IPM Institute News: IPM in the Marketplace
October 16, 2001
Volume 2 Issue No. 3
Contents
I. Hot Topics
II. U.S. GAO Reports Fundamental Defects in Federal Efforts to Spur IPM
Adoption IPM
III. School IPM Update: Coordinator wanted for National IPM in Schools
Week
IV. IPM Certification Journal: Wisconsin “Healthy Grown“ Potatoes Reach
Marketplace
V. Bibliography of Cited and Recent Publications
VI. Events
VII. About the IPM Institute and IPM Institute News
Produced by the IPM
Institute of North America.
I. Hot Topics
THE FOOD ALLIANCE, a non-profit, IPM-based eco-label headquartered in
Portland, OR has received a grant for $810,374 from the Kellogg Foundation
to continue its national expansion. The Food Alliance and affiliated
Midwest Food Alliance have certified more than 100 farms and ranches for
IPM, human resource management, and soil and water conservation practices.
Funded project title: “Create a replicable model for organizations across
the country interested in promoting market-based incentives for sustainable
farming and ranching in their region.” See The Food Alliance http://www.thefoodalliance.org/
for more information on the Food Alliance, or Kellogg Foundation
http://www.wkkf.org/ for more information on the
Kellogg Foundation.
Sixteen CORE VALUES NORTHEAST tree fruit farmers have been certified as IPM
producers for 2001. Certification is managed by the IPM Institute. For more
information on the program and how to contact certified growers, see CVN
http://www.corevalues.org/.
RED TOMATO, a non-profit broker for CORE Values Northeast and other
IPM-produced fruit and vegetables, has received a two-year grant in the
amount of $56K to help further the marketing of local, ecologically grown
product using integrated pest management (IPM) methods. The grant was
awarded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region I Office under
the Agricultural Initiative grant program.
A new non-profit organization growing out of the Wisconsin Potato Collaboration is seeking an executive director. PROTECTED HARVEST is
dedicated to the promotion of sustainable agriculture and enhancement of
wildlife and the environment. The executive director will report to the
Board of Directors and will be responsible for the organization’s consistent
achievement of its mission and financial objectives. The new position is
funded by a grant from the Joyce Foundation. Contact Jeff Dlott CEO, Real
Toolbox, 7600 Old Dominion Court, Apros, CA 95003. Phone: (831)684-9207,
Fax: (831)684-9218, e-mail.
The USDA Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Program has awarded IPM
WORKS of Madison, WI a two-year $271,000 grant to complete research and
development on comprehensive IPM risk management for corn and cotton
farmers. The ultimate goal of the project will be to provide financial risk
management products to cover the risks farmers face when adopting IPM
techniques. For example, corn farmers following a crop consultant’s
recommendation not to treat for corn rootworm (i.e., as a result of
below-threshold visual or trap counts for beetles) currently bear significant
economic risk if the consultant’s advice is in error. New financial
products such as insurance policies or warranties could compensate farmers
for rare failures of IPM techniques, and thus reduce an important barrier to
adoption. FMI: See the web site for project partner Agricultural
Conservation Innovation Center ACIC www.agconserv.com.
**For these and other breaking IPM certification and marketing-related news,
see the IPM Institute home page at IPM Institute http://www.ipminstitute.org.**
II. U.S. GAO Reports Fundamental Defects in Federal Efforts to Spur IPM
Adoption IPM
In a report released on September 28, the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) cites continuing fundamental deficiencies in the federal effort to
increase adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (Anonymous, 2001).
The report points to defects in goals, leadership, communication and
coordination among the various federal agencies charged with support for
IPM.
As examples of the effectiveness of IPM, the GAO report cites pesticide
alternatives for apples in western states resulting in an 80% reduction in
insecticide use, and an intensive effort by potato growers in Wisconsin
reducing high-risk insecticide use by over 60%.
It is disturbing that the basic problems reported by GAO pervade federal
efforts eight years after the IPM Initiative was first announced by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and 23 years after the department first
declared its policy of support for IPM. Total use of agricultural
pesticides increased over this interval. Pesticides identified by EPA as
most risky continue to be applied, accounting for 40% of total agricultural
pesticides. The investigators confirm very low adoption of least-risk,
biologically based IPM tactics, which have great potential to reduce
pesticide use and risks.
GAO investigators have produced a concise and focused report highlighting
real impediments to an effective federal effort. The report calls for
restructuring to establish effective leadership, greater collaboration
between the USDA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
prioritization of clearly articulated and measurable goals. Decision-makers
must move swiftly to adopt the report recommendations to correct these
deficiencies, which have frustrated IPM stakeholders both within and outside
of government.
Unfortunately, the investigators refer only briefly to other persistent
barriers to IPM adoption. The report does not address these barriers in
detail, nor offer recommendations to reduce them once restructuring of the
federal effort is completed.
For example, the report repeats a call for financial risk management to
support farmer adoption of IPM techniques. This need has been repeatedly
identified by federally and privately sponsored studies since 1974 to
address the economic risks faced by farmers and their advisors when adopting
some IPM strategies. Despite long-time recognition of risk a barrier, last
month the USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) failed to recommend approval
of the first model insurance policy designed to replace chemical inputs as a
risk management strategy. This policy has potential to improve farm
economics, lessen overuse of commercial fertilizers, limit nutrient runoff,
and replace revenue lost by agricultural chemical retailers due to reduced
fertilizer sales.
The new policy was proposed under the 508(h) pilot program of the Federal
Crop Insurance Corporation by the Agricultural Conservation Innovation
Center of Charleston S.C., a project of the non-profit American Farmland
Trust, and Agflex, Inc., of Carroll, IA, a specialty company formed to
develop financial risk management instruments to reduce chemical use and
risks. A final decision by RMA on the proposal is expected next month.
The report makes no mention of growing consumer support for IPM-produced
goods and services. To date, more than 15 initiatives are underway to
provide market incentives for farmer adoption of IPM, including price
premiums, access to new markets and preferential purchase by consumers. (For
descriptions and links to these programs, see IPM Institute Links
www.ipminstitute.org/links.htm).
This growth parallels that of organic production and sales. Marketplace giants including Chiquita and Home Depot are now participating in these efforts, promoting IPM as a choice worthy of consumer support through third-party certified product labeling.
Market incentives are essential to transition farmers and their advisors
away from high-risk options and towards least-risk alternatives, which are
increasingly available to farmers. The EPA reports more than 50% of new
pesticide registrations qualify as reduced risk under EPA definition. Many
of these products are more expensive. The number of individuals able to
make a living by farming is already declining sharply; farmers need and
deserve financial incentives to adopt these alternatives.
It is imperative that this report not simply be an addition to the many
previously issued on constraints to IPM adoption. It’s long past time to
intensify calls to legislators, regulators and others for swift action to
remedy these fundamental defects and to move forward on promising new
approaches. Persistent pressure is essential as Congress and the administration work to boost overall funding and incentives for conservation
in agriculture.
III. School IPM Update: Coordinator wanted for first National IPM in Schools
Week.
The IPM Institute seeks a full-time coordinator to organize the first
national IPM in Schools Week. This week, scheduled for April 22-29, 2002,
will be promoted to encourage informed decisions and responsible actions by
increasing awareness of IPM and existing IPM-related resources; encouraging
participation by all stakeholders in IPM-related activities during the week;
and improving communication and coordination by government agencies, private
industry and non-governmental organizations.
The coordinator will be responsible for fundraising and for recruiting,
motivating and supporting participants including volunteer Steering
Committee, National Council and State Committees. The coordinator will also
be responsible for creation an informational flier, organizer’s guidebook,
media kit, activities kit, electronic newsletter and Web pages to facilitate
participant-led activities in schools and communities including workshops,
presentations, demonstrations, teach-ins, contests, projects and others.
The position will be based in Madison, WI. Partial funding for materials
development has been provided by the US EPA Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program.
Submit resume and salary history to Thomas A. Green, Ph.D., President, IPM
Institute, 4510 Regent St., Madison WI 53705, e-mail.
IV. IPM Certification and Labeling Journal: Wisconsin “Healthy Grown“
Potatoes Reach Marketplace
Four thousand to forty-five hundred acres of certified IPM-grown potatoes
are now on the market as a result of a collaboration between the University
of Wisconsin, the World Wildlife Fund and the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable
Grower Association. The groups initiated the project in 1996 to reduce the
use of the highest risk pesticides to wildlife and the environment.
This past year the collaboration set up a certification program whereby
growers earned points for implementing IPM practices and for reducing
high-risk pesticide use. Roughly half of the 9000 acres applied for were
accepted for certification. Qualifying potatoes will be marketed under the
“Healthy Grown” brand.
Marketing information can be found at the new web site, www.protectedharvest.org. Technical information on the program, including
the standards and pesticide point system, can be found at Wisconsin BioIPM
http://ipcm.wisc.edu/bioipm/default.htm.
FMI: Deana Sexson, Biointensive IPM Coordinator, University of Wisconsin
Cooperative Extension, 1575 Linden Lane, Madison WI 53706. Phone (608)
265-9798, e-mail. For marketing information,
contact Randy Duckworth, Executive Director, Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable
Growers Association, P.O. Box 327, Antigo, WI 54409. Phone (715) 623-7683,
Fax (715) 623-3176.
V. Bibliography of Cited and Recent Publications
Anonymous. 2001. Agricultural Pesticides: Management Improvements Needed
to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management. U.S. General Accounting
Office, Report No. GAO-01-815. Available at The United States General
Accounting Office http://www.gao.gov/
under GAO Reports: Today’s Reports for September 28, 2001; or from Senator Leahy's
office by contacting Blythe McCormack, 202-224-2398
Anonymous. 2001a. Food and the Environment: Update 2001. 28 pp. Hartman
Group, Bellevue WA. More information at Hartman Group http://www.hartman-group.com.
Anonymous. 2001b. The New American Farmer. Profiles more than 40 farmers
from around the country who represent the best of sustainable agriculture.
Includes several producers who are certified by IPM-based eco-labels. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Sustainable Agriculture.
Sharp, R. and B. Walker. 2001. Poisoned Playgrounds: Arsenic in Pressure
Treated Wood. 23 pp. Environmental Working Group. Available at Poisoned
Playgrounds http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds/playgrounds.pdf.
Fulmer, M. 2001. Eco-labels on food called into question. Marketing: With
few rules and lax oversight, some producers put unsubstantiated claims on
their products. Los Angeles Times, August 26, 2001. Available at LA
Times article http://www.latimes.com/
Giovannucci, D. 2001. Sustainable Coffee Survey of the North American
Specialty Coffee Industry. 32 pp. Commission for Environmental Cooperation
and the Specialty Coffee Association of America. Available at CEC Report
http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/trade_environ_econ/index.cfm?varlan=english.
Lavendel, B. 2000. Taking back the halls: Many schools use an arsenal of
toxic pesticides to fight invading armies of roaches and rodents. Students
in this Detroit battleground chose a healthier – and more effective
strategy. Audubon Magazine, September-October 2001, p.26 – 30.
Kane, D., B. Lydon, K. Richards and M. Sligh. 2000. Greener Fields:
Signposts for successful eco-labels. 68 pp. Rural Advancement Foundation
International, Pittsboro NC. Report on findings of the Greener Fields
Project, formed to identify barriers and keys to success to developing
marketplace incentives for sustainable agriculture products; how to
establish credibility and avoid "green washing;" marketing; European models;
potential for collaboration vs. confusion among multiple eco-labels;
measuring success. Includes results of a survey of Mothers & Others for a
Livable Planet members; 75% of respondents were very interested in
supporting IPM. Available for $20 postpaid from RAFI-USA, PO Box 640,
Pittsboro NC 27312, (919) 542-1396, e-mail.
For a comprehensive bibliography of publications related to IPM certification and marketing, see IPM Institute Bibliography
http://www.ipminstitute.org/ipm_bibliography.htm.
VI. Events
October 22-24, 2001. Greener Fields Forum: Eco-Labels – Where Do We Go From
Here? St. Louis MO. Originally scheduled for June, goal of meeting is to
review, revise and reach consensus on common principles of sustainable
agriculture to guide eco-labeling programs. Meeting follows publication of
the Greener Fields report (Kane et al. 2000). Attendance is by invitation
to representatives of organic and sustainable eco-labels and supporting
organizations. Progress at this meeting will be reported in the next
edition of IPM Institute News. FMI: Laura Lauffer, e-mail.
IPM Institute representatives will be attending the following meeting. If
you would like to arrange a meeting to coincide with any of these dates,
please contact the IPM Institute at 608-232-1410, Fax 608-232-1440 or
E-mail.
December 9-12, 2001. Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting. San
Diego CA.
March 24-26, 2002. International IPM Conference: Exploring New Frontiers in
Integrated Pest Management. Toronto, ON, Canada. FMI: Brochure available
at International IPM Conference
VII. About the IPM Institute
The IPM Institute is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit organization formed
in 1998 to promote and support marketplace recognition for goods and service
providers who meet high IPM standards. Consumer support for IPM provides a
powerful incentive for increasing IPM adoption in agriculture and communities.
FMI: IPM Institute http://www.ipminstitute.org/
IPM Institute News is produced and distributed periodically via e-mail by
the IPM Institute of North America, Inc., located at 4510 Regent
St.,
Madison WI 53705 USA, (608) 232-1410, FAX (608) 232-1440, Web site IPM
Institute http://www.ipminstitute.org/.
Produced with support from IPM Institute members. For editorial comments or
questions, or to unsubscribe, contact T. A. Green.
Content may be reproduced and/or distributed for non-commercial purposes
with attribution to the IPM Institute. To join the IPM Institute, visit our
web site or e-mail
us.
