avoid frost pockets, plant small trees, supply 

 adequate soil moisture to insure steady growth, 

 conduct regular soil analyses, do not spray un- 

 der windy conditions, harvest fruit at the correct 

 time to maintain high internal and external 

 fruit quality, etc. 



Certain aspects of these and other sections, 

 however, require the grower to avoid certain 

 materials and practices. For example, sprayers 

 which produce a very fine droplet size and clean 

 cultivation of orchards both are not permitted. 

 The guidelines are most restrictive in dealing 

 with agricultural chemicals, separating chemi- 

 cals into either a green list (permitted), yellow 

 list (restricted), and a red list (not permitted). 

 Chemical classification is based on nine criteria, 

 including toxicity to key natural enemies, toxic- 

 ity to man, pollution of ground and surface 

 water, ability to stimulate pests, persistence, 

 and selectivity. 



Among the list of materials which are not 

 permitted are chemical thinners and synthetic 

 growth regulators (except under certain condi- 

 tions); pyrethroid and organochlorine insecti- 

 cides and acaricides; residual herbicides and 

 herbicides which contaminate groundwater (ex- 

 cept simazine in both instances); and post har- 

 vest chemical treatments. 



Permitted with restrictions are the benzimi- 

 dazole fungicides (for blossom wilt and storage 

 rot only); dithiocarbamate fungicides (maxi- 

 mum of 3 applications per season, and not in 

 succession); and sulphur [limited to 3 kg/ha (2.7 



Pounds /acre) per application, and not more 

 than 3 sprays per season]. 



Can Massachusetts fruit growers conform to 

 EEC IFP guidelines? Clearly, some could, while 

 others could not. A more important question is 

 whether typically independent growers would 

 be willing to have so many management deci- 

 sions preempted by some other entity. Growers 

 may be interested to compare the EEC IFP 

 guidelines with Massachusetts IPM standards, 

 which were developed in a manner so as to be as 

 unrestrictive as possible while still defining the 

 essence of IPM. 



For the foreseeable future, the EEC guide- 

 lines will have little or no impact on the Massa- 

 chusetts or the U.S. fruit industry. It is interest- 

 ing to note that the International Society for 

 Horticultural Science has asked Dr. Jerome 

 Hull of Michigan State University to summarize 

 the state of the art of Integrated Fruit Produc- 

 tion in the U.S. The EEC is rapidly becoming 

 more and more unified and governed by commu- 

 nity-wide laws, taxes, and standards. Although 

 IFP guidelines are market driven and not man- 

 datory, the day may come when fruit exported 

 from the U.S. will be expected to conform to 

 standards imposed by buyers. European bro- 

 kers of Certified IFP fruit could also attempt to 

 gain a market share in the U.S. We believe it is 

 important for Massachusetts growers to be 

 aware of changes occurring elsewhere in the 

 world and to be prepared to respond to future 

 marketing opportunities and challenges. 



22 



Fruit Notes, Fall, 1992 



