Violations of the
Missouri Pesticide Use Act 281.005 RSMO
(Revised Statute State of Missouri)

There are some serious accusations being made against the
Missouri Agriculture Department -- that the State of Missouri
refused to prosecute obviously criminal behavior by a pesticide
applicator because the incidents involve several prominent
Missourians and politicians.

Under the Missouri Pesticide Use Act 281.005 RSMO (Revised
Statute State of Missouri), if an uncertified applicator applies
pesticides in a building, he may be punished by a fine and/or
revocation of the business license of the applicator himself
and the business owner.

Applicator Richard Bakkum, while working for Campbell Pest
Control of Springfield, Missouri, admitted in deposition that he
was a high school drop-out, with no formal education in pesticides
or entomology, who was NOT CERTIFIED until November 1989,
OVER A YEAR *AFTER* several students reported being injured
on the campus of Southwest Baptist University in three separate
incidents from September 1988 to the middle of the term in 1989.

In spite of these admissions, the Agriculture Department refused
to fully investigate or prosecute these incidents and refered them
to the Health Department.

The concern we have is that there were a squadron of uncertified
Campbell pesticide applicators also applying pesticides at the
Springfield Public Schools, Southwest Missouri State University
(SMS) in Springfield, Missouri and several other local school
districts.

Why did the Agriculture Department fail to fully investigate this matter?

Campbell has confirmed that they did have accounts at these places
and that they were using chemicals which were then or are now
prohibited from indoor use or are classified as hazardous chemicals.

A student was poisoned in two separate pesticide poisonings
on the Southwest Baptist University campus. The school's insurer,
Hartford, paid medical expenses on the first acute exposure,
(September 26, 1988), but then dropped the university's insurance
coverage.

Medical expenses for the second exposure (January 30, 1989) were
also covered by Hartford even though Preferred Risk (not Hartford)
was the actual insurer at the time.

The next year another student, Judy Taylor, wrote in an Letter to the
Editor of the Bolivar Herald Free Press  that the same conduct --
indoor application of pesticides while students were present --
was continuing even a year later (Sept. 26, 1990).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                               ~Top~  
        ~Updates~       ~~Return to Welcome~~        ~How Can I Help?~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~