Table 1. New England consumer and food industry attitudes toward IPM 

 labelling and certification. 



Response 



Consumer Farmstand Processor 



Retail & 

 wholesale 



Do you support the idea of IPM-Grown labelling? 



Number of replies 338 88 16 



YES(%) 84 57 69 



NO(%) 5 21 



Undecided (%) 11 23 31 



Would you buy IPM-labelled produce if it cost the same? 



Number of replies 340 87 15 



YES(%) 86 65 73 



NO(%) 5 20 7 



Undecided (%) 9 15 20 



Would you buy IPM-labelled produce if it cost somewhat (5%) more? 

 Number of replies 338 88 15 



YES(%) 49 30 33 



NO(%) 15 46 20 



Undecided (%) 37 25 47 



87 



67 

 14 

 20 



86 



61 



9 



30 



86 



27 

 49 

 33 



If an IPM program were started in your state, who should certify crops as meeting 

 IPM standards? 



Number of replies 



Dept of Agriculture (%) 

 Private Organization (%) 

 Farmer Organization (%) 

 Other (%) 

 Undecided (%) 



IPM-grown produce, to be any safer to eat than 

 conventional produce. Prokopy et al. (1980) 

 pointed out that the advantages of using IPM 

 are lower pest control costs and fewer detrimen- 

 tal effects on the agricultural environment. 

 Among respondents, a strong majority (78%), 

 agreed with the statement, "The use of IPM 

 helps the environment." 



Participants were presented with this para- 

 graph: 



A number of states in the Northeast are ex- 

 ploring the possibility of offering programs to 

 qualified farmers to have their crops certified as 

 "IPM-Grown." Growers who meet specific stan- 

 dards would be able to advertise or label their 

 food as meeting these standards. 



We then asked questions regarding IPM 

 labelling and certification (Table 1). Consumers 

 were very strong supporters of IPM labelling 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1992 



