needs that would assist farmers in implementing IPM. 

 Labelling also was seen as a vehicle for educating chil- 

 dren and providing growers with a way to be environ- 

 mentally proactive. The concerns of the advocate group 

 included insufficient rewards to farmers, lack of fund- 

 ing for grower education, and resistance by growers. 

 They emphasized the need to educate consumers as part 

 of the whole marketing strategy, not as an "add-on" to 

 other programs, while recognizing the difficulty and 

 expense in trying to explain a complex system ad- 

 equately. Barriers in the market place included retailer 

 resistance, consumer confusion, and the fact that "IPM," 

 as a phrase, has little market appeal. Regulatory barri- 

 ers included red tape and costs of implementation, com- 

 plexity of developing standards, and enforcement. 



The government policy group felt that IPM-label- 

 ling would build credibility in the food production sys- 

 tem, improve competitiveness, and potentially sell more 

 product. Policy-makers felt that the major barriers to 

 IPM-labelling were that the mere mention of "pesticide" 

 on a label may be perceived as negative, that IPM is a 

 difficult concept to convey, and that it brings up the 

 question, "Was the food supply unsafe before?" Addi- 

 tional barriers cited were the difficulties of enforcement 

 and implementation and the costs of implementing a 

 certification program. 



The barriers identified above were categorized into 

 common themes, identified as educational, marketing, 

 and policy-related issues. Heterogeneous discussion 

 groups were formed which included representatives from 

 each of the above groups, and each group was asked to 

 propose potential solutions to the barriers within a given 

 theme. Below are the reports provided from each of 

 these groups. 



The educational issues group suggested that farmer 

 education should be a coordinated effort of the North- 

 east regional market. They suggested that more educa- 

 tional materials be developed and that farmer educa- 

 tion should be encouraged through some type of reward. 

 Education of retailers and wholesalers should follow a 

 similar path. Consumer education should focus on chil- 

 dren, emphasizing a definition of IPM and using a logo 

 with a recognizable symbol (such as a ladybug). 



The policy issues group .suggested that the IPM- 

 labelling program should be "goal-driven" not "list- 

 driven," that practices, not just farmer knowledge, must 

 be verified and thata labelling program should not add 

 to the burden of the farmer, especially with regard to 



paperwork. It was suggested that some kind of reward 

 be offered to IPM-verified farmers, e.g. tax relief or 

 guaranteed access to state markets. Policies should sup- 

 port the development of an industry of private consult- 

 ants and should support marketers by providing fund- 

 ing for labelling and education. While management 

 practices vary among regions, IPM principles are uni- 

 versal. Thus, policy should not be limited to local or 

 state markets, but should be regional, bioregional, or 

 national in scope. 



The marketing issues group addressed the problems 

 of developing a larger market share and creating con- 

 sumer demand. Resistance by retailers to IPM-label- 

 ling is due to a lack of educated store personnel and to 

 the logistic problems associated with multiple sources 

 of produce and limited space. The group recommended 

 convening an advisory board of retailers to address these 

 and related issues. Additional problems are largely edu- 

 cational: the lack of consumer awareness of IPM, po- 

 tential consumer confusion of concepts and labels, and 

 the term "IPM," which provides neither information nor 

 appeal to consumers. The group suggested emphasiz- 

 ing the environmental benefits of IPM and its associa- 

 tion with family farms as well as the use of the ladybug 

 as a recognized symbol. 



Conclusions 



The conference provided a sounding board on the 

 issue of farmers" use of IPM as a marketing tool. Many 

 participants came to the conference with some knowl- 

 edge of the issues involved in IPM-marketing and pre- 

 conceived attitudes toward the concept; some supported 

 the concept and some did not. The conference itself did 

 not appear to change attitudes in either direction. There 

 were also a number of participants who had little back- 

 ground in IPM or IPM-marketing. The conference pro- 

 vided these participants with an introduction to the is- 

 sues. 



While participants represented different organiza- 

 tions and many different points of view, a number of 

 common themes were echoed by the participants, prin- 

 cipally the need for more public education about IPM. 

 Conference participants indicated that IPM labelling has 

 value as an education tool: to enhance the public's un- 

 derstanding of agriculture, to improve urban-agricul- 

 tural relationships, and to increase the public's confi- 

 dence in the food supply. Marketing their use of IPM 



Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995 



13 



