Charles Benbrook is the lead author of a new book that seeks to change the way farmers manage pests and use chemical pesticides.

"Pest Management at the Crossroads" asserts that in spite of the billions of dollars spent on regulation, the overall risks posed by pesticides are no less than they were 25 years ago and that residues put consumers at risk for cancer and affect nervous and reproductive systems in ways that are not fully known.

Two years in the making, the 288-page book advocates an alternative approach to controlling pests known as integrated pest management (IPM). IPM methods rely primarily on biological and ecological interventions rather than on chemical ones.

Published by Consumers Union, the book summarises the origins of current regulatory policies, provides a wealth of information about the history and promise of IPM, and maps out a transition blueprint to make IPM the predominant strategy by 2020. The book also examines many IPM efforts and lists dozens of World Wide Web sites dealing with IPM.

Benbrook, along with fellow authors Edward Groth III, Jean Halloran, Michael Hansen, and Sandra Marquardt, describe IPM as a ``continuum'' ranging from low IPM to high IPM, depending on the extent to which ecological and biological controls replace chemical pesticides. High IPM, also called biointensive IPM by CU, is defined as reliance on reduced-risk pesticides only when other, non-chemical pest control measures fail.

Benbrook is a Washington consultant and a former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture. He also is a member of WFRR's advisory board. He spoke with WFRR about IPM research and development activities, how biotechnology breakthroughs will affect pest management, and about the many recommendations in the book, which range from calls for increased federal funding of IPM research to ways to bring 100 percent of all crop acreage under medium and high IPM by 2020.

"Pest Management at the Crossroads" is available for $35.95 from Professional Mailing and Distribution Services Inc., PO Box 2013, Annapolis Junction, Maryland 20701; 301-617-7815. In addition, the book can be ordered through its WWW site: www.pmac.net.

WFRR: How did this project get started?

Benbrook: Consumers Union had carried out a number of pesticide and pest management-related projects in the 1980s and early 1990s, and had reached a judgment that there was really very little change being brought about in pest management systems in the United States, nor in the way the government was dealing with pests and pesticides. It was clear that we had profound gridlock in the regulatory arena, and also that most of the emphasis in the Department of Agriculture in its research and extension programs, and other pest management-related programs, was trying to help farmers work with pesticide-based systems to make them safer, deal with problems of genetic resistance to pesticides, and discover and bring on the market new pesticides fast enough to replace old ones that weren't working well enough anymore.

We decided that we would step back and take a look at the entire range of national policies and programs and institutions that shape the way pests are controlled and look where there were real opportunities to accelerate the development and adoption of biointensive IPM systems in the field. The choice of the title was deliberate. We think that it's time for the country to make some distinct changes in direction. Where we are headed now is not going to be satisfying to anyone.

WFRR: Can you talk a little about the general philosophy of pesticide regulation in the United States?

Benbrook: All of the regulation and all of the science base of risk assessment are founded on the assumption that you can take one pesticide out of this mix and study it in isolation, assuming that all other things are equal and don't matter. We know now that's an erroneous assumption. While risk assessment science is moving forward, we need to acknowledge that relatively little is known about the causes of many diseases and health problems. Hopefully soon, regulators will accept that science does not have all the answers and as a result adopt a more conservative approach in setting ``safe'' levels.

It's also very clear that many of the problems with pesticides in terms of public health and the environment arise from the interactions of several different products and technologies and the ways that pesticides are used.

The complexity of these interactions is daunting, and both risk assessment and regulatory policy tools have not kept pace with our recognition and understanding of these interactions. It is for this reason that we reached the conclusion that, based on the current levels of pesticide use and the current average toxicity of pesticides that are actually being applied, there are still substantial risks from pesticides, including many new kinds of risks. We concluded that certain portions of the population, at certain parts of their lives, are in fact being exposed to combinations of pesticides that could be posing health risks to them.

WFRR: I've heard it said that integrated pest management is difficult to define. Does it mean different things to different people?

Benbrook: Chapter 7 in the book describes in great detail the evolution of the term ``integrated pest management'', how the term got stretched and pulled by different constituencies who wanted to use it to encompass their version of good pest management for the future.

To us, the distinguishing characteristic of IPM systems as you move along the continuum is the degree to which a pest management system is dependent on treatment-oriented interventions, like spraying a chemical, versus biologically based methods and practices that are preventive in nature, and which either keep pests out or manage their population using these multi-tactic biointensive IPM systems. So to us, the distinguishing characteristic is a shift in reliance from treatment with chemicals to prevention with multi-tactic systems.

Probably one of the most significant contributions of the book is the articulation of the continuum and the recommendation that USDA and [the Environmental Protection Agency] adopt this methodology, which is solidly grounded in good science and the sort of ecological principles that initially gave rise to the term IPM.

WFRR: Who's doing IPM research now? Are there any emerging research trends?

Benbrook: There's a great deal of research going on both by government and the academic sector. Increasingly IPM research is grower-led; groups of growers are coming together through commodity boards or local organisations like California Clean in California or Practical Farmers of Iowa in Iowa. They're discussing among themselves their pest management problems, and they're inviting in experts from local land grant universities. Often, independent crop consultants are heavily involved in these new teams that are forming to address practical problems in the field.

WFRR: I would imagine that growers also are affected by consumers in their area. I was struck by a photograph in the book of an orchard separated from a suburban community only by a fence.

Benbrook: Absolutely. You picked up one of the examples of where you have intensive crop production<197>grapes, a citrus orchard, strawberries, ornamentals in California, in Florida, near populated centres. In such circumstances, you're just not going to be able to aerially apply organophosphate insecticides every four days. You just can't do it. You've got to develop some other way to manage insects. The expectations of neighbours and consumers are really where the leverage is coming from in encouraging growers to take more seriously the need to invest some of their talent, their managerial attention, and some money in progressing toward biointensive IPM.

WFRR: What's the secret to getting consumers involved?

Benbrook: It's a big challenge. Almost a third of the recommendations chapter addresses IPM labelling, consumer education, and the role of the retail sector in providing a way for consumers to buy food that's produced in environmentally friendly ways.

I'm involved now with a project that has been developed with the World Wildlife Fund and the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association. This is an effort to develop a baseline measure of IPM adoption among all 72,000 acres of potato production in Wisconsin; set measurable goals for progress along the IPM continuum; link adoption of IPM to reduction in pesticide use; and virtually eliminate highly toxic pesticide use in Wisconsin potatoes, with attainment of these goals verified by independent third parties. If we are able to achieve these goals, then World Wildlife Fund will work with other consumer organisations and stakeholders in the state to develop a label that's going to go on bags of Wisconsin potatoes, acknowledging that these potatoes were grown with pest management systems that are environmentally friendly and have less impact on wildlife. And the market research by the Wisconsin potato growers, and many other people, show that there are consumers out there that are looking for that kind of produce and will spend a nickel or so more per bag.

WFRR: Obviously, developing and implementing IPM systems is a sophisticated procedure. What will drive the education process?

Benbrook: One of the major differences between a chemical-intensive system and a biointensive system is that a chemical-intensive system really is fairly simple and requires a limited number of judgments. A biointensive system, on the other hand, is always going to involve the combination of many practices, where the burden in managing pests is distributed across many different practices and tactics, because no one thing is powerful enough to just knock down everything in its path, like the application of a broad spectrum insecticide can do.

But we also point out, and I think the evidence is very clear, that once these systems are in place, they can become as simple as, and certainly much cheaper than, chemical-intensive systems. When you use chemical-intensive systems, you're undermining the free biological and ecological pest management tools that could be a part of your farm. But when you develop a biointensive IPM system and get it fine-tuned, often you just don't have much of the pest pressure that conventional growers deal with on an annual basis. Yes, you'll be spending more money on scouting and things like pheromones and biopesticides, but you also may be entirely avoiding a series of secondary pests that could require frequent sprays.

WFRR: Is the United States the leader in IPM research and activities?

Benbrook: The United States is definitely the leader in the development of biointensive IPM systems and technologies in high-value fruit and vegetable crops. No question about it. There certainly are clusters of producers in other countries that are farther along in the adoption of certain IPM systems. For example, the Calca Valley in Colombia is one of the most intensively farmed regions in the world. It's almost all sugar cane. One of the toughest pests in sugar around the world is sugar cane borer. There's a lot of organophosphate insecticide applied on sugar cane borer in the United States. In Colombia, they don't apply any. They have a very effective biointensive IPM system that rests on the release of trichogramma wasps by airplanes. They spray wasps like sugar cane growers in Florida spray insecticides.

There is growing interest in New Zealand in adopting biointensive IPM systems and trying to position agricultural products from New Zealand as value-added, as IPM-grown and environmentally safe. Both the New Zealand government and New Zealand agriculture industry have made a strong commitment to this. I think that U.S. growers in California and the Pacific Northwest that compete with New Zealand for Japanese and Korean markets are paying attention to this because, in the increasingly open and competitive world markets, one of the legitimate grounds to distinguish your products is quality. The way that food is grown, and the presence or lack of pesticide residues, are clearly among the quality attributes many consumers care about.

If U.S. agriculture does not take advantage of its leadership position in biointensive IPM systems, other countries will certainly step forward and do just that.

WFRR: Could you talk a little about current IPM research efforts in the biotechnology arena?

Benbrook: One of the reasons that we chose the title ``Pest Management at the Crossroads'' is because of what we believe to be the choices American agriculture is making in the area of biotechnology. We believe that the tools of biotechnology can make many valuable contributions to the development of biointensive IPM systems. One example the breeding of plant varieties that have heightened immune response and capacity to deal with a given level of pest pressure. We think truly phenomenal new technologies will evolve from these applications of biotechnology.

But as we look today at where the money is going in biotechnology, particularly in the private sector, the pattern is clear. Pesticide companies are using biotechnology to develop proprietary products, usually seed-based products, that lock farmers into using proprietary pesticides. They're doing this because they're smart business people, and it's something that is doable now because of the state of the technology.

In the case of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic plants, we think the evidence is clear that widespread planting of these varieties is going to accelerate the emergence of resistance to all Bt-based insecticides. This is a major problem that consumers need to be aware of. Bt-based insecticides are the foundation of many safe insect pest management programs around the world. The reason that there's not a lot of insecticide residues in many fruits and vegetables today often is because farmers have adopted Bt-based worm control programs.

Bt is a natural compound that chemical companies and biotech companies isolated and refined. They also have figured out how to ferment and formulate Bt so that it can be applied as an insecticide. But in reality, Bt is a natural resource, and we challenge the pesticide industry, and regulators, and the agriculture community not to squander the effectiveness of Bt in order to have five or 10 years of profits from Bt-transgenic crop varieties. The problems with Bt cotton this summer clearly show that there are going to be insects that survive. And if there are insects that survive, resistance is going to emerge in a matter of, some scientists are saying, three to five years.

The book also raises questions with herbicide-tolerant plant varieties for the same reason, the emergence of weeds that are resistant to the herbicides for which tolerance is bred into these crop varieties. There are now over 270 species of weeds in the United States that are resistant to herbicides.

We think that for this reason these herbicide-tolerant plant varieties are going to be a commercial disappointment, and they may also leave farmers without nearly as many tools to draw from. We would like to see farmers adopt integrated weed management systems that rely less on herbicides in general and more on other practices. Ironically, herbicide-tolerant crop varieties, if adopted widely, are likely to force farmers to rely less on herbicides, because the expansion of resistance will render herbicides less cost-effective.

WFRR: How supportive of IPM is the Clinton administration and Congress?

Benbrook: In 1993, in an unprecedented action, President Clinton proposed a three-agency IPM initiative, a commitment to get IPM adopted on 75 percent of the nation's crop acreage by the year 2000. Since making that commitment, the USDA has included in its budget proposal to Capitol Hill, in each of the last three budget cycles, a substantial increase in IPM research and education funding. By substantial, I mean increases on the order of 20 percent or so, US$25 million, $30 million increases. The proposed increase in the last year was not as great, because they haven't gotten any of the past increases, and they decided to become a bit more modest in their request in the hope that Congress would go along with an increase on the order of $15 million. But Congress still refused to go along and has done nothing to help USDA move along with the IPM initiative.

WFRR: Can you explain the apparent disconnect between what the administration has requested and what Congress has funded?

Benbrook: I think there are influential political constituencies that oppose IPM, and they oppose IPM because they view it as a threat to the status quo in terms of availability of pesticides and the right to use them as growers see fit.

USDA has worked very hard to get these relatively modest increases through the Congress. It's pretty unusual for Congress to take exception and not approve an internal redirection of funding such as this. It's not like USDA was asking to increase the deficit to support an expansion of IPM research and education. That's not the case. USDA fully funded its proposed increases by shifting priorities.

We're hopeful that CU can draw together a broad-based coalition of progressive farm groups, pest management professionals, consumer and environmental groups to go before Congress and make the case for increased levels of funding, coupled with a shift in the focus of research to biointensive IPM.

That's really the heart of our recommendations on IPM research and education. We call for a doubling of total research funding over five fiscal years from today's level, which is about $130 million to $260 million per year, coupled with a shift in the focus from chemical-intensive systems, which really account for 85 percent of the money now, to these biointensive systems. Within five years, we want the biointensive systems to be the focus of 75 percent of this $260 million. We are going to be much more assertive in calling for policies that consciously shift the focus toward these more biointensive systems, and we're expecting a lively debate.

WFRR: Do you expect that a lot of the recommendations in the book will be adopted?

Benbrook: The recommendations chapter has some strong medicine in it. There are elements that probably are going to take some time to come to fruition, but I actually think that getting the increase in funding for IPM and shifting the focus to more biointensive systems is going to happen. It may not happen exactly as fast, or precisely in the way that we recommend, but that's not so important. What is important is that a lot of people take a fresh look at what IPM can do in solving pest management and pesticide risk problems. Based on our review of what's going on in American agriculture, we believe that both farmers and consumers should be encouraged by how much progress is being made, and that the rate of progress can be markedly enhanced if we all work together.

I think progress toward biointensive IPM is going to create its own momentum. What now triggers a big political fight, and to some seems so risky and implausible, will in two or three years appear both practical and inevitable. There's going to be a growing movement toward these kinds of pest management systems because they're essential, much safer, and also more reliable. And they can save farmers money. That combination is irresistible.