I think many of you will find this statement interesting and very applicable for both conventional and organic producers of all crops.
Statement on “Least Toxic” & “Last Resort”
Recommendations and decisions to use “least toxic pesticides” and
“pesticides as a last resort” have flourished in the last decade, but
according to three scientific organizations – the Weed Science Society
of America (WSSA), the American Phytopathological Society (APS) and the
Plant-Insect Ecosystems Section of the Entomological Society of America
(P-IE ESA) – these are not the correct approaches to the pesticide
component of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. The three
organizations have joined to take an objective look at these two
descriptions and prepared a position statement.
It is essential to practice integrated pest management (IPM), whether
managing weeds, insect pests or plant disease - on the farm, on
commercial sites, on public lands, or in or around the home. Key
components of IPM include making the habitat unfavorable for pests,
excluding pests where feasible, using proper sanitation practices,
monitoring the infestation level, knowing the pest tolerance level for
the specific situation and implementing the necessary management
practices. Judicious use of pesticides is a critical component of many
IPM programs.
Judicious (careful) use refers to various practices - following all
label directions and making all appropriate stewardship decisions
required in the particular situation. This includes applying a product
registered for the target pest(s) after accurate pest identification,
and consideration of the level of infestation and the potential for
economic, health or other negative pest impacts. Careful use extends
beyond pesticides to household chemicals, automobiles, medicines,
alcoholic beverages, and countless other products that are part of our
daily lives.
“Least toxic” implies there are pesticides available for every pest
spectrum that are least toxic to everything else. This is not true. The
toxicity of a pesticide depends on what is being evaluated and who or
what may be affected. It is also important to remember that toxicity is
not the same as risk, which is dependent on both toxicity and exposure.
The risk associated with the use of pesticides and other chemicals is
managed by establishing safe exposure levels based on the toxicity
specific to each product. Assigning a “most” or “least” toxic rating
does not equate to actual risk when the product is properly applied.
“Last resort” implies that pesticides will work as well when every
non-chemical control technique is attempted first. However, delaying
application of a pesticide can cause buildup of the pest(s) in crops,
gardens, buildings and other sites, with negative impacts on yield,
quality and/or health. In fact, delaying treatment can significantly
increase the ecological and economic damage to crop and non-crop areas.
Using pesticides as the last line of defense can result in a more
limited choice of pesticides, as well as reduced crop tolerance, the
need for higher rates, and less effective control because of higher
infestation levels and/or more tolerant pest stages. For example,
seedling weeds and early-stage insect larvae and diseases are usually
more easily controlled than later pest stages. Effective pesticide
choices, when they are applied as a “last resort,” means fewer options
to rotate pesticides, which is a critical step in preventing a pest from
becoming resistant to a pesticide. “Last resort” pesticide strategies
may also increase the need for multiple products and higher application
rates to control the pest effectively. The term also suggests pesticides
are always the worst choice, which is not true. First using
non-chemical techniques that are ineffective or inefficient has the
potential to add to the cost of pest management, intensify the pest
problem or create new problems.
Finally, by branding pesticides as the “last resort” choice certainly
does not stimulate a strong public interest in funding education on
their proper use. Pesticides are widely used, but discretionary federal
funding of the U.S. Pesticide Safety Education Program has been
eliminated in 2011 and 2012.
This program is vital to educate pesticide users and dealers who must be
certified to apply or sell pesticides, and to teach the public how to
use pesticides safely. There is no benefit or scientific basis to
simplistic messages like “use least toxic pesticides as a last resort”
for the large number of pesticide users who apply pesticides according
to the label and practice good stewardship. Nor are these messages
beneficial for those who neither seek training nor adequately read the
label believing instead that it is safe, practical, and effective to
simply choose a product considered a “least toxic pesticide” and apply
it only as a “last resort.” These messages hinder pesticide safety and
stewardship education and practices that are in the best interest of the
pesticide user, our food supply, public health and ecosystem
preservation.
(WSSA/APS/P-IE ESA joint statement, 11/12/12).
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Monday, December 17, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Tighter Organic Standards Begin in 2013
Source URL: http://southwestfarmpress.com/
Farm Press Staff
Southeast Farm Press
Tighter organic standards begin in 2013
A USDA audit that found that agencies monitoring organic food producers were not conducting periodic testing for pesticide residues has led to new rules requiring such tests on 5 percent of organic foods, the Agriculture Department announced.
In a Federal Register notice, USDA said that agencies that certify organic producers must begin testing for residues on at least 5 percent of organic farms next year. The tests, estimated to cost $500 each, would be paid for by the certifying organizations, not their clients.
Under current USDA regulations, organic food producers receive an initial inspection before being certified and allowed to use the USDA Organic Seal. But no one follows up to make sure the farms do not apply synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or other materials not permitted in organic farming operations.
The new requirement will help protect the integrity of the $30-billion-a-year organic food industry, USDA officials said. Periodic testing for prohibited residues will prevent the mislabeling of organic foods in the nation's supermarkets.
While the new USDA regulations will help, they don’t go far enough to ensure that all organic farmers are playing by the rules, according to critics who have been following the ongoing debate on the Agriculture Department’s National Organic Program or NOP.
Other 95 percent?
“The USDA recently announced plans to begin testing 5 percent of the farms and processors it certifies under its decade-old National Organic Program,” said Mischa Popoff, a former organic farm inspector. “But in the interests of keeping organic food in America as pure and as nutritious as possible, we have to ask: What about the other 95 percent?
Popoff, a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and author of a recent book called “Is It Organic,” also questioned the timing of the testing that will be conducted under the new USDA format.
“Of the 5 percent of farms and processors the USDA plans to test, officials say they will require that some of them are subjected to pre-harvest testing. But surely it would be advisable to do mostly pre-harvest testing. After all, the benefits of organic production all occur in the field. So what better way to ensure that organic crops and livestock are indeed purer and more nutritious than to do all testing in the field?”
With the exception of genetically-modified organisms, almost everything that’s prohibited in organic production dissipates and in many cases becomes undetectable over time, Popoff notes. “So there’s little point wasting time or money testing organic crops post-harvest. In order to prevent cheating, all testing in the organic industry must occur prior to harvest.
“Whether it’s herbicides, pesticides, hormones, improperly-composted manure, or the big-money-maker: synthetic ammonium nitrate, only an unannounced inspection and field test will deter fraud and gross negligence in the multibillion dollar organic sector.”
USDA said the certifying agencies will decide which organic farms and processors will be tested. Allowing flexibility in inspections will help reduce costs.
Critics also are concerned about inspections of organic food that's imported into the United States every year, under USDA oversight, from countries like China, Mexico and Brazil. Imports account for nearly half of the organic food sold in the U.S. annually.
In-season testing
“Consider that Olympic athletes are tested before and during the games, not after. And the good news in the case of organic farming is that doing such tests in the field – 100 percent of the time instead of just 5 percent of the time – will drastically reduce a farmer’s cost of being certified, because field testing costs about one-tenth what the current system of record-keeping and record-checking costs.
While USDA officials say the cost of this new plan will be about $500 per test, a broad-spectrum herbicide analysis costs just $125, Popoff notes. “And what about testing for fecal coliforms? That costs just $16 per test, money well spent when one considers the risks inherent in improperly-composted manure.”
Popoff says Heartland does not suggest testing for everything every year. “As long as the party being inspected doesn't know what’s being tested for, a broad-spectrum herbicide analysis or a fecal coliform test, or any of a host of other inexpensive tests, would suffice to prove or disprove a farmer’s or processor’s adherence to the NOP and hopefully keep everyone honest.”
Another issue concerns the ‘royalties’ being collected by USDA-accredited certifiers. Private, for-profit companies collect 1 percent to 3 percent of a farmer’s gross revenue from each transaction they certify? Critics believe organic field testing must be carried out by independent inspectors.
Farm Press Staff
Southeast Farm Press
Tighter organic standards begin in 2013
A USDA audit that found that agencies monitoring organic food producers were not conducting periodic testing for pesticide residues has led to new rules requiring such tests on 5 percent of organic foods, the Agriculture Department announced.
In a Federal Register notice, USDA said that agencies that certify organic producers must begin testing for residues on at least 5 percent of organic farms next year. The tests, estimated to cost $500 each, would be paid for by the certifying organizations, not their clients.
Under current USDA regulations, organic food producers receive an initial inspection before being certified and allowed to use the USDA Organic Seal. But no one follows up to make sure the farms do not apply synthetic fertilizers, pesticides or other materials not permitted in organic farming operations.
The new requirement will help protect the integrity of the $30-billion-a-year organic food industry, USDA officials said. Periodic testing for prohibited residues will prevent the mislabeling of organic foods in the nation's supermarkets.
While the new USDA regulations will help, they don’t go far enough to ensure that all organic farmers are playing by the rules, according to critics who have been following the ongoing debate on the Agriculture Department’s National Organic Program or NOP.
Other 95 percent?
“The USDA recently announced plans to begin testing 5 percent of the farms and processors it certifies under its decade-old National Organic Program,” said Mischa Popoff, a former organic farm inspector. “But in the interests of keeping organic food in America as pure and as nutritious as possible, we have to ask: What about the other 95 percent?
Popoff, a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and author of a recent book called “Is It Organic,” also questioned the timing of the testing that will be conducted under the new USDA format.
“Of the 5 percent of farms and processors the USDA plans to test, officials say they will require that some of them are subjected to pre-harvest testing. But surely it would be advisable to do mostly pre-harvest testing. After all, the benefits of organic production all occur in the field. So what better way to ensure that organic crops and livestock are indeed purer and more nutritious than to do all testing in the field?”
With the exception of genetically-modified organisms, almost everything that’s prohibited in organic production dissipates and in many cases becomes undetectable over time, Popoff notes. “So there’s little point wasting time or money testing organic crops post-harvest. In order to prevent cheating, all testing in the organic industry must occur prior to harvest.
“Whether it’s herbicides, pesticides, hormones, improperly-composted manure, or the big-money-maker: synthetic ammonium nitrate, only an unannounced inspection and field test will deter fraud and gross negligence in the multibillion dollar organic sector.”
USDA said the certifying agencies will decide which organic farms and processors will be tested. Allowing flexibility in inspections will help reduce costs.
Critics also are concerned about inspections of organic food that's imported into the United States every year, under USDA oversight, from countries like China, Mexico and Brazil. Imports account for nearly half of the organic food sold in the U.S. annually.
In-season testing
“Consider that Olympic athletes are tested before and during the games, not after. And the good news in the case of organic farming is that doing such tests in the field – 100 percent of the time instead of just 5 percent of the time – will drastically reduce a farmer’s cost of being certified, because field testing costs about one-tenth what the current system of record-keeping and record-checking costs.
While USDA officials say the cost of this new plan will be about $500 per test, a broad-spectrum herbicide analysis costs just $125, Popoff notes. “And what about testing for fecal coliforms? That costs just $16 per test, money well spent when one considers the risks inherent in improperly-composted manure.”
Popoff says Heartland does not suggest testing for everything every year. “As long as the party being inspected doesn't know what’s being tested for, a broad-spectrum herbicide analysis or a fecal coliform test, or any of a host of other inexpensive tests, would suffice to prove or disprove a farmer’s or processor’s adherence to the NOP and hopefully keep everyone honest.”
Another issue concerns the ‘royalties’ being collected by USDA-accredited certifiers. Private, for-profit companies collect 1 percent to 3 percent of a farmer’s gross revenue from each transaction they certify? Critics believe organic field testing must be carried out by independent inspectors.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Organic Fruit Research Videos
55 Recordings from the International Organic Fruit Research Symposium are now available
eOrganic conducted live broadcasts from the the 2nd International Organic Fruit Research Symposium in Leavenworth, Washington on June 19 and 21, 2012. Fifty-five recorded presentations from the symposium on a wide range of organic fruit production and research topics are now available for viewing at http://www.extension.org/These presentations will be of interest to researchers, Extension professionals, growers, consultants, suppliers, and retailers who wish to learn the latest developments in the worldwide organic fruit supply chain.
You can also view the presentations as a single playlist on the eOrganic YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/
This project was made possible by David Granatstein of Washington State University and funded by a USDA NIFA OREI conference grant.
Want to find more webinars and broadcasts from eOrganic? See them all at http://www.extension.org/
Monday, September 17, 2012
Organic Certification Cost-Share Deadline: Sept 30
From Heather Barnes at the NCDA & CS.
This federal program is administered by each state's Department of Agriculture, is non-competitive and offered on a first-come, first-served basis until all money is awarded. Funds are awarded to cover 75% of organic certification costs up to $750. Fill out the paperwork and get reimbursed!
SC farmers can find forms at: http://agriculture.sc.
North Carolina
Heather Barnes, Marketing Specialist
North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services
1020 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1020
919-707-3127
Email: Heather.Barnes@ncagr.
South Carolina
Amy London & Fred Broughton
SC Dept of Agriculture
Wade Hampton Office Building, 5th Floor
1200 Senate Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-2235, 803-734-2224
E-mail: alondon@scda.sc.gov
fbrough@scda.sc.gov
Any growers that are currently certified organic, please be
aware that the deadline for submitting your Organic Certification Cost
Share Program application is September 30th and includes all costs
incurred between October 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012.
This federal program is administered by each state's Department of Agriculture, is non-competitive and offered on a first-come, first-served basis until all money is awarded. Funds are awarded to cover 75% of organic certification costs up to $750. Fill out the paperwork and get reimbursed!
NC farmers can find more information and forms at: http://www.ncagr.gov/
Links to forms (pdf):
In order to get a
reimbursement, you must send a cost share application and the necessary W9 form, along with proof of
certification and receipt of your various certification fees for the
year to the following contacts:
North Carolina
Heather Barnes, Marketing Specialist
North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services
1020 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1020
919-707-3127
Email: Heather.Barnes@ncagr.
South Carolina
Amy London & Fred Broughton
SC Dept of Agriculture
Wade Hampton Office Building, 5th Floor
1200 Senate Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-2235, 803-734-2224
E-mail: alondon@scda.sc.gov
Friday, September 14, 2012
Organic Broccoli Workshop - Sept 19, 2012
September 19, 2012
Organic Broccoli Workshop!
Mountain Research Station, Waynesville, NC
11:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Come learn about
organic broccoli production: insect management, post-harvest techniques,
and marketing. View 28 varieties and help us rate which one is best.
RSVP to reserve a lunch (you can still come regardless, just can't
promise a lunch). Richard Boylan, Watauga County Extension Agent, Emily
Bernstein, Research Specialist, and Jeanine Davis, Associate Professor
will be presenting. The workshop is free and open to the public. Contact
Emily at Emily_Bernstein@ncsu.edu or 828-684-3562
to reserve a lunch and indicate any dietary needs or preferences. The
workshop will be held at the Mountain Research Station, 265 Test Farm
Road, Waynesville, NC 28786. This workshop is free and open to the
public. Directions.
This project is led by Jeanine Davis in the Department of Horticultural
Science at NC State University and funded by a grant from the Organic
Farming Research Foundation.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Organic Seed Finder Webinar: August 21, 2012
There's still time to register for the next eOrganic webinar on
August 21st: Sourcing
Organic Seed Just Got Easier: An Introduction to Organic Seed Finder.
This webinar will be presented at 2PM Eastern Time (1PM Central, 12PM Mountain, 11AM Pacific Time).
Join Chet Boruff of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies and Kristina Hubbard of the Organic Seed Alliance as they introduce the new Organic Seed Finder database, which will serve as a valuable tool for the organic community by providing reliable organic seed availability information. The webinar is free and open to the public. Advance registration is required. Find out more and register at http://www.extension.org/
This webinar will be presented at 2PM Eastern Time (1PM Central, 12PM Mountain, 11AM Pacific Time).
Join Chet Boruff of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies and Kristina Hubbard of the Organic Seed Alliance as they introduce the new Organic Seed Finder database, which will serve as a valuable tool for the organic community by providing reliable organic seed availability information. The webinar is free and open to the public. Advance registration is required. Find out more and register at http://www.extension.org/
Friday, May 11, 2012
Military Veterans: The Next Generation of Organic Farmers
Check out this post from the USDA blog. Military Veterans: The Next Generation of Organic Farmers
Very cool! Love the name of one veterams hot sauce.
Very cool! Love the name of one veterams hot sauce.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Certified Organic Recordkeeping Tool
COG Pro - Recordkeeping system for organic certification provides an online solution to the detailed record-keeping required to be a certified organic producer.
The website is organized like a logbook with tabbed dividers, so users can easily enter their activities in a wide variety of categories. A simple click on a tab brings up the appropriate entry form and a view of previously entered records.
It also has a Good Agricultural Practices or GAPs record keeping function.
You can log in as a guest to take a look at the system and try it out - go to
http://cog-pro.com/
The website is organized like a logbook with tabbed dividers, so users can easily enter their activities in a wide variety of categories. A simple click on a tab brings up the appropriate entry form and a view of previously entered records.
It also has a Good Agricultural Practices or GAPs record keeping function.
You can log in as a guest to take a look at the system and try it out - go to
http://cog-pro.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)