Should
IFP or IPM
be used as a promotional tool?
by Geraldine Warner & Melissa Hansen
The Canadian government has announced
it will develop national integrated fruit production (IFP) standards and protocols in an effort to make its apple growers more competitive in the marketplace. The standards will be customized for the different growing regions. The goal is for Canada to be the world leader in food safety, innovation, and environmentally responsible production.
Should IFP or IPM (integrated pest management) be used as a promotional tool? We asked a cross-section of people their opinion:
No
DR. FRANCO WEIBEL, fruit scientist, Switzerland
"The experiences in Switzerland and in neighboring European countries using IFP as a marketing tool were relatively bad."
Weibel said "integrated production" sounds very technical to people outside agriculture and--in contrast to organic, biological, ecological, or natural--"integrated" doesn't say directly what it is.
If consumers are interested enough to ask what it means and the answer is that it means not applying fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides if it is not necessary or not good for the environment, most people will say they didn't expect growers to be doing that anyway. So, they don't think IFP is something to reward growers for.
Despite that, Weibel thinks that just for the good reputation of the fruit industry in the future, producers worldwide must rapidly adopt IFP. Where IFP is used, this must be communicated to consumers so they know that producers care about the environment, he said. "However, it won't be a strong enough argument to use it as a real marketing tool."
Definitely
ROGER PEPPERL, marketer, Washington
"I think it gets the customer's attention, and I think it makes them feel warm and fuzzy buying from you."
Pepperl, who is marketing director at Stemilt Growers, Inc., Wenatchee, believes food safety issues are coming to the fore and those who can leverage themselves in that respect will be ahead. He thinks an IPM label might be a factor that helps a buyer decide who to buy from.
Stemilt launched its "Responsible Choice" program in the late 1980s, after the Alar scare. The program encourages growers to minimize use of pesticides and fungicides, and also addresses herbicide, fertilizer, water management, and postharvest treatments. The company still puts a "Responsible Choice" sticker on every apple.
Pepperl said the program probably has more influence with the retail buyer than the consumer, however.
"Getting to the consumer is so expensive, there's just a lot of logistics to get to them," he said.
Pepperl doesn't think IPM programs raise pesticide issues in a negative way. They refer to the use of natural and biological methods to control pests, and that can enhance a producer's image.
No
DR. ART AGNELLO, entomologist, New York
"Unless it could be demonstrated that growers would be paid a premium for fruit grown under IFP or IPM protocols, then it really is not going to be a very constructive thing to use in marketing."
Agnello, Cornell University Extension tree fruit entomologist, said everyone in tree fruit production has their own perception of what constitutes IFP or IPM because it's generally a set of protocols or requirements that are imposed by the buyer--someone who is looking to set their product apart.
It's not a level playing field, he said, because no matter what conditions you impose on people to qualify for the label, they could not apply equally across all the growing regions.
For example, the northeastern United States and the Pacific Northwest have entirely different growing conditions, pest pressures, and distinct concerns and challenges to overcome.
If a supermarket only buys fruit considered to be IFP, according to some subjective definition, they might be able to make the claim that all the fruit on their shelves is IFP-grown, or supervised, or certified in some way, he said.
"But obviously, as soon as you go outside that store and go to another store, it's a completely different situation. I think there are difficulties in the whole concept of trying to do that, but that's not saying it's not happening."
Yes
ROB DAWSON, grower, Canada
"If IFP or IPM is in place because of market pressures, should growers participate in it? It's obvious they won't have a lot of choice."
If growers are using IPM practices, they would be foolish not to promote the fact, Dawson said, but IPM might become a requirement in order to secure the sale, rather than a way for growers to secure a premium for their fruit.
In many parts of the world, including Europe and New Zealand, IPM or IFP is the established regimen, he said. He wonders how long North American producers can hold out before marketing pressures force them to follow suit.
"My personal judgment is it's something you're going to do as a necessity, just to hold your market share."
The IPM label only has promotional value when there's a relative scarcity, but not if it is rapidly adopted by everyone else.
If Washington adopted IPM or IFP, every other region would have to adopt it, too, to stay in the market.
Dawson said there is enough supply of organic fruit available that people who are concerned about the ecological or health aspects of apple production can just buy organic apples.
He recalled a speaker at the Washington State Horticultural Association's annual convention who made the comment that organic producers need to find better ways to promote their product than denigrating the product of other people.
Dawson said that applies to IPM labels, too.
No
TIM SMITH, Extension, Washington
"Our stance should be all of our fruit is good for you and don't start arguing about who sprays more, because we don't spray unduly or inordinately anyway."
Smith, who is a Washington State University Cooperative Extension agent for north central Washington, said comparisons of conventional fruit and "green label" fruit have shown no differences in pesticide residues.
"That's because there isn't a difference," he said. "Everyone's spraying responsibly."
It is inadvisable to even raise the topic of pesticides at the consumer level, Smith believes.
"It's just a silly argument to get into--that we spray less--and I would just warn people not to start fighting with us on that," he said, noting that because of the dry climate, few fungicides are applied in Washington, and most growers don't have a serious problem controlling pests.
In Europe, growers haven't received any benefits from adopting IFP programs, he noted. "That's the same thing that's going on in this country. The growers are asked to clean up their act before anyone really knows what kind of act they have, and I didn't notice anyone rewarding them for this. I don't think the grower has any chance of getting anything for this.
"The issue should be, eat fresh fruit. It's good for you, and the more fruit and vegetables you eat, the healthier you're going to be."
Absolutely
DAVID GRANATSTEIN, sustainable ag
"I think there's a place for it. Is it a silver bullet that's going to save everyone's bacon? No way."
Granatstein has been involved in a Food Alliance project that promotes produce grown under sustainable methods.
"It's not a magic thing that's going to double consumption overnight," he said. "Does it build good will between consumers and farmers? Yes. Does it potentially get retailers more interested in some of your products? Yes. It's definitely got a place, though when you look at the European experience, you might conclude something different."
In Europe, most of the fruit is now grown under IFP programs. There is no conventional any more. It's meant the industry has had to change, and it has brought the whole industry forward, he said. However, it has not brought any more money back to the growers, other than in the form of subsidies.
A national program does not allow local or regional programs to stand out for any particular attention, Granatstein noted. Washington State would probably not want a national program because its producers can make stronger claims than other parts of the country in terms of low pesticide and fungicide use, but other areas such as New York can boast that they're not using water supplies for irrigation.
"You get into a war that's not a win-win in the long run," Granatstein said.
Yes
DIANA BAILEY, orchardist, Oregon
"It's no longer a matter of getting paid more for using IFP. Now, if you don't do it, you won't get your fruit sold."
Bailey heads up the IFP program at her family's 1,400-acre Orchard View Farms at The Dalles, Oregon. They recently brought their brokers and others involved with fruit sales to their orchard to educate them about their IFP program. Knowledgeable sales agents can use the firsthand experience in their sales, stressing the program in markets where it's appropriate. Bailey said they are also working to make their program compliant with European (Eurogap) requirements.
"The United Kingdom isn't a big market for us, but it helps move out fruit during the peak and end of the season," she said. "If we didn't do IFP, we might not be in some of these markets."
Many orchardists are already doing IFP, she added, they just aren't documenting all the issues. The Baileys have found IFP to be less expensive than the use of conventional broad-spectrum pesticides, and focus now on the whole system, beginning with planting the right variety in the right location.
No
TOM AUVIL, horticulturist, Washington
"The consumer often doesn't have a lot of time or interest in studying the issue at retail when they're making their purchases."
If IFP fruit were available in the store, along with similar-looking conventional and organic fruit, it would be difficult to discuss such complex issues as the various production processes involved.
After the Alar scare, sales of all types of apples went down because the word "pesticide" caught their attention and they didn't want to
think about the issue, he said. Since apples aren't necessarily on their "must buy" grocery list, shoppers passed them by.
Another difficulty is that IPM is not defined the same in all regions of the country. For example, New York growers have pests they need to control late in the season that Washington growers don't have.
No
RICH HANDEL, grower, California
"IPM is a good production tool. It's not a marketing tool."
Growers compete in a global market and must use the most efficient tools to stay competitive, said Rich Handel of Felix Costa and Sons, a cherry growing and packing operation in Lodi, California.
Such tools include IPM, which can reduce costs in some operations. "Marketing, however, should be based on quality, price, and nutritional value."
