It was rewarding to see democracy in action among many diverse parties at the Board of Education Meeting. The agenda item was Integrated Pest Management (IPM) with reference to the district’s various pest species and, particularly, pesticides used that often pose greater health risks to children and staff than the pests. IPM is a decision-making process in which all appropriate necessary interventions are brought to bear on a pest problem with the goal of providing a remedy that is the most effective, safe, economical and sustainable.
As a pathologist, I attended these activities as an interested observer from the Malibu Democratic Club. What was clear was that the district’s current IPM program was unhinged. Participants revealed problems in the schools with grimy shower rooms, plugged drains, mold, exposed rubbish, cockroaches, ants, rats, mice, ground squirrels and gophers. Highly toxic pesticides have been used, including strychnine and Fumitoxin (aluminum phosphide) rodenticides and Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide. And yet, in properly conducted IPM, the environment is managed so that pests are not attracted to it. Comprehensive actions emphasizing sanitation and exclusion are examples of this conduct. Least-toxic pesticides are reserved as a last resort, or if required in a disease outbreak. Use of the rodenticides was likely unwarranted in Malibu schools and all glyphosate products should simply be banned (adverse human, animal and environmental health effects of are innumerable).
The meeting was rewarding because I saw an impassioned discussion between community members, school staff and board members focusing on how to manage pests while maintaining the health of children, school staff and the environment. Poison Free Malibu presented a basic plan of action with support and comments from others from which the board might fashion a revised district IPM plan that will be true to the scientific criteria inherent in proper IPM. Such a plan is to be responsible to the schools and answerable to the community. It appeared everyone at the meeting cared and all were fundamentally in agreement, though details of definitions, interventions and oversight responsibilities remain to be worked out.
Stephen Frantz