Pesticide Use Figures in IPM

The report of the General Accounting Office¹ (GAO), the US Congress's 'watchdog' agency, 'Management improvements needed to further promote integrated pest management' makes rather uncomfortable if not unfamiliar reading. According to the report, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative to achieve implementation of IPM on 75% of total crop acreage in the USA by 2000 fell far short of its target. This is at odds with USDA estimates, which showed that IPM was being implemented on 70% of national crop acreage by the target date, laudably close to the ambitious target. The discrepancy centres on what overall pesticide reduction figures mean, and what the IPM initiative achieved, or was meant to achieve.

At its outset in 1993, USDA and EPA expected the initiative to lead to a reduction in pesticide use and associated risks while maintaining adequate crop protection. The goal was to be achieved through research, outreach and education. A GAO review of policy implementation was requested by a US Senator after he learnt that annual pesticide use had risen by more than 18 million kg since 1992, although crop acreage had fallen. The GAO report says while IPM has led to significant benefits in some crops and locations in terms of reduced pesticide and management costs, [see following articles, for example], it does not appear to have quantifiably reduced national chemical pesticide use. The report notes, though, that the proportion and total use of most-toxic chemicals (in human terms) have both declined, although these still represent more than 40% of total agricultural pesticide use. Quite how this relates to the original expectation of reducing pesticides and related risks is therefore not clear.

An earlier report by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy² (NCFAP) sheds more light on this. This NGO is supported by government agencies, agrochemical companies and commodity organizations. The detailed analysis conducted under its Pesticide Use Program showed that although a broad-brush summary showed an overall increase in pesticide use in agriculture, this glossed over a multitude of detail. The analysis, which compared figures for 1992 and 1997, was based on a database that recorded use of 200 active ingredients in 87 crops in the 48 mainland states. This report pointed out that the overall upward trend hid a complex of hundreds of increased and decreased uses for different chemicals, crops and states. These varied changes were themselves a reflection of many interacting factors including weather, pest populations, economic factors, shifts in crop acreage and altered agronomic practices, as well as new cost-effective pesticides, introduction of effective non-chemical methods, changes in regulations and voluntary changes to reduce crop residues.

The NCFAP report argued that natural and economic forces resulted in some major increases in usage that hid reductions for more than a half of the comparisons made (including those resulting from the introduction of more effective and less hazardous new products). For example, the arrival of a new and virulent strain of potato blight caused almost 17 million kg more pesticides to be used in this crop annually, while reduced tillage (encouraged by federal farm policies to reduce erosion) is attributed with increasing herbicide use by over 250,000 kg annually; overall fungicide and herbicide usage increased 2%. Most notably, though, a fall in citrus prices led Florida growers to switch to cheaper, less-effective oil products, which single-handedly increased annual insect-icide use by over 21.7 million kg. In contrast, overall annual insecticide use rose by 15.1 million kg between 1992 and 1997, while overall pesticide use rose by 42.6 million kg according to this study.

The GAO report, however, also suggests that a lack of clear objectives is one reason for the disparity between IPM adoption and pesticide reduction figures. Although the initiative began in 1993, the definition of IPM and a method for measuring its implementation were not finalized until 1997. In this context, IPM farming practices were grouped into four cat-egories: prevention, avoidance, monitoring and suppression (PAMS). Farmers had to demonstrate adoption of at least one practice in at least three categories for acreage to be included in the IPM goal. However, the GAO analysis focused on biologically based practices as the basis for pesticide reduction. It showed that each category included biologically based methods (such as conserving natural enemies and mating disruption), which tended to reduce pesticide use, and others (such as monitoring pests and cleaning implements), which might not. The GAO report argues that acreage could be classified as IPM acreage without any measures that led to pesticide-reduction being implemented. The report says that although USDA and EPA recognised the key importance of biologically based IPM technologies in reducing pesticide use, and have encouraged growers to adopt these, their definition of IPM did not reflect this, and their analysis did not distinguish biologically based practices. However, in many systems cultural control (healthy seed, crop sanitation, prevention of spread, tillage, etc.) can have substantial impact on control and hence pesticide use, particularly in weeds. Indeed, we have already noted how the NCFAP report attributed an increase in herbicide use to the introduction of reduced tillage. However, the GAO report argues that the USDA implementation rate estimated from their criteria does not reflect "meaningful outcomes in terms of the original goal of pesticide reduction". For example, USDA estimated that 76% of maize acreage nationally was under IPM by the end of 2000, while the GAO report says that biologically based IPM practices that could reduce pesticide use were implemented on no more than 18%. The NCFAP, on the other hand, estimated that between 1992 and 1997, reductions were achieved in insecticide and fungicide use in maize through the introduction of new active ingredients (including soil applied insecticides, which led to a 2.6 million kg reduction, and Bt maize), although herbicide use increased (with atrazine still widely applied).

The GAO report found the situation in cotton (where USDA estimated the highest IPM adoption rate of 86%) to be markedly different. The National Academy of Sciences cites this as an example of IPM providing better long-term control than pesticides. The cotton pesticide treadmill story is familiar. Beneficial insects had been effectively eliminated from the agro-ecosystem by years of widespread chemical use, and development of pesticide resistance meant that pest populations increased despite more pesticide appli-cations. Cotton acreages were falling dramatically when an IPM programme was introduced which combined reduced pesticide application with pheromone-based mating disruption and other IPM practices. This brought the pests under control and helped restore cotton production through reduced pest control costs, and increased yields, land values and area planted to the crop. The NCFAP report recorded a reduction of more than 900,000 kg in pesticides used annually (between 1992 and 1997) from the introduction of Bt cotton alone, and while insecticide use against boll weevil increased, this was as part of a strategy to eradicate the pest.

According to the GAO report, this is a relatively rare example of widespread IPM implementation, although there have been numerous small successes. It says that although USDA researchers, growers' associations and major food processors have all demonstrated IPM's significant environmental benefits, farmer uptake has been poor or patchy. The report cites farm-level impediments, such as poor communication of IPM information to farmers, farmers' perceptions of financial risks of adopting IPM practices, and the higher costs of IPM products and practices in some cases. However, this also reflects a worldwide trend of poor uptake of IPM technologies. Despite massive financial and research inputs the message has largely not got through to farmers and carefully researched IPM methods have been discarded or ignored altogether. International and national agricultural organ-izations are now working to change this by focusing on engaging farmers in concerted attempts to develop and deliver appropriate IPM technologies.

Even the GAO report, though, admits that the USA has some remarkable success stories to build on, and we focus on two of these below (apple IPM in the Pacific Northwest and potato IPM in Wisconsin).

USDA, commenting on the report, affirms its determination to improve imple-mentation and coordination of US national IPM programmes. The GAO report calls for 'meaningful outcomes', but what are these? Scientists involved in the areawide apple IPM programme, discussed next, argue that while the GAO report focuses on pesticide reduction in purely tonnage terms, a more useful measure is reduction in risk from pesticides, together with other measures to build greater biological stability into the system. IPM includes a basket of technologies, and best solutions use a combination of methods developed on a case-specific basis. In particular, they point out, a focus on purely 'biologically based' IPM together with an insistence on pesticide reduction as the yardstick by which to measure success may leave farmers with very restricted or even no effective choices in many circumstances.

Sources:
¹US General Accounting Office (2001) Management improvements needed to further promote integrated pest management.
Website: http://www.gao.gov/  [listed under September 28, 2001]

²Gianessi, L.P.; Silvers, C.S. (2000) Trends in pesticide use: comparing 1992 and 1997. Washington DC; National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 165 pp.
Website: http://www.ncfap.org/

❑

Apple of Their Eye

Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) is the key pest of pome fruit in the western USA. Codling moth control historically relied almost entirely on broad-spectrum organo-phosphate insecticides, especially azin-phosmethyl. The 5-year Areawide Program for Suppression of Codling Moth in the Western United States, which implemented a biologically based IPM strategy that led to an overall reduction of some 60% in organophosphate pesticides directed at codling moth control, together with a similar reduction in codling moth damage in pilot sites, is highlighted as a success story by the GAO report ('Pesticide use figures in IPM', above).

However, one of the architects of this programme, the US Pacific Northwest tree fruit industry, has reservations about the GAO approach and conclusions. It is anxious that the programme's success, of which the participants are justly proud, should not be overstated, nor that oversimplification or generalization from the results should contribute to inappropri-ate restrictions being placed on pesticide use. Above all it argues that reductions in pesticide use should not be the litmus test for IPM adoption. Such a short-sighted and narrow interpretation could have disastrous consequences for IPM, and place a burden on crop management that would make pome fruit production economically unviable in some circumstances. In the case of the Areawide Program, mating dis-ruption as an IPM tactic is not an adequate 'stand-alone' method when codling moth populations are high and conventional pesticides are needed as a back-up.

The centrepiece of the Areawide Program was codling moth mating disruption based on pheromone dispensers and sterile male releases, which replaced most or, in a few cases, all of the insecticide azinphosmethyl otherwise used for its control. However, control of codling moth with reductions in organophosphate insecticides allowed other secondary pests such as leafrollers (Pandemis pyrusana and Choristoneura rosaceana) to emerge, and these were controlled by combinations of organo-phosphate insecticides used prior to bloom and non-organophosphate insecticides and Bt sprays used during the summer period. In most western orchards, some key natural enemies (predatory mites and some leafminer parasitoids) have developed tolerance to organophosphate insecticides, so good biological control of spider mites (Panonychus ulmi and Tetranychus urticae) and leafminer (Phyllonorycter elmaella) existed in most orchards. A re-duction in use of azinphosmethyl, however, allowed generalist predators to recover, which helped to suppress such pests as aphids and the pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola).

This industry is a strong supporter of IPM and has one of the longest histories of IPM implementation in the country (using both biologically based and practice-based IPM tactics). It approves of the GAO focusing on IPM but, despite the resounding success of the Areawide Program, questions pest-icide reduction per se as an accounting tool. IPM in perennial tree crops is complicated. Many factors, such as the mode of action of a given control tool, overall pest pressure, the weather and the availability of effective alternatives to broad-spectrum pesticides, play a role in the total amount of pesticide used on a crop. While the US Pacific North-west tree fruit industry continues to support higher visibility and increased funding for IPM programmes at the state and regional level, it stresses that IPM research and implementation priorities must reflect the needs of the growers. Successful strategies are always based on local conditions and the realities of the cropping system community, the pest complex and the economics of the commodity.

The USDA-ARS Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Washington State University, Oregon State University, the University of California, Berkeley and many private companies collaborated to develop the Areawide Program's four components:

• establishing implementation sites in Washington, Oregon and California
• researching questions and problems relating to implementation
• continuously assessing progress
• communicating how the strategy works and how the programme progresses to growers

A significant factor in the success of the programme was getting orchards in a large area to implement the IPM strategy, so that they could begin to function as a complex sustainable system. Given the GAO's criticism of the level of IPM adoption countrywide, this Areawide Program provides interesting lessons on how it promoted successful large-scale adoption by growers in Washington, Oregon, and California (and with some effect in Colorado).

To begin with, the industry has a long history of integrating chemical and bio-logical control in this area - growers are accustomed to the principles of IPM and, for example, considering nontarget effects of pesticides and resistance issues in decision making. Initially, five pilot sites were established in which partial costs (50%) of mating disruption were covered for participating growers for the first 3 years. Further sites were financed for one year only with 'seed money grant', after which growers had to bear all the programme costs. Growers and scientists worked as partners, electing management boards with representatives of both, and hiring project coordinators to monitor codling moth and collate information. Results were made available to participants and the industry via newsletters, news releases and newspaper articles.

Word-of-mouth, though, proved the most effective tool in increasing acceptance and uptake. At first, according to the pro-gramme team, most growers were sceptical. Although some asked to be part of the pilot, many adopted a wait-and-see attitude. At the end of the first year participating growers were happy with progress, and at the end of the second more were asking to join the programme. By the end of the third year, growers were clamouring to be included - even those outside the programme's area. In 1995, some 8800 ha of pome fruit were treated with mating disruption products (the pilot sites represented less than 10% of this area), and by 2000 this had increased to more than 38,000 ha. An IPM strategy that farmers could see worked and reduced pest management costs was a carrot to encourage adoption. Thus, the Areawide Program worked because it showed growers that they could successfully use mating disruption as a control for codling moth, and these growers were able to convince other growers that it was neither a difficult nor an expensive method when supplemented with insecticides.

The programme notes, however, that IPM was not necessarily implemented with the level of success achieved in the pilot sites. For example, only 50% of the total apple and pear orchard acreage in Washington even used the technologies employed in the pilot sites by the year 2000. Most of these sites were using reduced rates of mating disruption in combination with pesticides so the same level of pesticide reduction noted in the Areawide Program was not achieved. A full 50% of growers still do not practise use of mating disruption for codling moth, in part because of the difficult economic times which have left growers strapped for cash to pay for pest control activities.

A second identifiable reason for good adoption was more fortuitous, and more of a stick. The Food Quality Protection Act, 1996 (FQPA) set the stage for radical change in pest management programmes in the USA by establishing a new standard for assessing the impact of pesticides, that there would be "a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure". It required re-registration of all pesticides (including organophosphates) according to more rigorous safety standards. This eliminated or restricted the use of most broad-spectrum pesticides, especially on crops that are important foods for infants or children in the USA, including apples and pears. However, the Areawide Program was underway and the usefulness of mating disruption as an IPM technology was being demonstrated concurrently with the implementation of these new regulations. The IPM strategy thus furnished a tool for growers to control codling moth and reduce the use of chemical pesticides just when regulatory pressures were encouraging them to consider alternatives.

However, one drawback to the sustain-ability of a pheromone-based strategy is that codling moth populations must remain low in the region for continued success. Currently, owing to low or negative returns to apple growers, many orchards in the region have been abandoned or are poorly farmed. This has led to rising codling moth populations and reduced success with sole reliance on mating disruption. Is good IPM still going on? Yes, but there has been a change in the virulence of the pest complex. The message from this is that IPM, whatever technologies this comprises, has to be part of an economically sustainable production system. The next article suggests that this might be achievable - but not just at the farmers' expense.

Sources:
Brunner, J; Welter, S.; Calkins, C.; Hilton, R.; Beers, E.; Dunley, J.; Unruh, T.; Knight, A.; Van Steenwyk, R.; Van Buskirk, P. (2001) Mating disruption of codling moth: a perspective from the western United States.
IOBC wprs Bulletin 25(1), 207-215.

Calkins, C.O. (2001) Areawide Program for Suppression of Codling Moth in the Western United States. Wapato, WA, USA; Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, 4 pp.

Contacts: Michael J. Willett,
Northwest Horticultural Council,
Room 600, 6 South 2nd St.,Yakima,
WA 98901, USA
Email: willett@NWHORT.ORG
Fax: +1 509 457 7615
Website: http:// www.nwhort.org

Jay F. Brunner,
Washington State University Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center,
1100 N. Western Ave., Wenatchee,
WA 98801, USA
Email: jfb@wsu.edu
Fax: +1 509 662 8714

❑

More Than Just Good Taste

The pressure to move away from the pesticide reliance of conventional agriculture stems at least in part from the perceived poor environmental sustainability of this approach. However, often the economic and environmental sustainability of alternative strategies is unproven. This makes a recent study of apple production systems particularly interesting, as it provides evidence in support of the superior environmental and economic sustainability of organic and integrated systems over conventional approaches in this crop.

The study compared the sustainability of conventional, organic and integrated 'Golden Delicious' apple production sys-tems in an orchard in Yakima, Washington, USA in 1994-99. The integrated system included soil improvement, and is distinct from the IPM system promoted by the Areawide Program, described above.

Ecological and economic factors were used to assess sustainability, and a sustainable farm was argued to need to produce adequate high-quality yields, be profitable, protect the environment, conserve resources and be socially responsible in the long term. Indicators of sustainability used in the study were soil quality, horticultural performance, orchard profitability, environmental quality and energy efficiency (the amount of total inputs in relation to output or yield).

Organic interventions included compost and foliar sprays; mulches, cultivation and mowing to control weeds; pheromone-mating disruption (PMD) and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) sprays for insect control; and fruit thinning by hand. The integrated treatment included compost, foliar sprays, and synthetic fertilizers; mulch and herbicides for weeds; PMD and insecticides for insect control; and chemical fruit thinner. Conventional system interventions in-cluded foliar sprays and synthetic fertilizers; herbicides for weed control; PMD and insecticides for insect control; and chemical fruit thinner.

All three systems gave similar cumulative apple yields, and there were no observable differences in tree growth, physiological disorders, or pest and disease damage across the types of production system. However, the integrated and organic systems had higher soil quality and potentially lower negative environmental impact than the conventional system. Organic apples rated highest in profitability, energy efficiency and taste appeal.

The authors conclude that organic and integrated apple production systems in Washington State are not only better for the soil and environment than the conventional system, but have comparable yields and, for the organic system, higher profits and greater energy efficiency. They note that, although crop yield and quality are important products of a farming system, the benefits of better soil and environmental quality provided by the organic and integrated systems are as valuable. Currently they tend to be overlooked in the marketplace, but come at a financial cost to the grower. The challenge facing policy-makers, the authors argue, is to incorporate the value of ecosystem processes into the traditional marketplace, and so support producers trying to implement economically and environmentally sound practices.

Overall in this study, the organic system ranked first in environmental and economic sustainability, the integrated system second, and the conventional system last. Organic apples were the most profitable owing to price premiums and quicker investment return or break-even point. Were the premiums paid for organic apples removed, though, the conventional system would have broken even first, and organic last. The price premiums reflect consumer willingness to pay extra for organically grown produce. Similar premiums could be applied to integrated products, but for this 'integrated' needs to be certifiable. This is one of the issues addressed by a potato project in Wisconsin, USA, which we look at next.

Source:
Reganold, J.P.; Glover, J.D.; Andrews, P.K.; Hinman, H.R. (2001) Sustainability of three apple production systems.
Nature 410, 926-930.

❑

Wisconsin Measures Aid Branding

Since 1996, the US Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association (WPVGA) and the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) have pioneered an initiative to reduce pesticide reliance and risk through the adoption of biologically-based IPM. The University of Wisconsin potato IPM research and extension team officially joined this collaboration in 1999. This project's success was highlighted by the GAO report (`Pesticide use figures in IPM', above). An outstanding feature, particularly in the context of the report, has been the development of measurement systems to monitor both progress in the transition to biologically based IPM, and the linkage between IPM adoption and significantly reduced reliance on high-risk pesticides. From the outset, the importance of credible methods to track potato growers' progress in meeting pesticide reduction and IPM adoption targets was recognised.

The 180 WPVGA members grow some 32,000 ha of potatoes annually. IPM education and outreach was conducted through an integrated set of grower education meetings, field days, magazine articles, a web site (http://ipcm.wisc.edu/bioipm/) and grower-to-grower neighbourhood meetings. The biologically based IPM strategy included scouting, and field, weed, insect and disease management, and addressed issues of soil and water quality and crop storage. At its core were imple-menting practices to minimise pest problems and collecting data necessary for making informed and knowledgeable decisions. Adoption was measured on a positive 'points' system: the more and better the IPM practices, the more points. Crop rotation, for example, and scouting, record keeping and decision-making practices earned high points. Overall, IPM measures enhanced the crop's ability to resist pests, and encouraged a switch to reduced-risk pesticides with less impact on beneficial insects.

WWF helped to develop a measure for the toxicity of the chemicals, based on the acute and chronic risk to humans and other organisms, and the impact on the environment (including effects on the viability of the IPM system). In practice, a rating system scores each pesticide for 'toxicity units' per application.

As a result of applying the IPM measures, growers reduced use of potentially toxic compounds by nearly 250,000 kg between 1997 and 2000, and many found that profits increased as a consequence of reduced chemical use.

In the last year, though, the project has moved into a new phase. Growers are hoping to capitalize on the fact that US consumers consider pesticide use in food crops a serious issue, and are promoting their potatoes under an 'eco-label' to gain market-based rewards for their environmental stewardship. This has entailed the creation of a new label, 'Protected Harvest', and a new brand, 'Healthy Grown', for the IPM potatoes. The Healthy Grown brand focuses on marketing certified potatoes and is a separate legal entity from the independent nonprofit Protected Harvest. Protected Harvest is responsible for maintaining high standards, and insuring the integrity of the certification and chain of custody procedures, and conducting consumer outreach. The collaboration's success was instrumental in World Wildlife Fund's decision to allow the use of its logo on bags of certified potatoes.

To make the label credible, the IPM certification process is being undertaken by an internationally recognised certifier, Scientific Certification Systems, with Protected Harvest giving final approval. Some of the recommended IPM measures, such as scouting and recording, rotations with non-potato seasons, and removing/destroying discarded potatoes are man-datory to meet the IPM standard. There are also ceilings on the number of pesticide toxicity units that can be applied to certifiable short- and long-season crops. Some other chemicals can be used with restrictions, and some pesticides are excluded from use altogether under the certification standard.

The key issue now is to persuade retailers to stock 'Healthy Grown' potatoes in the shops, and encourage consumers to buy them. A marketing campaign directed at retailers and a consumer outreach cam-paign are underway.

This project has successfully addressed the IPM adoption/pesticide reduction conundrum that the GAO report highlighted. Challenges ahead, as Jeff Dlott (President of Board of Directors of Protected Harvest) said in an interview with the WPVGA newsletter 'Badger Common 'Tater', include strengthening programme standards (on soil and water quality, for example). He also cites a long-term objective of the project, to develop meaningful standards for improving ecosystem function in and around farmland.

Sources:
Pest Management at the Crossroads / Topics / IPM in the Marketplace:
Website: http://www.pmac.net/
potatipm.htm

Protected Harvest:
Email: Info@protectedharvest.org
Website: http://www.protectedharvest.org 

WWF/WPVGA/UW Collaboration:
Website: http://ipcm.wisc.edu/bioIPM

Scientific Certification Systems:
Website: http://www.scs1.com 

Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association (WPVGA):
Website: http://www.potatowis.org/

Healthy Grown:
Website: http://www.healthygrown.com

Contact: Deana Sexson,
Biointensive IPM Field Coordinator,
WWF/WPVGA/UW Collaboration Project,
1575 Linden Drive, Madison,
WI 53706, USA
Fax: +1 608 262 7743
Email: dlsexson@facstaff.wisc.edu

❑

Potato IPM Should Focus on Pesticide Reduction

This is the conclusion of a study^1,2 of potato production in the Province of Carchi in northern Ecuador, one of the most productive potato-growing areas in the country. It argues that IPM is an abstract concept that can be difficult to measure, while pesticide reduction is relatively easy to quantify and analyse.

Potatoes have been a staple crop in the Andes since time immemorial. But with agricultural intensification and its concomitant adverse ecological consequences, farmers have come to view pesticides as essential to their economic survival. It is quite clear that pesticides have played a vital role in sustaining potato production in Carchi, particularly against late blight (Phytophthora infestans) and Andean potato weevil (Premnotrypes vorax). While the impact of systematic pesticide overuse on the environment and human health means that alternatives needed to be found, farmers' faith in pesticides made achieving pesticide reduction a socially complex and politically challenging goal.

In Carchi, potato farmers have taken advantage of the favourable climate and soils, and combined fertilizers and agro-chemicals with their knowledge of crop management to produce potato yields well above the national average. Farmers have shifted from subsistence towards commercial production, in a step that potato farmers in other parts of the country may also follow. This shift, however, has increased the exposure of families to pesticides, and most notably the highly toxic insecticides carbofuran and metha-midophos. An escalating economic crisis in the 1990s threatened the profitability of potato production, and made it increasingly difficult for communities to address long-term health and environmental concerns.

For more than 10 years a number of organizations including INIAP (Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarios, Ecuador), CIP (International Potato Center), Montana State University (USA), McMaster Institute of Environment and Health (Canada) and Wageningen University (the Netherlands) have been working with communities in Carchi on a variety of projects to assess the role and impact of pesticide use in potato production and how the latter may be ameliorated. These projects have both provided quantitative assessments of community-wide pesticide effects, and shown ways that may allow pesticide use to be lessened.

Hidden Costs

Pesticides play a dual role in Carchi. On one side is the positive role where pesticides contribute to improved productivity. Potatoes can be planted more frequently and yields are higher as result of their use. Undoubtedly, pesticides have helped residents of rural Carchi improve their incomes. At the same time, almost all farm families know of or have experienced pesticide poisoning to some degree. Nevertheless, the local attitude is that pesticides can be tolerated by the 'strong.' This rationalization, based on ignorance, highlights the other finding: despite their central role in the economic life of the community, most know startlingly little about pesticides, how to recognize dangerous products, how exposure can occur, and how to prevent intoxication.

Farmers' conventional production technology is dependent on the fungicide mancozeb and the insecticides carbofuran and methamidophos. Pesticides, though, are not as widespread in the Carchi environment as might be expected. Carbofuran, for example, is present in groundwater but at levels well below contamination standards used by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the environmental and soil conditions in Carchi, carbofuran is relatively short lived and likely to bond to soil and degrade before entering water supplies. Contamination is most likely from accidental or intentional dumping of pesticides in streams. Another potential danger, uncooked and unpeeled potatoes, showed no significant presence of carbofuran. Presumably, any reaching the tuber degrades before it is harvested.

There is, however, a pervasive presence of pesticides in the workplace and at home. Trials showed that most user exposure occurs during mixing and spraying, with hands, arms, backs and legs the most exposed body parts. A trial using phosphorescent powder demonstrated to the communities that poor handling practices and skimpy personal hygiene led to pesticide contamination both inside and outside the home.

The health impacts of pesticide use in Carchi are widespread and serious. An active pesticide poisoning vigilance system established the number of pesticide poisonings in the province is 171 per 100,000 inhabitants (with results about twice as high in rural areas), a figure among the highest reported in the world. The treatment costs and work days lost impose a significant financial burden on the public health system and the individual.

Fungicide use, dominated by mancozeb, causes a variety of eye and skin problems. Carbofuran and methamidofos are neurotoxins and exposure affects the peripheral and central nervous systems. Research to measure adverse neurobehavioural effects in at-risk and control samples of families in Carchi produced startling results. They showed that the entire family unit of potato farming enterprises was at risk, not just the farmer who applied products. Thus in Carchi, the at-risk population is the majority of rural dwellers or urban dwellers that for farming or other reasons handle neurotoxic insecticides. A battery of World Health Organization tests found that nearly 60% of the at-risk sample, and by implication 60% of the at-risk population were affected.

Putting Pesticides in their Place

Agricultural research financed by the government and external donors has developed viable technological alternatives based on IPM. These options, which reduce but do not eliminate pesticide dependence, and the identified knowledge gaps outlined above point the way to possible solutions.

Unexpectedly, an economic analysis indicated that taxing pesticides could improve both health and crop production, without any other technology changes. Farmers with lower neurobehavioral status, as measured by health tests, were generally the less productive ones, who made less efficient use of their production inputs. If carbofuran use were reduced by taxing it, results showed that improved farming due to improved neurobehavioral status would more than offset the losses from reduced carbofuran use. Simply 'punishing' carbofuran use through taxation created a situation where both rural health and productivity of potato growing could gain.

A combination of taxes and changes in technology and pesticide handling practices also showed positive results. Economic analysis showed that either changes in technology or practices or a combination of both could achieve public health goals while at least preserving the agricultural income in the region. At their most fundamental level, the policy solutions rest on strengthening farmer capacity to change farming practice and to change pesticide-handling practices. Solutions also rest on establishing external conditions, such as regulatory policies and market incentives, to promote pesticide reduction and safer use. This was demonstrated in practice in the Eco-Salud project.

The multi-institutional broad-based Eco-Salud project in Carchi was established in 1997 to promote change, and particularly pesticide reduction, through participatory learning and action with farmer households. It was directed at a three-faceted goal of better human health, improved economic welfare and greater environmental integrity. The project began with public forums to discuss outputs of previous research in order to (a) raise awareness and (b) begin to develop possible interventions. Cross-cutting themes of the project were pesticide safety and IPM.

It developed mechanisms for informing the public of pesticide safety concerns from the results of research and community led-activities in Carchi (such as the contamination pathway outlined above). In a 'Safe Use of Pesticides' (SUP) approach, the project sought to increase understanding and awareness of product labelling. Project staff discussed pesticide safety strategies with participating families, especially storage and safety equipment. More than two-thirds of families took advantage of interest-free 2-month credit towards purchase of high-quality protective equipment, which cost the equivalent of a week's labour. Some rented the equipment out to recover costs.

Eco-Salud also worked with provincial government officials to influence public policies. In one innovative move, INIAP and CIP, encouraged by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) Global IPM Facility, led a stakeholder meeting in Carchi on 'the impacts of pesticides on health, production and the environment'. The aim was to bring together scientific, government and farming communities and to encourage them to work together for more rational and effective pest management. As a result, stakeholders in Carchi have called for:

• better control of agrochemicals (and for the most toxic compounds to be prohibited)
• increased funding for IPM
• provision of school-level education on pesticide impacts