Our Water, Our World Promotion of Less-Toxic Pest Control

Annie Joseph

IPM Partnership Committee (California)

Water, Wildlife, and Pesticides in the West2005 Western IPM Center Symposium – Portland,

August 31, 2005

The Problem

Discovered toxicity in urban / suburban creeks in 1991

Discovered wastewater effluent was toxic in 1993

Diazinon was the major toxicant with chlorpyrifos also contributing (both organophosphate pesticides)

Chlorpyrifos was often co-found with diazinon but less frequently overall in effluent and runoff

Sources - Uses

Approximately 50-60% of diazinon was used for unreported uses (non-professional), like home and garden areas

For these uses, information on sites of use, application rates, and amounts applied are not publicly available. So very difficult to know what’s being used and whether it is being used correctly.

Response - Water Quality Regulators

In 1998, using Clean Water Act authority: listed waterbodies in virtually every

urbanized area of California as impaired by pesticides and toxicity

required that TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) be calculated and that dischargers (local governments) reduce the amount of these pesticides in the waterbodies to the TMDL targets (max. allowable amount)

Response* - Pesticide Regulators

Chlorpyrifos By December 31, 2005 – Retailers will have stopped sale for Lawn and

most Outdoor uses, Crack and crevice and most Indoor uses, and use for Termiticides will be phased out

Allow restricted use for Food crops, Baits, Industrial areas, Golf courses, Road medians, Wood treatments, Fire ant and mosquito control

Diazinon As of December 31, 2004 – Retailers stopped sale for Crack and

crevice and virtually all Indoor and non-agricultural Outdoor uses Allow restricted use for Food crops, Fruit trees, Ornamental nurseries,

Cut flowers, Cattle, Squirrels

* Not done in direct response to listings but happening at same time

Response - Marketplace

Very significant drop in use of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in consumer products (almost a ban)

Potential increase in sales of products containing malathion and other existing active ingredients

Switch in active ingredient in existing products with diazinon and chlorpyrifos to synthetic pyrethroids

Likely Result – Urban Areas

Availability and use of diazinon and chlorpyrifos will drop very significantly – but will it be enough to remove toxicity in creeks?

Surveys show that pesticides are often stored for years – among consumables, pesticides are probably stored for longer periods than almost any other product

Generally, as of January 2005 in urban areas: only residents have access to diazinon and chlorpyrifos (via

their stored amounts) and professionals will not be using it unreported (residents, unlicensed users) uses will increase

relative to reported uses and be virtually the only uses eventually

Assuming the replacement active ingredients become as popular as diazinon and chlorpyrifos, what is to stop them from causing water quality problems – just like their predecessors?

Response* - Local Governments

Given nature of problem, significant opportunity exists for consumer education on use of less-toxic pest control methods and proper use and disposal of pesticides

Outreach - Printed materials (brochures, fact sheets, etc.) and events

Advertising (Print, Radio, TV) Media Relations Point-of-Purchase - IPM Partnership

(or Our Water, Our World Promotion)

* Education element of response only, other elements are legal / regulatory and scientific / monitoring

IPM Partnership - Goals

Identify effective ways to educate the public about: The value of integrated pest management

approaches to pest control Use and disposal of pesticides, when used

Deliver IPM-related messages without unsubstantiated negative messages about any products

IPM Partnership – Goals (cont’)

Develop partnership with retailers Stores can help spread the word about

water quality problems related to residential pesticide use

Create a program that will have broad appeal to stores

Why this Strategy?

Targets a specific audience: those most likely to be purchasing and using pesticides

Involves local businesses in helping to solve the problem – by educating them

Enlists store owners and their employees in delivering “our” message in an alternate way

Delivers a message at the point of decision between seller and consumer

Partnership Elements

Starting 8th yr. of program after 1 yr. Pilot 2004 - first year going quasi-statewide 200 + Nursery and hardware stores Store employee training Master Gardener training Public workshops, events, fairs,… Evaluation

Promotion Materials

Fact sheets – 24 (15 – English / 9 – Spanish) Bug/pest-based (Ants, aphids, fleas, weeds,

mosquitoes) Plant care-based (Lawns, roses) Methods (Healthy garden, Use and disposal,

Finding a PCO that can prevent pest problems) Issue-based (Water quality & pesticides)

Less-toxic product list Shelf talkers Special displays (e.g., end caps, tablings)

Literature Rack w/ Fact Sheets

Shelf Talkers

End Cap Display

                                 

                      

Evaluations

People surveys Program / Store

Store owner / manager surveys / interviewsEmployee training surveys

General Product surveys

Sales data Shelf space

Evaluations – Results

Pilot – Program / Store Surveys & Sales Data Positive feedback from store managers and

employees: “This is what our customers want!” Positive effect on overall sales

sales of conventional products decreased sales of less-toxic products increased

5th year – People and Product Surveys Conventional pesticides conventional pesticides + less-

toxic products and methods Few very popular active ingredients (i.e., diazinon and

chlorpyrifos) number of active ingredients and methods

Evaluations – Results (cont’)

End of 6th year – Intercept Interviews of Store Customers (first direct, scientific evaluation of target audience)

1,290 customers at various participating nurseries and hardware stores in seven Bay Area counties were intercepted

Fifteen percent had heard of the promotion (considered quite a good percentage in retail business, especially for program without paid advertising)

Twenty-seven percent had seen one of the promotional items (logo, lit. rack sign, shelf talker, fact sheets)

Total awareness (aided and unaided) of the Our Water, Our World promotion was calculated at 30 percent

Of the respondents who had seen any of the promotional items, 65% said that these items helped them either very much or somewhat in identifying less-toxic products or methods

USEPA Award

Program Information

www.ourwaterourworld.org