Integrated pest muddling.

• Position: FROM READERS - Letter to the Editor

I found Mindy Pennybacker's tips on protecting children from environmental hazards very informative, but I was puzzled by her use of the term "integrated pest management" (IPM) when calling for an end to pesticide use [Green Guidance, November/December 2005].

In Canada, IPM has been latched on to by lawn care businesses in an attempt to greenwash their industry. IPM calls for pesticide use as a last resort, but in practice many of these businesses expend little or no effort in reducing pesticide use. I am curious if IPM is more effectively monitored in the United States and why Mindy chose to use this term without explaining what it means.

ALLAN MCKEOWN

Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

Mindy Pennybacker replies: As Mr. McKeown notes, IPM does not ban pesticide use. As I reported in my column, IPM does dictate that pesticides should be employed only as a last resort and when other remedies have been exhausted, according to the IPM Institute of North America and the Bio Integral Resource Center (BIRC) in California. Natural controls, such as introduction of beneficial insects that eat pests; denying pests food, entry, and water; and least-toxic baits, are first priority. Whether practitioners truly follow this process, however, is hard to tell without clear standards enforced by a third-party verification system.

At home and in the garden, "least-toxic" pest control may be a less confusing and more accurate term to use than IPM. Given children's sensitivity to neurotoxins, the health...