Pesticides in Hawai`i’s schools have threatened the health of many students, even when they’ve been properly applied. But before any move to reduce its use near children is made, record keeping practices and the attitudes of those making funding and policy decisions must change.
Unthinkable Risk, a report released last month by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, describes the effects of pesticides on children and the many pathways by which children are exposed. The report describes incidents in which thousands of children in states across the country have fallen ill from pesticide exposure at school. Hawai`i is included.
On October 2, 1986, at least 30 children and three adults at Wai`anae Elementary School complained of headaches, stomach aches, breathing difficulties, dizziness, nausea and other symptoms. An application of the insecticide Dursban 4-E (chlorpyrifos) had been made (by the state health department) around the perimeter of certain school buildings the afternoon before in an effort to control fleas present because dogs were sleeping under the portable classrooms. Another application had been made just two weeks earlier. Health Department investigators found ïno evidence of pesticide misuse.Í However, the agencyÍs epidemiologist stated in a letter that the evidence indicates that health symptoms may have been caused by solvents (xylene) and other ingredients (diethyl sulfides) in the pesticide,î the report states.
Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the risks of exposure to chlorpyrifos and noted a ñhealth concern for crack and crevice rooms that children may occupy for extended periods of time.î The EPA also found that in seven out of eight application scenarios, estimated exposures to residents after home or yard treatment exceeded the agencyÍs ïlevel of concern,Í the NCAP report states, adding that, ñThe scenarios included common application sites and methods also used in schools.î
Perfectly Safe?
As far as pesticides go, pyrethrins and permethrins are the best — meaning safest — says one pesticide applicator contracted by the state to kill bugs in the kitchens and cafeterias of Hawai`iÍs schools.
Pyrethrins are a natural pesticide, made from dried and powdered chrysanthemums or from oils extracted from the flowers with solvents. Permethrin is a low- to moderately non-toxic synthetic pesticide derived from chrysanthemumic acids. These synthetic pesticides are known as pyrethroids. Both pyrethins and pyrethroids kill insects by paralyzing their nervous systems and are among the most commonly used pesticides in schools around the country. They are odorless and applicators can be seen spraying them without masks, gloves, or even shoes when spraying indoors.
But looks can be deceiving.
Pyrethrins are to blame for a slew of ailments in children in at least one elementary school on the mainland, according to ñUnintended Casualties: Five Children Whose Lives Were Profoundly Affected by Pesticide Exposures at School,î an appendix to the NCAP report.
At Jurupa Elementary School in San Bernardino, California, flies from a neighboring chicken farm prompted administrators to install insecticide dispensers throughout the school, in classrooms, rest rooms, and the cafeteria. The administrators also hired a pest control company to spray the school every month for other pests such as crickets, silverfish, ants, and roaches. Shortly afterward, parents began to notice rashes and blisters, coughing, diarrhea, stomach pains, and asthma-type symptoms in their children.
Pyrethrins, the active ingredient of the pesticide used in the automatic dispensers, can be readily absorbed via inhalation,î according to the NCAP report.
The state Department of Agriculture investigated the schoolÍs pesticide use and found that the school had violated pesticide laws. ñSome of the pesticide dispensers in the schoolÍs cafeteria were located too close to food handling surfaces,î the report states.
This story is just one of nearly 100 incidents of pesticide related casualties involving children that are documented in many documented in Unthinkable Risk.
Our society has acted to get other environmental hazards, such as lead, asbestos, and cigarette smoke out of out nationÍs schools, but children are still being widely exposed to, and harmed by, toxic pesticides in classrooms and on school grounds,î writes NCAPÍs Becky Riley, author of the report.
Exposure to certain pesticides has been linked to cancer, neurological disruption, birth defects, genetic alteration, reproductive harm, immunity system dysfunction, endocrine disruption, and acute poisoning. Children are especially vulnerable to pesticides because of their size, their still-developing bodies, and because their behavior — playing in the dirt or on the ground, or in other areas not usually visited by adults – exposes them to pesticides more than adults. ñA fundamental maxim of pediatric medicine is that children are not ïlittle adults.Í Profound differences exist between children and adults,î wrote the National Research Council (NRC) in its 1993 report Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. The report was one of the first to explain the special susceptibility of children to pesticide exposure and its findings led to the EPAÍs adoption in 1996 of the Food Quality Protection Act.
To reduce the need for applications of chemical insecticides and herbicides, many school districts around the country have turned to integrated pest management, or IPM. This approach calls for first removing the source of the problem through improved sanitation and maintenance and then addressing what canÍt be solved through those means by trapping of pests or other mechanical means. The judicious use of chemicals is allowed, but only as a last resort, when all else has failed.
Over the last 15 years, several states have developed policies addressing the publicÍs right to know about pesticide applications and encouraging curbs in pesticide use through integrated pest management. School districts in Oregon, California, Wisconsin, Indiana, Connecticut, and Washington have all drafted or adopted integrated pest management policies
The Eugene, Oregon, school district has had such a policy in place since 1984. There, pesticides may only be used where known hazards exist or where the integrity of school structures is in danger, and pesticides cannot be used solely for aesthetic purposes, such as crabgrass control.
Policy Pushing
In Hawai`i, these types of policies have yet to become law. However, it does not require legislation to adopt an integrated pest management program. Guides to developing IPM programs are available at several websites on the internet, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several other states. Yet in Hawai`i, state agencies – including the Department of Education – have done little to promote IPM at their facilities.
This year, state legislators had the opportunity to consider a handful of bills that would have pushed state agencies further down the road toward integrated pest management, especially with respect to areas where children are likely to be exposed to pesticides. But given the fate of some of those proposals and testimony and comments of state officials, new policies intended to protect the public from pesticide exposure will not be implemented any time soon.
One of the failed measures would have required agencies to keep track of pesticide applications. Reducing future uses of pesticides, after all, entails an understanding of how much is currently being applied. The amount, the type, the frequency and the location of pesticide and herbicide use in schools are not easy things to track, as survey of several staff at several O`ahu schools found. To begin with, no one seems to remember when the schools were last fogged or tented.
We donÍt use pesticides in school,î says an impatient voice over the phone at Waimanalo Elementary and Intermediate, as if it were an obvious conclusion.
How does Keolu Elementary School control weeds? ñWe just dig it out,î says Julie, custodian for five years, as she munches her lunch.
What about bugs? The principal at Maunawili Elementary School insists that pesticides are never used near the children. If bug control is needed, it is done in the summer, she says. Grounds-keeping is done with the help of students from an adult learning school across the street, she adds, implying that her school uses manual labor, not chemicals to control weeds.
These responses might suggest that chemical pest control at some O`ahu schools is practically nonexistent. But pressed further, staff members admit to having no idea what chemicals, if any, groundskeepers use. Some custodians canÍt remember the brand name of the granules they sprinkle on lawns to control weeds. Others confess to occasional use of over-the-counter pest control chemicals like Had-A-Bug or Roundup in parking lots or isolated areas.
We just live with the weeds,î one principal says, but she acknowledges that pesticides are sometimes used on the fence line at the school boundary to kill a weedy vine.
The state Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS) handles several contracts for termite and other pest control projects in schools. Ninety-five percent of termite control is done with Sentricon, an enclosed, underground bait system, says Francis Chock of DAGS. But his inspector notes that fogging for termites has been done at one school in the past two years. When DAGS contractors do use wet sprays or fogs, itÍs the permethrin Dragnet, Premise (a moderately toxic pesticide that also effects insect nerve systems), or Viking. Chock adds that he does not know what pesticide DAGS contractors use for ant control.
In addition to pesticide companies contracted by DAGS, the kitchen and cafeteria sections of each school contract independently with pest control companies to do routine spraying, according to the Department of EducationÍs School Food Service Branch.
Hawai`i is not alone in lacking good records of pesticide use. In the mid-1990s, one non-profit group set out to investigate pesticide use in schools. Its findings were reported in ñFailing Health: Pesticide Use in California Schools,î written by Californians for Pesticide Reform and published by the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) Charitable Trust.
Reluctance on the part of school staff, lack of pesticide record keeping by schools and limited school resources all made it difficult to obtain pesticide-related records. CALPIRG Charitable Trust eventually resorted to legal counsel to obtain this information. Because of incomplete, illegible and missing pesticide use information, it was not possible to assess the overall quantity of pesticides used in the school districts surveyed,î the report states.
No Notice
Two years ago, Oregon had no system for tracing pesticide use that would help identify childrenÍs exposure. Today, Oregon is one of a small number of U.S. states — three as of last winter — that closely track pesticide use. Hawai`i is not one of them.
In 1992, Hawai`i took a stab at increasing public notice of pesticide use. A Senate bill would have required government agencies to post warning signs 48 hours before applying any biocide at a public place. It failed, in part, for what its critics said was vague and general language.
ñA biocide, by definition, is any substance that kills a living organism,î wrote Noel Kefford, then dean of the University of Hawai`iÍs College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, in testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Protection. ñAs such, it includes chlorine for swimming pools, disinfectants, Clorox, toilet bowl cleaners, and many other household, homeowner products required to be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency.î
John Lewin, then-director of the state Department of Health said he supported the intent of the bill, but was concerned that a mandatory 48-hour notification period would hamper his agencyÍs ability to contain and eliminate vector-borne disease outbreaks.
Others, like a representative of the Hawaiian Sugar PlantersÍ Association, worried about cost. ñThe passage of this bill would probably require an additional acre of trees each year to supply the paper and wood for signs,î an HSPA representative said.
Last year, a bill was introduced that would have banned outright the stateÍs use of any cancer-causing pesticide. It would also have curbed use of other pesticides and required the posting of signs at least four days before and after pesticide application; established a public access hotline for information on pesticide applications; required departments to develop integrated pest management policies and to keep records of pesticide application. That bill failed.
This year, a watered-down version of the failed bill rose from the ashes. The new version called for the posting of signs at least 48 hours before and after any pesticide was applied to public school property or playgrounds. A later draft eliminated the sign-posting and required instead all state and county agencies to keep records of outdoor pesticide use. In addition, they would have had to provide a six-month retroactive record of pesticide use to the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC).
This bill also failed, despite support from the Office of Environmental Quality Control and RESCUE Hawai`i, a lobbyist for the pest control industry.
Testifying against the bill was James Nakatani, chairperson for the Board of Agriculture. The reporting requirement, he said, would take resources away from his agencyÍs program to monitor farmersÍ and pest control operatorsÍ use of chemicals.
ñSince government agencies generally use pesticides that do not represent a significant hazard, this measure would divert scarce resources from monitoring the use of more hazardous pesticides. In states where pesticides use reporting is required, costs of implementing the program range from $30,000 in Arizona to $6 million in California,î Nakatani wrote.
Nakatani added that commercial and private applicators in Hawai`i report their activities to the state DOA, and those records are kept for two years. But according to the DOAÍs Pesticide Branch, the only records kept by the DOA are those submitted by pesticide dealers on purchases of restricted-use pesticides.
No Easy Task
As the Legislature drew to a close in April, two measures relating to integrated pest management still had hope of passing: Senate Concurrent Resolution 78 and House Bill 2405. The House bill defines integrated pest management and would allow the state pesticide revolving fund to be used for developing integrated pest management strategies. This bill was supported by the Department of Agriculture, RESCUE Hawai`i, and the American Crop Protection Association.
The resolution encourages the Department of Education to establish an IPM policy that ñfocuses on long-term health effects of teachers, staff, and students, and prioritizes the use of non-chemical methods of pest control.î In addition it asks the Legislative Reference Bureau to conduct a study of alternative methods of pest control for common areas frequented by the public.
In testimony, representatives of environmental groups, government agencies and pest control industry representatives all favored the adoption of an integrated pest management program. Some of that support, however, came with reservations.
While Rick Klemm of RESCUE Hawai`i said he supports integrated pest management in agriculture, he warned that, in schools, IPM may not be all itÍs cracked up to be. In his testimony, he quoted an August 22, 1999 Los Angeles Times article describing the state of public schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which adopted an IPM program last March:
ñAt one San Fernando Valley high school, groundskeepers mowed the paved basketball court to cut down weeds sprouting through the cracks. Throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District, parents are complaining to school officials that their children are stumbling on grassy patches on the asphalt playgrounds and skinning their knees,î the article stated. In Hawai`i, where playgrounds are not usually paved, KlemmÍs concerns may be unfounded.
Klemm also was worried that using pesticides only as a last resort ñwould prove often to be unfeasible for our DOE, given our current budgetary resources. If delays occur in controlling pests from using pesticides only as a last resort, one may be required to use more pesticides in those cases where chemical methods would have been the first choice in a reduced-risk IPM approach.î
Klemm worried that, as written, the resolution could lead to a ban of pesticides, and a resulting rise in pest control costs.
As a result of KlemmÍs concerns, the Senate changed the resolution. Instead of advocating a hierarchical approach, where pesticides are used only as a last resort, the resolution now simply encourages the DOE to adopt a ñrisk reductionî approach, where ñthe reductions of pest control methods leads to reductions of risk within a rational integrated pest management program while maintaining effective pest control,î Klemm wrote.
KlemmÍs concerns aside, if State Concurrent Resolution makes it to final approval, it may still be a long time before an effective IPM plan is established, as illustrated by recent reports from Texas and Oregon.
In Texas, where IPM in schools has been a state law for four years, schools are `erraticÍ in their implementation, according to a recent report by the Texas Pesticide Information Network and Consumers Union cited in a recent Journal of Pesticide Reform, published by the Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides.
ñThe report graded seven Texas school districts on their pesticide use: one failed, two received DÍs, two received CÍs and only three received an A or B. Under Texas law, school pesticides are divided into three categories ñgreenî (least toxic), ñyellowî (moderately toxic), and ñredî (highly toxic). Schools are supposed to use the ïleast toxic methods available,î the journal stated.
Even in Oregon, where IPM enjoys strong support, difficulties exist. Last year, the Portland school district applied thousands of pounds of the herbicide Casoron to every school ground in the city, despite the fact that CasoronÍs active ingredient is a carcinogen and water pollutant, according to a report in the Summer 1999 Journal of Pesticide Reform.
Context
There is too little information on many environmental hazards to develop a public health policy in which we can have confidence. Both the Congress and the public are left in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to relax controls and regulations or to continue to spend large amounts on public programs whose impact on health is uncertain,î said National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences director Kenneth Olden, at the First National Research Conference on ChildrenÍs Environmental Health in 1997.
A lack of information may also help explain Hawai`iÍs reluctance to adopt policies regarding the use of pesticides. But thatÍs only part of the reason. Probably more important is the strong reliance on pesticides by the agricultural industry.
In Congress, pesticide manufacturers have taken advantage of this fact and have promoted a Congressional bill that would delay implementation of parts of the Food Quality Protection Act passed in 1996. According to a recent Sierra Club report, the Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999, could delay the lowering of allowable levels of pesticides in the food supply for perhaps a decade or more. It already has more than 200 co-sponsors. ñIn the meantime, children would continue to be exposed to toxic pesticides in dangerous amounts,î the report states.
In Hawai`i, agriculture ranks second only to tourism as a generator of economic wealth. AgricultureÍs economic success in a climate where pests thrive has traditionally involved heavy doses of chemical pesticides. In fact, Hawai`i has a long history of embracing pesticides after they have been abandoned or banned outright elsewhere. To cite one well-known example, pineapple grower in Hawai`i used the pesticides heptachlor and dibromocholopropane (DBCP) for years after they had been banned in the mainland for health reasons.
Integrated pest management is hardly a new approach, but it still has not become well accepted throughout Hawai`i. The University of Hawai`iÍs College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources has developed an IPM program, but it is geared strictly toward agriculture. Some school principals here have never heard of IPM. One of the few who has, from Keolu Elementary School, wondered aloud how an effective IPM program could be developed, considering that so many different entities – the Departments of Health, Education, and Accounting and General Services, to say nothing of the schools themselves – are involved in pesticide application in schools.
WhatÍs more, many of those on the front lines of the battle against pests see no need for integrated pest management. The general consensus among state workers, from department heads down to custodians, seems to be that when applied properly, pesticides are safe. As a result, efforts over the years to screen possible avenues of exposure to children havenÍt received much attention.
In 1984, a legislative resolution was introduced, seeking a review of the safety of Hawai`iÍs playgrounds. Prompting the resolution was a study that had just been published by Youth News, the state of California, and the Conference on Alternative State and Local Policies. The report, ñAmericaÍs Poisoned Playgrounds,î suggested that at playgrounds, children were exposed to such hazardous chemicals such as arsenic-tainted wood preservatives, pesticides, and lead. The resolution did not make it through the Legislature.
A few years later, in 1989, a Senate resolution sought to require that pesticide levels in apples and apple products for schools be monitored. Apples were then likely to contain the carcinogen unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. This bill also failed.
Multiple Exposures
Several schools use Roundup to control weeds. Acute symptoms include eye and skin irritation, stomach pain, vomiting and accumulation of excess fluid in the lungs. While RoundupÍs manufacturer Monsanto once claimed the herbicide is as safe as table salt, fumes from an improperly mixed batch dumped on weeds between Jarrett Intermediate School and a swimming pool in Palolo drove swimmers out of the water a few years ago.
In addition to the Palolo and Wai`anae cases, Hawai`i schools have experienced a handful of incidents in which pesticide exposure caused headaches, nausea, and other ailments among teachers and students as the result of improper storage or bottles of pesticides breaking on campus. For example, in July 1992, improperly stored containers of Paraquat Plus and Malathion caused odor to vent into the lunchroom area at Wai`anae High School.
More often, the incidents involved drift from neighbors treating their lawns or controlling for pests, or sugar cane companies dumping excess pesticides near schools. Maili Elementary school is flanked by farms raising fowl and livestock, and faces health threats ranging from air pollution from manure to contaminated soils and uncontrolled litter. The pesticides and other chemicals used by the nearby farms pose an additional health concern to the children, according to a Senate Resolution introduced this year requesting the relocation of the school.
Some students are exposed to pesticides through drinking water supplies. In 1996, the termiticide dieldrin was found in two wells serving the Kamehameha Schools in Kapalama. Less than a year later, another termiticide, chlordane, was found in another well at Kamehameha Schools. The presence of these chemicals indicated groundwater contamination, the DOH reported at the time. Both chemicals are banned for sale and use by the U.S. EPA. Chlordane is a possible human carcinogen and dieldrin may harm the liver and nervous system.
Another possible exposure source are pesticide applications by the Department of HealthÍs Vector Control branch, which responds to emergency situations where carriers, or vectors, of disease are out of control. Norman Sato of Vector Control says his branch responds to everything from ant, flea, and tick infestations, to honey bees that are stinging children.
ñWe try not to use pesticides unless we have to,î Sato says. ñMost of the vectors can be controlled by mechanical means like traps or, in cases of ants, by checking where they are getting in [the school building].î
There are some situations where pesticide use is unavoidable, he says. Rats, for example, sometimes learn to avoid traps. In those instances baits or aerosol sprays may be used. Sato says his branch has used diazinon, chlorpyrifos, pyrethroids, and carbamates to control vectors. (Diazinon is a developmental and reproductive toxin, and chlorpyrifos and carbamates are organophosphate nerve toxins.)
All of these chemicals have potential health effects in humans. However, Sato emphasizes, ñWe are not a pest control company. We come when something needs to be done immediately.î
What Is the Harm?
In testimony to the Senate, Klemm, lobbyist for pesticide users, vendors, and makers, has stated, ñDespite activist claims to the contrary, there is little evidence that incidental exposure to trace amounts of any pesticide, applied according to federal label requirements, represents a significant health concern to humans or to the environment.î
This is not true. Certain pesticides do pose significant health threats, even when properly applied.
The NCAP report sites a study that evaluated potential exposures to indoor use of the insecticides propoxur, dichlorvos, and chlorpyrifos. Based on data from other studies of residues and air levels, the authors estimated that an infant playing in a treated room might consume a toxic dose of any of the three pesticides through inhalation, ingestion or absorption through the skin.
A 1998 study done at Rutgers University found that chlorpyrifos, when properly applied, is absorbed by plush toys, pillows and other surfaces at levels higher than what is considered safe by the EPA. Chlorpyrifos is one of the five most commonly used pesticides in California schools, according to the CALPIRG report.
— Teresa Dawson
Volume 10, Number 11 May 2000
Leave a Reply