EMICAL _ OF URBAN DWELLERS TOWARD CH ‘Anmowm; INSECTICIDES. .~ A STUDY OF THE AmmDE-S. --.4\ v p... + . n I .. ,. a . _. "‘74-‘73“; ........ ,. £3.13; ._. . ...... w. .. .r. y. I ,~\.$FJ....VI. .. . .:. .1361. ThBSIS for the Degree of PIID ’- 7 TATE UNlWERSITY MICHIGAN s f FRANK IL. MYERS I 1971 . 2.. . ..A.f.. I... .I-.~.p~.£ .w. .s I an 4.5.315 Laws? z... anrgwrfinfifizxt é: {Ht-’9‘! This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE OF URBAN WELLERS TOWARD CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES presented by Frank L . Myers has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Education M or ofessor Date_Ai-?J:1.L2._19_Zl__ 07639 LIBRI . Y Michigan 5 ate University 1"‘12‘1:47TH [- f r" I r I f‘. L1 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE OF URBAN DWELLERS TOWARD CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES BY Frank L. Myers A random sample of 1,277 residents in Lansing, Michigan were selected to receive a questionnaire intended to determine their attitudes and knowledge concerning insecticides. Households which received the mail question- naire represented all four strata in the city of Lansing. Fifty-two per cent of the residents responded by completing and returning the questionnaire. One hundred fifty-five of the residents who did not respond to the mail questionnaire and the follow-up postal card were selected for a telephone interview consisting of selected questions. Twenty-nine individuals or 19 per cent responded to this interview. The purpose of the study was to gain profile infor- mation about Lansing residents; their pesticide usage patterns; knowledge of government involvement in regulating pesticides; and their opinions concerning environmental pollution. w} u". nt- "2 'l“.‘~ Corpo: grams Chi-s< men ar majori their wives. fifty- home. users < reporte chase CidEs y reside: Smallez Spendir I mail ar househc Frank L. Myers The data was coded and key punched for Control Data Corporation Computers 6500 and 3600. The computer pro- grams used to analyze the data were DAP I, Percount and Chi-square (x2). Sixty-three per cent of the mail respondents were men and 17 per cent of the respondents were retired. The majority of respondents who were actively employed listed their occupations as craftsmen, professionals and house- wives. Forty-five per cent of the mail respondents were fifty—one years of age or older and had no children at home. Over 75 per cent of the residents were classified as users of insecticides. Fifty-one per cent of the users reported that they annually spent $1-$5.99 for the pur- chase of insecticides. The largest retailers of insecti- cides were supermarkets and discount stores. Inner city residents reported buying their insecticides mostly from smaller businesses, such as hardware stores, therefore spending more. Less than 14 per cent of the respondents from the mail and telephone surveys reported poisonings in their households. Insecticides accounted for l per cent of the poisonings, whereas food contamination accounted for 7 per cent of the poisonings and ranked the highest. Users indicated that they received information regarding what pesticides to purchase from the newspaper and radio. A small percentage indicated that they L__M. recei versi cent apply taine: the M: Servic that t vol ved magazi of inf. additi State I believe them f: I be more reSponc I hada} as Oppc Frank L. Myers received this information from the Michigan State Uni— versity Cooperative Extension Service. Seventy-eight per cent reported that they obtained information on how to apply insecticides by reading the directions on the con- tainer. Only 4 per cent received this information from the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. Eighty-one per cent of the mail respondents reported that they received information concerning the dangers in- volved in the use of insecticides from television and magazines. Only 7 per cent reported receiving this type of information from group meetings. The majority of respondents from both surveys favored additional controls on insecticides by the federal and state governments. They further stated that they did not believe the government was doing all it could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. Respondents with higher educational levels tended to be more concerned about environmental pollution than were respondents with two years of high school or less. Heads of households who resided in the inner city had a lower level of response to the mail questionnaire as opposed to persons living outside the central city. A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES AND KNOWLEDGE OF URBAN DWELLERS TOWARD CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES BY Frank L. Myers A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 DEDICATED TO My parents and girl ii -, "r .e w ,a:(.o .'v"\.. ,4 '9'“... getta ment, deeds Johns: creati ation. MCSWee availa Dr. Wi tance Grands. encour. patienc Special the En friends ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes.to extend his sincere and unfor- gettable thanks to Dr. Gordon E. Guyer for his encourage- ment, guidance and financial assistance. These meaningful deeds led to the development and completion of this study. My deepest appreciation is extended to Dr. Vandel Johnson for his guidance, versatility and willingness to create greater interdepartmental understanding and cooper- ation. Special thanks are expressed to Dr. Maryellen McSweeney for her excellent statistical assistance, availability and concern. I am graciously indebted to Mr. Arthur Bloomer and Dr. William Wallner for their guidance, literary assis- tance and above all, friendship. My personal thanks are extended to Drs. Marvin E. Grandstaff and Winston R. Oberg for their guidance, encouragement and dedication. I am deeply indebted to Miss Lana Dart for her patience, assistance and concern about this project. Special thanks are expressed to the secretarial staff of the Entomology Department for their assistance and friendship. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Need . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 3 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 5 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . 7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 19 III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . 21 Sample Population. . . . . . . . 21 Randomization Procedures . . . . . 21 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Instrument of Observation . . . . . 22 Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . 24 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 25 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . . . 26 Profile Characteristics. . . . . . 27 Educational Attainment . . . . . . 28 Expenditures and Place of Purchase . . 29 Safety Precautions . . . . . . . 29 Government Control . . . . . . . 30 Poisoning . . . . . . . . . . 31 Relationship Between Responses from the Telephone Interview and Responses from the Mail Questionnaire. . . . 32 The Relationship Between Strata . . . 33 Relationship Between Responses from the Mail Questionnaire. . . . . . . 35 iv Chapter Page V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 55 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 64 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 67 Cost Estimates of Study . . . . . . 70 Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . 70 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O I O 71 APPENDICES Appendix A. Cover Letter and Questionnaire. . . . . 76 B 0 Raw Data 0 O O O O O C O O O O I 89 LI ST OF TABLES Table i Page 1. Sex of Person Filling Out Questionnaire . . 37 2. Responses to the Question, "How Many Chil- dren Under 21 Years of Age Live in Household?". . . . . . . . . . . 37 3. Response to the Question, "Where Did You Live MOST of Your Life Before You Were 21?" O O O O O O C O O O I I O 38 4. Response to the Question, "What is Your Occupation?" . . . . . . . . . . 38 5. Response to the Question, "What is Your Age?" 0 O O I O O O O O O I O O 39 6. Response to the Question, "What is the Highest Level or Grade You Completed in School?". . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7. Response to the Question, "Have You Ever Used Any Pesticide?". . . . . . . . 40 8. Response to the Question, "How Often Do You Use Pesticides Outside and Inside the Home? " O O O O O I I I O I O 4 0 9. Response to the Question, "Have You Ever Used DDT Knowingly?". . . . . . . . 41 10. Response to the Question, "Where Do You Buy Insecticides Mostly?" . . . . . . 41 11. Response to the Question, "Do You Store Insecticides Out of Reach of Children or Pete?" O O O O I O O O I O O O 42 12. Response to the Question, "Do You Feel That Certain Insecticides Should be Bought on a Prescription Basis, Like Medicinal Drugs?" . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 vi Table Page 13. Response to the Question, "If Foods Are Checked for the Presence of Insecticides, Who Should Do the Checking?" . . . . . 43 14. Response to the Question, "Should There Be Federal Laws Which Specify the Amount of Insecticides That May Be in Foods?". . . 43 15. Response to the Question, "Do You Think That the Government is Doing All It Can to Protect You from the Hazards of Insecti- cides?" . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 16. Response to the Question, "What Should the Local or National Agencies Do?" . . . . 44 17. ReSponse to the Question, "Have You or Any Member of Your Family Ever Experienced Poisoning?". . . . . . . . . . . 45 18. Distribution of Responses from Twenty-Nine Telephone Interviewees and a Random Sample of Twenty-Nine Responses to Mail Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . . 46 19. 1960 United States Bureau of Census Report . 47 20. Relationship Between Responses from Different Strata . . . . . . . . . 48 21. Education Versus Having Used DDT . . . . 49 22. Occupation Versus Having Used DDT . . . . 50 23. Agency Versus Amount of Control. . . . . 51 24. Occupation Versus Insecticide Effect on Quality of Food . . . . . . . . . 52 25. Educational Attainment Versus Concern Over Air Pollution . . . . . . . . . . 53 26. Educational Attainment Versus Concern Over Insecticide Poisoning' . . . . . . . 54 vii Table Page 27. Response to the Question, "Have You Bought a Hunting or Fishing License During the Past Three Years?" . . . . . . . . . 89 28. Response to the Question, "What Major Insects Have You Treated Indoors?" [Respondents Indicating That They Had Treated Indoors.] . 89 29. Response to the Question, "What Major Insect Pests Have You Treated Outdoors?" [Respondents Indicating That They Had Treated Outdoors.] . . . . . . . . . 9O 30. Response to the Question, "Do You Consult Your County Extension Agent Regarding Pest Problems?". . . . . . . . . . . . 90 31. Mail Respondents Sources of Information for Purchasing Insecticides . . . . . . . 91 32. Mail Respondents Sources of Information for Applying Insecticides . . . . . . . . 91 33. Response to the Question, "Should Manu- facturers Warn Users When Their Insecticide is Poisonous?" . . . . . . . . . . 92 34. Response to the Question, "Do Insecticides Make it Easier for You to Control Insects?". 92 35. Response to the Question, "Do You Feel Insecticides Are Safe to Work With?" . . . 93 36. Mail Respondents Course of Action in Aiding Poisoned Victim . . . . . . . . . . 93 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION £9.29. The recent awareness of pollution and its destruction of the earth's biota, has stimulated governments, scien- tists and citizens throughout the world to develop pro- grams which will stop the annihilation of our environment. Rachel Carson's astounding best seller, Silent Spring, focused attention on the destruction of our world, and the desecrated condition of our soil, water and air. Measurable amounts of insecticides, particularly chlorinated hydrocarbons, have been found in man, his food, wildlife, soil and other forms of life. The largest number of victims, as reported by the United States Department of Agriculture, were children. As an example, of sixty-two insecticide poisonings, 62 per cent of the victims were children. Once human lives and other fauna are threatened the paramount course of action is to develop studies which delineate pollutants and their sources. This study is designed to provide information about the average urban dweller in Lansing, Michigan and his attitudes and knowledge concerning insecticides. Urban dwellers are not considered to be large users of insecti- cides; as disclosed in 1967, they accounted for 22 per cent of the total pesticide sales, Beal, Bohlen, etc. (4). However, in controlling household, garden and lawn pests they do contribute to the overall insecticide pollution problem. Numerous cases of insecticide poisonings have occurred in urban communities. This study attempts to establish the relationship of insecticides to urban residents in order to provide the necessary background information to implement significant educational programs. Purpose The purpose of this study is: 1. To accurately design and perfect methods which will measure attitudes and knowledge of urban residents toward chemical insecticides. 2. To gain insight into the profile of Lansing residents and their attitudes and knowledge regarding chemical insecticide usage. 3. To obtain information concerning the opinions that urban dwellers have regarding insecticides and environmental pollution. 4. To determine whether there are significant differences between the individuals who re- sponded to the mailed questionnaire and the individuals interviewed by telephone. Rn:w5....it ....... 73...... 3,5. _ . unaabl Information received from this study should be useful in our attempt to learn more about how the typical urban dweller "feels" and what he "knows" about the safe usage of chemical insecticides. Therefore, the results of this study are important in developing techniques for educating and communicating with the average urbanite information about the hazards involved in the handling of chemical insecticides. Hypotheses Urban residents throughout the United States possess a limited amount of knowledge about chemical insecticides and the agencies that disseminate this information. Echard 32 31. (22) reported that only a small percentage of urbanites possessed any knowledge about Cooperative Extension programs. Blalock st 21. (8) had similar re- sults from their studies. Brown (11) stated that urban- ites were quite skeptical of COOperative Extension programs. A study conducted by Booth gt 21. (9) in Nebraska re- vealed that non-farm peOple depended on advertisements and labels for pesticide information. In addition to this practice, the Cooperative Extension services will have to devote more time, money and personnel into developing effective methods for communicating insecticide infor- mation to the public. Trodahl (45) and other authors have stated that there is an urgent need for urban residents to be more cognizant of Cooperative Extension programs and the safe handling of insecticides. The author's hypotheses are as follows: 1. The majority of Lansing residents have used insecticides, but have an extremely limited knowledge about the possible hazards involved in insecticide handling. They also lack knowledge concerning government legislation and control. Attitudes will be primarily conservative and most individuals will feel that the government is doing all that it can and that no additional controls are necessary. Urban dwellers will also feel that insecticides are safe to work with and that the quality of food will be lowered in the absence of insecticides. Most urban dwellers do not seek information or assistance from the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service or any other government agency. They are concerned about environmental pollution. There will be no significant differences in responses between individuals who completed mail questionnaires and those who responded to telephone interviews. 6. The level of responses from strata 2 and 4 are expected to be lower than from strata 1 and 3. The two groups differ in terms of median income, educational attainment, percentage of home ownership, etc. Theory Education is a tool that can be useful in combating disease, hunger, destruction and fear. Education as it currently exists does not fulfill one of its basic aims, which is to "teach all," and create change thus preparing each of us to be more serviceable and responsible to our community and country. All too often we do not find formal education and/or information reaching the poor. Education primarily reaches the "already literate," while the illiterate, who virtu- ally live in an educationally deprived environment, remain uninformed and unnoticeable. The individuals who receive less information are the poor Blacks, whites and Spanish- speaking Americans. The author firmly believes that poor Americans have a basic fear or suspicion about any individual or agency gathering information about them. Many of these fears are justified because they have been the victims of vio- lence and connivance. Hence, it is conceivable and understandable to expect a lower level of response from those individuals who come from deficient economical, educational and social backgrounds. Therefore, in studying the attitudes and knowledge of any group, the investigator should be aware of such abstractions as fear and suspicion. These variables can undoubtedly slant or nullify one's investigation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The twentieth century can be referred to as the "Age of Technology" or the "Space Age." This crucial period is also characterized by destruction in the form of pollution. Man has deposited pollutants into the earth's water, soil and air. Insecticides have played a role in the destruc- tion of our ecosystem. Pesticides are held responsible for the contamination of many species of wildlife, fish and plants. Man has also been the victim of pesticide or insecticide poisonings. Insecticides which have caused the biggest problems are the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, lindane and methoxychlor are some of the chlorinated hydrocarbons. Of these five insecticides, DDT has been classified as the "panacea" and the insecti- cide used most frequently and universally. Wurster (54) reported that insecticides are more widely distributed than any other synthetic chemicals, and have become one of the world's largest pollutants. 3 “(.14. i '2 IR. tia- I I l _ Chlorinated hydrocarbons are noteworthy because they tend to remain in the environment. These compounds which have a long residual effect can readily build up in any living organism. Before educational programs emphasizing the hazards involved in the careless use of insecticides can be develOped and implemented, the public's attitudes and knowledge will have to be investigated. The results of this investigation will have to be evaluated in order to produce effective educational programs for the public. In order to understand the dimensions of this study, a discussion of attitudes and knowledge will be presented. Studies that measure attitudes and knowledge have been useful in predicting behavioral patterns and in ful— filling the needs of society. Before the government, scientists or any agency can make the proper decisions pertaining to the use of chemical insecticides and intro- duce drastic or subtle programs, the attitudes and knowl- edge held by society must be considered. Attitude as defined in Webster's Dictionary "is a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state." Allport (1) defined attitude as a mental and neural state of readi- ness, organized through experience and exerting a direc- tive, dynamic influence upon the individual's responses to all objects and situations with which he is related. ..- .III I re ...... :7... .....T. _ LII .. . ., r. . v . , .... . uflfiu‘ “H I.) .141: Attitude as defined by Katz and Stollard (31) is a tendency or disposition to evaluate an object or symbol of that object in a certain way. Attitudes are the building blocks of an individual's value system. Beal (5) states "the individual's value system provides the basis for his tendencies to act in relation to the stimuli he receives. It has been strongly suggested that attitudes prepare one to be 'ready' or able to cepe with an object or situation." Attitudes play an important role in screening out or accepting stimuli, and it is this perception which brings about different reactions from different individuals. Attitudes reflect the significance or insignificance placed on various symbols, thereby causing individuals to act more favorably toward certain situations than others. Riesman and Kelly (41, 33) wrote that individuals develop their attitudes according to the beliefs, values and norms of the group with which they are associated. Krech et 31. (34) reported that "an attitude that is supported by an individual culture and value system is difficult to move in an incongruent direction." So it would appear that if we are committed to the goal of ending the useless destruction of human life, wildlife and aquatic life we should begin to take immediate action. Initial action consists of investigating attitudes of the public, and determining which attitudes need reinforcing and which ones should be attacked through educational means for the 10 express purpose of changing attitudes. If life is to continue on this planet the public will have to be in- formed and/or educated in methods of conserving and monitoring our environment. Knowledge as defined in Webster's Dictionary is the "range of one's information or understanding," or the "fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association." English and English (24) described knowledge as the "body of under- stood information possessed by an individual or by a culture." They also recognize two types of knowledge: simple knowledge or apprehension, and complex knowledge or comprehension. Knowledge can be arrived at from two perspectives. One method is the scientific, which centers around scien- tists agreeing on the fact because it was derived at scientifically. The second method for obtaining knowl- edge comes through the family and institutions, such as schools, churches, clubs, etc. Therefore, in order to make the public more aware and knowledgeable about the safe uses of insecticides, a great amount of effort will have to be devoted toward informing the public. Beal, Bohlen and Fleischman (4) reported that in order for insecticides to be used safely and properly, there must be knowledge of when, how much, what methods to use, the precautions to take and under what conditions to apply 11 the chemicals. Therefore, the public must be informed about the hazardous effects, produced by careless handling of insecticides. Chemical pesticides came under attack in 1962. The attacker was Rachel Carson in her best seller, Silent Spring (15). This book "pointed the finger" at pesticides and the possible hazardous effects they would have on the environment. As a result of this book, pressure was applied directly to the federal and state governments. The public was finally awakened and began to demand stricter regulations regarding chemical pesticides. President John F. Kennedy formed a Scientific Ad- visory Committee to determine the effects that chemical pesticides had on man and his environment. The Committee's report indicated that chemical pesticides were helpful in eliminating harmful insects, plants and plant diseases, but many were also destroying useful insects and plants. As a result of the public pressure that was mounting, Congress apprOpriated 2.1 million dollars to the Coopera- tive Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The Cooperative Extension Services were located at land grant colleges and universities throughout the country. The major responsibility of the Cooperative Extension Services was to assist the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture in educating the general public about the safe and proper usage of chemical insecticides. Brady (10) reported that directors of the Cooperative Extension 12 Service were expected to open training schools and infor- mation centers for the expressed purpose of informing the public about chemical pesticides. Graham (26) stated that the Cooperative Extension Service is the informal edu- cational arm of both the Department of Agriculture and land grant institutions. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has the responsibility of registering, regulating and monitoring chemical pesticides. In 1947, Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. The Pesticide Regulation Division of the Department of Agriculture was the sole agency responsible for protecting the public and environment against pesticide holocausts. Wellford and Turner (49) criticized the Pesticide Regu- lation Division for not enforcing the Federal Insecticide Act and ignoring the advice and recommendations of the Food and Drug Administration. These investigators were also disappointed and dissatisfied with the Food and Drug Administration for not performing their duties, which included setting tolerance levels for insecticides and monitoring food products to determine if they exceeded safe tolerance levels. In the late 1960's two congressmen, Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wisc.) S. 1753 and Representative Bertram Podel (D-N.Y.) H. R. 9868, proposed that a ban be placed on DDT so that it could neither be sold nor shipped in United States interstate commerce. 13 Public Health officials reported (39) that some states had restricted the use of DDT. Michigan is one of those states; however, it does allow DDT to be used in bat and mouse control. The Department of Agriculture was reported as having cancelled the registration of 94 pesticides used on food and feed crops. USDA also cancelled the registration of another 175 pesticides, previously described as "leavers of no residues." Many agricultural states, particularly tobacco grow- ing states, have banned the use of DDT. As a result, many growers started using organophosphates (e.g., phrathion) which frequently ended in tragedy. Chemical insecticides have greatly aided in reducing hunger and disease throughout the world. White-Stevens (50) reported that agricultural chemicals currently being used have increased the food supply sufficiently to feed 60 million peeple. Decker (20) suggested that losses due to pests before harvest were equal to the production of 88 million acres, and after harvest losses were estimated at an additional 32 million acres. In total, 120 million acres of United States croplands were lost, because of agricultural pests. To farmers, this meant an 8-15 billion dollar annual loss. According to McMillen (35) chemical insecticides have increased our food supply and have been instrumental 14 in keeping the food prices lower in this country. Approxi- mately 19 per cent of the annual income is spent for food in the United States. The Council of Economic Advisers (16) reported that Americans spend approximately 106.7 billion dollars annually for food, or $472 per capita. The amount spent for food in the United States is much lower than in Sweden, Italy, Japan or Russia. The Depart- ment of Agriculture has estimated that if we did not use fertilizers and insecticides, the cost of inferior food products to the American consumer would be twice as much in five years (14). The government, industry and farmers use about 73 per cent of all pesticides produced, and urban dwellers use approximately 27 per cent (2). It would be difficult, if not idiotic, to claim that insecticides have not served a useful purpose in food pro- duction. Agricultural pests are quite capable of inducing famine, and pesticides plus fertilizers have reduced this ancient threat. Insecticides are essential in maintaining our high standard of living. However, when man becomes reckless in his use of insecticides, drastic controls must be enforced in order to save or protect other forms of life. Insecticides have been responsible for controlling and/or eradicating medically important insects. Some insects are known vectors of malaria, yellow fever, 15 schistosmiasis, equine encephalitis, epidemic typhus, African sleeping sickness and many more. Insecticides have played an important role in controlling livestock pests such as screw-worms, cattle grubs, sheep keds, sheep bot flies, horse bot flies, etc. Insecticides have significantly contributed to the poultry industry in the United States. Some European countries import all their poultry from this country (e.g., Germany). There are a number of poultry pests (e.g., foul tick, sticktight flea, scaly-leg mite, Northern fowl mite, etc.) which would reduce the poultry industry to shambles if there were no suitable insecticides to cope with them. From all available evidence, it is obvious that insecticides have contributed overwhelmingly to the growth and development of this country and have aided many other less developed countries in their fight against hunger and disease. Many investigators have shown that insecticides were causative agents involved in human poisonings. In South Carolina, Keil et_al. (32) indicated that of approximately 600 cases of poisonings reported annually, pesticides accounted for 10 per cent of the injuries. During the year 1969 the Michigan Department of Public Health re- ported 640 cases of pesticide poisonings. In the city of Lansing, two hospitals reported a combined total of ten cases of pesticide poisonings. The figures released 16 do not actually reflect or reveal a true count of poison- ings because most cases go unreported. The majority of victims who are poisoned by insecti- cides are children under six years of age. DePalma gt gt. (21) reported that two young children, ages five and eight, were poisoned when they drank from a jar containing parathion, chlordane and Diazinon. The siblings were treated with atropine sulfate and pralidoxime chloride. Unfortunately, one of the children died. In a similar case reported by Bernstein gt gt. (7), three children all under four years of age were poisoned by parathion. The children found the container and began to spray each other. Later they licked the spray from their bodies. In this particular instance there were two survivors. The Public Health Service of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare published data received from Poison Control Centers throughout the country. The October 1968 report released information about pesticide poisonings among children under five years of age: In 1964 there were 3,882 poisonings; in 1965, 3,856; in 1966, 3,715; and in 1967, 4,087. Accidental pesticide poisonings among all ages in 1967 were listed at 5,002 cases. With such available information it be- comes quite apparent that insecticides do contribute significantly to the number of poisonings caused by chemicals. 17 Insecticides have been found in the tissues and blood of newborn and stillborn babies. Curley, Cepeland gt gt. (18) found detectable amounts of DDT and DDD in adipose tissues and organs of unborn babies. Zavon (57) discovered a wide range of DDE (0.08 to 8.90 ppm) in tissue samples taken from fifty-two stillborns. It is not known whether these insecticides were responsible for the deaths. However, one could assume that the presence of an insecticide in the body of a fetus definitely is not beneficial. Our natural resources are constantly being jeopar- dized and, in many instances, destroyed by the reckless use of chemical insecticides. Most of the rivers and lakes in the United States (e.g., Lake Michigan, Rio Grande, Tombigbee River, Hudson River, Lake Eric and Lake Ontario) have high levels of DDT in their waters (25). Organochlorine insecticides have been reported in the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Many municipalities use these sources as drinking water (43). Chlorinated hydrocarbons have low water solubili- ties and vapor pressures. Therefore they can readily be transported by water and air (23). Conversely, these same chemicals are highly soluble in organic solvents and lipids. Hence, when they enter the body of any living organism they tend to remain. Since the chlorinated hydrocarbons are not degraded when they enter the body of an organism, additional exposure to these chemicals 18 causes a "build up" which frequently can result in the death of the organism. Large and small amounts of chemical insecticides have been found in practically all members of the animal kingdom. Woodwell gt gt. (52) reported that carnivorous animals, especially birds, had residues in their bodies which were more than a million times that of their en- vironment. This buildup resulting from the food chain is referred to as biological "magnification." Hunt (29) found that insectivorous birds, such as the American Robin (Turdus migratorius), were almost extinct, and that birds of all species have decreased by 90 per cent. Wurster (55) stated that birds from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, such as the Bermuda Petrel (Pterodroma ggtgg), had large amounts of DDT in their bodies. The eggs and chicks of the Bermuda Petrel averaged 6.4 ppm of DDT. A very interesting note is that these rare birds had no direct contact with any area that was treated with DDT. The contamination undoubtedly resulted from their ocean food chain. Since the waters of the world are polluted with insecticides, then surely are the fish. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (25) reported that fish from forty-five rivers and lakes in the United States con- tained chlorinated hydrocarbons. They further stated that from a sample of 590 fish, 584 contained DDT. The 19 highest DDT count was 45.27 ppm, more than nine times the tolerance level established by the Food and Drug Adminis- tration. The Food and Drug Administration seized 28,000 pounds of salmon taken from Lake Michigan in 1969 (19). The salmon which had concentrations as high as 19 ppm were placed under an embargo in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Johnson (30) described the high mortality of Coho salmon taken from Lake Michigan. He stated that 700,000 fry died shortly after hatching from adulterated eggs, which were contaminated by DDT or PCB. Summary Chemical insecticides have been widely distributed throughout the earth's biota. Insecticides such as the chlorinated hydrocarbons (which are known for their long lasting residues) have been found in man, wildlife, plants, soils and waters of the world. These insecticides which include DDT may result in lowered reproductive potential and changes in organismic behavior or death. Insecticides have been partly responsible for the reduction in the number of certain birds, fish, mollusks and other animals. Each year scores of humans are the victims of insecticide poisonings. The majority of these poison victims were young children. Autopsy reports such as the one issued by Hayes gt gt. (28) described humans as 20 having detectable amounts of DDT, DDE, dieldrin, endrin and heptachlor. If there is any hope for saving lives and our en- vironment, studies will have to be conducted to determine what the public knows and feels about insecticides and environmental pollution. When the public becomes knowl- edgeable about the hazards involved in the indiscrete usage of pesticides, then attitudes can be molded to encourage the public to contribute meaningfully in pre- venting poisonings and destroying our one, and only planet, Earth. no... “avatar .....~.r.. .l .... _aLpWsWrndV%Pru 4 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Sample ngulation The sample population was selected from the city of Lansing, Michigan. The population of Lansing has been estimated between 127,000 to 140,000. The majority of the residents of Lansing are employed by the state government or the automobile industry. Lansing suffers from similar maladies that plague other United States cities (e.g., overcrowdedness, slums, rising unemployment, troubled schools, etc.). Randomization Procedures The stratified random sampling procedures were developed by Dr. Maryellen McSweeney.l The 1960 United States Census of Housing publication of city blocks in Lansing and the Tri-County Agency city maps were used to stratify census tracts. Stratification of the census tracts was based on characteristics such as median income and median education, percentage of whites, 1Associate Professor of Education, Department of Educational Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 21 22 percentage of homeowners and percentage of sound homes. From the thirty-seven census tracts in the city of Lansing, four strata were constructed and a proportional stratified random sample of fifteen census tracts were selected. Within each sampled census tract a systematic sample of residences was selected. In choosing residences, the Polk's City Directory (38) was used to obtain names, addresses and telephone numbers. Single The original population sample was composed of 1,277 residents in Lansing, Michigan. Each of these households received an introductory letter, the questionnaire and a return self-addressed envelope. The head of the household was requested to fill out the questionnaire. The second sample was composed of twenty-nine indi- viduals who did not respond to the initial (mailed) questionnaire. In a five-minute telephone interview the residents were asked to respond to fifteen selected questions taken from the mailed questionnaire. Instrument of Observation The questionnaire used for this study was developed by Drs. W. R. Van Dressen2 and M. C. Heckel.3 Dr. R. H. 2In 1966, Head, Chemical Drug and Pesticide Unit, Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute, Blacksburg, Virginia. 3In 1966, Professor and Head, Extension Education and Extension Training Leader, Cooperative Extension 23 Gruenhagen4 furnished the author with a copy of the questionnaire. Parts of the questionnaire were altered and addi- tional questions were added to accommodate this study. Mr. Arthur W. Bloomer,5 Drs. Gordon Guyer6 and William Wallner? and the author corroborated in the revision of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was composed of fifty-eight questions designed to supply the following information: profile descriptions, insecticide usage and safety pre- cautions, sources of pesticide information, knowledge of governmental involvement and level of environmental concern. As a follow-up, postal cards (requesting the return of the mailed questionnaire) were sent to all individuals who failed to respond. Telephone interviews were Service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia. 4Extension Specialist, Cooperative Extension Ser- vice, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia. 5Project Director, Community Studies on Pesticides, Michigan Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan. 6Chairman, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 7Extension Specialist, Cooperative Extension Ser- vice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 24 attempted with 155 persons who responded to neither the mailed questionnaire nor the postal cards. Twenty-nine of these telephone interviews were successful. Analysis of Data The completed questionnaires were coded and key- punched on IBM cards. No numerical weights were assigned to individual questions. (That is, each question was assessed at equal value.) The data was analyzed on Control Data Corporation Computers 6500 and 3600 at the Michigan State University Computer Center. The computer programs used to analyze the data were DAP I, Per count and Chi-square (x2), DAP I computer pro- gram yielded histograms showing frequency distributions and the mean. Per count supplied frequencies and per- centages of responses. The Chi-square (x2) test was used to determine the relationship between different strata, mail and telephone respondents, and to determine the relationship between the different responses at the .01 and .05 levels. The formula for Chi-square (x2) is: 2 = IIfOf' fQZI X H': II frequency observed 'uh II frequency expected. 25 Summary The recent outcry and concern about environmental pollution has caused federal and state governments to develop programs and legislation to cope with the problem. This study was designed to gather information about the attitudes and knowledge of urban dwellers in reference to the use of these toxic chemicals. Twelve hundred seventy-seven randomly selected residents of Lansing, Michigan received questionnaires which sought the follow- ing information: profile descriptions, insecticide usage, governmental involvement and environmental concern. A second sample was taken using those individuals who did not respond to the questionnaire. One hundred fifty-five telephone interviews were attempted; only twenty-nine responded. The information was coded and key—punched. The data was then analyzed on Control Data Corporation com- puters. The computers were programmed to yield infor- mation concerning the frequencies, percentages, and Chi- square (x2) tests at the .01 and .05 levels. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Questionnaires were mailed to 1,277 residents in Lansing, Michigan. Fifty-two per cent of the residents responded by returning the questionnaire. Telephone inter- views were conducted with twenty-nine individuals (19%), out of a total of 155 telephone attempts. The data in Chapter IV presents information about the sample populations and their responses to questions relating to pesticides. The questions were designed to yield profile characteristics, pesticide usage patterns, knowledge of government involvement in regulating pesti- cides and environmental concern. Responses were analyzed to determine if relation- ships exist between mail and telephone respondents and selected responses versus selected responses. The four strate were tested to determine the relationship between each other. The Chi-square (x2) test was used to deter- mine significant differences. 26 27 Profile Characteristics Sixty—three per cent of the respondents who filled out mail questionnaire were men. Over 50 per cent of the respondents in the telephone survey were women, as pre- sented in Table l. The number of children in the family are described in Table 2. Slightly over one-half of the mail respondents did not have children at home. The second highest response, indicated that 40 per cent of the families with children had from one to three. As illustrated in Table 3, a majority of the respondents stated that before they reached the age of twenty-one they had lived in a city longer than any other place. Since Lansing is an industrial community, it was discovered from the mail questionnaire that a large number are craftsmen. An ever larger number have retired from their occupations and continue to live in the area. There are also a large number of professionals (e.g., college professors, teachers, physicians, etc.), living in the Lansing community. Michigan State Uni- versity and state government offices are greatly responsi- ble for these figures, as presented in Table 4. The majority of individuals who filled out the mail questionnaire were fifty-one years of age or older, and they represented nearly one-half of the sample popu- lation. The other age groups are exemplified in Table 5. 28 Educational Attainment The responses from the mail questionnaire and the telephone survey classified the majority of respondents as high school graduates. The classification was 30 per cent and 41 per cent respectively for the two groups. Bush (14) reported that 77 per cent of the middle and upper middle income urban dwellers in Roanoke and Rich- mond, Virginia had at least four years of high school training. The study in Virginia also stated that approxi- mately 2.5 per cent of the respondents fell in the one to four (elementary school) category; whereas, the survey of Lansing residents shows that less than 1 per cent fell in this group as documented in Table 6. Over 80 per cent of the respondents who filled out questionnaires had used pesticides, and more than one-half of the telephone interviewees stated that they had never used a pesticide. Table 7 delineates the responses of the two groups. The responses to the questions on pesticides used inside and outside the home indicated that the respondents did not have a steady pattern for the number of times they annually applied pesticides. As shown in Table 8, approxi— mately one-quarter of the sample population did not respond to either question. As illustrated in Table 9, responses from the mail questionnaire and the telephone survey indicated that over AM“: I... Iuhl . i. I... emsIaMbHHfi .I._ .w. w 29 one-half of the respondents had never used DDT knowingly. The remaining respondents stated that they had used DDT, or did not respond to the question. Expenditures and Place of Purchase Fifty-one per cent of the participants claimed that they had spent between $1-$5.99 for the purchase of in- secticides. Approximately 15 per cent of the respondents, which was the second highest percentage, reported that they spent less than $1 for the purchase of insecticides. As reported in Table 10, over one-third of the respondents bought their insecticides at supermarkets. Discount stores ranked second as a purchasing site for insecticides. Safety Precautions Three-quarters of the respondents reported that they kept insecticides out of the reach of children and pets. Table 11 also shows that approximately 10 per cent did not keep insecticides away from children and pets. Also, nearly 75 per cent of the respondents reported that they did not store insecticides under lock and key. Nearly 50 per cent of the respondents favored in- secticides being purchased on a prescription basis, similar to medicines. Table 12 also depicts over one-quarter of the respondents as not being certain, and the other one— quarter favoring insecticides being purchased in the cus- tomary manner. 30 Government Control Respondents were asked specific questions pertaining to government control and their concern over pesticide pollution. Tables 13 through 16 delineate information concerning the respondent's knowledge of government con- trol and registration of chemical insecticides. When asked "who should do the checking for the presence of insecticides in foods," nearly one-half of the respondents from the mail survey (Table 13) indicated, that the function should be carried out by the federal government. The state government polled the next highest number of responses from the mail survey, 31 per cent of these respondents felt it was the responsibility of the state government. The results from the telephone survey, as shown in Table 13, illustrate that 59 per cent of the respondents favored having the governments monitor pesticides in food. In a study conducted by Bush (14), it was reported that 72 per cent of the residents felt that federal and state governments should do the checking. Eighty-five per cent of the respondents, as described in Table 14, agreed that there should be federal laws that specify the amount of insecticides in food pro- ducts. Less than 3 per cent stated that there should be no federal laws. 31 Table 15 illustrates that 39 per cent of the re- spondents did not feel that the government was doing all it could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. A large number of residents were "not sure" if the govern- ment was doing all it could to protect them and 20 per cent believed that the government was doing all it could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. The majority of respondents completing the mail questionnaire favored additional controls on insecticide usage. Fifty-five per cent of the telephone interviewees were not sure as to whether more or less controls were necessary in the usage of insecticides. This data is presented in Table 16. Poisoning The majority of respondents from both surveys re- ported, as illustrated in Table 17, that they had not experienced any poisonings. Thirteen per cent of the residents who filled out mail questionnaires reported that they had experienced or witnessed poisonings in their families. Approximately 5 per cent of the victims were chil- dren ranging in age from one through five. Another 5 per cent of the victims were twenty-one years of age or older. Insecticides were not the toxins involved in most cases of poisonings. The highest number of poisonings 32 were attributed to contaminated food, 7 per cent. One per cent of the poisonings was caused by insecticides. Table 17 also shows that the overwhelming majority, 86 per cent, did not state what the poisoning agents were. Relationship Between Responses from the Telephone Interview and Responses from the Mail Questionnaire A random sample of twenty-nine respondents from the mail questionnaire and twenty-nine respondents from the telephone survey were compared in order to determine if any relationship existed between the two sample popu- lations. Each population was required to answer fifteen selected questions from the original questionnaire. From a total of fifteen responses, five were dis- covered to be dependent or significant at the .05 level. As described in Table 18, there were differences in the responses to the questions, "had they used pesticides," and "are there any particular directions or labels you can't understand." A larger number of respondents, from the telephone survey reported that they had never used a pesticide. Telephone respondents also stated that they understood the directions on labels much better than the respondents from the mail questionnaire. When questioned about their "usage of DDT," a larger number of reSpondents from the telephone interview indi- cated they had used DDT as opposed to individuals who had filled out the mail questionnaire. 33 Another difference was noted when respondents were asked, "If foods are checked for the presence of insecti- cides, who should do the checking?" It was discovered that respondents using the mail questionnaire favored the federal government, and re- spondents from the telephone interview stated that it was the duty of the state government, or they had no opinion as to who was responsible for the checking. Respondents from the mail questionnaire wanted a lot more" control on the usage of insecticides than did the telephone respondents, who indicated in large numbers that they had no opinion. The Relationship Between Strata The city of Lansing is divided into thirty—seven census tracts. These census tracts are further divided into four strata. A description of each stratum is shown in Table 19. Strata l and 3 have similar characteristics, whereas 2 and 4 also have common traits. The fourth stratum ranks last in areas of income, education and home ownership. The first stratum has a distinct advantage over the second and fourth strata in the areas of edu- cational attainment, income, homeownership and decent housing. As illustrated in Table 20, there is no significant difference between strata in regards to education. 34 Respondents from the first and third strata were more inclined to state that they had used insecticides than were respondents from the second and fourth strata. A significantly higher percentage of individuals living in the fourth stratum indicated that they spent between $11 and $15.99 for the purchase of insecticides, which was more than what respondents from the other three strata paid for pesticides. A larger number of respondents from strata 1 and 3 purchased their insecticides from discount stores, as opposed to residents living in strata 2 and 4. A high percentage of individuals in the fourth stratum were found buying their insecticides from hardware stores than were persons from the first, second and third strata. The majority of respondents from all strata reported that they purchased their insecticides from supermarkets. Respondents from all four strata agree (86%) that there should be federal laws specifying the amount of insecticides in food. One-third of the respondents, as shown in Table 20, also felt that the government was not doing all it could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. Eighty per cent of the respondents from strata l and 3 compared with 60 per cent of the respondents from strata 2 and 4 indicated that they stored insecticides out of the reach of children. 35 Relationship Between Responses from the Mail Questionnaire Certain responses from the questionnaire were tested, for the express purpose of determining if one response was related to the other. Education was not a significant factor in determining where insecticides were purchased. However, when education was compared with "having used DDT," there was a signifi- cant difference between the responses. Fifty-two per cent of the respondents who received post-college training indi— cated that they had used DDT. Over 50 per cent of the respondents who had attended school through grade levels, 9—12, stated that they never used DDT (see Table 21). When occupation was related to "having used DDT"; professionals, and persons in sales and management reported significantly that they had used DDT. Housewives, laborers, service workers and clerical employees reported in large numbers, that they had never used DDT, as presented in Table 22. Respondents, reported heavily in favor of additional controls from the federal and state governments on the use of insecticides, when the response to agency was compared to amount of insecticide control (see Table 23). Table 24 suggests that there was no significant difference between occupations and their response to the question dealing with the "effects of insecticides on the quality of food produced." .3... NEXT... .34. .,. . ._, .. LEXBIAINIMSEEi , . r. .0 m . .. 36 The data in Table 25 reveals that respondents with varying educational backgrounds were equally concerned over the air pollution problem. Respondents with three- four years of college training and post-college training were more concerned about air pollution than respondents with less education. As described in Table 26, respondents with varying educational backgrounds were concerned about insecticide poisonings. Respondents who had completed high school, attended college and graduate school appeared to be more concerned about insecticide poisonings than persons with less formal education. 37 TABLE l.--Sex of person filling out questionnaire. Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Males 364 63.3 11 37.9 Females 209 36.4 17 58.6 No Response 2 0.3 1 3.5 Total 575 100.0 29 100.0 TABLE 2.--Responses to the question, "How many children under 21 years of age live in household?" Response Number Per Cent Four or More 52 9.04 One to Three 231 40.17 None 290 50.44 No Response 2 .35 Total 575 100.00 38 TABLE 3.——Response to the question, "Where did you live MOST of your life before you were 21?" Response Number Per Cent On a Farm or Ranch 133 23.13 In the Country, but not on a Farm 40 6.96 In a Town under 2500 73 12.70 In a City 329 57.21 Total 575 100.00 TABLE 4.--Response to the question, "What is your occu- pation?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Professional 76 13.22 5 17.24 Farmer 1 .17 0 0.00 Sales 33 5.74 l 3.45 Clerical 54 9.39 3 10.34 Manager 55 9.57 3 10.34 Craftsman 84 14.60 2 6.90 Service Worker 43 7.48 1 3.45 Laborer 37 6.43 0 0.00 Student 9 1.57 0 0.00 Housewife 74 12.87 7 24.14 Retired 96 16.70 7 24.14 No Response 13 2.26 O 0.00 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 39 TABLE 5.--Response to the question, "What is your age?" Response Number Per Cent 15-20 7 1.22 21-30 104 18.09 31—40 87 15.13 41-50 110 19.13 51 or Over 261 45.39 No Response 6 1.04 Total 575 100.00 TABLE 6.--Response to the question, "What is the highest level or grade you completed in school?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 1-4 (elementary school) 4 0.70 0 0.00 5-8 (elementary school) 56 9.74 13.79 9-11 (high school) 93 16.17 17.24 12th (high school) 173 30.09 12 41.38 1-2 years (college) 84 14.60 2 6.90 3-4 years (college) 69 12.00 4 13.79 Post-college study 47 8.17 2 6.90 Trade school 40 6.96 0 0.00 No Response 9 1.57 0 0.00 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 40 TABLE 7.--Response to the question, "Have you ever used any pesticide?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Yes 470 81.74 13 44.83 No 78 13.56 16 55.17 No Response 27 4.70 0 0.00 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 TABLE 8.--Response to the question, "How often do you use pesticides outside and inside the home?" Outside Inside Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Once a Year 172 29.91 161 28.00 Twice a Year 130 22.61 93 16.17 Three or More Times Yearly 130 22.61 163 28.35 No Response 143 24.87 158 27.48 Total 575 100.00 575 100.00 41 TABLE 9.--Response to the question, "Have you ever used DDT knowingly?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Yes 194 33.74 10 34.48 No 299 52.0 18 62.07 No Response 82 14.26 1 3.45 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 TABLE 10.--Response to the question, "Where do you buy insecticides mostly?" Response Number Per Cent Supermarket 212 36.87 Nursery 100 17.39 Hardware Store 39 6.78 Feedstore 8 1.39 Discount Store 114 19.83 Other 16 2.78 No Response 86 14.96 Total 575 100.00 fl Dias). kc . .1 I_t! 'Slij _. 42 TABLE ll.--Response to the question, "Do you store insecti- cides out of reach of children or pets?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Yes 427 74.26 20 68.97 No 53 9.22 3 10.34 Not Sure 13 2.26 l 3.45 No Response 82 14.26 5 17.24 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 TABLE 12.--Response to the question, "Do you feel that certain insecticides should be bought on a prescription basis, like medicinal drugs?" Response Number Per Cent Yes 243 42.26 No 143 24.87 Not Sure 172 29.91 No Response 17 2.96 Total 575 100.00 43 TABLE 13.--Response to the question, "If foods are checked for the presence of insecticides, who should do the check— ing?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Federal government 273 47.48 7 24.14 State government 177 30.78 10 34.48 The store 7 1.22 1 3.45 The grower 32 5.57 l 3.45 Don't know 72 12.52 10 34.48 No response 14 2.43 0 0 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 TABLE l4.--Response to the question, "Should there be federal laws which specify the amount of insecticides that may be in foods?" Response Number Per Cent Yes 491 85.39 No 16 2.78 Not Sure 60 10.44 No Response 8 1.39 Total 575 100.00 TABLE 15.--Response to the question, government is doing all it can to protect you from the 44 "Do you think that the hazards of insecticides?" Response Number Per Cent Yes 117 20.35 No 227 39.48 Not Sure 223 38.78 No Response 8 1.39 Total 575 100.00 TABLE 16.--Response to the question, "What should the local or national agencies do?" Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Remove gtt controls 4 .70 O .0 Remove ggmg controls 25 4.35 3 10.34 Leave gtt controls 30 5.22 7 24.14 Put some more controls 164 28.52 2 6.90 Put a lot more control 199 34.60 1 3.45 Don't know 137 23.83 16 55.17 No response 16 2.78 0 .0 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 Ir (3. .l Suite w .31.“! r. U.- “....‘ruhlmKE‘EJ' TABLE l7.--Response to the question, member of your family ever experienced poisoning?" 45 "Have you or any Mail Telephone Response Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Yes 75 13.04 2 6.90 No 491 85.39 27 93.10 No Response 9 1.57 0 .0 Total 575 100.00 29 100.00 46 TABLE 18.--Distribution of responses from twenty-nine tele- phone interviewees and a random sample of twenty-nine re- sponses to mail questionnaires. 2 . Degrees x Variable of Freedom Value Sex 2 1.91 Occupation 8 11.09 Education 7 12.53 Used Pesticides 2 7.98 Commercial Insecticides Used 7 11.89 Cannot Understand Directions on Labels 2 8.26* Store Insecticides Safely 3 2.39 Used DDT 2 7.45* Who Should Check Food for Pesticide Residues 5 12.94* Extent of Control on Insecticides 6 23.81* Hired Exterminator 2 2.53 Exterminator's Service Satisfactory 3 2.10 Effects of Pesticides on Food Quality 5 4.22 Experienced Poisoning in Your Family 1 0.74 What was Poisoning Agent 2 1.28 *Significant at .05 level. 47 Ho.mn mo.Hs we» mm.oa om.sm Hw\mmm.vm a ma.mm as.~m we» H4.HH mm.sm uw\sme.ow m mm.aa Hm.oa mew m.oa as.am Hw\emm.mm m mm.~m mm.nm mus N.NH me.mm Hw\mmm.ma H mmEom ocsom mo mnmczomfiom mo coflumooom monasz mo mEoocH Edomuum mmmucmouom ommucooumm coaomz ommucmouom unflomz .Dnommm momcwo mo omonom moumum oouwco ommall.ma mqmda 48 .Hm>mH so. um hemoamacmflm. m>.m NH mum pcoflumm ooumoue on: nm.aa NH mum mchOmflom omocmflnomxm umofioz mafiamm Ho 50% mm.ma NH mum mno>wm cmmwcowz mo :ofluoaaom poood oocuoocou mm.HH m mum coflumamcH wooed oocuoocoo em.HH m mum cowusaaom uw< wooed omcuoocoo NN.HH m mum mooaoflumom wooed occuoocoo mucoficuo>oo ma.m m mum mammm coflumfluomonm co oomocouom moowowuoomcH Hm.m ma mum ooom co o>mm mooflofluommcH muoommm mm.m m mum wooflofluoomcH Eoum sow uoououm 0D coo D“ Add mcfloo ucoficuw>ow mm.h m mum poem cfl mosofiwom mo DCDOEd mcflumflsmom m3mq Honooom «mo.ma o mum Boo com: .mm.om m mam mmeaofluommcH mauxoog «hm.am a mum coupaflco Scum >m3< moofl0flummm muoum «mm.mm ma mum mmmnonom ooflofiuommcH mo oomam «vu.vm ma mum moofloflummm How mououfiocomxm «oo.om w mum mwoflowumom coma vm.Hv am mum DCOECHMDD4 HMGOflumooom .mm.ne om oem coaumasooo HUM... ...: .mumnum Dcmummwflo Eonm momcommmn cmmBqu mflcmcoflumaomll.om momma TABLE 21.--Education versus 49 having used DDT. Education Yes No 1-4 (elementary) 1 (33%) l (33%) 5-8 (elementary) 17 (30%) 25 (45%) 9-11 (high school) 27 (29%) 52 (56%) 12 (high school) 42 (24%) 111 (64%) 1-2 (college) 30 (36%) 38 (45%) 3-4 (college) 33 (48%) 26 (38%) Post-college 24 (52%) 21 (46%) Trade school 15 (38%) 20 (50%) N = 383 x2 = 36.99 df = 16 Significant at .01 level 50 TABLE 22.--Occupation versus having used DDT. Occupation Yes No Student 4 (44%) 4 (44%) Housewife 17 (23%) 44 (59%) Retired 26 (27%) 48 (50%) Professional 38 (51%) 31 (41%) Farmer 0 ( 0%) l (100%) Sales 15 (45%) ll (33%) Clerical 6 (11%) 41 (76%) Manager 25 (45%) 27 (49%) Craftsman 37 (44%) 37 (44%) Service Worker 12 (29%) 24 (57%) Laborer 9 (24%) 22 (59%) N = 479 x2 = 51.79 df = 20 Significant at .01 level 51 Hm>mH Ho. um hamonHcmHm om we MH.mm~ u mx Ham u z mmH mmH mmH am am a mHmuoa Awomv os memv SH Hem V e Ammo m AwHV H HHH v H 302x H.coo AHHHC mH AHMHC 4 memV NH Heme m Ammo H 1.0 C o umzouo lemme m iwmsv m Teams m less 0 iwov o Hwo C o muoum AHHHV om 1.041 H5 lemme mm Asst p less OH HHS.V H unassum>om chasm lmev om lemme 40H lemme Hm less NH Hmsv NH Hwa.v m unassum>om Hemmemm 30cm HOHDCOU HOHDCOU HOHHCOU HOHDCOU HOHDGOU u.coo who: ouoz HH< meow HH¢ mocom< uoq meow m>mmq m>oEom m>OEmm .Houucoo mo DoooEm momuo> mocommH Ho. um DCMOHMHcmHm uoz 52 om u He Nm.HN u Nx NNm u z meN em Nm 4H 00H mHmuoB Hesse NH HNst m ANNHC m ANoC o me V N umuoan memv NN ANA v m ANNHV m HNNC H HNHNV a “exec: moH>nmm Hwemv om HNHNV ON HNNHC NH ANHC H ANONV NH cmsmummuo Hemmv om ANONV HH me C m HNNC a HNNHV N seamen: Hwomv NN ANNNV NH HNHHC e ANNV H ANHHC o HmoHumHo ANmmv NH ANmHV m ANN C m Hmov o ANNHC m mmHmm ANOOHV H ANS V o Hwo C o Amos o Hmo C 0 Meshes ANNNC HN ANmNC NH HNN V m HNHV H memv SN Hmconmmmoua Awamv mm ANNHC NH ANN v N Ammo m HNSHC mH emuHhmm memv mm HNNHV HH ANHHV N HNHC H HNHHC OH mHHzmmsom vasv v ANHHV H HNNNC N Hwov a HNNNC N unmasum DWWMM .oawmowomwmmmw deBOH DUMWMM mo>0HmEH coflummoooo .o00m mo huHHmov co uoommo moHOHuommGH momuo> cowquDUOOII.vN mqmda 53 TABLE 25.--Educational attainment versus concern over air pollution. Education Yes No No Opinion 1-4 years 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 ( 0%) 5-8 years 40 ( 71%) l (2%) 8 (14%) 9-11 years 79 ( 85%) 5 (5%) 4 ( 4%) 12 (high school) 160 ( 92%) 3 (2%) 6 ( 3%) 1-2 years (college) 79 ( 94%) 1 (1%) 2 ( 2%) 3-4 years (college) 68 ( 99%) 0 (0%) 0 ( 0%) Post-college 45 ( 98%) 0 (0%) 0 ( 0%) Trade school 35 ( 88%) 3 (8%) 0 ( 0%) Total 509 13 20 N = 532 x2 = 57.70 df = 24 Significant at .01 level 54 TABLE 26.--Educational attainment versus concern over insecticide poisoning. Education Yes No No Opinion 1—4 years 3 (100%) O ( 0%) O ( 0%) 5-8 years 38 ( 68%) 0 ( 0%) 10 (18%) 9-11 years 70 ( 75%) 6 ( 6%) 7 ( 8%) 12 (high school) 140 ( 81%) 4 ( 2%) 15 ( 9%) 1-2 years (college) 67 ( 80%) 5 ( 6%) 7 ( 8%) 3-4 years (college) 57 ( 83%) 7 (10%) 2 ( 3%) Post-college 38 ( 83%) 4 ( 9%) 1 ( 2%) Trade school 29 ( 73%) 4 (10%) 3 ( 8%) Total 442 30 45 N = 517 x2 = 33.55 df = 24 Significant at .01 level CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS During the twentieth century we have made great advances in science, as exemplified in medicine, food production and space exploration. However, in combating disease and famine we have saturated the ecosystem in which we thrive with insecticides and other pollutants. The purpose of this study was to: 1. Accurately design and perfect methods which would measure attitudes and knowledge of urban dwellers toward chemical insecticides. Gain profile information about Lansing residents and their attitudes and knowledge regarding chemical insecticide usage. Obtain information concerning the opinions that urban residents have regarding insecti- cides and environmental pollution. Determine whether there were significant differences between those individuals who responded to mail questionnaires and those responding to telephone interviews. Studies 55 56 were also conducted in order to determine the relationship between the four strata represent- ing the sample population. The sample population was randomly selected from Lansing, Michigan. Mail questionnaires were forwarded to 1,277 households. Fifty-two per cent of the heads of households returned the questionnaire to the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. The second survey, which was a telephone interview, was conducted with residents who did not respond to the mail questionnaire or the follow-up postal card. Only 19 per cent of the selected individuals responded to the telephone interview. The heads of households in the telephone survey came from census tracts located in the second and fourth strata. The median income, educational level, home ownership and percentage of sound or liveable homes were much lower in the second and fourth strata. A total of 364 or 63 per cent of the respondents who completed mail questionnaires were men. In the telephone survey it was noted that the majority of the respondents were women (59%). Fifty per cent of all residents indicated that they had no children at home. This data is supported by the fact that a large number of the respondents were retired. Where children were present, it was discovered that 40 per cent of the residents had from one to three children in the family. 57 Fifty-seven per cent of the heads of households in this study reported that they had lived most of their lives, before the age of twenty-one, in a city or metro- politan area. As previously mentioned, the largest number of respondents were retired (17%). The majority of resi- dents who were active or actively employed listed their occupations as craftsmen, professionals and housewives. The respective percentages are as follows: 15, 13 and 13. With the retired category first, craftsman was the second highest response and this is a result of the auto- mobile industry in and around Lansing. A sizable number of respondents reported that they were professionals, such as college professors, physicians and attorneys. Since Lansing is the capital of Michigan and the neighboring city of East Lansing is the site of Michigan State University a significant number of these individuals would be employed by the state government. Nearly one-half or 45 per cent of the respondents were fifty-one years of age or older. The second highest percentage of residents fell in the forty-one to fifty age bracket. The majority of respondents from the mail question- naire and telephone interview completed high school (30%). The second largest group of individuals from both surveys reported that they had attended school from grade levels 9-11. With the excellent educational Opportunities in the 58 area, 12 per cent stated that they had received from three to four years of college training. The mail questionnaire indicated that over three- quarters of the residents were classified as "users" of insecticides. Slightly over one-half of the telephone interviewees were classified as "non-users" of insecti- cides. When these same individuals from the telephone survey were asked if they had ever used DDT, over one- half replied they had not. Respondents from both surveys indicated that they did not have a set or definite number of times for annually applying insecticides outside or inside their homes. They tended to apply insecticides as the need arose. The largest retailers of insecticides in the Lansing area are the supermarkets and discount stores. However, residents living in poorer areas of the city reported buying their insecticides from hardware stores. Fifty-one per cent of the users claimed that they annually spent between $1-$5.99 for the purchase of in- secticides. The single most popular insecticide was Raid. Thirty-seven per cent of the respondents reported its usage. Over 50 per cent of the respondents from both sur- veys reported that they kept insecticides out of the reach of children. It was further discovered that only 59 25 per cent of the users kept insecticides under lock and key. A large number of respondents (42%) favored purchas- ing insecticides on a prescription basis, similar to drugs. Heads of households from both surveys reported a low history of poisoning; from the mail survey 13 per cent experienced poisonings in their families and 7 per cent from the telephone interview experienced poisonings. The victims of poisonings are generally children, and this study found that 5 per cent of the victims reported were children. Another 5 per cent of the victims were persons twenty-one years of age or older. Insecticides were not the toxic agent responsible for the poisonings in the majority of cases. Insecticides accounted for only 1 per cent of the poisonings. The agent most responsible for poisoning was contaminated food. Food poisonings accounted for 7 per cent of the poisonings. Many respondents reported that they came in contact with contaminated foods in restaurants. When selected questions were analyzed using the Chi- square test, it was discovered that certain responses were dependent. Respondents in the two surveys reacted differ- ently when asked, "If they had used insecticides and are there particular directions or labels you can't under- stand?" Telephone respondents were more inclined to report that they had never used a pesticide, and their responses indicated that they understood the directions E‘ 60 on labels much better than the respondents from the mail questionnaire. Individuals react differently to certain questions, especially if they are oral or written. The telephone respondents stated that they never used pesticides; they could have rendered this reply because they did not know what a pesticide was, or they associated pesticide usage with uncleanliness and did not want to be recognized as having a filthy household. It should be noted that the residents involved in the telephone survey live in a deteriorating part of the city. The educational level, income level, and number of sound homes were much lower for respondents from the telephone survey, or the second and fourth strata, according to the 1960 United States Census report. A few of the users from the mail survey stated that they could not read the "fine" printing on the sides of insecticide containers. Telephone respondents stated that they understood all the directions and could read them. This response is probably due to the fact that no one wants to be classified as being illiterate. Upon being questioned as to whether they had ever used DDT, a larger number of respondents from the tele- phone interview replied that they had; whereas, respon- dents from the mail survey stated that they had not used DDT. This information would then support the idea that possibly the telephone respondents did not understand the 61 meaning of the word "pesticide" whereas they earlier reported never having used a pesticide. The large number of respondents from the mail survey who reported not having used DDT could have been influenced by the fact that they were more aware of environmental pollution problems, and did not recognize the fact that DDT has been classified as a pollutant. Another significant difference was observed when residents were asked, "Who should check foods for the presence of insecticides?" The mail respondents favored the federal government for this responsibility. They were also more inclined to report that "a lot more" control was necessary. Respondents from the telephone interview favored the state government for performing the function of checking foods. They also did not demand as much control on in- secticides as the mail respondents. Over one-third of the respondents from the mail survey stated that they did not feel the government was doing all it could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. Another of their responses indicated overwhelmingly that they believed there should be federal laws which specified the amount of insecticides permissible in foods as already exists. 62 The thirty-seven census tracts in Lansing are divided into four strata. The first and third strata are more affluent than the second and fourth strata. The median income and educational level of the first and third strata is considerably higher than the other two strata. It was noted from the mail questionnaires that persons living in the first and third were more inclined to state that they used insecticides than were persons living in the second and fourth strata. Respondents from the first and third strata generally used insecticides in combating lawn and garden pests. Respondents living in the second and fourth strata appeared less concerned about their lawns, because many did not own the property, whereas a larger percentage of individuals residing in the first and third strata did own their homes and were concerned about maintaining the value of their property. Respondents from the fourth stratum annually spent between $11 and $15.99 for insecticides. Heads of house- holds in this stratum generally bought their insecticides from hardware stores thus paying more than users in the first and third strata who purchased their insecticides from supermarkets and discount stores. Respondents from the fourth stratum purchased smaller quantities such as aerosols and cans, whereas respondents from the first and third strata bought larger quantities of insecticides in the forms of dusts, granules and liquids. 63 Eighty per cent of the respondents from the first and third strata stated that they stored insecticides out of the reach of children; whereas 60 per cent of the respondents from the other two strata indicated that they stored insecticides in safe places. Certain responses were tested in order to determine if one factor was related to another. Persons who had attended college and professional schools were more apt to have used insecticides than were persons with less edu- cation. Users who were classified as professionals or in sales and management had more of a proclivity toward using DDT than did housewives, laborers, service workers and clerical employees. Respondents with college and post-college training expressed more concern about environmental pollution than did respondents with less education. This difference in concern and interest about environmental pollution is the result of less information and exposure to the problems associated with pollution. Individuals with less edu- cation read less simply because the materials are gener- ally unavailable and they were seldom involved in com- munity organizations or projects. 64 Conclusions This study supplied pertinent information concerning Lansing residents and their attitudes and knowledge about chemical insecticides. The conclusions drawn from this study are as follows: 1. Sixty-three per cent of the mail respondents were men over fifty-one years of age and 17 per cent of the respondents were retired. Fifty per cent of the respondents did not have 7' children living at home. Families with children tended to have from one to three. Respondents who were actively employed were largely classified as craftsmen, professionals and housewives. Thirty per cent of the respondents had completed high school. Twelve per cent of the test popu- lation had attended college from three to four years. Less than 1 per cent of the respondents had from one to four years of schooling. ReSpondents who had received college or post- college training were greater users of insecti- cides than were persons with less education. Over 75 per cent of the respondents in both surveys were described as users of pesticides. However, respondents from the mail survey were more inclined to report that they had used pesticides while the telephone respondents 65 tended to state that they had never used pesti- cides. Mail respondents indicated that they obtained information concerning what pesticide to buy mostly from the newspaper, 34 per cent; and the radio, 32 per cent. Only 8 per cent obtained such information from the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. Respondents purchased insecticides largely from supermarkets and discount stores. Inner city residents from the second and fourth strata bought most of their chemicals at hardware stores. Obviously inner city residents paid more for insecticides, since they were purchasing chemicals from privately owned stores. Four per cent of the respondents from the mail survey received information on how to apply insecticides from the Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. Seventy-eight per cent of the mail respondents reported that they obtained such information by reading the directions on the container. Mail respondents also reported that in some instances they could not read the small print or directions. Telephone respondents did not state that they had diffi— culty in reading the directions. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 66 Seventy-eight per cent of those responding to the mail questionnaire did not consult their County Extension Agent about pest problems. Thirteen per cent of the respondents had experienced poisonings in their families. However, insecticides accounted for only 1 per cent of the poisonings. Food poisonings accounted for the highest known type of poison- ings. Eighty-seven per cent did not disclose the name of the toxic agent. Five per cent of the poisoning victims were children, and another 5 per cent were twenty- one years of age or older. Eighty-seven per cent did not list the ages of the victims. Respondents from both surveys wanted the federal and state governments to check foods for the presence of insecticides. They also wanted additional controls on insecticides. One-third of the respondents from the mail survey believed that the federal government was not doing all it could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. Mail respondents reported that their largest sources of information concerning the dangers involved in the uses of insecticides were television 81 per cent, and magazines or books 80 per cent. Less than 1 per cent stated that 67 they obtained information from the radio and 7 per cent of the respondents received it from group meetings. 15. Respondents with higher educational levels tended to be more concerned about environmental pollution than were respondents with two years of high school or less. 16. Heads of households who resided in the inner city had a lower level of response to the mail questionnaire as opposed to persons living outside the central city. Recommendations The results of this study demonstrated clearly that the majority of respondents did not feel the federal and state governments were doing all they could to protect them from the hazards of insecticides. This overall lack of faith in the two governments presents a rather dismal picture. Therefore, it is the gtty of the government to become more responsive and concerned about the people it represents. The state and federal governments will have to initiate services and meaningful programs which will be informative and creditable. Since the COOperative Extension Service is a tentacle of the federal government and its main objectives are educating the public about the benefits and dangers 68 involved in insecticide usage. This educational process does not appear to be taking place throughout the city of Lansing, especially in the inner city. Educational programs will have to be developed, explaining and demonstrating to inner city residents the following: 1. Methods of erecting physical barriers to keep out unwanted pests. 2. Relevant methods of applying insecticides in their ghetto dwellings as opposed to showing them advertisements of suburban housewives spraying their lawns and gardens under anti- septic conditions. 3. Methods of applying insecticides safely in their homes and the proper techniques for disposing left-over insecticides and containers. 4. Methods of obtaining the proper and most effec- tive insecticides at a reasonable price rather than dealing with small, uninformed and pri- vately owned businesses. If the federal government would implement some of the pointers mentioned, it is quite possible that many residents would change their attitudes about the govern- ment and its commitment to them. The manufacturers of insecticides have an equal role in protecting the public against the reckless uses of 69 insecticides. The printing of directions on containers as brought out in this study discovered that many older per- sons and those with sight impediments could not read the fine printing on the containers. This could obviously be rectified by enlarging the container and print, and using colors which would facilitate reading. Manufacturers might further motivate the user to read the directions carefully by making many containers Open and operate differently. This drastic change in manufacturing would not bring undue economic hardships on manufacturers because differential mass production is almost as economical as uniform mass production. This change would cause the user to read the directions more carefully and possibly reduce the number of insecticide poisonings and, increase their proficiency in handling insecticides. If governmental and other concerned agencies placed more advertisements and jingles on television, radio and in newspapers and magazines the public would become more informed about safe insecticide usage and the roles they could play in environmental cleanup. If the television and radio media are used to educate the public about important issues, it should be performed at prime times and not some ungodly hour as 5:00 a.m. or the likes. A final recommendation would consist of forming and dispatching pest control teams into deteriorating com- munities and devising methods and chemicals which would 70 ameliorate the conditions of that unique community. Expert pest control teams could train and employ for- gotten youths in the community, thus providing them with employment and a real sense of being. Cost Estimates of Study This study required a great deal of time and money. A total of seven months were devoted to completing this r research. The most arduous and time—consuming aspects of this study were in the following areas: '~ 1. Preparing the questionnaire. 2. Randomly selecting the sample population. 3. Preparation and mailing of questionnaires. 4. Coding and key-punching the questionnaires. Egpenditures l. Postage fees $157.70 2. Office supplies 90.00 3. Key-punching 220.00 4. Computer programming 50.00 Total $517.70 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G. 1935. In C. Murchison, ed. A Handbook of Social Psycholqu. Worchester, Mass.: Clark University Press. Pp. 798-844. Are weed killers, bug sprays poisoning the country? U.S. News and World Report, November 26, 1962, p. 88. Backstrom, C. H., and G. D. Hursh. 1963. Surve Research. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Uni- verSIty Press. Beal, G. M., J. M. Bohlen, and G. W. Edwards. 1969. Behavior Studies Related to Pesticides, Urban Chemical PestiCides and Iowa Urban Chemical- Pesticide Dealers. Special Report No. 140. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service. Beal, G. M., J. M. Gohlen, and W. A. Fleischman. 1969. Behavior Studies Related to Pesticides, Agricultural Chemicals and Iowa Agricultural- ChemiCal Dealers. Special Report No. 139. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service. Beal, G. M., J. M. Bohlen, and H. G. Lingren. 1966. Behavior Studies Related to Pesticides, Agri- cultural ChemICals and_Iowa Farmers. Special Report No. 49. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Uni- versity Cooperative Extension Service. Berstein, S., J. H. Gould, and A. DePalma. 1968. Parathion poisoning in children. Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey, 65(5): 199-203. Blalock, T. C., M. N. Greenwood, and R. H. Abraham. 1963. What the public thinks of extension. Cooperative Extension, 1(2): 47-54. 71 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 72 Booth, Alan, gt gt. 1966. Pesticide Chemical Use in Nebraska. Report No. 2. Lincoln, Neb.: Uni- versity of Nebraska, Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Home Economics. Brady, Nyle. 1965. Pesticides and U.S.D.A. Extension Service Review, 36(4). Brown, Emory J. 1965. Extension and the urban environment. Cooperative Extension, 3(2): 95-102. Buck, W. B. 1970. Lead and organic pesticide poisonings in cattle. Amer. Vet. Medical Assoc. Journal, 156: 1468-72. Buck, W. B., and W. Vannote. 1968. Aldrin poisoning resulting in dieldrin residues in meat and milk. Jour. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc., 153: 1472-75. Bush, M. M. 1968. A study of the knowledge and attitudes of the middle and upper-middle income class urban dweller toward chemical pesticides. Masters thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghtin Mifflin Co. Council of Economic Advisors. 1967. Report to the president on the activities of the Council of Economic Advice During 1966. Appendix of economic report to the president. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Croxton, F. E. 1953. Elementary Statistics; With Applications in Medicine and_the Biologicat Sciences. New York: Dover PubliCations, Inc. Curley, A., and M. F. Copeland. 1969. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in organs of stillborn and blood of newborn babies. Archives of Environ. Hlth., 19: 628-32. DDT: U.S. legislators propose nationwide ban. Environmental Science and Technology, May, 1969, p. 500. Decker, G. C. 1962. Pros and cons of pests, pest control and pesticides. Reprinted from World Review of Pest Control. Vol. I, Part 1. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 73 DePalma, A. B., and D. S. Kwalick. 1970. Pesticide poisoning in children. Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc., 211(12): 1979-81. Eckard, M. L., et a1. 1964. Knowledge and Attitude of Fort M03933 figmemaker About the Extension ServiCe. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University, Extension Class Study. Edwards, C. A. 1966. Insecticides residues in soils. Residue Rev., 13: 83-132. English, H. B., and A. C. English. 1958. A Compre- hensive Dictionary of Psychologyyand ngcho- analytical Terms. New York: David McKay Com- ~ pany, Inc. Environmental Currents. July 1969. Environmental Science and Technology, p. 613. Graham, F. H. 1967. A comparative study of users and non-users of chemical pesticides among middle class urban women in Roanoke and Richmond, Virginia. Masters thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Hays, W. L. 1963. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hayes, W. J., and W. E. Dale. 1965. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in the fat of people in New Orleans. Life Sciences, 4: 1611-15. Hunt, L. B. 1960. Songbird breeding populations in DDT-sprayed Dutch elm disease communities. Wildlife Mgmt., 24: 139-46. Johnson, H. 1968. Press release, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Katz, P., and E. Stolland. 1959. A preliminary statement to the theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Kock, ed., Psychology: A Study of Science. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 423-475. Keil, J. E., and S. H. Sandifer. 1970. Pesticide morbidity in South Carolina. The Jour. of the S.C. Med. Assoc., 66(3): 69-70. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 74 Kelly, H. H. 1955. Salience of membership and resistance to change of group anchored attitudes. Human Relations, 8: 275-89. Krech, David, gt gt. 1962. The Individual in Society. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. McMillen, Wheeler. 1965. Bugs or People. New York: Appleton-Century. Pp. 210. More controls on pesticides. Environmental Science and Technology, April, 1968, p. 243. Pfadt, R. E. 1962. Fundamentals of Applied n Entomology. New York: The Macmillan Company. Polk's Lansing (Ingham County, Michigan) City Directory: 1969. 1969. Detroit, Mich.: u R. L. Polk and Co. Public Health Pesticides. 1970. National Communi- cable Disease Center. Savannah Ga. Reprint No. 459. Raalte, H. G. Comparative Hazards from some insecti- cides. Industrial Medicine and Surgety, February, 1965, pp. 160-62. Riesman, D. 1950. The Lonety Crowd. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniverSity Press. Sanders, H. C., ed. 1966. The Cooperative Extension Service. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrentiCe-Hall, p. 65. Schafer, M. L., and J. T. Peeler. 1969. Pesticides in drinking water: Waters from the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Environmental Science and Technology, pp. 1261-69. Tannenbaum, P. H. 1956. Initial attitude toward source and concept as factors in attitude change through communication. Publ. Opin. Quarterly, 20: 413-25. ‘ Troldahl, V. C. 1964. Communicating to the suburbs. Jour. COOp. Ext., 2(2): 82-88. USDA comments further on pesticides. Environmental Science and Technology, June, 1969, p. 521. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 75 U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1968. Poison Control Centers Reports. Websters, Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. 1967. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co. Wellford, H., and J. S. Turner. 1970. Consumers fear lack of pesticide controls. Canner/Packer, 139(2): 22-24. White-Stevens, R. H. 1961. Foods--facts, fallacies and the future. National Agricultural Chem. Assoc. News, 19(6). Woodwell, G. M. 1961. The persistence of DDT in a forest soil. Forest Science, 7: 194-96. Woodwell, G. M., and C. F. Wurster. 1967. DDT residues in an east coast estuary: A case of biological concentration of a persistent insecti- cide. Science, 156: 821-24. Wright, B. S. 1965. Some effects of Heptachlor and DDT on New Brunswick woodcocks. Jour. Wildlife Wurster, C. F. 1969. Chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and the world ecosystem. Biological Conservation, 1: 123-29. Wurster, C. F., and D. B. Wingate. 1968. DDT resi- dues and declining reproduction in the Bermuda Petrel. Science, 159: 979-81. Wurster, D. H., and C. F. Wurster. 1965. Bird mortality following DDT spray for Dutch elm disease. Ecology, 488-99. Zavon, M. R., and R. Tye. 1967. Chlorinated hydro- carbon insecticide content of the neonate. Read before the New York Academy of Sciences Meeting on Biological Effects of Pesticides in Mammalian Systems. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SE RVICB MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN 48823 Entomology Natural Science Building AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING October, I970 Dear Cooperator: The Cooperative Extension Service at Michigan State University is conduc- ting a survey (not a census) on the attitudes and knowledge of urban dwellers towarduzfiefiicai insecticides in Lansing, Michigan. A doctoral candidate, Frank L. Myers, is conducting the research as part of his doctoral disseration. Your family has been randomly selected as one of the 1200 families to participate in this survey. The responsies received will be used only for this study and will be held in strict confidence. The information gained from this study could be instrumental in getting more attention focused on the possible hazards associated with insecticide use. parti- cularly in regard to environmental pollution. It is important and urgent that you complete the Questionnaire and return it in the enclosed self-addressed envelope within ten days. We are hOpefuI that your cooperation will be immediate. If not, we will follow—up the first questionnaire with a second one after ten days have elapsed. A request for a personal interview will follow if either questionnaire is ignored. We would appreciate your prompt reply. We are aware that concerned citizens act promptly when called upon. Thank you. 76 77 FALL i970 Insecticide Survey The questions used for this questionnaire were partially devised by Dr. R. H. Gruenhagen at Virginia Polytechnic institute and members of the Cooperative Extension Service at Michigan State University. I. Pesticides - are those chemicals used to kill or control pests such as insects, rats, mice, weeds and plant diseases. 2. Insecticides - are chemicals used for the express purpose of killing insects such as ants, cockroaches, etc. I. Sex of person filling out questionnaire. la. Male lb. Female 2. How many children under 2| years of age live in household? 2a. 4 or more 2b. I - 3 2c. None 3. Where did you live most of your life before you were 2|? Be. On a farm or ranch 3b. In the country but not on a farm 3c. in a town under 2,500 3d. In a city 4. What is your occupation? Please be specific. 78 What is your age? 5a. l5 - 20 5b. 2| - 30 5c. 3| 40 5d. 4| - 50 5e. Si or over What is the highest level or grade you completed in school? 6a. | - 4 (elementary school) 6b. 5 - 8 (elementary school) 6c. 9 - II (high school) 6d. |2th (high school) 6e. I — 2 years (college) 6f. 3 - 4 years (college) 69. post college study 6h. trade school Have you bought a hunting or fishing license Yes during the past three years? What pets do you have? (Check all that apply) 8a. Dogs ______ 8b. Cats ______ 8c. Birds ______ 8d. Fish 8e. Other, please specify 8f. None 79 Have you yourself ever used any pesticide? Yes No (If no to the above question, go to question 3|. If yes, continue with question 9a.) 9a. To kill weeds? ______ Yes No 9b. To kill insects inside the house? ______ Yes No 9c. To kill insects outside, on the lawn, ______ Yes No in flowers, on vegetable garden? 9d. To kill mice or rats? ______ Yes No 9e. To control plant diseases? Yes No How often have you used insecticides outside the house? (Check only one) IOa. Once a year lOb. Twice a year IOc. Three or more times a year Do you ever use insecticides combined with Ila. Fertilizers Yes No llb. Weed killers Yes No ilc. Plant disease control chemicals Yes No How often have you used insecticides inside the house? l2a. Once a year l2b. Twice a year I2c. Three or more times a year What major insect pests have you treated indoors? l3a. Cockroaches l3b. Houseflies l3c. Ants l3d. Mosquitoes l3e. Others, please specify 80 What major insect pests have you treated outdoors? i4a. Mosquitoes l4b. Ants l4c. Flower and garden insects |4d. Others, please specify What commercial insecticides (for example, Bug Kill) do you use most frequently? l5a. Please specify What type of insecticides do you use? l6a. Aerosol l6b. Liquid l6c. Powder l6d. Granules l6e. Other In the past year how much did you spend for insecticides? I7a. Less than $l l7b. $l - $5.99 l7c. $6 - $l0.99 I7d. $ll - $|5.99 I7e. $l6 or more Where do you buy insecticides mostly? (Check only one) I8a. Supermarket l8b. Nursery l8c. Hardware Store l8d. Feedstore l8e. Discount Store I8f. Other (Check only one) 20. 2|. 22. 23. 81 When you use an insecticide which you have used before, do you read the label, or do you remember how to use it without reading it again? Read Remember How Other Are there any particular directions on labels you can't understand or follow? Yes No Don't Remember 20a. If the answer above is yes, please list those directions you can't understand or follow. Where do you keep insecticides when you are not using them? 2la. In the garage 2|b. In a garden tool shed 2|c. in the kitchen 2Id. In the basement 2|e. Other, please specify Do you store insecticides out of reach of children or pets? Yes No Not Sure _ _ Do you store Insecticides under lock and key? Yes No Not Sure 24. 25. 26. 27. 82 What do you do with empty insecticide containers? (Check all that apply) 24a. 24b. 24c. 24d. What do you do with leftover insecticides? (Check all that apply) 25a. 25b. 25c. 25d. 25e. Throw in trash can Burn Bury Other, please specify Dump on ground Leave in sprayer for next time Pour down drain Make necessary amount, no leftover Other, please specify Do you consult your county extension agent regarding pest problems? Who Informs you as to what insecticide you 27a. 27b. 27c. 27d. 27e. 27f. 27g. Newspaper or magazine Radio or TV A friend A relative Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service Storekeeper or clerk Other, please specify .- ’ ll“.- h- Yes No should buy? (Check all that apply 5| liluifiqllh. . . .1.» L’sirLE r§_ 28. 29. 30. 3|. 83 Where do you get information as to how you should apply the insecticide? (Check all that apply) 28a. Ask a friend ______ 28b. Recall what I have read about It ______ 28c. Read the instruction on the container ______ 28d. Ask the person who sold it to me ______ 28e. Ask the Michigan County Extension Agent .”____ 28f. Call Michigan State University ______ 28g. Other, please specify ______ Have you ever used DDT knowingly? Yes No If yes, when was the last time you used it? 30a. 30b. 30c. 30d. 30e. 4 - 5 years ago 3 years ago 2 years ago | year or less Presently using it It is common knowledge that farmers, homeowners, public health workers, and pest control operators use Insecticides. Many people have expressed concern over the dangers involved in the use of insecticides. 3la. 3lb. 3lc. 3ld. 3le. Have you ever heard these dangers discussed on television? Yes No Don't Recall Have you ever heard these dangers discussed on radio? Yes No Don't Recall Have you ever read about these dangers in magazines or books? Yes No Don't Recall Have you ever discussed these dangers with relatives and/or friends? Yes No Don't Recall Have you ever attended a group meeting where these dangers were discussed? Yes No Don't Recall -———-——— m 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 84 Do you think foods should be checked for the Yes No presence of insecticides before they are sold? If foods are checked for the presence of insecticides, who should do the checking? (Check only one) - 33a. Federal government 33b. State government 33c. The store 33d. The grower 33e. Don't Know Should there be federal laws which specify the amount of insecticides that may be in foods? Yes No Not Sure w w Do you think that the government is doing all it can to protect you from the hazards of insecticides? Yes No Not Sure fl- * What should the local or national agencies do? (Check only one) 36a. Remove a_l_controls on the use of insecticides? ______ 36b. Remove sgme_controls on the use of insecticides? 36c. Leave all controls as they are. 36d. Put some more controls on the use of insecticides? 36e. Put a lot more control on the use of insecticides? 36f. Don't know - No Opinion Should manufacturers warn users when their Yes No Insecticide is poisonous? 38. 39. 40. 4|. 42. 43. 85 If yes to the above question, how should they alert the user? 38a. On the label 38b. The news media 38c. Don't Know 38d. Other, please specify Have you ever hired a professional pest Yes No control operator or an exterminator? If no, go to #45. If your answer to the above question is yes, how long ago was it? 40a. 5 - 4 years ago 40b. 3 - 2 years ago 40c. l year or less 40d. Other, please specify The pest control Operator was called in to control what pests? 4la. insects 4lb. Rats or mice 4lc. Weeds or plant diseases 4Id. Others, please specify If you checked 4Ia what insects were you bothered with? 42a. Mosquitoes 42b. Houseflies 42c. Cockroaches 42d. Ants 429. Others, please specify Was the service satisfactory? Yes No Not Sure 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 86 Do you think he was knowledgeable in his field? Yes No What effects do insecticides have on the quality of food that is produced? (Check only one) 45a. Improves quality 45b. No effect 45c. Lowers quality 45d. Improves some, lowers some 45e. Don't Know Do you believe DDT should be available for Yes No certain purposes? What do you think are the important or significant effects of insecticides? (Check all that apply) 47a. Kill outdoor lawn insects 47b. Kill indoor insects 47c. Kill destructive insects on food crops 47d. Harm children and pets 47e. Harm the user or applier 47f. Kill fish 47g. Kill birds 47h. Make water unsafe for swimming 47I. Upset the balance of nature 47j. None are important Do Insecticides make it easier for you to control insects? Yes No Not Sure “ *- Do you feel insecticides are safe to work with? Yes No Not Sure 50. SI. 52. 53. 54. 87 Do you feel that certain insecticides should be bought on a prescription basis, like medicinal drugs? Yes No Not Sure Do you think the Federal and state governments are concerned over the harmful effects of insecticides? Yes No Not Sure -——-—— ...— Are the following of serious concern to you? (Check all that apply) 52a. Air pollution Yes No No Opinion 52b. Insecticide poisoning Yes No No Opinion 52c. Contamination from radioactive Yes No No Opinion fallout 52d. Inflation Yes "__No No Opinion 52e. Pollution of Michigan rivers and Yes No ' No Opinion streams What do you think is more dangerous to the consumer than use of food pro- ducts upon which insecticides were used? (Check only one) 53a. Driving the family car 53b. Air travel 53c. Using the bath tub 53d. Eating spoiled food 53e. Using prescribed drugs 53f. Use of non-prescription drugs Have you or any member of your family Yes No. experienced poisoning? :' x‘ ‘ y.“ ”I “I . . “4.7125. 55. 56. 57. 58. 55a. 55b. 55c. 88 If yes to #54, what was the age of the victim at the l - 5 years ______ 6 - IO years ______ lI - l5 years ______ l6 - 20 years 55d. 55e. 2| or more years time of the poisoning? What was the poisoning agent (for example, paint, medicine or household cleaner)? Please specify What immediate course of action did you take to help the person poisoned? (Check only one) 57a. 57b. 57c. 57d. 57e. Where 58a. 58b. 58c. 58d. 58e. Called the family physician Visited the emergency ward at hospital Called the poison control treatment center Called the city rescue squad Treated the victim at home was the poisoning agent kept? Kitchen Bathroom Closet Garage, shed Other, please Specify APPENDIX B RAW DATA 89 TABLE 27.--Response to the question, "Have you bought a hunting or fishing license during the past three years?" Variable Number Per Cent Yes 291 50.61 No 265 46.09 No Response 19 3.30 Total 575 100.00 11 TABLE 28.--Response to the question, "What major insects have you treated indoors?" [Respondents indicating that they had treated indoors.] Variable Number Per Cent Cockroaches 29 5.04 Houseflies 233 40.52 Ants 259 45.04 Mosquitoes 190 33.04 Others 87 15.13 90 TABLE 29.--Response to the question, "What major insect pests have you treated outdoors?" [Respondents indicating that they had treated outdoors.] Variable Number Per Cent Mosquitoes 250 43.48 Ants 147 25.57 Flower and Garden Insects 256 44.52 Others 74 12.87 TABLE 30.--Response to the question, "Do you consult your county extension agent regarding pest problems?" . - .- It.-." Variable Number Per Cent Yes 33 5.74 No 451 78.43 No Response 91 15.83 Total 575 100.00 91 TABLE 31.--Mai1 respondents sources of information for purchasing insecticides. Variable Number Per Cent Newspaper or Magazine 194 34 Radio or Television 187 33 A Friend 90 16 A Relative 48 8 MSU Cooperative Extension Service 46 8 Storekeeper or Clerk 153 27 Other 81 14 TABLE 32.-—Mail respondents sources of information for applying insecticides. Variable Number Per Cent Ask a Friend 21 4 Recall What was Read 37 6 Read Instructions on Container 451 78 Ask Dealer 99 17 Ask Michigan County Extension Agent 9 2 Call MSU 24 4 Other 9 2 TABLE 33.--Response to the question, 92 "Should manufacturers warn users when their insecticide is poisonous?" Variable Number Per Cent Yes 565 98.26 No 3 .52 No Response 7 1.22 Total 575 100.00 TABLE 34.--Response to the question, it easier "Do insecticides make for you to control insects?" Variable Number Per Cent Yes 434 75.48 No 29 5.04 Not Sure 94 16.35 No Response 18 3.13 Total 575 100.00 93 TABLE 35.--Response to the question, "Do you feel insecti- cides are safe to work with?" Variable Number Per Cent Yes 249 43.30 No 88 15.30 Not Sure 216 37.57 No Response 22 3.83 Total 575 100.00 TABLE 36.--Mai1 respondents course of action in aiding poisoned victim. Variable Number Per Cent Called family physician 31 5 Visited hospital emergency ward 23 4 Called poison control center 3 l Called city rescue squad 0 O Treated victim at home 18 3 No response 500 87 "mun-1. MIC T illiiiliiiiiiIiiiiiiliiiijili RIES l