When President Clinton signed the new Food Quality and Protection Act he said, "I like to think of it as the 'peace of mind' act, because it will give parents the peace of mind that comes from knowing that fruits, vegetables and grains they set down in front of their children are safe." But can farmers have peace of mind?

Yes, they can have peace of mind because pesticide use tops the list of concerns among consumers -our customers- about farming. Farmers can have peace of mind because the Delaney Clause zero-risk cancer standard, which would have eliminated many pesticides is no longer law.

Now a dose of reality as compared to what you have read about the relaxation of regulatory pressure on pesticides as a result of the "great compromise." No, you may not gain peace of mind when discovering that the new standard is more strict than Delaney, at least the way EPA and FDA was interpreting it. As our article, on page 16 says, Delaney was interpreted as posing a one in a million chance of additional cancer cases from all crop uses of a pesticide. The new, tougher standard --"a reasonable certainty of no harm to sensitive populations"--applies to all pesticides, not only cancer-causing ones. Our article notes one expert's early estimate that about two-thirds of existing pesticide tolerances on the books will be affected.

Somewhat ironically, as has been pointed out on this page more than once, if agriculture would have backed original efforts to incorportate the recommendations of the 1987 "Delaney Paradox" report into law farmers wouldn't be facing this new and stricter standard. But there is no peace of mind in "I told you so."

There is peace of mind in recognizing that the new law shines the spotlight on food safety and once implemented will end this costly and divisive debate. It also helps California because the state produces the safest food in the world in terms of average levels of pesticide residues and dietary exposure. It helps because California already has the strictest laws and the most comprehensive state pesticide regulatory program in the country.

California agriculture can keep peace of mind by recommiting to and accelerating biointensive IPM efforts. The Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, California Clean growers and individual farmers have already forged a path to follow. Some say that IPM is already being practiced in California, while others say no one knows what IPM means.

Thus our challenge: California agriculture should make a committment to accelerate progress along the IPM continuum. By the year 2000 IPM should be used on all acreage, and 25 percent of our crops, on average, should be under biointensive IPM. The industry should develop an IPM, integrated-farming- system mindset within the farming community and make it public in all of our messages. A systems approach, in addition to biointensive IPM, takes into consideration soil health and fertility; air quality, water quality and efficiency, crop health, quality enhancement, habitat improvement,and worker safety and quality of life issues.

If you want to increase your committment to IPM and the systems approach to farming read a new book on IPM (out in late September from Consumers Union), Pest Management at the Crossroads, by Charles Benbrook. The book contains dozens of examples of the successes California farmers have achieved by allowing a little biology back on the Farm, as well as the adverse consequences of an overly pesticide-dependent systems. It also tells how the new pesticide law will push this change, even if you are stalled at the crossroads.

As these developments unfold, California farmers will find themselves once again at the vanguard of change. Some will respond to the changes by calling them unwarranted, not based on science and a threat. Others will accept science and the reality of lower tolerances and move along the IPM/systems approach continuum. This is your wake-up call.