generation. For example, researchers have developed squash varieties that are naturally virus-resistant, thus preventing insect-borne viruses that can destroy up to 80 percent of the squash crop. A number of seed and chemical companies and one university have been field-testing insect- and virus-resistant plants, developed with these genetic engineering techniques, for several major field crops and vegetables (table 4.4.5).

While most classical breeding programs have focused on pests resistant to chemicals or treatments that were too expensive (Zalom and Fry, 1992b), consumer concern over pesticides in agricultural products has prompted biotechnology companies to enter the genetically engineered plant market. As agricultural biotechnology products attain commercial success, some private investment funding may shift from the smaller pharmaceutical markets toward agricultural crop protection (Niebling, 1995). On the other hand, consumer acceptance of the bioengineered Bt corn, Bt cotton, and other genetically engineered crops has not yet been demonstrated in major U.S. markets. A 1992 survey of U.S. consumer attitudes about food biotechnology, published by North Carolina State University, found that most consumers want information on labels about various food characteristics, including the use of biotechnology (Hoban and Kendall, 1993).

APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) has approved or acknowledged 638 field trials for insect-resistant varieties since 1987 (24 percent of the total field trials approved or acknowledged), 286 field trials to test viral resistance (11 percent), and 94 field trials for fungal resistance (3.5 percent).

Cultural Pest Management

A number of production techniques and practices-including crop rotation, tillage, alterations in planting and harvesting dates, trap crops, sanitation procedures, irrigation techniques, fertilization, physical barriers, border sprays, cold air treatments, and habitat provision for natural enemies of crop pests can be used for managing crop pests. Cultural controls work by preventing pest colonization of the crop, reducing pest populations, reducing crop injury, and enhancing the number of natural enemies in the cropping system (Ferro, 1966).

These ecosysem-based pest control techniques are knowledge-intensive, and widespread adoption by growers would require major new funding for basic and applied research (National Academy of Sciences). The National Research Council also suggests that the

base of research necessary to develop and implement cultural pest management and other ecosystem-based pest management techniques is much greater than for synthetic chemical pesticides.

Crop rotation is one of the most important of the current cultural techniques. Eighty percent of U.S. corn acreage was in rotation with other crops in 1995, up slightly from 76 percent in 1990 (table 4.4.1). Over half of the corn was being grown in rotation with soybeans and about 15 percent with other row crops (see chapter 4.3, Cropping Management, for more detail on cropping patterns). Ninety percent of soybeans were grown in crop rotations in 1995. Corn producers rotating corn with other crops used insecticides less frequently than did those planting corn 2 years in succession (11 percent of acres versus 46 percent). Corn is often grown as a monocrop in heavy livestock areas and where climate limits the soybean harvest period (Edwards and Ford, 1992).

Crop rotation was much less prevalent for cotton, which has among the highest per-acre returns of U.S. field crops. Less than one-third of the cotton producers use this technique (table 4.4.1). Crop rotation in wheat varies with the type being grown; it was used on 77 percent of the spring crop but only 57 percent of the winter wheat crop in 1995. Crop rotation was used for virtually all of the potato acreage.

Cultivation for weed control is widely practiced for field crops, mostly in conjunction with herbicide use. Almost all of the potato and cotton acreage received cultivations in 1995, along with 66 percent of corn. For soybeans, cultivations dropped from 67 percent in 1990 to 41 percent in 1995 (table 4.4.1).

Field sanitation and water management (see glossary) are widely used on fruit and nut crops, with 60 percent and 31 percent of the acreage under these practices in the early 1990's (table 4.4.4). For vegetable crops, planting dates were adjusted as a cultural control on 15 percent of the surveyed crop area. Water management was used by 44 percent of the certified organic vegetable producers, and over half were using adjusted planting dates to manage pests.

Research on new cultural techniques such as solarization-heating the soil to kill crop

pests continues to emerge. However, most cultural practices do not involve a marketable product, and research and development depends almost entirely on public sector funding (U.S. Congress, 1995). While

cultural practices may be effective for controlling pests, reducing pesticide use, and lowering input costs, these techniques require a knowledgeable producer and growers may not be getting adequate information about them.

Pest Management Programs and Initiatives Pest management systems in the future will emerge against the backdrop of continued consumer preference for fewer farm chemicals and scientific uncertainty about the ecological and health impacts of chemical use. In addition to State and Federal pesticide regulations, farmers' pest management choices will be influenced by the costs and risks of pesticides and alternatives, the market for green products, and other factors. USDA, EPA, and other government agencies have initiated a number of programs to encourage biological and cultural pest management, including biointensive IPM research and promotion, areawide pest management, regulatory streamlining for biologicals, and national organic standards development.

IPM Research and Promotion

On September 22, 1993, the EPA, USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) presented joint testimony to Congress on a comprehensive interagency effort designed to reduce the pesticide risks associated with agriculture. The three goals of this effort are to (1) discourage the use of higher risk products, (2) provide incentives for the development and commercialization of safer products, and (3) encourage the use of alternative control methods which decrease the reliance on toxic and persistent chemicals (Browner and others, 1993). This joint testimony also expressed support for integrated pest management (with a goal of IPM programs on 75 percent of total U.S. crop acreage by the year 2000), ecosystem-based programs to reduce pesticide use, market-based incentives such as reduced-pesticide use food labels, and other efforts to help reduce pesticide risks.

State Extension Service IPM programs are overseen by designated IPM coordinators, mostly entomologists who focus on developing interdisciplinary pest management programs (Grey, 1995). Over half of U.S. farmers are using a minimum level of IPM-including scouting for insect pests and applying insecticides when economic thresholds are reached (Vandeman and others, 1994)-as opposed to the conventional pesticide application method of preventative, calendar-based spraying. Economic and environmental studies have reported mixed results in terms of the impacts of IPM scouting and thresholds

on pesticide use (Rajotte and others, 1987; Mullen, 1995; and Ferguson and Yee, 1995; FernandezCornejo, 1996).

The first national study of biologically based IPM in the early 1990's, jointly sponsored by USDA and EPA, concluded that dozens of technical, institutional, regulatory, economic, and other constraints need addressing in order to achieve broader adoption (Zalom and Fry, 1992a). Three constraints were identified by all commodity groups: (1) lack of funding and personnel to conduct site-specific research and demonstrations; (2) producer perception that IPM is riskier than conventional methods, more expensive, and not a shortrun solution; and (3) educational degree programs that are structured toward narrow expertise rather than broad knowledge of cropping systems (Glass, 1992).

The current IPM initiative in USDA, which has been partly funded by Congress, attempts to address the funding constraint and need for demonstrations and highlights stakeholder involvement in priority setting for IPM research (Jacobsen, 1996). A few IPM research projects have started to examine biocontrols and cultural practices for several commodities, especially those that may not have adequate pest management alternatives because of current or pending EPA regulatory actions or voluntary pesticide registration cancellations.

Areawide Pest Management Systems

USDA is also developing and implementing an areawide pest management approach-through partnerships with growers, commodity groups, government agencies, and others-to contain or suppress the population levels of major insect pests in agriculture over large definable areas, as opposed to on a farm-to-farm basis (Calkins and others, 1996). Biological and cultural methods are the focus of most of these areawide programs.

Some biological control tactics, such as sterile insect releases, are most effective if implemented on a large area that encompasses many farms (U.S. Congress, 1995). For example, corn rootworm is a highly mobile pest as an adult and management is expected to be more effective over a large area. The goals of the program are to provide more sustainable pest control, at costs competitive with insecticide-based programs, and to reduce the use of chemical insecticides in agriculture. One successful biologically based areawide program was launched against the screwworm, a major parasitic pest of livestock, pets, and humans. USDA began releasing

sterile male screwworm flies into wild populations in the 1950's, and by the early 1980's the screwworm became the only pest successfully eradicated from the United States (U.S. Congress, 1995).

USDA currently has five biologically based areawide IPM projects in various stages of evaluation, pilot testing, and large area implementation (table 4.4.7). The oldest, the Areawide Bollworm/Budworm Project in Mississippi, was initiated in 1987. Under this project, serious insect pests of Delta crops, especially cotton, were managed successfully with natural insect pathogens in small field tests. The project went into a large-area testing phase with 215,000 acres in 1994 and 1995.

Another areawide IPM project, the regional Coddling Moth Areawide Management Program (CAMP), uses pheromone mating disruption to control the coddling moth, the primary insect pest of apples in California, Oregon, and Washington. CAMP is a cooperative effort between ARS and three universities, and it aims to reduce organophosphate insecticide use by 80 percent in these apple- and pear-producing States (Kogan, 1996). The coddling moth had grown resistant to the organophosphate insecticide which required growers to triple applications of that chemical (Flint and Doane, 1996). Pilot testing of the project began in 1995 on five sites, and initial results indicate substantial reductions in organophosphate use and a positive response from growers (Kogan, 1996).

Two projects are examining the areawide use of attractants-semiochemical bait with tiny amounts of insecticide to control corn rootworm in the Midwest, and Mexican corn rootworm and cotton bollworn in Texas and other States (Calkins and others, 1996). The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has issued a crop insurance endorsement to cover any crop losses that might occur in testing sites.

Regulatory Streamlining for Alternatives

The EPA has facilitated the development of biorational pesticides by establishing a tier approval system in which, under some circumstances, several tests are waived. These reduced regulation costs have helped lower the development costs of biopesticides, which are currently estimated at around $5 million per product, compared with about $50-$70 million for a chemical pesticide (Ollinger and Fernandez-Cornejo, 1995).

The EPA is also making the regulation of biorational pesticides less stringent than that of chemical

pesticides. For example, Lepidopteran pheromones may now be used experimentally on up to 250 acres without an experimental-use permit and are exempted from a food tolerance measure (Pesticides & Toxic Chemical News).

The EPA has also facilitated the use of minimum-risk alternatives to toxic pesticides by establishing a process for exemption from costly FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) requirements. Thirty-one substances (see box) deemed to pose insignificant risks to human health and the environment have recently been deregulated. EPA considered whether the substances were common foods, had a nontoxic mode of action, had FDA recognition as safe, had no information showing significant adverse effects, persistence in the environment and other factors. Supporters of the draft proposal on exemptions felt that deregulation of these substances would particularly benefit small businesses and the organic industry and supported the expansion of this list in the future, while opponents were concerned about product effectiveness (U.S. EPA, 1996a).

National Organic Standards, Certification, and
Ecolabels

Organic farming systems focus on biological and cultural methods for pest management and virtually exclude the use of synthetic chemicals. In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act to provide consistent national standards to consumers for

Deregulated Minimum-Risk Pesticides

The following minimum-risk pesticides, mostly from common food substances, were exempted from costly Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requirements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a 1996 ruling: castor oil (U.S.P. or equivalent), cedar oil, cinnamon and cinnamon oil, citric acid, citronella and its oil, cloves and clove oil, corn gluten meal, corn oil, cottonseed oil, dried blood, eugenol, garlic and garlic oil, geraniol, geranium oil, lauryl sulfate, lemongrass oil, linseed oil, malic acid, mint and mint oil, peppermint and peppermint oil, 2-phenethyl propionate (2-phenylethyl propionate), potassium sorbate, putrescent whole egg solids, rosemary and rosemary oil, sesame and sesame oil, sodium chloride (common salt), sodium lauryl sulfate, soybean oil, thyme and thyme oil, white pepper, and zinc metal strips.

Source: EPA, 1996a.

2

organic production and processing methods. This legislation requires that all except the smallest organic growers be certified by a State or private agency accredited under national standards currently being developed.

The National Organic Standards Board, which was appointed by USDA to help implement the Act, currently defines organic agriculture as "an ecological production management system that promotes and

enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is based on minimum use of off-farm production inputs, on management practices that restore and enhance ecological harmony, and on practices that maintain organic integrity through processing and distribution to the consumer" (Ricker, 1996). USDA is expected to publish the draft national organic standards in the Federal Register in 1997.

Organic Production. National data indicate a growing organic niche in the U.S. farm sector. A recent survey of public and private organic certifications indicated that there were at least 4,050 certified organic farms in the United States in 1994 with over a million acres in organic production (Dunn, 1995). And these statistics underestimate the number of U.S. growers using organic production methods, since the growers must farm organically for at least 3 years before they can certify their production under most certification organizations.

About 1 percent of the total U.S. fruit and vegetable acreage is organic, a higher proportion than for field crops, livestock feed, cotton, and other commodity sectors. California, the largest fruit and vegetable producing State, reports that organic farmers account for about 2 percent of its 80,000 farmers (White, 1994).

Few case studies have examined yields, input costs, income, and other characteristics of organic production. A review of the economic literature published in the 1970's and 1980's concluded that the "variation within organic and conventional farming systems is likely as large as the differences between the two systems," and found mixed results in the comparisons for most characteristics (Knoblauch, Brown, and Braster, 1990). Organic price premiums are key in giving organic farming systems comparable or higher whole-farm profits than conventional systems (Klonsky and Livingston, 1994; Batte, Forster, and Hitzhusen, 1993).

Organic agriculture is the most thoroughly documented system of ecological pest management in the United States. At least 11 States and 33 private agencies in the United States offer certification services to organic growers to ensure they are using the ecologically based standards associated with organic farming systems. California Certified Organic Farmers is a private certification organization and the oldest certifier in the Nation.

Certified Organic Labels. Over half the States have laws that regulate the production and marketing of organic food, and about half the States require State or private certification of products and operations to ensure that they are using only approved materials and practices. National standards under development in USDA are expected to facilitate international trade as well as enhance consumer confidence in organic food commodities.

Organic food products account for only about 1 percent of total retail food sales, but organics are one of the fastest growing segments of the industry. Consumer demand for organic food products has increased throughout the 1990's. Retail sales of fresh and processed organic food products reached $2.8 billion in 1995, and have increased over 20 percent annually since 1989 (Natural Foods Merchandiser, 1996). Increases in the number of large-format natural food stores, supermarket organic sections, export markets and direct-marketing outlets, as well as the expanding variety of organic foods, have fueled this growth. Organic products are labeled at retail in a variety of ways, including stickers, labels, signs, and other methods that indicate the certification organization or give other information.

Voluntary Environmental Standards. In addition to stronger pesticide regulations over the last decade, voluntary codes for environmental stewardship and responsible pesticide use in agriculture have begun to emerge. These codes are instituted by the private sector, enforced by firms themselves, use sanctions such as peer pressure for compliance, focus on life-cycle impacts, emphasize management systems, and let firms define their own performance standards. They can shift some of the environmental management costs to the private sector, expand a firm's environmental focus beyond the scope of regulation, help a firm integrate environmental and business objectives, and foster long-term changes in a firm's environmental consciousness (Nash and Ehrenfeld, 1996).

The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program was initiated in 1992 by EPA, USDA, and FDA to facilitate this type of voluntary approach, inviting organizations that use pesticides or represent pesticide users to join as partners (U.S. EPA, 1996b). Partners agree to implement formal strategies to reduce the use and risk of pesticides and to report regularly on progress. Membership in this stewardship program has grown to 41 partners, including many commodity groups across the country, and represents at least 45,000 pesticide users. The California Department of Agriculture has established a similar program, the IPM Innovators Program, to recognize individuals and groups that have demonstrated leadership in voluntarily implemented systems that reduce pesticide risks (Brattesani and Elliott, 1996) and to raise the environmental consciousness of other groups that use pesticides and inspire them to voluntarily adopt similar activities. Also, some States are examining the potential benefits of IPM certification, while Massachusetts is already operating a "Partners with