apples in 15 countries were included in IFP certifica- 

 tion programs. IFP is supported by European govern- 

 ment policies, subsidies, "green" taxes, and "green" mar- 

 keting, i.e. environmental education. 



The Stemilt GRC system rates growers' pesticide 

 use based on efficacy, worker safety, environmental 

 concerns, potential consumer exposure, biological dis- 

 ruption, and effects on beneficial insects and mites. To 

 qualify for the GRC label, pesticide use must score an 

 appropriate number of points. While an assessment of 

 the impacts of the program has not been completed, 

 growers' pesticide use decreased in response to the pro- 

 gram. Stemilt GRC-labelled fruit currently are distrib- 

 uted nationally and can be found in Massachusetts 

 stores. 



Alan Borst (Rural Development Administration, 

 USDA, Washington, DC) provided an over-view of 

 niche marketing for alternative agricultural products, 

 stating that this market currently includes less than 1 % 

 of U.S. food sales, but is growing annually by 20% to 

 30%. Eighteen large wholesalers were found to market 

 IPM-grown produce in the U.S. Excerpts from the 

 Federal Register during hearings of the Organic Food 

 Production Act of 1990 show that there is little chance 

 of federal standards for IPM-grown produce. The sec- 

 tion, "Low Input Label Demonstration Program," was 

 eliminated from the bill. 



Julia Freedgood (American Farmland Trust, 

 Northampton MA) provided a national perspective and 

 response to the previous presentations. Freedgood stated 

 that while environmental concerns play an increasing 

 role in the way farmers do business, IPM-marketing 

 could be difficult. American consumers are not well 

 educated about where their food is produced, and while 

 they are concerned with protecting the environment, 

 convenience is a primary factor in selecting food. None- 

 theless, IPM-labelling may provide an opportunity to 

 educate consumers about how food is produced and what 

 growers are doing to protect the environment. 



Freedgood suggested that reasons to engage in mar- 

 keting IPM include: 1 . educating the public; 2. estab- 

 lishing a growing standard; 3. allowing consumers a 

 choice; 4. recognizing and rewarding IPM growers; 5. 

 encouraging regulatory agencies to consider IPM prac- 

 tices instead of restricting pesticides; and 6. encourag- 

 ing future cost-sharing programs. Primary challenges 

 to marketing IPM which she identified include; 1 . adapt- 

 ing retail systems to another product; 2. educating con- 



sumers and retailers; 3. confusing the food safety is- 

 sue; and 4. confusing the price issue (are premium prices 

 realistic?). She concluded that IPM certification and 

 marketing offer political and economic opportunities that 

 in the long run will exceed the short-run benefits of 

 market premiums. 



The afternoon session was composed of structured 

 discussion groups with group members selected by their 

 position in the food marketing system: producers; pro- 

 cessors, wholesalers and retailers; representatives of 

 environmental, agricultural, and consumer advocacy 

 groups; and government policy-makers. First, homo- 

 geneous groups were asked to identify and rank the 

 benefits and barriers to marketing farmer use of IPM. 



The producer group felt that the primary benefit of 

 IPM-labelling was to provide a platform for discussing 

 management practices between producers and consum- 

 ers, enhancing consumer education and increasing public 

 confidence in grower practices. Another potential ben- 

 efit was the possibility of increasing market share. Pro- 

 ducers also felt that IPM labellingcould identify grow- 

 ers as environmentally proactive, providing them with 

 a larger voice in the regulatory processes, especially 

 those affecting pesticide use. The primary barriers to 

 implementing IPM labelling from the producers' point 

 of view were educational, especially since consumers 

 might perceive products not labelled as IPM as being 

 unsafe. They also were opposed to potential increases 

 in government bureaucracy and regulation. The pro- 

 ducers cautioned that IPM labelling might not result in 

 a better price or market share for produce. 



Processors, wholesalers, and retailers felt that the 

 primary advantages of IPM labelling were that it dis- 

 tinguished the product as environmentally friendly, and 

 that it educated consumers about how food is produced, 

 thus increasing customer confidence in health and safety 

 and improving relationships among farmers, buyers, and 

 customers. The primary barriers identified by this group 

 are the difficulties in implementing labelling standards, 

 due in part to regional, varietal, and climatic variables. 

 They also cited a general lack of receptivity to labelling 

 by retailers, concerns about verifying producer compli- 

 ance with IPM standards, and the lack of consumer 

 awareness of IPM. 



Consumer, environmental, and agricultural advo- 

 cates noted that such labelling would help consumers 

 link their behavior with their attitudes, i.e. to vote with 

 their dollars. Labelling also would help to focus policy 



12 



Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995 



