Indiana\u27s private applicator recertification program includes state-required, pesticide regulatory topics. This article explores the relationship between Indiana private applicators\u27 dual attitudes towards pesticide handling practices and the pesticide regulations that mandate those practices. Newly recertified private applicators in northwest Indiana were surveyed by a mailed questionnaire. Respondents valued responsible pesticide management practices, but were collectively undecided about regulatory oversight of their pesticide handling activities. These results suggest that Extension pesticide safety educators involved in compliance education may improve their training curriculum by including material on the underlying benefits, personal and social, of pesticide regulation

Bricker, Jimmy T

Janssen, Cheri L

Martin, Andrew G

Whitford, Fred

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 42 Number 5 Article 12 10-1-2004 Are All These Rules Necessary? Extension Pesticide Programming with a Regulatory Purpose Jimmy T. Bricker Purdue Extension, bricker@purdue.edu Andrew G. Martin Purdue University, martinag@purdue.edu Cheri L. Janssen Purdue University, cjanssen@purdue.edu Fred Whitford Purdue University, fwhitford@purdue.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Bricker, J. T., Martin, A. G., Janssen, C. L., & Whitford, F. (2004). Are All These Rules Necessary? Extension Pesticide Programming with a Regulatory Purpose. The Journal of Extension, 42(5), Article 12. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol42/iss5/12 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesOctober	2004	//	Volume	42	//	Number	5	//	Research	in	Brief	//	5RIB10Are	All	These	Rules	Necessary?	Extension	PesticideProgramming	with	a	Regulatory	PurposeAbstractIndiana's	private	applicator	recertification	program	includes	state-required,	pesticide	regulatorytopics.	This	article	explores	the	relationship	between	Indiana	private	applicators'	dual	attitudestowards	pesticide	handling	practices	and	the	pesticide	regulations	that	mandate	those	practices.Newly	recertified	private	applicators	in	northwest	Indiana	were	surveyed	by	a	mailedquestionnaire.	Respondents	valued	responsible	pesticide	management	practices,	but	werecollectively	undecided	about	regulatory	oversight	of	their	pesticide	handling	activities.	Theseresults	suggest	that	Extension	pesticide	safety	educators	involved	in	compliance	education	mayimprove	their	training	curriculum	by	including	material	on	the	underlying	benefits,	personal	andsocial,	of	pesticide	regulation.	IntroductionThe	United	States	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(and	sometimes	state	pesticide	regulatoryagencies)	will	apply	a	restricted-use	classification	to	certain	pesticide	products	that,	even	whenused	according	to	label	directions,	may	cause	adverse	effects	on	people	or	the	environment.Pesticides	can	be	restricted	for	human	health	reasons	(e.g.,	carcinogenicity)	or	environmentalconcerns	(e.g.,	fish	or	bird	mortality,	water	quality	concerns,	etc.).	All	federally	restricted-useproducts	have	a	restricted	use	product	statement	at	the	top	of	the	first	page	of	the	label.	Theseproducts	are	available	only	to	certified	and	licensed	pesticide	applicators.Indiana's	pesticide	control	law	is	similar	to	other	states.	It	identifies	private	applicators--primarilyJimmy	T.	BrickerCounty	Extension	DirectorPurdue	ExtensionBenton	County,	Indianabricker@purdue.eduAndrew	G.	MartinTraining	SpecialistPurdue	Pesticide	ProgramsPurdue	UniversityWest	Lafayette,	Indianamartinag@purdue.eduCheri	L.	JanssenProgram	SpecialistPurdue	Pesticide	ProgramsPurdue	UniversityWest	Lafayette,	Indianacjanssen@purdue.eduFred	WhitfordCoordinatorPurdue	Pesticide	ProgramsPurdue	UniversityWest	Lafayette,	Indianafwhitford@purdue.edufarmers--as	persons	who	apply	restricted-use	pesticides	to	property	that	they	own,	rent,	orotherwise	control	by	some	form	of	contractual	arrangement	for	purposes	of	producing	anagricultural	commodity.	Under	Indiana	law,	any	private	applicator	who	buys,	uses,	or	supervisesthe	use	of	restricted-use	pesticides	must	be	certified	to	do	so	and	must	have	a	private	applicatorpermit	issued	by	Indiana's	pesticide	regulatory	agency	(Office	of	the	Indiana	State	Chemist).	Therewere	15,493	private	pesticide	applicators	in	Indiana	who	held	permits	to	purchase	and	userestricted-use	pesticides	in	2003.Indiana	private	applicators	certify	by	passing	a	closed-book	examination.	Certified	privateapplicators	are	issued	a	permit	valid	for	5	years.	The	private	applicator	permit	carries	anidentification	number	that	is	unique	to	the	permit	holder	and	nontransferable.	Persons	sellingrestricted-use	pesticides	are	legally	obligated	to	record	the	permit	number,	at	point	of	sale,	when	aprivate	applicator	purchases	a	restricted-use	product.Prior	to	2000,	Indiana	private	applicators	could	only	recertify	by	retesting.	At	the	end	of	every	5-year	certification	period,	county	Extension	educators	would	conduct	half-day	training	programsand	administer	the	certification	exam	at	the	conclusion	of	each	program.	Campus-based	Extensionpesticide	specialists	determined	training	content,	wrote	the	training	manuals,	and	providedsupport	materials	to	the	field	staff,	while	Office	of	the	Indiana	State	Chemist	personnel	developedthe	certification	test.In	2000,	a	procedural	change	by	Office	of	the	Indiana	State	Chemist	permitted	private	applicatorrecertification	either	by	retesting	at	the	end	of	the	5-year	certification	period	or	by	documentedattendance	at	three	approved	continuing	education	programs	within	the	5-year	certification	term.Thus,	Indiana	private	applicators	who	attend	the	requisite	number	of	continuing	educationprograms	no	longer	have	to	retest.Continuing	education	programs	approved	for	private	applicator	certification	must:Be	sponsored	by	a	county	Extension	educator,Include	pesticide-related	topics	that	total	at	least	2	hours,	andInclude	a	pesticide	regulatory	topic	(e.g.,	restricted-use	pesticide	recordkeeping,	Indiana'ssupervision	requirements,	and	Indiana's	drift	enforcement	policy)	determined	annually	byOffice	of	the	Indiana	State	Chemist.The	new	private	applicator	certification	program	is	a	collaborative	effort	among	Office	of	theIndiana	State	Chemist,	Purdue	Pesticide	Programs,	and	Purdue	University	Cooperative	ExtensionService	educators.	The	program	is	flexible,	allowing	county	Extension	educators	to	offer	pesticideprograms	of	local	interest	and/or	that	address	emerging	pesticide	issues.	And	continuing	educationprograms	serve	as	a	vehicle	for	the	communication	of	pesticide	regulations	to	growers.Research	ObjectivesExtension	specialists	have	investigated	the	importance	of	the	pesticide	label	to	the	privateapplicator	(Prochaska	&	Norlund,	1998),	where	private	applicators	access	pesticide	safetyinformation	(Shern,	Slocum,	&	Olsen,	1990),	how	to	successfully	convey	pesticide	safetyinformation	to	private	applicators	(Coffman	&	Watkins,	1991;	Hogan	&	Simeral,	2001),	and	how	toencourage	private	applicators	to	comply	with	pesticide	regulations	(Hogan	&	Simeral,	1994).	Theresearch	discussed	here,	part	of	a	larger	program	evaluation,	builds	on	this	body	of	knowledge.	Inthe	study	we	examine	the	linkage	between	Indiana's	private	pesticide	applicator	recertificationprogram	and	farmers'	attitudes	towards	pesticide	regulations	as	they	relate	to	1)	restricted-usepesticide	recordkeeping	and	2)	property	rights	and	farm	management	decisions.MethodologyThere	were	227	Indiana	private	pesticide	applicators	in	Purdue	University	Cooperative	ExtensionService	Area	IX	(Benton,	Fountain,	Jasper,	Montgomery,	Pulaski,	Tippecanoe,	Warren,	and	Whitecounties)	who	had	recertified	by	attending	three	continuing	certification	programs	prior	to	March2003.	These	individuals	constituted	the	target	population	for	the	research	project.	A	census,	ratherthan	a	randomized	sample,	of	all	227	persons	was	pursued	because	of	the	small	size	of	thepopulation.	Their	names	and	addresses	were	obtained	from	a	database	maintained	by	Office	of	theIndiana	State	Chemist.The	survey	instrument	used	in	the	evaluation	was	developed	via	application	of	a	logic	model(Barkman,	Machtmes,	Mason,	Gordon,	&	Sandbury,	2000).	Extension	pesticide	safety	educationspecialists	reviewed	it	to	establish	content-relevance.	That	portion	of	the	instrument	reported	here,which	addresses	farmer's	attitudes	about	pesticide	regulations,	was	a	nine-item,	Likert-type	scale.The	five	item	anchor	points	were	1	=	strongly	agree,	2	=	agree,	3	=	undecided,	4	=	disagree,	and5	=	strongly	disagree.	Items	included	a	mix	of	positively	and	negatively	worded	statements	tominimize	the	possibility	of	encouraging	socially	desirable	responses.A	cover	letter,	survey,	and	self-addressed	stamped	envelope	were	mailed	to	all	227	farmers	inArea	IX	who	had	completed	their	private	applicator	recertification	requirements.	A	reminder	letterfollowed	2	weeks	later.	Ninety-eight	surveys	were	returned	for	a	response	rate	of	43%.	The	lowresponse	rate	precludes	generalizing	findings	to	the	larger	population.	However,	the	results	aredescriptive	of	the	attitudes	of	almost	half	of	the	population	and	warrant	consideration	on	anexploratory	basis.Following	data	collection,	negatively	worded	items	were	reverse	scored	and	a	Cronbach's	alphatest	was	run	to	determine	instrument	reliability.	An	alpha	value	of	0.73	was	obtained,	sufficient	forbasic	research	purposes	(Nunnally,	1978).	Descriptive	statistics,	including	frequencies,	means,	andstandard	deviations	were	determined	for	purposes	of	data	interpretation.ResultsRestricted	Use	Pesticide	RecordkeepingPrivate	pesticide	applicators	are	obligated	under	the	Food,	Agriculture,	Conservation,	and	TradeAct	of	1990	(commonly	referred	to	as	the	1990	Farm	Bill)--or	by	specific	state	regulations--tomaintain	records	of	restricted	use	product	applications	for	at	least	2	years.	Indiana's	recordkeeping	regulation	specifies	that	private	applicators	must	record	11	items,	including	the:Applicator's	name	and	certification	number;Month,	day,	and	year	of	application;Crop,	commodity,	or	site	to	which	the	pesticide	was	applied;Product	name	and	EPA	registration	number;Total	amount	applied;Size	of	treatment	area;	andApplication	location.State	pesticide	regulatory	personnel,	USDA	representatives,	and	health	professionals	may	accessthese	records.	The	fundamental	reasons	for	the	record	keeping	regulations	are	1.)	to	providespecific	data	in	the	event	of	a	misuse	complaint,	2.)	to	provide	medical	personnel	with	treatmentinformation	in	the	event	of	a	poisoning	by	a	restricted-use	product,	and	3.)	to	generate	real-worlduse	data	in	support	of	pesticide	policy	decisions.Survey	respondents	agreed	with	the	statement	that	information	on	a	restricted-use	pesticide	labelis	important	to	their	family.	They	disagreed	with	the	notion	that	restricted-use	pesticide	labelinformation	is	of	interest	only	to	the	EPA.	Respondents	agreed	also	that	information	kept	in	theirpesticide	records	might	possibly	save	a	life.	However,	when	asked	if	farmers	are	over-regulated--where	record	keeping	requirements	were	offered	as	a	specific	example--respondents	werecollectively	ambivalent.	They	were	undecided	also	when	queried	about	the	need	for	entering	11separate	pieces	of	information	into	record	to	meet	their	record	keeping	obligations	(Table	1.).Table	1.Farmers'	Attitudes	About	Restricted-Use	Pesticide	Record	KeepingStatementResponsesN Mean S.D.1 2 3 4 5Pesticide	safety	information	on	a	restricted-usepesticide	label	is	important	to	my	family.41 52 2 0 1 96 1.63 .64The	information	on	a	restricted-use	pesticide	labelis	only	there	to	satisfy	the	EPA.3 2 5 62 26 98 4.08 .82The	information	I	keep	in	my	pesticide	recordscould	possibly	save	a	life.22 54 12 6 2 96 2.08 .89I	think	that	farmers	are	over-regulated	bygovernment	and	the	pesticide	record	keepingrequirements	are	just	another	example	of	this.4 23 30 36 5 98 3.11 .98There	doesn't	seem	to	be	any	good	reason	to1 28 15 46 6 96 3.29 .99record	11	pieces	of	information	every	time	I	spray.Scale:	1=	strongly	agree,	2	=	agree,	3	=	undecided,	4	=	disagree,	5	=	stronglydisagreeProperty	Rights	and	Farm	Management	DecisionsMinimization	of	pesticide	spray	drift	is	another	regulatory	component	of	the	Indiana	privatepesticide	applicator	recertification	program.	The	state	of	Indiana	has	a	pesticide	drift	enforcementpolicy	that	embodies	the	concepts	of	due	care	and	non-negligent	use	of	pesticides.	The	policyseeks	to	minimize	off-target	pesticide	spray	drift	while	recognizing	individual	concerns,	pesticideproduct	labeling	statements,	and	environmental	and	property	protection	needs.	The	importance	ofthis	policy	grows	as	more	farmers	find	themselves	applying	pesticides	to	fields	next	to	urbanneighbors.Survey	respondents	agreed	that	their	non-farming	neighbors	possessed	the	same	property	rightsas	themselves.	They	agreed	also	that,	in	the	event	of	a	damage	problem	resulting	from	spray	drift,the	neighbor	is	justified	in	lodging	a	complaint.	Yet,	when	presented	with	the	statement	that	Right-to-Farm	legislation	permits	farmers	to	operate	in	any	fashion	that	suits	their	production	needs,survey	respondents	only	mildly	disagreed.	Note	that	all	50	states	have	Right-to	Farm	lawsprotecting	farmers--who	are	in	compliance	with	state	and	local	regulations--from	lawsuits	byneighbors	who	claim	that	the	farm	is	a	nuisance.	While	Indiana's	Right-to-Farm	law	was	not	amandatory	topic	at	private	applicator	recertification	meetings,	the	researchers	felt	that	the	lawwas	sufficiently	understood	as	one	which	grants	some	protection	to	farmers	without	trampling	onrights	of	non-farming	neighbors	(Table	2.).Table	2.Farmers'	Attitudes	About	Property	Rights	and	Farm	Management	DecisionsStatementResponsesN Mean S.D.1 2 3 4 5I	believe	that	my	non-farming	neighbor	has	thesame	property	rights	that	I	do.32 54 5 6 1 98 1.88 .84It	is	acceptable/appropriate	for	my	neighbor	tocomplain	if	my	spraying	damages	plants/vegetationon	his	property.29 68 1 0 0 98 1.71 .48The	Right-to-Farm	legislation	gives	me	the	right	tocarry	on	my	business	any	way	I	want.4 4 15 55 18 96 3.83 .94Direct	supervision	requirements	are	so	stringentthat	I	may	as	well	spray	myself	as	supervise	mynon-licensed	staff.5 20 31 38 2 96 3.13 .94Scale:	1=	strongly	agree,	2	=	agree,	3	=	undecided,	4	=	disagree,	5	=	stronglydisagreeA	summary	question	(Table	2.)	addressed	private	applicator	attitudes	towards	Indiana's	directsupervision	requirement	for	non-certified	applicators.	In	Indiana,	non-certified	farm	workers	mayapply	restricted-use	pesticides	under	the	supervision	of	a	private	pesticide	applicator	if	the	privateapplicator	is	physically	on	site	or	in	voice	contact	(e.g.,	radio,	telephone,	etc.)	if	the	farm	worker	isless	than	30	miles	away.	The	supervision	requirement	affords	protection	to	the	community	andenvironment	by	ensuring	that	everyone	using	restricted-use	pesticides	has	documented	thecompetency	to	do	so	or	is	working	under	the	close	supervision	of	a	certified,	properly	credentialedapplicator.This	requirement	is	a	cornerstone	of	Indiana's	regulatory	effort	to	make	certain	that	responsibilityfor	the	use	of	restricted-use	products	resides	only	with	persons	who	have	been	tested	with	regardsto	their	proper	use.	Nonetheless,	survey	respondents	were	undecided	about	whether	therequirement	was	onerous	to	the	extent	that	it	might	change	their	pesticide	spraying	activities.Conclusions	and	ImplicationsThe	results	of	this	study	were	somewhat	surprising.	It	is	apparent	that	Indiana	private	pesticideapplicators	who	completed	their	recertification	program	requirements	and	participated	in	thesurvey	believe	that	restricted-use	pesticide	labels	bear	important	user-related	information	and	thatrestricted-use	records	have	value	with	respect	to	protecting	human	health.	But	these	sameapplicators	evidence	no	real	support	for	the	regulation	that	requires	them	to	keep	restricted-useproduct	records.Respondents	recognized	too	that	their	non-farming	neighbors	should	not	have	to	expect	to	dealwith	pesticide	spray	drift.	And	they	agreed	that	their	neighbors	should	be	able	to	lodge	a	complaintagainst	them	in	the	event	that	drift	damages	the	neighbor's	property.	However,	when	presentedwith	the	statement	that	Right-to-Farm	legislation	grants	them	greater	property	rights	than	theirneighbors,	these	same	farmers	expressed	only	modest	disagreement.Finally,	respondents	were	asked	about	their	attitude	toward	a	state-imposed	applicator	supervisionrequirement.	This	requirement	ensures	that	only	competent	or	otherwise	carefully	supervisedpersons	use	restricted-use	pesticides.	It	relates	directly	to	the	primary	purpose	of	the	privatepesticide	applicator	certification	program--to	limit	access	to	restricted-use	products	to	trained	andtested	persons.	Farmers	were	uncertain	as	to	whether	the	requirement	was	too	burdensome.This	seeming	dichotomy	between	farmers'	respect	for	careful	management	of	restricted-usepesticides	and	their	lukewarm	support	for	regulations	that	mandate	careful	management	presentsa	challenge	to	Extension	educators	involved	in	pesticide	safety	education.	Farmers'	suspicionsabout	government	intrusion	into	their	farming	activities	may	be	cultural	and	deeply	ingrained.Therefore,	successful	regulatory	programming	has	to	address	not	just	the	mechanical	issuespertaining	to	regulatory	compliance,	(i.e.,	how	to	comply)	but	also	the	context	within	which	rulesare	deemed	necessary.	In	order	to	encourage	compliance,	a	discussion	of	the	underlyingregulatory	rationale	(e.g.,	promoting	public	health,	enhancing	environmental	quality)	assumes	avital	role	in	any	Extension	program	that	successfully	informs	its	audience	about	pesticideregulations.The	authors	recommend	that	Extension	educators	who	conduct	private	pesticide	applicatortraining	programs	include	material	in	their	training	curriculum	about	how	regulations	arebeneficial.	By	articulating	the	personal	and	social	benefits	of	government	regulations,	educatorscan	increase	the	odds	that	applicators	will	abide	by,	not	just	the	letter,	but	also	the	spirit	of	thelaw.ReferencesBarkman,	S	.J.,	Machtmes,	K.	L.,	Mason,	A.,	Gordon,	J.,	&	Sandbury,	F.	(2000).	Evaluating	theimpact	of	your	CES	programs.	Purdue	University	Cooperative	Extension	Service.Coffman,	C.	W.,	&	Watkins,	S.	M.	(1991)	Getting	the	right	stuff	into	the	right	hands.	Journal	ofExtension	[On-line],	29(1).	Available	at:	http://www.joe.org/joe/1991spring/a5.htmlHogan,	M.,	&,	K.	(1994).	Turning	regulation	into	education.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	32(4).Available	at:	http://www.joe.org/joe/1994december/iw2.htmlHogan,	M.,	&	Simeral,	K.	(2001).	Everyone	a	teacher,	everyone	a	learner:	A	learner-centeredpesticide	private	applicators	recertification	training.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line],	39(3).	Availableat:	http://www.joe.org/joe/2001june/iw1.htmlNunnally,	J.	C.	(1978).	Psychometric	theory.	Second	Edition.	New	York:	McGraw-Hill,	Inc.Prochaska,	S.	C.,	&	Norlund,	E.	L.	(1998).	Ohio	farmer	use	of	the	pesticide	label.	Journal	ofExtension	[On-line],	36(1).	Available	at:	http://www.joe.org/joe/1998february/rb2.htmlShern,	L.	C.,	Slocum,	A.	C.,	&	Olsen,	L.	G.	(1990).	Chemical	dealers	and	pesticide	safety.	Journal	ofExtension	[On-line],	28(4).	Available	at:	http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/rb2.htmlCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Are All These Rules Necessary? Extension Pesticide Programming with a Regulatory Purpose

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4881&context=joe

Are All These Rules Necessary? Extension Pesticide Programming with a Regulatory Purpose

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints