.HKJLN=IN .MMOAM EI *?JGJCE?=GGS 6JOI@ .INACL=NA@ … · 2019. 12. 18. · ?dg XaVg^in VcY ZVhZ d[ gZVY^c\( Vaa VXgd) cnbh jhZY i]gdj\]dji i]ZhZ YZWViZ hiViZbZcih]VkZ WZZc a^hiZY

Important Issues in Ecologically SoundIntegrated Pest ManagementA Student Debate

Paul Whitaker

Department of Entomology

University of Wisconsin

Madison, WI

148

Mst graduate programs require students to participate in a course or seminar that allowsthem to develop skills in scientific presentation. Few programs, however, prepare stu-dents to locate, read, analyze, and critique the types and sources of information thatso frequently underpin the public debates that precede most policy decisions. Still fewer pro-grams allow students to practice using incomplete or contradictory information to formulate anddefend arguments on policy, ethics, or related issues. Increasingl)~entomologists find themselvesinvolved in a public arena, using such information to discuss matters that have broad conse-quences for science and society. Scientists who enter the workplace with debating skills will bemore prepared to shape effective policy, prioritize research agendas, defend their disciplineagainst budgetary cutbacks, and/or confront allegations of ethical or other misconduct. Thisbeing the case, providing opportunities in graduate education for students to debate timely andimportant issues will benefit not only the students but also their discipline and society as a whole(Carroll et al. 1993).

This was the rationale that prompted Fred Gould and George Kennedy to organize a grad-uate student debate at the ESA Annual Meeting in 1993. The debates are now an annual eventorganized by the ESA Committee on Student Affairs. The issues addressed in these debates haveranged from the risks of transgenic crops to conservation of insect biodiversity to internationalaspects of entomology. Summary statements from the 1994 debate on environmental issues inbiological control were published previously in this forum (Gould et al. 1996).

The format for the debates and the methods used to prepare for them have varied over theyears, based on participants' experience and feedback. Currently, four specific statements relatedto one broad topic form the basis of the debate. For each statement, one student presents a briefhistorical background on the issue (15 minutes), one team argues that the statement is true (proposition), and one team argues that the statement is false (con position). Each pro and can teamhas the opportunity to present its argument (10 minutes) and to follow up with a rebuttal state-ment (3 minutes).

The participation of university departments in the debate is solicited through personalcontacts, announcements in the ESA Newsletter, and by sending invitations and descriptions ofthe debate to chairs of all entomology (and related) departments in the United States. Depart-ments must commit to sending a team of one or more students to the ESA Annual Meeting andproviding the team with a faculty advisor. Teams tYPically prepare for the debate during the fallsemester through seminar or discussion sessions in which students study the issues and debatethe pro and con positions. Early in the semester, the debate organizers randomly assign eachteam a background, pro, or con presentation for two of the debate issues. Teams are free toallocate the debate presentations at the Annual Meetings among one or more team members asthey see fit.

Printed below are brief summaries of statements from the debates at the 1996 AnnualMeeting. Authorship is presented with each background or position paper. In reading thesesummaries, please keep in mind that students were randomly assigned pro or can positions, sothe views presented are not necessarily the personal views of the students who expressed them.Also, please recognize that a debater must present as strong a case as possible in defense of theassigned position. In doing so, a debater will avoid mentioning details that do not support thatposition, except to challenge their relevance or veracity. It is the responsibility of the opposingteam to point out these details. The debate organizers would welcome all suggestions for futuredebate topics or approaches to improve the program. University departments interested in par-ticipating in these debates are encouraged to contact the ESA Student Affairs Committee.

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall1998

For clarity and ease of reading, all acro-nyms used throughout these debate statementshave been listed and defined below:

CRP Conservation Reserve ProgramCSRS Cooperative States Research Ser-

vIceEBPM ecologically based pest manage-

mentEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEQIP Environmental Quality Incentive

ProgramESA Entomological Society of AmericaFACT Food, Agriculture, Conservation,

and Trade ActFAIR Federal Agricultural Improvement

and Reform ActFDA Food and Drug AdministrationFIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide ActFQPA Food Quality Protection ActIPM integrated pest managementNRCP Natural Resources Conservation

ProgramNRCS Natural Resources Conservation

ServiceSARE Sustainable Agriculture Research

and EducationUSDA United States Department of Agri-

cultureWRP Wetland Reserve Program

Acknowledgments

The debate series and this manuscripthave benefitted immensely from the adviceand experience of G. G. Kennedy and F. L.Gould.

References Cited

Carroll, M. S., F. J. AIt, A. M. Brandenburg, W. E.Schlosser, and S. E. Daniels. 1993. Tourna-ment-style debate as a natural resources educa-tion technique. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ.22: 158-162.

Gould, E, G. Kennedy, and R. Kopanic. 1996. En-vironmental issues associated with enhancingthe impact of biological control agents: a stu-dent debate. Am. Entomol. 42: 160-173.

TopicThe Practice of IPM CanBecome More Than"Intelligent Pesticide Management"

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

BackgroundCraig S. Martin,Roseanne N. Mascarenhas, andVictor J. MascarenhasDepartment of EntomologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, LA

Most definitions of integrated pest manage-ment (IPM) have certain characteristics incommon-an emphasis on economic protectionfrom pest damage and achieving a more favor-able environmental outcome than would occurin the absence ofIPM. Most definitions addresssocial or societal consequences; for example,IPM is "the intelligent selection and use of pestcontrol actions that will ensure favorable eco-nomic, ecological, and sociological conse-quences" (Rabb 1972). Other definitions, suchas that of Way (1977), stress the dynamic, con-tinually improving and situation-specific na-ture of IPM, "the balanced use of such mea-sures, biological, cultural, and chemical, asare most appropriate to a particular situationin light of careful study of all factors in-volved." In support of President Clinton's goalof75% of U.S. crop acreage under IPM by theyear 2000, the National Coalition on IPMdefines IPM as "a sustainable approach tomanaging pests combining biological, cultur-al, physical, and chemical tools in a way thatminimizes economic, health and environmen-tal risks" (Schulze 1997).

Prior to World War II, agricultural pesti-cide use was minimal due largely to the highcost, scarcity, and ineffectiveness of early tox-ins. Farmers used cultural control methods tosupplement natural control and crop resis-tance. Late in the 1930s, technological ad-vances in synthetic chemistry led to the com-mercial use of compounds such as theorganophosphate TEPP and the organochlo-rine DDT. These compounds were inexpensiveand easily obtainable, and, along with herbi-cides and fertilizers, proved to be effectivetools in the Green Revolution (Metcalf andLuckmann 1994). Initially, these pesticidesseemed so effective that Clay Lyle, a formerAmerican Associa tion of Economic Entomolo-gists president, stated that attempts would beneeded to prevent the eradication of variousinsect species (Horn 1988).

Many high yielding crop varieties weredeveloped beginning in the middle of the 20th

Prior to WorldWar II, agriculturalpesticide use was

minimal duelargely to the highcost, scarcity, andineffectiveness of

early toxins.

149

By implementing adynamic economicthreshold, rotatinginsecticide classes,

and conservingnatural enemies

through the use ofmore selective

insecticides early inthe season, cottonpest management

could beconsidered to be

Intelligent PesticideManagement.

150

century. As a consequence of the quest for high-est yield under a pesticide umbrella, "majorworld food crops were greatly reduced in ge-netic diversity and natural defenses againstinsect pests" (ChangandLi 1980). Thecultiva-tion of pest-susceptible crop varieties, use ofbroad-spectrum chemicals that destroyed pop-ulations of beneficial species, insect pest resur-gence, and pesticide resistance pushed manyagricultural producers onto the "pesticidetreadmill" (van den Bosch 1978). Probably inresponse to concern about chemical abuse andoveruse, Stern et al. (1959) were led to proposethe concept ofIntegrated Control. However, itwas the publication of Silent Spring by RachelCarson in 1962 that focused public attention onthe problems associated with pesticides (vanden Bosch 1978).

IPM programs should include differentpractices that complement each other in pre-venting economic damage. These programsshould be dynamic and flexible, unique to aparticular pest/crop situation, and, hopefully,remain effective over time by avoiding overre-liance on anyone tactic. For purposes of thisdebate, Intelligent Pesticide Management pro-grams can maximize their longevity throughstrong reliance on scouting and economicthresholds, use of narrow-range minimal-riskpesticides, and other compatible chemicalmanagement strategies and tactics. At thepresent time, the implementation of IPM in agiven setting as either Integrated Pest Manage-ment or Intelligent Pesticide Management de-pends largely on the value of the crop, theavailability and use of broad-spectrum pesti-cides, the role and effectiveness of natural en-emies, and the frequency and severity of majorpest species.

Soybean is an example of a crop in whichIPM fits the Integrated PestManagement mod-el. Because it is not a high-value crop, returnswould be low if pesticides were the majormanagement tactic. Although over 700 speciesof phytophagous insects may be found on soy-bean, most plant damage is caused by justeight species (Way 1994). This crop's ability towithstand significant injury without signifi-cant yield loss results in high economic injurylevels. Soybean growers take advantage ofvarious control measures to minimize the needfor pesticides. Biological control is practicedby the utilization of predators, parasitoids, andepizootic pathogens; however, it is reasonableto ask whether soybean growers actively usebiological control or simply benefit from nat-ural control. Small blocks of early maturingvarieties or early planted soybeans can be used

as trap crops that may be treated with minimalamounts of insecticide to reduce pest popula-tions in later maturing main plantings. Pesti-cides are used, but only when monitoringshows that pest populations exceed economicthresholds.

Pesticide use is viewed differently in othercropping systems, as illustrated by severalstatements by a National Academy of Sciencespanel (National Academy of Sciences 1969).The panel stated that "pesticides can be thevery heart and core of an integrated system."It also noted that in many situations "chemi-cals provide the only acceptable solution" andthat "they are indispensable to modern soci-ety."

IPM in some high-value crops tends tosupport these statements. In cotton, for exam-ple, extensive pesticide usage can be viableeconomically. A diverse pest complex and aninherent lack of tolerance to insect damagemake the use of pesticides vital to successfulcotton production (Horn 1988). Byimplement-ing a dynamic economic threshold, rotatinginsecticide classes, and conserving naturalenemies through the use of more selective in-secticides early in the season, cotton pest man-agement could be considered to be IntelligentPesticide Management. In Texas, IPM produc-ers have been defined as those who use scout-ing, economic thresholds, and 70% of weight-ed management practices important to IPM inthe particular region. Sixty-four percent ofTexas cotton producers farming 68% of theacreage qualify as IPM producers (Fuchs et al.1997).

Throughout history, a multifarious arrayof methods and practices intended to reducepest populations has been developed. The con-trol tactics used in a particular situation de-pend on various attributes of the pest/crop re-lationship. A number of factors, includinglength of crop production period, crop value,role of natural enemies, and the availabilityand selectivity of pesticides may influence thelevel of reliance on insecticides and the utilityof Integrated Pest Management in moderncropping systems. Regardless of the commit-ment of a particular grower or group of grow-ers to IPM principles, pursuit of President Clin-ton's challenge is certainly a lofty goal for theAmerican farmer.

Acknowledgments

We thank our coaches, T. E. Reagan, J. A.Ottea, and D. J. Boethel, for their guidance andsupport. We also acknowledge the technical

AMERICAN Ej\,'TOMOLOGIST • Fall 1998

assistance and input of J. B. Graves and L. M.Rodriguez.

References Cited

Carson, R. L. 1962. Silent spring. Houghton Mif-flin, Boston.

Chang, Te-Tsu, and Cheng-Chang Li. 1980. Ge-netics and breeding, pp. 87-146. In B. S. Luhled.], Rice: production and utilization. AVIPublishing, Westport, CT.

Fuchs, T. W., D. Smith, and R. Holloway. 1997.Status of IPM and insecticide use in Texas cot-ton. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Con-ferences-1997, 2: 1140-1143.

Horn, D. 1988. Ecological approach to pest man-agement. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Metcalf, R. L., and W. H. Luckmann. 1994. Intro-duction to insect pest management. Wiley, NY.

National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Principles ofplant and animal pest control, vol. 3: Insect-pest management and control. Nat. Acad. Sci.,Washington, DC.

Rabb, R. L. 1972. Principles and concepts of pestmanagement, pp. 6-29. In Implementing prac-tical pest management strategies. Proceedingsof National Extension Pest ManagementWorkshop. Purdue University, West Lafayette,IN.

Schulze, L. D. 1997. Pesticide and Toxic ChemicalNews 23. CRC Press, Washington, DC.

Stern, V.M., R. F.Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated control con-cept. Hilgardia 29: 81-10l.

van den Bosch, R. 1978. The pesticide conspiracy.Doubleday. New York.

Way, M. J. 1977. Integrated control-practical real-ities. Outlook Agric. 9: 127-13l.

Way, M. O. 1994. Status of soybean insect pests inthe United States, pp. 15-16. In L. G. Higleyand D. J. Boethel [eds.], Handbook of soybeaninsect pests, Entomol. Soc. Am., Lanham, MD.

Pro PositionJames F. Campbell andVonny M. BarlowDepartment of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CA

Not only can IPM become more than intel-ligent pesticide management, it already hasachieved this goal in a growing number ofsystems. Ultimately, IPM must continue tomove beyond intelligent pesticide manage-ment in all systems to meet the long-term goals

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

of safe, economically viable, and sustainableagriculture (Cate and Hinkle 1993, Benbrooket al. 1996, National Research Council 1996).Ecologically based pest management (EBPM)attempts to use judiciously and integrate com-patibly multiple tactics to suppress multiplepests (not just insects) in ways that complementand facilitate natural controls. These tacticsinclude biological control, cultural practices,crop breeding, genetic engineering, matingdisruption, and pesticides.

In EBPM, pesticides play an important,though secondary, role, but the emphasis isswitched from correction of pest outbreaks toprevention of outbreaks. Intelligent pesticidemanagement retains pesticides as the primaryand, in many cases, the only management tool.Although the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) includes a broadrange of control tactics under its definition ofpesticide, in current practice Intelligent Pesti-cide Management deals primarily with chem-ical pesticides. Management of these pesti-cides typically consists of monitoring pestpopulations and using economic thresholds todetermine when to apply pesticides that are astarget-specific as feasible. The management ofchemical pesticide usage is an important firststep along the continuum from conventional,pesticide-dependent, management programsto more ecologically based preventative ap-proaches. However, EBPM is the most "intel-ligent" way to manage many problems associ-ated with use of pesticides (e.g., resistancedevelopment, declining availability and in-creasing costs of pesticides in certain crops,secondary pest outbreaks, negative environ-mental and public health impacts).

Several examples demonstrate how EBPMis moving from a concept toward commercialadoption. Academic programs, such as theSustainable Agriculture Research and Educa-tion Program (http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu)and the Sustainable Agriculture Farming Sys-tems Project (http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/safs/home.htm), support the generation anddistribution of practical information onEBPM. Cooperative efforts among farmers,researchers, cooperative extension personnel,and pest control specialists facilitate the devel-opment of pest management programs that areless reliant on chemical pesticides. An exampleof this is the Biological Integrated OrchardSystems program (http://www.caff.org) thatstarted in California almond orchards and sub-sequently has been extended to other crops.Commercial adoption ofEBPM is occurring ina number of crops, including grape production

The managementof chemical

pesticide usage isan important first

step along thecontinuum from

conventional,pesticide-dependent,

managementprograms to moreecologically based

preventativeapproaches.

151

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0073-2230()29L.81[aid=1286540]http://www.sarep.ucdavis.eduhttp://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/http://www.caff.org

The transition fromintelligent pesticidemanagement to amore sustainable,ecologically based

managementsystem likely willaccelerate in the

future.

152

in California vineyards (Benbrook et a1. 1996).Programs also are being initiated that educateconsumers about rPM and enable them to se-lect products that are produced using EBPM;one such approach is certification programsthat provide IPM labels for products (Benbrooket a1. 1996). These and other efforts are encour-aging development and adoption of EBPM.However, advancement in adoption of EBPMhas been uneven because the knowledge base,pest management tools, market incentives,policies, and the time required to make thetransition vary from region to region, growerto grower, crop to crop, and pest to pest. Adop-tion of EBPM has been most successful whenchemical pesticides have not been a viablecontrol tactic or consumer pressure to developalternatives has been strong.

The transition from intelligent pesticidemanagement to a more sustainable, ecologi-cally based management system likely willaccelerate in the future. Problems that current-ly impede the more widespread adoption ofEBPM are not insurmountable obstacles andlikely will become less obstructive over time(Benbrook et a1. 1996, National ResearchCouncil 1996). For example, the rising costs ofdeveloping, purchasing, applying, and regu-lating pesticides increasingly may make themless viable economically compared to EBPM.In addition, successful implementation ofEBPM will be enhanced by: (1) technologicaladvances that facilitate management deci-sions, (2) control tactics that are more selectiveand less disruptive to the ecosystem, (3) im-proved understanding of how agroecosystemsfunction, and (4) knowledge transfer amongcommodities and regions.

In conclusion, IPM can become more thanintelligent pesticide management. The transi-tion is underway in many systems both nation-ally and internationally. Intelligent pesticidemanagement has been an important first and,in many ways, the easiest step in this transi-tion. However, this approach, by itself, is notsustainable. To attain the goal of safe, econom-ical, and sustainable food production, IPMprograms need to move beyond the initial stepof intelligent pesticide management towardmore multitactic and ecologically based ap-proaches to managing pests.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the considerable help wereceived in preparing for the debate from J.Granett (our debate team advisor),J. Cisneros,C. Nicholls, P.Thompson, and L. Wunderlich,

and the support from the Department of Ento-mology at the University of California-Davisto attend the debate.

References Cited

Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth III, J. M. Halloran, M.K. Hansen, and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest man-agement at the crossroads. Consumers Union,Yonkers, NY.

Cate, J. R., and M. K. Hinkle. 1993. Integratedpest management: the path of a paradigm. TheNational Audubon Society Special Report.Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 1996. Ecologicallybased pest management: new solutions for anew century. National Academy Press, Wash-ington, DC.

Con PositionNaomi Lovallo,Rita Rio, and Greg GodwinDepartment of EntomologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA

Although critics negatively define IPM asnothing more than "intelligent pesticide man-agement," we see intelligent pesticide man-agement as a positive aspect ofIPM. Intelligentpesticide management is a knowledge-baseddecision- making process that evaluates multi-ple risk factors associated with each potentialpest management tactic, including pesticides,in designing the safest overall managementstrategy. IPM will not move beyond intelligentpesticide management in the foreseeable futurebecause: (1) rPM is adaptable, focused on riskassessment, and supported by current govern-ment infrastructure, and (2) pesticides willcontinue to be an important component in thepest management arsenal.

A key concept in the rPM philosophy isthat rPM programs are adaptable, allowingmanagement strategies to evolve as new tech-nologies develop, societal goals change, andrisk assessment methodology improves. Al-though the history of IPM has been dominatedby chemicals, rPM has moved away from tra-ditional nonselective pesticides to safer, moretarget-specific pesticides and has encouraged agreater reliance on alternative managementstrategies (Benbrook et al. 1996, Calvin et al.1995).

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall1998

IPM emphasizes decision making basedon risk assessment, which currently focuses onthree primary types of risk (i.e., economic,human health, and environmental). To be ac-ceptable to growers, the cost of pest manage-ment inputs must not exceed the economicbenefits derived from their usage. The degreeof risk acceptable to growers will depend ontheir economic position and ability to meetsociety's human and environmental health re-quirements, while maintaining a viable busi-ness. Although simple calculations of econom-ic risk frequently favor pesticide use overalternatives, "intelligent pesticide manage-ment" also considers human health and envi-ronmental risks prior to finalizing a controlstrategy.

The impacts of pesticides on human healthand environmental risk are assessed primarilyby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)through the pesticide registration process. Ad-ditionally, agricultural products are moni-tored for pesticide residues during food pro-cessing and marketing by the manufacturer,the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), theEPA, and many private organizations to assurecontinued safety. Many alternative strategies(predators and parasitoids) are not subject tosuch rigorous monitoring despite the possibil-ity of exotic control agents having unforeseennegative effects on native and nontarget popu-lations (Collard 1996).

Finally, the term "pesticide," as definedunder FIFRA as amended encompasses a largeproportion of current management tactics.Under FIFRA, the term pesticide refers not onlyto synthetic insecticides but to many otherkinds of chemicals such as attractants, insectgrowth regulators, pheromones, and even bio-logical control organisms such as Bacillus thu-ringiensis (Berliner). Pedigo and Higley (1992)stated that it would be difficult to overestimatethe importance of pesticides in the world pro-duction of food and fiber. These chemicalsrank alongside medicines in their influence onour existence. Pesticides likely will not be elim-inated from the pest control arsenal becausethey represent diverse products from a growingindustry, are becoming safer, and, in manycases, are the least risky tactic in terms of eco-nomics and human and environmental health.

Because IPM is adaptable and emphasizesrisk assessment, our current national infra-structure supports it. Competing philosophieshave not addressed adequately the feasibilityof implementation of their ideologies (Nation-alResearch Council 1989, 1996), whereasIPMalready enjoys widespread practical support

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall1998

among growers and the government. Non-IPMprograms just cannot be substituted into a sys-tem that took over 40 years to develop and tobe accepted by growers ..

Because IPM allows flexible, dynamicstrategies, it invites improvements in knowl-edge, technology, and risk assessment. It isbetter to allow change to occur within the es-tablished IPM framework than to establishnon-IPM programs. We believe IPM cannot bemore than intelligent pesticide managementwithin the foreseeable future because: (1) IPMis adaptable, focused on risk assessment, andsupported by current government infrastruc-ture, and (2) pesticides will continue to be animportant component in the pest managementarsenal.

Acknowledgments

We thank our advisor D. Calvin for hisguidance in developing our debate position.He is an Associate Professor atThe Pennsylva-nia State University with research and exten-sion responsibilities in field and forage cropinsect management.

References Cited

Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth ill, J. M. Halloran, M.K. Hansen, and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest man-agement at the crossroads. Consumers Union,Yonkers, NY.

Calvin, D., L. B. Bentz, E. G. Rajotte, and L.J. Gar-ling. 1995. The changing face of integrated pestmanagement: a report to the citizens of Penn-sylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Ag-riculture, and Pennsylvania State University.

Collard, S. B. 1996. Alien invaders: the continuingthreat of exotic species. Franklin Watts, NY.

National Research Council. 1989. Alternative ag-riculture. National Academy Press, Washing-ton, DC.

1996. Ecologically based pest management: newsolutions for a new century. National AcademyPress, Washington, DC.

Pedigo, L. P., and L. G. Higley. 1992. The economicinjury level concept and environmental quality.Am. Entomol. 38: 12-21.

TopicAll Publicly Funded Research on IPMMust Focus Primarily on Multidisci-plinary, Farm-level Investigations

It is better to allowchange to occur

within theestablished IPM

framework than toestablish non-I PM

programs.

153

There is a conflictbetween those

who favormultidisciplinary,

farm-basedresearch and thosewho lean toward

basic researchwithin individual

disciplines.

154

BackgroundGreg GodwinDepartment of EntomologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, PA

There is contention about how public fund-ing for agricultural research should be allocat-ed. Due to budget constraints, finding ade-quate public funding for any field of research,including agriculture, increasingly is becom-ing difficult. Therefore, there is a need to makethe most efficient use of the funds that are avail-able. Additionally, interest in IPM has spreadfrom farmers and researchers to the generalpublic. This has been driven by public concernover environmental quality, natural resourceconservation, and food and worker safety. In-creased public interest leads to increased pub-lic scrutiny as agricultural issues find their wayto the evening news and popular publications.Given that these issues are in the public eye, theagencies that allocate taxpayers money maybe held accountable for the impact of theirfunding decisions. Funding of projects, howev-er meritorious, which appear frivolous to thepublic likely are to be challenged in this era oflimited finances.

The first large scale federal funding ofagriculture occurred in 1887 with passage ofthe Hatch Act, which established the State Ag-ricultural Experiment Stations at land grantuniversities. Over the next 70 years, subse-quent acts and appropriations provided addi-tional federal support. Recently, significantlegislation has been enacted that impacts fund-ing policies for agricultural research (Nortonet al. 1995). Much of this legislation has beenprompted by public pressure.

As early as 1972, thorough studies such asthe Pound report (National Research Council1972) concluded that agricultural research inthe United States was of low quality. The de-sign of the research system, including its pat-terns of funding and system of rewards, wasblamed. The Pound report cited the focus oncommodities and commercial interests as aweakness of agricultural research. These con-clusions later were reinforced by the Rock-efeller Foundation's (1982) Winrock reportthat linked the system of formula funding withthe low quality of agricultural research.

Soon after the Pound report, Jim Hightow-er's popular book Hard Tomatoes, HardTimes (1973) helped spur intensive public de-

bate concerning issues of agricultural re-search. Public pressure led Congress to enactsignificant agricultural legislation, notablythe Food and Agriculture Act of 1977. This actchanged the funding patterns of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture's (USDA)Cooperative States Research Service (CSRS)by establishing the Competitive ResearchGrants Program. Prior to this program, mostCSRS funds were allocated to the states byformula-funding based on land use patternsand population. The federal governmentplaced few restrictions on how the fundingcould be used. Under the Competitive ResearchGrants Program, some federal funds can beobtained only on a competitive basis, often forstudy of narrowly defined problems. Researchareas can be as specific as investigating themode of action of a promising biological con-trol agent. Additionally, both competitive andspecial grants obtained from Congress now areearmarked frequently for specific purposes(Smith 1995).

The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, andTrade (FACT) Act, passed in 1990, authorizedthe Sustainable Agriculture Research and Ed-ucation (SARE) program. This required theCSRS and the Extension Service to developsustainable agriculture research programs.FACT directed administrators of the NationalResearch Initiative Competitive Grants pro-gram to emphasize what was described asmission-linked, multidisciplinary research. Inaddition, there was an emphasis on sustainableagriculture research and education.

The goal of mission-linked, multidisci-plinary research has been hindered by a short-age of formula-funding for agricultural re-search. Federal formula-funding sources havenot kept up with inflation, leading to greaterdependence on competitive grants. Competi-tion for grants from the federal governmenttends to discourage mission-linked research, asgovernment agencies historically have fundedbasic over applied research. Funding for agri-cultural research also is provided by specificsegments of the agriculture community such ascommodity organizations, agribusiness firms,and various foundations. Research so fundedtends to address specificproblems of interest tothe funding organization (Beattie 1980).

Whatever the funding source, there is thequestion of what research to fund. There is aconflict between those who favor multidisci-plinary, farm-based research and those wholean toward basic research within individualdisciplines. Proponents of basic science assertthat without strong basic science, applied sci-

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fa/l1998

ence becomes little more than repetitive testingof products and techniques. Applied scienceadvocates contend that without strong appliedresearch and development, basic science willnot benefit society in general (Cole 1989). Tra-ditionally, agricultural progress has stemmedfrom a synthesis of basic and applied research.Ideas and technologies move from the labora-tory to field trials and, ultimately, to on-farmutilization.

Changes in funding patterns and publicperceptions will have a significant impact onthe future of agricultural research. The scien-tific community will be faced with difficultdecisions in order to maintain the viability ofboth agriculture and agricultural science.

References Cited

Beattie, J. M. 1980. Agricultural research fundingundergoes changing pattern. Sci. Agric. 27: 9.

Cole, H. Jr. 1989. Public funding for applied agri-cultural research: its future is in our hands.Plant Disease 73: 783.

Hightower, J. 1973. Hard tomatoes, hard times.Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.

National Research Council, Committee Advisoryto the USDA. 1972. Report to the committeeon research advisory to the United States De-partment of Agriculture. National ResearchCouncil, National Academy of Science, Wash-ington, DC

Norton, V., D. Colyer, N. A. Norton, and L. Davis-Swing. 1995. Issues and trends in agriculturaland agricultural economics research funding.Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77: 1337-1348.

Rockefeller Foundation. 1982. Science for agricul-ture: report of a workshop on critical issues inAmerican agricultural research: June 14-15,1982, Winrock International Conference Cen-ter, Petit Jean Mountain, Morrilton, Arkansas.Rockefeller Foundation, NY.

Smith, K. R. 1995. Making alternative agriculturalresearch policy. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 10: 10-18.

Pro PositionJennifer A. Grant, Paul S. Robbins,Le lie L. Allee, Jennifer A. Altre, JodyL. Gangloff, and Rebecca R. SmythDepartment of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthaca, NY

The federal government has set a goal ofIPM implementation on 75% of U.S. farmlandby the year 2000 (Browner et al. 1993). To

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

achieve this ambitious goal, limited publicfunds must be committed more efficiently toaccelerate the adoption of IPM. We proposethat public funds earmarked for IPM researchshould be awarded only to projects that satisfytwo criteria. First, appropriate disciplinesmust collaborate to integrate their respectivepest management tactics into a feasible pro-gram for the target system. Second, this IPMprogram development must occur on the targetsite, on the farm. These criteria will ensure thatthe resulting programs are ready for imple-mentation by the end-user.

IPM research is not successful until theresulting pest management program has beenimplemented. Unfortunately, universities tra-ditionally address complex agricultural prob-lems in small researchable units that can beexamined by specialists in a variety of disci-plines. Extensionists and farmers are left tomake educated guesses about how individualmanagement tactics will interact, and thefarmers face risks that often prohibit them fromtrying novel combinations of pest manage-ment tactics. With publicly-supported IPM re-search focused on the compatibility of man-agement tactics, much of the risk will beeliminated. Interdisciplinary research teams,including growers and extension personnel,will develop effective and feasible field strate-gIes.

Incentives for collaboration across disci-plines currently are insufficient (Chippendale1996). In fact, university administrative poli-cies often present roadblocks to long-term, in-terdisciplinary research (Burgess 1994). Thepush to secure tenure, promotions, and newfunding sources drives academic workers tospecialize on problems that provide quick re-sults and produce more publications and mar-ketable products. If funding were targetedspecifically for interdisciplinary farm-level re-search, positive incentives for collaborationacross disciplines would be created.

Funding agencies also have failed in pro-moting interdisciplinary farm-level studies.Traditionally, the projects that receive fundingare cost-effective, produce quick results, andare divided into easily defined research units.As projects become more diversified, it takeslonger to get results, responsibilities of individ-ual researchers are less clear, and the projectsoutgrow the budget ceilings of many fundingsources.

When agencies do promote integratedon-farm investigations, the grants usually areviewed as niche rather than mainstream fund-ing. As an example, SARE grants have been

The push to securetenure,

promotions, andnew funding

sources drivesacademic workersto specialize onproblems thatprovide quick

results ...

155

Pest managementdecisions on agiven farm are

shaped not only bythe pest problemson the farm but

also by the broadersocietal context inwhich the farmer'lives and works.

156

successful in promoting a limited number ofintegrated research programs (e.g., Anon.1993, Holtzman 1994). However, because thisfunding is only a tiny portion of the federal pie,it does not provide an overriding incentive forresearchers to design projects to fit SARE'sgoals. In principle, public funding agencies arein the unique position of being able to createpositive incentives by pooling resources andcollectively funding complex, large-scale,long-term investigations; in practice, however,this always has not been the case.

We are not suggesting that all agriculturalresearch funding be subject to the multidisci-plinary and on-farm restrictions that we pro-pose for IPM funding. Single-component, ba-sic-research projects often comprise thebuilding blocks of an !PM program and shouldcontinue to be supported by sources such as theNational Research Initiative grants, FederalFormula Funds (Hatch), and the National Sci-ence Foundation (Benbrook et al. 1996).

In conclusion, we believe that the currentsystem is not fostering the long-term, teamresearch that is essential for broad-scale adop-tion of IPM. Our argument applies to all !PMimplementation in agricultural, horticultural,and urban settings. The only way to enableresearchers to undertake these highly impor-tant efforts within the constraints of their ca-reers is to restrict public IPM funding toprojects that truly are integrated and farm-level. If the government is at all sincere aboutits goal of implementation of !PM on 75% ofU.S. farmland, our proposed funding policy islong overdue.

Acknowledgments

We thank our advisors, M. Hoffmann, M.Villani, and A. Shelton.

References Cited

Anonymous. 1993. Alternate vegetable systemstested in new "living lab.n Innovations in Sus-tainable Agriculture,Fall 1993, pp.1-7.

Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth ill, J. M. Halloran, M.K.Hansen, and S.Marquardt. 1996.Pestman-agement at the crossroads. ConsumersUnion,Yonkers,NY.

Browner,C. M., R. Rominger,and D. A. Kessler.1993. Testimonybefore Subcommitteeon De-partment Operations and Nutrition, Commit-tee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Rep-resentatives.22 September1993.

Burgess, P.L. 1994. Teamwork in higher educa-tion: why don't wehavemore of it? Metropoli-tan Universities,5: 45-53.

Chippendale, G. M. 1996. Team research involv-ing entomologists.Am. Entomo!.42: 79-80.

Holtzman, B. 1994. SAREJACENortheast regionannual report 1994. NE RegionSARE,Univer-sity of Vermont,Burlington.

Con PositionRobert l. Bossard andHolly J. MaylandDepartment of EntomologyWaters HallKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS

There are flaws with the assertion that pub-licly funded !PM research should focus on mul-tidisciplinary, farm-level investigations. Themain problem is the assumption that IPM pro-grams require information primarily onfarm-level processes. Pest management deci-sions on a given farm are shaped not only bythe pest problems on the farm but also by thebroader societal context in which the farmerlivesand works. Neither of these influences arelimited primarily to the farm-level. Ecologicalprocesses that cause pest problems and affect!PM implementation operate at many levelsand scales (O'Neill et al. 1986). Thereforeresearch is needed on various levels. AlthoughIPM research often focuses on biological and!or ecological processes related to pest prob-lems, an analysis initiated by the EPA andUSDA concluded that "constraints relating topolicy and market were among the most seri-ous constraints limiting the more wide-spreadadoption of !PM" (Zalom and Fry 1992). Sim-ilarly, Raupp (1994) stated, "We need a broadresearch program that deals with fundamentalagroecosystem processes, socioeconomicquestions, appropriate livestock productionsystems, food quality, and information transferamong farmers and others. " To encourage sci-entists to pursue answers to all questions im-portant to !PM, public funding should be ex-tended to relevant research at any level. Manysuch questions are central to the implementa-tion of !PM but need not be addressed throughmultidisciplinary studies.

A second problem with restricting IPMresearch to farm-level investigations is theneed for urban IPM. Publicly funded research

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fa/l1998

should benefit the public. Less than 2% of theU.S. population now liveson farms. Urban andsuburban populations must deal with pests insettings as diverse as households, workplaces,exterior and interior landscapes, schools, andhospitals. Urban dwellers want and need safeand effective methods of pest control in thesesituations.

Savage et al. (1979) found 90.7% ofhouseholders personally had applied pesti-cides-84.0% in their homes, 21.4% to theirgarden, and 39.7% in the yard. Extensive useof pesticides by inexperienced householderscarries with it risks of misapplication and hu-man exposure. Home gardening is one area ofurban pest management that has benefitedfrom IPM. This area has much in common withagricultural settings, and application of IPMcan be transferred to some extent. However,application of IPM strategies to urban environ-ments requires different approaches and infor-mation.

Household pest control is just beginning toadopt IPM strategies. Rust (1994) stated, "Inrecent years, the interest in utilizing IPM tocontrol cockroaches has dramatically in-creased." Other arthropods of importance inurban areas include ants, structural pests suchas termites, and health pests such as cat fleas,dust mites, mosquitoes, and ticks. IPM is need-ed for these pests as well. Unfortunately, thereis little evidence that the special needs of urbanIPM are being researched for the purpose ofprogram implementation (Zungoli and Robin-son 1984). Implementation of urban IPM isimpossible without funding for research thataddresses the special needs of urban settings.

In summary, publicly funded IPM researchmust include urban IPM, both to target a need-ed area and to maintain support by providingvisible benefits to the public. In both urban andagricultural settings, studies to support pestmanagement must examine diverse informa-tion needs, ranging from biology to economicsto public opinion. Clearly, many of these needsare shaped by processes that operate at levelsother than the farm or urban setting. Maximaladoption of IPM requires funding for studies inany relevant discipline and at any relevantlevel of organization.

Acknowledgments

We thank our faculty advisor, D. C. Mar-golies, and J. c. Reese and R. A. Higgins, forhelping us develop our ideas. We also thank theDepartment of Entomology, Kansas State Uni-versity, for providing travel funds.

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall1998

References Cited

O'Neill, R. V.,D. L. DeAngelis,]. B. Waide, and T.F. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of eco-systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton,NJ.

Raupp, J. 1994. Some ideas and guidelines for re-search on ecological agriculture. Am. J. Alt.Agric. 9: 84-87.

Rust, M. K. 1994. Implementing cockroach IPMprograms. Proe. National Conf. Urban Emo-mo\. 1994: 81-93.

Savage, E. P.,T.J. Keefe, and H. W. Wheeler. 1979.National household pesticide usage study,1976-1977. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.

Zalom, F. G., and W. E. Fry. 1992. Food, croppests, and the environment. APS Press, St. Paul,MN.

Zungoli, P. A., and W. H. Robinson. 1984. Feasi-bility of establishing an aesthetic injury level forGerman cockroach pest management pro-grams. Environ. Emomo\. 13: 1453-1458.

TopicRestricted-Use Pesticides Should beUsed Only with a Prescription by anIndependent, Certified Crop Advisor.

BackgroundCarolyn J. Garvey, Deana Sexson,Shawn A. Steffan, andKimberly F. WallinDepartment of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadison, WI

Legislation mandating a prescription froman independent, certified crop advisor beforethe application of restricted-use pesticides is apossibility for the future. Restricted-use pesti-cides, as defined by the EPA,are pesticides thatmay have unreasonable adverse effects on theenvironment, including injury to the applica-tor. Currently, each state has its own program,mandated by FIFRA, that certifies pesticideapplicators (independent and nonindependent)to apply restricted-use pesticides. However,federal law does not require written recom-mendations before the application of

Urban andsuburban

populations mustdeal with pests insettings as diverse

as households,workplaces,exterior and

interior landscapes,schools, and

hospitals.

157

... if people were toplace too much

faith in the abilityof this law to

protect them, theymight not take theprecautions theytook ...before the

legislation wasenacted.

158

restricted-use pesticides. If prescription legisla-tion were enacted, certified pesticide applica-tors would no longer be able to applyrestricted-use pesticides without first obtaininga written recommendation from an indepen-dent, certified crop advisor. To be consideredindependent, the crop advisor could not beaffiliated with a company that sells the pre-scribed products. Such legislation would beanalogous to regulations that require a pre-scription from a physician before certain med-ications can be purchased or used. In both cas-es, the assumptions are: (1) certain substanceshave sufficient hazards associated with theiruse that they should be used only under theguidance of someone with expert knowledge,and (2) persons recommending the use of suchsubstances should not profit from the sale ofthose substances.

In anticipation of laws requmngprescription-use of pesticides, the Entomolog-ical Society of America convened a meeting ofrepresentatives from a select group of scientificsocieties (F.Knapp, personal communication).Two of the issues raised atthe meeting were: (1)consequences of mandating prescription pesti-cides, and (2) pesticide prescriber qualifica-tions.

The group considered several possibleconsequences of mandating prescription-use ofpesticides. Potentially, prescription-use couldpreserve minor-use pesticides. Minor-use pes-ticides are used less widely than pesticides reg-istered for use on major crops and pests and,therefore, do not generate sufficient sales tojustify the time and expense for their registra-tion or re-registration. Proponents ofprescription-use of pesticides argue thatprescription-use would ensure continued avail-ability of these pesticides, but this outcomewould require changes in pesticide registrationpolicies.

Prescriptions could provide professionaljustification for use of restricted-use pesticides,thereby reducing the probability of misuse.Prescriptions also could function to preservespecial-need pesticides that had been banneddue to high levels of toxicity. Such pesticidesthen could be used under prescription in anemergency when more conventional pesticideswere ineffective. On the other hand, laws re-stricting these pesticides could lose their signif-icance if special-use permits were abused byprescribers. Thus, it is possible thatprescription-use legislation may not changehow restricted-use pesticides are used andtherefore, may not lead to a reduction in theirmisuse.

Prescription-use legislation, if interpretedas more stringent regulation of pesticides,could reduce the public's concerns over pesti-cides. However, if people were to place toomuch faith in the ability of this law to protectthem, they might not take the precautions theytook with regard to pesticides before the legis-lation was enacted.

Finally, prescription-use legislation couldincrease employment opportunities for personstrained in crop and animal protection. Farm-ers, however, might have to bear the brunt ofthe cost for these services. These economic is-sues would need to be considered when draft-ing prescription-use regulations.

Participants at the ESAmeeting agreed thatstandards for prescribers of pesticides shouldbe based on education, experience in crop oranimal protection, and certification by a rec-ognized and accredited program. However,they recommended that the specific criteria forcertification come from federal agencies aswell as those who would be affected by thelegislation, including farmers, crop advisors,certification organizations, and educationalinstitutions.

California, the only state that currently en-forces prescription-use, requires crop advisorsto pass a written exam developed and admin-istered by the California State Department ofPesticide Regulation (P.Marer, personal com-munication). If someone other than the farmerrecommends a restricted-use pesticide, Califor-nia law requires a written recommendationfrom a certified crop advisor before the appli-cation is made. This law was applied to com-mercial applicators and individual farmers in1974, and public agencies in 1987. There areno crop-specific or site-specific limitations toCalifornia's law. Although the California lawprovides more stringent regulation of restrict-ed-use pesticides than other states, it does notprohibit the use of pesticide prescriptions bynonindependent crop advisors, such as thoseemployed by companies that sell the chemicalsthey prescribe. This creates a perceived con-flict of interest. Except for not requiring pre-scribers to be independent, the California mod-el is similar to the proposed legislation.

Allowing restricted-use pesticides to be ap-plied only when prescribed by an independent,certified crop advisor surely would have pro-found effects on our agricultural community,where pesticides are used so extensively tocontrol insects and other pests. The variousconsequences of this regulatory approachshould be considered carefully when writingsuch legislation.

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the cooperation of F. W.Knapp (University of Kentucky), who providedinformation about ESA'smeeting on prescrip-tion pesticides; and P.J. Marer (University ofCalifornia Statewide IPM Project), who pro-vided information on the regulation of restrict-ed-use pesticides in California.

Pro PositionPete McGhee, Vi Chen, andChris NobbsDepartment of EntomologyWashington State UniversityPullman, WAandW. Bruce CampbellDivision of EntomologyUniversity of IdahoMoscow, 10

Pesticide legislation has helped to makeU.S. agriculture among the safest and mostproductive in the world. Recent passage of the1996 Federal Food Quality Protection Act(FQPA)demonstrates continued public supportfor strong pesticide regulation. However, suchlegislation promotes restrictive measures forpesticide use rather than providing a regulato-ry structure to facilitate safe, effective, andeconomically feasible pest management strat-egies. As an example of the inadequacy of thislegislation, federal classification of materialsas restricted-use has not prevented their over-use or misuse (e.g., atrazine and alachlor)(Marer 1988, Metcalf 1996). An alternative tocontinued restrictive measures would be legis-lation requiring that restricted-use pesticidesbe used only when prescribed by an indepen-dent, certified crop advisor. No restricted-usematerials could be purchased or applied with-out written prescriptions, a situation analo-gous to the regulation of controlled pharma-ceuticals by physicians.

Under this system, prescribers would behighly trained and certified in pesticide appli-cation and pest, crop, and land management.Their responsibilities would include prescrib-ing the most effective and safest compound atthe appropriate time and maintaining recordsof these recommendations. Application re-cords managed by prescribers would provide

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

easy access to information for pesticide inci-dent reviews and would provide a foundationfor regional or national programs. These pro-fessionals would ensure safe and effective useof pesticides, increase public confidence inpesticide use, and reduce the need for compli-cated restrictive legislation that, otherwise,might hamper the adoption of new pest man-agement technologies.

As early as the 1940s, the need for pest con-trol specialists who would prescribe appropri-ate pesticide applications was recognized(Flint and van den Bosch 1981). This need hasbeen met partially; in many production areas,pest management advisors are responsible forscouting and recommending pesticide applica-tions. Indeed, in some commodities (e.g., treefruits in the Pacific northwest, J. F. Brunner,personal communication), voluntary compli-ance with these recommendations is equiva-lent to mandated prescription-use of pesticides.The proposed prescription-use model can buildon this infrastructure and be extended to allagricultural commodities.

A prescription program also will allowmore effective and sustainable pesticide use.Specifically, prescription-use will facilitateselection of the most appropriate chemical,facilitate implementation of pesticide resis-tance management strategies, and foster area-wide pest management. Regional pest man-agement will result in stable pest populationsthat are below economic injury levels (Pedigo1996). To control pest outbreaks and to helpextend the useful life of available chemicals,prescribers will be authorized to sanction someparticularly hazardous pesticides on an emer-gency basis.

Prescription use of pesticides will havecosts. These will include prescriber trainingprograms, certification, and supervision, butthese costs will be offset by improved produc-tion, fewer pesticide applications, increasedemployment opportunities, and fewer costlyincreases in pesticide monitoring. A reductionin the misuse of dangerous pesticides willmanage pest populations proactively whileensuring the safety of food, humans, and theenvironment. The prescription of restricted-use pesticides is not only the most effective butthe least costly of alternatives.

Acknowledgments

We thank J. F. Brunner (Washington StateUniversity) for providing information on therelationship between crop advisors and pestmanagement in tree fruits.

A reduction in themisuse of

dangerouspesticides willmanage pest

populations ... whileensuring the safetyof food, humans,

and theenvironment.

159

When usedcorrectly, the

current systemprevents overuse

and misuse ofpesticides.

160

References Cited

Flint, M. L., and R. van den Bosch. 1981. Historyof pest control, pp. 51-82 In M. L. Flint and R.van den Bosch [eds.], Introduction to integrat-ed pest management. Plenum, NY.

Marer, P.J. 1988. The safe and effective use of pes-ticides. Univ. Calif. Div. Agr. Nat. Res. Publica-tion 3324.

Metcalf, R. L. 1996. Applied entomology in thetwenty-first century: needs and prospects. Am.Entomol. 42: 216-227.

Pedigo, L. P. 1996. The practice of insect pest man-agement, pp. 505-526 In L. P. Pedigo [ed.],Entomology and pest management, 2nd ed.Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Con PositionRoseanne N. Mascarenhas,Victor J. Mascarenhas, andCraig S. MartinDepartment of EntomologyLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, LA

Although most entomologists agree thatreduction of pesticide use is of utmost impor-tance, prescription-use of pesticides will notaccomplish this goal. Rather, prescription-userepresents policy fraught with uncertaintiesand adverse consequences that could causeserious problems for researchers, agriculturalproducers, and consumers.

Legislation mandating prescription-use ofpesticides is unnecessary. Existing laws andagencies (e.g., FIFRA, EPA, FQPA) regulatepesticide applications effectively and ensurethat Americans enjoy one of the safest foodsupplies in the world. According to the Amer-ican Association of Poison Control Centers,there were 14 deaths due to pesticide poison-ings in 1989, with only 2 being accidental; therest were suicides (Litovitz et al. 1990). Con-sidering that u.s. growers use approximately705 million pounds of pesticides per year (Pi-mentel et al. 1991), it is obvious that the cur-rent system is working remarkably well. Fur-ther, newer insecticides that are beingregistered currently have increased targetspecificity and safety.

In many crop production systems, the equiv-alent of prescription-use is in place. The com-bination of pesticide labels, crop consultants,and economic thresholds serve as prescrip-tions. The label informs growers of legal useand application methods of pesticides. Crop

consultants inform growers of the pest status oftheir crops using economic thresholds to avoideconomic crop injury and unnecessary pesti-cide applications. Pesticide applications arecostly, so it is in the best interest of growers notto spray them carelessly. When used correctly,the current system prevents overuse and misuseof pesticides.

Another problem associated with pesticideprescriptions concerns the qualifications ofindividuals available for these positions. Areindividuals available with knowledge onmany cropping systems and pesticide solutionsto specificpest problems? If not, who will trainthem? Entomologists may feel comfortablemaking insecticide recommendations, but willthey be qualified to recommend herbicides forweed management? Adequate training re-quired to write prescriptions will necessitatefield training before pesticide recommenda-tions can be made for an array of croppingsystems and pest complexes. Persons complet-ing degrees in agricultural disciplines may beunprepared to meet these demands. The train-ing required to keep prescribers familiar withmany pest-crop interactions and control tacticscould be phenomenal.

Some argue that implementation of pesti-cide prescriptions will increase employmentopportunities. In fact, Higley et al. (1992) es-timated that pesticide prescriptions would re-quire "tens of thousands of certified prescri bersgiven the vast acreage of agronomic crops inthe United States." The availability of individ-uals qualified to meet such demands is ques-tionable. People currently involved in pesti-cide sales and application may be qualified towrite prescriptions, but the question of conflictof interest arises. However, without the in-volvement of pesticide salespeople and cropconsultants, not enough prescribers will beavailable to meet the need (Higley et al. 1992).

The final and, perhaps, most importantobstacle concerning pesticide prescriptions iscost. Governmental costs will include costs ofprogram establishment, prescriber certifica-tion, training, and continuing education. Coststo governmental agencies will be passed on totaxpayers. Additionally, if growers are re-quired to pay prescribers' salaries, this addedexpense will add to the economic hardshipsfarmers face, particularly if crop subsidies areabolished. Additional costs of pesticide pre-scriptions could hinder U.S. farmers' globalcompetitiveness seriously if other countries donot have to abide by the same regulations.

In summary, pesticide prescriptions are un-necessary, will require enormous amounts of

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall1998

personnel and training, and will reduce grow-ers' control of their farming operations due tomore costly government policy. This type ofregulation does not enhance the adoption ofIPM principles and could hinder what shouldbe the primary objective of pesticide policy-the production of a bountiful, safe, affordablefood supply in an environmentally acceptablemanner.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely appreciate the direction andsupport of our coaches, T. E. Reagan, J. A.Ottea, and D. J. Boethel (Louisiana State Uni-versity Agricultural Center). We also thank J.B. Graves, J. 1. Griffin, F. S. Guillot, S. J.Johnson, and D. P. Prowell (Louisiana StateUniversity Agricultural Center) for their helpand encouragement in preparation for thisdebate.

References Cited

Higley, L. G., M. R. Zeiss, W. K. Wintersteen, andL. P. Pedigo. 1992. National pesticide policy: acall for action. Am. Entomol. 38: 130-146.

Litovitz, T. B., B. F. Schmitz, and K. M. Bailey.1990. Annual Report of the American Associa-tion of Poison Control Centers National DataCollection System. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 8: 394-442.

Pimentel, D., L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan,T. Kraus, P.Kleinman, F. Vancini, W. J. Roach,E. Graap, W. S. Keeton, and G. Selig. 1991. En-vironmental and economic impacts of reducingU.S. agricultural pesticide use, pp. 679-720. InD. Pimentel [ed.], Handbook of pest manage-ment in agriculture, 2nd ed., vol. 1. CRC, BocaRaton, FL.

TopicThe 1996 Farm Bill Will Enhance theLong-Term Adoption of EcologicallySound IPM

BackgroundLynn WunderlichPlant Protection andPest Management ProgramUniversity of California-DavisDavis, CA

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

The 1996 Federal Agricultural Improve-ment and Reform (FAIR) Act was signed byPresident Clinton after the longest farm billdebate in U.S. history. Previous farm bills havebeen five-year bills, but FAIR is a seven-yearbill and will be considered for reauthorizationin the year 2002. Many of us who work inagriculture ma y be una ware of the importanceof Farm Bill legislation, but FAIR significantlychanges U.S. agricultural policy. Some of thesechanges will affect the practice of IPM.

One of the most significant changes in FAIRis the removal of government commodity pricesupport payments to growers. These pay-ments, called production flexibility contractpayments, now will be paid in seven annualfixed but decreasing payments (Economic Re-search ServicelUSDA 1996). Growers willhave greater flexibility in making plantingdecisions and still will be eligible to receivecontract payments; however, they will have torely more heavily on the market as a guide forproduction decisions.

With FAIR, originally introduced as the"Freedom to Farm" Act, growers can plantmost crops on their base or contract acreages(with limitations on fruits and vegetables) withno loss in payments. To receive payments andloans on program commodities, they mustenter into a "production flexibility contract"for the next seven years. These contracts willrequire them to comply with existing conserva-tion plans for their farms. Exactly how this newflexibility and market reliance will affect IPMpractices is unclear. Crop rotation may be-come more widely practiced. The reduction insubsidies could affect economic injury levelsby putting pressure on growers to produce amore competitive product. Growers may beless inclined to use practices perceived as risky,yet they will be compelled to comply withconservation requirements.

Although crop supports will be shrinkingsteadily over the next seven years, conserva-tion programs will be growing under FAIR.Indeed, FAIR will direct more money to conser-vation than has any farm bill in U.S. history(Baker 1996). The Natural Resource Conser-vation Service (NRCS, formerly known as theSoil Conservation Service) is the agency thatoversees many of these conservation pro-grams. The NRCS now has a broader mission,which includes wildlife management andclean water as well as soil conservation.

The 1996 FAIR farm bill extended severalconservation provisions, including the Wet-land Reserve Program (WRP), Swampbuster,and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

Although cropsupports will be

shrinking steadilyover the next sevenyears, conservation

programs will begrowing under

FAIR.

161

... IPM could playalarge role in

replacing farmincome lost from

price supportpayments by

reducingproduction costs.

162

The WRP is designed to return crop land thatpreviously was wetland back to wetland (Lantet al. 1995). Growers who voluntarily enrolleligible acreage in WRP receive payments forpermanent easements, 30-year easements, orrestoration cost-share agreements. Swamp-buster denies payments to growers who drainwetlands. The CRP pays farmers to take highlyerodible or environmentally sensitive landsout of agricultural production.

FAIR also established The EnvironmentalQuality Incentive Program (EQIP). EQIP pro-vides technical, financial, and educationalassistance to growers to address natural re-source concerns (http://www. nhq.nrcs. usda.gov/O PA/FB96 0PA/eq ipQ % 26A.h tml).Qualified growers are required to submit aconservation plan to the NRCS; private profes-sionals, such as pest control advisors, can helpgrowers develop their plans. Specific practicesthat will allow growers to qualify for EQIPwillbe identified by local work-groups, and suchpractices could include EBPM. For example,work-groups could decide to extend incentivesestablished for growers in the 1990 FACT farmbill. Under that bill, growers of specialty cropswere offered a $20 per acre incentive for up tothree years if they reduced by 20% the poundsof active ingredient of pesticide per acre overthat three-year period.

Finally, under the Research, Extension andEducation title of FAIR, federally supportedIPM programs will receive the same budget in1997 as in 1996 (i.e., $50 million). A requestfor an additional $8 million to be used for re-search and extension competitive grants wasdenied (Anonymous 1996). The SARE pro-gram, established by the 1985 farm bill, re-ceived a 10% increase in funding, which stillrepresents less than 1 % of the total USDA re-search budget.

In conclusion, the 1996 FAIR farm bill de-creases subsidies for farmers while increasingpa yments for conservation programs. Flexibil-ity is a key theme in the 1996 farm bill-flex-ibility for farmers to choose what they willgrow and how they will grow it.

References Cited

Anonymous. 1996. Sweeping the field-newsbriefs. Ag Consultant, 3 November 1996.

Baker, B. 1996. After a long wait, an environmen-tal Farm Bill passes muster. BioScience 46: 486.

http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/OPAlFB960PA/eqipQ%26A.html. 1996. EQIP Q & As-1996 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions,NRCS web site.

Lant, C. L., S. E. Kraft, and K. R. Gillman. 1995.The 1990 farm bill and water quality in CornBelt watersheds: conserving remaining wet-lands and restoring farmed wetlands. J. Soiland Water Conservation 50: 201-205.

[USDA] United States Department of AgricultureEconomic Research Service. 1996. 1996 FAIRAct frames farm policy for 7 years. AgriculturalOutlook Supplement, April 1996, 1-21.

Pro PositionHarry HowellDepartment of EntomologyTexas A & M UniversityCollege Station, TX

Seven years from now, farmers will be fi-nancially independent from the government.This will be a noble thing, a return to Jefferso-nian liberalism. The 1996 FAIR farm bill'selimination of producer support payments de-pendent on the agricultural base, production,or price will create an independence not knownby this generation of farmers. Before FAIR,farmers could farm as they pleased, knowingthat the government would supply them with aprofit in the form of a crop price-support check.However, without government support to savethem if their production costs are close to thecrop's value, producers will have to take allpossible measures to maximize net profits.Because IPM is the optimization of pest controlin an economically and ecologically soundmanner (Office of Technology Assessment1979), IPM is the strategy that farmers will useto maximize net production and/or profit.Hence FAIR will enhance the long-term adop-tion of EBPM.

In 1987, net farm income in the UnitedStates was approximately $46 billion, whiledirect government payments were approxi-mately $16 billion or about 25% of the aver-age farm family's income (USDA 1987). Overthe next seven years, these government pay-ments will drop steadily to zero. Given thatIPM is the optimization of both economic andecological management practices, IPM couldplaya large role in replacing farm income lostfrom price support payments by reducing pro-duction costs.

Several provisions in FAIR will enhanceadoption of EBPM. EQIP will provide finan-

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall.1998

http://wwwhttp://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/OPAlFB960PA/

cial assistance to farmers who adopt IPM aspart of their overall conservation practices.USDA'sNatural Resources Conservation Pro-gram (NRCP) will evaluate on-farm conserva-tion programs submitted by both farmers andprivate consultants. Once accepted, the NRCPwill provide a $20 per acre incentive to reducepesticide use by 20%. Varietal selection andcultural practices will reduce the use of fungi-cides and herbicides in this same rudimentaryIPM program. These benefits will contribute tothe long-term adoption oOPM.

An IPM program begins by assessing thepest problems associated with a crop and itsproduction unit. The economic effect of eachpest in the system is usually the easiest andquickest factor to evaluate, and this should bethe first completed. Control tactics such as se-lection of resistant varieties, adjustment ofplanting date, planting density, harvest date,destruction of crop residue and volunteerplants, irrigation management, weed control,tillage, and other cultural practices are select-ed on the basis of their cost-benefit ratio. Thelast tactic to be integrated into an IPM pro-gram should be chemical control. Chemicalcontrol of insects and mites should be seen notas a preventative measure but as a therapeuticmeasure used to lower a pest population belowits economic threshold. True economic thresh-olds are based, in part, on the value of the cropfor that season, usually unknown, combinedwith the cost of control, which usually isknown. With the loss of support payments, theproducer is even more uncertain than in thepast about the crop's value and so must doeverything possible to reduce production costs.IPM will lower production costs and, there-fore, will be adopted by producers.

In conclusion, there are several reasons thatthe 1996 }

Without patentableor marketableproducts, the

private sector isunlikely to support

EBPM research.

164

instance, initiated in 1993 a successful pro-gram in California that involved farmers, lo-cal pest control advisors, and various agricul-tural specialists. The program, termedBiologically Integrated Orchard Systems, wasto have on-farm research generate tangibleresults and then hold "field days" to educatelocal, interested farmers. Nationally, over1,200 farmers and ranchers have been in-volved in similar SARE research projects(Schaller 1994).

Another organization, The Leopold Centerfor Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, lA, issupported in large part by the taxation of ag-richemicals. Over the past nine years, the Cen-ter has invested $2 million in research andeducation to encourage Iowa farms to adoptEBPM (Keeney 1996). The Center's researchranges from biological control of corn pests toreduction of farm runoff. Its work involves anddirectly benefits Iowa farmers; however, adop-tion of EBPM in Iowa has been slow. Much ofthe difficulty is attributed to the fact that EBPMstrategies generally do not produce patentabletechniques or profit-generating products(Keeney 1996). Without patentable or market-able products, the private sector is unlikely tosupport EBPM research. EBPM is inherently aprocess of maximizing on-farm resources andminimizing external inputs; the lack of dis-tinct, patented EBPM products underscores theimportance of public funding earmarked spe-cifically for development and outreach ofEBPM strategies.

What does FAIR do to support, emulate, orfurther the work of such promising organiza-tions? FAIR sets forth no new policies nor doesit increase funding for programs or organiza-tions working on EBPM; therefore, it is unlike-ly that FAIR would enhance the long-termadoption of EBPM. FAIR does allocate $130million to the USDA for IPM research andeducation. However, this appropriation hasbeen capped at this level since 1994. For fiscalyear 1997, the USDA sought funding increasesof $14 million for the IPM initiative and $33million for the competitive research grantsprogram, but both were denied by FAIR (Ben-brook et a1. 1996). SARE efforts are hamperedseriously by federal funding deficiencies(Schaller 1994). Keeney (1996) noted that untilpolicy makers acknowledge the significance ofEBPM, such strategies will "languish for lackof funding. "

Given the freedom afforded by FAIR forfarmers to plant whatever crop they want, andwithout adequate incentives to do otherwise, itis likely that most farmers will embrace their

most profitable crop and streamline their mo-nocultural production efficiency. The reason issimple-"the agronomic and pest manage-ment benefits from more diverse rotations arelikely to be outweighed by the economies ofscale associated with highly specialized ma-chinery and marketing infrastructure" (Ben-brook et a1. 1996). Indeed, FAIR will changefarming in the United States, but it will notenhance the long-term adoption of ecological-ly sound IPM.

References Cited

Benbrook, C. M., E. Groth ill, J. M. Halloran, M.K. Hansen, and S. Marquardt. 1996. Pest man-agement at the crossroads. Consumers Union,Yonkers, NY.

Keeney, D. 1996. Biological control: its role in sus-tainable agriculture. Leopold Letter 8: 3-6.

National Research Council. 1996. Ecologicallybased pest management: new solutions for anew century. National Academy of SciencePress, Washington, DC.

Schaller, N. 1994. Federal policies to fully supportSustainable Agriculture Research and Educa-tion, pp. 72-82. In A. A. Sorenson [ed.], Agri-cultural conservation alternatives: the greeningof the farm bill. American Farmland Trust,Center for Agriculture in the Environment, De-Kalb,IL.

•Leslie L. Allee completed her Ph.D. on the

management, ecology, and behavior of thewestern corn rootworm in August, 1997, withPaula M. Davis. Jennifer Altre is a Ph.D. candi-date studying fungal infection of diamondbackmoth with John D. Vandenberg. Vonny M. Barlowcompleted his M.S. with Larry D. Godfrey at theUniversity of California, Davis and has begunPh.D. studies on biological control of leafyspurge with David J. Kazmer at the University ofWyoming. Robert L. Bossard completed hisPh.D. studying insecticide resistance in cat fleaswith Alberto B. Broce and Michael W. Dryden.James F.Campbell is a Ph.D. candidate studyinginsect-parasitic nematode behavioral adapta-tions for finding and infecting hosts with Harry K.Kaya. W. Bruce Campbell is a Ph.D. candidatestudying pattern and scale in ecology and theuse of aquatic insects in stream bioassessment

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fal/1998

with Merlyn A. Brusven. Vi Chen is a Ph.D. candi-date studying the physiology and molecular bi-ology of parasitoidlhost interactions with John J.Brown. Jody L. Gangloff is a Ph.D. candidatestudying population dynamics of onion thrips inonions with Michael P. Hoffmann and Charles J.Eckenrode. Carolyn J. Garvey is a M.S. candi-date studying the effects of sweet corn matura-tion date on pests of corn with John L. Wedberg.Greg Godwin is a Masters of Agriculture candi-date studying greenhouse biocontrol with EdwinG. Rajotte. Jennifer Grant is a Ph.D. candidatestudying interactions of entomogenous nema-todes and scarab grubs with Michael G. Villani.Harry Howell is a M.S. candidate studying urbanentomology with George L. Teetes. Naomi Loval-lo is a Ph.D. candidate studying the physiology ofparasitism with Diana L. Cox-Foster. Craig S.Martin received his M.S. degree in August, 1997,after studying medical entomology under the di-rection of C. Lamar Meek. He is now employed inthe Air Quality Division of the Louisiana Depart-ment of Environmental Quality. Roseanne N.Mascarenhas completed her Ph.D. in December,1997, under the direction of Professor David J.Boethe!. She is now employed by Zeneca AgProducts at Rocky Mount, North Carolina. VictorJ. Mascarenhas completed his Ph.D. in Decem-ber, 1997, under the direction of Jerry B. Graves.He is now employed by Zeneca Ag Products atRocky Mount, North Carolina. Holly J. Mayland isa M.S. candidate studying the response of pred-atory mites to herbivore-induced plant volatileswith David C. Margolies. Pete McGhee complet-ed his M.S. studying the biology and manage-ment of pentatomids in pome fruit orchards withJay F. Brunner. Chris Nobbs is a M.S. candidatestudying the biological control of tortricid leafrol-lers and alternative hosts of Colpoclypeus floruswith Jay F. Brunner. Rita Rio is a M.S. candidatestudying biological control with E. Alan Cam-eron. Paul S. Robbins is a Ph.D. candidate study-ing sex pheromones and mating systems of Mayand June beetles with Michael G. Villani. DeanaSexson is a Ph.D. candidate studying resistancemanagement in transgenic crops with Jeffrey A.Wyman. Rebecca R. Smyth is a M.S.lPh.D. candi-date studying oviposition preference of Crocido-lomia binotafis for improvement of trap croppingstrategies for this pest in Southeast Asia withMichael P. Hoffmann and Anthony M. Shelton.Shawn A. Steffan completed his M.S. studyingthe effect of habitat manipulations on biologicalcontrol in Brassica systems with Daniel L. Mahr.Kimberly F.Wallin is a Ph.D. candidate studyinghost plant acceptance behavior in Ips pini andDendroctonus rufipennis with Kenneth F. Raffa.Paul Whitaker is a Ph.D. candidate studying theeffect of habitat modifications on biological con-trol in apple orchards with Daniel L. Mahr. LynnWunderlich completed her M.S. working on anovel liquid release technique for deliveringeggs of the green lacewing with D. Ken Giles.

AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST • Fall1998

ENTOMOLOGISTS

Join a world-classsystem for total

quality health care.

As an Army Entomologist, you will bea vital member of the Army Health CareTeam. You could have a variety of oppor-tunities: conducting research, performingoperational and consultative medicalentomology, or consulting with staff atlabs and preventive medical facilities.

As an Entomologist in the ArmyMedical Service Corps, you will havethe rank, respect and privileges affordedto Army officers. In addition, you willearn 30 days of paid leave annually, andbenefit from housing and food allowances,no-cost or low-cost medical and dentalcare, post exchange and commissaryprivileges, and a generous retirementpackage.

To find out more, or to have an ArmyHealth Care Recruiter contact you, call:

1-800-USA-ARMYwww.goarmy.com

ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS.BE ALL YOU CAN BE.

165