Bed bugs cheer: Ohio’s propoxur exemption request denied

by nobugsonme on June 11, 2010 · 5 comments

in bed bugs, ohio


The Environmental Protection Agency has unfortunately denied the State of Ohio’s emergency Section 18 label exemption request for propoxur.

According to the EPA’s Notice of the request, the exemption would have allowed for three products containing propoxur to

. . . be applied as a crack and crevice or spot treatment to indoor residential single or multiple unit dwellings, apartments, hotels, motels, office buildings, modes of transportation, and commercial industrial buildings.

The product could only have been applied in residences by licensed applicators.

According to an article in the January 2010 issue of PCT, the Section 18 request was made because of the prevalence of bed bugs in the state, the difficulty in treating bed bugs, including the problem of pesticide resistance, and also because people who are living with persistent infestations are doing dangerous things to try and get rid of their bed bugs.

I managed to obtain a copy of a letter sent by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, on June 2, 2010, which outlines the reasons for the denial of the request.

Jackson notes that “the results of the risk assessment do not support the necessary safety findings as required by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).”

She cites concerns about the dangers of nervous system effects in children who spend time in rooms recently treated with propoxur, particularly risks of exposure due to inhalation and those arising from hand-to-mouth behaviors typical of children.

Jackson also emphasizes the agency’s ongoing concerns about bed bugs (as evidenced by the recent addition of the EPA’s recently launched bed bugs website and their hosting of the National Bed Bug Summit in April 2009), as well as their continued interest in research into IPM techniques, heat and cold treatments, and exclusionary techniques (such as encasements for mattresses). The letter also notes that the EPA will also soon be offering $550,000 in grants to state and tribal agencies for pilot projects relating to outreach and education.

I am, of course, concerned about the dangers of pesticides, but I also know that people with no pesticide experience can cause plenty of damage to themselves and others with products currently available. And since the products available are limited in effectiveness, the problem of bed bugs is spreading at an alarming rate.

Therefore, I was among those who hoped the propoxur exemption would go through for Ohio, and allow licensed professionals to apply this product in a controlled manner (minimizing risk), and hopefully let them gain some control over the bed bug situation in Ohio. I even dared to hope that this exemption might be requested by and extended to other states with a serious bed bug crisis on their hands.

Although I am a big fan of other methods for treating bed bugs, it remains so that heat treatments, for example, are often beyond the means of those on fixed incomes, and they are not always available even to those who can pay. I hope that the EPA will work to find other low-cost and effective solutions for the bed bug crisis.

The people of Ohio, like bed bug sufferers everywhere, really need help.

1 Winston O. Buggy June 11, 2010 at 8:17 am

I have mixed feelings about this development in the war against cimex. On one hand I can appreciate some of the legitimate concerns because of the close proximity of the target organism (bed bugs) to sensitive treatment sites (in and around beds & bedrooms). With this in mind I would have preferred a federal EPA Restricted Use designation which would have allowed use only be fully certified applicators and limited sites away from beds. It also could have established REI (reentry interval)which would require occupants remain out of the treated areas for a period of time and obviously prepare prior to service. It is also important to realize that this might be a tool in which to gain back some ground but not a long term solution.

2 Doug Summers MS June 13, 2010 at 8:25 am

I am extremely disappointed by the denial of the emergency exemption request for propoxur.

Propoxur was considered the most likely product to gain approval from the list of products that have been removed from the market.

Propoxur would not have been a panacea, but I think the fact that Ohio’s application was denied suggests that we will not be gaining access to any of the older chemical formulations that might still be effective for bed bug eradication.

Given that it takes roughly seven years and 100 million dollars to bring a new product to the market… It looks like we are going to be restricted to the currently available products for the next few years.

Americans get most of our pesticide exposure from the chemicals that we spray on food crops. It is amazing to me that the EPA allows our food to be treated with tons of toxic chemicals, but denies an application for a product that is still available for residential use in Canada.

Our best hope, at this point, would appear to be eco-exempt products that are not regulated or tested by the government.

3 CiLecto June 14, 2010 at 11:32 pm

I’m guessing that the apparatchiks who denied this don’t truly “get” the problem and just need to cover their a$$. As to what damage to kids can result from having to live with bugs, suffering social isolation or hving their families destituted, that’s for Health & Human Services to worry about.

4 Brian July 11, 2010 at 4:07 am

I have a half gallon of it, and it WILL be used. I was trained in pesticide use in forestry, and know what precautions to take.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: