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

1. Our Water, Our World Promotion of Less-Toxic Pest Control Annie Joseph IPM Partnership Committee (California) Water, Wildlife, and Pesticides in the West 2005 Western IPM Center Symposium – Portland, August 31, 2005

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. Literature Rack w/ Fact Sheets

15. Shelf Talkers

16. End Cap Display

17. Evaluations • People surveys • Program / Store • Store owner / manager surveys / interviews • Employee training surveys • General • Product surveys • Sales data • Shelf space

18. 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

19. 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

20. USEPA Award

21. Program Information www.ourwaterourworld.org