WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2000 — Children are inadequately protected from pesticides used in schools, according to a study released by Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP). The study, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws 2000, evaluates the laws of the 50 states and finds that 31 offer a limited and unsatisfactory level of protection.

Although there continues to be growing movement on this issue, pesticide use policies and practices remain deficient in the protection of children and the protection provided children is uneven and inadequate across the country.

Based on Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP's 1998 report and survey of state laws, the organization wrote to EPA requesting that it consider rulemaking to protect children from pesticide use in schools. Today, almost two years since the request was made, the evidence of EPA taking action to reduce exposure to children while at school is not any more clear.

Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP first surveyed state pesticide laws regarding pesticide use in schools and states that have passed laws attempting to curtail potentially dangerous exposure in the first edition of the report, The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws (1998). Since the first publication of the report, six states have passed laws that further strengthen their existing laws regarding this issue and two states, for the first time, pass legislation to attempt to protect children while at school. Of the 31 states that offer protection in one or more of the following categories, only 20 states address indoor use of pesticides. Although there continues to be growing movement on this issue, pesticide use policies and practices remain deficient in the protection of children and the protection provided children is uneven and inadequate across the country. No state has acted in every category and where steps have been taken, they are often much too limited.

Five categories are evaluated in the study: (i) restricted spray (buffer) zones around schools to prevent drifting of chemicals on to school property; (ii) posting warning signs for indoor and outdoor pesticide applications; (iii) prior written notification of pesticide use to parents and school staff; (iv) prohibiting when and where pesticides can be applied at schools; and, (v) integrated pest management.

"These state laws are instrumental in improving protections from school pesticide use," says Jay Feldman, co-author and executive director of Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP. "However, to the extent that these laws do not prohibit the use of toxic pesticides around children and do not treat pesticide exposure as a public health issue by providing universal prior notification of pesticide use, they all to some degree compromise the protection of children. It is time for the federal government to step up to the plate and institute national standards."

"In regards to this issue, EPA states that they are encouraging schools use IPM," said Kagan Owens, co-author and program director for Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP. "But this is not enough to protect all children throughout the nation from pesticides used in schools. EPA needs to actively take a role in protecting children from pesticide exposures."

Study Findings:
• Six states recognize the importance of controlling drift by restricting pesticide applications in areas neighboring a school.

• Twelve states require posting of signs for indoor school pesticide applications. Posted notification signs warn those in the school when and where pesticides have been or are being applied.

• Twenty-two states require posting of signs for pesticide applications made on school grounds. Only, nine states require posting for both indoor and outdoor pesticide applications at schools.

• Fifteen states have requirements to notify students, parents, and/or staff before a pesticide application occurs. Six states have provisions for universal notification. Thirteen states have provisions requiring schools to inform parents and guardians of their right to be listed on a registry. The authors view registries as a less effective notification method because they may eliminate individuals who do not know about toxic exposure.

• Nine states restrict when and what pesticides may be applied in schools. These prohibitions on use are important in reducing pesticide exposure.

• A strong integrated pest management (IPM) program can eliminate the unnecessary use of toxic pesticides, thereby protecting children. Thirteen states define, recommend or require IPM in their state pesticide laws.

Children are at high risk to the adverse effects associated with pesticide exposure. Studies are numerous which document that children exposed to pesticides suffer elevated rates of childhood leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and brain cancer. Studies link pesticide exposure to the alarming childhood asthma rate and respiratory problems. Because of their affect on the central nervous system, scientists increasingly are associating learning disabilities or attention deficit disorders with low-level toxic chemical exposure.\

The National Academy of Sciences, in its 1993 report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, recognized the increased vulnerability of children to pesticide exposure. The Food Quality Protection Act, passed in 1996 may result in additional restrictions on some pesticides to which children are now exposed in the schools. However, these changes are not focused on the five critical categories that are needed to stop children's involuntary exposure at school to toxic pesticides across the board. If the government were to institute these protection, it would no longer have to point to a lengthy pesticide registration and reregistration process, with often mostly incomplete data on children, as evidence of some possible future protection. Beyond Pesticides/NCAMP requests rulemaking that would offer comprehensive protection for children in the near term.

Source: National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides

Give me a holler

CMLSupport Home Page

This site was last updated on Oct. 8, 2000

Copyright © 2000 Jennifer M. Gangloff.
These contents may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express written permission of the author, or she will beat you up and stuff.