{"id":30003,"date":"2021-10-15T00:01:33","date_gmt":"2021-10-15T04:01:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=30003"},"modified":"2021-10-15T11:42:13","modified_gmt":"2021-10-15T15:42:13","slug":"ipm-integrated-pest-management-fails-to-stop-toxic-pesticide-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2021\/10\/ipm-integrated-pest-management-fails-to-stop-toxic-pesticide-use\/","title":{"rendered":"IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Fails to Stop Toxic Pesticide Use"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, October 15, 2021)\u00a0Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a 60-year-old approach to agricultural practice that, when first conceived and implemented, had among its goals a significant reduction of synthetic pesticide use, and the health, environmental, and ecosystemic benefits that would flow from that. However, as a study published earlier in 2021 concluded<\/a>, IPM has overall been unsuccessful in achieving those goals. The researchers propose to replace IPM with \u201cAgroecological Crop Protection [ACP],\u201d the application of agroecology<\/a> to protecting crops from damage (usually by insects or weeds). Beyond Pesticides has long embraced the foundations of ACP, which focus on cooperation with natural systems that keep all organisms in healthy, dynamic balance (and avoid overpopulation and trophic cascades).<\/a><\/p>\r\n

The research was conducted by scientists from France, Cambodia, and Vietnam; the research paper was published in Agronomy for Sustainable Development<\/em>.<\/a> The authors offer myriad reasons for their conclusion that, \u201cMore than half a century after its conception, IPM has not been adopted to a satisfactory extent and has largely failed to deliver on its promise. . . . Despite six decades of good intentions, harsh realities need to be faced for the future. . . . IPM has arguably reached its limits.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The research team, all of whom have worked as IPM scientists and proponents, seems to mourn that IPM has \u201clost its way\u201d over the decades \u2014 moving from ecological and health concerns as primary to its current state, in which (usually chemical) control methods are central. They note,<\/a> \u201cIn cases where the concept of ecology is used in IPM, environmentalism is referenced more often than ecology, i.e., the aim to reduce negative environmental impacts, rather than using ecological processes to replace chemical pesticides.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

The explanations for IPM\u2019s failure to be adopted effectively and to achieve its goals, as yielded by their research, include: (1) the plethora of definitions of IPM has meant confusion and varying interpretations of the concept by practitioners; (2) there have been inconsistencies between IPM concepts and practices, and public policies; (3) commonly, there is a lack of basic understanding by farmers of the ecological concepts behind IPM; (4) in many IPM programs, chemical controls remain a cornerstone, and that use as a \u201clast resort\u201d is rarely adopted by farmers; (5) IPM research has been paltry, both in scientific and programmatic realms; and (6) \u201cecology\u201d has been inadequately prioritized in IPM.<\/p>\r\n

Other factors contributing to IPM\u2019s poor record include termination of programs that trained, supported, and guided practitioners; industry meddling; farmer perception of IPM as risky (and therefore not adopting it and\/or returning to intensive chemical inputs); lack of effective decision thresholds established for specific crops in specific geographic and pest contexts; and shifting political realities. Overall, once supportive training and funding disappears, the authors assert, pesticide use again surges. The researchers also write<\/a>, \u201cIn settings with resource-poor smallholders, subsistence farming systems, no organic certification schemes, or lagging demand for high-value commodities, the availability of cheap pesticides hinders adoption of IPM.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

There have been some successes with IPM, such as Southeast Asian farmer training programs yielding a 92% pesticide reduction in rice production in Bangladesh, and a 50\u201370% reduction in tea and cabbage in Vietnam (in the early 2000s). In 2014, research showed that in 500+ IPM programs across the globe, 13% increases in crop yields and 19% increases in farm profits were realized.<\/p>\r\n

Although many years ago, Beyond Pesticides was prepared to consider IPM a tool<\/a> in the kit bag of reducing pesticide use, even then it recognized the problem of \u201cvaried [IPM] definitions and policies . . . numerous perspectives, and critical disagreements among public health and environmental advocates, regulators, and the pesticide and pest management industry.\u201d But currently, given what the study authors call<\/a> \u201ca quasi-infinite number of definitions and interpretations\u201d of IPM (see more, below), this absence of any standardized definition for IPM means that in the U.S., any <\/em>registered pesticide can be used and the management system still be considered \u201cIPM.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

Organic agriculture, on the other hand, operates within the codified organic regulations of the National Organic Program<\/a> (NOP), is bound by the very restrictive National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances<\/a>, and is subject to inspection to ensure compliance with NOP standards. Beyond Pesticides understood years ago, and continues to maintain, that organic land management and agriculture are the solution to our agrochemically induced crises \u2014 in health, in ecosystem degradation, in biodiversity loss and potential pollinator collapse, in depleted soils, and in water, air, and soil pollution, among others.<\/p>\r\n

Indeed, the landscape is such that, depending on what IPM definition a farmer adopts and employs, management can look very<\/em> different. One producer might follow a more-original, ecologically oriented set of protocols that prioritize practices such as crop rotation, interplanting, use of cover crops and green manures, and mechanical and biological pest controls. Such an approach might use a low-toxicity pesticide only<\/em> as a last resort against a particular infestation. Yet, another farmer, using a different definition, may treat pests chemically much of the time. The authors write<\/a>, \u201cIn the majority of cases, chemical control still remains the basis of [most IPM] plant health programs. . . . IPM is not consistent and not compatible with objectives of sustainability, particularly ecological [objectives].\u201d<\/p>\r\n

The researchers take to task the agrochemical industry for its \u201cextensive lobbying, marketing, and wide-ranging manipulation\u201d to advance chemical controls. They write<\/a>, \u201cAcross the globe, IPM technologies struggle to find fertile ground and flourish in settings where farm advisers are paid (or decision-support tools are designed) by this industry, where farmers annually draw loans from chemical suppliers, or where the only accessible source of pest management information is to be found behind the counter of the pesticide shop. Biased information about IPM and pesticide safety thus abounds while the only behavior change that is fervently pursued is the one leading to sustained or enhanced company profits. There are now innumerable accounts of direct and covert interference by agrochemical companies and concerted efforts to sustain IPM beliefs that are aligned with their business plans.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\r\n

IPM was created in the 1950s, and defined by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization<\/a> (FAO) as \u201cthe careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment. IPM promotes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

In 1979, its core principles were set out<\/a> by the White House Council on Environmental Quality: \u201c(i) potentially harmful species will continue to exist at tolerable levels of abundance; (ii) the ecosystem is the management unit; (iii) use of natural control agents is maximized; (iv) any control procedure may produce unexpected and undesirable effects; [and] (v) an interdisciplinary approach is essential.\u201d The accompanying guidelines were these: \u201cAnalyze the pest status and establish thresholds; devise schemes to lower equilibrium positions; during emergency situations, seek remedial measures that cause minimum ecological disruption; and devise monitoring techniques.\u201d Last, the federal definition asserted that IPM is about more than \u201cintegrating pest management technologies,\u201d saying it should prioritize practices such that pesticides are used as a measure of last resort<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n

However, through the ensuing decades, the authors note, the number of varying definitions of IPM exploded; some researchers counted 67 various iterations between 1959 and 2000; others identified 42 between 1959 and 2016. The authors write,<\/a> \u201cIt is likely that there are more than a hundred definitions of IPM today [and that] for each definition that emphasizes one particular feature of IPM, another can be found contradicting it. This has led to confusion and to highly inconsistent levels of implementation in the field.\u201d They call out the \u201cthe swarm of definitions and interpretations of IPM, which mean we no longer know what we are referring to when we talk about IPM.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

They add that it is actually hard to find characteristics common to all definitions of IPM, though the researchers do proffer several<\/a> they consider relatively common:<\/p>\r\n