IPM in Food Plants

The pest control industry has changed drastically in the last 50 years. As a14-year-old boy, my first paying job was cleaning a small family bakery every weekend. It’s hard to believe, but I started the job before the official Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established. The job included some pest control tasks. When a mouse was seen in the bakery, my job was to chase them with a broom to get rid of them, spread bait around the area and try to find them when they died, or set a snap trap.

At that time, pest control relied solely on the liberal use of pesticides to reduce the population. There was certainly no shortage of dead rodent bodies to prove to customers that the treatment was effective! Some pest control companies’ efforts were truly amazing and cataloged with pictures to convince potential customers that they could expect the same results.

Since the primary focus was to spread the pesticide into a broad area quickly so nothing could escape, researchers developed fogging methods to distribute insecticides faster and get them deeper into hiding places. At that time, there was so much emphasis on demonstrating how many cockroaches, flies, or rodents were killed that we didn’t consider surviving pests that would repopulate the same area. We were less concerned about the biology and behavior of pests than our ability to keep killing them in large numbers.

If not for some of the great minds in recent decades, we would likely still be practicing the kill method and remain ignorant of what Integrated Pest Management (IPM) truly means. We owe the advancements in IPM to people who were curious enough to ask why and look for answers; people who spent their lives sharing their answers with all who would listen. People like Arnold Mallis, Dr. Austin Frishman, Vern Walter, Dr. Bobby Corrigan, and many others who created the opportunity for change to occur.

Today, IPM has evolved into a science-based program that relies heavily on our understanding of pest biology and behavior. Programs have migrated away from reliance on pesticides as the sole response to pest issues. Now, professionals are expected to use many tools to manage a pest issue with the end goal of eliminating it from concern.

Pest control is no longer a shot in the dark. We have learned to complete a detailed assessment of the facility to determine the presence of pests and the overall level of activity. Armed with this knowledge, we can determine the best approach to deal with the issues. Thinking in terms of modifying the environment, sanitation, engineering changes, and determining which pesticides will have the greatest impact helps to accomplish the goal. Sometimes even the best efforts do not lead to elimination of a pest population, but they will strive to reduce the population to a tolerable level which has no negative impact on the food products or people working in the facility.

Education must always be a major aspect of a viable IPM program. When people know what they are doing wrong to encourage pest activity, ideally they will stop doing these things. Unfortunately, ignorance is present in every aspect of IPM. In many cases, the term IPM has become just a buzz word, and the work being done under its banner does not represent the intent of the program. For many customers, IPM is simply a new window dressing for the same old chemical-intense approach with the same past failure rates.

Fortunately, change is coming. New regulations like the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), requirements for intensive audits conducted as a result of the Global Food Safety Initiative, and a better understanding of IPM by customers is placing pressure on IPM practitioners to step up and do the job right. There will be a much higher scrutiny of programs under these new rules and requirements. Weak programs will be identified, and changes will be required to remain in competition for business.

Inspections with clearly documented findings providing an in-depth look at a facility and clear recommendations for solutions to pest issues is an important part of any IPM program. Unfortunately, many of the IPM assessments I review deal only with the number of captures or baiting devices and very little with defining the threat the facility faces. Many assessments make no mention of other pest issues beyond rodents. This doesn’t conform to an inclusive IPM program and it is negligent and a failure in professionalism. What benefit does a food manufacturing facility gain from an assessment where the provider notes that he has the right number of bait stations and low profile rodent devices in place, but is experiencing significant issues with stored product insects and German cockroaches that are not mentioned anywhere else in the report?

A cornerstone of the FSMA is preventive controls. FDA and consumers want a more proactive approach to food safety. The days of taking action only after an event has occurred are passing. This also applies to pest management. Pest management companies can no longer be expected to show up after an event has occurred to begin looking at ways to fix what should never have happened in the first place. All food plants should have an active monitoring program that enables them to collect pest activity information at any given time. The use of pheromone traps for specific high-risk species of stored product pests and general-use glue boards to alert for any other invading species are imperative. The difficult part of the program is having someone who can recognize what is being captured in the devices and assign significance and corrective action. Too often those less informed simply report a total number of insects captured and fail to identity significant insects present. This is why it is so important that the people responsible for conducting checks of pest-monitoring equipment are educated to properly identify insects.

Technicians who lack knowledge can misrepresent significant information in their reports. I recently visited a food plant experiencing significant insect issues. Looking at the assessment conducted by the contractor and the records of service, you would not know the true extent of the issues. Captures in light traps were documented as 1-50, 50-100, and finally 100+. When the glue boards in the light traps were examined, they revealed that German cockroaches, warehouse beetles, cigarette beetles, and Indian meal moths were among the insects that made up the numbers reported. Month after month, the same results were reported with no indication that the facility had an issue with stored product insects!

IPM requires practitioners to possess a high level of knowledge. Without the knowledge to recognize what a facility is facing and the most appropriate steps that need to be taken, the programs being pushed onto these food plants is no different than those of the past. Education about what to expect in a particular food plant, how to search for potential issues, and what to do if you find them is an absolute mandate of a good IPM program.

In today’s information age, excusing a lack of performance due to not knowing the right information is inexcusable. Regulations and customer expectations demand more. Each failure costs a food company significant amounts of money. Shutting down production for two or three days while pest management companies try to execute large-scale solutions for a problem that should not have occurred in the first place will receive less tolerance.

The author is Head of Food Safety Education, AIB International.