A major new study published by Consumers Union (CU), a 60-year old consumer organizations, calls for a program "to reduce public health and environmental risks from pesticides at least 75 percent by the year 2020." The study advocates a dramatic increase in the use of integrated pest management as the vehicle to achieve that goal.

"High IPM," farming practices that rely on reduced-risk pesticides only when nonchemical measures don't work, is proposed as the "ultimate goal of pest management in all (agricultural) settings." CU believes crop acreage under high IPM, now about 6 percent of all tilled acreage, should be doubled by 2000; all household and urban pest control should be brought under high IPM by 2010, and 75 percent of all crop acreage should be subject to less than high degrees of IPM by 2010 and 100 percent under high IPM by 2020.

Pesticide Problems and Benefits
A major thesis of the study is that pesticides have delivered "a host of problems along with their benefits, " according to CU.

"Today, pesticide residues in food and drinking water put consumers at heightened risk for cancer and affect human nervous and reproductive systems in ways that are still not fully know," the CU study says.

"Pesticides blindly kill millions of fish and birds each year (according to the study) and disrupt intricate agricultural ecosystems, making it all the harder for farmers to manage the pest problems they face. And pesticides exact a toll on the economy, siphoning off billions of dollars to feed a research and regulatory apparatus that only grows fatter, not better."

Yet, in the harsh light of that context, the study's main author, Charles M. Benbrook, allows that some traditional pesticide use is needed. "I advocate pest management practices that are safe, sustainable, and profitable," he said in a candid interview with Ag Retailer. "Typically such systems will require some pesticides, usually selected from the less toxic materials that are out there."

"It is fair to say," Benbrook added, that reliance on pesticides is "excessive when essentially no other control alternatives are being used. If a farmer adopts the attitude that there's nothing I can do to avoid pests, so I'm just going to farm for maximum yields and use whatever pesticides I have to in order to deal with what's there, then that's really sort of asking for trouble; and in a lot of cases, it comes right along."

Benbrook is not optimistic (and somewhat realistic) that government -either the White House or Congress- will respond enthusiastically to the call for more federal involvement in promoting and enabling greater IPM use.

With Congress still under control of the Republicans and the White House under control of the Democrats. "I think we'll have pretty much a continuation of the stalemate...that we have now, whereby for anything to get through, it will have to be bipartisan," said Benbrook. In that environment, he added, "I think there can be some fine tuning and reforms around the edges, but I think it's unlikely there will be any dramatic change in law."

Proposals Unlikely to Move Fast, If at All
That puts several of the proposed changes advocated in the study, if not on hold, then on a slower-than preferred track. CU, through the study, endorses "multiple strategies," starting with research, as follows:

1. Federal funding for pest management research should be doubled over the next five years, with 75 percent of that directly supporting biointensive IPM. "Research in both the public and private sectors is ow skewed toward expanding reliance on chemical pesticides," CU says.

2. USDA and the Cooperative Extension Service "should emphasize training field-level pest managers in bio-intensive IPM". Education and certification programs should include expanded IPM training and "federal law should be rewritten to require proficiency in biointensive IPM for certification as a pesticide applicator," training now forbidden by law, the report says.

3. Cost-share incentives should be offered by USDA through crop insurance programs to help farmers "accelerate their progress toward biointensive IPM."

4. Corporations should make it company policy to buy IPM-grown products and use IPM-based pest management services. CU says Campbell Soup and Del Monte now require contract growers to minimize pesticide use. "Gerber, too shares with its growers information about successful pesticide use- reducing strategies."

5. "Consumers must study their enemy before deciding on a pest remedy," says CU. "Product labels are often designed merely to sell a product and provide information that may be biased or incomplete." CU urges consumers to "seek additional sources, including independent pest managers, county extension agents, local and state environmental agencies, books, and databases" for more information.

Benbrook Not Pleased With Pace of Progress
Crop protection companies have been marketing more "environmentally-friendly" products, but Benbrook thinks the transition is moving too slowly. "The message is, no, the transition from the more hazardous old chemistry to new biopesticides and new pest management approaches is not moving as fast as it ought to and as fast as society would like," he says.

The CU report, written by a team headed by Benbrook, uses the term "biointensive IPM" to define "the most advanced stage of IPM...that should be the ultimate goal of pest management in all settings."

Biointensive IPM is "a systems approach...based on an understanding of pest ecology," the report says. "It begins with steps to accurately diagnose the nature and source of pest problems, and then relies on a range of preventive tactics and biological controls to keep pest populations within acceptable limits. Reduced risk pesticides are used if other tactics have not been adequately effective, as a last resort and with care to minimize risks," says CU.

Benbrook is a former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Board on Agriculture. Before serving at NAS for seven years, he was a staff assistant to Rep. George Brown (D-CA) when Brown was chairman of what then was the House Agriculture COmmittee's Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research and Foreign Agriculture. Since 1990 he has operated his own consulting company in Washington.

CU publishes Consumer Reports and bills itself as "an independent, nonprofit testing and information gathering organization," serving only the consumer. "We are a comprehensive source of unbiased advice about products and services, personal finance, health, nutrition, and other consumer concerns. Since 1936, our mission has been to test products, inform the public, and protect consumers."