BACKGROUND: In 1993, the American Medical Association (AMA) requested its Council on Scientific Affairs to investigate issues and concerns related to (1) improving public notification of pesticide applications and (2) improving educational programs for commercial and farm pesticide applicators and increasing enforcement of licensing examination requirements. This report was presented at the 1994 Interim Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates as Report 4 of the Council on Scientific Affairs. METHODS: Information for the report was derived from published literature and from personal communications with state and federal regulatory officials, physicians, and representatives of pest control, lawn care, and farm organizations. Some information about state certification and training programs was obtained from telephone conversations with pesticide applicator training program coordinators from California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. These states were selected because they contain large agricultural or urban populations that are likely to require the services of trained professional pesticide applicators. RESULTS: Current surveillance systems are inadequate to characterize potential exposure problems related either to pesticide usage or to pesticide related illnesses. The effectiveness of applicator certification and training programs and public notification programs could not be determined because of a lack of federal and state survey data for making useful assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Considering current data gaps, it is prudent for homeowners, farmers, and workers to limit pesticide exposures to themselves and others.
BACKGROUND: In 1993, the American Medical Association (AMA) requested its Council on Scientific Affairs to investigate issues and concerns related to (1) improving public notification of pesticide applications and (2) improving educational programs for commercial and farm pesticide applicators and increasing enforcement of licensing examination requirements. This report was presented at the 1994 Interim Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates as Report 4 of the Council on Scientific Affairs. METHODS: Information for the report was derived from published literature and from personal communications with state and federal regulatory officials, physicians, and representatives of pest control, lawn care, and farm organizations. Some information about state certification and training programs was obtained from telephone conversations with pesticide applicator training program coordinators from California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. These states were selected because they contain large agricultural or urban populations that are likely to require the services of trained professional pesticide applicators. RESULTS: Current surveillance systems are inadequate to characterize potential exposure problems related either to pesticide usage or to pesticide related illnesses. The effectiveness of applicator certification and training programs and public notification programs could not be determined because of a lack of federal and state survey data for making useful assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Considering current data gaps, it is prudent for homeowners, farmers, and workers to limit pesticide exposures to themselves and others.