This important, interesting report has a wealth of data based on the 1996
ARMS survey. (ARMS stands for Agricultural Resource Management Study, and
supplements that year's NASS chemical use surveys). All tables/discussion
is in reference to crop year 1996, so it will serve as a good baseline for
various analysts and organizations wanting to project the impacts of GMOs.
The report's most valuable new information are detailed tables by major
crop and state of major pests triggering pesticide use. The table on corn,
for example, confirms the point made by a recent post by Ann Clark (her "10
reasons" post). Appendix Table 1.1 lists major corn pests; rootworms
account for just over 10% of total surveyed acres treated. European corn
borer does not even rate a separate line; it falls into "Other moths and
Caterpillars," a category which accounted for 3.2% acres treated. I would
guess ECB accounts for perhaps as much as 2.5% of this 3.2%, which would
support an estimate of perhaps about 1.75 million acres treated for ECB.
Estimates from the corn industry and Monsanto are much, much higher.
The report contains several tables on the decision criteria for pesticide
applications; who did scouting; sources of information; pounds of major
active ingredients applied. These tables do not add much new information,
although this one report and its lengthy appendix contains many useful
summary tables. It also sets forth the ARMS survey instrument for those
working on IPM surveys.
The report acknowledges the lack of progress within USDA in developing an
acceptable method to estimate IPM adoption, and says no estimates of IPM
adoption are offered (or possible) because of the lack of such an agreed
upon method. Based on several discussions with USDA IPM leaders during my
recent trip to D.C., it is pretty clear that the USDA now accepts that the
time has come to let the June 1993 goal/pledge -- "75% IPM by year 2000" --
fade into the woodwork of history. As a practical matter as acknowledged
in the ERS report, the USDA still lacks a method to even measure the 1993
IPM baseline, let alone track progress. The ERS report does state
(correctly in my judgement) that progress has been made in some
biologically based practices and crops -- use of pheromones in traps and
for mating disruption, for example, but overall, there is just no evidence
of major changes since 1993 in national IPM adoption.
Indeed, given that the planting of herbicide tolerant crop varieties
almost certainly constitutes a significant step backward along the IPM
continuum, it is almost certain that any credible measure of IPM adoption
based on total acres will show slippage from 1993 to 1999.
As agricultural historians review the history of the Clinton
Administration's ag-environmental record from 1992-2000, the failure to
make any meaningful progress on IPM will emerge as a major opportunity
lost. The reasons are many and mostly fall outside the USDA. Having
followed this area of policy closely throughout this period, I think the
USDA has made some real strides and would have accomplished more if
Congress had appropriated at least some of the increased funding sought
every year from FY 1994 through the current budget cycle. In short, the
USDA's well-received and widely praised "National IPM Initiative" has never
made it past annual requests for budget increases. In each budget cycle,
Congress has been warm to IPM but never warm enough, given that there are
always many competing needs. There was a clear lack of support from
agribusiness constituencies, major farm groups and the pesticide industry
on the Hill. This was seen/interpreted by some members and staff as
implicit opposition, given that these constituencies are the intended
beneficiaries of increased USDA funding for IPM research and education
programs.
Another factor is in part to blame. The IPM adoption goal/pledge was made
in June 1993. Soon thereafter, biotech issues started to surface as the
major factors capturing the attention of USDA decision-makers. By 1996,
the USDA was far, far more engaged on biotech issues than IPM. Developing
better IPM measurement methods, collecting the data needed to apply the
methods, and increasing the funding for IPM R+E remained high on everyone's
B-List, as one dedicated USDA staff person likes to say. In Washington,
B-List issues generally go no-where, which about sums up progress on IPM at
the national level since 1993.
This is the second time I have seen the lure and political imperatives
associated with biotechnology snuff out promising policy initiatives of
importance to IPM/pesticide regulation. Following the 1987 release of the
NAS "Delaney Report," there was a rare and short-lived consensus across the
environmental-grower-pesticide industry communities for reform of pesticide
law -- an almost passed 1988 bill would have resolved the underlying issues
that finally were dealt with 10 years later by passage of the 1996 Food
Quality Protection Act. In the fall of 1987 and throughout 1988, it would
have been possible to pass a reform bill, but EPA dropped the ball and
missed several deadlines/promises to Congress for bringing forth reform
legislation implementing the NAS report's recommendations.
All the lights seemed green for a major reform bill in 1988, but a major
internal EPA-OSTP-USDA turf fight over biotech regulation was well
underway. The process establishing the federal government's biotech
policies and regulatory scheme was capturing most of the attention and
energies of the senior EPA staff that had to keep the Delaney reform
process going.
Stepping back from today's public debates and tensions surrounding
biotechnology, I suspect that one of the largest social costs of the
"biotech era" will be a long list of opportunities -- and options -- lost.
Clearly, the just released ERS report on IPM makes a strong case for adding
"IPM during the Clinton era" to the list of "opportunities lost."
chuck
Charles Benbrook CU FQPA site www.ecologic-ipm.com
Benbrook Consulting Services Ag BioTech InfoNet www.biotech-info.net
5085 Upper Pack River Road IPM site www.pmac.net
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864
208-263-5236 (Voice) 208-263-7342 (Fax)
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail