very low: 77% had not heard of IPM. Similarly, 

 a survey in New York state (Burgess, 1989) 

 found that 73% of New York state consumers 

 had not heard of IPM. Clearly, if an IPM 

 labelling program is to be successful, there is a 

 need for extensive consumer education. 

 Farmstand owners, not surprisingly, generally 

 were knowledgeable about IPM (94% had heard 

 of it) from participation in Cooperative Exten- 

 sion training as well as other industry sources. 

 In order to understand how the various 

 groups perceived pesticide use, we asked respon- 

 dents how strongly they agreed or disagreed 

 with the following statements: 



* There are no good reasons to use pesticides to 

 grow food. 



* Pesticides in food are responsible for a high 

 incidence of human cancer. 



* The government adequately regulates of the 

 use of pesticides. 



* Farmers use pesticides safely. 



* Most pesticides are safe if used according to 

 government regulations. 



* Foods with very small amounts of pesticide in 

 them are safe to eat. 



Based on their overall response to these 

 questions, respondents were classified as "per- 

 ceiving current pesticide use to be necessary, 

 safe, adequately regulated, and a minimal 

 health risk, "undecided," or "perceiving current 

 pesticide use to be unnecessary, unsafe, inad- 

 equately regulated, and a health risk." 



A slightly larger proportion of respondents 

 (44%) considered current pesticide use to be 

 necessary, safe, adequately regulated by the 

 government, and a minimal health risk, com- 

 pared to those (40%) who did not. Farmstand 

 owners and retailers were more likely to con- 

 sider current pesticide use to be necessary, safe, 

 adequately regulated, and a minimal health 

 risk, compared to other respondents. 



Respondents were given the following de- 

 scription of IPM: 



Integrated Pest Management or IPM is an 

 approach to crop protection that uses informa- 

 tion about weather, pest numbers, and growing 

 conditions to make pest control decisions. Farm- 

 ers in IPM programs generally use non-chemical 



and chemical methods to control pests. Non- 

 chemical methods include beneficial insects, re- 

 sistant crop varieties, crop rotation, cultivation, 

 and pruning. Pesticides are used only when pest 

 numbers reach levels which will cause signifi- 

 cant crop damage. Pesticides are selected and 

 applied in a manner that causes the least disrup- 

 tion to the environment. 



In a number of crops, IPM programs have 

 been effective in reducing pesticide use. In Mas- 

 sachusetts, IPM programs for fruit and vegetable 

 crops have reduced pesticide use by 40 to 60 

 percent. 



After reading this description, participants 

 were asked whether they agreed or disagreed 

 with a series of statements. Two-thirds (66%) 

 agreed with the statement, "When farmers have 

 determined that pest levels in a crop have reached 

 levels that will cause significant crop loss, the use 

 of pesticides is justified." Sixty- three percent 

 agreed with the statement, "Produce grown us- 

 ing IPM is safer than non-IPM-grown food." In 

 response to the statement, "Produce grown us- 

 ing IPM is as safe as organically-grown food," 

 33% agreed; 34% were undecided; and 29% 

 disagreed or strongly disagreed. 



It is striking that before reading about IPM, 

 32% of consumers agreed with the statement 

 that there is no reason to use pesticides on food, 

 but after reading about IPM, 60% felt that 

 pesticide use was justified under IPM. Still, 

 there was a clear difference between response by 

 the farming and non-farming respondents: the 

 majority of respondents (60-70%) in the non- 

 farm sectors agreed that pesticide use is justifi- 

 able under IPM guidelines, but nearly all (97%) 

 of farmstand owners felt pesticide use is justified 

 under IPM. 



The majority of consumers, retailers, whole- 

 salers, and processors felt that IPM-grown pro- 

 duce is safer than non-IPM-grown food. 

 Farmstand owners were much more likely than 

 others to agree that IPM-grown produce is as 

 safe as organically-grown food, while many re- 

 spondents in all categories were undecided 

 about this statement. An Institute of Food 

 Technologists' report (Anonymous, 1990), how- 

 ever, indicates that many scientists do not con- 

 sider organic produce and, by our extrapolation, 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1992 



