From: Badger Common'Tater
September 2001
Volume 53, Number 9
Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association

About Jeff Dlott
Title: Principal
Organization: RealToolbox
Hometown: Watsonville, California
Activities/Organizations: President, Protected Harvest Board of Directors
Family: Rebecca (spouse) and daughter Chloe, 7 years old
Hobbies: Natural History & Woodworking.

INTRODUCTION

Consider the following market research findings:

* Food safety concerns impact 88% of buying decisions.

* One in two Americans switches product brands based on environmental friendliness.

* Nearly 50% of consumers look for environmental labeling on products.

* Retail sales of natural foods is the fastest growing segment of the grocery industry, increasing over 20% a year.

Three out of four shoppers consider pesticide use in producing foods a serious issue--making "Protected Harvest" certified "Healthy Grown" potatoes powerfully appealing.

Healthy Grown is more than a produce brand. It is a response to consumer demand, an answer to retailer needs, and a commitment to the earth and all that lives upon it. Conceived in the mid-1990s by a group of Wisconsin potato growers as an experiment in large-scale, reduced-pesticide agriculture, the project quickly gained the collaborative research and development support of the Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers Association, the World Wildlife Fund and the University of Wisconsin.

Today, Healthy Grown is an emerging national consumer brand. Protected Harvest, the independent, non-profit organization that oversees and certifies the brand's stringent growing standards, has garnered the attention of environmental groups and progressive food industry leaders across the country. The World Wildlife Fund partnered with growers to pioneer Protected Harvest's innovative environmental standards-protecting wildlife, the environment and reducing reliance on pesticides.

Jeff Dlott, Ph.D., is founder and Principal of RealToolbox, a consulting firm that provides design and evaluation services for natural resource conservation programs, including the WPVGA's collaboration with the WWF. RealToolbox services include facilitation, strategic planning, organizational development, program management, and documentation and evaluation services.

Jeff received his Ph.D. in entomology at UC Berkeley in 1993 where he combined ecological field research with social sciences to better understand farmers' perceptions of, and decision-making in, sustainable agricultural systems. Jeff has worked for the last eight years with non-profit organizations, private foundations, businesses, and government agencies designing, implementing and/or evaluating collaborative projects in agricultural landscapes and, more recently, marine systems.

In the following interview, Dlott discusses the Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers Association's collaboration with the World Wildlife Fund, and the resulting eco-label for potatoes.

Can you provide a little background on the collaboration between the World Wildlife Fund and the WPVGA, and how the eco-label project has come to fruition?

In 1996, World Wildlife Fund and WPVGA signed a Memo of Understanding (MOU) to work together on common objectives. A few years later, the University of Wisconsin officially joined the collaboration. The first accomplishments of the collaboration included the development and adoption of BioIPM practices and credible tools to measure the adoption of BioIPM practices and estimate pesticide toxicity per acre. These successes created the opportunity to pursue one of the other original MOU objectives-creating market-based incentives to reward growers that adopt BioIPM practices and reduce the toxicity associated with using pesticides.

The WWF/WPVGA/UW Collaboration reached a point last year where it was clear that the research, measurement systems, and grower adoption levels were in place to take the next steps of working on market-based incentives. The first item was to make sure each collaboration partner organization was ready and able to move forward. Sarah Lynch at WWF was key in keeping the partners focused and committed through these important steps especially as it became clear that big changes were in store.

The collaboration partners quickly realized that to maintain the credibility and integrity of an eco-label, it was necessary to separate the marketing functions from the standards, certification, and chain of custody functions. Cynthia Barstow, an environmental marketing consultant, facilitated the development of marketing plans, names and logos of a new brand (Healthy Grown) and a new eco-label (Protected Harvest). The Healthy Grown brand is focused on marketing certified potatoes and is a separate legal entity from the independent nonprofit organization Protected Harvest. The nonprofit Protected Harvest is responsible for maintaining high standards, and insuring the integrity of the certification and chain of custody procedures, and conducting consumer outreach.

The collaboration's success in encouraging the establishment of the brand Healthy Grown and the separate nonprofit eco-label Protected Harvest was instrumental in World Wildlife Fund allowing the use of the WWF and Panda logo's on bags of certified potatoes. WWF is testifying that Protected Harvest standards are high and the eco-labeling process possesses integrity and credibility.

What are some of the BioIPM practices that participating growers are expected to employ? How are these practices measured?

The BioIPM standards are arranged into nine sections: scouting, information sources, field management, general pest management, weed management, insect management, disease management, soil and water quality, and storage. The standard is based on a positive point system; better practices result in more points and less desirable practices get little or no points. Each of the nine sections has a minimum score ranging from 40 to 50 percent of the available points. Growers must achieve 70 percent of the overall points to qualify for certification.

The general approaches of implementing practices that prevent pest problems and collecting the necessary data to make informed and knowledgeable decisions are built into the overall standard. For example, the practice of rotating a field away from other fields to minimize pest pressure (e.g., Colorado Potato Beetle) earns high points. Scouting, record-keeping, and decision-making practices are also awarded high points. For example, the standards go into detail on scouting frequently, using a systematic method that samples a whole field, keeping written records, and using written or electronic records to track trends in pest populations to make decisions. There are some practices that growers must employ to meet the BioIPM standard such as scouting fields, keeping scouting records, rotating fields out of potatoes for at least one year, and removing or burying cull piles.

The pesticide portion of the standard is based on a toxicity rating system. The grower cannot exceed a set number of toxicity units established for short-season (800 toxicity units) and long-season (1,200 toxicity units) potatoes that are adjusted for late blight pressure. These toxicity unit upper limits are based on the lowest 10 percent of toxicity unit scores (lower is better) from industry wide data collected by the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistic Service in 1998. In addition to the toxicity unit limits, there are 12 pesticides that cannot be used for certification eligibility, and a list of materials that may be used with restrictions.

Can you explain the toxicity rating for the various crop protection products used by potato growers, and how that rating was established?

Protected Harvest has adopted a multi-attribute index system developed through a stakeholder process with representatives from the grower, crop consultant, university researcher, and environmental communities involved in the original WWF/WPVGA/UW collaboration. Dr. Charles Benbrook is the lead architect of this measurement system that is being used to evaluate the relative toxicity of pesticides applied during the growing season. The system involves the calculation of a toxicity factor for individual pesticide active ingredients, which incorporates four attributes: (1) acute mammalian toxicity; (2) chronic mammalian toxicity; (3) ecotoxicity (risks to small aquatic organisms, fish, and birds); and (4) impacts on the viability of biointensive IPM (effects on beneficial organisms, bees, and resistance management).

Toxicity factors are then multiplied by the volume of active ingredient applied to create toxicity units, which are the unit that reflects the total toxicity associated with an individual pesticide application per acre. A chart of toxicity factors and average toxicity units per application can be found on www.protectedharvest.org.

Who serves on the Protected Harvest board, and how do they go about certifying the growing practices of growers participating in the eco-labeling program?

The Protected Harvest board of directors possesses broad expertise, experience in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, and a commitment to support environment goals and sustainable agriculture and food systems. The 11-member board of directors includes:

Jeff Dlott, a President of the Board of Directors
Ganesan Balachander PhD & MBA, Deputy Director & CFO, The Nature Conservancy, Compatible Ventures Group, Virginia,
Andy Diercks, Farmer, Coloma Farms, Wisconsin
Randy Duckworth JD, Executive Director, WPVGA, Wisconsin
Polly Hoppin PhD, Senior Advisor for Environmental Health, US EPA, Massachusetts
Paul Johnson, Farmer and Forester, Former Chief, USDA NRCS, Iowa
Jeannine Kenney, Director, Communications, Public Policy, and Member Outreach, National Cooperative Business Association, Washington DC
Edmund Lamacchia, National Produce Coordinator, Whole Foods Market, California
Charles Mellinger PhD, Technical Director, Glades Crop Care, Inc., Florida
Cliff Ohmart PhD, Director Integrated Farming and Research, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, California
Jeff Wyman PhD, Professor, Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin,
Jason Clay PhD, Senior Fellow, World Wildlife Fund, will be joining the board in the near future.

The certification procedure is a multi-step process. Each grower submits an application to Protected Harvest that indicates which fields they are seeking to certify. Protected Harvest has contracted Scientific Certification Systems (www.scs1.com), an internationally recognized certifier and auditor, to conduct third-party audits of grower's compliance with the Protected Harvest standards and other application materials. These other materials include a handler identification sheet and a signed affidavit that all information provided by the grower is known to be true. The audited standards and application material are sent by Scientific Certification Systems to Protected Harvest's certification committee for final approval. Protected Harvest makes the final certification finding and communicates the outcome to each grower.

In terms of program standards, what do you see as the biggest challenges facing growers in the future?

I see two big challenges ahead in terms of strengthening the program standards. First, there is a need to refine and add to the soil and water quality section including developing better measures for soil quality and reducing the toxicity associated with fumigation. The Protected Harvest board will be adopting a policy with specific targets and timelines for reducing the toxicity associated with fumigation. There are excellent researchers in Wisconsin, including Drs. Leslie Cooperband and Ann MacGuidwin, who have been investigating ways to improve soil quality and reduce soil borne pest problems. A challenge will be insuring adequate and sustained funding to support research, demonstration and large-scale validation efforts to find economically feasible alternatives.

The second major challenge is to develop meaningful standards for improving ecosystem function including biodiversity in and around farmland. This has been a long-term objective of the original WWF/WPVGA/UW collaboration and influenced the use of a multi-attribute index system where pesticide toxicity attributes include impacts to mammals, birds, fish, other aquatic organisms, insects, etc. The next step is to develop direct measures and indicators to assess ecosystem functions including biodiversity, water cycling, nutrient cycling and other key ecological processes that occur at a larger scale than individual farms. Again, a strong commitment by all parties involved will be required to secure and sustain funding to develop, validate, and incorporate such measures into Protected Harvest's standards.

Some industry members have expressed concerns that the program may raise red flags with consumers about the safety of their produce. Do you see this as an issue?

The major potato growing states have produced an overabundance of safe potatoes too often sold at less than the cost of production. This is not an economically, environmentally, or socially sustainable situation. Farms go out of business, families and communities suffer, decision-makers are pushed to reduce costs and increase yields often at a cost to the environment. To me, the more important red flags are the number of equipment auctions last year, the lobbying for government subsides to dump safe potatoes, and the dread felt by too many farmers and bankers when discussing financing.

This program is about giving consumers a choice to buy a product that was produced in a healthier way for the environment and rewards growers for their investment of time and money to reduce environmental impacts and sustain families and communities.

Sure, consumer confidence in the safety of produce is a vital issue and this program does not want to undermine that confidence. However, I don't see the immediate threat to the produce industry coming from a lack of consumer confidence in safety. I think there is a much more basic threat - selling food for less than it costs to produce and not having plans in place in terms of new products, new markets, and better industry coordination to limit overproduction.

What are the marketing implications of the eco-label?

The brand Healthy Grown and the eco-label Protected Harvest is about offering consumers a value-added choice. Value in terms of a quality, competitively-priced product that wears its values on its sleeve-in this case the Healthy Grown, Protected Harvest and World Wildlife Fund logos on the bag.

We believe environmentally concerned and health-conscious consumers, seeking an affordable choice, will be eager to buy this product.

The key marketing issue this year is getting store buyers to try the product and get it on retail shelves where we can then evaluate consumer response. I'm optimistic that once it's on retail shelves the product will move. I anticipate tough going at first to get the major retailers interested enough to stock the eco-labeled potatoes. That is why Healthy Grown is launching a marketing campaign directed at retail buyers and Protected Harvest is working on a consumer outreach campaign to generate enough consumer interest in the eco-label to spark retailers to try the product. The success of the program at that poin

Last Updated on 9/21/01
Email: information@hillnet.com