European Community Guidelines for 

 Integrated Fruit Production (IFP): 

 A Market-Driven Approach 



William M. Coli 



Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 



In June, Ron Prokopy and I attended the 

 Nineteenth International Congress of Entomol- 

 ogy, held in Beijing, Peoples Republic of China. 

 At the Congress, Dr. Erich Dickler from Ger- 

 many described the extent to which Integrated 

 Fruit Production (IFP) techniques are practiced 

 in Europe. IFP is defined as "the economical 

 production of high quality fruit, giving priority 

 to ecologically safer methods, minimizing the 

 undesirable side effects and use of 

 agrichemicals, to enhance the safeguards to the 

 environment and human health." 



Dr. Dickler indicated that certain countries 

 (e.g., Italy), grow up to 60% of their pome fruits 

 according to IFP guidelines established by the 

 International Organization for Biological Con- 

 trol (IOBC) and the International Society for 

 Horticultural Science (ISHS). Growers using 

 IFP benefit in the marketplace because of inter- 

 est on the part of "Green" (i.e., environmentally 

 conscious) consumers in products grown using 

 reduced or no pesticides. 



For those not familiar with the term, the 

 "Green" Movement started a number of years 

 ago as a way for European citizens to respond to 

 environmental degradation on the continent. 

 Several countries have "Green" political parties 

 which have elected representatives to parlia- 

 ment. At the same time, "Green" products, 

 including fruits and vegetables, have found 

 their way into commerce. 



According to Dr. Dickler and other European 

 scientists, the market for "Green" produce is 

 strong and getting stronger. Some countries 

 (e.g., Poland), which have not experienced such 

 extensive environmental degradation as others 

 (e.g., the former East Germany) and which to 



date have used many fewer tons of pesticides 

 than their neighbors, are attempting to keep 

 pesticide use below western European levels as 

 a way to take advantage of the "Green" market 

 in the European Economic Community (EEC). 

 The "Green" market is so strong that certain 

 buyers will only buy pome fruits grown under 

 Integrated Fruit Production. Hence, farmers 

 who wish to achieve higher prices and overcome 

 price softness in years of high production, are 

 reportedly turning to the IFP Guidelines. 



The concept that growers using integrated 

 farming techniques should be recognized in the 

 market place is one of the underlying reasons 

 why the University of Massachusetts has been 

 pursuing the possibility of IPM recognition since 

 the late 1980's. Specific details and updates on 

 the status of this work are described in other 

 articles in this issue. For the remainder of this 

 article, I will describe the EEC IFP (First Edi- 

 tion, January, 1991) guidelines and point out 

 their similarities and dissimilarities with cur- 

 rent Massachusetts Apple IPM Guidelines. 



The IFP guidelines are similar to Massachu- 

 setts IPM Guidelines in that they have a num- 

 ber of sections (13) covering many aspects of 

 fruit production and protection. Generally 

 speaking, they are much more comprehensive 

 and restrictive than Massachusetts IPM Guide- 

 lines. For example, the IFP guidelines cover 

 site, rootstock, cultivar, and planting systems 

 for new orchards; irrigation; tree training and 

 management; efficient and safe spray applica- 

 tion methods; conserving the orchard environ- 

 ment; and harvesting, storage, and fruit qual- 

 ity. Much of the contents of the above sections 

 are common sense, e.g., pick favorable sites, 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1992 



21 



