So i never said that pest control people do not need specialized training, I rather disagreed with the notion that a new licence is going to improve things. It is perhaps a fine distinction. People can study for a new licence but the critical question is "will they do the work professionally and take the time needed?" and in my considered opinion, the licence will not make that happen.. It will happen because of committed firms, because of education of the consumer - especially the property managers, to realize that the lowest price is usually the worst job. I have experienced this for decades and it remains a major problem in pest control in housing, and a new licence will not change that.. I believe that there is a need for a legislated requirement for IPM programs with specific requirements as a matter of addressing the issue of spread that you so well described and Clive Boase has explained in his studies and his insights into the problem. I always need to remember that Clive's first focus was in mosquito control and his work in this of course relates to very dramatic impacts on human populations. Regarding the issue of low or no pesticides. I have never supported a no pesticide strategy in control of pests in structures. After i made my public comments about IPM at the EPA Summit, one of the people representing industry came up to me and asked me point blank if I was against use of pesticides and of course |I said.. no.. and told him that the use of pesticides is part of IPM .. when needed and with the goal of careful targetted use.. I am against unintelligent use of pesticides. And when we speak of banned or removed products, i do have some faith in the scientists in our respective regulatory agencies, though i admit at times we can get frustrated for other reasons.. In Canada, we do not have a lot of the products available in the U.S. and i woiuld sure love to see some products available here for bed bugs and for termites as well.. But when it comes to where the rubber meets the road Renee, i am more for safety and protection of health, so when i heard Allan Caruba's demagoguery and his ridiculous rants against EPA, i know this is pure b.s. Regulation of pesticides is about risk/benefit. And in a case in which there may be a risk that could have dramatic impact on health, i would want regulators to err on the side of safety. For some of the products now banned, i have not seen the detailed reviews, and perhaps that might be an idea for both of us to do on something like Ficam or Baygon. I know clearly that studies in NYC showed dramatic impact of exposure of pregnant women on their children by tests of content of teh pesticide in umbilical cords and comparison to cognifitive measures up the age of 3... That study should shake anyone dealing with pesticides in terms of what it really means to have a product taht is used often to excess..and sometimes by the public.. not professionals. That is why IPM is so critical, because it does not focus on a silver bullet solution as some are wishing to solve this problem in the 21st century.. We need 21st centruy solutions, not dreams of mid 20th century successes (DDT) that subsequently had a major price on the environment. I know that IPM strategies work well.. This is the very kind of material you show such as Stephen Doggetts graphs of spread in a hospital facility. Those charts are very familiar to me as we did those for roaches in many buildings and we treated units on the basis of careful assessment and reduced the use of pesticides sometimes by] as much as 90% (for example if a group was pushing for "total" building treatment for roaches, and we monitored to show that only a few units actually had major infestation), and we reduced use by at least 50% in most cases.. That was about investing time in careful assessment. We have a much tougher situation with bed bugs, but i know with certainty that the only sensible solution is one based on the IPM concept.. and what i read on your web site with activities in various communities shows me that the IPM approach is happening, even if sometimes by other names.. things like common sense... Helping people prepare.. Getting service for people that is done properly. Education.. always education.. i have dozens of stories of the application of this model and i can tell you that it works when it is implemented appropriately.. It is actually a very simple model.. And something you are promoting here in so much of your site... it is learn about the behaviour of the pest, understand its relationship to the specific environment, look at preventive measures that can be useful, educate consumer .. ensure services are well performed... do follow-up and tracking and in the classical quality assurance model, do the review after teh fact to see what can be improved and done better.. The hardest part Renee is convincing the decision makers in purchasing services that paying for professional services is not cheap... it can't be done for $15 a unit for roaches nor for $75 a unit for apartments. and if one is paying a handsome fee for services, managers have to be sure that they are getting a decent service, not just an empty promise.. I hope i have answered your concerns, and if there is anything not clear , i would be very happy to respond.. and if i erred, i always take learning errors as a valuable part of life's education, but at the same time I will defend what i believe with facts and logical sound arguments,., That is why i find the kind of useless diatribe by Allan Caruba to be so offensive.. It is totally empty of real value or common sense, but is based on old cliches and fear tactics. Sam Renee, I will try to respond to your questions and explain what I have learned over the years.
first regarding the issue of training or specialized training, i never disagreed with this though i do recall stating that a special licence is not necessary as the the good firms make sure their staff are kept updated, and even one man operators who have a sense of professional pride make sure they learn about how to do the job well. As i have noted before, different licences are usually based on the need for specialized technical information such as in termite control, or mosquito control, whereas the general techniques used in bed bug management are part of the general training. Having said that, I do agree that there should be a certifcation process, and an ongoing continuing education process that some U.S. states have now. So i never said that pest control people do not need specialized training, I rather disagreed with the notion that a new licence is going to improve things. It is perhaps a fine distinction. People can study for a new licence but the critical question is “will they do the work professionally and take the time needed?” and in my considered opinion, the licence will not make that happen.. It will happen because of committed firms, because of education of the consumer – especially the property managers, to realize that the lowest price is usually the worst job. I have experienced this for decades and it remains a major problem in pest control in housing, and a new licence will not change that.. I believe that there is a need for a legislated requirement for IPM programs with specific requirements as a matter of addressing the issue of spread that you so well described and Clive Boase has explained in his studies and his insights into the problem. I always need to remember that Clive’s first focus was in mosquito control and his work in this of course relates to very dramatic impacts on human populations.
Regarding the issue of low or no pesticides. I have never supported a no pesticide strategy in control of pests in structures. After i made my public comments about IPM at the EPA Summit, one of the people representing industry came up to me and asked me point blank if I was against use of pesticides and of course |I said.. no.. and told him that the use of pesticides is part of IPM .. when needed and with the goal of careful targetted use.. I am against unintelligent use of pesticides.
And when we speak of banned or removed products, i do have some faith in the scientists in our respective regulatory agencies, though i admit at times we can get frustrated for other reasons.. In Canada, we do not have a lot of the products available in the U.S. and i woiuld sure love to see some products available here for bed bugs and for termites as well.. But when it comes to where the rubber meets the road Renee, i am more for safety and protection of health, so when i heard Allan Caruba’s demagoguery and his ridiculous rants against EPA, i know this is pure b.s.
Regulation of pesticides is about risk/benefit. And in a case in which there may be a risk that could have dramatic impact on health, i would want regulators to err on the side of safety. For some of the products now banned, i have not seen the detailed reviews, and perhaps that might be an idea for both of us to do on something like Ficam or Baygon. I know clearly that studies in NYC showed dramatic impact of exposure of pregnant women on their children by tests of content of teh pesticide in umbilical cords and comparison to cognifitive measures up the age of 3… That study should shake anyone dealing with pesticides in terms of what it really means to have a product taht is used often to excess..and sometimes by the public.. not professionals.
That is why IPM is so critical, because it does not focus on a silver bullet solution as some are wishing to solve this problem in the 21st century.. We need 21st centruy solutions, not dreams of mid 20th century successes (DDT) that subsequently had a major price on the environment. I know that IPM strategies work well.. This is the very kind of material you show such as Stephen Doggetts graphs of spread in a hospital facility. Those charts are very familiar to me as we did those for roaches in many buildings and we treated units on the basis of careful assessment and reduced the use of pesticides sometimes by] as much as 90% (for example if a group was pushing for “total” building treatment for roaches, and we monitored to show that only a few units actually had major infestation), and we reduced use by at least 50% in most cases.. That was about investing time in careful assessment. We have a much tougher situation with bed bugs, but i know with certainty that the only sensible solution is one based on the IPM concept.. and what i read on your web site with activities in various communities shows me that the IPM approach is happening, even if sometimes by other names.. things like common sense… Helping people prepare.. Getting service for people that is done properly. Education.. always education..
i have dozens of stories of the application of this model and i can tell you that it works when it is implemented appropriately.. It is actually a very simple model.. And something you are promoting here in so much of your site… it is learn about the behaviour of the pest, understand its relationship to the specific environment, look at preventive measures that can be useful, educate consumer .. ensure services are well performed… do follow-up and tracking and in the classical quality assurance model, do the review after teh fact to see what can be improved and done better.. The hardest part Renee is convincing the decision makers in purchasing services that paying for professional services is not cheap… it can’t be done for $15 a unit for roaches nor for $75 a unit for apartments.
and if one is paying a handsome fee for services, managers have to be sure that they are getting a decent service, not just an empty promise..
I hope i have answered your concerns, and if there is anything not clear , i would be very happy to respond.. and if i erred, i always take learning errors as a valuable part of life’s education, but at the same time I will defend what i believe with facts and logical sound arguments,., That is why i find the kind of useless diatribe by Allan Caruba to be so offensive.. It is totally empty of real value or common sense, but is based on old cliches and fear tactics.
Sam

]]> By: Renee Corea http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6433 Renee Corea Thu, 14 May 2009 21:17:10 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6433 Sam, Thank you for your comment. I will try to explain my own perspective on this. First, it's not just people on the right who politicize the pesticide issue. Second, these are complex issues and I think there is a lot of learning to do about bed bugs, by everyone, the scientists <em>first</em>. And moreover we should start and end with the bed bug. (That's IPM, yes?) Everything else is pretty useless. As for pesticides, my personal feeling is that there should be a pragmatic stance. The bed bug problem is too serious and having too deleterious an impact on people's lives. What is the pesticide load right now in homes that are being treated multiple times (4, 6, 12 and more times) for bed bugs? People are living under highly stressful conditions and vulnerable people, like seniors, are put at risk by the sort of <em>peripheral</em> things that go on during an infestation, such as their care-givers refusing to visit them at home. If there are going to be no pesticides in our society, or no effective pesticides which amounts to nearly the same thing, then are we willing to pay for the alternatives? And what are those alternatives. Some of the solutions that are being proposed are incredibly expensive. Who is going to pay? Isn't there a cost-benefit analysis implicit in IPM? Why is there this reducing pesticide use <em>at all costs</em> mentality? Where did that come from and how does it serve the moment were are living in? It may be unfair to ask such broad-stroke questions of IPM proponents but it is often very difficult for those of us on the outside to discern who means what exactly when they are talking about IPM. Further, if one takes a position that no pesticides should be "brought back" because they were rightfully banned or abandoned in the first place (something I understand is not exactly the case in all instances of lost pesticides), and one simultaneously holds that pest control technicians should not have to receive specialized bed bug training, then what exactly is being proposed? If the (partial) answer is more education, then what is meant by that? Education for tenants and homeowners and schoolteachers and firefighters and building managers and supers and nurses and homeless shelter workers. But <em>not</em> pest control technicians? Sam,

Thank you for your comment. I will try to explain my own perspective on this.

First, it’s not just people on the right who politicize the pesticide issue.

Second, these are complex issues and I think there is a lot of learning to do about bed bugs, by everyone, the scientists first. And moreover we should start and end with the bed bug. (That’s IPM, yes?) Everything else is pretty useless.

As for pesticides, my personal feeling is that there should be a pragmatic stance. The bed bug problem is too serious and having too deleterious an impact on people’s lives. What is the pesticide load right now in homes that are being treated multiple times (4, 6, 12 and more times) for bed bugs? People are living under highly stressful conditions and vulnerable people, like seniors, are put at risk by the sort of peripheral things that go on during an infestation, such as their care-givers refusing to visit them at home.

If there are going to be no pesticides in our society, or no effective pesticides which amounts to nearly the same thing, then are we willing to pay for the alternatives? And what are those alternatives. Some of the solutions that are being proposed are incredibly expensive. Who is going to pay? Isn’t there a cost-benefit analysis implicit in IPM? Why is there this reducing pesticide use at all costs mentality? Where did that come from and how does it serve the moment were are living in? It may be unfair to ask such broad-stroke questions of IPM proponents but it is often very difficult for those of us on the outside to discern who means what exactly when they are talking about IPM.

Further, if one takes a position that no pesticides should be “brought back” because they were rightfully banned or abandoned in the first place (something I understand is not exactly the case in all instances of lost pesticides), and one simultaneously holds that pest control technicians should not have to receive specialized bed bug training, then what exactly is being proposed? If the (partial) answer is more education, then what is meant by that? Education for tenants and homeowners and schoolteachers and firefighters and building managers and supers and nurses and homeless shelter workers. But not pest control technicians?

]]> By: sam bryks http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6432 sam bryks Thu, 14 May 2009 19:41:21 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6432 I have not made too many comments here for a while due to disagreement with Renee about specialized licences for technicians for bed bug treatment that somehow disintegated into something personal which was never my intention. Reading her comment about Clive Boase thoughts on bed bug populations, I think it is time for me to resume comments. As for the disagreement about special training, I was the presenter for the second group at the EPA Bed Bug Summit, and them majority of the pc professionals in my group wanted a separate licencing. I still don't agree but I presented the viewpoint of the majority of course. My thought then as now is that we need to ensure good training for all pc technicians by a certification process. This was also one of recommendations of the second group as an alternative. My reason for supporting this personally is that I know once people get a licence, often the training ends for some... and even with a requirement for another licence it does not guarantee good services. Pest Management is, in my view, a lifelong learning as techniques and new products become available, and as we learn more about the pests we have to control. I have spent far more time in learning after getting my own licences than I did before.. I need to review my materials for certain specialized licences I have when I need to review work (e.g. termite control), so my view is that the industry needs an ongoing recertification process rather than more licences. Of course, others may disagree and that is their prerogative. I am hopeful that whatever the process decided upon it will help. We don't see a new licence here in Toronto , or at least I have not heard of any such intention, and I am really not sure of how the industry here would react to that. I can ask my own association. Renee's review of Clive's paper is quite excellent and while I have not read it yet, I did get this from Clive's earlier publications and I have included this in my training of others as well as in my feedback to the Toronto Bed Bug Project. I think that Clive's concept of a meta-population is nothing short of brilliant even if in hindsight, it is obvious. I think that his characterization as presented by Renee offers a means for municipalities and local government to address the issue from a truly classic IPM approach because the concept of "monitoring" of populations whether in a building or across a municipality is clearly part of the IPM process. Some conservatives in the U.S. notably Allan Caruba have this idiot's view of "inspection doesn't help" and a paranoia about "regulation" with nonsensical attacks on the EPA. I have never heard of pesticide regulation being politicized at this level when it is quite clear that regulation is what protects us, and especially children from the hazards of deregulation, and science is what counts, not political demagoguery for which Caruba is famous. If we only look at the issue of food safety, there is a clear history from the lack of any regulations to the development of regulations to protect people from food poisoning. Regulation based on good science and ethics is what comprises all kinds of protections for people in society.. The kind of work that Clive Boase and others do offers the prospect of control through a properly managed IPM approach with the involvement of government to ensure that bed bug management is based on good science, on standards in housing, on IPM processes provided by IPM Practictioners and scientists... We need to stop the nonsense chatter about bringing back DDT or even more recently banned pesticides, because this won't solve the problem, but will only ensure that the pesticide load in homes increases. I can say this as a professional in pest management (30 years in August this year) who has seen the excesses close up, and who has also seen success by using IPM approaches in a wide range of settings from food industry to hospitality and housing and even hospitals. We need more education. Renee's website offers a truly unbelievable resource, and notwithstanding any disagreements, I have a high regard for her insights.... I was impressed by her submission to the EPA Bed Bug Summit. too bad she could be there.. Sam I have not made too many comments here for a while due to disagreement with Renee about specialized licences for technicians for bed bug treatment that somehow disintegated into something personal which was never my intention. Reading her comment about Clive Boase thoughts on bed bug populations, I think it is time for me to resume comments. As for the disagreement about special training, I was the presenter for the second group at the EPA Bed Bug Summit, and them majority of the pc professionals in my group wanted a separate licencing. I still don’t agree but I presented the viewpoint of the majority of course. My thought then as now is that we need to ensure good training for all pc technicians by a certification process. This was also one of recommendations of the second group as an alternative. My reason for supporting this personally is that I know once people get a licence, often the training ends for some… and even with a requirement for another licence it does not guarantee good services. Pest Management is, in my view, a lifelong learning as techniques and new products become available, and as we learn more about the pests we have to control. I have spent far more time in learning after getting my own licences than I did before.. I need to review my materials for certain specialized licences I have when I need to review work (e.g. termite control), so my view is that the industry needs an ongoing recertification process rather than more licences. Of course, others may disagree and that is their prerogative. I am hopeful that whatever the process decided upon it will help. We don’t see a new licence here in Toronto , or at least I have not heard of any such intention, and I am really not sure of how the industry here would react to that. I can ask my own association.
Renee’s review of Clive’s paper is quite excellent and while I have not read it yet, I did get this from Clive’s earlier publications and I have included this in my training of others as well as in my feedback to the Toronto Bed Bug Project. I think that Clive’s concept of a meta-population is nothing short of brilliant even if in hindsight, it is obvious. I think that his characterization as presented by Renee offers a means for municipalities and local government to address the issue from a truly classic IPM approach because the concept of “monitoring” of populations whether in a building or across a municipality is clearly part of the IPM process. Some conservatives in the U.S. notably Allan Caruba have this idiot’s view of “inspection doesn’t help” and a paranoia about “regulation” with nonsensical attacks on the EPA. I have never heard of pesticide regulation being politicized at this level when it is quite clear that regulation is what protects us, and especially children from the hazards of deregulation, and science is what counts, not political demagoguery for which Caruba is famous. If we only look at the issue of food safety, there is a clear history from the lack of any regulations to the development of regulations to protect people from food poisoning. Regulation based on good science and ethics is what comprises all kinds of protections for people in society..
The kind of work that Clive Boase and others do offers the prospect of control through a properly managed IPM approach with the involvement of government to ensure that bed bug management is based on good science, on standards in housing, on IPM processes provided by IPM Practictioners and scientists… We need to stop the nonsense chatter about bringing back DDT or even more recently banned pesticides, because this won’t solve the problem, but will only ensure that the pesticide load in homes increases. I can say this as a professional in pest management (30 years in August this year) who has seen the excesses close up, and who has also seen success by using IPM approaches in a wide range of settings from food industry to hospitality and housing and even hospitals.
We need more education.
Renee’s website offers a truly unbelievable resource, and notwithstanding any disagreements, I have a high regard for her insights…. I was impressed by her submission to the EPA Bed Bug Summit. too bad she could be there..
Sam

]]> By: Renee catches us up on our bed bug research! http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/2009/05/14/one-more-icup-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-6429 Renee catches us up on our bed bug research! Thu, 14 May 2009 18:44:38 +0000 http://newyorkvsbedbugs.org/?p=2709#comment-6429 [...] to Renee Corea of New York vs. Bed Bugs, we have lots of reading and viewing to catch up [...] [...] to Renee Corea of New York vs. Bed Bugs, we have lots of reading and viewing to catch up [...]

]]>