Subject: Integrated Fruit Production--pesticide classifications (fwd)

From: Victor Guest <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:27:09 WST

Greetings:

Can any ag-impact subscribers provide or direct me to a materials ratings
list for pesticides from an Integrated Fruit Production certifying
organization?  I would also like information about the PROCESS used to
assign pesticides to the nominally three environmental impact categories
(permitted, permitted with restrictions, not permitted).  Note that I am
familiar with the CRITERIA used to make the designations--they are given
below.  For those not familiar with IFP, some introductory information is
provided below. I have a brief listing of thirteen journal articles and
other publications on IFP that I would be happy to send to ag-impact
subscribers as an email attachment.

Integrated Fruit Production

Though not well known in the US, the Integrated Fruit Production (IFP)
guidelines developed in western Europe are probably the most important
nonorganic example of field-level assessment and certification.
Field-level assessments apply the same criteria to all or most of the crops
produced, rather than specific criteria to each crop.  However, the
application of IFP principles has thus far been concentrated on pome fruits
and viticulture.  Organic certification guidelines also apply essentially
the same criteria to all or most of the crops produced, but usually require
the development of a farm plan and may involve the integration of animal
and plant production systems.  Thus, organic guidelines are somewhat more
related to farm-level assessments, but clearly operate at the field level
in many cases.

A "points for practices" system (like the Massachusetts IPM Guidelines), is
used by certifying organizations to make certification determinations for
individual farms and by the IOBS for evaluating certifying organizations=92
certification guidelines for IOBC endorsement determinations. It is not
necessary to implement each criterion in IP guidelines to achieve
certification.  With most(perhaps all) IFP certifiers, points are deducted
from the maximum total possible, for each case where the recommended
practice or is not followed.  A minimum score must be attained to be
certified. Organic certification guidelines are similar to IP guidelines,
but do not use a point system, are more restrictive with respect to
materials (i.e., chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers),  all criteria
(nominally) must be met for certification to be granted, and as noted,
include a farm-level planning component.

IFP has its origin in integrated plant protection in Europe in the 1950s,
but IFP did not undergo much growth until the late 1980s (Dickler and
Sch=E4fermeyer, 1991).  Now, the proportion of apple and pear acreage in
western Europe that is managed under an IFP program is approaching 50%
(Reed, 1995).  The proportion of an individual country's pome orchard
acreage that is represented ranges from less than 1% (Spain) to 82%
(Austria), for a total of 790,000 acres (Hollingsworth, 1995).  In 1995,
there were 31 participating regional or national IFP and/or Quality
Assurance (a similar program) organizations in twelve countries.=20

The second edition IOBC Guidelines for Integrated Production of Pome Fruits
in Europe:  Technical Guideline III was published in 1994 (Cross and
Dickler, 1994).  Therein, IFP is defined as:    ". . . as the economical
production of high quality fruit, giving priority to ecologically safer
methods, minimizing the undesirable side effects and use of agrochemicals,
to enhance the safeguards to the environment and human health."  Soil
sterilants are not permitted.  Locally or nationally available pesticides
are identified with respect to three categories=97permitted ("green list"),
permitted with restrictions ("yellow list"), not permitted ("red
list")=97according to the following criteria:  toxicity to man, toxicity to
key natural enemies, toxicity to other natural organisms, pollution of
ground and surface water, ability to stimulate pests, selectivity,
persistence, incomplete information, and necessity of use.

The proscribed materials include pyrethroid and organochlorine insecticides
and acaricides, nonnaturally occurring plant growth regulators, and toxic,
water polluting, or very persistent herbicides.  The regulations or
guidelines used by each country or organization vary and are not always
consistent with the IOBC Guidelines.  Most countries do not seek IOBC
endorsement, nor are there any penalties (Hollingsworth, 1995).  Reed
(1995) attributes the recent sustained and rapid growth in IFP in Europe to
government regulations and programs to reduce pesticide use, government
subsidies or tax credits for experimentation with new production systems or
systems that exclude undesirable practices, and government-sponsored
marketing programs financed by wholesale ad valorem taxes.  In some
countries, IFP fruit has enjoyed significant price premiums.
IFP-influenced programs have been introduced in the USA. IFP guidelines
have been introduced or are under development in South Africa, Australia,
New Zealand, and Argentina (Hollingsworth, 1995).  To my knowledge, there
are no IOBC-endorsed IFP certifying entities in North America yet, but at
least two or three local groups have developed guidelines, and at least one
group has developed a certification program.=20

John Vickery, Program Associate
Environment & Agriculture
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
2105 1st Ave., S.
Minneapolis, MN  55404-2505
612-870-3430;  FAX -4846
[email-masked]
http://www.iatp.org/iatp