Exploring Eco Labeling for California Winegrapes

A Collaborative Project of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, the University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Robert Mondavi Winery.

Acronyms Used in the Proceedings
BATF	Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
BIRC	Bio-Integral Resource Center
BMP	Best Management Practices
CAC	County Agricultural Commissioner
CAFF	Community Alliance with Family Farmers
CATS	Californians Against Toxic Substances
CSU	California State University
DPR	Department of Pesticide Regulation
IPM	Integrated Pest Management
LWWC	Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission
PCA	Pest Control Advisor
RCD	Resource Conservation District
SFC	Small Farm Center (University of California)
UC	University of California
UC IPM	University of California Statewide IPM Project
UC SAREP	Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
UCCE	University of California Cooperative Extension
US-EPA	United States Environmental Protection Agency

Welcome and Overview
Ms. Karen Ross, President, California Association of Winegrape Growers,
Sacramento, CA

Keynote Address
The National Context of Eco Labeling Initiatives
Dr. Charles Benbrook, Benbrook Consulting Service, Sandpoint, ID

Plenary Sessions

Consumer and Retail Interest in Eco Labeling
Mr. Harvey Hartman, The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA

Winery Interest in Eco Labeling: The Results from Interviews with California Wineries
Dr. Clifford Ohmart and Mark Chandler, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Lodi, CA

Plenary Panel - Current Labeling Programs: Challenges and Rewards
Moderator Mr. Eric Lauritzen, Agricultural Commissioner, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, CA

The First "Eco Label:" The Organic Experience
Mr. Mark Lipson, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA

Partners with Nature: The Massachusetts Integrated Pest Management Certification Program
Mr. William Coli, Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

Salmon Safe: A Project of the Pacific Rivers Council
Mr. Daniel Kent, Salmon Safe, Pacific Rivers Council, Portland, OR

Retail Initiatives: Wegmans’ Integrated Pest Management Label
Mr. William Pool, Wegmans Food Markets, Rochester, NY

Eco labeling: A Farmer’s Perspective
Mr. Paul Buxman, California Clean Growers, Dinuba, CA

Integrated Vineyard Management as a Basis for an Eco Label: The Central Coast Vineyard Team’s Positive Points System
Mr. Craig Rous, Former Team Leader, currently with Bear Creek Winery, Lodi, CA and Dr. Janet C. Broome, UC SAREP, Davis, CA

Participant Work Sessions

Evaluating the Opportunities and Barriers for Regional Implementation of Eco Labeling for Winegrapes

Closing Address

Reflections on the Day's Explorations: What Lies Ahead?
Mr. Michael Dimock, Sunflower Strategies, Santa Rosa, CA

Eco Labeling Conference Steering Committee:
Ms. Karen Ross, California Association of Winegrape Growers
Dr. Clifford Ohmart, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission
Ms. Alisa Greene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Mr. Craig Rous, formerly of Robert Mondavi Winery, now with Bear Creek Winery
Dr. Janet Broome, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program

Conference Coordinating Organization:
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, in particular Mr. Mark Chandler, Dr. Clifford Ohmart, and Ms. Jennifer Waddle

Facilitators for Afternoon Breakout Sessions:
Mr. David Chaney, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Ms. Esther Hill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chuck Ingels, University of California Cooperative Extension, Sacramento County
Dr. Rebecca Parker, ACCORD Associates
Ms. Carolyn Penny, J.D., ACCORD Associates

Recorders for Afternoon Breakout Sessions:
Dr. Robert L. Bugg, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Mr. Robert Pence, University of California, Davis
Ms. Kristin Rosenow, University of California, Davis
Ms. Shana Strongin, University of California, Davis
Mr. Patrick Troy, University of California, Davis

Ms. Lyra Halprin, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program

Ms. Lyra Halprin and Ms. Danielle Martinez, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program

Funding for the conference and the proceedings was generously provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Agreement # X999842-01-0, Project Liaison Dr. Richard Kashmanian. In addition, conference participants paid a registration fee and members of the Steering Committee’s organizations provided additional funds and in-kind salary support to make this event possible.

It’s great to welcome you to this conference this morning. My name is Karen Ross and I am president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG), host of today’s event. CAWG was pleased to have an opportunity to participate in developing the program for today. Eco labeling is becoming more common in the United States and abroad, and we need to explore the possibilities of such a program for California winegrapes which is why this conference is titled "Exploring Eco Labeling for California Winegrapes." And, the subtitle is also appropriate — this will truly be a working conference.

The steering committee tried to avoid putting together the agenda with preconceived notions of what we wanted the outcome to be. Instead, we want to present information that will stimulate discussion and brainstorming and perhaps inspire each one of us to continue the exploration for our own region beyond what happens here today. It is prophetic that today’s Sacramento Bee reviewed Fetzer’s Bonterra wine, which is made from organically grown winegrapes. And, it got an excellent review! Do consumers notice and care how we grow our products? Is there a way to clearly communicate a complicated growing system with a few words or a symbol? Is there an opportunity for growers to achieve additional value for grapes grown with environmentally sustainable practices? That’s what you, the conference participants will be exploring in this afternoon’s sessions and I look forward to the reports later today.

Before we kick off the program I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people who have helped make today happen. First of all, the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Mark Chandler, Cliff Ohmart and Jennifer Waddle for handling all of the administrative duties and hosting the wine reception this evening. And, of course, this kind of conference can’t happen without funding and we appreciate the financial support provided by US-EPA Region 9 and Alisa Greene for her assistance. Our steering committee has been meeting for many months and has been very dedicated to making this a worthwhile experience. Thank you to Dr. Jenny Broome with SAREP, Alisa Greene with US-EPA, Cliff Ohmart with Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission and Craig Rous with Robert Mondavi Winery. A tremendous amount of work has gone into organizing the logistics and our conference coordinators have been wonderful - thank you Robin Kozloff and Angela Moskow.

Most importantly, on behalf of the committee I want to thank each one of you for being here today - your time and interest are what make ours a great California industry! Now, let’s go to work!

I suspect that most people here this morning accept the notion that the best way to reduce pesticide use, reliance and risks on a sustainable basis, while also cost-effectively managing pests is to promote adoption of biologically based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems. This is surely the take-home message from progress made throughout the California winegrape industry in tapping biology and targeting management toward undermining the ability of pests to thrive and cause damage.

Still many barriers persist, slowing progress toward biointensive IPM. Some barriers relate to the pest management knowledge base and tool kits accessible to pest managers. Here, major progress is being made, although the challenges also keep evolving.

Other constraints reflect a historic lack of investments in the infrastructure supporting bio-based alternatives. Simply put we’ve invested more in developing better spray rigs and more efficient ways to use chemicals to manage pests than in rearing and releasing beneficials, breeding resistant varieties, enhancing soil microbial diversity and activity to suppress plant pathogens, or managing insects through landscape, area-wide approaches grounded in population suppression. In general, we’ve got what we’ve invested in, and paid for in pest management technology.

Farmers want to change for a host of reasons. The multiple shortcomings of chemical-based management systems are increasingly hard to ignore even for the most ardent defender of pesticides. Regulators will continue to drive change. And a growing percentage of consumers are seeking green options in the marketplace. One might expect, as a result, a golden era of innovation on the farm, a period when farmers have little reason or need to look back upon a past era of pest management that left much to be desired. With few exceptions though, it’s not happening very quickly. Why?

Bio-based IPM systems are fundamentally and functionally different from chemical-dependent IPM systems. Pest management systems are layered by people upon dynamic, often nutrient and water rich biological systems that are full of life and growth. To change the systems farmers and pest managers must first change the organisms within them and then their interactions. To sustain control and profits, they must learn to manage interactions across a dizzying, unpredictable array of conditions.

This ability takes time and much more definitive knowledge of the ecology of farming systems. It takes a new set of tools and attitudes. Time is money and both are stretched. Strike one. The ecological sciences have been withering on the vine, especially field-based systems research. Strike two. And most of the pesticide industry’s investment capital has been flowing into biotechnology, buying seed and other companies, and defending old, high-risk pesticides. Strike three.

Three strikes and you’re out in baseball, but in the world of pest management, there may be another chance, another way to build momentum for change—tapping into the pent-up demand among consumers looking to exercise freedom of choice in the marketplace. The "new green mainstream," to borrow Harvey Hartman’s term, is looking for ways to support farmers and food companies that make a commitment to push bio-based innovation and enhance environmental quality. Eco labels have emerged as a promising bridge linking consumers with farmers and food companies that place a premium on safer production systems, resource stewardship, and enhancing quality of life.

My job this morning is to survey some of the nation’s eco label initiatives, highlighting lessons learned and promising paths that might help the California wine- grape industry capture value by adding value. First, what goals do most eco label programs share?

Most pest management-oriented eco label programs share two goals: reducing reliance on high-risk pesticides, and promoting the adoption of biointensive IPM. The former goal is designed to draw the interest and support of consumers and environmentalists, the latter the participation, and hopefully enthusiastic cooperation of innovative farmers and farm organizations, and food companies and marketers.

Each of the programs I know of have, and continue to deal in different ways with the inevitable tensions between consumer-environmental and farmer-agriculture industry goals, agendas, and world-views. Indeed, the ways these tensions are confronted, and in some cases turned into ties that bind are among the most interesting characteristics that distinguish one program from the next.

The first and universally essential ingredient is building trust and forging commitment to tapping market forces to reward IPM innovation. This takes time, and a group of people more interested in progress than scoring points, who can continue to work together long enough to develop – and act on a not-always crystal clear vision in a world cluttered with good intentions, intriguing ideas and critics with an axe to grind.

Further complicating progress is the reality that in the world of pesticides and sustainable agriculture, there are many seasoned players on both sides of the struggle who would "rather fight than switch." Some organic industry leaders also are deadset against IPM-based eco labels, fearing that they will siphon off future customers who will soon be ready for the "real thing," certified organic foods. Navigating these choppy waters has required an infusion of new players and organizations. Both have needed time to learn the ropes, and how to circumvent pitfalls that have sucked the life-energy out of many promising efforts in the past.

I think greater progress has been made in recent years because of two critical changes in attitude. First, it has become acceptable within the environmental community to be pro-farmer and an advocate for biointensive IPM. Foundations that once only supported tough-minded and litigious activists interested solely in regulatory solutions are now financing pheromone confusion and public-private sector partnerships. Ten years ago 95 percent of the environmental and consumer agenda was undiscriminating and fundamentally anti-pesticide. The focus was on risk, the goal was to eliminate it, and the means to that end was convincing the public that they, and the natural environment, were being poisoned. Regardless of the merits of the case, that agenda has clearly failed to deliver the degree of progress many see as needed. The one exception, perhaps, was the flurry of regulatory actions in the mid-to-late 1970s that ended the use of several chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, most of which were on the way out anyway because of resistance.

But since the early 1980s regulation has done little to reduce reliance on pesticides. Indeed, in many crops and regions, reliance on pesticides has grown. Regulation has shifted the nature of risks but not necessarily reduced overall risks. I should add here that fortunately this is clearly not the case in the California winegrape industry. You have made great progress in reducing use of high-risk pesticides through a commitment to bio-based alternatives. I have pointed to California grape growers in many speeches as an example of an industry that has seized control of its pest management future. Many environmentalists who have tried for years to use regulation to reduce reliance and risks have grown tired of gridlock. Each time a set of old roadblocks is overcome, sometimes through years of effort, new ones have arisen, like sparks from simmering coals.

The second key shift in attitudes occurred in the farm community. Farmers and agriculture industry leaders were once as narrow-minded and stubborn as most environmentalists. Any attack on a pesticide was seen as an attack on farmers, the food system, and the American way of life. But in the 1980s some farmers and pest management experts broke ranks for a host of reasons, sometimes personal and compelling like a family member getting cancer, other times pragmatic and technology-driven. Some reached across the table in the hope of reducing the collateral damage that seemed unavoidable as pesticide-risk and food safety controversies played themselves out in public forums and the press.

Farm and food sector interest in new approaches coincided with growing recognition on the farm—driven by resistance, control failures, and poisoning episodes—that it was time for change. Also key was the collapse of public confidence in government institutions, and the erosion of state and federal support for field level IPM research.

Events in the late 1980s and early 1990s created opportunities for farmers, IPM experts, agriculture leaders, environmentalists, and consumers to face these trends and shape a positive, proactive agenda. A common goal and conviction emerged—progress toward biologically based IPM could serve everyone’s interests. By the mid-1990s there was a determined core group of environmentalists and farmers that shared this common hope and were working to give it life. Their ongoing efforts and successes have played a key role in bringing us together today.

Still, some farmers continue to worry that they are being pushed toward an ill-defined brave new world of pest management without a compass, an adequate tool kit, and sufficient focus on their need to harvest a profitable crop. Others have made the transition successfully and are not looking back. They are glad to no longer rely routinely on disruptive and dangerous pesticides. Especially in California, most farmers are open to change and many are advancing bio-based IPM on their farms. But universal fear of top-down, policy-driven IPM persists. Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) has rekindled old paranoia, and political backlash threatens to replay the whole Alar episode, no doubt magnified several times in intensity (for more on FQPA implementation and current activities, see the Consumers Union FQPA website at <http://www.ecologic-ipm.com>).

Our mission today is to assess the eco labeling state-of-the-art. New efforts are emerging every week. One of the latest examples of the teaming up of the National Audubon Society with the Smithsonian Institute to certify "bird safe" organic coffee products. Important on-going efforts include: the "Core Values" New England apple IPM program, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture’s "Made in Nature" program, Stemilt Growers’ "Responsible Choice," California Clean Growers Association, "No Detectable Residue"-based programs, Salmon Safe, ECO-O.K., the Food Alliance, the World Wildlife Fund-Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association (WPVGA) potato IPM project, and the Wegman’s-Cornell University program. For more information on most of these programs, see the "IPM and the Marketplace" section of the PMAC website at http://www.pmac.net/ipm_mark.htm. And then of course, the most well-recognized food sector eco labeling program in the country—organic foods and labeling. Key elements in successful and sustainable IPM-based eco labeling programs include:

Most programs are plagued at the beginning by the understandable inclination to appeal to as many constituencies as possible, a strategic decision that forces programs to be all-encompassing. All-encompassing programs face two major hurdles that often prove enough to break the camel’s back. They must develop the technical competence to set standards, collect data, certify compliance and defend decisions across a broad range of issues and performance attributes—often including some outside the area of expertise of the organization’s founders and movers and shakers.

Even tougher is finding balance among all-encompassing objectives. No one feels equally passionate about the environment, food safety, water quality, worker safety, social justice, local control, and food quality issues. Hence, regardless of how a group balances activities in pursuit of these multiple objectives, the process is likely to leave more people drained and unsatisfied than inspired and moving forward with conviction.

The Food Alliance and Core Values programs have spent much time struggling with broad goal statements and finding balance. The Salmon Safe, Wegmans, and Stemilt programs have been more narrow and focused, and seem to have moved forward more quickly in part as a result.

Broad goal statements can attract wide participation without sapping energy and direction if coupled with an incremental series of concrete objectives that are clearly related to the broader goals. This strategy has guided the WWF-WPVGA potato IPM project in Wisconsin, which has broad goals but narrow, concrete and incremental objectives.

In many respects agreeing on goals is the easy part. The hard part is translating goals into concrete, real-world actions that can be monitored over time. Plus, programs must develop an open and trusted method that shows that changes in farm management and IPM systems brought about by the program are in fact improving environmental quality and supporting other desirable goals.

Most programs have struggled to set performance standards and criteria stemming from their goals. One reason for the struggle has been the lack of methods to link progress along the IPM continuum with changes in reliance and use of high-risk pesticides. Stemilt has been a pioneer in this area. In the early 1990s it developed a point system linked to pesticide properties and hazards that has helped growers understand the environmental consequences of various changes in IPM systems. Given the goals of the Stemilt program, its measurement system is among the most well suited in the country. My sense is that it is as rigorous as organic certification in terms of documenting where participating farmers are along the IPM continuum and in terms of the impacts of various farming systems on environmental performance parameters.

The Wisconsin potato IPM program relies upon an equally comprehensive and data-intensive measurement methodology. Field level information on both pesticide use and IPM practices are collected and assessed using the IPM measurement method outlined in the Consumers Union 1996 book Pest Management at the Crossroads. This method takes into account pest pressure, the scope and intensity of preventive practices, and the highly variable toxicity of pesticides per pound applied.

Most other programs have not developed and do not require such extensive measurement systems for two reasons – they are a lot of work and cost money; and second, most growers are reluctant (and some are unwilling) to share pesticide use records. The Wegmans-Cornell program, Salmon Safe, and Core Values focus on the practice side of the equation. It appears that is the direction of the Food Alliance’s program as well.

Practice-based programs are a good first step but over time they will face questions regarding what they are really accomplishing in terms of reducing pesticide risks. My sense is that five years down the road eco label programs will need a way to credibly document their impacts on pesticide use and risks and water quality, since that issue is on consumers radar screen, in order to create and capture value in the marketplace. One reason is that these are the issues the majority of consumers care most deeply about. Another is that other programs and the organic industry will have increasingly compelling stories to share. Those with the clearest and most compelling message will compete successfully for the dollars of the green shopper. They will thrive and grow and others will fall by the wayside.

Transparency remains an issue for all programs. Those programs still in the formative stages are focusing their attention elsewhere, but if they expect to survive for long, they must build transparency into the process from the beginning. Without it there is little chance of winning and holding trust.

There are no shortcuts or easy answers in building trust, just lots of well-known ways to undermine it. I doubt that one method or model will come to dominate the eco label playing field. There is ample room for experimentation and alternative approaches. What will work for a Community Supported Agriculture, or between a co-op and its growers and customers, will not work with General Foods or the Washington apple industry.

Just as the organic industry has embraced accreditation of certifiers as an interim step, or building block in winning consumer trust in the labels on certified organic produce and products, IPM labeling will likely have to invent a similar mechanism to build trust and weed out charlatans. I foresee a day in the not-too-distant-future when consumer and environmental community-based intermediaries take on the task of assessing what an eco label stands for and the degree to which it deserves support in the marketplace. It is too big a job to be done by each shopper and family and too important to leave to public relations firms and marketing specialists.

But groups will have to choose their roles. It will be hard for any group to run both an eco label program and review and accredit others. As Fred Kirschenmann has so persuasively argued, separation of functions to avoid any perception of conflict of interest will be key in winning consumer confidence.

In terms of constructive models, I am encouraged by the progress made in recent months by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). OMRI has taken on the data-intensive task of reviewing materials to determine whether they comply with basic organic principles and therefore warrant inclusion on the lists of allowed inputs maintained by certifiers. USDA’s slow pass of progress in promulgating the federal organic rule created a vacuum—someone in the private sector needed to step forward with solutions. Trusted leaders in the organic community stepped forward, and against great odds and strong undercurrents, have established a functioning non-profit materials review institute. By commissioning OMRI to work on behalf of the whole organic community, each certifier benefits from much more in-depth, high quality and impartial reviews than would be possible if each certifier carried them out on his or her own. Plus, companies can secure approval across most of the organic community much more quickly and cheaply.

OMRI and the united response to the proposed organic rule are encouraging signs that the organic community can take charge of its own destiny and meet tough challenges by finding better ways to pool resources and knowledge. The IPM eco labeling community needs to follow suit. An independent accreditation body, or one simply commissioned to carry out periodic program evaluations using a common set of questions and criteria, is bound to emerge. The end goal is simple—a recognized seal of approval which consumers equate with a quality commitment to environmental progress.

People recognize that managing pests is like dealing with diabetes or computer software. Science and technology are driving rapid change in what is possible. At the same time Mother Nature is throwing her share of curve balls at farmers. Pest challenges are not static. Progress made in one year can evaporate in a flush of whiteflies or be swamped by the pathogens that thrive in a wet fall.

Eco label programs must build this reality into their goals, performance standards, and monitoring systems. Progress will not be made every year in reducing pesticide use and risks and in some years slippage will occur. Eco labeling programs must accommodate such slippage when it is truly unavoidable. In return, the programs should ask growers and pest managers to make a commitment to steady progress whenever and however it can be achieved.

Most eco labeling programs are not yet ready to deal with this challenge, at least not in a way consumers understand. All need a way to accept slippage when unavoidable, but without opening the door to an endless series of "justified" setbacks. Programs must also find ways to advance progress steadily and incrementally, even when initial goals are reached. This is the only way they will continually create value, and to capture value it must first be created. Successful programs will accomplish both goals through adherence to a common set of principles, criteria and decision processes.

Most consumers know relatively little about IPM. They surely do not know enough about it to change purchasing patterns. Plus, IPM systems exist along a continuum and some IPM does not warrant support. Some programs will be questioned in the media and in the end, consumers may just grow confused and irritable when the topic arises. Consumer education is therefore an essential ingredient for success.

The Wegmans-Cornell program has excelled in this area and shown what can be accomplished in raising consumer awareness over a couple of years. The Core Values program is also making good strides by concentrating its consumer education and marketing efforts on key institutional buyers of apples and opinion-leaders, as well as stores frequented by consumers with relatively strong views about the environment and food quality.

With bulk commodities the key is often getting into a store and onto the shelf. In such cases the challenge often boils down to reaching buyers and store managers. Eco label programs are just beginning to consider how to reach buyers and influence the decisions made by large supermarket and institutional buyers. My guess is that there will be some notable successes in this area within the next year or two, which may well set off a period of rapid change.

The trick will be convincing stores and other major buyers that they can enhance their image among customers by providing food that bears eco labels. The trend toward flashy advertising for locally grown, in-season produce in many supermarket chains is responsive to a message from customers. As more consumers develop preferences for both greener and locally grown produce, the next wave of supermarket promotions might include an eco label component.

Creating and capturing value in the marketplace will, in the end, determine whether eco labeling becomes a stable part of the country’s food marketing system. Those willing to pay for biointensive IPM adoption either in the marketplace, or with tax dollars, will need to be convinced that they are getting what they are willing to pay for—reduced reliance on risky pesticides, along with improvements in water quality. This is why the ability to distinguish between pest management systems along the IPM continuum in terms of reliance on high-risk pesticides will be key in establishing IPM adoption baselines and then in measuring progress.

Considerable effort is underway to develop ways to distinguish between various levels of IPM adoption—for example, the four zones of adoption described in Pest Management at the Crossroads—No IPM, low level IPM, medium IPM, and biointensive IPM. Another key step is to capture differences in pesticide reliance, use, and risks across farms at various stages along the IPM continuum and over time as progress is made toward biointensive IPM.

A common strategy is emerging that entails focus on the information and knowledge relied on in reaching a decision to use certain seminal pest management practices, rather than counting the total number of practices used. This approach is under development as a component within IPM-labeling efforts carried out by WWF-WPVGA, the Food Alliance, and the Core Values apple program in New England. (For details on these programs, see the "Measuring IPM Adoption" portion of the PMAC web page, <http://www.pmac.net>).

Knowledge-based strategies rest upon recording and verifying grower responses to a set of questions linked to seminal pest management system choices. The questions are designed to identify the completeness of the information growers had when deciding what practices to adopt, as well as how they used the information in structuring and carrying out field interventions—whether applying a pesticide, a cultural practice, releasing beneficial organisms, or doing nothing.

An example might help demonstrate this concept. Consider a common dilemma: whether to spray a broad-spectrum insecticide in the face of an early-season leafminer, thrips or aphid infestation, knowing that the application will set off a number of other secondary pests because of impacts on their natural enemies. Sometimes such applications, or other costly interventions, simply cannot be avoided, but in other cases they can and should be. Distinguishing the information a grower should have and use in determining what to do in such situations is the focus of knowledge-based certification. Questions in an annual program application, or a farm plan, might explore:

Knowledge-based systems are promising for many reasons beyond their simplicity and focus. Measuring IPM adoption is going to take effort and cost money, particularly if used to support IPM-labeling programs. Those designing and implementing such systems should do everything possible to keep system costs down and to design approaches that serve as many useful ends as possible.

Knowledge-based systems can do just that by also fostering grower-scientist-practitioner dialog on the cutting edge of IPM implementation in the field. Each year such systems should focus on a different mix of pest management challenges. By continuing to select for in-depth review of emerging challenges that trigger the need for significant interventions (including pesticide use), programs can help everyone explore alternative approaches and identify lessons already learned by various growers. They can hasten refinement of scouting techniques, identification of ecological interactions to monitor and manage, enhance the effectiveness of emerging tools and biopesticides, and create better ways to use decision-support tools and other sources of information.

At the end of each season during grower meetings, the results of the past season should be routinely reviewed. Growers or consultants who feel they have found a better way to deal with a common pest problem will be free to make their case. The resulting exchanges among growers, consultants and researchers will quickly highlight where there is consensus and where further research and experimentation are needed. In this way, knowledge-based IPM measurement systems can serve both as a verification tool and a process fostering dialog and creative, collective problem solving.

A last topic warrants some discussion—how to deal with biotechnology in the context of eco labeling. Almost all consumer and environmental groups working on IPM labeling are skeptical, if not downright hostile toward biotechnology as currently applied in production agriculture. Why?

The answers vary across groups, but common themes include the fact that most current applications of biotechnology are designed to help farmers climb further onto the pesticide treadmill. Most limit farmer choice and are more likely to sustain the agricultural chemical industry profit margins than improve the bottomline for farmers. Take herbicide tolerant varieties, for example. Such technologies are designed to increase reliance on pesticides. By their very nature, they lock growers into reliance on a SINGLE product—a short-term advantage to the company perhaps, but a disadvantage to everyone else.

So, what explains the incredible commercial success of Roundup Ready beans? To most growers their major appeal is simplicity, flexibility and ability to quickly cover large acreage. Have you ever read the labels on most of the new low-dose, persistent herbicides, and fully considered the many restrictions and precautions that must be followed to assure good control and avoid carryover or drift damage? Compared to the management time needed to "get it right" with these products, Roundup Ready beans are a no-brainer.

Still herbicide-tolerant varieties are going to be costly in more ways than one. They are sure to accelerate resistance and some will lead to shifts in weed populations. They might lead to cross-resistance in weeds to whole families of herbicides. Subtle but economically important shifts may be occurring in soil microbial communities, affecting phosphorous uptake. Aquatic ecosystems may be impaired over time, with certain grass species disappearing, affecting nesting and wildlife habitat.

In the marketing arena, use of genetically engineered organisms (GEO) will impose new labeling and marketing challenges and costs, especially for farmers and sectors of the agricultural economy dependent on exports to Europe and Japan. In the U.S. a new segment of shoppers will seek out organic foods that are certified as GEO free.

The other major application of biotechnology reaching farmers and the marketplace are Bt-transgenic plants. Here the problems are even more clear-cut and disturbing. The evidence that Bt-transgenic plants will trigger resistance is now overwhelming. Even the companies offering Bt-varieties admit that resistance is inevitable. The debate is over whether it will happen in three, five, or fifteen years. Given the nature of farming and the importance of this class of very safe biopesticides, the difference between three and fifteen years is largely inconsequential.

Recent research reports published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences conclude that Bt resistance will emerge, encompass all or most strains of Bt, and will last a very long time because of the absence of "fitness costs" to the strains carrying the resistance gene. These important findings—published since the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of Bt-transgenic varieties—are reviewed in a Consumers Union statement delivered at a US-EPA administrative hearing (available at http://www.pmac.net/stoneage.htm; see also other information on Bt-transgenic plants at http://www.pmac.net/bttp.htm).

Risks from the use of genetically engineered plants and organisms differ fundamentally from the risks posed by pesticides. Risks of a conventional pesticide are typically limited to certain circumstances of use and location, and can be mitigated quickly by stopping or restricting further use of a product. But this is not the case with risks that arise in the wake of resistance and the release of live, genetically engineered organisms. These risks literally have a life of their own.

Resistance narrows the pest management tool kit, and in doing so, increases reliance on other approaches and tools. This, in turn, increases the probability of new problems down the road in pest management. Given the likely impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act on California agriculture, it seems a bad time to sacrifice proven, safe crop protection tools.

The release of GEOs can pose a wide array of risks from changes in soil microbial communities to the emergence of weeds tolerant of widely used families of herbicides. But the biggest risk may well prove to be our ignorance of long-term human health and environmental consequences, and the assumption that regulators know how to evaluate risks associated with release of GEOs.

The race to save Bt is just the first of many. No revolution in agricultural technology has proceeded so quickly and with so little attention to ecological and public health consequences. Transgenic plant varieties may generate profits for awhile, but many will not last long because of fundamental flaws when viewed from a farming systems perspective. Each ignores the lessons of history with regard to pesticide resistance, and hence contains the seeds of commercial collapse.

Few consumer and environmental groups, or eco label programs are willing to take on the difficult and risky task of articulating criteria to distinguish between positive applications of biotechnology and those likely to prove damaging to the environment, farmers and/or consumers. But fortunately some groups are beginning to work toward this end. Biotechnology is too important, too diverse and too inevitable to "just say no."

But for the time being, I cannot imagine any eco label program embracing herbicide tolerant or Bt-transgenic plant varieties. To the contrary, labeling food as GEO-free is a major growth sector in the world of eco labeling. The consumer organizations driving this trend, and fighting for mandatory GEO labeling around the world, are winning. They are not likely to look the other way if an IPM eco labeling program proposes to credit a grower for adoption of a genetically engineered variety, notwithstanding the millions in public relations that some companies have invested in spinning the case that GEOs are a green, sustainable technology.

Eco labels must gain public trust and recognition, and represent added value in the marketplace. For this to occur they must stand for real change. Credible eco label programs will rest upon an accepted, transparent method to measure IPM adoption and the interplay between IPM and pesticide use and risks.

The biggest challenge will be isolating and understanding the role of pest managers, and the consequences of their decisions in terms of shaping the interplay over time between pest pressure, preventive practices, and pesticide use. Measurement methods must encompass all three factors—along with shifts in pest pressure, changes in the weather, new technology, and the impacts of regulation. And they must do so without sinking the ship or putting consumers to sleep. A number of private organizations and companies are offering IPM-grown, "green-labeled" foods in the marketplace, and some are making encouraging progress. In the next few years the commitment and vision of early innovators will be tested. Successes in the marketplace will be necessary to trigger the next wave of innovation in the science and art of eco labeling. Critical mass will be reached when a majority of consumers understand what IPM is and can explain its major benefits. Competition in the marketplace for the dollars of the new green mainstream will then take over and will underwrite further innovation.

This will create new investment in bio-based solutions, which will in turn lead to new opportunities to create value and earn rewards in the marketplace. The optimistic among us believe, or at least hope that over time this dynamic can replace regulation and public sector research and education programs as the engine of innovation in pest management. Eco labels will be an essential part of the mix if this vision becomes reality.

I am going to go through a lot of information fairly quickly. Our perspective is a little different in terms of how we address the marketplace. Indeed, we believe that in this day and age the most important constituency out there with regard to eco labeling, in terms of the environment, and in terms of organic, is probably the least understood and the missed component, and that is the consumer. As I travel around the country, as I talk to all kinds of organizations, I am totally amazed on an ongoing basis how little information and little concern people really have about the consumer--about really understanding, not just the niche target green marketer or green purchaser, but the mass market. The mainstream consumer--what we call the new green mainstream.

I will be emphasizing five critical points today. The first point is that the most important constituency today for eco labeling is the consumer. If we are really going to see change in terms of how food is both produced and how it is sold, it is the consumer who is really going to make the difference. We must get these products in their hands. We must get them using these products.

If we understand the importance of the consumer, then point number two is "Who is the consumer we are trying to sell to?" The American population is made up of a diversity of consumers, and the most important thing to understand is that the American population is made up of different segments. We are not talking about just one consumer. We are talking about a diversity of consumers, who have different attitudes, who have different behaviors, who have different ideas in terms of what is going on out there. The Hartman group has done extensive work in segmenting the American population. Forty-eight percent of the American population indicates that they have a tremendous interest in purchasing products that are environmentally sound. That’s the good news; the bad news is that the other percentage of the population really does not care. So, it is not just one consumer, it is a mix of different consumers. Of the 48 percent of the population who are interested in environmentally sound purchases, we can see that this group is made up of the new green mainstream, the true naturals, the young recyclers, and the affluent healers (Figure 1). Each one of those segments has distinct ideas, distinct attitudes, and distinct beliefs. So it is imperative to understand who you are going after. You don’t sell everything to everyone. You have to understand who we are going after, what is interesting to them, what will make them buy. We don’t even talk about a green market. If we talk about a green market--we think the green market is 7 percent. That is a very small marketplace. We talk about different shades of green because consumers are driven by different concepts of the environment. The consumer is not driven solely by environmental initiatives; they are driven by a lot of things of which the environment is just a portion. So we talk in terms of understanding who you are going to sell to and understanding who your target market is composed of.

If you really understand who the target market is composed of, you have to understand how the consumer thinks. If you go to the mass market, I can tell you this. The mass market is really dominated by a female who goes to the store and spends 18 minutes to purchase 21 items out of 30,000 to 40,000 items. They are going to the store to buy dinner, not to save the world. So, we have to understand that. We have to understand who our constituency is, we have to understand what’s important to them, and, most importantly, we have to understand what value we are going to bring them. Point number three, then, is we must figure out how our products add value to the consumer. And in particular to a consumer who really wants to make a difference, but they want to make a difference on their terms. Not on our terms, but on their terms. And so if we want to understand that, we have to understand what drives their purchasing. People don’t go to the store to buy an environmentally sound product. They go to the store and they have some decisions they have to make. Think about yourself. When you purchase something, there is what we call purchase criteria and those purchase criteria involve price, availability, convenience, and quality. Did you hear environment? Environment is not number one or number two. It involves quality, whereby they see environmental initiatives as part of the quality of the product. And when you start talking about the price, do we say you can get a premium price on certain products? Yes! We have done it. We have done it very successfully. How do you do it? You have to know what the price elasticity of the product is. You need to know where the value comes from when you go and pay a higher price for something. You spend it because you see some added value to it. You buy more of it because to you there is an increased value to it.

We believe in many cases that particular increase in value can be linked to an environmental initiative. A lack of pesticides, something about the water, but it has to be specific. It is not global warming or ozone depletion. The consumer does not go to the store thinking about those things. We have to understand what goes through a consumer’s mind. We have to look at them and we have to say where does our product scenario, where do our market attributes, where do our product attributes fall with relationship to what they buy? Those attributes change depending on what you buy. You don’t buy dairy products the same way you buy meat products. Each one of these cases has a different cause. We do an awful lot of work in understanding what specific product environmental attributes make a consumer buy something. We know the environment can make a difference. It is exciting that the environment can make a difference. It can be a differentiator. It certainly can add value. But you have to know exactly where the consumer is coming from. In the research you have to understand what they are telling you and what they are not telling you. I mean how many surveys have you read that say, "Would you buy an environmental product? And it says "Yes I would." "Would you pay a premium?" "Yes, I would." A lot of people would do that. When they go out and have that experience to do it, something changes. We know that attitude and behavior don’t exactly come together every time. So we have to drive in more deeply and we really have to find out specifically what will make the difference. And we know that with a large part of the population, environmental attributes, agricultural practices, stewardship practices, will make a difference, but we have to communicate on their level and understand exactly what they want.

The fourth area to keep in mind is that the consumer is changing and we must understand exactly how they are changing. We have recently done some work in the organic arena. What is very exciting is that the American population is literally going through a cultural change. They call it a mind set. The American population is changing the way they purchase things, and changing the way they live. What is exciting about this change is that it is a change in lifestyle. Consumers have changed their focus to nutrition and exercise. Look at vitamins, minerals, and supplements. We do a lot of work in that area. It is an absolutely exploding market. It is a change towards ecology and community. They want to participate. There is a change in femininity in terms of our attitude towards women. The whole culture is changing and what people are buying is a lifestyle and these products have attributes that can depict that lifestyle. If you go out and ask people about organic, people don’t really know what organic really involves down on the farm. The mass market does not know. They have an idea that it has something to do with the use of fewer pesticides. Yet they are buying the heck out of it. Why are they buying the heck out of it? Because buying organic means something to them. It represents a lifestyle to them. It represents a healthier choice. It represents something that they want to give to their children.

What is important is that we not just look at the empirical data in terms of surveys and cluster analysis. What we try to do is get into the lifestyle of the American consumer. What organic tells you is that the American population is moving more and more toward this changing lifestyle. And that is why we know for a fact from some of our work that whether it be eco labels or whether it be IPM, whether it be organic, or whether it be improved stewardship practices, it can really make a difference with the consumer. But you have to understand who you are selling to. It is not everybody. And not only that, remember that the American consumer has been reared and educated about choices. They want choices. They demand choices. One of the false paradigms that I hear from brand managers and vice presidents of markets is that everyday they say, "Well, what happens if I bring out an environmentally sound product, will the consumer look at that and say, well what about all those other products?" When we brought out the fat free did we get rid of the fatter? No. It increased the size of the actual market for that item. This is marketing information. In many cases we put too much emotion in what we believe is right for the consumer instead of really understanding what the consumer wants. The consumer wants green, red, black, white, and purple. We keep inventing new colors for them. We need to understand that we are talking about a diversity of the American consumer. Each consumer wants something a little different. They don’t look at one and say well how come you don’t do that? What they say is, "That is great. You are doing something that is going to improve my choices."

We were involved with a major jean manufacturer with whom we introduced a new blue jean that was environmentally sound. Talk about tough. We did some focus groups on blue jeans with some people who were hunters and fisherman, and their idea of recycling is throwing their Budweiser cans in the back of their pickup. When we talked about improvement in water, when we talked about improvement in dye process, all of a sudden you saw a light go on. And all of a sudden you see people saying "You mean I can buy a blue jean that makes a difference?" For that particular consumer a new dye process that reduced the release of a residue from the stoning process and left the water cleaner made a big difference. Now it did not make a difference to all of them. Fifty percent of the blue jeans sold are bought by women. It did make a difference to our audience, and we were able to sell 40 million of them in 18 months. Why? Because the market became more differentiated. The company added improvements. The marketers of the particular jean were nervous that those blue jeans that were not environmentally enhanced were going to be targeted. What we found was that a whole new category of people started buying this particular blue jean.

What we need to understand on an ongoing basis is how is this consumer changing, who is our consumer, what is the market, what are the core attributes, and what are the core purchase criteria. These are not simplistic kinds of things that we have to figure out. It is a complex kind of thing. One of the most frustrating things that I do is when we go out and talk to many organizations that are contemplating the very same thing that you are contemplating, we must rely on our intuition. We spend so much time on the stewardship practices and we have an intuition about the consumers there. If we make it they will come. Nothing can be further from the truth. You can do all the right things in the world, but if you don’t understand what the consumer is willing to buy, understand that they want to participate, but they want to participate on their terms.

If we think about it today, the consumer is already changing. The dynamics of the marketplace are already changing. We have to understand that we don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are. We have got to get out of that mold. If we really want to be successful in selling products we can’t see things the way we are, we have to understand the way consumers look at things. We can’t make assumptions. These are very serious matters. These are matters that you in this room--all of us in this room--can make a difference. We can make a difference. We can develop and deliver and see change for our children. If I were in this for money I would have been out a long time ago. We can make a difference, but we have to understand what it takes to make a difference. We have got an American audience that is eager to have us present to them and to deliver to them products that make a difference, that are more environmentally sound. They are willing to pay a price premium in certain cases. They are willing to make an investment, as we are. Certainly, they are willing to take the products off of the shelves. We just have to understand who they are, what they want, and deliver it to them on their terms.

A very good integrated farming program for winegrapes has been developed in California over the last twenty years due the to the efforts of a wide range of people, such as conventional as well as organic growers, university research and extension personnel, private consultants, winery personnel and pest control advisors. One thing everyone must keep in mind, however, is that it is one thing to develop a great integrated farming program and an entirely different proposition to get the majority of growers to implement it. It is our opinion that the current level of grower participation in integrated farming of winegrapes, as well as in most other crops, is not nearly as high as one would expect given the many years that efforts have been made to increase grower adoption. We propose that this level is not so much due to the lack of viable integrated farming alternatives to conventional practices as much as it is due to the lack of success in getting growers to adopt known, efficacious integrated farming practices. Implementation is therefore where our challenge lies.

Growers adopt new management practices for a multitude of reasons. My experience working with growers has shown me that the right incentives for doing something have a great impact on the level of adoption of integrated farming practices. It is from this angle that I am attracted to the topic of eco labeling. If a winegrape grower can sell his or her grapes more easily by using environmental farming practices that result in an eco label appearing on the wine bottle, or can sell them for a premium, then this may be a powerful incentive for some growers to shift to using integrated farming strategies. Other people at the conference may be interested in eco labeling for other reasons but this is what interests us about their possible use.

The wine industry differs from many other agricultural commodity groups because the label on a bottle differentiates it from all other wines. This has resulted in a tremendous proliferation of wineries and labels. Since the winery puts the label on the bottle, an eco labeling program could never get going without winery interest and commitment. The limited time available at this conference for talks did not allow for a large number of wineries to present their ideas on the topic of eco labeling. To help give the audience an idea of the level of interest in eco labeling held by California wineries we interviewed a number of them. The results of these interviews are presented in this report.

There are over 600 wineries in California and it was not possible to do a comprehensive survey of the entire industry. We selected wineries that gave us a sample of large and small, ones with known interest in environmentally farming and/or organic farming, as well as some whose interest in this area was unknown to us, and ones that we were able to meet with during the time leading up to the conference. Ten wineries were interviewed and their names appear in Table 1. At each winery we spoke with the person in a position to speak for the winery on matters related to the topic of eco labeling.

Winery name

Sutter Home

Frog’s Leap

Hess Collection

Mondavi-Woodbridge Winery

Charles Krug

Glen Ellen

Ravenswood

Fetzer Vineyards

Delicato

Kenwood

Each winery was asked a series of questions that would give an indication of their knowledge about and level of interest in eco labeling, and their answers were recorded. These questions appear in Table 2. Before the interview the wineries were sent a page briefly describing the concept of an eco label and the list of interview questions. The main reason for this was to benefit the wineries that may not be aware of the concept of eco labeling. They would then have time to consider the concept in anticipation of the interview. At each interview there was about ten to fifteen minutes of "ice-breaking" conversation before the questions were asked. During this time some general comments were usually made about eco labeling, and these were also recorded.

All of the wineries reacted positively to the concept of an eco label for California wine. It was interesting that of the ten wineries interviewed, four of them were either already growing winegrapes organically in their own vineyards or were moving in that direction. These four wineries also encouraged the growers from whom they bought grapes to farm organically. One winery had been growing winegrapes organically but had to begin using herbicides again due to an unacceptable weed problem. Two wineries were also involved in developing environmentally friendly strategies in the winery.

Out of the "ice-breaking" conversations with the wineries at least three motives were identified for developing an environmental label; concern for the environment, increased restrictions in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and increasing one’s marketing opportunities. Of the wineries that made these observations all of them indicated that they were motivated primarily by concern for the environment.

The interviewees often made additional comments after answering the specific questions and we tried to compile these comments in a meaningful way.

Seven wineries were basically familiar with the concept of putting a label on a commodity that indicates that environmentally friendly farming practices were used to produce that commodity. However, the term "eco label" was unfamiliar to all of them. Three wineries were unfamiliar with the concept, including a winery that farmed their grapes organically. Of the seven wineries that were familiar with environmental labeling, four of them were already using environmentally friendly farming practices in their vineyards and encouraging growers from whom they purchase grapes to adopt these practices. Two of the three wineries unfamiliar with the environmental labeling concept were also using environmentally friendly practices in their vineyards. One of the wineries unfamiliar with the concept did not feel they were in position to answer the rest of the questions. However, they are moving in the direction of having all of their vineyards farmed organically in the future, and stated that this was due to the anticipation of regulatory problems with the use of pesticides.

All of the wineries felt comfortable with the idea of having an environmental message on their wine bottles and felt that it would also be a very positive statement by the wine industry. However, some qualified this answer. One winery felt that the entire "package" i.e. the wine, bottle, label and ink should be the environmental message. In other words the winegrapes are grown with environmentally friendly methods, the bottle shape is appealing, the label is made from renewable resources, and the ink is biodegradable. They suggested that there are other ways to express an environmental message than by an indication on the label. Another winery expressed the concern that there is limited space on labels, and additional symbols or words would compete for this space.

All the wineries felt that there would be a positive reaction by their consumers to an environmental message. As one person said, "who wouldn’t be in favor of an environmental message." However, all wineries believe that their consumers choose their wines based on quality or quality for value. No one felt that an environmental message would be the primary reason someone would choose his or her wine. Nevertheless, some felt that if two wines of equivalent quality and price were side by side in a store, one with an eco label and one without, the consumer would choose the one with the eco label. Other wineries were unsure what the choice would be.

One winery made an interesting observation that a group they called "gate keepers," may also be interested in eco labels. This group is made up of restaurant owners, chefs, and wine shop owners that are in the "hand-sell" situation and have the opportunity to influence a consumer’s purchase. Many of them are concerned with issues such as environmentally friendly farming and could use this information in recommending a wine to a consumer.

Two wineries already known by consumers for their environmentally friendly practices felt that the eco label would not influence purchasing but simply would be a confirmation of what the consumers already knew. Two other wineries felt that many wine drinkers are discerning people who are interested in knowing as much as possible about the wine they consume. They read wine magazines and pay attention to details. Therefore an eco label would be something that would be appealing to them.

One of the wineries using organically grown grapes gets conflicting messages about putting a label on their wine. One school of thought says that the consumer would equate organically produced grape with poor wine quality while another school says that it would be perceived as positive. Since the winery cannot determine which is correct they have left the message off the label for now.

Some wineries were concerned about the ability to communicate a complex message such as environmentally friendly farming to the consumer with a simple label on the bottle. They felt this was a possible barrier to developing an eco label program (see Question 5 below).

Seven of the wineries interviewed were moderately-to-highly interested in the idea of developing an environmental label. Of these seven wineries, two rated their interest seven-to- eight out of a scale of one-to-ten, four described their interest as moderate, and one rated their interest as high. Only one winery had no interest at the moment. Another winery was growing winegrapes organically but not indicating this on the bottle. They commented that business was good at the moment but if the business were to get tight they might consider putting an environmental message on their label to help distinguish themselves from other wines.

There were far more concerns expressed than advantages. The advantages mentioned were similar among the wineries and mainly revolved around the fact that an eco label would provide a beneficial image for the winery as well as for the wine industry as a whole. One winery felt strongly that this was an opportunity for the wine industry to take a leadership role in developing and marketing environmentally friendly farming, and to show the way for the rest of agriculture. Other observations were that an eco labeling program would provide a uniform, understandable message to consumers of how winegrapes are managed. It would also provide an achievable set of guidelines for growers and provides an avenue for continual improvement of a grower’s farm management practices. One winery observed that it would solidify a grower’s position with a winery. Since several other wineries mentioned that they encouraged growers to use environmental farming practices, we assume they also would favor growers who use these practices.

The nine wineries that answered the question listed 14 different concerns or barriers to an eco labeling program. Most wineries mentioned only one or two concerns rather than a long list. Six were mentioned by two or three wineries but the rest were unique to only one winery. Table 3 lists these and the number of wineries that shared a given concern.

Five wineries are not in the process of developing an environmental labeling program. Nevertheless, two of these wineries felt that they already have vineyards that would qualify for an eco label and a third winery would most likely develop such a program if the wine industry started to go in this direction. One winery is developing a new label that will come from vineyards where integrated farming is practiced, but this will not be indicated on the label and management practices are only part of the qualification for this label. One winery has a wine that comes from organically grown grapes and this is indicated on the label while another winery produces wine from organically grown grapes but does not label the wine as such. One winery is in the process of developing a label for organically grown grapes.

All of the wineries interviewed felt that the most likely way to start an eco labeling program is to develop a new line from select vineyards that would qualify for an eco label, and then see how this label performed in the marketplace. There was a general feeling among the wineries that a program would not be started unless there were good indications that it would succeed. None of the wineries wanted to start an eco label program and then have to end it due to lack of performance. This would reflect badly on the wineries.

Eight of the wineries interviewed did not have any definite ideas of what a certification program should look like. One winery felt that a good system might be to score management practices with higher scores being awarded for increasingly environmentally friendly methods. To qualify for an eco label a vineyard would have to reach a certain score. This basically describes a positive points system. This winery also suggested that there should be a "kick-out" parameter so that if a particular farming practice used is environmentally unsound, then the vineyard would not qualify for the eco label even if it receives enough points from the other categories.

Although the most wineries did not have definite ideas about a certification program the question did elicit interesting comments and strong feelings. Four wineries mentioned that it was extremely important that whatever system was developed it had to have credibility and its ratings had to be very clearly understood. One winery felt that it would be extremely difficult to develop a system on which everyone could agree. They thought that the only realistic way to develop a system would be with a small group of people. A large group could never come to consensus. They envisioned that once a system was developed it would get criticized from all sides, and no one would be completely satisfied. They were unsure of how to deal with this problem. One of the wineries growing winegrapes organically agreed, in principle, with eco labeling, but felt that growing grapes with standards lower than those of certified organic farming was not desirable.

Five wineries thought that a small, well-defined logo or insignia would be the best way to indicate an eco labeled wine. Three wineries felt a short statement on the back of the bottle would be a good way to label the wine. One winery did not have an opinion on this matter. Three wineries indicated that the message might be better relayed to the consumer in another manner, such as a brochure in the store, or a hang-on label.

All of the wineries that were interviewed had a positive reaction to the concept of an environmental label. It was very clear, however, that they all felt that consumers choose their wines primarily based on quality, or quality for price, and that eco labels would not change this. Nevertheless, most of the wineries expressed at least moderate interest in developing an eco label program if the industrial and consumer climates were right.

The impetus for eco labeling and the adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices can come from several directions. The wineries interviewed in this project felt that marketing, concern for the environment, and increased government regulations and safety standards, were the main reasons for eco labels. None of the wineries expressed interest in eco labels strictly from the marketing perspective. They all indicated that the reason they supported and encouraged environmentally friendly farming of winegrapes was because it was the right thing to do rather than simply a marketing ploy. However, if a label could indicate that these practices were being used then they felt it would most likely benefit their winery’s image.

Several wineries talked about the eco label as benefiting the wine industry as a whole, which is laudable, but in some ways surprising, in a competitive industry. However, since everyone we spoke with felt that quality was the key to consumer wine choice, then an eco label would not be viewed as offering a significant competitive advantage. This may be the explanation for such a magnanimous view of the issue by wineries.

Wineries expressed a large number of serious concerns regarding eco labels and their development despite their positive views on the issue. This is not surprising since the concept is new to the industry and involves issues such as certification and farm management practices, and may affect the cost of producing winegrapes and wine. The fact that other commodities have developed, or are in the process of developing, eco labels indicates that these concerns can probably be dealt with. We look forward to the discussion of some of these concerns in the afternoon work sessions.

I was asked to start this panel with some relevant lessons distilled from the development of the organic label. It feels a bit presumptuous and much more than a bit ironic at this moment to make definitive assertions about organic labeling, but I'll try my best here.

Let me first state something about my own subjective bias, which is sort of a "conditional neutrality" about alternative labels. Some people may feel that eco labels are unwelcome competition for the organic industry. I basically believe that as long as a label is (1) truthful, and (2) actually means something specific and tangible that is (3) subject to transparent verification, then it can and should rightfully be put to the test in the marketplace. These conditions are tougher to meet than they seem at first, but if you can fulfill them, I say go for it. If an eco label system does not meet these three tests then we are not in the same ballpark and the rest of my talk does not apply.

The presumptuousness that I referred to is the idea that I or any one person could encompass the extreme complexity and diversity of the organic movement for you. The lessons that I can draw come from my own experience and do not purport to depict a universal or even majority view. My perspective comes from several vantage points: 15 years as a working (vegetable) farmer selling into several levels of the organic marketplace; seven years as an official representative of the organic industry working for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) in the late 1980s; and three years in my current role as part-time "policy hog" for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. At CCOF I contributed to the early development of the organic certification system and to the overhaul of the California Organic Foods Act. From 1991 until recently I chaired the state's Organic Foods Advisory Board.

The irony of doing this talk is that, as this meeting takes place, the 50-year history and $10+ billion global marketplace for organic foods is in a dramatic crisis. It’s a crisis that could possibly destroy what has been achieved, or could launch us into a quantum leap of growth and historical impact. I'm speaking of course about the tremendously disappointing federal regulatory proposal for implementing the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. While the Act itself is still a valid and creative piece of legislation, the proposal of December 15^th is a train-wreck of massive proportions that is still being investigated. It is possible that an equally massive public response during the comment period will somehow spark a new situation in which the movement's original hopes and needs for a federal program are embodied. I'm not holding my breath, but I am certainly not giving up the fight. (For the record, a sub-irony here is that I have the historical footnote of introducing organic labeling issues to the staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee during a visit to Washington, D.C. in early 1989, giving the first push in the long route of the USDA's organic train.)

In this context it is difficult to be drawing historical conclusions, but I think there are some specific lessons at hand for the wider discussion about "eco labeling." Here's the main structural metaphor underlying my analysis: the focal point of this discussion is at the intersection of alternative (i.e., environmentally less harmful) farming practices, the consumer marketplace, and regulatory systems (both governmental and industry-based). The overlap of these three zones of activity defines the universe within which "eco labels" are meaningful. It's a very complex place, subject to many forces and events in each of the three overlapping sectors. So, we are asking, "What features of the organic experience can illuminate this intersection, and tell us something about thriving within it?" Although the new federal regulatory proposal seems to overshadow the organic picture, it is not the most important issue here. What is important to this discussion is the fact that a federal organic statute and rule-making process exist at all. That is, the National Organic Program (NOP) debacle is the most visible current landmark at the intersection, but the historical landscape that made the NOP possible is the real issue for today.

Here is my main premise for this discussion: "Organically Grown" is indeed the original eco label, the prototype for all efforts to market an environmental value. The beginnings of the organic marketplace go back to post World War II Pennsylvania, the Rodale family and a handful of pioneer farms like Walnut Acres. There was no real precedent for building a generic category of products whose label identity stood for a progressive relationship with the biological environment. (The closest analogue was probably the Co-op label, representing a national network of consumer-owned grocery cooperatives. Sadly, that is now a relic.) It is the long-term marketplace survival of the organic label that has made it feasible to speculate about "eco labels" as a way of representing certain environmental relationships in agriculture and business in general.

Because the organic label is so prototypical, there are actually many more lessons for the eco labeling discussion than it is possible to cover here. I will only try to cover some general principles today, but there are a lot of specific problems and technical issues that are worth examining down the road.

Organic farming has taken almost 50 years to become a real force in the marketplace. Even now, after eight years of remarkably strong and steady growth, it still is only one or two percent of the overall U.S. food economy. That is not to say that the cycle of market creation for other eco labels can't be shortened, but without a long-term definition of success, the effort to build eco labels will be neither effective nor worth doing. In short, don't expect anything to happen very quickly.

Let me illustrate one aspect of the long-term journey, which will be familiar to anyone with entrepreneurial experience: the natural leap-frog relationship of supply and demand. The organic sector has grown in a zigzag fashion, moving dialectically from having an oversupply for the available markets, then that oversupply suddenly spills over into new markets. After which there is not enough new production on-line to fulfill demand within the expanded marketplace, so production builds up, creating a new oversupply and the cycle repeats itself. Furthermore, these zigzags get exaggerated and distorted by the chaotic impacts of weather and the macro-economy. This cycle has averaged about five years in the organic vegetable sector, and I've seen it three times in my years as a farmer. These gyrations make it very difficult to analyze success on a short-term basis; you have to be willing to stick it out for a while and expect these ebbs and flows.

This example leads me to my next "lesson." While there is a cyclic relationship between production start-up and market development, you can't really just start anywhere in the cycle. The organic experience suggests that the production--and its intrinsic environmental value--have to come first.

Many current discussions of agricultural eco labeling seem to orbit around some analysis of "consumer attitudes" at the center, and attempt to re-position farm practices or products so as to exploit these supposed attitudes. Thus, some current so-called eco labels are the equivalent of "vaporware" in the computer industry: a promise to bring a theoretical product to the marketplace just as soon as some producers can be induced to follow this theoretical incentive. I believe such efforts are generally well intentioned but predict that they will not sustain themselves.

The salient feature of the organic standard is that it has mostly been producer-defined, rooted in the real needs and possibilities of farm operators. The organic label was not developed by environmental activists or marketing consultants. (These players are important, but they have come later in the game.) From this starting point there has been a process of accommodating the demands of the consumer marketplace, but these have been adjustments to the core identity defined by the growers. This process of gradual adjustment has created some difficulties and contradictions, of course. Which brings me to my next point:

For the purposes of the marketplace, an eco label must stand for something specific in terms of environmentally beneficial (or distinctly less harmful) farming practices. Given that a group of producers have achieved a set of such practices, the system must then be articulated for the marketplace AND it must be codified for the purposes of verification. Drawing the lines for these purposes has many pitfalls, and the organic industry has plenty of both hits and misses to explore. Here are three versions of the general problem with respect to devising meaningful standards:

Now, once you have a set of standards articulated, they have to be verified, which brings me to

A transparent, independent system of verification provides the biggest value of all in an eco label. That value is information. This may be the most important lesson of all from the organic experience. The real pathbreaking message of the organic label was that it stood for the ability of the consumer to reliably know how a given item of food was produced. This is a subtle quality of the organic label, and not an overt part of its marketing approach; but in a way it is the most revolutionary aspect of the whole organic epic. As the prototype, this aspect of organic foods is so fundamental that I think "information content" about production practices is taken for granted as a salable value in eco labels.

The verification of labeling standards is the quality control of an eco label’s information content, and it is therefore indispensable. I do not think that the organic industry has done nearly as well as it should have in the design and performance of our verification schemes. We have had failures of methodology, ethics, and cost-efficiency. All of these parameters have to be worked on diligently if an eco label is going to maintain its internal integrity. The more compelling an eco labeling claim is to consumers, the more important the verification controls must be. Contemplating the consequences of success brings me to the final point.

The final aspect I have to mention is the least pleasant of all: If a labeling concept works in the marketplace and provides an economic reward, somebody will try to rip it off. A "police" function will ultimately be necessary to keep the value of the label from being degraded, and to maintain consumers' faith. Regulation stinks but it's almost inescapable. The likelihood of government regulation, however is a direct function of the efficacy of private-sector self-policing. IF the trade can regulate itself (a big "if"), then the government may not have to be involved. This is one area where the organic industry has, in my view performed very poorly. We’ve always had a hard time cleaning up our messes and imposing sanctions on those who don't live up to the standards. This was already a problem in the late 1980s and its one of the factors that contributed to the passage of federal legislation. If there is one single precaution implied by the organic experience, it is this: keep the verification system as rigorous as possible right from the start. This will ensure that producers, consumers and regulators alike respect the integrity of the label. It has a cost, but that cost is a necessary part of the eco marketplace.

In closing, let me state one more generality that may have been lost in the list of lessons here. Although "organically grown" is the grandmother of all eco labels, fulfilling the goals of eco labeling does not necessarily require a model that looks just like organic standards and certification as we know them. If the fundamental principles of truthfulness, substantive meaning, and transparent verification are met, any number of technical and organizational approaches might work. However, the organic experience represents a series of practical, compromise solutions to a number of inevitable problems. Its achievements, as well as its shortcomings, should be respected and thoroughly studied by anyone wishing to market an environmental or social value. Good luck in your endeavors.

First of all, I’d sincerely like to thank the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the opportunity to participate in this workshop. Before getting into the main topic, the first Integrated Pest Management (IPM) certification program in the nation, which is known as Partners with Nature, a little background is appropriate. First of all, I approach this topic not as a policy worker, theoretician, or marketing specialist, but as someone who has over 20 year’s experience helping farmers develop and implement workable IPM systems, particularly for tree fruits. I can genuinely appreciate the difficulties farmers face in dealing with insect, disease, weed and other pests in an economically and environmentally sound way. I think this first-hand field experience has helped me put a number of issues in the proper context.

Compared to many other parts of the globe, the food-consuming public in the United States is fortunate to have access to a highly diverse and relatively inexpensive supply of safe and healthful food. Nonetheless, the previous and continuing media focus on the safety of the food supply, particularly regarding residues of pesticides, exacerbates fears that are apparently widespread.

Whether or not such fears are justified is really of little matter, since "Image has become as important as law or science in framing the way politicians and the general public view fresh fruits, vegetables and other food products." (Russell, 1990). According to the 1993 Sandoz Agricultural poll conducted by the Gallup organization, 43 percent of farmers surveyed think that the image of farmers regarding environmental responsibility is getting worse. Food Marketing Institute surveys from 1989-1993 found that the percent of the surveyed consumers who were completely or mostly confident in the safety of the food supply declined (81 percent in 1989, 79 percent in 1990, 82 percent in 1991, 72 percent in 1992, 73 percent in 1993). Results of The Packer Focus Fresh Trends Surveys also revealed that 17 percent of consumers nationwide reported buying fewer fruits and vegetables due to residue concerns (1990), and that 46 percent of shoppers nationwide reported that they were more concerned about pesticide residues than 12 months earlier (1993). Clearly, agriculture in this country has an image problem.

Ironically, we in Massachusetts became involved in such non-production issues partly due to our initial success in implementing IPM programs on commercial farms. The story I will present today has its beginning in 1978, when we initiated the first IPM project in Massachusetts, which dealt with apples. While Massachusetts only ranks about thirteenth in U.S. apple production, the crop has a farm gate market value of around $20,000,000, and represents a significant source of income for about 200 Massachusetts farms. So under the leadership of Ron Prokopy, and with collaboration of disciplinary colleagues in the departments of plant pathology, plant and soil science, and economics, we implemented this project on ultimately 48 orchards from 1978-1982. By any standard, the project was successful in that it demonstrated that it was possible to reduce pesticide use by between 25 and 50 percent without any loss of crop yield or quality. The project was directly responsible for the development of an IPM consulting industry which, had not previously existed, and we estimate that currently well over 75 percent of the commercial apple acreage in the state is under a full-fledged IPM system.

This initial success lead participating growers to ask us if there was some way they could be recognized by their neighbors and in the marketplace for their adoption of IPM. The university’s involvement in this was important to growers since some of their counterparts had already started printing bags and boxes claiming "this product raised with integrated pest management—little or no pesticides used," "no pesticides used on this product," or similar claims. So we reasoned that if a grower was a participant in a University of Massachusetts IPM project (by this time, we had added projects dealing with cranberries, potatoes, sweet corn and strawberries) and was following our recommendations, that they at least should have a sign to display at the farm.

This reasoning led to development of an 11 by 18 inch yellow sign with the University of Massachusetts IPM Program logo and the wording "Cooperating Grower, Integrated Pest Management Program, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension," which we gave out to all participants. Unfortunately, one participant in the Potato Project (he was not truly a "cooperator," since he consistently ignored our recommendations, particularly when they involved not spraying) called in an aerial application of two restricted use insecticides on a field in the heart of the Connecticut River Valley on one of the hottest Fridays of the summer. Because this field was bordered along one side by houses, this application sickened a number of people, and the complaints started pouring in to the state regulatory agency Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. When MDFA inspectors looked into it, they learned that this particular gentleman did not have a current license to buy restricted use materials, having failed the certification exams more than once. He had apparently been able to buy them from a local supplier because the supplier never asked for his license. Upon further investigation, the grower was also found to have been illegally dumping used pesticide containers into the Connecticut rivers.

Fortunately, and to our great relief, none of the press noted "the yellow sign" (he may not actually have displayed it), but this experience made us really gun shy. As a result, from that point on, the yellow sign found its way into oblivion, and we developed another sign that said simply "Yes, We Support IPM," and contained a few lines of text explaining IPM in lay terms.

At about this time, we also began an internal discussion about what it really meant to "do" IPM, and how one could document actual use. Countless general definitions of IPM exist, including one written by Professor Ed Glass from Cornell (1975) that states: "IPM is a system that, in the context of the environment and the population dynamics of the pest species, uses all suitable control strategies in as (ecologically) compatible manner as possible, and maintains pest population levels below those causing economic injury". While this is a perfectly fine definition, it really gives a grower (or other interested party) very little information (and no details) about what such a system looks like for apples or any other crop, and was of potentially no more value than the yellow sign in documenting if a person was really using such a system. Consequently, we concluded that general definitions are not adequate for our purposes.

It has been suggested by some, that, since IPM is a knowledge-intensive approach to crop production, documenting an IPM approach is merely a matter of determining the extent of a grower’s knowledge, since it is this knowledge that enables him or her to make environmentally-sound decisions. While we agree that informed, knowledgeable growers are essential, and that the vast majority of growers are sincere about adopting IPM, a less trusting soul might point out that "You can talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?" That is to say that while one can know all there is to know, an interested third party has no way to be sure that sound actions follow this knowledge.

Since one product of the original apple project was an extension manual called Integrated Management of Apple Pests in Massachusetts and New England, we thought we had a good description of the current state of the art of apple IPM. So in 1987, I wrote an article for inclusion in an extension newsletter (the Annual March Message to the Massachusetts Fruitgrowers) called "Characteristics Defining an IPM Orchard," which was our first effort to define IPM in a detailed and commodity-specific sense.

With the cooperation of a number of other U. Mass colleagues, we duplicated the same process for other crops for which IPM systems were well developed. The process we used had several aspects. First, we categorized the sorts of IPM practices available (e.g., Soil/Nutrient Management, Cultural Practices, Insect Management, Disease Management, etc.). Then, on a crop-by-crop basis, we listed each of the proven IPM practices under each category and assigned points to each practice, giving more points to those practices that were either more important to the IPM system, or more difficult to implement. This process, although initially carried out by university-based research and extension staff, later involved private IPM consultants and growers in a feedback loop to insure that all appropriate practices had been included, and that the weighting system was seen as appropriate by the principal end-users.

In understanding the rationale behind a point system, it may be useful to consider how one would document IPM use (or any other label claim for that matter) without one. For example, one could require that all approved practices be used in every block, every year, and/or that all use of certain materials be avoided, with other (more acceptable) ones used in all blocks, every year. If this looks familiar, this is the basis of most "certified organic" programs at present. Clearly this approach gives very little flexibility to design a program which is site, or even block-specific.

On the other hand, a guideline-based point system, especially one that sets the bar at use of a certain fixed percentage (e.g., 60 percent) of total possible points, while it lists all available practices and materials, allows the grower to custom design an IPM system that is appropriate for individual blocks in highly variable years. To illustrate the importance of this flexibility, imagine an IPM documentation system that required all cranberry growers to monitor for all key pests in every bog, every year. One key pest of Massachusetts cranberries is the Black-headed Fireworm. We learned early on, however, that the Black-headed Fireworm apparently does not occur in all of the cranberry-growing regions of the state. Hence, it is foolish to ask all growers to monitor for it simply to get the needed percentage of IPM points. Consequently, under our system, even the total number of available "practice points" varies from site to site, allowing growers to design a meaningful system for their farm, while still allowing documentation of an IPM system.

However, our system, by requiring that points be gained in all categories, insures that growers do not simply focus on insect and disease management, for example, while ignoring other important aspects of crop production and protection. Another aspect of the system is that it can be used to encourage adoption of the most desirable practices by assigning higher point values to these. That is, makes the system easier to achieve the minimum number of points, by doing fewer, but potentially more difficult, or more environmentally responsible, practices.

Related to both flexibility and encouraging practitioners to use more desirable practices, a point-based system can also be structured to give "partial credit" for using a previously unused practice on a portion of the farm in order to test its utility without having to put the whole crop on the line. As ours does, a guideline can encourage such experimentation by giving Bonus Points (which are not included in the sum of Total Practice Points), but which can help growers reach the minimum point total needed.

I would like to be able to claim that we were the first to develop such a point-based IPM assessment/verification system, but I cannot. To the best of my knowledge, the first individuals to do so were J.L. Boutwell and R. H. Smith, who developed a guideline and point system to use in evaluation of cotton IPM systems, and published their work in the Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America in 1981.

The principal reason we began to develop the IPM Guidelines I have described is because of their value as an educational tool. On numerous occasions, farmers told us that they "had heard of this thing called IPM," and that they had been at training sessions that covered various IPM practices, but that they had never before seen the whole system laid out in front of them before. In addition to use in educational programs, another use of a commodity-specific IPM definition is as a tool to assess the extent of grower adoption of IPM.

This is not a trivial issue, since the U.S. now has a policy to achieve IPM adoption on 75 percent of the U.S. crop acreage by the year 2000. We believe that it is only possible to assess actual adoption using specific guidelines and point systems, rather than through a general definition such as that presented earlier. Related to this is the possibility that IPM Guidelines can form the basis of cost-sharing or other incentive programs, such as those administered by the USDA’s Farm Services Agency (FSA). I will later give an example of how this has worked well in Massachusetts.

In keeping with the theme of this conference, IPM guidelines can also be used in the context of eco labeling programs such as the Partners with Nature Program. But first of all, one could ask why one should consider developing an eco label in the first place. For one thing, eco labels are consistent with a well-established, worldwide trend toward "environmentally-friendly marketing." Virtually everyone has seen examples, including: "Certified Organic," "Dolphin-Safe" Tuna, the European Union’s "Integrated Production" model, "Nature Farming" (Japan), "Alp Action," "Smart Wood," Eco-OK" bananas, "Nutri Clean," the Stemilt Growers’ "Responsible Choice" label, Coleman’s Natural Meats, and others.

While all-of-the above are agricultural examples, the interest in eco labeling is not simply confined to this area, for example automobile manufacturers are advertising environmentally responsible air conditioner refrigerants. Even a major chemical manufacturer has used a tag line "A Growing Partnership with Nature" in its promotional materials. Some of you may have heard of the International Standards Organization’s series of standards, which try to document companies’ use of environmentally sound manufacturing processes.

What this is all about, in my opinion, is giving choices to consumers. It is also about distinguishing your particular product from your competition in an increasingly global marketplace. The idea is to help give the consumer a "warm and fuzzy feeling" about an industry or product. In turn, this ideally should translate to greater market share, improved sales, and improved profitability.

In addition to using IPM guidelines as educational tools to enhance adoption, and to document actual levels of IPM adoption in keeping with national policies, Massachusetts began using the guidelines in the marketplace in 1993. Our principal purpose was to respond to a grower-identified need to be recognized in the marketplace for their use of IPM. This is related to another purpose: to respond to consumer concern over pesticide use. Additional purposes are to help Massachusetts farmers respond to marketing challenges from other countries and states whose farmers are already participating in eco labeling programs, to encourage further adoption of IPM, and to identify research or extension activities that may be required to stimulate greater adoption.

The program was developed as a true collaboration between the partners. The partners include the University of Massachusetts (U. Mass), which initially conceived of and developed the guidelines and point system, the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (MDFA), whose funding helps support the U. Mass IPM program and where reside a number of capable marketing-oriented professionals, and the USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA), whose contacts with farmers, and expertise in cost-sharing programs, greatly advance adoption.

Naturally, the first step is for interested farmers to apply, and to pay a small ($20 per crop) application fee. Application may be made directly to the MDFA, or indirectly to the FSA SP-53 cost-sharing program. Farmers who succeed in receiving FSA cost sharing are automatically qualified for Partners with Nature (PWN) certification as well, although the PWN application fees are still required. Upon application, farmers receive a resource binder containing, among other things, a copy of the U. Mass IPM Guidelines for the specific crop(s) for which certification is sought. Using the guidelines and point system, farmers develop a farm and block-specific IPM plan, which will ensure that they achieve at least the minimum number of required points. In actual practice, private sector IPM consultants often complete this stage of the process on the farmer’s behalf, especially for those farmers who will use the FSA cost-sharing to partially pay the consulting fees. Prior to harvest of the crop, a field verification visit is made by one or more representatives of the collaboration to determine if the farmer is on track toward successful completion of the farm plan. If so, the farm becomes certified and receives an assortment of PWN-related materials. After the end of the season, monitoring and other records are required to be submitted to confirm that the farm completed the planned practices.

After the mid-season field visit, the Commissioner of Agriculture signs a certificate stating that the farmer has completed all the requirements of the program and has license to use the Partners With Nature trademark. Certified farms also receive brochures, posters, fliers, and press kits for use on the farm. In addition, program staff develops public service announcements and press releases for local media, noting that the farm has received certification and describing what IPM is. Participating farmers consistently tell us that it is these press releases and other related certification materials are the principal value of the program.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the number of farms participating in PWN steadily increased from 1993 through 1996, but declined somewhat in 1997. A major reason for this decline is a significant change in the nature of the FSA cost-sharing program that many farmers had used to help defray costs associated with hiring private IPM consultants. According to data generated by the FSA, this decline in PWN participation does not indicate that farmers have discontinued hiring IPM consultants or otherwise using IPM. Rather it appears to reflect the feeling that significant market advantages have not yet been well enough documented for farmers to go through the extra steps of applying to PWN and documenting performance.

Changes in acreage under FSA cost-sharing (Figure 2) show a similar pattern over time.

In a survey that we collaborated with Molly Anderson (Tufts University) on in 1996, 85 percent of surveyed customers said they would prefer to buy IPM-certified sweet corn. In addition, the Shaw’s Supermarket and Bread and Circus Supermarket chains began to recognize and promote PWN Growers in 1997. Other anecdotal evidence provided to us in the form of letters from certified farms suggests those customers’ attitudes about those farms improved. Some farms reported increased business after press coverage, and others report having gained new customers. Availability of FSA cost sharing has measurably increased IPM adoption, and more IPM consultants are now available due to the availability of the cost sharing.

Unfortunately, there is as yet no evidence that certified farmers are receiving a higher price for certified products or selling dramatically more of them, and the paperwork required to show that the program is not "smoke and mirrors" is seen as burdensome.

The "Good Guy, Bad Guy" concern, that is if IPM certified produce is "good" then all other produce will be seen to be "bad," has not even cropped up. In fact, no customers seemed surprised or put off to learn that pesticides were used in farming. Rather, consumers appreciate knowing that farmers use an informed decision-making process in crop production. This supports work done by Christine Bruhn and her co-workers in California who found that consumer attitudes toward agriculture and the safety of the food supply improved when study subjects were presented with information about how farmers incorporate IPM principles into informed decision-making.

From our experience, we conclude that there is a benefit to farmer participation in an eco labeling program such as Partners with Nature although the benefit may be more in improved public relations rather than a documentable increase in the economic bottom line. We also conclude, that, in the absence of a documented market-driven benefit, some other positive financial return, perhaps in the form of incentive payments from government or some other body, is desirable as a means to enhance adoption of environmentally-sound practices.

In May 1997, Pacific Rivers Council successfully launched Salmon-Safe, our cooperative agricultural program, in the Pacific Northwest. The program assists growers in both adopting a stream ecosystem conservation plan and marketing their products. Based on voluntary compliance with conservation guidelines, the Salmon-Safe label is placed on food and beverage products, to signify that they were produced using farming practices that restore and protect critical salmon habitat.

The goal of the Salmon-Safe campaign is to reward the farming community for instituting conservation practices that benefit water quality and native salmon populations by providing growers with a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Our othe

Eco Labeling for California Winegrapes:

A Working Conference

Table of Contents

Plenary Sessions

Participant Work Sessions

Closing Address

Introduction to the Conference