Example of less use in schools

San Francisco's Board of Education voted unanimously on 10 February to ban the most toxic pesticides from public schools, and require the notification of parents, teachers and students when pesticides are applied. About 66,000 children attend San Francisco schools and pre-schools, at 175 sites.
    In addition to mandating integrated pest management (IPM), the policy immediately banned the following pesticides from property owned or leased by the school district: US Environmental Protection Agency acute toxicity category I and II pesticides, and EPA carcinogenicity categories A, B and C. Pesticides "known to the state of California" to cause cancer, or developmental or reproductive toxicity, under the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65).
    The policy also requires the school district to use biological, cultural and physical tools to minimise health, environmental and financial risks from pests; monitor treatments to evaluate their effectiveness; and make information about pesticide applications available to the public.
    Exemptions are allowed on a case-by-case basis, "based upon a finding that the protection of public health requires the use of that pesticide." Over a year ago, San Francisco passed a similar policy for city parks and buildings; the result has been a dramatic decline in pesticide use.
    Jon Rainwater of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters called the policy "a state-wide and national model for dealing with pesticide management in schools." Supporters said they plan to lobby for a state law requiring all school districts in California to adopt the policy.
    A 9 January report Failing Health: Pesticides Use in California Schools produced by the CALPIRG Charitable Trust and Californians for Pesticide Reform was critical of pesticide use in schools across the state. It said: "87% of the 46 California school districts surveyed used highly toxic pesticides to manage pests."
    Justin Ruben, community organiser for Pesticide Watch, said San Francisco was already "doing a better job than a lot of school districts" by not spraying indiscriminately.
    However, Mr Ruben said Pesticide Watch had documented a case of cyfluthrin (Tempo) being sprayed on the rug in a pre-school. "That's never going to happen again," he said. In a letter to the school board 6 February, the San Francisco Safe Schools Coalition wrote: "Children are particularly susceptible to these threats for a number of reasons, including undeveloped organs that are unable to combat toxins, and increased exposure through behaviour like rolling in grass or ingesting pesticide-laden dust from hands."

Janet Byron, California, US, 16 February, 1998.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 39, March 1998, page 11]