Bed bugs pose threat to schools?

Some school districts are beginning to worry about bed bugs. About a year ago the Bracken County School District in Kentucky closed their doors for a day to make sure no stray bed bugs were left behind following a find of a single bed bug in classroom. The bug was supposed to have come from a student whose home had bed bugs.

This week the Columbus Dispatch, in Ohio, reports another panic over bed bugs in school classrooms. According to the article, "Researchers and public-health officials fear that tiny, brown, blood-sucking bedbugs are going to spread through schools."

Greg Kesterman, director of the environmental health division for Hamilton County Public Health (Cincinnati, OH, where bed bug problems are growing quickly) is quoted in this week's story as saying, "Anytime an insect has the potential to crawl on a person, and travel with (people), you're guaranteed that you'll see them showing up in a public facility." This is certainly true. Bed bugs have, and will, show up in schools from time to time, especially as infestations in homes become more common.

What I question is the followup worry that steps need to be taken to avoid a "large scale problem" in schools. Are bed bugs really another problem that schools need to be highly concerned about? I doubt it.

While you never want to underestimate nature's ability to cause mischief, the threat of bed bug infestations in schools should be minimal. Bed bugs are principally active in the dark (except in cases of heavy infestations--which would not be the case with the occasional, stealth introduction to a classroom). After dark they need a reliable source of blood to sustain a population and spread. Since people generally do not sleep in classrooms (with possible exception of short afternoon nap times in pre-school rooms), it would be tough going for a bed bug that slipped out of a backpack into a typical classroom from an infested home.

In my estimation there is little risk of actual bed bug infestations requiring treatment in a public school classrooms or auditoriums. Dorms are another issue of course. Also, the risk of one or two bed bugs emerging from of a child's backpack and infesting other kid's belonging is conceivable, but the risk is also probably low. Should PMPs, school nurses and school pest management staff know what a bed bug looks like, and something about its biology and behavior? Sure. Should schools fear they are going to spread through schools and cause a citizen panic? No way.

Cockroaches are far more likely to migrate from a child's backpack and find "Southern Living" in a classroom. And backpack smuggling of cockroaches is at best a minor or occasional source of cockroach infestations in school classrooms.

Playing without Pesticides?

In case you've not heard, there's a movement afoot to ban pesticides as part of a green approach to community improvement. Pesticide bans are most common in schools and parks, but are even being proposed (most famously in Toronto, Ontario) for whole cities. A recent news story from New Jersey tells of a school in Mansfield, NJ that has taken to posting "Pesticide Free" signs near the playgrounds to advertise the school's policy of not using pesticides (at least around playgrounds).


Such actions, in my opinion, are misguided and teach kids the wrong lessons. Those of you who love kids and the environment, like I do, please hear me out before you click the "close" button on your browsers.


Let's ask ourselves, what message do pesticide bans really convey? Let me propose a few.

• All pesticides are bad for the environment. This message ignores the diversity of pesticide products, all of which are different in their modes of action and degrees of toxicity. A pesticide is, by definition, something that manages pests, not something that is dangerous for the environment. The environmental impacts of today's pesticides are significantly different than the products that Rachel Carson warned us about in the early 1960s. Few of today's pesticides, for one example, have the potential to accumulate in the food chain.


• All pesticides are unhealthy for kids and the rest of us. Not true. The older, nerve-toxin targeted pesticides have undoubtedly contributed to this misconception; but there are lots of pesticides that pose very low risks to humans and non-targeted organisms.Over the past twenty years or so, especially, pesticide toxicity and persistence has decreased dramatically.


• You can't trust science-based regulatory agencies to keep unsafe pesticides out of our communities. While I'm not ready to go to bat for all our federal regulatory agencies, few people fully appreciate the vetting process that U.S. pesticides go through before making it to market. Suffice it to say here that pesticides go through much more thorough and expensive safety testing than most other consumer-destined products.


• We don't really need pesticides. This message denies the value that pesticides have historically provided in keeping food costs down (for the poor as well as the rest of our society), saving human lives by keeping disease-carrying pests at bay, improving safety and appearance of athletic fields (ask your kid's high school coach about this one), and maintaining healthy and comfortable environments for all of us (care to share your sleeping space with bed bugs anyone?).

Leonard Douglen, Executive Director of the New Jersey Pest Management Association, made a good point in a recent editorial when he observed, "When one considers the many insect pests that can attack children, from ticks that can cause Lyme disease to mosquitoes that transmit West Nile Fever, cockroaches that can spread a variety of diseases, as well as stinging insects, the need for professional pest control becomes self-evident."

One final observation. Pesticide bans may be more palatable to consumers, and seem more acheivable, in cooler, northern communities where outdoor pest problems are less common and less severe. In the southern states the warm season is longer, weeds grow faster, and insect and plant disease pressure is significantly greater than, say, Toronto. Under these conditions, pest management is more essential to maintaining safe and attractive landscapes. Try taking the average Texan's bag of fire ant bait away from him or her, and you'll quickly understand what I mean.

Legislators should be careful lest they think that pesticide bans are the way to go. I propose a more thoughtful and nuanced approach. It may not be as fashionable or simple a message as "Pesticide Free", but requiring use of integrated pest management, and making sure that pesticide applicators are well trained in the safe and judicious use of pesticides will, in the long run, be best for us and our environment.