IPM Institute News
October 6, 2000
Volume 1 Issue No. 4
Contents
I. School IPM: An Opportunity to Raise Consumer and Voter Support for IPM
II. IPM Standards for School Update
III. Certified IPM Manager: A Concept Whose Time Has Come?
IV. IPM Certification Journal
V. References Cited
VI. Events
VII. About the IPM Institute and IPM Institute News
Produced quarterly by the IPM Institute of North America.
I. School IPM: An Opportunity to Raise Consumer and Voter Support for IPM
IPM? What's that? Unfortunately, that's the reaction you're likely to receive from the majority of consumers. Public awareness of organic reaches 80% and more in surveys; awareness of IPM ranges from 11% to 30% (2,5).
When consumers are educated about IPM, they support it overwhelmingly (2,5). Increasing consumer awareness and support for IPM has potential to bring many benefits including increased public support for IPM funding (1) and for goods and service providers who practice IPM.
Efforts to reduce pest and pesticide risks in schools are gaining attention, with recent popular and trade press coverage on pending legislation on the state and national levels, and on efforts by Extension, state and federal government, and trade, environmental and public interest professionals. A search of 6000 newswires, newspapers, magazines and trade publications on "school" plus "Integrated Pest Management" yielded 141 citations for the first nine months of 2000, up from 130 and 112 for the same periods during 1999 and 1998, respectively (<Dow Jones Interactive
Library).
What kind of coverage is IPM receiving in the press? Many of the articles focus on pending or enacted legislation. Thirty-one states now have regulations or legislation specifically addressing pest management in schools (4).
School IPM has come of age in at least one respect. The Wall Street Journal published a front-page article on school IPM on October 5, 2000 (6). The angle? A policy restricting herbicide use on buildings and grounds in the Los Angeles school district has resulted in a marked decline in the appearance of school grounds, many complaints from grounds crews forced to use physical and mechanical, rather than chemical controls, and an increase in costs for weed control.
The lesson? Of course, transitioning to IPM is a challenge to our best planning, training, communication and "buy-in-generating" skills. And, we need to have a ready response to IPM "back lash," which is certain to increase commensurate with growth in IPM implementation and awareness.
II. IPM Standards for Schools Update
The IPM Standards for School Buildings and Grounds, a 116-page compilation of IPM practices and resource lists for schools has been available for review and comment since September 5, 2000. Since posting, the Standards have been viewed more than 650 times. The current draft has been developed in collaboration with more than 45 school IPM professionals from Universities, Extension, state and federal government, and public interest and environmental organizations around the U.S.
The Standards have been field tested in three school systems, and will undergo final revision before printing later this month. The document will continue to be available in PDF and html formats on the IPM Institute Web site at no charge, and in print for $15 per copy.
To view the Standards or order a copy, visit the IPM Institute Web site at
http://www.ipminstitute.org. Your comments and suggestions are invited.
III. Certified IPM Manager: An idea whose time has come?
Smartwood, an accredited member of the Forest Stewardship Council, was faced with a challenge to make its forest/wood products certification program accessible to owners of small woodlots. Program costs for owners of less than 100 acres would be prohibitive in many cases, yet these woodlot owners were interested in certification. The solution? Certify the foresters working with these small landholders hire to manage their woodlots.
A Certified Forest Manager is a forestry professional meeting rigorous qualifications for education, training and experience. To complete the certification process, an audit is conducted of the applicant's qualifications, including review of forest management plans and inspection of managed properties. A report is prepared, identifying strengths and weaknesses and conditions to be agreed to by the forester to maintain certification.
A Certified Forest Manager can then "vouch" for clients, such that their timber can be marketed as certified wood. This spreads time and fee requirements over the sum total of the forester's client acres, making the program affordable.
The IPM Institute has incorporated this concept into its verification program. IPM consultants who become Certified IPM Managers can vouch for their clients, conducting annual audits and completing reports for each client. Certified Verifiers will inspect the IPM Managers records, and spot check several client locations.
For more information on the IPM Institute Verifier Program, visit the IPM Institute Web site at
http://www.ipminstitute.org.
IV. IPM Certification and Labeling Journal: Food Alliance Grows to 40 Participating Farms
The Food Alliance, a private non-profit organization based in Portland OR, has increased producer participation to 40 farms this season. The organization uses IPM, soil and water conservation and fair treatment of farmworkers as qualifying criteria for participation. Farmers must implement an approved farm plan, meet a minimum score on an IPM practice-based assessment, and have their achievement verified through a farm visit by a Food Alliance inspector. The Food Alliance's accomplishments were recently recognized in the Wall St. Journal Northwest Edition (3), which referred to sustainable agriculture but failed to make any mention of IPM. Why? According to the Food Alliance, the organization intentionally avoids use of "integrated pest management" or its acronym because of low consumer recognition and potential for confusion. For more information, see
http://www.thefoodalliance.org.
V. References Cited
1. Caldwell, A.M., K. Bantle-Stoner, G.W. Cuperus, M.E. Payton and
R.C. Berberet. 2000. Media coverage of integrated pest management in major urban newspapers. American
Entomol. 46 (1): 56-60.
2. 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.
3. Jung, H. 2000. Organic farms face new rival in green arena. The Wall Street Journal, Northwest Edition. July 12, 2000.
4. Owens, K. and J. Feldman. 2000. The schooling of state pesticide laws - 2000: A review of state pesticide laws regarding schools. Report updates an earlier report issues in 1998, and includes summaries of legislation in 31 states that specifically regulate pesticide use in and schools. Legislation is described in five categories: buffer zones around schools where pesticide use is restricted; posting signs; prior notification; IPM; and reentry intervals. Pesticides and You 20(2):16-23. Available at
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/
(Go to Reports: Pesticides in Schools.)
5. Pool, W.M. 1996. Results of Consumer Attitude Survey on Pesticides and Produce Quality. MS Thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology.
6. Warren, S. 2000. Tangled Up in Green: Weeds Run Amok On School Playgrounds; Barred From Using Herbicides, L.A. Deploys Blowtorches, Bulldozers and `Buggy Bill.' Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2000.
VI. Events
IPM Institute representatives will be attending the following events. 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.
October 19-20, 2000, Portland Hilton, Portland OR. Read the Label. A national conference hosted by The Food Alliance. Conference highlights to include recent research on the "Environmental Consumer"; selecting standards: from wild lands to fair trade; E-commerce programs and experiences; results of the Greener Fields project on current eco-labels; successes on the farm; and a presentation by
T.A. Green of the IPM Institute on using IPM as a basis for eco-labels.
FMI: http://www.thefoodalliance.org, phone 503-493-1066, fax 503-493-1069.
December 2-6, 2000, Montreal, Canada. Joint Annual Meeting, Canadian Entomological Society and the Entomological Society of America.
T.A. Green of the IPM Institute will present on IPM insurance and IPM certification for schools.
FMI: http://www.entsoc.org
VII. About the IPM Institute
The IPM Institute is a 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
The IPM Institute News is produced and distributed quarterly via e-mail by the IPM Institute of North America, Inc., a private non-profit organization 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. 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.
