Pest Control without Pesticides

by Bill Baue
Children’s Health Environmental Coalition

Six years ago, Aisha Ikramuddin moved into a Manhattan apartment plagued with roaches, a not-uncommon problem in urban areas. Aisha’s roommate, Jen Hildebrant, had dealt with them the way most New Yorkers do: A monthly exterminator. "The problem was that we still found roaches!" recalls Aisha. But Aisha wasn’t keen on pesticides being sprayed where food was stored and prepared. So she and Jen discontinued extermination.

That was fine until spring. Then the roaches began scoping out locations beyond the kitchen and bathroom. By that time, Aisha was working for a nonprofit environmental organization and had learned about less toxic alternatives. "I began calling pest control operators and quizzing them about what they used," Aisha says. When pressed, the exterminators she contacted revealed that their "perfectly safe" chemicals included the likes of Dursban (chlorpyrifos), a pesticide which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has since disallowed for use in homes due to harm to children.

Finally, Aisha reached George, an exterminator who asked "all the right questions." Did she have a cat? (Animal feces and pet food attract roaches.) Did she accumulate plastic bags and newspapers? (Clutter makes for favored roach homes.)

George told Aisha he would have to inspect the apartment before deciding on a solution, and suggested some less toxic strategies that he might use.

"George was ready to tailor the pest control strategy to my situation rather than propose a universal quick-fix," says Aisha. Yet, Aisha wondered if George’s proposed methods would really be effective.

George visited the apartment just once: He sealed cracks to bar roaches access into the kitchen and bathroom, applied an insect growth regulator that was safe for humans to cabinet door hinges, and placed sticky traps in heating ducts. George suggested that it might take two or more weeks for the roaches to disappear and that a second round of treatment might be needed. Incredibly, all the roaches vanished within two days!

Integrated Pest Management: a Mindset

Although George didn’t call his approach "Integrated Pest Management," Aisha knew enough about pesticide alternatives to identify his strategy. This term, also known as IPM, originated in 1967, just a few years after Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, the book that unveiled the dangers of pesticides. Today, IPM is often considered cutting edge, used by farmers, government institutions and others who have learned over the years that chemical controls have their price, including waning effectiveness because pests build resistance, immediate and long-term health effects to humans and ecosystems, and high costs.

IPM is more a mindset or long-term strategy than a specific physical solution to pest problems. It requires a number of steps to be taken to reach the pest control goal and to subsequently maintain the outcome. IPM relies on common sense. The "spray and pray" mentality seeks to eradicate all pests—an impossible goal. IPM seeks to eliminate the root causes of pest problems in order to reduce pest numbers to a tolerable minimum.

A crucial tenant of IPM is: "We cannot keep our homes 100 percent pest-free." The truth is that creepy crawlies, fungal diseases, and invasive weeds are relentless in finding a way into your life, even when toxic chemical barriers are erected against them.

IPM: A Plan-of-Action

Of course, IPM is a bit more involved for all parties concerned than relying on fast acting poisons. IPM requires that we take more responsibility in identifying, monitoring, and solving the pest problem instead of merely reaching for an all-purpose spray. Here are the basic steps:

• First, observe pest populations. Monitor and record their activities. Accurate identification helps let’s us take advantage of scientific understanding of the pests behavior. We can then use the habits of our specific invaders as a weapon. Monitoring gives us insight into how pests enter our homes, where the infestation physically is and is not, and if there are other controllable factors involved.

• Next, prevent pests from thriving. Deprive them access to food, water, and shelter by using what we learned in step one. Simple strategies, like fixing plumbing leaks, sealing cracks in walls and floors, and changing the time of day that we water our lawns, make our homes and gardens inhospitable environments.

• Evaluate our own tolerance level for co-existence with pests. This is perhaps the most challenging aspect of IPM. Some of us may be able to tolerate a few roaches, others may not be able to tolerate any.

• Intervene when pest levels rise above the established toleration level. IPM calls for us to exhaust all nontoxic options before resorting to more dangerous solutions. Alternatives include biological controls, such as ladybugs, which take advantage of pest predators, and physical controls, such as traps, baits and sticky tape. Only if non-toxic approaches do not solve the problem does IPM call for the use of toxins, beginning with the least toxic option and employing more toxic options only as a last resort.

IPM does not end with intervention, but rather calls for ongoing monitoring of pest populations. Although this may sound like a chore, it is much less work to maintain a minimal pest population than to deal with re-infestation. Familiarity with pest life cycles allows IPM practitioners to pinpoint the best time to confront pest populations with the right control.

( more )