Pesticide Training is Vital

What is the cornerstone of the safe and proper use of pesticides? Regulations that severely restrict pesticide use? Mandates that call for decreasing pesticide use? New classes of chemicals from pesticide manufacturers?

The answer: none of the above. While all of these things play a role, the key to ensuring food safety and minimizing environmental damage is in the hands of the growers who actually select and apply the pesticides. Why, then, are pesticide training and education prorams so underfunded?

That is the question being raised by Barry M. Brennan, Mary L. Grodner and P. Mac Horton, who are state pesticide safety specialists in Hawaii, Louisiana. and South Carolina, respectively.

In a presentation made at a national pesticide applicator training seminar last year, they made the following points:

• In 1992, the EPA and the USDA spent $580 million on FlFRA-related programs. Of this, only one-third of 1% ($1.58 million) was allocated for use in applicator training.
  
• Despite the existence of a massive water quality program, not even 1% of its funds are devoted to training applicators on how to avoid contaminating water resources.
  
• While the EPA proposes a budget of $500, 000 to promote integrated pest management (IPM) practices to reduce pesticide usage, it did not request any increase in funding for applicator training programs.
  

Most state pesticide training programs trace their roots back to the early 1970s, when Congress amended FIFRA to create a category of "restricted use" pesticides that could only be used by licensed applicators.

Authorities in some states did not greet an underfunded federal mandate with much enthusiasm and created very rudimentary training programs.

Even today, the quality and depth of training and exams varies widely from state to state.

Administering state training programs usually is the responsibility of the Cooperative Extension Service. Yet, say Brennan Grodner and Horton, the USDA has provided little financial support. And the EPA, they maintain, has found it easier to dictate label restrictions and cancellations to a relative handful of pesticide manufacturers than to ensure that millions of farmers know how to apply pesticides safely.

According to these safety specialists, "The applicator who can't or won't appreciate the consequences of misusing a pesticide will always be a bigger problem than writing more regulations restricting the applicator's access to pesticides."

Their point is well-made. It's similar to auto safety. Manufacturers can improve the crash-worthiness of cars. But if the people behind the wheel drive irresponsibly, tragic accidents will still occur.

If regulators want to protect groundwater, doesn't it make sense to devote more resources to educating growers on what chemicals or application conditions pose the greatest risk? Dollars spent on teaching growers how to properly handle and store pesticides and how to calibrate sprayers would be well-spent.

Brennan, Grodner, and Horton say that pesticide applicator training and education programs deserve more funding. We agree. It's time for the EPA and USDA to stop issuing mandates. Instead, they should devote resources to educating growers on reducing pesticide-related risks.

Give growers the vital training and tools that they need, and they will do more to protect the environment and enhance food safety than the Washington, D.C. pesticide regulators ever could.