UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), poisoning is the number one cause of injury-related death in the United States, and 1073 people in California were poisoned by pesticides in 2014 alone. Each year since 1962, National Poison Prevention Week has taken place during the third week of March, to raise awareness about avoiding these tragedies. No one wants their workers or family members to experience illness or death from pesticide exposure, so the UC IPM Pesticide Safety Education Program (PSEP) would like to bring special attention to preventing pesticide poisoning this week. The program also published a new edition of The Safe and Effective Use of Pesticidesin 2016, which contains a wealth of pesticide safety and hazard prevention information for people who work with pesticides.

Both agricultural and household pesticides can poison people if they are not properly handled. In agriculture, poisoning most often results from pesticide mixing and loading, and the most harm occurs due to spills, splashes and equipment failure. In the home, many pesticide poisoning incidents involve children swallowing pesticides, including garden products, disinfectant cleaners, or other chemicals used to control pests.

One of the most important things you can do to prevent pesticide poisoning is to follow the instructions on the pesticide label. Labels address critical information about how to use a pesticide safely, including the kind of personal protective equipment (PPE) you should wear to prevent overexposure, how much of the product to apply, the minimum time you must wait to enter the area after applying the pesticide (the restricted entry interval), and the minimum time that must pass between application and harvest (preharvest interval).

Labels also include important signal words such as “Danger,” “Warning,” or “Caution” that indicate how acutely toxic the chemical is to humans, as well as directions to avoid pesticide contamination of sensitive areas such as schools and hospitals. These instructions are meant to protect anyone who is at risk of being exposed to hazardous pesticide residues. It is essential to thoroughly read and understand the pesticide label before working with the pesticide, and to carefully comply with label instructions throughout the process. The UC IPM guide to Understanding Pesticide Labels for Making Proper Applications can help you do this, and is available in both English and Spanish.

If you apply pesticides in or around your home, be sure to store them properly and keep them out of the reach of children. Keep in mind that even mothballs may look like candy to very young children. It is illegal and unsafe to store pesticides in food or drink containers, which can easily fool people into consuming them and being poisoned. According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, these mistakes caused 62 incidents of child poisoning from pesticide ingestion in California in 2014, and 47 of those cases involved children under six years of age. 

To learn more about poisoning and how to prevent it, consider visiting the following resources:

Center for Disease Control and Prevention Leading Causes of Death Reports

California Poison Control

National Poison Prevention Week website

National Pesticide Information Center

UC IPM online course: Proper Pesticide Use to Avoid Illegal Residues

We are in the midst of a new and changing era of Worker Protection Standards (WPS). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently published the revised WPS, which is meant to increase protections for agricultural fieldworkers and pesticide handlers from pesticide exposure when they're working in farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The changes are already affecting California agriculture!

What major regulatory changes have already gone into effect?

Several changes are required to have been in place as of January 2, 2017. These include:

• All 417,000 fieldworkers in California must attend annual pesticide safety training.
• Records of all fieldworker pesticide safety trainings must be kept on file for 2 years.
• Fields must be posted when the restricted entry interval (REI) exceeds 48 hours.
• “Application-exclusion zones” must be implemented to prevent the entry of anyone into areas up to 100 feet from pesticide application equipment.
• Instructors previously qualified via a DPR-approved Instructor Training programs (Train the Trainer) are qualified to train through 2017. If you wish to be qualified to train fieldworkers and handlers after December 31, 2017 using this qualification, you must complete an updated, DPR-approved Train the Trainer workshop.

Now is the time to make sure these changes are put in place!

What major regulatory changes are still in store for us? When will they happen?

The regulatory changes that must be in place by January 2, 2018 include:

• Additional training topics for fieldworkers and handlers have to be added to the curriculum.
• Handlers have to suspend an application if anyone enters the application exclusion zone.

Who do these changes affect?

Many people who work in the California agricultural community will be impacted by the WPS revisions. These include fieldworkers, pesticide handlers, farm labor contractors, private and in-house safety trainers, growers, farm managers, licensed pesticide applicators (private and commercial), pest control advisors (PCAs), and crop consultants, to name a few.

How do I know if I am qualified to train?

If you attended one of the DPR-approved Train-the-Trainer programs you are qualified through 2017. However, if you wish to continue training after the end of the year, you must complete a DPR-approved Instructor Training Program, which includes the 2018 training topic requirements.

If you maintain certain licenses/government designations, including PAC, QAC, QAL, PCA, and certain County Biologist licenses you are qualified to train. UCCE Advisors are also qualified to train.

How can I get qualified as a trainer?

To become a trainer, take an Instructor Training program that is approved by DPR for 2018 topics. The University of California Pesticide Safety Education Program (part of the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, UC IPM), in partnership with AgSafe, will offer multiple workshops this spring that cover the new federal requirements for fieldworker and handler training. You can reserve your spot now. At the end of the training you will be a certified pesticide safety instructor.

If I am currently qualified, how can I make sure I stay up to date on all the new requirements?

If you are currently qualified as a trainer because you maintain a California PAC, QAC, or QAL, or if you are a PCA, you can attend an Instructor Training Program this spring to learn about the new WPS requirements and additional training topics. While a certification may qualify you, an Instructor Training Program will prepare you to train! Register today!

UC IPM Pesticide Safety Education Program

Western IPM Center

Eco Apple. Lodi Rules. SIP Certified. Whole Foods Responsibly Grown. Salmon Safe. Sysco Sustainable. And that's just the beginning.

There are dozens of eco labels and sustainable agriculture certification programs in the United States, all designed to differentiate products in the marketplace and assure consumers that this apple, potato or bottle of wine was produced in an environmentally responsible manner.

But are eco-labeled products really better? And specifically, do they help drive the adoption and expansion of integrated pest management techniques that reduce pesticide risk?

According to certification program managers, growers and independent auditors, the answer is yes – eco-label programs do have clear benefits and promote more sustainable pest-management and growing practices. They also provide certain benefits for growers.

However, there are downsides for growers as well, and significant differences between the programs can make judging eco labels challenging for consumers. And with dozens of similar yet competing certification programs and standards, certification chaos is likely for the foreseeable future.

Eco Labels Work

Let's start with the good news – there's widespread agreement that eco labels and sustainable ag programs do improve farming practices, including IPM adoption.

“Absolutely yes, there's good evidence eco labels increase IPM adoption and reduce pesticide risk,” said Tom Green, director of the IPM Institute of North America, which has created the standards for multiple certification programs. “One thing that happens very quickly in these programs is that you bring up the bottom. Growers not using IPM who come into the programs have a lot of up-front work to do to comply, and you'll see a pretty dramatic difference one year to the next with these growers.”

Eco-label and sustainable-certification programs vary in their requirements, but most have a list of required and prohibited practices. In addition, most programs also include a longer list of practices or goals growers can choose from to earn points or credits toward the certification standard, enabling participants to enact the practices most relevant to their farms or ranches. Compliance is documented through a combination of paper audits and on-site inspections.

A list of prohibited pesticides is one feature that reduces pesticide risk in many of the programs. The United States Department of Agriculture's Certified Organic program is perhaps the most restrictive (and well known), but many other programs also limit or ban the use of the most-toxic pesticides.

In the Sustainability in Practice, or SIP Certified program that began in vineyards in California's Central Coast, the banned pesticide list is drawn from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's most hazardous categories, including those known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, as well as toxic air pollutants and water contaminants.

“We started the program in 1998 as a self-assessment of vineyard farming practices,” explained Beth Vukmanic Lopez, manager of the program. “And we really saw the people doing the self-assessment improve over time. They'd compete with themselves, and improve their practices to get the extra five points.”

It evolved into a certification program 10 years later.

“In the early 2000s, we started seeing a lot of green claims in the marketplace and wanted a way to differentiate ourselves,” she said. “Ultimately we chose the certification program as a means of enacting this, so people could see all our rules online.”

Knowing a program's rules are important because the programs are different and promote different outcomes. Organic focuses on restricting the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Salmon Safe in the Northwest was designed to protect the region's waterways and wildlife. And SIP and Lodi Rules are broadly focused and include standards ranging from air quality to farmworker protection.  

Jim Strollberg of Maverick Farming and Hampton Farming manages about 1,600 SIP-certified acres for multiple owners, as well other farms that aren't in the program.

“The SIP program makes you more cognizant of what you're using and how you're spraying,” he said. “It makes sure you have to justify all the sprays. On non-SIP properties, a couple of those ranches definitely spray more material than I do on adjacent ranches or others nearby, to get very similar pest-control results.”

Benefits for Growers

Participating in an eco-label program costs growers money, so those that sign up have calculated the benefit as worth the cost. Most cite three benefits: access to certain markets or buyers, improvements in their own farm operations and regulatory relief as actual quantifiable benefits.

“When I would speak with growers, I'd tell them this is going to be the price of getting on the shelf,” explained Steve Balling, who retired earlier this year as the director of agricultural research, environment and sustainability for Del Monte Foods. “More and more it's happening, especially in the fresh market.”

Whole Foods Market's Responsibly Grown program is a good example. With “good,” “better” and “best” subcategories, Responsibly Grown set minimum standards and anyone wanting to sell to the store has to achieve them to be considered.

It's happening in wine as well, Vukmanic Lopez said.

“You definitely see it in Europe and Canada, and a lot of restaurants are eco focused,” she said. “You'll see whole wine lists that are eco focused – organic, biodynamic or sustainably certified.”

Growers can use the programs to improve their own operations and profitability.

“There are absolutely economic benefits,” said Steve McIntyre of McIntyre Vineyards, one of the original SIP Certified growers. “It's not always altruism. I look for ways to do two tasks at once, which lowers my fuel costs and reduces pollution. It's faster, better and cheaper.”

Strollberg also uses the program rules as a good-farming guide.

“Educationally, it's a big help,” he explained. “It's a pretty good roadmap of options you can use, and it does help you think about what you're doing. It makes sure you're doing things with a purpose, and documenting them.”

Participating in certification programs can especially benefit smaller growers, Balling said.

“Growers can use these programs to improve their fundamentals,” he explained. “The big growers already have the data, but the smaller guys collecting it for the first time can really benefit.”

In some cases, participating in a certification program can bring regulatory relief. SIP growers, for instance, are required to do 10 of the 12 practices the local water quality control board needs documented, and accepts the certification as proof of those.

“It's hugely reduced the amount of paperwork growers have to do for the water board,” Vukmanic Lopez said. “The work's already been done and certified by outside inspectors.”

Negatives as Well

But for all the positives, eco labels and sustainability programs have their downsides and critics.

“I'm not particularly supportive,” former Del Monte manager Balling explained. “They add a generally unnecessary expense to a grower's production system, without fair compensation. Most, other than organic, generate zero dollars for growers.”

Sue Futrell, the director of marketing for Red Tomato, which runs the Eco Apple program in the Northeast, said sometimes Eco Apple growers get a small price premium for their apples – between the price of conventional and organic – but not usually.

“The ability to enter a market is more important than a price premium for many of our growers,” she said. “But it is a more labor-intensive way to farm in many ways.”

And it's not just field labor.

“They add to the burden on growers, particularly the paperwork burden,” Balling said. “Growers want to be out in the field, not sitting at a computer.”

The cost and number of programs a grower participates in – sometimes without really wanting to – are another issue. Large growers that sell to a number of companies have to meet the requirements of each, keep records for each and be inspected for each, which can lead to audit exhaustion.

“It's a grower's nightmare,” Balling said. “You can be subject to 10 or 12 inspections a year, and that chews up a massive amount of time and money.”

Even one certification is more than some growers want to pay for, Stollberg said.

“Some of the growers I farm for, the reason they're not in SIP isn't because they couldn't be,” he said. “They just don't see the value, or want to spend the money.”

A Crowded Space

Another problem with eco labels is that there are simply so many that consumers have a hard time knowing what they mean. Is Salmon Safe better than Responsibly Grown? Is Lodi Rules superior to SIP Certified? How does organic compare?

Those aren't easy answers. Consumer Reports has created a food-focused website at greenerchoices.org that compares labels and their requirements. It's a useful comparison tool, but misses some critical information.

Salmon Safe, the certification program in the Pacific Northwest, gets downgraded because it doesn't “prohibit toxic pesticides.” Which is true – to a point. Salmon Safe, which focuses on water quality and protecting salmon from pesticide harm, doesn't ban certain products outright, but it does specify what can be used near streams and how it can be applied.

And it's had some remarkable successes. In the Milton-Freewater area in eastern Oregon, growers adopting Salmon Safe practice helped reduce pesticide pollution significantly.

“We were able to reduce the maximum residue limits in water from 700 times higher than the benchmarks to below the benchmarks and that's been sustained for the last nine years,” said Clive Kaiser with Oregon State University Extension. “Milton-Freewater is a shining example of what's achievable when growers work together.”

The Greener Choices site also generally recommends organic, without noting some of the limitations of that certification program. For instance, organic rules allow one field on a farm to be managed organically, while other fields on the same farm can be managed with any registered pesticide. Salmon Safe requires whole farms to meet its certification standards, because the whole farm is part of the watershed it's trying to protect. And SIP has standards for farmworker protection that prohibit some dangerous pesticides that organic growers could use on their non-organic parcels.

McIntyre also thinks the organic standards don't provoke the level of thought well-written sustainability metrics can.

“With organic, it's ‘do this, you're in; do that, you're out,'” he said. “But sustainability metrics really get to the heart of an IPM program. You're keeping track of data and using that to make decisions.”

Making Programs Meaningful

Whatever their views on eco labels overall, people do agree that the certifications should be meaningful. Balling, for instance, generally a critic of the programs, joined the board of Protected Harvest, a Wisconsin-focused certification program, to try to ensure that it provided actual on-the-ground environmental benefits.

“We need to try to develop the metrics that work best and that are relatively simple for growers to use so we don't burden them with regulations that don't benefit the environment,” he said.

Green said the IPM Institute put a lot of effort into designing programs to do just that.

“We really work hard to put programs together that make a difference and don't just create busywork for growers,” he said. “We translate science, land-grant-university work and research, into criteria for these eco labels.”

Those criteria fall into two basic categories – practice-based criteria or outcomes-based criteria. Practice-based criteria ask about specific farming practices: Do you scout for pests? Do you use thresholds to decide when to spray? Outcomes-based criteria, also known as performance-based criteria, doesn't ask what you did, it asks for measurable end results: How much water did you use per unit of crop? How much fertilizer did you use per unit of yield?

“I think with practice-based, it's pretty easy to cheat the system,” Balling said. “In outcomes-based programs, we don't care how you did it, but did you reduce water use? Did you reduce nitrogen use? Are you keeping nitrogen out of groundwater, and nitrogen and phosphorus out of rivers and streams?”

It's creating outcomes-based criteria that gets tricky.

“What's a performance metric for IPM?” asked Kevin Scrivner, who is on the Vinea Sustainable Trust and a Salmon Safe partner. “It's a delightful challenge. How do you correlate IPM criteria into performance measures, not practice measures?”

For Scrivner, it's not an academic question. He's designing a new certification program for vintners in the Walla Walla Valley of eastern Washington and Oregon. They've been certified by the LIVE Program – Low-Input Viticulture and Enology – but feel that program is too geared toward the cooler, wetter Willamette Valley than their conditions.

And that gets back to having so many certifications that it's hard to know what matters.

“I said years ago we should expect complete chaos in the certification space for a while,” Balling said. “There's too many people pulling in too many different directions.”

Balling and others foresee a consolidation in the future, where several programs combine and align their criteria. Others predict a continued proliferation of locally meaningful programs, like Eco Apple in the Northeast or Salmon Safe in the Northwest. The future could bring both, where large processor-based programs align, and fresh-market programs localize.

“I feel for the consumer,” Scrivner said. “It's not a simple situation.”

The good news for consumers is the programs publish their criteria, so people can research them and choose products whose certifications are meaningful to them. People most concerned about synthetic pesticide residues on their produce can choose certified organic or Demeter Biodynamic. Folks most concerned about protecting wildlife can choose Salmon Safe. Those concerned about farmworker safety can look for Equitable Food Initiative-certified produce. And those looking for overall sustainability can look for broadly designed programs like SIP and Responsibly Grown.

Another thing consumers can do vote with their pocketbooks: Ask stores to stock products with meaningful eco labels, and buy those products even if they cost a bit more. That directly supports the growers who participate. Finally, consumers can educate themselves, and others, using factual information from university extension services, the Regional IPM Centers and other science-based sources.

“Consumer and shareholder advocates need to be better informed,” said the IPM Institue's Green. “We're seeing advocacy for banning neonicotinoid insecticides to protect pollinators, when there are some applications that can be done safely and the alternatives are worse. If apple growers can no longer use neonics after bloom, one alternative is pyrethroids, which disrupt biocontrols for mites and aphids and can end up increasing pesticide applications.”

Which leads to this bottom line: For eco-label certifications to bring about meaningful environmental benefits, they must be science based.

“We're very dependent on land-grant-university research and recommendations,” Green said. “Consumers and taxpayers need to advocate for the universities, because as we lose these resources it's very tough to get the science-based information we need to make these recommendations.”

—Cheryl Reynolds, UC Statewide IPM Program

Are you looking for continuing education units (CEUs) to complete your renewal application this year for the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)? The UC Statewide IPM Program has several online courses available that can help you get those last few needed credits.

DPR license and certificate holders with last names beginning with M – Z renew this year. Renewal packets must be submitted to DPR before November 19^th to ensure that licenses are renewed by January 1, 2016. After that, applications may take up to 45 calendar days to process.

The online courses available from UC IPM that offer units for DPR license renewal include:

• Providing Integrated Pest Management Services in Schools and Child Care Settings (1 unit Laws and Regulations and 1 unit Other)
• Pesticide Resistance (2 units Other)
• Pesticide Application Equipment and Calibration (1.5 units Other)
• IPM – A Solution for Reducing Pesticides/Water Quality: Pesticide Properties (1 unit Other)
• The Impact of Pesticides on Water Quality/Mitigating Urban Pesticide Runoff (1 unit Other)
• Water Quality and Mitigation: Bifenthrin and Fipronil (1 unit Other)
• Herbicides and Water Quality (1 unit Other)

CEUs from the Structural Pest Control Board are also available for most of these courses.

For a list of other approved online or in-person courses, visit the DPR website. UC IPM plans to add additional online courses for 2016, including those available for Laws and Regulations units. For more information about the courses UC IPM offers as well as additional training opportunities and pest management information, see the UC IPM web site.