Industry is a Bottomless Pit of Bad Logic and Self-Serving Arguments.

By Rich Kozlovich

In my seventy five years of life and forty years in the pest control industry I’ve seen a lot of changes.  Some positive, and unfortunately, many very negative.  Changes that were very subtle and very slow, but as destructive as a glacier in the thrust of our thinking, and our views of reality. I find myself the only openly heterodoxical writer in our industry nationwide. Although based on e-mails, and even phone calls from all over the country, I believe there may be a ‘silent majority’ out there. Let’s face it, heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart.

Timothy P. Carney [writer for the Washington Examiner] said:

Washington is a debate club for the logically impaired, with its share of fallacies, sophistries, oversimplifications and utter absurdities.

I find this pattern repeats in more areas than just Washington. Through legislative power and massive amounts of grant money federal bureaucrats have had a great deal to do with undermining any natural sense of logic in the minds of everyone in the nation, including industry, and I think it's fair to ask if the pest control industry is any different?

In my years I have seen our industry go from being ardent defenders of pesticides universally, to a substantial number who are almost as anti-pesticide in their approach as anyone from the Sierra Club or the NRDC, especially with their embrace of "green" pest control, and IPM.  I find this especially true with those holding advanced degrees in our industry. 

The NPMA supported School Environmental Protection Act.  Ohio refused, and at Legislative Day told our Senators and Representatives we were not in harmony with NPMA on this.  John Boehner was one of them.

Perhaps I missed it, but as far as I can tell they've been silent on repealing the Food Quality Protection Act, and some even claimed it was a good law.   However, when looking at the history of the FQPA, that was understandable at the start.  But time is the great leveler of truth.

This originally was a law that was intended to be a pro-pesticide bill, and stop the foolishness over the 1958 Amendment of the of the 1937 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act known as the Delaney Clause.  An amendment that unscientifically declared if something tested carcinogenic at any level, it was carcinogenic at every level.  But the EPA turned this into one of the most corrupt anti-pesiticde law since the EPA banned DDT.   As a result, we lost Ficam and Dursban, (carmabates and organophosphates) because of EPA's irrational and radical changes regarding risk and unending testing.  More here.  Then there was the demands regarding endocrine distuptors.

Neither were banned in spite of what you may read. The manufacturers pulled their registration for structural applications.  There was very little argument, and when Dow decided not to fight it the other companies manufacturing chlorpyrifos gave up.

It has seemed to me that over the decades the NPMA has far too willingly embraced a philosophy of appeasement with the neo-pagan secular psuedo-religous movements of the left.

Then there was the Butterfield Bill, as I outlined in my aritlcle, The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II, which NPMA wanted us all to support.  Why?  I read it, and was outlined what was wrong with it.  I was told I needed to see the positive aspects of that bill.  I asked - what were they?  I didn't get an answer.

Well, it didn't pass, and if it had, it wouldn't have done anything to relieve the plague of bed bugs in America.  If passed it would have been an expensive waste, and an ineffectual imposition on our industry and the public.  In short, more government, less results.  And we were supporting this why? 

Why? That’s the question I keep asking, and I don't get satisfactory answers.   

In the early years of the modern green movement - started largely with the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s science fiction book, Silent Spring - the green movement insisted pesticides were a major cause of cancer. I remember those days, and I also remember the conversations by the older members of my family talking about this. People believed modern living was responsible.

They were right, but for the wrong reasons.

Industry [and cities and towns in America] were responsible for many sins against the environment, so it was easy to point the finger, but mostly it was pointed at industry. The real finger of blame should have been pointed at the personal habits of people themselves. That was where the rise in cancer rates appeared.

Over the years the rates of cancer have consistently dropped, and yet we still hear the irrational – and unscientific – mantra that pesticides cause cancer. If you were to take a plastic overlay of our modern demographic and put it over the demographics of those living in 1914 and those living in 2014 you would notice two very distinct differences. Very few people smoked and very few people lived past 65, the two major areas of cancer related deaths. The decrease I spoke of would be even more dramatic if we reduced the demographic of smokers and the aged from our modern demographic chart.

Now that whole narrative has been shown to be blatantly false, so what did they do?  Now the big ones are endocrine disruption (and here), Colony Collapse Disorder, and the junk science surrounding the Sixth Mass Extinction.   All of which have been proven false by time and real science.  

When the federal government banned DDT industry rose up as one to defend it, and it was the same for chlordane. Then came the Food Quality Protection Act and which brought about the irrational elimination of Ficam and Dursban (chlorpyrifos), [Neither were banned in spite of what you may read. The manufacturers pulled their registration for structural applications.  There was very little argument, and when Dow decided not to fight it the other companies manufacturing chlorpyrifos gave up.

Was it a business decision? You bet!

Chlorpyrifos was out of patent and it represented a very small percentage of their annual intake, at least from structural pest control, and the lawsuits kept coming. It is interesting that the last time I looked it’s still used as an agriculture product under the brand name Lorsban. But since we now know how deceitful the EPA has been with it's Secret Science on Dursban. Why aren't we demanding Dursban's return?

The makers of Ficam W (bendiocarb), which I understand is still used in Australia and New Zealand and I’m told still works on bed bugs, gave up also. Why? We lost two whole categories of pesticides [organophosphates and carbamates] from our arsenal with that terrible piece of legislation called the Food Quality Protection Act, which wasn’t about food or protection. It was about making it too expensive to keep pesticide registrations active, thereby banning pesticides without having to go through all those nasty and potentially messy legal and scientific steps - where they would have lost.

Now we come to the new restrictions on pyrethroids, and there is hardly a peep, except from Ohio’s pest controllers. People at the national level may not like it, but if the Ohio pest controllers – who are responsible for the very existence of NPMA – CAN stand up to be counted, and fight the good fight. why CAN'T the NPMA?

A fight the entire industry should have been fighting and should still be fighting. But nothing happened. Quietly as church mice, passive as sheep and as rational as lemmings, NPMA did nothing useful to maintain our ability to use pyrethroids as we've been doing for decades.  Oh, I can hear the screams now about how much NPMA did, but the proof is in the pudding.  We have unreasonable restrictions.  

What’s worse it appears the manufactures of pyrethroids, known as the “Pyrethroid Working Group (PWG), an industry task force whose members are AMVAC, Bayer, Cheminova, DuPont, FMC Corporation, Syngenta and Valent’, were part and parcel of this pesticide reduction scheme. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the Pyrethroid Working Group was formed. I wonder, does this whole thing sound conspiratorial to anyone besides me?

I know…I know….there’s no such thing as a conspiracy. I often wonder why the people who have never read a history book are so ardent in that view. Just a thought!  And why were these restrictions to structural pest control and not to lawn care or agriculture?  We have substantial restrictions against where and how we make pyrethroid applications to structures, while the lawns, fields and shrubs can be covered with pyrethroids by the lawn care and agricultural industries.

Does that sound irrational to anyone besides me?

All this to protect an almost microscopic shrimplike creature known as Hyalella azteca, a creature that is capable of living in extremely adverse conditions, and is one of the most prolific creatures in North America and South America. Pyrethroids are used extensively everywhere. How can that be if these products are so deadly to Hyalella here in the United States? Or more specifically California.

I have spent some time going over the information available and there are a number of things I would like to see answered. Since this “shrimp” is so impacted by small amounts of pyrethroid materials; with one study claiming the appearance of chlorpyrifos created a more toxic impact, which I found truly interesting since we are no longer using chlorpyrifos in structural pest control, so where did that come from?  Agriculture!  Until recently there was no real effort to eliminate it for agricultural purposes, but the Scott Pruitt, President Trump's first director put a stop to that saying they were going to follow the science. While that's still being litigated, the important fact is this: The chemical companies fought to keep it for agriculture. Why not structural pest control? Why hasn't NPMA been more strident on these matters? 

But the real questions that need answering are these:

• NPMA seems to have a penchant for embracing leftist narratives on pesticides and junk science. Why?
• Now our national association is deciding if it's going to get involved in "diversity" issues. Why?

  The structural pest control industry has nothing to be ashamed of.  We've accepted people from every walk of life in our industry, regardless of race, religion, sex and even sexual orientation.  In Ohio, in the 1960's one of the founders and first President of what's now the Greater Cleveland Pest Control Association was Bob Caldwell, and is a past President of the Ohio Pest Management Association.  He's black.  In the 1960's Ohio was either the first or among the first to choose a woman for it's state association President, Betty Portwood, and our current President is Molly Patton Marsh.  John Patton's daughter.  

  Betty has now passed and was in her 90's, and Bob is still running his company,  and both were respected and treated accordingly by our industry forever.

• What are NPMA's priorities?  
• Why has the NPMA decided to get involved in social engineering?  
• Is that their job?  
• Where in the NPMA constitution does it outline that as a duty?
• If that became their job, when was that decided, and by whom?   
• Does that mean we can start posting about social issues on the NPMA Open Forum now? 

  In the past anyone doing so would have their posts deleted, and even then, we were subject to unpublished and unknown standards for acceptance, even if the posts or comments met the posted criteria for acceptable posts.  I've been there, so I know it's true.  Just like EPA had secret science, it would appear, the NPMA had, and possibly still has, secret standards for posting on the Open Forum regarding topic, and who was posting.  But either way, we still have to come back to the main questions. 

• Why is the NPMA getting publicly involved with Social Justice issues?  
• What is their agenda, and why?
• If the NPMA can be so public about social issues that have no bearing on pest control, how can they restrict anyone else from doing so?
• Is that blatant hypocrisy!

I think those are important questions because they've clearly gone in directions that are not part of the real reason they came into existence, which used to be to fight for the structural pest control industry against all adversaries and enemies, in and out of government. 

• What is their agenda now?   
• What are their priorities?
• Who articulated such an agenda and priorities and why?
• Do we need to redefine and rewrite the NPMA constitution and bylaws? 

Make no mistake about this:

"If there is ever a contest for words that substitute for thought, “diversity” should be recognized as the undisputed world champion. You don’t need a speck of evidence, or a single step of logic, when you rhapsodize about the supposed benefits of diversity. The very idea of testing this wonderful, magical word against something as ugly as reality seems almost sordid." Thomas Sowell

What is Integrated Pest Management?

by Rich Kozlovich (Originally published 6/13/10)

All too often we hear pest control professionals claim that we must follow the methodologies of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to meet modern structural needs.  There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control because it is based on threshold limits and the threshold limits for the pests we deal with in people's homes and businesses is zero.  The reality is that IPM exists in structural pest control because some government agency says is exists.  That doesn't change the facts, we may be stuck with it, but we need to understand the reality of it.   IPM is an agricultural concept, where it can actually be scientifically defined.    Definitions of IPM on the Web:

• Here - The use of different techniques in combination to control pests, with an emphasis on methods that are least injurious to the environment and most specific to the particular pest. For example, pest-resistant plant varieties, regular monitoring for pests, pesticides, natural predators of the pest, and good stand management practices may be used singly or in combination to control or prevent particular pests.

• Here  -A combination of biological, cultural, and genetic pest control methods with use of pesticides as the last resort. IPM considers a targeted species' life cycle and intervenes in reproduction, growth, or development to reduce the population. Land use practices are examined for possible change; other animals, birds, or reptiles in the ecosystem are used as natural predators.

• Here - A systems approach that combines a wide array of crop production practices with careful monitoring of pests and their natural enemies. IPM practices include use of resistant varieties, timing of planting, cultivation, biological controls, and judicious use of pesticides to control pests. These IPM practices are used in greenhouses and on field crops. IPM systems anticipate and prevent pests from reaching economically damaging levels.

• Here - The control of pests or diseases by using an array of crop production strategies, combined with careful monitoring of insect pests or weed populations and other methods.

• Here - An approach to pest control that includes biological, mechanical and chemical means. The goal of IPM is to produce a healthy crop in an economically efficient and environmentally sound manner.

• Here -A system integrating a range of methods of pest control to produce healthy crops economically and to reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment.

• Here -The procedure of integrating and applying practical management methods, to keep pest species from reaching damaging levels while minimizing potentially harmful effects of pest management measures on humans, non-target species, and the environment, incorporating assessment methods to guide management decisions.

• Here -A pest management strategy that includes using traps to monitor for pests on the farm, using sanitation and beneficial insects to control those pests, and applying pesticides in such a way that they pose the least possible hazard, and are used as a 'last resort' when other controls are inadequate.

• Here -IPM begins with a set of guidelines. The grower monitors pest populations and develops statistical ceilings for the numbers of each pest species that is acceptable for specific crops. The first method of control is preventive -- or cultural (growing healthy plants). Physical (traps, handpicking insects, row covers) and biological (beneficial insects) controls are applied next. If none of these is effective, the grower resorts to chemical controls (such as insecticides).

• Here -A system of controlling insect and diseases by a thorough understanding of the life cycle of the pests and the plants. Chemical controls are used as a last resort.

• Here -A pest management strategy that uses field monitoring of pest populations, established guidelines, and economic thresholds to determine if and when pesticide treatments should be utilized. Emphasizes the use of a number of crop management techniques including the conservation of natural enemies and the use of resistant varieties to manage pests.

• Here - Maintaining pest populations below a level at which economic damage results by using the least toxic methods.

• Here -An ecologically based pest-control strategy that relies on natural mortality factors, such as natural enemies, weather, cultural control methods, and carefully applied doses of pesticides.

• Here -A decision making process for managing pest populations that uses a combination of techniques; it includes preventing pest problems, identification, monitoring, use of injury thresholds for decisions, a combination of controls (cultural, physical, mechanical, biological, chemical, etc.) and an evaluation step.

• Here -IPM is a complete approach to eliminating pest problems. Identifying pests, determining how to avoid or correct problems, and managing pest populations through a variety of chemical, biological and cultural practices are all involved in a successful IPM program.

• Here -Combined use of biological, chemical, storage and cultivation methods in proper sequence and timing to keep the size of a pest population below that which causes an economically unacceptable loss of a crop or livestock animal.

• Here -Pest control strategy employing non-chemical means, such as natural predators, to control crop-damaging pests.

• Here -A package of alternatives to conventional pest control methods, which often involve frequent and extensive use of pesticides. The package consists of one or more of the following: (1) growing a healthy, genetically varied crop (cultural control); (2) use of pest-resistant crop varieties (host plant resistance); (3) use of natural enemies to crop pests (biological control); and (4) occasional use of pesticides as a last resort (chemical control).

• Here -A holistic or integrated approach to controlling the risks and damage associated with natural predators, diseases and pests. It involves using site-specific information to determine the most effective combination of physical, chemical, biological, or cultural practices to reduce damage while reducing impacts on the environment, biological diversity and human health.

• Here -A process (based on scouting) that anticipates and prevents pests from reaching economically damaging levels. Pests are controlled by using all suitable tactics, including natural enemies, pest resistant plants, mechanical management, and judicious use of pesticides. IPM leads to an economically sound and environmentally safe agriculture. It is a component of ICM and a water quality practice.
Points of importance that can be gleaned from this information are as follows:

1. It is the applicator, farmer, greens keeper or who ever else is responsible for keeping a pest population in control that decides what is to be done and with what, including establishing what the threshold limits are to be.
2. Preventative applications may be necessary in agriculture.
3. Plant varieties are immaterial in structural pest control.
4. Biological controls (other than IGR’s) used in agriculture will not work in structural pest control.
5. There are no natural predators to pests in structures except man.
6. Many of these definitions clearly call IPM pest control. Why then do we have to call it anything other than pest control?
7. IPM is an agricultural concept.
8. IPM is an economic concept.
9. IPM was never presented as an environmental concept first.
10. IPM is a concept that outlines a host of tools and techniques that could be used to manage a pest population.
11. A concept that allows the applicator to determine what tools and techniques would used.
12. IPM was never intended for the structural pest control industry.

This is indicative as to what the problem with IPM really is. It is indefinable — or if you prefer, unendingly definable — according to one’s likes, whims or ideology.  Those who promote IPM in structural pest control are actively promoting an ideology while attempting to disguise it as a methodology; with the ultimate goal of eliminating pesticides.  Those who promote it are known and their track record is clearly anti-pesticide, irrational and misanthropic.  Those in industry who support and promote it are self-serving and short sighted.  That is the reality of it.  Get over it!

Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”.

Sowell's Critique For Change

By Rich Kozlovich (This first appeared in 2010)

This blog site was created for the following purposes.

1. To fight the battles that the pest control industry refuses to see, or sees but refuses to address.

2. To better inform the pest control industry that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Green Pest Control is an unscientific dream of the greenies, government regulators and their fellow travelers in the pesticide chemical manufacturing distribution and application industries that will become a constantly recurring nightmare.

3. To present enough information to give those in the industry who agree with me the intellectual ammunition needed to challenge what is now becoming conventional wisdom, which I prefer to call the Philosophical Flavor of the Day.

4. To outline lists of questions that will allow those who agree with me to have the ability to place the burden of proof on those who are attempting to impose regulations on our industry that will eventually destroy structural pest control, and as bed bugs have shown, wreck havoc on the nation’s people.

Unfortunately, it becomes very apparent trying to stay focused on one issue with the environmental activists is impossible. They ubiquitously stick their noses into everything. As a result all of these issues overlap. While addressing our industry's concerns I have come to realize these overlapping issues also present overlapping challenges with overlapping answers requiring overlapping logic.

These issues are presented in such complicated ways that it takes some time to realize that all of these challenges are presented with the same lines of logic, because the environmental cabals who present these issues use the same illogical junk science mentality; which are the same logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty used by the rest of the Left. 

The patterns repeat over and over  again. 

Climate change is much larger than most realize. Not because of the potential danger to humanity and the world from global warming. It's huge because the warming activists have thrown all their efforts into this and the science is killing them. A large number of the science sites are full of information showing that this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Here is one such site that addresses this issue with an objective eye.

Unfortunately the only information we were, and are, getting from the Main Stream Media (MSM) supports the view that global warming is anthropogenic and as a result we have the ability to make the climate do what we want.

We can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s weather and so get this; we are going to make the climate do what we want on a worldwide scale? What nonsense! Yet we had people like Al Gore asking the MSM to donate advertising time to promote the global warming scare.

If it had truly been scientific; why did it have to be sold? He announced there would be an upcoming coalition of environmental, labor, religious and other groups that will be raising money to buy airtime for ads over the next three years to address this issue.

Once again, why did it have to be sold? Why was selling this issue to a non-scientific gullible public so important? Because the science didn’t support it then and it doesn’t support it now!  However, without being scared to death the public would not demand that something be done by political leaders. And now Al the High Priest of the Warming Globe whines that “our government has failed us".

If the MSM was going to donate airtime, why did it not donate airtime for a public debate on global warming. Let “The Sky is Falling Al”, and his allies present their information against those that see this issue differently in a public forum without any ability for either side to spin. This of course did not happen. The Mother of Junk Science, Rachel Carson led the way with Silent Spring by going public without facing peer review and thereby bypassed all science based safe guards.

How does this apply to structural pest control? This web address takes you to a web site that appears to be a corporation set up by EPA and Cornell University whose goal is to promote IPM. Why does it have to be promoted (sold) to the public? Now we have to ask ourselves:

• If science supports IPM, why does it have to be sold?

• EPA certainly has the authority to impose it by merely changing the labels on pesticides. Why don’t they?

• If there is no science behind this effort, why are they trying to “sell” it to the public?

• At public events, why isn’t anyone who is opposed to IPM invited to present anything at any national forum?

• Why isn’t the idea of a national debate on IPM an idea whose time has come?

• If IPM in structural pest control was based on real science, wouldn’t an open debate be the ideal way to get everyone on board by exposing the flaws in the arguments of those that believe there is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control?

• Why aren’t we seeing articles stating views that are opposed to IPM in the publications of our industries information deliverers? I’m not talking about occasional letters to the editor. I am talking about regular features opposing ipm just as we see regular feature articles promoting IPM.

The patterns keep repeating over and over again. All of these issues, whether it is IPM, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, global warming, endangered species, saving the trees, clear air or clean water issues are in reality the same issue couched in different terms,  with the same goal. Eliminate real science, eliminate people and dominate those that are left. Since this will be the end result of enacting these policies; this must be their goal. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Onkar Ghate made this observation; Man's method of survival – transforming nature to meet his needs – must be defended against environmentalism's attack. Do you agree with that? If you do, how can you justify supporting IPM or Green Pest Control? If you are opposed to that concept are you an eco-terrorist? This would be a good time to apply what I call “Sowell’s Critique For Change”. There are three questions to the Critique.

1. As compared to what?

2. How much is it going to cost?

3. What hard evidence do you have?

These three questions by Thomas Sowell could be an excellent basis for a public debate at one of our industry’s national forums regarding IPM and Green Pest Control. At some point we must begin to realize that this just isn’t about business, pesticides and regulations.

At some point we must come to grips with the fact that this is a moral issue. We are part of that thin gray line that stands in defense of the nation’s health. We are part and parcel of the public health service. We are “The Rat Catchers Child"!   If we don’t take a moral position on all of this; are we not as lost as the green activists and their acolytes in government? We are the experts! We are society’s last best hope in these matters.

But are we courageous enough to reach out and grab the battle standard of our fallen predecessors?


Comments will not be accepted that are rude, crude, stupid or smarmy. Nor will I allow ad hominem attacks or comments from anyone who is "Anonymous”, even if they are positive!

Demagoguery Beats Data

By Rich Kozlovich

“What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way; "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell

The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We're constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we're using. We're told we must adopt “least toxic” (whatever that means) pest control programs.

Why?

Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.  This isn’t only from the environmental activists outside of government.  It's also the constant refrain from those environmental activists within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market - are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Actually - yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do, whether it's pesticides or automobiles, until it is in common use. With pesticides ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.

In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured, liquids only being a part of that percentage. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. We've changed what we're using in structural pest control dramatically over the last thirty years, we did so because of efficacy. We shifted to a higher reliance to baits for cockroaches and ants because of their effectiveness.  However we must understand - if a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last.

New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? If these products have been used extensively, and for some time, then the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.

So what then must we conclude from that?  Logically we can only conclude they don’t care what the facts are. They've apparently made up their minds to advocate the same view as the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way.  These "Sue and Settle" lawsuits, which is nothing short of illegal collusion between environmentalists  and government bureaucrats, gives clear evidence of that.   Between regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media,  they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.

Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM! Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an “ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of neo-pagan mysticism.

If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market, and they have traced the results of use of these products over the years - why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire -  why don’t they do it? It is quite simple - the facts must not support such an action.

Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control.  And why IPM or green pest control?  Because if there's no alternative there's no problem.  IPM and Green Pest Control are their representatives of an alternative.

The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause every conceivable malady.  When it is discovered they're wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted - as in the Alar case - it's passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want no matter what the real truth is and no matter who is hurt, and as in the Alar case, refusing to publicly acknowledge their misconduct.

What are the facts regarding pesticides? There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.

There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of chemicals in our waters and land, and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. It's the dose makes the poison, not it's presence, and there are toxic chemicals necessary for good health which appear in detectable trace amounts in our bodies.

Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “all-natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean!  I love the claim that things are "chemical free".  Let's get our heads on right about chemicals.   The universe - including you - is made up of chemicals - if it's chemical free it doesn't exist. 

Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, and "organic" food is pesticide free.  That's blatantly false!  As far as the claim they taste better - taste is subjective and in point of fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.

Dr. Bruce Ames (a biochemistry professor at the University of California) pointed out in 1987 that we ingest in our diet about 1.5 grams per day of {natural} pesticides. Those foods contain 10,000 times more, by weight, of {natural} pesticides than of man-made pesticide residues. More than 90% of the pesticides in plants are produced {naturally} by the plants, which help protect them from insects, mites, nematodes, bacteria, and fungi. Those natural pesticides may make up 5% to 10% of a plant's dry weight, and nearly half of them that were tested on experimental animals were carcinogenic. Americans should therefore feel unconcerned about the harmless, infinitesimal traces of synthetic chemicals to which they may be exposed. The highly publicized traces of synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables worried some people so much that they began to favor ``organically produced'' foods, thinking that they would not contain any pesticides. Most people are not aware that organic gardeners can legally use a great many pesticides, so long as they are not man-made. They can use nicotine sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum (derived from plants), or any poisons that occur naturally, such as lime, sulfur, borax, cyanide, arsenic, and fluorine.

This apparently is OK because its “natural”. Chemicals are chemicals and guess what - they all have chemical names. If I presented you the following menu would you eat it? By the way, these foods are known carcinogens.

Cream of Mushroom Soup, Carrots, Cherry Tomatoes, Celery, Mixed Roasted Nuts, Tossed Lettuce and Arugula with Basil-Mustard Vinaigrette, Roast Turkey, Bread Stuffing (with onions, celery, black pepper & mushrooms), Cranberry Sauce, Prime Rib of Beef with Parsley Sauce, Broccoli Spears, Baked Potato, Sweet Potato, Pumpkin Pie, Apple Pie, Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos, Pears, Pineapple, Red Wine, White Wine, Coffee, Tea., Jasmine Tea. (Source: American Council on Science and Health)

Here are the chemicals that make up this natural meal.

Hydrazines, aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, caffeic acid, furan derivatives, psoralens, aflatoxin, furfural, allyl isothiocyanate, caffeic acid, estragole, methyl eugenol, heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural, dihydrazines, d-limonene, psoralens, quercetin glycosides, safrole,furan derivatives ,benzene, heterocyclic amines, psoralens,allyl isothiocyanate,ethyl alcohol, caffeic acid,ethyl alcohol, furfural,acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural,benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole,acetaldehyde, caffeic acid, coumarin, estragole, ethyl alcohol, methyl eugenol, quercetin glycosides, safrole,acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl acrylate, quercetin glycosides,ethyl alcohol, ethyl carbamate,benzo(a)pyrene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol,benzo(a)pyrene, quercetin

For those that read the chemicals listed above you will notice that some of them are repeated a number of times. I deliberately left the list in that way because you are getting a multiple dose in the above Thanksgiving meal.

Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly it is impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented. Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs, after all it is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. It might interfere with all those scares they are constantly presenting as eminent disasters. That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur. They would have to go out and get real jobs.

All of this is disturbing, but what I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers - the trade journals and trade associations -  to stand up to these people and publish the truth. When we fail to stand up and be counted we're appeasers and enablers.  Eventually that will turn us into traitors to our own industry.

Editor's Note:  I ran this some years back but it's as noteworthy now as it was then, and as I read this I decided to run this every year at this time.  Best wishes to all!   RK

Pesticides just one tool in the modern farmer’s pest management toolbox

Steve Savage | February 10, 2017 | Genetic Literacy Project

Whether a farmer is growing in an organic or conventional system, his or her crop needs to be protected from damage from plant pests (insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, weeds…). To fail to minimize pest damage leads to inefficient use of scarce resources like prime farm land, water, or inputs. The quality and safety of the final products can also be compromised.

The approaches used to implement IPM programs generally fall into six categories:

1. Avoiding the pest
2. Employing the plant’s own genetic defenses
3. Modifying the climate
4. Disrupting the pest’s life cycle
5. Fostering beneficial organisms
6. Using targeted pesticide applications.....To Read More....

My Take - For those in the pest control industry, and my regular readers, you're aware of my views on IPM.....in structural pest control.   However, IPM is an agricultural concept based on threshold limits - a valid, well defined concept.    I would like for anyone to tell me how this in any way could be construed as a structural pest control concept that can be properly, consistently, and logically defined. 

The Pillars of IPM: Part IV

By Rich Kozlovich

Originally published Friday, March 11, 2011, updated March 28, 2016

The pillars that hold up the structure of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in structural pest control are arrogance, deceit, deception, ideology, lies, ignorance, scare tactics and its foundation is the Precautionary Principle; the bulwark of junk science.

The predictions and scares thrown up by the environmental movement has become conventional wisdom by repetition, yet have proven false by time. That's the trouble with conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom is merely what everyone believes at the moment, and may be as fleeting as the latest ladies fashion.  To become traditional wisdom it still must face the march of time. 

Unfortunately, these philosophical flavors of the day have left devastation in their wake in so many countries around the world.

From Malthus to Paul Ehrlich (look them up) they almost have a monopoly on being wrong. So why do we so readily accept their scare mongering? The goal for those who wish to implement IPM as a separate, practical pest control concept is the elimination of pesticides. I seem to have to repeat this over and over because so many claim this isn’t true, which makes me wonder what planet they are living on. If we are to eliminate all of these products that have been so effective and beneficial to mankind we had better ask three questions.  (I am paraphrasing these questions from comments made by Thomas Sowell. RK)

1. IPM or green pest control is better as opposed to what? If bed bugs are any indicator, IPM is an abject failure as opposed to using effective, inexpensive, easy to use chemistry available to everyone.

2. How much will it cost? Once again. If bed bugs are the touchstone we are to use. IPM is an abject failure.  

3. What hard evidence is there? The reality is most of what the EPA promotes is based on “risk assumptions”, not actual science.

If the environmentalists truly are concerned about people’s health, why aren’t they taking stands to support DDT? Why aren’t they supporting genetically modified foods such as “Golden Rice”? Golden Rice is a genetically enhanced product that would bring much needed Vitamin A into the diets of the children in Asia and Africa. This one item alone would prevent 500,000 children from going blind every year. Americans have been using genetically modified (GM) foods for years without any adverse effects. Yet, well-fed activists living in industrialized countries blocked aid in the form of corn that is GM to starving people in Africa between the years 2002 and 2004. This action alone caused the deaths of thousands. Then again, is it possible this is exactly what they want?

If they really are concerned about indoor air quality, why aren’t they supporting power plants in Africa so those poor people won’t have to breathe the fumes of cooking fires made from dried dung and the resulting respiratory problems?

They are against chlorine in drinking water. What is the result of such thinking? Thousands died and tens of thousands were sickened when environmental activists convinced South American leaders to eliminate chlorine from their water supplies.

They oppose every one of these advancements, and as a result afflictions, disease and starvation in Africa, South America and South East Asia is rampant and devastating to these poor countries. So few resources are spent on so many problems that could easily be fixed with modern agricultural techniques, modern chemistry and modern technology! Who is to answer for all of the misery, squalor, diseases and deaths in the third world as a result of environmentalist policies?

It would seem to me that those that have supported and fought against all of the above items, including DDT, are guilty of crimes against humanity. At the very least they surely must be guilty of depraved indifference. Are these the people we are to listen to? They talk about theoretical risks while real devastation is taking place. Do they really care about the health and safety of our families or is all of the just a ploy to rid us of the tools needed to keep our society from becoming the nightmare that the third world has become?

However, I have to ask this. Let us suppose this isn’t a ploy, and let us assume that they really do care so much about us and our families - then we have to ask - why do they hate the families of third world so badly?

Do environmentalists really believe they have created an environmental paradise in the third world with the policies they promote? If that is the case, why haven’t they moved there instead of continuing to stay in this environmental horror of well-fed comfort, economic advancement and chemical technology known as the western world? The real question we have to ask ourselves is this - who are the real killers here, pesticide manufacturers and applicators or environmental activists?

If IPM gains traction with consumers it will be because the environmental movement and their junk science allies have undermined all that we have done for the last 70 years. This will have been accomplished by consistently ignoring the actual science in preference of junk science by the activists, regulators, media, society as a whole and our own industry. We must begin to immediately recognize that any pest control concept called anything other than pest control diminishes us and what we do as an industry and is in reality an attack on our industry.

What we do is more important than some indefinable concept called IPM. In the real world of pest control we protect children, we protect homes, we protect food. We are on the front line of defense for the health and safety of the people of the world. We save lives! We are part and parcel of the public health service that stands on the wall and says to the world - no one will harm you on my watch! What we do isn’t just a job - it is a mission, and we can’t carry out that mission without preventative and corrective applications of pesticides.

I'm often told by pest controllers who've taken upbrage with my position how they use the tools and techniques of IPM daily to protect homes, people and food stuffs.  I've made this same statement to them for years:  You use the tools and techniques of IPM!  Really?  Name one!

I'm not opposed to these so-called tools and techniques they claim they're using because these tools and techniques are what we have preached and practiced in structrual pest control for 150 years. The names of those tools have changed, but the tools are the same. Liquids, powders, baits, traps cleaning up debris and trash, sealing up access and harborage areas, drying up wet areas along with trapping and netting. These tools and techniques are over 150 years old, and newspaper clippings going back to 1850 prove that. Just because we have added some new products such as IGR’s and some new baits doesn’t make it some kind of brand new thing called IPM. It’s still just pest control.

The very idea of calling pest control anything but pest control is what I am opposed to. Words mean things and meanings have consequences. They provide the basis for ideas and concepts, including bad ones that can become pathways to unforeseen disasters. Words create ideologies. Junk science ideologies can only survive if they are fed by demagoguery. “IPM is an ideology, not a methodology.”

In summary, I object to using the term IPM, which needs to be eliminated from the lexicon of pest control terms. I object to attempting to create something outside of traditional pest control called something other than pest control. Something, which can't be defined and will ultimately be used against our industry because someone says, “I don’t buy it”.

I object to concept without form. I object to philosophical flavors of the day. I object to change for change sake. I object to the condescending arrogance of those caterwauling about IPM. But mostly, I object to the decisions made or influenced by the leaders and IPM harpies of our industry who then move on leaving the rest of us, and the companies we leave to our children, to live with the outcome.

Lastly, we need open and public debates regarding IPM. Let those that have views on this subject stand up against each other in a public forum and take their best shot before an audience of stakeholders. Let the manufacturers, distributors and applicators get a good look at what is presented and then finally after all has been said and done, let the industry decide if there really is a logical foundation for such a thing as IPM in structural pest control, and then decide what to do about it.   I would love to see the NPMA, the trade journals, the distributors and manufacturers sponser such an event. And I'm prepared to publically debate anyone in our industry who disagrees with me on any of this, irrespective of position or education.  

Final thoughts to ponder.

When the leaders of the environmental movement make misanthropic comments about humanity being a virus, and how the Earth is better off without mankind supporting every misanthropic, irrational and morally defective policy leading to that end - we should ask ourselves:  Why do we believe them when they say what they do is  “For the Children”? 

To see the truth we need to see the historical outcome of their policies (Starting with the unscientific and unappropriate ban on DDT) which has probably killed more innocent people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot Pot and Castro combined.   Once we've done our homework, then and only then can we see their policies don't do things "For the Children".  Their policies do things "To the Children"!

This is the final part in this series - but it's not the final word.  "Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too." -- Andrew Breitbart

The Pillars of IPM: Part I
The Pillars of IPM: Part II
The Pillars of IPM: Part III

The Pillars of IPM: Part III

By Rich Kozlovich

(Originally published March 10, 2011 updated March 18, 2016)

The pillars that hold up the structure of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in structural pest control are arrogance, deceit, deception, ideology, lies, ignorance, scare tactics and its foundation is the Precautionary Principle; the bulwark of junk science.

Why IPM?

"We all know what IPM is" - or - "We all know what Green means." Really? The reality is that there is “no universally accepted definition of the IPM and Green phenomena in structural pest control, there is no consensus as to their range, their ideological origins, or the modalities of action which characterize them.” –(Paraphrased statement by Stanley G,. Payne in the book Dictionnaire historique des fascisms et du nazisme as cited and quoted in Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism, which I recommed everyone read.)

I’m told IPM is obviously necessary.

If IPM is so obviously necessary, why has the EPA spent untold thousands of dollars on grant money to promote it at the local level? If they have the science to support their views on IPM, why do they need to promote it? They certainly have the regulatory power to impose it, and it should be obvious to the most casual observer that they certainly have the desire to impose it - why then don’t they just impose it? It's simply because they lack the science to support such an action!

The public is demanding it.

Once again, if that's the case why does it have to be promoted? A number of years ago we at the Greater Cleveland Pest Control Association we spent a great deal of time organizing training programs that included people from outside of the pest control industry. A few years back we started a training program for the public health departments from around the state hoping for a better understanding between us we called, the Forum on Pest Control and Public Health, and we invited PCO’s and public health officials from all over the state. We started small with local county health department. The first one was about 10 years ago, and was intended to expand their understanding of what new techniques and tools were being used in modern pest control.

After the program was over I asked a senior member if they enjoyed the program. Her affirmative response was tempered by one objection. She said I needed to be careful about using “jargon”. Surprised by her statement I asked - what jargon? Her response - “IPM”. At that time none of the rest of them had ever heard of it. We went to the officials of local school districts informing them that there may be changes coming down from the state regulators regarding pest control. When IPM was mentioned, their response was universal. What’s IPM?

If the public is demanding it, why is it that so many knowledgeable educated intelligent people had never heard of it and had no idea what it was supposed to be?

So why did IPM have to be promoted?

That's an easy question to answer. It turned out people weren’t demanding it after all because they never heard of it. So in order to get people to actually start demanding it, EPA had to promote it. After all, how could anyone demand something they had never heard of?

Interestingly, many companies servicing schools in Ohio had been years in advance of the other states. In point of fact, I was working for the company that started what may have been the first IPM school program in Ohio over 25 years ago. When I told that to one EPA official he stated, “that was before anyone ever heard of it”.

If IPM gains traction with consumers it will be because the environmental movement - along with their junk scientific allies in government - undermined all that we have done for the good of humanity for the last 70 years by consistently ignoring actual science in preference of demagogic junk science.

We have a more professional image.

Baloney! The movie Arachnophobia is often thrown up as an example of how people view our industry. By Hollywood maybe, but real people who saw the movie viewed this as a caricature of who and what we are - not the substance or the reality. We are thought of as professionals when we do our jobs and get rid of their pests. Period!

IPM is more effective than traditional pest control.

One of Dr. Marc Lame’s (well know entomologist and promoter of IMP) favorite lines is - IPM is proactive while traditional pest control is reactive. What a load of horse pucky! Pest control, no matter what you call it, is now and has always be proactive and reactive, and calling it IPM doesn’t change that.

By attempting to create something called IPM for structural pest control versus traditional pest control we have created an attitude that one is different from the other. One is superior to the other. Worse yet, the impression is given that IPM’ers are good and forward thinking  and all others are bad and backward thinking.

Wrong!

IPM is just pest control. Let's come back to the basics once again. Do we really believe that what we have been doing for the last 70 years has harmed the public? Or do we believe the structural pest control industry been part of the finest public health program the world has ever seen through our use of pesticides? Ask third world nations where every family has lost someone to malaria or one of the other many insect borne diseases where they would rather live?

Pesticides are our friend, they don’t cause cancer, they don’t cause asthma, they don’t cause autism and they aren’t endocrine disruptors. However, they do cause more and more people to live longer, healthier, better fed lives than ever in human history.  Pesticides are a weapon of mass survival!

At the end of WWII the world’s population was approximately two billion people, and it took thousands of years to get there. The world’s population is now seven billion people and that was accomplished in less than seventy five years. Of course modern medicine played a large role, but the greatest boon to humanity was the development of DDT, and all the modern pesticides since. With all its marvelous medical advancements there is one thing modern medicine will never conquer: starvation! That is the function of pesticides, along with genetically modified organisms, all of which are vehemently hated by green activists.

IPM is the great divider for the pest control industry. If the idea that IPM is something other than pest control then we can easily accept the idea of eliminating pesticides. The fact is the only ones who actually have a clear understanding as to what IPM really means are the environmentalists. They know IPM as the best tool they have to promote the eventual elimination of pesticides and the destruction of pesticide manufacturing and application industries.

In past years activists along with local politicians worked to eliminate preemption laws in at least five Midwestern states in order to affect the same kind of result as had taken root in Canada. They're still working toward that goal. Their primary tool to attain this goal is the promotion of IPM. Through training seminars for school executives and maintenance personnel along with the concerned local populace they present the same theme.

IPM is the alternative to pesticides and pesticides are killing us.

Why then are we trying to find common ground to please these people? If we accept IPM in one form they will demand more restrictions in another form. The only way that we could truly please these anti-pesticide activists was if we all collectively committed suicide. If pesticides are so evil, and going back to nature is so wonderful- why aren't anti-pesticide activist moving to those third world lands where few pesticides are used instead of staying in here in first world nations filled with evil chemicals?

There are those who subscribe to these false assumptions about modern life - which apparently activists claim, and supposedly believe, are killing all of us.  If someone feels so strongly that a modern, industrial, synthetic chemical rich society is a living hell, I can recommend a number of countries that would be an environmentalist's equivalent of paradise. Of course the water is contaminated, parasites are rampant, insect transmitted diseases are the rule versus the exception, the life span is really short, child mortality is staggeringly high, and the quality of life is one of misery and poverty. However, if dystopia is someone's understanding of paradise, they need to go there, take their family with them and leave the rest of us alone. 

Health concerns.

Okay, what health concerns? Cancer, asthma or is it that old saw, “we don’t know the long term effects”? The rate of cancer in children has not increased.  According to the book “Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals?” in 1938 the number deaths to childhood cancer was 939 of children under 14 in a base population of 130 million or 1 out of every 138,445. This was during the depression and I doubt if diagnostic, reporting or record keeping techniques were nearly as good as it is now. In 1998 the number was approximately 1700 in a base population of 280 million or 1 out of every 164,705.

The rate of cancer has dropped for the rest of the population also. If you were to lay out the demographic for cancer in 1900 and create a plastic overlay with the cancer demographics for the year 2000 you would find two obvious differences. In 1900 there were very few smokers and very few people who lived over 65. If you take those two demographics out of the equation you would find that the drop in cancer would be startlingly greater.

The latest information regarding asthma is the terrible effect that cockroaches have on asthmatics. Well, pesticides eliminate cockroaches which has the uncanny result of seriously reducing asthma. There has never been a scientific study that has linked pesticides and asthma. However, according to Ohio State University these are some of the asthma triggers they do know about:

“pollen, mold, animal, protein (dander, urine, oil from skin) house dust/dust mites, cockroaches and certain foods. Infections can cause irritation of the airways, nose, throat, lungs, and sinuses, and may precede an asthma attack strong odors and sprays, such as perfumes, household cleaners, cooking fumes, paints, and varnishes chemicals such as coal, chalk dust, or talcum powder air pollutants changing weather conditions, including changes in temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, and strong winds. Chemical exposure on the job, such as occupational vapors, dust, gases, or fumes. Medications, such as aspirin and sulfites, cause up to 20 percent of adult asthmatic attacks as a result of sensitivities or allergies to them. These medications often include: aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, such as ibuprofen, indomethacin, naproxen and sulfites used as preservatives in food and beverage.”

With this many asthma triggers how can anyone know the real cause of asthma? In point of fact, they don’t have a clue as to what really causes asthma.

“We don’t know the long-term effects.” Sure we do. We live longer, healthier and happier lives. I saw an Oprah Winfrey show where she and a friend went to one of those places where modern families decided to live as they did 200 or 300 years ago. Flies were swarming everywhere. Eating dinner was like living next to a garbage can in the middle of August. How much would you be willing to bet if she actually had to live there for a month she would have paid me a million dollars for an aerosol can of fly spray - and she wouldn’t have cared what was in it.

In spite of the latest CDC and JAMA reports (whose methodology must be seriously called into question) there is no justification that we need to eliminate pesticides from the schools. This is made clear by JAMA’s authors of the report own admission:

“Given both the nonspecificity of the clinical findings of pesticide poisoning and the lack of a standard diagnostic test, some illnesses temporally related to pesticide exposures may be coincidental and not caused by these exposures."

The number of alleged pesticide incidents (1,972 alleged injuries occurred over a five year period) only three were considered serious and only a total of 13 percent were reported by medical professionals. The rest were by family members or others who would have no way of knowing whether it was pesticides or not. This is miniscule compared to the 3.7 million children that suffer some sort of significant injury to factors other than pesticides every year in schools. Actually, about 445 times greater than the alleged rate for pesticide incidents.

These reports are unworthy of even being mentioned when weighed against the childhood deaths worldwide as a result on not using pesticides. No mention was made of the important health benefits pesticides provide to children. Benefits that are not available in most parts of the world. Places where they would love to be able to apply these life saving products. The fact is when used properly pesticides are perfectly safe.

Who decided we needed something called IPM?

The environmentalists and their allies in government along with the universities who are desperate for government grant money. The most sure fire way to get grant money is to promote IPM. There was a time when the university extension departments were filled with pesticide users, pesticide believers and some were even pesticide patent holders. That appears to have changed. They retired and were replaced with those who are infused with the “litany” of the environmental movement. Grant money and environmental indoctrination has made many of them true believers. It would be interesting to see how the universities would react if the only grant money available was for the purpose of proving IPM doesn’t exist. They would do an about face so fast you would swear that they were the color guard in a military parade.

I’m told we can't challenge those in academia. They are educated, intelligent and have done the research! This is an attitude of "We know best so don’t question us!" Isn’t that the Dan Rather defense?

Make no mistake about it - those who promote IPM in our industry diminish us with an arrogant self-righteous attitude - looking down on anyone disagreeing with them. They, like the environmentalists, have become a bunch of “self perpetuating head nodders ”  sitting and discussing what is right for our industry in an “echo chamber of self congratulations”.

Where is the evidence that we need to seriously alter what we have been doing? Where are the serious health problems? Where is the devastation of wild life that would make this an automatic?

I’m not talking about fanciful opinions. Opinions are not facts. If we accept the term IPM as part of the lexicon of pest control terms then this must eventually replace the term “pest control” and we have to accept the idea that what we have been doing for the last 70 years has been detrimental to humanity and has devastated wildlife. Do we really believe that?

Why do we as an industry so readily accept this nonsense? We're accept it as an industry because we are uninformed, ill informed and complacent! For an industry that is so heavily involved with science we are terribly unaware of much of what we need to know. Dr. John Ray, PHD in psychology, former university sociology teacher made the following observation. “If the many past mistakes and follies of science were better known, people would be much less likely to accept uncritically the pronouncements about environmental matters coming from scientists.”

I recommend the following books.

1. Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals? (American Council on Science and Health)
2. Eco-Imperialism, Green Power Black Death, by Paul Driessen
3. Junk Science Judo by Steven Milloy, Junk Science.com
4. The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, a former environmental activist who has turned against the environmental movement.
5. Facts Versus Fears (American Council on Science and Health)
6. America's War on Carcinogens: Reassessing the Use of Animal Tests to Predict Human Cancer Risk . (American Council on Science and Health)

The Pillars of IPM: Part I

The Pillars of IPM: Part II  

The Pillars of IPM: Part IV

The Pillars of IPM: Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

Originally published Saturday, March 5, 2011 updated March 8, 2016

The pillars that hold up the structure of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in structural pest control are arrogance, deceit, deception, ideology, lies, ignorance, scare tactics and its foundation is the Precautionary Principle; the bulwark of junk science.

What is IPM?

What actually is Integrated Pest Management? That is a constant bone of contention in the structural pest control industry, the universities and the anti-pesticide movement.

IPM started out as an agricultural concept which was first outlined in an obscure agricultural magazine called Hilgardia in 1959. In agriculture there's no problem defining IPM. They knew they couldn’t eradicate all of the pests in fields no matter how many times the fields were treated. Therefore, instead of over spraying and only getting marginally better results - which didn’t justify the added costs - it was decided to develop threshold limits that would apply before making pesticide applications. Therefore the logical foundation for IPM is based on threshold limits. A certain about of pests do a certain amount of damage. Once the threshold for damage occurs it will become economically practical to apply pesticides. That is a simple, logical, and scientific foundation for IPM in agriculture, which I am told isn’t really practiced in agriculture because of the cost of determining what the threshold limit actually is.

The way it works is this. Fields are divided into grids; so you measure down so many feet and shake off all the bugs into a container and then count them. Then you repeat this process over and over again. Usually it is some poor graduate student who is doing this hot, sweaty, rotten job. To have real workers doing it is expensive throughout a growing season. That is the logical foundation for the whole concept in agriculture; threshold limits based on economics.

Let me say this unequivocally, emphatically and absolutely. There is no logical or scientific foundation for such thing as IPM in structural pest control. What is the threshold limit for brown recluse spiders in someone’s home? Is it 10, 20 or maybe it's 100? I would be willing to bet the owner thinks it's zero.

In the 1960’s a minor government bureaucrat (in an attempt to categorize what we do) applied the term IPM to the structural pest control industry and it stuck. Based on the definitions by various government agencies it basically states the applicator has the right to use his judgment as to what to use and when. If that really is the case, then who has the right to determine what constitutes IPM otherwise?

IPM as the greenies would have it is an ethereal concept that is indefinable - or if you prefer - it is unendingly definable and re-definable according to your point of view, ideology or by just whimsically saying, “I don’t buy it” therefore it isn’t IPM. They advocate such mystical concepts as "Real IPM", or "Deep IPM" and “least toxic”.   That may sound reasonable, but what constitutes real, deep or least toxic?

If we use the most efficacious product available to us one time to rid a home of pests - would that be considered "least toxic" versus use of a less efficacious product two, three, four or even ten times?  Which would be "least toxic", and to whom? Who decides that?

Since they also want pesticides to be used as a last resort, the logical question should be - In the meanwhile what should be done? Should I have to use less effective measures? And if I do, for how long should I continue failing my customers with those methods?  One day, one week, one month, one year?  Who decides?  Who’s going to pay for it? What about the customers needs and wants? Shouldn't they have the most effective treatment available for the health and saftey of their families or employees? If I have to make unnecessary trips to document that these pre-pesticide methods aren’t working, should the customer have to pay these extra unncessary charges in order for activists and bureaucrats to feel good about themselves? If I already know that a pesticide is what I am ultimately going to have to use to rid a property of vermin, why should that be my last choice?  I will address the issues about health concerns later.

In reality the problem with IPM definitions by the greenies is similar to their “nebulous” definition of the Precautionary Principle (PP). This can make practical application nebulous. This in turn allows for arbitrary and capricious charges of misapplication, which is exactly what they want. Because of pressure from the EPA many states have had to create their own definitions therefore establishing the idea that IPM is real in our industry. No matter the science, if the state says it exists - it exists!  At least on paper, and must be dealt with.

I had the privilege of being a part of that activity in Ohio, but make no mistake about this - IPM does not exist in structural pest control. It exists only because the government says it exists. Why? Why do they insist on the existence of something that has no simple, clear, logical or scientific foundation? I will address that later.

For a long time I kept hearing the phrase, “We need to get ahead of this and define IPM ourselves!" Baloney! Our goal should not have been to help define IPM in structural pest control - we should have worked unendingly to remove this agricultural term from the lexicon of structural pest control terms. To accept IPM as a valid structural pest control term is saying that this is a valid procedure that's something different, better, safer and more enlightened than traditional pest control. There is no way of getting ahead of this Trojan horse, and IPM is a Trojan horse to the pest control industry.  And please remember - it was the Trojan’s, not the Greeks, who dragged that horse into Troy to their destruction. That account may be mythical, but we are facing that reality in our industry by dragging IPM into the pest control community. What will the result be?

IPM is an ideology, not a methodology, but before we further explore all the aspects of IPM we need to define what pest control is. Pest control isn’t a methodology either; it is a practice, much like medicine.

In medicine the doctor (practitioner) examines the patient. In pest control the technician (practitioner) inspects the property. In medicine the practitioner makes a diagnosis. In pest control the practitioner identifies the pest. In medicine the practitioner determines the treatment that will give the quickest most efficacious relief possible. In pest control the practitioner determines the treatment that will give the quickest most efficacious relief possible. In medicine the practitioner outlines a program of preventative health care. In pest control the practitioner outlines a program of preventative applications.

Here is the rub. Does the doctor go through a list of techniques or products before he prescribes the one that will work the best? NO! Does the doctor start his treatment process by “bleeding” his patients or sticking leeches on their bodies before moving on to more effective methods? NO! Yet those promoting IPM continue to demand that a whole host of hoops be jumped through before a pesticide application is made, insisting that pesticides are to be used only as a last resort. Even the EPA doesn't officially define IPM in that fashion. Are we to first resort to old techniques that became passé when pesticides were developed? If those techniques were so great why did they abandon them for modern pest control in the first place?

Why should an experienced practitioner have to follow a circuitous plan outlined by people who will do or say anything to eliminate pesticides? People who aren’t practitioners of pest control and aren’t responsible for the outcome! Do we really believe activists and their acolytes in government know how to treat a structure better than those in pest control? Do we really believe that all the theoretical health claims made by these people are true? Do we believe that everything we have been doing since the advent of DDT for over seventy years ago has been wrong?

What chemicals and techniques used in our industry constitute IPM? All of them! What happens when the baits stop working? The bulb dusters, the mechanical aerosols, aerosol cans, and liquid pesticides all start coming out of the truck. Those are all IPM tools. The techniques for their use are all IPM techniques also. So why is IPM different than what's commonly referred to as conventional pest control?  A few years ago I was informed the number one and two products sold in this country are liquid pesticides. Someone out there must be spraying something!

Are we getting the message here?

IPM is pest control and needs no other term to define it.  Unless there are hidden goals that are leading to something else by those with hidden agendas. 

Let’s try to keep this in mind. Every concept, every scientific advancement, every social issue, every economic activity has to have some logical foundation to justify its existence or it fails because without a logical foundation it can't grow into something that bears fruit. If there is no logical foundation for a concept, it doesn’t exist. 

There is no such logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control and it doesn't exist!

Part III will soon follow!

The Pillars of IPM, Part I