Quote of the Day! Activists Creed

"It all follows a familiar, predictable, totalitarian pattern that ought to set off global alarms. Find a target of “eco-progressive” hate. Vilify the target, and demand that it be restricted or eradicated – to prevent yet another civilizational or planetary cataclysm. Redefine science and morality to drive the agenda. Reward and publicize those who support the claims and campaign. Condemn and silence anyone who questions or challenges them. Impose new rules." Duggan Flanakin

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. 

What is Green Pest Control?

By Rich Kozlovich

Generally speaking society has the tendency to accept whatever appears on the news, or the newspapers, regarding scientific or environmental issues. It’s a mentality that’s kind of like that commercial where the really pretty girl says they aren’t allowed to lie on the internet, as the “French” boyfriend she met on the internet comes to pick her up….who is not only ugly….he clearly isn’t French. But she’s just as happy as a clam because “they can’t lie on the internet”. The green activists understand that’s how people live their lives and view reality.

What we need is clarity!

Definition leads to clarity, and clarity leads to understanding, therefore the first order of business for integrating some policy or other into society is defining that policy.  How do you really define “green pest control” (GPC)?

Five years ago on December 1 of 2009 I wrote an article entitled, The Trades and Me: A Dialog on Going Green, where I interviewed Frank Andorka and Pete Grasso who worked for the trade publication Pest Management Professional at that time.   I pointed out that only two states have a definition of green, of which they weren’t aware.  A subtle piece of information that probably no one else at any of the other trades that service the nation’s chemical industry knew either.  For that matter it seems unlikely that anyone at the industry’s trade associations knew it. 

APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green, and two states.----that’s it, two states ---- Georgia and California had any form of definition.

• “Georgia’s definition was, “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”.   
• California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM.

Frank chuckled because he had always been taught that you don't use a defining term such as IPM to define another defining term, which in this case would be GPM.    The fact of the matter is that defining GPM is even worse than defining IPM and the states can’t define it any better than they were able to define IPM.  There will be no end to the changes or demands.  As I stated, pest control isn't a methodology, it is a practice.  Well, IPM and GPM aren't any form of methodology either, but neither are they a practice. 

Both IPM in structural pest control and GPM everywhere are ideologies disguised as methodologies and that is why finding a definition is a Sisyphean task.  IPM is an agricultural concept with a logical foundation of threshold limits.  What’s the logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control?  There isn’t one!  If something has no logical foundation it doesn’t exist.  Except the federal government demands we believe it exists, ergo, it exists illogically as a matter of faith.  As for GPM, that borders on neo-pagan mysticism.

Recently an exterminating company was lauded in Pest Control Technology for “going green” and how they sold it to their customers.  The first thought I had was – why do they have to sell it?  Unless of course it’s going to be more expensive and less effective!   Then of course I wondered why they wanted to sell it in the first place.  Did they believe pesticides are so damaging to society and the environment they don’t use them?  

 

Well now, that’s the rub isn’t it?  

 

I went to their site and lo and behold there was the old saw about not having “harsh” chemicals introduced into people’s homes.  Yet they still offer what I will describe as – for lack of a better term – “Traditional Pest Control” (TRC) services.  Why?  If a company truly believes these chemicals used in TPC are so harsh they feel compelled to promote a program that defames them, why are they using them at all?  Does that strike anyone besides me as hypocritical?  

Another company, that defines GPM as IPM, claims the difference between a TPC technician and their “green technicians” was their training.   Their technicians were trained to inspect first then treat designated areas with..... and watch out now ......here it comes:

 

“materials and develop a treatment plan that will quickly eliminate pests.”   

 

They went on to say:

 

“in addition to selecting from one of our 60 least toxic pesticides, and in partnership with our clients, we use techniques such as habitat manipulation, pest proofing, heat and bioremediation to achieve results.”    

 

How is “habitat manipulation, pest proofing, heat and bioremediation” anything different than what we’ve been taught for the almost 35 years I’ve been in the industry?  As for heat treatments – why in the world would that be considered GPC? And what materials are they using that kills bugs that aren't pesticides? And just how does one define "harsh", and what exactly does least toxic mean? 

 

• Does that mean using a product that lacks efficacy and takes multiple applications to get rid of the pest?  
•  Or does it mean using a more effective product that kills the pest in one trip?   

Which is it?  Also, how many products out there have a signal word higher than Caution?  And if you use a product with a Warning signal word but it only takes one trip to end their infestation does that make it less toxic over the long haul?  Is that what least toxic means?  “Least toxic” is another term that’s so ambiguous it means nothing, and it means everything or anything, depending on the narrative of the moment, just as IPM in structural pest control and GPM everywhere.  The rest of that is a load of advertising horsepucky!   Actually all of it’s a logical fallacy called Begging the Question!

They go on to say:

 

“Many people are also increasingly becoming concerned about the effect of pesticides on people and pets.” 

 

Yet they use them anyway!  Why isn’t that considered rank hypocrisy and treasonous to our industry and the nation?

All of society has imbibed on the Kool-Aid and breathed the air of the fever swamps of environmentalism for far too long.   Modern environmentalism is a neo-pagan secular religion structured right out the the play book of Germany's Nazi Party, including:

• The precautionary principle
• Sustainable development
• Reduction of the world's population, and
• A return to nature to purify humanity
  

 A neo-pagan secular religion that can tolerate no heresy of any kind.  Everyone must be made to comply because they “KNOW” what is best for everyone in the world, and their intentions are good. Just ask them!

Yet, how much knowledge can any group of people possess?  As Thomas Sowell once observed, even if they were the smartest people in the world it is unlikely they could possess one percent of the world’s entire knowledge.  But even if they did, that still leaves ninety nine percent unaccounted for.  That makes the potential for error substantial.  

History is the fountain head of truth.  The reality of "going green" is in the history of this movement.  History has shown the environmental movement has almost created a monopoly on being wrong.  Not only wrong, but deadly to millions and causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide.  Should we be putting our fate in the hands of those with that kind of record?  Yet this movement has created a worldwide regulatory and public relations hegemony involving the media and the apparatus of government world over.

But that's changing because of the internet.  The American public is coming out of the stupor caused by a conspiracy lying activists, a corrupt media, self-serving politicians and self-serving businessmen.  But worst of all is a scientific community that has sold its integrity for 12 silver pieces known as grant money.  Grant money, not truth, is the holy grail of science today!

In industry I find that everyone is so afraid of offending someone!  Our fears about offending someone, or anyone for that matter, are part of that stupor.  I don't believe we should be rude, crude, stupid or smarmy, but we do need to be direct in our views, and state that which is true, boldly, factually and forthrightly!  Don't worry about popularity, because you most likely won't be popular, but as time goes by we will be vindicated by reality.  That's the reward.

In the meanwhile there is no reason to believe the trip is going to be anything except bumpy!  But that's what it takes if we are to defend who we are and what we do.  The very act of defending pesticides and their use is considered extreme and radical in many quarters.   

 

But that's who we are, and using pesticides is what we do.   

  

If we're ashamed of what we do then we need to stop doing it.  If we believe that pesticides cause all the afflictions claimed by the green movement we need to stop doing pest control, because I don’t care what green claptrap a company embraces, they will eventually have to turn to pesticides.

Winston Churchill said:

 

“The Bolsheviks have discovered that truth does not matter so long as there is reiteration. They have no difficulty whatever in countering a fact by a lie which, if repeated often enough and loudly enough, becomes accepted by the people.”  

 

Illogical you say? Sure, but so what? It’s also reality.  And that’s the challenge of our time. I think the answer can be outlined by paraphrasing Diana West in her book, American Betrayal:

 

"It’s easier to muffle the truth than act on it! It is definitely more pleasant if no one has to do anything heroic, or plan, or think confrontationally. Stifling the occasional and always tiresome voice of dissent is what drives editorials, position platforms, social activism and even pop culture."

Those in our industry who promote green are a bunch of complicit head nodders trapped in an echo chamber of self congratulations!  The green movement is filled with extremists who are irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.  Is that who we are?  Is that who we wish to be? 

 

In the real world we're The Ratcatcher's Child, and we're doing what we've been doing for hundreds of years using the best tools available.   The difference is that over the last 150 years we became far more effective than using spears and spells to ward off pests.  But our shining time really came with the advent of DDT, the real beginning of safe, effective modern pest control. 

 

Since that time the world’s population soared from approximately two billion people at the end of WWII to almost seven billion now.  Those living in the most developed countries are also living longer healthier lives than anytime in human history.  They are also the countries where the general population is most heavily exposed to synthetic chemicals, including pesticides. 

Time and circumstance is on our side. We merely have to let everyone know that “Green” is the philosophical flavor of the day - better known as conventional wisdom – merely what everyone believes, i.e. consensus.  But green will never stand the test of time and become traditional wisdom.  And we need to have the courage to stand up and say so.

In the meanwhile - let’s try not turning back to spears and spells.

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

Blast From the Past: Sowell's Critique For Change

By Rich Kozlovich


Every so often an old article of mine will start to get a bunch of hits. I never have any idea why, and it always surprises me that it may be from other countries. These last few weeks has turned Paradigms and Demographics into an international favorite for a number of non-English speaking countries, especially Germany, Russia, France, Slovenia, Bulgaria, India and Japan. South African readers have been showing more interest lately also.

I don't know why Paradigms and Demographics is getting so much international attention since my focus originally was to the pest control industry. However, I do believe that coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to talk about environmentalism without talking about leftism explains it. I decided to change this blog from an anti-green blog into a pro-humanity blog. You cannot be pro-humanity without being anti-left because environmentalism is the spear point of the left and the rationale for a socialistic world government. Either way…. it is what it is, and I do appreciate everyone's interest. This article has been hit a great deal lately so I decided to run it again. RK


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 that 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 is 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!

###

Resistance is the Symptom, Not the Problem!

By Rich Kozlovich

Alex Avery of the Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues, posted a comment to my article, Research is Dandy but Silver Bullets are Handy. I think his comments are worth exploring. He asked;

“why do we care about the concerns over “herbicide resistance" from folks who never want us to use herbicides to begin with (Greenpeace, etc.)?

For those, like Avery, who have been researching and writing about these issues for years, the logical fallacies from the green movement are obvious. The very people who use this argument about resistance are in the forefront of those attempting to ban pesticides. So any argument that is used saying that we shouldn't use certain products because it will hasten resistance is simply a red herring fallacy. What are we saving these products for? The assumption must be that we are saving them for some time when they are necessary. Well then, why isn't this the necessary time? Herbicides are considered a pesticide for those who aren’t aware, as weeds are considered a pest in agricultural or landscaping professions. He went on to ask;

“don't we have enough different active ingredients in pesticides to manage the resistance problem, and if not, don't we need MORE different modes of action, rather than less? Why are we banning pesticides if resistance is a main problem?”

Again he points out what should have been obvious to the most casual observer; resistance is only a problem when we stop producing new chemistry or ban chemistry that works. The resistance argument has been the red herring fallacy from the greenies for years, justifying claims that DDT should not be returned in any way because of resistance. That is an illogical argument, especially since they work so hard at banning products that have little or no resistant problems. These people wish to ban pestiicdes and they are willing to use any argument, no matter now illogical, that will work to that end. So then, what is their solution? They propound a whole bunch of public relations stunts and Integrated Pest Mangement, along with larger, more intrusive and expensive layers of bureaucracy that will not kill bed bugs. In short, they have none, and this plague of bed bugs is evidence of that. We are just fortunate that bed bugs aren't believed to be vectors of disease.

When DDT was first developed we thought we had the final solution to pest problems. What we didn’t know was we had fallen into nature’s pattern of resistance. Trees and plants are chemical factories. The only way they can protect themselves from disease or insect attack is through chemistry that kills, sickens or repels their attackers. As soon as they develop resistance to one chemical; plants will develop another. The only plants that are lost are those that cannot produce new chemistry that will work against what is attacking it. The Dutch elm disease is one example.

This brings us to the primary point. Why are we banning pesticides when it is clear that we need more chemistry with different modes of action; not less? If resistance to a product becomes so great that it won’t work, then no one, including me, will use the product. If products cease to work they disappear from the market place due to lack of efficacy, not by forced removal through junk science claims that promote inappropriate regulations.

We want these products back because they work in ways that other products don’t. They are inexpensive, they are easy to use, and they save lives by preventing diseases, or seriously aid in the production of food necessary to feed the world’s hungry billions.

Who cares about hastening resistance if we are never to use them now when we need them? What are we saving them for? Especially since those who make this argument want them banned anyway? And who cares about resistance if we refuse to allow the development of new products with regulations that are so onerous and expensive that we aren’t successfully developing the new chemistry we need?

Bacteria have developed resistance to many of the antibiotics that we are currently using, and there are some staph infections that are almost uncontrollable. Does that mean we shouldn't use those that still work because it will hasten the level of resistance? If that happened people would die. That would be considered insane! Why then would we use any logic that would be considered insane in another arena as rational in pest control?

Resistance is part of nature, whether it is in plants or bacteria. Elm trees died because they couldn’t defeat the disease attacking it with new chemistry. The difference between humanity and elm trees is that we have the chemistry; we just keep refusing to use it. Elm trees became biologically incompetent. We have chosen incompetence.


###

There is No Such Thing as IPM in Structural Pest Control

Rich Kozlovich

Recently I received an e-mail from Pest Control Technology Magazine about a conference in Orlando Florida this December. One of the speakers, Jeff Tucker, is going to speak on the subject, Structural Integrated Pest Management. Why can't we get this? There no universally accepted definitions 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". 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; and it is paid for by tax payers money and promoted by a radical government agency; the Environmental Protection Agency.

IPM in structural pest control has no logical foundation. IPM was founded as an agricultural concept and first outlined as such in 1959 in the Hilgardia, a small agricultural magazine. The logical foundation for IPM in agriculture is threshold limits. A certain amount of pests do a certain amount of damage. When the level of pests reach a threshold limit where the amount of damage they do exceeds the cost of a pesticide application; pesticides are applied. Threshold limits is the logical foundation for IPM in agriculture. What is the logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control? There isn’t one!

There will be those who declare that the Precautionary Principle is the logical basis for structural IPM, and there are those who will claim that we must eliminate pesticides because they cause all sorts of health problems claiming that is the logical foundation. Both are blatantly false! Both are philosophies based on suppositions and ideology, not science or logic. Neither can be used as a logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control.

If there is no logical foundation for a policy then it doesn’t exist, except that the government says it exists; so therefore it exists....on paper! There is only one problem. No one really knows what it means or how it is supposed to work; at least amongst normal people. Among the radical activists in the green movement and the EPA it means pesticide elimination, which is irrational and misanthropic. At least they know for sure what it means to them.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In reality if being one with the biosphere was so great; if primitive green living was so great; if organic farming was so great; if living without pesticides was so great; then why did everyone change? If we didn’t need pesticides how did they convince people to buy them? If we didn’t need anything but organic farming practices why did everyone abandon organic as soon as they could? And why did modern backward societies abandon these primitive concepts at the first opportunity if they were living in paradise? Why is it the average life span was around 50 in 1900, in what is now the developed world, if they were living in a healthier time before pesticides, modern agriculture and an environment of high levels of synthetic chemicals? Why is it that in our modern environment of pesticides, modern agriculture and high levels of synthetic we now live an average life span of around 75 years? I might also add that we live a healthier 75 years. How can this be? If all the things they claimed were true then we must ask; why are so many people living healthier longer lives? I demand an answer!

Before we abandon all that we have developed I think we had better get an answer! Especially since everything greenies have promoted has been an abject failure. Why should we think this is any different?

What they are touting as IPM in structural pest control is just pest control. The kind we have been practicing since 1850. You can monitor; you can exclude; you can clean all that you want; and those are important components of a good pest control program; and that has been true since at least 1850, but that does not make it IPM, and none of that will take the place of pesticides. We know that there is no logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control. That means it doesn’t exist....... even if the government says it does.

However, I think the thing that bothers me the most are the information deliverers and trainers in our industry who have embraced this irrational and misanthropic concept.

Explain to me again how great it is to have bed bugs! Explain to the families of those hundreds of thousands who have died from malaria, and hundreds of millions who are sickened each year from malaria that death and sickness is better than being exposed to DDT. This is the end goal of IPM in structural pest control; the elimination of pesticides! We need to get that! Our industry, our industry leaders and our industry trainers really need to get that. We shouldn’t be promoting IPM; we should be defeating it!

Recommended reading:
Animal Farm by George Orwell.
The Pillars of IPM


@@@

Sowell's Critique For Change

By Rich Kozlovich

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?

What is Integrated Pest Management?

by Rich Kozlovich

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”.

###

“Who but the mindless?”

By Rich Kozlovich

On April 1, 2009 Pete Grasso did a good job of identifying how people in the industry are beginning to identify with “going green” in his article, The Evolution of Green.

• Green. It's the biggest buzzword right now — not just in the pest management industry but in everyday life.
• Green is the hot topic everyone is talking about.
• Green has moved past the point of simply being a term — green is now a movement
• …many will argue that integrated pest management (IPM) is green pest solutions.
• Green is here to stay.
• Green has evolved, and green continues to evolve in the pest management industry.

Heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart and truth be told…it isn’t for most everyone else either. The trade journals for our industry are simply not crusading publications. They are not now, nor do I ever believe they will be rocks in the current.

I think that this is mostly due to two factors. Basically they were never created for this purpose. They were created to educate the industry. That has varied somewhat, but that is what they do, and for the most part they do a good job of it. Those who fit this mold were naturally brought in to run the trades and as a result they may never be crusaders. However, this concept for the trades came into being (taking a look at the history of PCT and PMP is quite interesting and worth the effort) long before the environmental movement and the EPA came into existence. The concerns are different now.

They note that Austin Frishman urges the industry “to be proactive and define and adopt green as a way of doing business (April 2008).” Quite frankly; there are a large number of prominent individuals in the industry, and at least one Hall of Fame winner who have believed for a long time that Austin has lost it and needs to retire, including me. Green isn’t ours to define or own; it is the insane nightmare wholly owned by the environmental movement and it is ours to defeat.

Green isn’t just about doing business. Pete is correct in stating that Green is a movement! It is a movement that has demonstrated a total disregard for humanity. It is an irrational and misanthropic movement that believes the number one problem with the planet is people. They have likened people to diseases such as cancer and AIDS and even a virus that is infecting the planet. The best thing they call humanity is a pest.

They rhapsodize about how quickly the world will turn back into an “Eden” after mankind is wiped out by some sort of virus that they pray will befall us. How insane is that? Who would be left to care? This is what Green really is, a movement rife with irrational and misanthropic “solutions”. Who but the mindless can buy into this? Who but the mindless can promote this? Who but the mindless can believe this is a good thing?

Everywhere in the world where people live in the manner that the greenies demand we adopt are lessons in dystopia.  Why can’t we understand that? It is bad enough that we don’t get the real history of what going green means, we, as an industry don’t even know that history. Dystopia is the Sancho Panza of the green movement. It follows the green movement everywhere their “solutions” are implemented. In South American they convinced the leaders in these countries that chlorine in the drinking water was going to cause cancer. They removed the chlorine from their drinking water and hundreds died and tens of thousands were sickened. Have we lost our minds listening to and embracing these people’s ideas and views?

Pete went on to say that, “Many pest management professionals (PMPs) have embraced the idea of providing green pest solutions for their customers. Others are still trying to define what it means to have a green program, and some are hoping green is a passing fad. We're here to tell those hearty holdouts that it's not”, and “Green is here to stay. Green has evolved, and green continues to evolve in the pest management industry.”

I have no objection to a pest control company providing any service that their customers want. What I object to is the idea that there really is something called “Green Pest Management”. There is no such thing! It is pest control…period! The fact that someone is focusing on the using of one type of product over others, or one program over another doesn’t make it anything but pest control. When we start to call pest control by other names such a s IPM or GPM we imply that this is different, better and superior to what everyone else is doing. Claptrap! By focusing on some products or techniques to the exclusion of others or vice versa doesn’t make it anything other than pest control; nor is it better, different or superior.

Pete quoted “Linda Prentice, associate certified entomologist with Bug-Out Service in Jacksonville, Fla.,” who “believes the industry has reached the point where everyone agrees that going green is the way to go”, and that "I think the industry has a pretty good idea now of what it means to be green," she says. "When Bug-Out started to define green as botanical, all-natural products, the company looked at the last 10 years and realized it was headed in that direction all along."

There are a number of logical fallacies here.

One, the industry will never reach the point where “everyone” will agree that “green is the way to go” because there is no such thing as GPM any more than there is any such thing as IPM in structural pest control.

Two, the industry has never had any idea what green means and neither does anyone else. As I stated in my article, The Trades and Me: A Dialog on Going Green, there are only two states that have a definition of GPM. APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. Two states did! That’s it, two states, Georgia and California. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM. GPM is even more indefinable than IPM! They are so intellectually inadequate that they use a defining term, IPM, to define another defining term. Then again, defining green makes everyone intellectually inadequate because there is no scientific basis for “green”. In short, there are no facts to support any claim that one thing is more green than another.

Three, using “botanicals” doesn’t make someone green no matter what everyone agrees on. That is their definition, and that is ok with me, but let’s not confuse their views with anyone else’s view on what constitutes green, or even reality. They are still using chemicals. Chemicals that have been processed into some usable and deliverable form! So what makes this different from what everyone buys from FMC, Bayer, Dow, DuPont or any of the other pesticide manufacturers? And please don’t even dare tell me that they are healthier for their customers!

Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that; any other definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color.

An architect friend of mine and I had a conversation dealing with this idea that green can be defined. He told me that steel is a green product. I laughed incredulously and asked how that could be? He said it was recyclable so it was listed as a green product. Insane? Because there is no way to logically and intelligently define a concept that has no scientific basis for its existence. It is all emotion, feeling good about ourselves and the planet, feeling self righteous and better than our peers. Let’s take a look as some of the quotes and analyze what motivates these people!

• "To the general public, green means something and makes them feel as though they're doing something good." - Kevin Kordek, president of A-Active Termite and Pest Control in Virginia Beach, Va.

• "I think term green is more about marketing than it is about action.” "For our company, we became green almost 15 years ago but we called it IPM or 'common sense.' "Common sense tells you, if there's a better way to do something, then do it," he continues For us, that meant getting rid of baseboard spraying years ago."- Matt Nixon, chief executive officer of American Pest Management in Washington D.C.

Pete cites the efforts of “Genma Holmes, president of Holmes Pest Control in Hermitage, Tenn.,” who “jumped on green right away because that's what her customers wanted. Holmes conducted her own focus groups to find out what services consumers looked for in a pest management company. She goes on to say that, "I don't care what the industry is doing; I'm going to do what my customers are asking for," Holmes says. "Consumers' words to me were, 'We want something green.'"

I don’t have a problem with that because that is merely responding to the market place, but is that really it? I keep wondering…..is this really what “all” of her customers wanted? In Ohio I rarely have anyone insist of IPM let alone GPM. I have only lost one account because of GPM. I will be the first to admit that Ohioans are more emotionally balanced than those that live on the east and west coasts, but I find it hard to believe that everyone there is this unbalanced. Most of our pest control people merely offer “whatever services you are comfortable with” or something similar as their slogan.

Pete goes on to say, “she's gotten into green because her children are into "saving the earth." And there it is….. isn’t it. None of the nonsensical claims by the greenies has come true and the health claims they spew out have turned out to be claptrap, but “Green” makes them feel good! My question is now and has always been….how were we destroying the Earth before? We made it better, healthier, safer and made it possible for modern living. Is that what they want to replace by going green? That is what the environmentalists want!

• "Part of the evolution of green — and I would say it's still an embryo — is that it has a ways to go before there is a definition of green in the pest management industry," "Will there come a point in time when all PMPs subscribe to a particular methodology that is considered to be greener than what we do now?" - Kordek says.

I agree with this statement, except that there is no such thing as a methodology in pest control. Pest control is a practice, like medicine and requires differing techniques and tools based on the applicator’s knowledge and experience. However, this demonstrates there is no scientific basis for “green” and clearly that there is no definition for GPM that will stand the test of time. It isn’t science. Today’s absolute truth will become tomorrow’s absolute nonsense, and not because new facts have been discovered. It will become nonsense because another new philosophical flavor of the day will be promoted by the activists, touted by their bureaucratic acolytes and advertised by a corrupt media; and these people will clutch it to their breasts.

• "We'll get better and better tools," says Jack Marlowe, president of Eden Advanced Pest Technologies in Olympia, Wash. "I think our ability to step up and do IPM, by the pure sense of that definition, will become better and better."

If green is so effective why then do they need “better and better tools” and what will those tools be? Chemicals? If so, how is that different than (for lack of a better term) “traditional” pest control? And what in the world is “the pure sense of that definition” that “will become better and better."? We in Ohio recently adopted an IPM standard. I was privileged to be a part of that process and I can tell you that it took two years from start to finish; and every state that has done so has gone through the same struggle. Why? If IPM had a “pure definition” it certainly wasn’t obvious to the casual observer, or anyone else for that matter. I keep hearing terms like, Deep IPM, Pure IPM, True IPM and Real IPM. When does the defining and re-defining stop?

What is the matter with everyone? There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control because IPM is an agricultural term. And that is the only area that it can be defined scientifically because it is based on threshold limits. A certain amount of pests do a certain amount of damage. After pests reach a certain threshold limit the amount of damage they do justifies pesticide applications economically. That is IPM….period; and has no place in structural pest control.

• "Regardless of what color you're calling your program, you have to be more deliberate about the choices you're making about materials," Marlowe says "You have to be able to defend your position. Whatever you choose, you need to be able to make your case as to why you choose what you choose."

I am not a Pest Management Professional; I am not an Entomological Consultant. I am part of the thin gray line that stands between the public and disaster. I am an exterminator and I am proud to call myself an exterminator! I simply do pest control! I don’t need to color it! Pest control isn’t a methodology, it is a practice. Green isn’t even that. Green is an ideology that is based on an irrational philosophy that is rife with misanthropic goals. Who but the mindless could embrace such nonsense?


-

Alphabet Soup IPM; Common Sense, Part I

By Rich Kozlovich

Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory – The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes.

Recently there was an IPM/bed bug study produced by Purdue University that took place in a bed bug project which was to determine which type of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) would be most efficacious and cost effective. In the abstract it outlines the program which was to last ten weeks in sixteen bed bug infested high rise low income apartments.

There was to be two treatment styles with apartments allotted for each style of “IPM” treatment. The first was designated as (D-IPM) with diatomaceous earth being the basis for treatment. The second was (S-IPM) with Phantom as the basis for control. Steam treatments and interceptors were also used. In the end the results were much the same. After bi-weekly inspections the costs were $463 and $482 per apartment respectively. There was also a fifty percent failure rate. That’s right! Fifty percent of the apartments were still infested after ten weeks of treatment.

A fifty percent failure rate; and they needed to fund a study to find this out? I would have been willing to tell them that at a fraction of the price. And just how long do we think that it will be before the apartments that were swept clean of bed bugs will be re-infested?

Was this study a failure or a success? If viewed in the traditional concept of failure and success, it would have to be a failure. In many ways it was a failure and in some ways it was a success because it highlights a number of things about IPM that have been a source of discussion between those who worship at the altar of IPM and those of us who believe that what they are promoting as IPM doesn’t exist in structural pest control, because so-called IPM is merely pest control with inadequate tools, which we will explore farther along.

First let’s look at whether this study was a failure or a success. Was it intended to be either? What was this study intended to do. Who benefited from this study? I intend to explore all of these issues.

Very often studies aren’t intended to be failures or successes as we may view things in those terms. They are very often merely designed to see what happens when (X) is done, in other words, “if we do this, what will be the results?” This seems to be the case.

I have had time to think about this and I have come to the conclusion that this study was a glorious success. It was a success because it highlights some important facts that we seem unwilling to face regarding IPM, especially involving bed bug control.

• This is a failure of price
• This is a failure of performance because of inadequate tools
• This is a failure of time
• This is failure of product
• This is a failure of definition
• This is a failure of public confidence
• This is a failure of good public health practices
• This is a success in that it points out what happens in the real world, with real people, living real lives.
• This is a success in pointing out that there is no such thing as an IPM methodology.
• This is a success in pointing out that the average person cannot afford Alphabet Soup IPM
• This is a success for grant chasers

This study was a glorious success because it highlights that fact that ultimately the customer, and society as a whole, is paying the price and will continue to pay the price, for environmental regulations that were not based on science, but ideology.

IPM became the catch word to justify the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA, which along with re-registration, drove products off the market that worked. It is my view that justifying FQPA is what's behind this mad drive to impose IPM. If EPA wasn’t funding IPM it wouldn’t exist in structural pest control. The fact is that IPM in structural pest control has no logical foundation, and can only exists in structural pest control because the federal government says it exists.

They have been successful in removing products from the market that work. They must now be able to show that there is something to replace these products in order to further their goal to eventually eliminate all pesticides. IPM is their answer to pesticides; only it isn’t working.

We shouldn’t delude ourselves about this at all. Every pesticide category that has existed has come under attack in some manner or other from EPA and the greenies, and those products have been eliminated from the structural pest control arsenal. They may have some limited applications elsewhere, but for our purposes; that is immaterial. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are gone, organophosphates are mostly gone, Methyl carbamates are mostly gone and now pyrethroids are coming up for review with the goal of eliminating them also.

True, we now have neonicotinoids and pyrroles such as Phantom, but they apparently not the answer either. And Termidor isn’t labeled for inside use, but that is immaterial becuase it doesn't kill bed bugs. One more point. There has been no pesticide used in structural pest control that has been “banned” since DDT. The EPA has used all sorts of schemes to attain their goals, but outright banning hasn’t been one of them since DDT.

Everyone would like to avoid the fact that this just isn’t just a public health issue, it is an ideological battle; THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE! Bedbugs are merely a symptom to the affliction of ideology versus reality; of green mythology versus truth. We must come face to face with these questions:

• Does IPM really exist in structural pest control?
• What is more important; making IPM sacrosanct or eliminating bed bugs?
• If bed bugs transmitted the plague as fleas do, would we be having this discussion?

No matter what EPA claims; unless you are talking about IPM in agriculture, where it originated and has clear parameters, IPM is an ideology; it is not a methodology.

IPM was an economic program outlined in 1959 in an obscure agricultural magazine, Hilgardia, that being a certain amount of pests cause a certain amount of damage, and certain amount of pesticide costs certain about of money, when the threshold limit of pests causes more damage than the cost of pesticides, then a pesticide application was made. That is pretty straight forward. Now THAT is IPM!

How can anyone translate that into structural pest control? The very idea that IPM is something separate or better than what is called traditional pest control is inherently flawed thinking. There is no threshold limit of pests in homes and businesses.

I have been told the IPM is a successful methodology. Really? Apparently these researchers at Purdue aren’t aware of this “methodology” since they now have an alphabet soup of IPM “methodologies”. S-IPM and D-IPM, with (S-IPM) standing for Phantom IPM, (pun intended).   Well then, how about these as designations?  (SDU-IPM) for Dursban-IPM, or (SF-IPM) for Ficam-IPM, or (SDI-IPM) Diazinon-IPM. It is clear that the IPM can be defined and redefined unendingly. Why? Because IPM in structural pest control is an ideology.  It is not now nor will it ever be a methodology!

Before we further explore what IPM is or isn’t, we need to define what pest control is. Pest control isn’t a methodology either; it is a practice, much like medicine. Don’t get your shorts all bunched up in a knot. Pest control is a practice exactly like medicine, and here's why.

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 the 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 first 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 passe 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 from people who will do anything, 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 that the 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 for over sixty years has been wrong?

IPM is pest control and there is no need to call it anything other than pest control; unless however there is some insidious goal behind this mad drive to impose it on the world. The very idea that IPM is different, better, safer and something entirely separate other than what is called traditional pest control is inherently flawed. Not only was there no definitive “methodology” in these so-called IPM treatments, the ones used in this study failed to produce effective results. The study may have provided the information they were looking for, but I could have told them this without wasting a lot of grant money.

I recently sent out a article that appeared on Monday, July 27, 2009 entitled, “Co-op hair-raiser: $250,000 bed bug bill”, that discussed the “total cost to make the three-tower, 217-unit Theater District co-op a bloodsucker-free zone: $250,000.” The article went on to say, “in addition, everything in the basement storage lockers was packed in impermeable containers and shipped to an off-site exterminator, while the storage rooms were treated. From now on, residents must put all their stored belongings in plastic bins with air-tight gaskets, or double wrap them in airtight plastics. The bug-sniffing beagle visits every week for now, and will eventually return three times a year. (This must be (DOG-IPM) for dog Integrated Pest Management. RK) The $250,000 bloodletting was paid from the building's reserve funds. A board member said it was a bargain compared to the cost of a bigger infestation. Scary. Is anyone is selling bed bug insurance policies yet?”

And this was a bargain?

• Do we really believe that this kind of service is available to the average person? 
• Do we really believe that this is the answer to the EPA created plague? 
• Do we really believe that people are going to stand for this while self-righteous activists inside and outside of the industry pontificate about the glories of IPM?

Since EPA created this perfect storm:

• I would like someone to once again explain to me why blaming EPA isn't the answer, especially since at the regulatory level they are the only ones capable of ending this problem. 
• I would like for someone to also explain to me why anyone clings to the idea that chemistry isn't the answer. 
• I would like someone to explain to me why chemistry was the answer 1946 but it isn’t now. 
• I would like someone to explain to me why these so-called IPM programs that require unique technology, unending recalls, excessive amounts of money (that most people will be incapable of paying) and eventually repeated pesticide treatments with products that are inadequate is better for the public than what it replaced. 
• I would like someone to explain to me why Dursban, Ficam and a host of other products that EPA forced off the market was so much worse for the public.

Chemistry was the answer in 1946 and it will again be the answer in 2010, or there will be no answer!

So we come to this question; why do those in research defend and promote this noxious policy so fiercely? Because there is a lot of money involved! Things like the Butterfield Bill are a classic example of what I am talking about. Fifty million a year and bed bugs will be no closer to being eliminated than before. However there will be loads of money for grant chasers. As for government support of this; along with the fact that many government agencies are infested with anti-pesticide activists, bureaucracies live to grow and IPM, the Butterfield Bill, the EPA Bed Bug Summits aid in unending growth.

Do these researchers really believe that IPM is the answer? Do they really believe that the products we lost caused all the terrible health problems that the EPA and the greenies claim? If they do; then they need to say so. If they don’t; then they need to say so. One of these researchers actually said that they ought to build a statue to Rachel Carson because of all the research money that came their way to “study” pesticides as a result of her book and the movement it stirred. What is it all about; grant money or truth? Where are our priorities?

But what about the public? Who will speak for them? Who will answer to them?



There are two great books out there that you may find interesting. The first one is by the American Council on Science and Health, called “Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals? Scientific and Regulatory Issues in Perspective, and Bjorn Lomborg’s, “Skeptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg’s book is very long, deals with all environmental issues, and is highly technical; but anyone who reads it will become very authoritative on green subjects, and many of the actors.

.