IPM Institute News: IPM in the Marketplace
March 27, 2001
Volume 2 Issue No. 1
Contents
I. Hot Topics
II. Marketing IPM to North American Consumers: Eight Years of Progress
III. Opportunities for Collaboration?
IV. School IPM Update
V. IPM Certification Journal: IPM Institute Assists CORE Values Transition
VI. Bibliography of Cited and Recent Publications
VII. Events
VIII. About the IPM Institute and IPM Institute News
Produced quarterly by the IPM Institute of North America.
I. Hot Topics
"Safety Source" Directory of pest management professionals on-line: Beyond Pesticide/National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides
(NCAMP) surveyed firms providing structural pest control services on practices and products. Those firms indicating they use methods rated "non-toxic" or "least-toxic" by NCAMP are now listed in a national directory. IPM service providers who would like to be listed should contact NCAMP at 701 E St SE, Suite 200, Washington DC 20003, (202) 543-5450, Fax (202) 543-4791. For more information
(FMI), http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pcos/index.htm.
IPM registry for pest management professionals available: The New England Pest Management Association
(NEPMA) has created a new program to recognize pest management professionals who use IPM. The program requires attendance at advanced IPM training sessions and committee review of selected account records to verify IPM use. Applications now being accepted.
FMI: Don Rivard, Executive Director, NEPMA, 177 Seminole Avenue, Waltham MA 02451-0859, (781)899-5843, Fax (781) 642-0693,
E-mail.
Consumers Union (CU) Eco-Label Resource Web Site on-line: CU, publisher of Consumer Reports, has created a site for information on environmental labels for food and wood products. Current evaluations include
Wegmans' IPM Label program. FMI: http://www.eco-labels.org/
Child Proofing our Communities Campaign report released: "Poisoned Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions" is a joint effort of several organizations including the Center for Health, Environment and Justice. Report includes specific recommendations for siting schools to avoid locations contaminated with toxics, plus a comprehensive "Gold Standard" for IPM programs in schools.
FMI: http://www.childproofing.org/poisonedschoolsmain.html.
**For these and other breaking IPM certification and marketing-related news, see the IPM Institute home page at
http://www.ipminstitute.org.**
II. Marketing IPM to North American Consumers: Eight Years of Progress
In 1993, the Massachusetts "Partners with Nature" Program (PWN) certified forty sweet corn and strawberry crops as meeting crop and region-specific IPM guidelines (Hollingsworth and Coli 2000). The program, a collaboration between the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture
(MDA), UMass Extension and the USDA Farm Service Agency, ceased operation in 1999 with the end of funding and logistical support from
MDA.
"IPM Elements" were developed by Cornell University at the same time PWN was being created. These were first used to certify NY State IPM producers in 1995 and are still in use in 24 crops
(NYS IPM Program 1996).
In both programs, participating producers document IPM practices and have their compliance verified through on-site inspection. Producers earn "points" by implementing specific practices and must meet a minimum score to participate. Both systems essentially measure the percentage of available IPM practices implemented by participants, a concept introduced as early as 1981
(Boutwell and Smith 1981). A similar program, CORE Values Northeast, began certifying IPM tree fruit growers in 1995 (see article below) using a detailed farm plan and on-site inspection to qualify participants.
In all three programs, qualifying producers use product labels and other marketing materials to communicate with their customers about their accomplishment.
New eco-labels reflecting aspects of these pioneering programs include IPM standards developed by the Universities of Hawaii and Rutgers; eco-labels operated by the Food Alliance and the new Midwest Food Alliance affiliate; and eco-label collaborations between the World Wildlife Fund and producer organizations in Wisconsin and in Canada.
One of the latest beneficiaries of this legacy is an IPM Protocol developed for apple producers in Nova Scotia. The protocol was used in 2000 by Prince Edward Island apple growers to secure a marketing contract with
Sobey's, a Canadian supermarket chain. Several growers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are also expected to pilot market under this protocol in 2000.
The influence of PWN and the IPM Elements has now extended to community IPM with certification and assessment programs developed for schools by the IPM Institute (Green 2000a), for golf courses by UMass Extension (2000) and for pest management professionals by Hollingsworth (2000) and now used in an IPM registry by the New England Pest Management Association (see note under "Hot Topics" above).
What have we accomplished since 1993? Solid consumer attitude research indicating support for IPM-produced goods and services
(Govindasamy 1997 and 1998, Hartman 1996 and 1997, Pool 1996) has been validated by the growth in number of marketplace recognition programs using IPM as a requirement. The number of participating producers and retailers continues to climb. A landmark achievement by the Food Alliance has supermarkets paying a fee to carry Alliance-certified product, in clear contrast to the slotting fees these retailers charge many suppliers for shelf space in their stores.
In addition to tremendous growth in programs and participants, we now have a "protocol" for developing and operating eco-labels. Courtesy of Consumers Union (CU), these criteria are listed in "What Makes a Good Eco-Label," found at
http://www.eco-labels.org/.
According to CU, "The best eco-labels are seals or logos indicating that an independent organization has verified that a product meets a set of meaningful and consistent standards for environmental protection and/or social justice."
CU's criteria include participation requirements (or "standards") that are environmentally meaningful and are clearly and consistently applied across all products bearing the label. The "eco-labeler" should have a transparent organizational structure, reveal all sources of funding and adopt an explicit conflict-of-interest policy prohibiting those being certified from deciding who may use the label. Participant compliance should be independently verified.
Where do we go from here? A major task is to increase consumer recognition of IPM, reported at less than 20% vs. more than 80% for organic. The Institute is working towards this goal by organizing a first National IPM in Schools Week to be held in the spring of 2002. The week will focus attention on IPM as a solution to reducing pest and pesticide risks in schools, with local, state, regional and national events. Organizational structure will follow the Earth Day model, with grassroots organizing facilitated by the Institute, a national steering committee and state committees. The Institute recently received a grant from the US EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program to begin this project. The Week should provide an excellent opportunity to increase IPM awareness among today's and tomorrow's consumers.
What other opportunities exist to further progress towards marketplace incentives for IPM adoption? Collaboration among eco-labelers is key (see Collaboration article below). The Institute is also working to advance collaboration by providing services to eco-labels that incorporate IPM, reducing costs and speeding program development time. (See CORE Values article below.)
FMI: You'll find links to more than seventeen North American IPM producer recognition programs at
http://www.ipminstitute.org/links.htm. Included is a link to the International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control's Integrated Production (IP) protocols, applied to numerous crops in Europe and other regions. The IP system has provided inspiration to PWN and many of these other North American programs.
III. Opportunities for Collaboration?
How might organic and eco-labels using an IPM component work together to improve economics for food producers and reduce impacts on the environment and health? Could a food eco-label trade association and/or an accrediting stewardship council facilitate collaboration and growth?
These questions have been the focus of two recent meetings which followed completion of the Greener Fields Project this past fall.
The Greener Fields Report (Kane et al. 2000) and follow up discussions have cited the need for greater cooperation among eco-labelers to reduce the risks of isolation, including costly duplication of effort and missed opportunities to learn from the experiences of others. Potential benefits of greater collaboration include expertise and cost-sharing on vital tasks such as market research, consumer awareness and support building, standards development and maintenance, verification/inspection systems and other eco-labeling essentials.
Collaborative models to evaluate and learn from include the Forestry Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council, the International Organization for Biological Control's Integrated Production system, the USDA National Organic Program and the Organic Trade Association.
A third meeting is being planned for late May or early June. 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.
IV. School IPM Update
The IPM Institute's "IPM Standards for Schools" received an all-time high 880 downloads from the Institute's Web site during the month of February. Overall site hits averaged over 350 per day during the month.
Applications are now available to pest control product suppliers who would like to have qualifying product listed on the IPM Institute Web
site
Thanks to the US EPA Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program for a seed grant providing initial funding for the first National IPM in Schools Week (to be held in 2002), and to Gerber Products Co. for a generous donation to the Institute's IPM in Schools project.
V. IPM Certification and Labeling Journal: IPM Institute Assists CORE Values Transition
Since 1995, CORE Values has been certifying tree fruit grown locally in the Northeast. CORE Values is one of the first certification programs in the nation using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a basis for qualifying participants.
CORE Values growers have their IPM practice and knowledge verified by on-farm inspection.
The program has been operated as a project of Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet, a nonprofit consumer education and advocacy organization which is now ceasing operations.
A new Executive Committee will lead CORE Values including John Lyman III of Lyman Orchards in Middlefield, Connecticut, Jonathon Bishop of Bishop's Orchards in Guilford, Connecticut and Steve Clarke of Sunshine Orchards of Milton, NY. Wendy Gordon and Betsy
Lydon, formerly CORE Values program leads with Mothers & Others, and Hilary Baum, President of Public Market Partners, will also serve on the committee.
Certification aspects of the program, including requirements for grower participation and farm inspections, will be managed by the IPM Institute. By using the Institute's services, CORE Values will help ensure the integrity and credibility of the program and reduce overhead costs.
The CORE Values program works to keep farmers in the business of farming and engaged in local markets, providing many benefits. Tree fruit production is a major employer and important source of income to the Northeast. Apple growers in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New England together produced over 42 million bushels of apples in 2000, second only to Washington State, according to USDA figures. Studies by the American Farmland Trust and Cornell University report that land in agriculture provides more net revenue to communities in the Northeast than the same land developed for residential purposes.
More information about CORE Values is available at its Web site, www.corevalues.org. Growers, retailers and others interested in learning more about the program are invited to contact the IPM Institute at (608)
232-1410.
The Institute is available to assist in eco-label program and standards development, certification and verification. In addition to CORE Values, Institute clients have included the Food Alliance, Midwest Food Alliance,
Farm*A*Syst and Whole Foods Market. FMI: Tom Green, (608) 232-1410 or
by email.
VI. Bibliography of Cited and Recent Publications
Boutwell, J.L. and R.H. Smith. 1981. A new concept in evaluating integrated pest management programs. Bull.
Entomol. Soc. Amer. 27(2) 117-188.
Govindasamy, R., J. Italia, D. Thatch and A. Adelaja. 1998. Consumer Response to IPM-grown Produce. Journal of Extension 36 (4) . Available at
http://www.joe.org/joe/1998august/rb2.html
Govindasamy, R., J. Italia and J. Rabin. 1998. Consumer Response and Perceptions of Integrated Pest Management Produce. NJ Agricultural Experiment Station Publication P-02137-5-98, 45 pp.
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~agecon/agmkt.htm
Govindasamy, R., J. Italia and J. Rabin. 1997. Consumer Response to Integrated Pest Management and Organic Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis. NJ Agricultural Experiment Station Publication P-02137-2-97, 45 pp.
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~agecon/agmkt.htm
Green, T.A., Ed., 2000a. IPM Standards for Schools: A Program for Reducing Pest and Pesticide Risks in Schools. 128 pp. Available in print for $15 from the IPM Institute, 1914 Rowley Ave., Madison WI, or at no charge in PDF and html formats at
http://www.ipminstitute.org/.
Green, T.A. 2000. IPM is part of program, but not this label. GEMPLER'S IPM Solutions Vol 5 (5).
Green, T.A. 2000. IPM gains in the marketplace. GEMPLER'S IPM Solutions Vol 5
(4).
Green, T.A. 2000. Selling IPM to consumers. GEMPLER'S IPM Solutions Vol 5 (5).
Hartman, H. 1996. The Hartman Report Phase I. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. The Hartman Group, 10422 SE 14th St, Bellevue, WA 98004.
Hartman, H. 1997. The Hartman Report Phase II. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. The Hartman Group, 10422 SE 14th St, Bellevue, WA 98004.
Hollingsworth, C.S., Ed. 2000. Integrated Pest Management Guidelines for Structural Pests. 58 pp. Available from UMass Extension Publications, Draper Hall, 40 Campus Center Way, Amherst MA 01003-9244, (413) 545-2717.
Hollingsworth, C.S. and W.M. Coli. 2000. Partners with Nature: An Educational Program 1993 to 1999.
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:
rogerson@rafiusa.org
Pool, W.M. 1996. Results of Consumer Attitude Survey on Pesticides and Produce Quality. MS Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology.
New York State IPM Program. 1996. About the NYS IPM Elements.
UMass Extension. 2000. Protocols for an IPM System on Golf Courses. 72 pp. Available for $49.95 postpaid from UMass Extension Publications, Draper Hall, 40 Campus Center Way, Amherst MA 01003-9244, (413) 545-2717.
For a comprehensive bibliography of publications related to IPM certification and marketing, see
http://www.ipminstitute.org/ipm_bibliography.htm.
VI. Events
IPM Institute representatives will be attending the following. 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.
April 30, 2001, Guelph ON. Ontario Food Processors Association. T. Green of the IPM Institute to present an eco-labeling update: opportunities for IPM producers.
FMI: Jane Graham, Executive Director, (519) 826-3590, e-mail:
ofpa@sentex.net.
May 18-20, 2001, Boulder CO. 19th Annual Pesticide Forum. Convened by Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides. Presenters include David
Pimental, Cornell University; Theo Colborn, World Wildlife Fund; Helen
Caldicott, Physicians for Social Responsibility and others. FMI: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/.
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: http://www.ipminstitute.org
IPM Institute News is produced and distributed quarterly 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
http://www.ipminstitute.org/. Produced with support from IPM Institute members. For editorial comments or questions, or to unsubscribe, contact T. A. Green
by email. 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
email us.
