The Quarterly Electronic Publication of the Maine Board of Pesticides Control
April 28, 1998

Drift Conference Sets New Benchmarks

Rapport Key to and Legacy of Unique Gathering of Expertise

Host an international conference committed exclusively to the purpose of managing problems associated with pesticide spray drift...and they will come.

So they did. To Portland, Maine.

From four continents, researchers brought the latest developments in drift-reducing technology. Applicators and regulators exchanged experiences and attitudes which can limit drift. And concerned individuals stepped forward, telling the aforementioned they do not wish to be victims of chemical trespass.

The objective of the gathering? To present the state of the art in drift control technology, to prioritize what's available for applicators and regulators to do their part to limit drift, and to simply encourage folks who see drift differently to communicate among themselves.

In all, 295 participants attended the North American Conference on Pesticide Spray Drift Management sponsored by the University of Maine Pest Management Office and theBPC this spring. None walked away with a specific menu for ordering drift-free agriculture, forestry or ornamental plant care. All had the opportunity, however, to take with them ingredients useful towards that goal.

Defining the Issue, Its Past: "Agriculture wouldn’t be here today without chemical inputs," said Maine 2nd District Congressman John Baldacci in a keynote address in which he said agriculture--long taken for granted and ever threatened by regulation--can meet the challenge of drift management. "Working together in Maine, researchers, farmers and farm families today are using satellite imaging to tell which fields they should be working to control potato blight. With that and rotation in potato fields, they’re reducing pesticide use which is raising the bar on food quality."

Recognizing that "people today are more outspoken about their rights whether they involve cigarette smoke or pesticide drift," Baldacci urged that farmers be given the opportunity to show that "precision farming and people’s rights are able to work hand in hand."

"We’ve got to respond to this or else we [extension specialists] will go the way of the mule," followedJohn Impson of U.S.D.A. Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service. "But don’t expect a silver bullet...." According to Impson, progress in drift reduction calls for "a new way of doing things--as educators, trainers and researchers--that will make a difference." Impson urged development of a national education program to bring about the desired behavior of applicators. Regulators’ programs should be coordinated to educate as well.

U.S. EPA’s Jay Ellenberger, Field & External Affairs Division, said state regulators and insurance company’s report more than 2,000 drift incidents per year. "We need to measure how and why it happens, what are the costs to taxpayers and to the drifted public, and how to work together to minimize drift." He also urged greater collaboration between chemists, industries and applicators.

Describing as "arrogant" the past attitude of many Maine applicators during the spruce budworm and blueberry spray programs of the 1970s and early 1980s,BPC Chairman Thomas Saviellosaid applicators have shown tremendous improvement over the years. "Back then, many felt they had a God-given right to spray. Much has changed. Today there are technologies available such as improved nozzles and computers, and then there’s the attitude towards drift prevention--that it is not just an option. Rather, drift prevention is a business requirement."

Technologies Abound to Reduce, Not Eliminate Off-Target Sprays: In four days, 16 presenters shared the latest innovations in drift control. Here's just an overview of what conferees heard:

--Computer models which verify the number of swaths of fine, medium or coarse droplets which can be applied aerially or from the ground before drifting into sensitive areas.

--Global Positioning Systems/Geographic Information Systems which scout fields electronically and direct the aerial applicator within two meters of intended target. Also, climate/environment sensors which warn the applicator of imminent drift conditions.

--Thirty-six types of adjuvants which affect delivery, impact and deposit formation/efficacy of products applied. Also, on-going studies of polymers which provide varying degrees of chemical adhesion to plant leaves.

--Studies of droplets and effects of windshear and vortices caused by forward motion of the spray boom.

--Models which show quantifiable relationships between buffer size and percentage of drift from aerial applications.

--Studies in air-assisted spray use which demonstrate improved application equipment can maintain orchard quality while reducing overall pesticide use. Equipment includes use of infrared, sonar and laser sensors for improved targeting of sprays; towers for horizontal sprays and tunnel sprayers which shield spray from wind and direct application to target.

As diverse was the technological curriculum, topics were woven together by several basic themes: the need to make such innovations available to pesticide users, the need to train applicators in their use, and the need to not expect any or all of these technologies to solve the issue of pesticide spray drift. On the last point,Gary Van Ee, Michigan State University, said succinctly in his presentation on air-assisted sprays, "Stopping drift is easy: just stop spraying. But that's not an option because we're trying to maintain tree quality and economic viability."

Technology Alone Not Enough: The key to drift reduction, according toNorma Grier, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, "is not by spraying better, but by farming better--to get off the pesticide treadmill." "Some would like to think that technology can do it all," she added, "but the drift problem will stop only when we stop spraying pesticides...." Grier urged agriculture to set goals towards the elimination of pesticides through adoption of alternatives. Also, she called drift a problem of culture--where regulators and extension agents are too eager to side on behalf of applicators but not the public.

Malcolm Bolton, Clitherau, Minnesota, said he appreciated Grier's last point. Neither an applicator nor researcher but rather a retired social worker who resides in a lake side community adjacent to a large potato operation, Bolton said he came to Portland to learn about drift and drift monitoring after experiencing an open house at the nearby farm. There, agriculture officials addressed drift by "deliberately trying to relax the public with information about best management practices. That communication was misleading," he added. "The public needs to be aware of drift, and public agencies need to get the word out when it occurs. Otherwise, if I find out after the fact, it's dynamite. It's more hazardous for growers and politicians to hide it, to deny it."

Bolton's experience back home clearly shows how public concerns about drift and poor communications make an explosive mix. Vincent Covello, an authority on the art and science of communicating effectively in high concern/low trust situations, explained why in his presentation. He identified several common trip wires which catch the public's ire. Among the dos for effective risk communications: convey empathy for public's concerns, assume perception is the same as fact to the public and expect non expert celebrity spokespersons to be more credible communicators than the so-called experts.

Laws, Dollars, Sense and the Future: Filling out the bill for the broadest view of drift possible, other presentations included a survey of drift laws enacted by states throughout the U.S., a farm insurance company's determination that pesticide use training significantly reduces damage claims and costs, and that decision-making disciplines used by commercial and military pilots can and must be adopted by aerial applicators to prevent accidents. Also discussed were potential impacts of drift upon organic farm products as cited under proposed national organic food standards as well as research findings of the industry-sponsored Spray Drift Task Force.

Paul Kindinger, representing the National Coalition to Minimize Spray Drift--a consortium of regulators, trainers and applicators--said his organization set out to reduce drift by identifying and changing applicator habits which create problems. "We developed a vision of ideal behaviors and then established a national curriculum to train these behaviors." That program has been recognized by the U.S. EPA as sound best management practices for aerial use of pesticides.

With like vision, participants wrapped up the conference by meeting in working groups to prioritize ideal drift management practices for airblast, boomsprayer, handheld powered as well as fixed and rotary-winged application equipment. The outcome? A first rough cut of drift-reducing proposals penned by a broadest range of interests. As one put it, "These ideas--like this conference--aren't the last word in doing something about drift, but they're a heck of a start."

For a copy of the conference's proceedings, contact after July 1, 1998 Donna Buckley, University of Maine Pest Management Office, at 207-581-3880. Conferees will receive theirs automatically and without charge.