A new study on pesticide use out this week from Consumers Union calls for more reliance on IPM.

Barry Jacobsen, a professor of plant pathology at Montana State University, has served as coordinator of the government's Integrated Pest Management effort for a year and a half.

A Clinton administration initiative, the USDA effort is driven by advisory panels within local regions. These 23 regional teams, primarily made up of farmers, but also including University and environmental representation, are looking at what is needed to accomplish intensive IPM under their particular climate and cropping systems.

Jacobsen said farmers frequently begin to drive the effort once they have been convinced it's efficient -- as well as economical. On that point, he said where farmers have been able to adapt IPM methods, their pesticide use has declined 50 percent on average.

"That is not every year. Some years it's greater and some years it's less. Farmers have to have a full tool box to deal with their problems. You can't just have pesticides, (disease) resistant varieties or IPM. You've got to have everything. That is what the federal program is all about."

Asked if the Consumers Union getting involved in the debate was a positive development, Jacobsen said: "I think it can do more good. I think there are some half truths in it, but no outright lies. The fundamental science that (study author) Benbrook used is solid."

On the other hand, Jacobsen said a farmer is not going to get involved in a "harebrained scheme" without real confidence that it will work. Furthermore, the message that pesticides are bad isn't true.

Pesticides must be part of the mix of a biointensive IPM approach. Although biological controls may work most of the time in suppressing pests or diseases Jacobsen said "biological system outbreaks" can change the scenario.

These outbreaks of too many on a particular kind of insect or weed require pesticides to bring the system back into equilibrium without a yield loss for the grower.

As for Consumers Union's accusation that millions of fish and birds are killed every year by pesticide misuse, Jacobsen said, some are killed, but most of that is attributable to misuse of products. With modern labeling and permitting through EPA, off-target effects ought to be minimal to nonexistent.

Not to say that reducing chemical usage shouldn't be a goal. It benefits everyone but especially the farmer who, on average, spends 34 percent of his variable cost on pest control. Making U.S. farmers competitive in the world markets must address that cost, Jacobsen said.