I have been wanting to write about this for a while but the most credible public proponent of the idea that the great bed bug debacle of the 21st century is all EPA’s fault was Rich Kozlovich who has written two passionate posts on this subject, Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment and The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II, but writing about Kozlovich’s views seemed daunting because he has already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings and, well, what do you do with that, engage, laugh? For someone on the outside, even selective engagement would be acquiescing to the futility and politicizing.
But now Richard Kramer has weighed in on the bed bug summit and I want to think about where this leads.
Dr. Kramer points out the extraordinary expense of controlling bed bug infestations:
One of the basic tenants of IPM is it must be economical. The unfortunate aspect of these devices and techniques is that while effective in killing bed bugs they aren’t economical for pest management professionals and the large majority of their customers. In our geographic area it isn’t uncommon for 50 percent or more of the units in an apartment complex to be infested with bed bugs and considering these complexes have 250 to 1,000 units each, this is a monumental problem and expense for management.
Unfortunately, at this time for most property managers (except those catering to the affluent), the most economical approach to managing bed bug problems is repeated pesticide applications.
And describes the end result of our current situation:
The resurgence of bed bugs and our inability to effectively and economically manage them points out the lack of thinking and planning on the part of EPA and other regulatory organizations. The consequence of their actions has created a situation far worse than the continued availability of organophosphates and carbamates would have. Companies are pumping gallons of insecticides into apartments, treating bedding with insecticides, and tenants and homeowners are making their own applications. The bottom line is people are being overexposed to pesticides in an effort to address the bed bug problem.
Overapplication and overexposure are little-discussed realities and it’s good to see this out in the open.
Dr. Kramer considers the possibility of Section 18 Emergency Exemptions under FIFRA to allow public health use of those lost pesticide classes but thinks it unlikely that manufacturers would seek them and he ends his column with a searing comment:
Perhaps it’s time EPA officials who make these uninformed decisions get out in the field and see the consequences of their “perfect storm” — apartments with thousands of bed bugs, children bitten up and insufficient resources to pay for the designer IPM technologies that only the affluent can afford.
I want to ask about the economies of repeated pesticide applications and to point out that in New York City, by virtue of the density of our living spaces, not even the affluent can escape (at this time but probably not for long) the never-ending bed bug fight. I also want to ask why IPM is equated with “no pesticides” but I already know that is one of the mysteries of the pest control industry that is apparently not open to people like me.
Jessica likes to tell me that the bed bug situation in our cities “is what it is” (guess she can’t take the whining). What I take this to mean is that we should look for practical solutions to our problems. So we should take a look at what the EPA actually said at the National Bed Bug Summit, yes?
This is the recorded presentation of Lois Rossi and Kevin Sweeney (wmv format).
Kevin Sweeney:
There are new modes of action that are registered and most of these reside in agriculture, currently, and I think what needs to be done now [...] we screen these new compounds for their efficacy against bed bugs [...] and really look for new tools [...] and to do that we really need to encourage industry to work with us to do this because without them we really can’t move forward on this, I mean they have to do the research together with the universities to bring these existing active ingredients from agriculture into residential areas as well as research new AIs or new active ingredients that can be used in residential settings.
So I suppose this is the place where we have to ask whether this is financially viable for the manufacturers and where we usually receive a negative answer. So, let’s change the question. How can this be achieved? Is there another model? Are there non-profit alternatives — although here we come face to face with the other small problem we have, and that is that nobody cares. But if bed bugs are public health pests (and they are) who is going to end the leadership vacuum? And couldn’t this be the greatest public relations coup after all? Is that not enough to entice their involvement? At this point I don’t really care. I just hope someone will stand up and say “this is my job.”
These pages may be of related interest:
- The heart of the EPA National Bed Bug Summit: the group discussion
- This way to the apocalypse? No, just deep pockets, multiple contractors and a steep learning curve
- Franklin County October Bed Bug Summit, notes from OPCA
- “This may be the problem that puts the family into crisis”
- Landlord education (somewhere else): “be a resource for your tenants”
{ 1 trackback }
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
This notion of blaming the EPA for the bed bug resurgence because of removal of certain pesticides after careful risk reviews and then telling how this is worse because of heavier use of pesticides is truly incrediulous to those who know the industry well. The likelihood would have been that even with the old products available, that infestation would still have occurred. This is a curious situation in which it seems as if one is saying better to use the old more dangerous products even though history has shown that heavy usage will occur with those as much as with the newer less toxic products. It seems as if professionals quicky forget that the most common technique of roach control 25 years ago and now making a comeback in some locations was heavy application of spray products, and even with the innovations of crack and crevice as refined by Whitmire, for example were little used by most pest control firms because of the cost against competition. This idea that IPM is no pesticides is just not reality. The goal of IPM is to provide cost-effective and safe control through reduction (not banning) use of pesticides.
it is certainly not the fault of EPA, i know that they have been trying hard to support and promote IPM because of the clear benefit to health of people and especially childrenj, and EPA has been working to partner with NPMA to support IPM approaches as THE WAY to do it right. The EPA Summit got it right in all the elements needed to solve the problem, and it means all stakeholders working together. People like David Cain, Clive Boase, Dini Miller of Virginia Tech, Stephen Kells out of UM and others look at solutions that work. This notion that IPM and a goal of reducing use of pesticides by better control strategies, prevention and the “smarts” associated with IPM are somehow “green extreme” is totally off the mark. IPM is really the centre.. the glue, the framework that makes control work. Without this, we are left with a haphazard old style of overkill that has sadly been the hallmark of pest control in too many instances.. This is the strategy of spraying school classrooms, halls and lockers after hours or on weekends as a so called preventive strategy when most of the insecticide either did nothing other than contaminate the school or killed occasional insects of little consequence. The targets might have been ants or roaches. It has clearly been shown there are better ways to handle this. The same applies to roaches. David Cain tells me his firm has done 11,000 bed bug jobs since 2005 and has never had a problem of failure of control due ot resistance, and has never advised to throw out furniture. He wouldn’t tell me what he uses nor his detail of techniques, but i can easily imagine smart uses of products… and meticulous detail of treatments. And of course, i think we all are learning that early detection and early treatment are the keys to good control so it comes back to education and support for preparation, as well as the classic knowledge base of IPM.. Clive and David’s focus on history of infestation in blocks in London, much like Doggett’s study of infestation in buildings are also key elements of what IPM is about…
Blaming EPA is absolute nonsense in my view. I have said it before and say it again.. it is about a scientific method of approach to control and we call that IPM.
Sorry i forget to mention Richard Cooper, Michael Potter, and so many others who are working on better solutions and sharing knowledge of research on bed bug biology.
A lot of folks out there putting together the bigger picture and i know that the knowledge of bed bug behaviour has increased dramatically since 2004. I was in the forefront of speaking to tenant groups with what we knew then and now i find that the bigger picture is much clearer than it was.. But there is still a lot of ignorance and ostrich posture hiding head in the sand (probably a bad representation of ostriches). The costs are humungous and sometimes it is just plain overkill and overcharging by some firms developing a marketing niche as well as cases of very poor services in which the price paid is really a throwaway.
is it the quality of technicians ? yes and no… firms define how their staff perform, and sometimes poor techs find jobs with firms that work on volume rather than quality, and it is not merely small firms. I have seen this close up over the years both inside and outside of the industry as a q.c. manager and as a client. We also need to educate the consumer how to protect themselves against bad services.
Sam
I’m not sure that there is evidence that supports this. We don’t know. A key reason for the spread is the failure to control infestations. Infestations that are not treated successfully or of very long duration necessarily risk further spread.
I think we need to come to terms with this, that in fact people are living with bed bugs and pesticides and can escape neither under the current situation. I personally know people who have had bed bugs for more than a year and have been living with pesticides in their home all that time. There are many people in NYC who have been living with bed bugs for much longer than a year. Early detection and preparation are crucial but are also irrelevant in the cases I’m thinking of. You can detect and prepare and still you must be able to kill the bed bugs. What these cases all have in common is that there has been no way, in all those useless and ceaseless treatments, to kill all the bed bugs.
Control methods are very much part of the equation and the absolute need for better control methods cannot be deemphasized. There is only one way to get rid of bed bugs with the currently available control methods; a highly trained bed bug technician can eradicate an infestation with virtually whatever is at hand.
While David is perhaps the most famous of such specialists, given that he will not discuss his methods, I’m not sure that invoking his approach to the problem is helpful. He won’t share information about how he does it. What we have learned from other successful PCOs who do share their methods is that they place a premium on inspection. So, do you still think developing the skills of PCOs will have no effect? The good PCOs can eradicate infestations with whatever we have available. So, then. Isn’t it worth exploring whether increasing the distribution of highly skilled PCOs would have an impact? In NYC in particular there is a dire need for better training for PCOs. It’s not simply that there are unprofessional PCOs or PCOs who are not paid enough to do a good job, there is simply a surfeit of people who don’t know what they’re doing when it comes to bed bugs. They haven’t been taught. Getting these people up to speed would do a lot of good.
Either way you are looking at a lot of money. That nobody has.
So, I understand Dr. Kramer’s point and do not dismiss it. I just think it doesn’t lead anywhere particularly useful. So, looking at what the EPA said, if that is not a ‘call us and we’ll talk’ I don’t know what is. I hope there is a way to develop new active ingredients or repurpose the old ones or the ones in agriculture. Technology is the (as ever, partial) answer here.
Renee, as always this is a complex issue involving lots of people.
Would the bugs have resurged if the old products were still around?
Of course no one has a definitive answer to that.. But looking at the history of insect resistance to pesticides, it is not unlikely. There was an amazing review paper years ago in American Entomologist about the history of control of the Colorado potato beetle. To make a long story short, it took some generations before the beetles developed resistance to modern pesticides, but once they did – control became difficult. The German cockroach, still the most prevalent structural pest has amazing capabilities of resistance…. it doesn’t mean that direct contact will not kill them, but in the context of their behaviour and the lack of proper treatment, of course, they are very hard and hard to control. And with roaches, if not resistance to actives, (such as in baits), well, they won’t feed on the baits due to selection for avoidance, hence behaviourial or aversion resistance that is genetically based. So we should not be surprised at bed bugs resistance. When treating in an urban environment we are always concerned about balancing the risk of the pesticides to people and the effectiveness against pests. That is what EPA and our PMRA are about. Americans were luck that their FDA refused to allow thaldiomide to be used due to concerns .. (I don’t know the history in detail), whereas many other countries allowed the product and you know the impact . That was result of incomplete or insufficent studies on the potental teratogenic effect of thalidomide on pregnant women when used to reduce morning sickness.
i have always supported good training and this has been part of my job for 30 years in this business. But the harsh reality is that the industry is made up of many different types of people and of companies, and some have very high standards of performance and some do not. And it isn’t always the small guy who does bad work.. it can be large firms as well. I have seen that more than once in the field . We used to drum up business by showing the failures of competitors. It wasn’t hard unless there was a good tech, and then the client would fire the firm if the tech moved to another firm, because of the development of a relationship of trust. But on the other side, i have seen firms being fired even though they did excellent work because of competition on price alone.
So it comes back to education…. Educating homeowners and tenants, property managers and pest control firms and their staff. And it requires standards and enforcement. I too often see people who think it is so easy.. and for them it comes down to .. see pest, spray it or bait for it and end of story.. Both bed bugs and roaches show it is hardly that easy. Yes, we need good products but it is more than that. I have had some intereting discussion with David Cain, and I can tell you he is a classic IPM practictioner = he guards his methodology because he doesn’t want to let his competition take his methods without crediting him. that happens more often than one can imagine. I don’t blame him. I have shared my knowledge of IPM in Housing with neophytes who needed a vehicle for their personal aggrandissment and after i had shared knowledge i found they came out with “manuals” that were flawed in many elements, but found an audience. This frustrates me because in some ways it hinders real development of solid strategies of control even though much of the content is plain common sense, but achieving sustainable control and minimizing use of pesticides is the real art of pest management and of IPM. Some practictioners like Bobby Corrigan who is expert in rodent control have raised their art in this and reputation to a level that they are hired to solve major problems from desperation, and the methodology is not rocket science, but it is application of solid methodology and planning and plain hard work. That’s what we do. That’s what David Cain does, and Clive Boase and Richard Cooper in addressing the overall problem. This is not about rants about banned products as magical elexirs. Certainly we need better products and hopefully research into the biology of bed bugs will give us better products and strategies, but the bottom line still comes down to how people do things, and it necessitates standards and regulations and enforcement. Without all fo these, as outlined in the EPA Summit, bed bugs are here to stay for decades, and those organizations that enable implementation of good IPM programs will have excellent control and others won’t. If all the elements are implemented and the standards and regulations and enforcement happens, then bed bugs will again become rare..
Sam
Dear Renee,
I have just become aware of your site and I will put you in my favorites. Having said that I would like to add my views to this posting. I would also like to correct one of your statements in that I have already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings. Actually I have divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains, Quislings and Churchills. Every organization is divided in this manner; appeasers, traitors or defenders.
There are some other points that I would like to address.
First of all, I am the world’s foremost expert on IPM in structural pest control. Why? Because it doesn’t exist! IPM is an agricultural concept based on threshold limits which was first outlined in 1959 in an agricultural science journal known as the Hilgardia, (Hilgardia 29: 81-101, 1959).
The driving purpose behind IPM was economic; a certain amount of pests do a certain amount of economic damage and a certain amount of pesticide cost so much money. When the numbers or pests created an economic imbalance then it was cost effective to spray. That is what IPM really is. However the cost of monitoring fields is so expensive it isn’t really practiced in agriculture where it really can be properly defined.
Since then the term IPM has been defined and redefined until it is unrecognizable, but the goal is the irrational elimination of pesticides. However the basic principle of IPM is now and has always been based on threshold limits. Since the threshold limit for pests such as rats, mice, roaches and or course, bedbugs is zero….then it is pest control…..there is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control other than the fact that the government says it exists. So we are stuck with it, but it is still pest control and our goal is elimination…period….and if anyone doubts that just ask any customer how many pests are acceptable in their homes or businesses.
I am not sure what “This notion of blaming the EPA for the bed bug resurgence because of removal of certain pesticides after careful risk reviews and then telling how this is worse because of heavier use of pesticides is truly incrediulous (sic) to those who know the industry well”, really means. There was no careful risk reviews. The FQPA changed the rules and forced manufactures to take their products of the market for finalcial reasons. the manufacturer of Ficam was being forced to do re-registration testing, which was prohibitively expensive, so they just gave up and pulled their registration….there was no “careful risk reviews”.
I know the industry extremely well and I believe that can be substantiated by the prominent people in our industry. We don’t always agree, but no one who “really” knows the industry well, will dispute this. Furthermore, virtually everyone that I talk to, including Michael Potter, agrees that the elimination of whole categories of pesticides by the EPA is the reason we are facing this plague, so I am not sure who he is talking about.
As for the idea that this would have happened anyway is a fallacy of composition, and the only reason that this is now such a complex issue is because EPA created this issue. We still have to come to the real crux of the matter. Were bedbugs a huge problem in this country before DDT? The answer is yes. Has the problem resurged since EPA forced so many chemical off the market? Yes! Telling everyone that pests become resistant to pesticides is an irrelevant aside. Chemistry is still the answer. Vacuuming, steaming and all the other tools (which I have used with varying successes) are inadequate tools, and I serious misgivings about someone who claims to have 100% success and refuses to explain how it is done. It gives me pause as to just what he is doing. Do we have another Litulis Kilgore in the making?
Another aspect that is usually ignored is what I call the Kilgore Canundrum. Those who know that industry well know what that means. If you are unaware, you may e-mail me at [ElKoz AT juno DOT com -Ed.] for the answer, or perhaps wait for someone else to post he answer.
Recently there was as study released regarding IPM and bedbug control in a large apartment complex and touted as a great IPM success. The costs averaged around five hundred a unit. This is insane and unsustainable. Chemistry is that answer…period. I was in 1946 when and it is now.
Perhaps we can “laugh” over this together and then “engage” in some useful dialogue. If you would like to post an article on my blog, Paradigms and Demographics, please let me know.
Best wishes,
Rich Kozlovich
Hi Rich, thank you for your comment.
I will have more thoughts I expect but I just wanted to say for now that I believe that EPA is showing leadership now. Whether it is late or not, it is necessary as the situation is indeed dire, and I want to hang on to the hope that they will be able to do just that, lead.
As for IPM, it’s too complex and politicized a debate for me to engage. I will have to write for an explanation of the Kilgore comment, however.
It’s been hard to smile this week and your pointing out my Churchill omission did the trick, so thanks for that.
Dear Renee,
I actually have a 30 page IPM White Paper that I have been working on for a couple of years. It is about 10 pages shy of what I want to accomplish for two reasons; the issues keep changing, and I realized that I didn’t organize it properly so I pushed it to the side….for quite a while now.
If you are in pest control it wouldn’t have mattered, but someone outside of the industry would have difficulty following the flow….and it didn’t flow the way I wanted. Perhaps I will have it completed this winter. If so, I will let you know and send you a copy.
I think that as you walk your way through these issues you will find that dealing with those who have drunk the Kool-Aid and now live in the fever swamps of the Green Movement keep changing the “threshold” of every issue and it almost becomes a Sisyphean task dealing with them. They don’t really want to resolve anything…because without scares they are out of business…
The EPA caused this problem with the Food Quality Act. Carol Browner was the Administrator under Clinton at the time. The current administrator, Lisa Jackson, was one of her circle of activist bureaucrats. What we are seeing now is a Browner redux and it is unlikely that their “leadership”, or manning the tiller if you will, will cause any change in direction unless they are forced to by circumstances that place the blame at their feet. Bureaucrats will always be bureaucrats and the first rule of bureaucracy is CYA.
As for the Kilgore Conundrum…..that was a test. I will send you the information via private e-mail. I assume that the address that came to me will go directly to you.
Also, I was serious about allowing you to publish an article on by blog. It is well read in pest control circles and you have demonstrated an obvious concern for the facts and seem prepared to follow them no matter where they lead. And you are well mannered.
Best wishes,
Rich Kozlovich
Looking at Mr. Koslovich posts, I am truly baffled by his lack of insight and his ridiculous notion of IPM not existing in the structural pest control sector. I have never heard of the fallacy of composition, and i have checked this on a long list of fallacious arguments, many of which Mr. Koslovich uses .. just one example
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness):
refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.
I didn’t have the time to copy and paste all the other fallacious arguments demonstrated by him in his posts.
First, IPM is a methodology derived from agriculture and well used in structural pest control for the last three decades with powerful demonstrations of benefit. I have used this in practice through the sound concepts of pest knowledge and understanding of the pest environment in and about structures (pest ecosystems) and applying this to sensible methods of prevention through education, and practical application including monitoring (hello!!!!) to enable reduction of the old terrible methods of treating apartments three times a year for roaches as a standard practice (Boston Housing used to do that inhouse…… in the 70’s and 80’s. ). I have used decision rules for treatment according to classic IPM strategies and it works!!, and this nonsensical argument presented by Mr. Koslovich doesn’t just border on the ludicrous and ridiculous.. it IS LUDICROUS. The fallacy is one of presuming that if one aspect of an approach doesn’t work, then the entire approach is useless. I know that Michael Potter has spoken of the need to bring back old products or a new effective product due to resistance, but I can tell you that he rarely puts much emphasis on IPM or the systematics of IPM though when i comment on this to him, he agrees with the importance.. Koslovich using Michael Potter as the authority for the need for bringing back products is another form of fallacious argument because this does not refute the logic or the usefujlness of IPM by even one little bit,, the whole argument is fallacious..
History has shown that there is always reaction to regulation by industry. I have heard speakers at NPMA conferences, old timers vilifying Rachel Carson, now more than 40 years after her death.. Her impact by one popular book simply warning of overuse of pesticides is still reviled by some people in industry..
When we had lots of products for roach control.. dursban and diazinon and baygon, and even chlordane, they did not achieve good control… not in restaurants, not in housing, and this was not because the products didn’t have effect.. it was about the overall approach.. lack of attention to p;revention and poor services.. |I remember “Bugs Burger” who gave ironclad warranties to hotel industry and to fast food, but his people would literally “SOAK” down a place, and he would fire his cients if they didn’t follow recommendations. Orkin bought him out more than 25 years ago..
These disingenuous arguments about IPM not being real are nonsensical ……….. while someitmes our bureaucracies of regulation can create hoops in their care of regulation, when they do risk assessments, this is based on protecting the health of citizens and there is sufficient evidence to validate this… So we must heed their recommendations and review their findings on a scientific basis, not on some nonsensical fallacy that they are politically driven.. that is not their job.. the notion of chamberlains, quislings and churchills is as political as you can get. and this is something that should not enter into arguments about best practices or about risk assessments of pesticides.. Another example of fallacious argument.
Give me a break!!!! We don’t need this kind of nonsense.. We need to support best practices, and find ways to solve the problem through education and through accountability and by reducing spread, by early treatment and by support of the disadvantaged..
Anyone who has a grounding in real science and in practical approaches will reject this nonsense by Koslovich..
If there are arguments about risk, well, let’s see the scientific studies. My experience in the real world tells me that in the absence of good practices and education of all stakeholders, we will have overapplication of pesticides, and put children at risk.. The studies are there to show this.. Otherwise, you might as well believe all the snake=oil claims out there for products that will solve the problem miraculously. We need an industry that is grounded in science not in political drivel as written by Koslovich. I give it no more than that.
i would be happy to review his treatise with the confidence that much of it is unsupported by real facts, and give credit where it is due.
well, it deserves honest appraisal, but reading what he has written so far, i don’t have high expectations of the quality of his arguments.
i am truly sorry for that, but i can’t help it after reading this stuff.l
Sam Bryks M.Sc. B.C.E.
Toronto, Canada
Dear Mr. Bryks,
First of all my name is spelled with a “z” not an “s”. As for being pigheaded or dogged….well, perhaps that is in the eyes of the beholder; history is replete with dogged pigheaded people who have stood against the tide and have been proven right by the greatest test of them all…time. If they are wrong; then time will prove that out also. The only thing that we already know for sure is that one will be called courageous and the other a fool! I am willing to stand that test and take my chances.
The only area in which IPM is a methodology is in agriculture and it is too expensive to practice there. Once again….it doesn’t exist in structural pest control because IPM is based on threshold limits and the threshold limit in structures is zero. Abraham Lincoln once asked; if you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have? He said the correct answer was four because calling a tail a leg doesn’t change the fact that it is still a tail. Calling various techniques in structural pest control IPM doesn’t make it IPM.
IPM in structural pest control is an ideology…it is not a methodology. Monitoring, understanding the pests environment, educating the customer, and practical applications of pesticides has always been a part of pest control going back to the 1850’s. That is pest control, it is not IPM.
As for the “old terrible methods” of treatment…..Why were they so terrible? Pesticides brought about advances in the human condition that can’t be praised enough. We live longer. We are healthier. We have better conditions than ever before in human history and pesticides have been a major part of that story. The only areas of the world that live in dystopia are those areas of the world where pesticides and the progress that pesticides and technology bring are not being practiced, and many times because of following greenie policies. .
As for saying that I said anything about monitoring, alternative methods, repair, public education or any of the other tools of pest control not working; either you are being obtuse or deliberately misrepresenting my views. What I say is that this isn’t IPM…it is pest control, and there is no such thing as “classic rules” for IPM unless it is being practiced in agriculture. If these alleged rules were so “classical” then there wouldn’t have been so many definitions from so many different sources.
Every state that requires IPM standards goes through this process of trying to define IPM and what it means! Why is that so if the rules are so “classical”? I have been a part of this process myself, and there is a reason for that. Simply stated; IPM is not a structural pest control concept….it is an agricultural concept. Let’s not lose sight of reality. The whole purpose and the goal of those pushing IPM is to encourage the elimination of pesticides by being able to say “we don’t need pesticides because we have IPM.” And that isn’t irrational or ludicrous; that is a fact.
As for using Mike Potter as my authority…the only reason I brought Mike into this conversation is because you already had done so by saying; (“Sorry i forget to mention Richard Cooper, Michael Potter, and so many others who are working on better solutions and sharing knowledge of research on bed bug biology.”) inferring that he didn’t think that the elimination of certain pesticides by EPA was the problem. It is true that Mike is working on solutions, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t understand reality.
As for the idea that history has shown that industry has shown a resistance to regulations infers that industry is wrong and the bureaucrats are right. Resistance to folly doesn’t make folly right, and Rachel Carson deserved the vilification she received from the industry. The rationale regarding Chamberlain, Quisling and Churchill has nothing to do with politics, it is an historical illustration to demonstrate that every organization, including pest control, is filled with appeasers, traitors and defenders and that everyone one of us fits into one of those categories. How did this illustration become “politics” to you? But to then go on to suggest that politics has no place in this discussion is irrational. Politics by the greenies and their acolytes in government and industry is behind this entirely; not science. And for someone to point this out is absolutely germane to the whole story of modern pest control.
I am not quite sure why Bugs Burger enters into this conversation because he was very successful in eliminating pests with his approach, which undermines your argument about old pesticide application techniques not working. And Orkin didn’t buy him out, it was Johnson Wax who did and changed the name to Prism. They then later sold it to Orkin.
We seem to have a problem of determining risk levels here. Misapplication of pesticides can put everyone in risk, not just children, but that risk is miniscule compared to the risk of eliminating pesticides, which will put everyone, including children, at a far greater risk. As for the “drivel” and lack of science that you claim that I spew out….I invite everyone to visit my blog. Paradigms and Demographics, (just Google it…it will come up first on the list) and determine for themselves as to whether my views are unfounded or not. One thing said by you that I am sure is correct. You have never heard of the fallacy of composition.
Rich Kozlovich, Exterminator
Dear Rich,
I apologize for misspelling your name. It was an accident in the heat of furious keyboarding.
My reference to pigheaded was an actual fallacy of argument, and if it applied by context, as I perceive your flawed argument and no actual fallacy of composition that i could find, it was in the form of how arguments sometimes go. Churchill was famous for his quips, and I am afraid that I am not up to his capabilties in that aspect, but i do try.
There is a difference of course between the fallacy of pigheadeness and one of standing up for principles and facts. When Banting and Best presented their findings about insulin and diabetes in the British Medical Journal, one of the most famous members of the American Diabetic Society, a former president of that august body, dismissed their findings as nonsense. Sadly, all he accomplished was to make himself a fool in his reaction to these two Canadian upstarts working out of a hot attic in the University of Toronto with very limited funds making one of the most dramatic medical breakthroughs of the 20th century. They were certainly not pigheaded. We need to be clear about the distinction between fighting for a solid grounded concept based in facts and resisting reality. This is not pig headedness as you would describe it. It may have stubbornness in it, but not pigheadedness.
And there is a distinction between courage and folly. Folly is to die for nothing. Courage is to risk death for high ideals.
Many would argue against your principle of comparing terminology of IPM in agriculture to that in Structural pest control and say one is and one isn’t IPM.
There are thresholds in structural as well.. The threshold in a unit should always zero, but realistically, a threshold in a building as an ideal of zero is great, but practically it is often never achieved such as in roach control. And this can vary from type of structure to type of structure depending on a variety of conditions, but to say that IPM doesn’t exist in structural pest control remains nonsense in my view. I have used it, done it practiced it.. with numbers and calculations and demonstrable results. Let’s be clear about this.
Your argument is a pure fallacy — and just because one situation is different than another in practical terms (i.e. agriculture vs structural pest control) does not mean that the concept and the practices of IPM cannot be applied.
Your calling LIncoln as an authority on nomenclature is funny of course. But if something looks like a tail and is used for support, just because it is a tail doesn’t mean it can’t be used for support. The kangaroo is a good example of a tail being used as something like a leg….. not a leg, but sort of like a leg..
In the case of IPM in structural pest control, it is not like IPM — IT IS IPM.
not dependency on pesticides along, but using various methods as defined in IPM.. and assessment and inspecitons, and evaluations.. all elements of IPM..
Hey Rich, if it has 99% of the features of IPM , perhaps you might concede it is IPM. After all, an 8 x 10 view camera as used by Ansel Adams was a camera… It used huge negatives and was made of wood.. but it was a camera.. The new cameras don’t even use film as such and have zero wood in them, but THEY ARE STILL CAMERAS….. THEY TAKE PICTURES.. AND IPM is intended to do smart pest management and reduce use of pesticides.. This is a logical and balanced argument and it refutes your denial quite fully an completely.. Live with it..
It is not an ideology.. It is a professional practice with methodology. Your argument is mostly ideology and little methodology and it is not logical. This is not child’s play RIch. I have been at this too long and studied it and learned from field experience to allow you to demean the concept and the philosophy. Not ideology.. though we could argue what ideology actually means. It has the meaning of an idee fixee, as in those who would argue the point beyond reason, or it is a belief system grounded in reason. If we take ideology in the context of religious ideals, or moral positions based on fixed sources such as biblical references, then you can have ideology at worse.. and at extreme that is what fascism was about. Half baked bad ideas outside of moral consideration, and grounded in a kind of pseudo-Darwinian survival of the fittest interpretation. We don’t want to revert to that kind of horrible ideological bent, but base arguments on facts and on results and on best practices intended, as in Marcos great definition of IPM, to benefit society and the environment. That should be the ideal. Do the best we can, and do no harm as much as we can, except of course to eliminate organisms that threaten our well being .
your reference ot pest control practices in the 1950’s and prior to the 70’s is unrealistic for the most part (not entirely). The olden days you refer to had little or no education of the public, except perhaps in isolated cases as driven by the very authorities you vilify. The food protection acts in Britain and the U.S. were driven by poisoning as was the urgency of managing water due to a typhus outgreak in London England back in the 1600’s or 1700’s. Driven by scientists who proved the risks and by legislation to ensure protection was afforded the public.
Certainly the NPCA set standards and ideals starting at hte beginning, but if you know the industry, many many firms did not follow these practices very well. A lot of lip service. I know this factually. I have seen it close up.. so please don’t preach to me about how Pest Control embraces all these elements and we can’t called it Integrated Pest Management. Spraying of pesticides in schools did not include the elements you preach about classical peset control and IPM DOES!~
Why were the methods so terrible? The reason is driven by money.. Low quotes for public housing pest control. and the result was repetitive spraying. REALITY…
that is fact.. no argument.. it takes principles of IPM to change that.. and it is slowly happening all over the place….. in spite of your really silly claims here.. Get real Rich…. your argument is devoid of logic and is fallacious by more informal fallacies than i have time to present here.
I don’t argue the benefits of longer life in our society, but this has to be seen in the bigger context.. It is about regulation of food, and of good water, and of destruction of vectors .. pest control has been a very major part of this.. no doubt of that whatsoever, but it comes back to the risk / benefit aspect. There is a risk to polio vaccine, but the risk of polio is greater.. Now we don’t have polio in North America or Europe, no one is getting the vaccine.. NO ONE..
The same applies to applicaitons of pesticide.. it is a matter of when and why and how…. and if we can reduce risk.. and gain benefit.. great!!!!
the risk of malaria remains high, but this is not so much from discontinuation from use of DDT as the mosquitoes were developing resistance, as it is more making netting available, and dealing with breeding sites, and also due to resistance of the parasite itself to medicaiton and in some cases, not having treatment available due to economic considerations. It is not the simplistic argument about reduction in use of some pesticides or DDT as some would like to make histrionics about..
There are classic approaches to IPM in structural pest control and well known…
no point in teaching it to you here.. I don’t have the time.
I have never heard a proponent of IPM from EPA or respected researchers say .. IPM is about getting rid of pesticides altogether, but if i have a situation in which i can achieve control without pesticides, believe me I will do it and not use pesticides as a matter of GOOD PRACTICE.. and there are quite a few situations like that..
I have heard complaints about regulations for a long time. And my point about Rachel Carson remains.. Time Magazine considered her to be one of themost significant people in the world in the 20th century and recognized her for her achievements in alerting to risk and I respect her for that … The industry rants about her are so low and stupid as to be almost unimaginable.. Let it go… she’s been dead for 40 years and more people respect her than not..
She will remain an icon for common sense and sensibiity and a supporter of use of pesticides within the context of the risk management assessment. There are loads of horror stories about industry causing damages to people. Look at MInimata and Erin Brocovitch.. real stories.. Let’s not have our industry in that bad light.. We need to have proper stewardship of use and sensibility and the framework is IPM… i know you don’t like it, but get used to it.. it is the way of the future, and it is how we will get the bed bug situation under control. Pesticides are only part of the total picture..
Your use of the Chamberlain Quisling Churchill metaphor was demagoguery and if that ain’t politics, I don’t know what is. You want to characterize your opponents with these labels rather than face the reality of sound and strong irrefutable arguments.. Just take your medicine and learn Rich.
I did err in the Bugs Burger story.. My point is that at the time, he did all he had to do to solve the problem in the absence of other approaches, but he made the client responsible. I do not subscribe to his methods today, but I remember him chiding the industry for their bs practices in not solving the problem and being fully accountable and making the client accountable. I think some are doing that in hotel bed bug management because of the risk to business and threat of litigation.
I will be happy to check out your web site once more. I did once to see the argument against IPM that REnee had told me you held, and I felt then that this was a nonsensical argument, though I did respect a lot of the material about ecosystems.
I have been practicing IPM in structural pest control now for about 28 years, though perhaps I didn’t take on the term until about 4 or 5 years into my career in pest management, but I used the concept in my work and i faced lots of hot situations and my fortune in having a good education in science and some wonderful teachers enabled me to use common sense and sound reasoning in solving pest problems without playing the blame game that is sometimes the common practice in this industry.. client blames company and company blames client. I still see that happening,. It is about accountabilty.. and doing the right thing.. When i present facts to clients about a situation or to contractors.. such as why a rat infestation got into structure, it is based on facts.. and on who should have done what, and why not, and how to solve the problem now as quickly as possible. and then a learned lesson for all…… because the lesson learned is part of the education of IPM…
the frame work of it works in structural pest control most wonderfully and it is a strong concept supported by many smart people..
You can join Rich.. not too late..
Sam
Dear Mr. Bryks,
First off, I find it remarkable that you have only recently discovered that what you have been doing right along has in reality been IPM. That alone strengthens my argument that:
1.IPM is merely pest control and doesn’t truly exist in structural pest control as some different from of structural pest control.
2. Can’t be properly defined or recognized in a structural pest control situation.
3. That IPM is so broad as they are attempting to apply it to structural pest control that it allows for IPM to be defined and redefined unendingly to suit some new philosophical flavor of the day.
Almost twenty years ago I was director of training at a company that implemented an IPM program in a school system in the Cleveland, Ohio area; the first in Ohio and probably most of the country. Most people had never even heard of IPM twenty years ago, including people at the EPA who are big promoters of it, and one of the EPA Region Five people admitted that to me when I confronted him.
In reality, it wasn’t really IPM any more than any of these other so-called IPM programs are. They are in reality anti-pesticide programs, because that is what the radicals in the community wanted. That is not IPM. IPM is an agricultural concept…period. The only reason to make such demands is because pesticides, properly applied, are causing health problems. That isn’t just a logical fallacy….it is a factually fallacy.
We may be calling it IPM; but it was not in the past, it is not now, and it will not be in the future. The only reason it exists in structural pest control is because the government says it exists. So spare me any admonition about coming around. I have been around this issue longer than most, including these grant chasers who go around the country promoting it.
Based on your comments I wonder if you really understand the concept of “threshold limits”. One thing that is patently obvious; you don’t have a clue as to the origins of IPM, (of which you are so passionate about) nor are you capable of understanding anything that I am saying.
Your lines of logic are truly amazing.
Allow me to expand your views regarding the Fallacy of Composition, which is commonly found among those arguments used to promote irrational green policies, including IPM. Along with the Fallacy: Ignoring a Common Cause, Fallacy: Misleading Vividness, Fallacy: Personal Attack, Fallacy: Poisoning the Well, Fallacy: Post Hoc, Fallacy: Questionable Cause, Fallacy: Red Herring and quite frankly, those who have drunk the Kool-Aid and now live in the Green Fever Swamps violate most of the fallacious arguments. However, those who may be accused of the Fallacy of Doggedness aren’t always incorrect.
Fallacy: Composition
________________________________________
Description of Composition
The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).
The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the “reasoning” would look something like this.
1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.
This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.
It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.
The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of “reasoning” would be as follows:
1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.
That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.
It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.
Examples of Composition
1. A main battle tank uses more fuel than a car. Therefore, the main battle tanks use up more of the available fuel in the world than do all the cars.
2. A tiger eats more food than a human being. Therefore, tigers, as a group, eat more food than do all the humans on the earth.
3. Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.
4. “Every player on the team is a superstar and a great player, so the team is a great team.” This is fallacious since the superstars might not be able to play together very well and hence they could be a lousy team.
5. “Each part of the show, from the special effects to the acting is a masterpiece. So, the whole show is a masterpiece.” This is fallacious since a show could have great acting, great special effects and such, yet still fail to “come together” to make a masterpiece.
6. “Come on, you like beef, potatoes, and green beens, so you will like this beef, potato, and green been casserole.” This is fallacious for the same reason that the following is fallacious: “You like eggs, ice cream, pizza, cake, fish, jello, chicken, taco sauce, soda, oranges, milk, egg rolls, and yogurt so you must like this yummy dish made out of all of them.”
7. Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.
Regards,
Rich Kozlovich, Exterminator
Rich, if you don’t mind my calling you by first name and i extend that courtesy to you if you so choose, … i do appreciate the piece on the fallacy of composition. I should have researched this more carefully. I didn’t find it listed on the list i found on the net, so i appeciate the education on that. So, i yield on that point.
Rich said “you have only recently discovered that what you have been doing right along has in reality been IPM. That alone strengthens my argument ”
Sam says.. your point here is completely inaccurate on both statements you make. I never said that I only recently discovered lPM. You misread what i wrote totally.. and it hardly strengthens your argument by any means.
I don’t want to write a four page exposition here again. This is really becoming a lot like arguing with someone who supports creationism as an argument to refute Darwin’s insightful understanding of evolution. I don’t think that cluttering the pages of newyorkvsbedbugs is going to serve the cause.
notwithstanding my accepting that there is indeed a fallacy of composition, i still find your arguments against IPM to be fallacious and empty of value, and steeped in political context and accusations.
the common elements in agricultural and structural ipm are obvious…
knowledge of the pest and its habitat as a requirement…
designing methods of prevention in order to be able to manage the pest cost – effectively .. and the term, “manage” does not suggest that the ideal threshold in strucural should be more zero. I once saw a manual on cockroach control put out by a misiguided and inexperienced health promoter who should have known better, who tried to set an acceptable threshold in homes. I am sure her threshold was zero but she thought she could apply a higher threshold to those less fortunate than herself. Having said that, the reality of thresholds of existing infestation can and are used in structural pest control as part of decision rules for treatment when considering structures with many dwellings. One must understand the distinctions between economic thresholds in agriculture, and thresholds in structural pest control. We don’t do a full building treatment for one infestation of roaches or bed bugs, but decisions can be made about the extent of action — i.e. decision rules.. and this is IPM … no matter how you want to label it as something not applicable to structural.
Rich says
1.IPM is merely pest control and doesn’t truly exist in structural pest control as some different from of structural pest control.
Sam says
Your argument here is that because some things are part of structural pest control, they cannot be fit into an ipm framework. If we define IPM and someone is doing all the things without calling it IPM, it doesn’t mean that we must cease defining it as such. That is a matter of language and does not preclude the definition of the elements. It is as if someone wrote a wonderful novel and used parts of speech and sentence structure that had been defined by a teacher of composition and writing, and someone said that we cannot use the teacher’s definitions of sentence composition because the writer did it on his own without giving it structure of nomenclature..
Using things named that are part of a process does not preclude their being part of the process just the same.
Your interpretation of the fallacy of composition in this regard is flawed and incorrect..
If we say that steps a b c d and e are part of IPM process and someone does all steps but doesn’t call it ipm, it does not mean we must stop calling it ipm..
the reality is that in many many instances a firm may be doing a b and e but not c and d, and then by definition, it is not ipm…
however, if a b and c are teh key elements and d and e are variants, then we can still say it is ipm even if sometimes d and e may not be necessary to achieve the control result…
we can dissect it to pieces, but the main point is that the elements we know and recognize are there,, and if that is the case, then lo and behold.. IT IS IPM
Rich wrote
2. Can’t be properly defined or recognized in a structural pest control situation.
Sam replies
I can define it and have done so for a long time in the structura setting. name a sitaiution and i can put it into that frame work.. Read Marcos Kogan’s definition. Read MY BOOK.. on IPM in Housing
Rich
3. That IPM is so broad as they are attempting to apply it to structural pest control that it allows for IPM to be defined and redefined unendingly to suit some new philosophical flavor of the day.
Sam
there is no such thing as you put it – flavour of the day..ll. .. it is about common sense… and a scientific approach using reasoning… If i know the biology of an insect and find it in a setting, and then understand how it got there and how it is thriving, and find ways to prevenit entry and change habitat or to apply pesticides appropriately… that’s IPM by every measure.
Rich says
Almost twenty years ago I was director of training at a company that implemented an IPM program in a school system in the Cleveland, Ohio area; the first in Ohio and probably most of the country. Most people had never even heard of IPM twenty years ago, including people at the EPA who are big promoters of it, and one of the EPA Region Five people admitted that to me when I confronted him.
In reality, it wasn’t really IPM any more than any of these other so-called IPM programs are. They are in reality anti-pesticide programs, because that is what the radicals in the community wanted. That is not IPM. IPM is an agricultural concept…period. The only reason to make such demands is because pesticides, properly applied, are causing health problems. That isn’t just a logical fallacy….it is a factually fallacy.
Sam says
Your argument here is flawed Rich… I am amazed that you cannot see it.. you would be surprised at what people don’t know.. being part of EPA doesn’t mean you know this or that.. it depends on exposure and on education. Nor can you impune an agency on the limited anecdotal experience of seeing some individuals who are not well versed.. this is a generalization that would be considered prejudicial in most cases, as if you met a few people of a particular ethnic or racial group and drew a broad conclusion about the group on that limited sample.
Rich wrote
We may be calling it IPM; but it was not in the past, it is not now, and it will not be in the future. The only reason it exists in structural pest control is because the government says it exists. So spare me any admonition about coming around. I have been around this issue longer than most, including these grant chasers who go around the country promoting it.
Sam wrote
your prejudice shows through here again Rich… “grant chasers” is about as p;rejudicial as it gets… you expose your hand there very openly… this is another common informal fallacy.. i am sure yuo know it.. it is an ad hominem argument.. Attack the person of your opponent to support your view rather than using logic or facts or reasoning.
Rich wrote
Based on your comments I wonder if you really understand the concept of “threshold limits”. One thing that is patently obvious; you don’t have a clue as to the origins of IPM, (of which you are so passionate about) nor are you capable of understanding anything that I am saying.
Sam wrote
Rich,, more ad hominem arguments…. really!!!!
it is so transparent..
i think it is you who are taking an ideological stance because of your reaction to regulation of any sort. I understand your words very well as i understand the stand of creationist proponents but i also know the folly of such positions and the unbelievable acrobatics of distortion it takes to argue against such sound p;rinciples. I once had a creationist try to convince me that bombardier beetles were the prime example of why evolution was bunk… the argument being that evolution could not result in creatoin of a system of toxic defense without it being pre-planned by a supreme creator.. Any basic student of biology knows that there are systems of creating strong acids based on cellular processes and of course the bombardier beetle’s physiology is known by scientists and the ability for this to have evolved is obvious in context even if the specifics may be more elaborate..
I gave up arguing with that fellow as it was hopeless to teach him. He was so wrapped up in religious dogma that if God himself had come down and told him Darwin was right, he would have questioned if God knew what he was talking about..
Rich, i am done with the argument.; i know what IPM is.;. and | will continue to promote this important concept and methodology, and you can keep pretending it is not so with all kinds of ridiculous convolutions of argument to support your essentially political position. \
the methodology works.. it is a way of thinking.. it is grounded in common sense and we need more people in the industry to think like this… i am a small voice, but others recognize the value and will continue promoting the process and education of all stakeholders..
i apologize to newyorkvsbedbugs for the length here, but it is important that negative arguments intended to destroy valuable reasoned processes must be refuted..
without IPM the situation in pest management is going to get worse, and we have a responsibility to protect people against unprofessional tactics of treatment that were so prevalent before the 80’s and are still happening out there every day………….. I hear it every time i speak to a group about bed bug management and people cry about being treated countless times as well as about 10 minute services.
If a firm is doing an excellent job at a fair price with responsibility, i don’t care if they call it Rich’s excellent method. and most likely it will be an IPM approach in all elements regardless of whether Rich just says it is good pest control. I agree with that.
IPM is good pest control.
Sam
Hello, gentlemen. I thank you for having this conversation in public here, even if it is so strained.
I’m just catching up to all the comments now. Sam, I doubt that I showed you Rich’s website as I have only known about it myself since about the time of the aftermath of the EPA bed bug meeting. The website I did show you is George Rotramel’s, and I think it would be great to look at it again. This is the relevant page where he writes about IPM at length. If I can request the indulgence, I should like to hear your thoughts on his interesting discussion. I am intrigued by the idea of threshold limits and their inapplicability to the pest in question, bed bugs. Sorry to bring the discussion to such a parochial concern as this!
I confess that what I don’t quite understand and don’t quite find helpful about IPM is its governing principle of pesticide use reduction. With bed bugs, I want the discussion to be about how to kill the bed bug, not about the policy goal of pesticide use reduction, especially because in current practice so many people are living with repeated and useless pesticide applications and self-applications and bed bugs. The bed bug must come first.
Rich, I’m fixing the link to your site attached to your name in these comments so that anyone can click your name and read your site.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot the link, now added, and I also added what we mentioned earlier in this conversation, that the practical effect of the current situation with regard to pesticide abuse and overuse by desperate people is no good.
thanks Renee.. yes, i did mistake Rich’s website for the other, and i will certainly look at his with interest..
the threshold limits for bed bugs in single units should be zero… simple as that…
but when dealing with entire buildings, one looks at extent of sprad of infestation to make decisions about broader tactics in a site… so if we had 5 infestations of bed bugs in a building with 300 units, we would not survey the entire site with dogs or staff inspecting unit by unit but look at the five specifically, but if we had 35 units spread throughout the entire buidling, we would look at investigating each case and adjacent units and perhaps even full block inspections… that is an example of thresholds of action..
it is not about saying that a few are acceptable in a unit or even in a building, but rather what actions are merited by the extent of infestation…. i always liked the idea of an annual survey by mail in addition to the careful tracking of treatment data.
the governing principles of IPM in my view are
1. risk/benefit as a primary health and safety evaluation that should apply to any activity
2. cost-effectiveness
3. reduced use of pesticides as an outcome of intelligent analysis of best practices in the specific case
4. education of clients and service providers in treatment protocols
5. quality assurance processes in place by service provider and clients
why would we not want to reduce use of pesticides?
If i can get something done without pesticides,, all the better!!!
remember the study of effects of Dursban in children’s intelligence…. !!!!!! just one study….
history has many stories of sacrificing people for profit and short term gains…. we don’t need to be part of that in any way…
that is part of the ideal of IPM…
i am amazed by those who would argue this rather than embracing the common sense of it. but I will continue to present this as the best current approach to pest management in the urban setting, or indeed in any setting. It encompasses best science and methodology and ethical values in pest management and has been long overdue as a standard practice in our industry.
i have seen the failure of pest management when this is not done properly countless times. and more often than not, the driver is cost.. so that pest control services in public housing are often the lowest and cheapest services imaginable… go the the health homes initiative web site of the Safer Pest Control project in Chicago.. or EPA or the NEHA and you will see solid documentation of IPM.. The benefit has been demonstrated time and time again, and yet we still have these elemental arguments trying to make it seem as if IPM is anti-pesticide. It is pro best practices and pro reducing use of pesticides when best practices enable this..
Sometimes it necessitates a lot of application, but given the choice between vacuuming up a heavy infestation of bed bugs as a first step or spraying the hell out of a place, to me the choice is obvious.
Sam
But of course, I advocate “spraying the hell out of a place” instead of vacuuming every day here, don’t I? Why would you choose such an obvious example of exactly what we’re not talking about? And indeed your examples further fail you when you offer Safer Pest Control Project for my perusal, where I see that I can order a $15 sign to proclaim to the world that my lawn, school, park, or business is a “pesticide free zone.”
So I can see perfectly how you are tired of me making it “seem” that IPM is anti-pesticide where there is no evidence anywhere of such an idea.
I have no interest in either demonizing or lionizing IPM, or indeed pesticides. I only care about bed bugs. Don’t condescend to me, Sam, I beg you, nothing depresses me more.
And I submit that if you have a 300 unit building where 5 units have bed bugs, you have a time bomb.
Renee,, my comment about “spray the hell out of a place” was not directed at you Renee.. nor do i advocate vacuuming every day. And i certainly do not intend condescension Renee. I have made deserved positive statements about your site more than once and about your talents here, so i don’t know why you would presume me to be condescending.
Pesticide free zones may be necessary in some cases but that is not my point. I mentioned Safer because i know they work hard at reducing use of pesticides while advocating good control practices.
As for 5 units with infestation in a 300 unit site, my meaning is not that this is not serious, but it is a matter of degree of response. I have been in situations in which there was demand by tenants or by health departments for total building treatments on “perception” and a distorted belief that spraying an entire building for roaches was a good reactive step. and do it once a year.. that used to be the practice of many housing providers. I have refused to do that on more than one occasion and required an assessment before taking such disruptive and often unnecessary action resulting in gallons and gallons of insecticde being sprayed for NON EXISTENT pests in most units.
Let me direct readers to the Health Homes Initiative site
http://www.healthyhomestraining.org/ as one of the very best resources about IPM, as well as NPMA that endorses IPM as a valued practice and the fact that IPM has a best quality certification program that uses IPM as a major strategy, and National Environmental Health Association web site with a podcast by Professor Marc Lame who has written in detail on school IPM, and whose lecture is insightful and tells the facts with clarity…. the naysayers are arguing from political positions not from facts, nor common sense, and the dialogue here by Rich demonstrates this beyond doubt.
it feels like arguing about intelligent design vs evolution and anyone with a basic sound knowledge of science whether a lay person or a scientist knows that this is essentially a nonsensical argument and that has been validated by the courts in the U.S. not long ago in one of the states in which a school board tried to give intelligent design validity as an alternative idea to evolution. The court basically said that the argument was actually a thinly veiled attempt to give Creationism validity as a scientific theory which it is not. Of course, evolutionary theory does not exclude a divine force whereas creationism ascribes religious doctrine to try to discredit evolution as a fact of knowledge through an overwhelming body of evidence.
Those who want to attack the concept of IPM .. seem to want to make it anti-pesticide and attach all the political nonsense to that, when we should be focused on best practices and safety and minimize use of pesticides to achieve control and protect the public health. This is not politics. it is about risk/benefit and cost-effectiveness, about sustainability of control through education and legislated practices and rules designed to protect the public..
remember, democracy is an evolution of human behaviour in maximizing rights of the populace and to improve the quality of life .
and IPM is really part of that…
|I suggest that readers check out the healthy homes website for a very wonderful and detailed overview of these things..
I rest my case.. i will continue to promote ipm in my work.. but i am tired of arguing about it………. the facts are simply overwhelming in support of IPM as THE best practice…………… call it what you will
Sam
Renee,
after your comment about Safer, I went to their website to have a look. I simply haven’t visited it for a while, and things do move forward..
Yes, Safer emphasizes IPM but in their factsheet on bed bugs here is what they note about treatment
“Remember, there is no magic formula that will guarantee bed bug elimination. These tips are in addition to the limited use of pesticides, and are in no way intended to replace a select treatment program by knowledgeable professionals. Do not use chemicals around sleeping areas and furniture unless they are properly labeled to treat bed bugs in the home. Always seek professional advice before applying pesticides around people with health conditions”
So Safer does not say.. do not use pesticides, but they emphasize “limited use” and “a select treatment program by knowledgeable professionals”
The no pesticide zone refers to lawns and exterior environemnt and this is becoming more common. Toronto started iwth a new policy banning cosmetic use of pesticides for landscape.. with exception of golf courses and other specific situations, and the Province applied the policy throughout all of Ontario. This is due to a history of heavy appications of herbicides and insecticides on a repetitive basis. The Safer no pesticide Zone refers to posters they supply to advise people that pesticides were not used in the area so children can play there without fears of allergic reactions or other effects.
Safet also provides a definition of IPM and a list of firms they recommend who follow IPM standards.
This is Safer’s defintion of IPM… not bad
“Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a proven method of pest control that emphasizes simple, inexpensive prevention practices that cause the least harm to people and the environment. IPM focuses on eliminating the cause of pests by minimizing access to food, water, and hiding places.”
I think that they are leaders in Illinois in this area. I have watched their work developing over the years.. Good for them… a lot of common sense explained in simple terms.
here is their link http://www.spcpweb.org/#
I am always dismayed by attacks on IPM because it is so basic and has such common sense in whatever format presented, that I don’t know how anyone could consider this counter-productive. When done by professionals in managing major accounts for pest issues whether food industry or housing, there is an overview that is needed to enable some practical decision rules of application – so that in the hospitality industry, for example, protecting reputation and spread of infestation is critical, and the decision rules and methodologies are stringent. Most housing organizations could not afford the costs of how hospitality industry would treat a hotel room, so there is a need to examine best and most cost-effective practices. That is the very IPM that Rich says doesn’t exist. I know it does because I have been a practictioner for about 27 or 28 years. The other 2 or 3 years from when i started in this business, I was a neophyte learning the business and cannot claim knowledge of IPM at that time.
Let’s take the best of IPM practices and apply to bed bugs, and as I have said a few times before, this site with the extensive information here supports IPM … that is the science of pest management. It is much more than what we would call Pest Control. There is a reason why National Pest Control Association changed its name to National Pest Management Association, and I can assure you that IPM was at the heart of this change..
best wishes to all…. and success in pest management by best practices. I call it IPM.. You can call it whatever you like.
Sam