Pest Control Gets More Expensive
The powder post beetle, a typical household pest, may require American consumers to fork out an additional $145 million dollars each year, as a result of new government regulations, one insecticide segment official forecast. The Environmental Protection Agency was not so quick to agree with the claims of the industry reps, though, and said that there are available methods that should not be any more expensive than the older one.
Resulting in far greater expenses to treat houses which are infested by the powder post beetle, the EPA's prior decision to remove one brand of pesticide from the market generally raised costs for consumers, said the vice president of one pest control firm. He noted that the powder post beetle, the target of the treatment in question, is similar to the termite and affects as many 140,000 homes a year. The pesticide that has recently been banned was sort of a miracle cure for the industry, he says, because the exterminator could spray the chemical once a year and guarantee a home free house cleaning checklist for maid (riograndeplus.com.ar) from the beetle. He says there was nothing dangerous about the chemical and that it was highly effective, but now that it is banned they have no choice but to use total fumigation.
This would require for the resident to remain out of the home for awhile so that it could be filled with chemical gas. In the past experts used to be able to come in and use the banned chemical to get rid of the pests for under a thousand dollars, but now it can cost up to two thousand dollars. A spokesman for the EPA is not buying the claims of the industry insiders, though, noting that there are other chemicals which have been identified as cost effective and efficacious. Unlike termites, who cause actual property damage, powder post beetles are basically just an annoyance according to the EPA spokesperson.
The new chemical is pentachlorophenol, which has already been approved by the EPA for controlling the powder post beetle, and provides effective control for nearly the same price as the banned pesticide. The American homeowner, therefore, need not anticipate much of an increase, if any, in the cost of this pesticide. Both the maker of the banned chemical and the pest control association provided the testimony upon which the EPA statement was based, according to the spokeman. He remarked that this testimony was offered at EPA trials on whether or not to infuse a brief pause on the pesticide's production with a perpetual ban.
Still, many argue that the cost increase to consumers could number in the millions of dollars each year nationwide in the battle to control the powder post beetle. The owner of a pest control company who had been using the banned chemical for over thirty years said that it's difficult to tell a retired couple in their 70's that they have an infestation and it's now going to cost them over $1,000 to treat their house rather than the smaller cost they would have had before. The owner also argues that the EPA's decision was made without all of the necessary information. He finally went so far as to say that the verdict was a huge error, but the EPA still has not overturned their decision and the trial may continue for several more years.
Resulting in far greater expenses to treat houses which are infested by the powder post beetle, the EPA's prior decision to remove one brand of pesticide from the market generally raised costs for consumers, said the vice president of one pest control firm. He noted that the powder post beetle, the target of the treatment in question, is similar to the termite and affects as many 140,000 homes a year. The pesticide that has recently been banned was sort of a miracle cure for the industry, he says, because the exterminator could spray the chemical once a year and guarantee a home free house cleaning checklist for maid (riograndeplus.com.ar) from the beetle. He says there was nothing dangerous about the chemical and that it was highly effective, but now that it is banned they have no choice but to use total fumigation.This would require for the resident to remain out of the home for awhile so that it could be filled with chemical gas. In the past experts used to be able to come in and use the banned chemical to get rid of the pests for under a thousand dollars, but now it can cost up to two thousand dollars. A spokesman for the EPA is not buying the claims of the industry insiders, though, noting that there are other chemicals which have been identified as cost effective and efficacious. Unlike termites, who cause actual property damage, powder post beetles are basically just an annoyance according to the EPA spokesperson.
The new chemical is pentachlorophenol, which has already been approved by the EPA for controlling the powder post beetle, and provides effective control for nearly the same price as the banned pesticide. The American homeowner, therefore, need not anticipate much of an increase, if any, in the cost of this pesticide. Both the maker of the banned chemical and the pest control association provided the testimony upon which the EPA statement was based, according to the spokeman. He remarked that this testimony was offered at EPA trials on whether or not to infuse a brief pause on the pesticide's production with a perpetual ban.
Still, many argue that the cost increase to consumers could number in the millions of dollars each year nationwide in the battle to control the powder post beetle. The owner of a pest control company who had been using the banned chemical for over thirty years said that it's difficult to tell a retired couple in their 70's that they have an infestation and it's now going to cost them over $1,000 to treat their house rather than the smaller cost they would have had before. The owner also argues that the EPA's decision was made without all of the necessary information. He finally went so far as to say that the verdict was a huge error, but the EPA still has not overturned their decision and the trial may continue for several more years.