|
|
Web Exclusive: Seven Things Smart Money and Ken Bensinger Won't Tell You
12 Sep, 2007 By: Norman Cooper
Editor's Note: Pest Control Hall of Famer Norm Cooper wrote the following in response to the August issue of Smart Money magazine, which featured an article written by Ken Bensinger title
"10 Things Your Exterminator Won't Tell You."
1. Pest management professionals are NOT "the pesticide industry," nor are they "bug zappers" as stated by Mr. Bensinger in his opening and misguided diatribe. Most pest management professionals utilize integrated pest management techniques, which encompass good management practices such as pest exclusion, remedying conditions to ensure that internal environmental conditions conducive to pest proliferation are eliminated or reduced and, when necessary, to apply low-impact, approved pesticides in a safe and judicious manner.
2. Virtually all pest management professionals are required to be certified in compliance with their states' regulations, and must continue to attend approved educational pest control seminars in order to maintain their certification. Any use of pesticides that are not in compliance with label directions (which are mandated by the federal and state governments) are subject to severe penalties.
3. The Harvard School of Public Health credits the advances in the prolongation of life in the past century to (1) advances in medicine, (2) better nutrition and (3) pest control. It is imperative that these tools be utilized wisely. Professional applicators and government regulators are responsible for balancing the "benefit vs. risk" ratio.
4. Mr. Bensinger wrote that "in theory, the extermination company is responsible for any pre-existing, or 'old,' damage not caught during inspection, yet buried in their contracts is tricky language that can make it difficult to win a claim." Doesn't Mr. Bensinger realize that there are areas that are not accessible to inspection, even with much of the most sophisticated tools? To accept responsibility for guaranteeing a home that you have not treated would be either financially suicidal or prohibitively expensive? Does he truly believe that performing an inexpensive yet thoroughly professional visible examination and stating that "this report is based upon our inspector's visual inspection of accessible areas and on sounding of accessible structural members and that this report is based upon the observations, judgments and opinions of the inspector and carries no guarantee or warranty expressed or implied" is tricky language?
5. "If your neighbors don't hire me too, this treatment is worthless" is the heading of one of Mr. Bensinger's sections. Of course, whether in an apartment building or even in a detached house, having your neighbors getting treatment in conjunction with the treatment of your premises is certainly more effective, especially for outdoor insects, but any pest management professional can cite countless situations where getting your neighbors to participate was not an option and where treatment for one unit was still very effective. His examples of ant species were not without some validity, but he misleads his readers by invoking the lowest standards of journalism.
6. The example of termite pretreatment at very low cost is not necessarily a case of "not using pure juice." The termite company may have a crew of applicators that they want to keep employed, or they may do the pretreatment at a price lower than their cost because they may be looking for long-term warranty renewal profit. In any case, it is their business decision. They should not be accused of under-delivering, particularly by a regulatory official. Rather, if the regulatory agency should test and prove that improper formulation was used, legal action should be taken against the offender. Isn't that the regulatory agency's function? Regulating, rather than implying fraudulent behavior?
7. No stone was unturned in this article that obviously had a predetermined slant. Many of the so-called "industry professionals" were employed in an adversarial position. The specter of chemical poisoning; unscrupulous mega-giant corporations; legal impotence; preyed-upon consumers and even global warming, which the author neglected to blame on the pest management industry. The pest management industry, with almost 20,000 firms, certainly might have some incompetents and some charlatans, but all efforts should be made to weed these blights out. The industry, with the assistance of regulatory agencies, is doing its utmost and I believe that we are as successful as most industries and professions in doing so. To imply that the negative aspects were the norm rather than the rare exception is a disservice to your readers.
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.