RE: Question for Sept. 22: Comparison of state and national web sites

[Nina Powers <npowers@Home.com>]

I live in Florida, and never use our State Agencies web sites
for environmental information. The Florida Dept. of Agriculture
does not acknowledge that chemicals have adverse impacts on our
environment and human health so that relieves them of doing any
valid testing or monitoring that would be posted on their web
site. The Florida Dept. of Health recently fired their State
Coordinator of the Pesticide Poisoning Surveillance Program,
when he would not alter a State report associating cases of
public health illnesses with exposure to malathion. The firing
is in litigation, but indicates that State Agency is not going
to be a credible source for pesticide impacts on human health.
	http://www.polkonline.com/stories/011899/sta_warning.shtml
Our University of Florida has a huge web site, including the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Science(IFAS). IFAS runs the
County Cooperative Extension Offices, where much of the public
turns for information. They are unbelievably pro-pesticide, no
doubt due to funding from chemical manufacturers for their research
and programs.If a unsuspecting mother wanting information on 
Integrated Pest Management(IPM)accessed the IFAS web site this is
the first statement on their IPM Network web page: "IPM is the combined
use of chemical,cultural,genetic,and biological methods for 
acceptable,economic pest control with minimum effect on non-target
organisms and the environment." Chemical control is cited first,
in their definition. In contrast,the Cornell IPM Network web
page defines IPM,"IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests
by combining biological,cultural,physical and chemical tools in a
way that minimizes economic,health,and environmental risks." The
USDA maintains the National IPM Network, and their web site states
"IPM promotes minimized pesticide use,enhanced environmental
stewardship, and sustainable systems." The next paragraph on the 
University of Florida IPM web page directs visitors thusly;
"Please visit the American Crop Protection Association for an 
excellent overview of what IPM is and it's impact." A link to that
site is provided. Unbelievable!!!! A consortium of pesticide
manufacturers formed in response to the Food Quality Protection
Act to counter EPA's efforts in fulfilling their mandates to
protect children from pesticides is hardly who an IPM neophyte 
seeking information should be directed towards. EPA is not cited
on this page, nor is there a link to EPA on this IFAS IPM page.
 Chlorpyrifos(Dursban)a pesticide recently banned by EPA due to
it's toxicity and documented adverse impacts on human health,
particularily children, is still being recommended on the IFAS
web site. If you do a search on their web site for household
pest control, Philip Koehler's publication,"Cockroaches And Their
Control", recommends spraying chlorpyrifos inside the home as an
acceptable method of control. Another posting on their web site
concerning the recent loss of chlorpyrifos for pest control,
"University of Florida Update,by Philip Koehler" dated 7/12/00
ends with this statement, "The products PCO's are forced to use
now won't even kill a cat!!! Too bad!!!!" (PCO is an acronym for
Pest Control Operator) The point is this is hardly the web site
to search if reduction of exposure to chemicals is your intent.
The Florida State Agencies are hardly models of environmental
stewardship.

I searched Cornell and University of California, Davis for IPM
recommendations. The USDA has a good search engine, TEKTRAN, 
to locate their research: 
	http://www.nal.usda.gov/ttic/tektran/tektran.html
EPA has posted their new, 223 page document, Recognition and
Management of Pesticide Poisoning:
	http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/healthcare/handbook/contents.htm
Information from all nine divisions of EPA's National Health and
Environmental Effects Laboratory is searchable;
	http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/