 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Education > Partners with Nature: HistoryWhy Partners with Nature? Addressing consumers’ concerns Although empirical data on pesticide exposure through food indicates that risk to the typical consumer is actually much lower than that posed by other commonly-accepted behaviors (e.g., excessive alcohol use, cigarette smoking, driving, extreme sports, etc.), many consumers acquire information about pesticides solely from media “alerts”, or ominously-titled “studies” emanating from special interest advocacy groups. However, as noted by Christine Bruhn and coworkers (1992) at the University of California, consumer concerns about agriculture and the safety of the food supply can be significantly allayed by presentations of information about how and why farmers use pesticides in the context of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Since relatively few persons can be reached by small-scale focus groups conducted by universities or agricultural trades groups, other techniques must be relied on to reach the main stream consuming public.
A Hartman Group study, sponsored by the Food Alliance (1997), concluded that there is a significant untapped market potential for earth-sustainable products and that 52% of consumers would to buy such products. A survey sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (Pan Atlantic 1997) found that 91% of Massachusetts residents agreed with the statement, “I would support the use of environmentally safe agricultural practices by farmers by purchasing products that identify this on the label,” and 89% agreed with the statement, “Food products which claim to have improved environmental performances should be certified or labeled.”
Why Partners with Nature? Massachusetts growers asked for it Development of a system to measure IPM
IPM guidelines for 16 Massachusetts crops are now available The guidelines were field-tested beginning in 1990, as part of the USDA Farm Services Agency ICM Cost-Share Program and were found satisfactory as a means to document the use of IPM systems. IPM Certification for Massachusetts: initial surveys
Similarly, a survey of 900 certified pesticide applicators/farmers (566 actively-farming respondents) showed strong support for the development of an IPM certification program. Responses from both surveys were accurate within +/-5%, with a 95% confidence interval.
Partners with Nature, 1993 to 1999 During mid-season, there was a farm visit or a meeting with the grower’s IPM consultant to determine that the grower was on track to completing sufficient IPM practices to be certified. The grower would sign a form attesting to the completion of practices. At the end of the season, the grower or consultant would submit pesticide and scouting records.
Participating growers received a number of tangible incentives for participating in the program: a certificate from the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture; publicity about their farm as press releases to local newpapers; a colorful Partners with Nature poster; an educational poster about IPM; informational brochures about IPM and Partners with Nature; a newsletter highlighting eco-labelling; and various marketing items such as t-shirts, caps, price cards and stickers.
Cranberry and apple were not included in the program. While individual apple and cranberry growers expressed interest in the program and our surveys showed strong support, the grower organizations for these industries voted against supporting Partners with Nature. Because of these official industry positions, we did not offer certification for these industries.
Ultimately, 13 crops had IPM guidelines in place and were eligible for certification. Annual enrollment ranged between 28 (after the end of the FSA ICM cost-share program) and 53 farms (1999). One hundred-nine (109) growers participated in the program from 1993 to 1999. Enrollment in the program was strongly influenced by IPM consulting services, offered either by private consultants or by the UMass Extension IPM program. A number of growers in the program scouted their own fields, but most growers were enrolled in some type of IPM consulting. More growers enrolled sweet corn into the program than any other crop. This also reflects the popularity of the crop (Massachusetts ranks a 12th in sweet corn acreage in the United States: about 15% of the sweet corn acreage in Massachusetts was certified in the Partners with Nature program.
Grower Perceptions Participants in Partners with Nature have diverse marketing needs. There was general agreement about what functions of the PWN program are most valued. These include educating the public, providing IPM information, IPM certification, improving farm-community relations and providing publicity. Educating the public about IPM was the most important function of the PWN program (92% of respondents)
The most strongly supported services and products of the program were the PWN newsletter and brochures, certification by MDFA and press releases. While growers value press releases and publicity about their farms, they were unlikely to contact the press themselves (73% had NOT contacted the press about their farms). PWN provided participants with a better understanding of IPM (87%) PWN helped participants to adopt more IPM practices (89%) Participants promoted their participation in PWN and IPM to their customers (84%) PWN was helpful in improving public relations(73%). While PWN was promoted to growers as an educational program, some growers reported increased profits (33%), increased sales (29%), and new markets (21%). Was Partners with Nature successful?
Partners with Nature spread the word about IPM to thousands of people through newspaper and radio. A single story about Partners with Nature aired on the WAMC network (Aug. 19, 1998, 6:50 am) reached 20,000 listeners. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the concepts of IPM through newspaper articles. An additional measure of success can be found in the results of a survey of total pesticide use conducted by the New England Vegetable and Berry Growers Association (Bonanno 1997) showed that Partners with Nature growers used significantly less pesticide than other growers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the years of 1993 to 1997. While these results were preliminary (“IPM” growers were loosely defined and there were only three “non-IPM” growers), it provides strong evidence that growers following a well-defined set of IPM practices can reduce their pesticide use. How could we improve Partners with Nature? Current Status of Partners with Nature Conclusions Acknowledgment Bibliography Boutwell, J.L. & R.H. Smith. 1981. A new concept in evaluating integrated pest management programs. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 27(2) 117-188. Bruhn, C., S. Peterson, P. Phillips & K. Sakovidh. 1992. Consumer response to information on integrated pest management. J. Food Safety, 12:315-326. Hartman, H. 1997. The Hartman Report: Food and the Environment, a consumer’s perspective. The Food Alliance. Hollingsworth, C.S.1994. Integrated pest management certification: a sign by the road. Amer. Entomol. 40(2):74-75. Hollingsworth, C.S. & W.M. Coli (eds). 1999. Massachusetts integrated pest management guidelines: crop specific definitions. UMass Ext. Publication IP-IPMA. Hollingsworth, C.S., W.M. Coli & V. Van Zee. 1992. Massachusetts grower attitudes toward a certification program for integrated pest management. Fruit Notes. UMass. Ext. 57(4):7-11. Hollingsworth, C.S., M.J. Paschall, N.L. Cohen and W.M. Coli. 1993. Support in New England for certification and labeling of produce grown using integrated pest management. Amer. J. Alternative Agriculture. 8:78-84. Selected IPM Articles: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Numerous studies and press reports have found that consumers have
significant concerns about pesticide use in agriculture, particularly
relative to effects on the environment and the safety of the food supply.
Our
experience has shown that one effective way to educate the public about
environmentally-sound practices, is through the development and use of
product labeling. Some examples of what are now known as “eco-labels”
include: Dolphin Safe Tuna, Certified Organic, Salmon Safe, CORE Values
(Northeast IPM-grown Apples), Smart Wood, European Union Integrated Production
(IP), Nature Farming (Japan),energy star (electrical appliances). Integrated
Production (IP) labels are a type of eco-label overseen by the International
Organization of Biological Control (IOBC). Over 100 separate groups throughout
the world adhere to IOBC IP standards, each of which uses a specific label.
The figure at right shows some examples of IP labels from Italy.
logo
designed and produced THE YELLOW SIGN (at right). These signs were very
popular and many growers displayed them. We also had requests from non-cooperators
for signs. Then, one of the growers in the program was cited for illegal
pesticide use: he had a yellow sign. Fortunately, no media ran a picture
of the sign. This started us thinking about what we were accomplishing
with the yellow sign. Looking at data from our cooperating potato growers,
we noted that only half the growers followed our recommendations. This
was good for research comparisons, but not to verify growers claims that
they were practicing IPM. We began to ask: what does it mean to DO
IPM, and can we measure it?
Based on the findings of our needs assessment, in 1993, we initiated
the Partners with Nature program, initially certifying sweet corn
and strawberries. The procedure for enrollment in the program required
the grower to submit a form, sign a licensing agreement and pay a fee
(about $15 per crop: this changed a number of times). 
