Eco Labeling for California Winegrapes:

A Working Conference

Conference Proceedings

Sacramento, California

February 4, 1998

A Collaborative Project of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, the University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Robert Mondavi Winery.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Welcome and Overview
Ms. Karen Ross, President, California Association of Winegrape Growers,
Sacramento, CA

Keynote Address
The National Context of Eco Labeling Initiatives
Dr. Charles Benbrook, Benbrook Consulting Service, Sandpoint, ID

Plenary Sessions

Consumer and Retail Interest in Eco Labeling
Mr. Harvey Hartman, The Hartman Group, Bellevue, WA

Winery Interest in Eco Labeling: The Results from Interviews with California Wineries
Dr. Clifford Ohmart and Mark Chandler, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Lodi, CA

Plenary Panel - Current Labeling Programs: Challenges and Rewards
Moderator Mr. Eric Lauritzen, Agricultural Commissioner, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, CA

The First "Eco Label:" The Organic Experience
Mr. Mark Lipson, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA

Partners with Nature: The Massachusetts Integrated Pest Management Certification Program
Mr. William Coli, Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

Salmon Safe: A Project of the Pacific Rivers Council
Mr. Daniel Kent, Salmon Safe, Pacific Rivers Council, Portland, OR

Retail Initiatives: Wegmans’ Integrated Pest Management Label
Mr. William Pool, Wegmans Food Markets, Rochester, NY

Eco labeling: A Farmer’s Perspective
Mr. Paul Buxman, California Clean Growers, Dinuba, CA

Integrated Vineyard Management as a Basis for an Eco Label: The Central Coast Vineyard Team’s Positive Points System
Mr. Craig Rous, Former Team Leader, currently with Bear Creek Winery, Lodi, CA and Dr. Janet C. Broome, UC SAREP, Davis, CA

Participant Work Sessions

Evaluating the Opportunities and Barriers for Regional Implementation of Eco Labeling for Winegrapes

Closing Address

Reflections on the Day's Explorations: What Lies Ahead?
Mr. Michael Dimock, Sunflower Strategies, Santa Rosa, CA

Additional Resources - Organizations

Additional Resource – Bibliography

List of Conference Participants

Eco Labeling Conference Steering Committee:
Ms. Karen Ross, California Association of Winegrape Growers
Dr. Clifford Ohmart, Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission
Ms. Alisa Greene, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Mr. Craig Rous, formerly of Robert Mondavi Winery, now with Bear Creek Winery
Dr. Janet Broome, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program

Conference Coordinators:
Ms. Robin Kozloff
Ms. Angela Moskow

Conference Coordinating Organization:
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, in particular Mr. Mark Chandler, Dr. Clifford Ohmart, and Ms. Jennifer Waddle

Host Organization:
California Association of Winegrape Growers

Facilitators for Afternoon Breakout Sessions:
Mr. David Chaney, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Ms. Esther Hill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Chuck Ingels, University of California Cooperative Extension, Sacramento County
Dr. Rebecca Parker, ACCORD Associates
Ms. Carolyn Penny, J.D., ACCORD Associates

Recorders for Afternoon Breakout Sessions:
Dr. Robert L. Bugg, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
Mr. Robert Pence, University of California, Davis
Ms. Kristin Rosenow, University of California, Davis
Ms. Shana Strongin, University of California, Davis
Mr. Patrick Troy, University of California, Davis

Conference Media Liaison:

Ms. Lyra Halprin, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program

Ms. Lyra Halprin and Ms. Danielle Martinez, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program

Funding for the conference and the proceedings was generously provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Agreement # X999842-01-0, Project Liaison Dr. Richard Kashmanian. In addition, conference participants paid a registration fee and members of the Steering Committee’s organizations provided additional funds and in-kind salary support to make this event possible.

Karen Ross, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Sacramento, CA.

It’s great to welcome you to this conference this morning. My name is Karen Ross and I am president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG), host of today’s event. CAWG was pleased to have an opportunity to participate in developing the program for today. Eco labeling is becoming more common in the United States and abroad, and we need to explore the possibilities of such a program for California winegrapes which is why this conference is titled "Exploring Eco Labeling for California Winegrapes." And, the subtitle is also appropriate — this will truly be a working conference.

The steering committee tried to avoid putting together the agenda with preconceived notions of what we wanted the outcome to be. Instead, we want to present information that will stimulate discussion and brainstorming and perhaps inspire each one of us to continue the exploration for our own region beyond what happens here today. It is prophetic that today’s Sacramento Bee reviewed Fetzer’s Bonterra wine, which is made from organically grown winegrapes. And, it got an excellent review! Do consumers notice and care how we grow our products? Is there a way to clearly communicate a complicated growing system with a few words or a symbol? Is there an opportunity for growers to achieve additional value for grapes grown with environmentally sustainable practices? That’s what you, the conference participants will be exploring in this afternoon’s sessions and I look forward to the reports later today.

Before we kick off the program I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people who have helped make today happen. First of all, the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Mark Chandler, Cliff Ohmart and Jennifer Waddle for handling all of the administrative duties and hosting the wine reception this evening. And, of course, this kind of conference can’t happen without funding and we appreciate the financial support provided by US-EPA Region 9 and Alisa Greene for her assistance. Our steering committee has been meeting for many months and has been very dedicated to making this a worthwhile experience. Thank you to Dr. Jenny Broome with SAREP, Alisa Greene with US-EPA, Cliff Ohmart with Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission and Craig Rous with Robert Mondavi Winery. A tremendous amount of work has gone into organizing the logistics and our conference coordinators have been wonderful - thank you Robin Kozloff and Angela Moskow.

Most importantly, on behalf of the committee I want to thank each one of you for being here today - your time and interest are what make ours a great California industry! Now, let’s go to work!

I suspect that most people here this morning accept the notion that the best way to reduce pesticide use, reliance and risks on a sustainable basis, while also cost-effectively managing pests is to promote adoption of biologically based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems. This is surely the take-home message from progress made throughout the California winegrape industry in tapping biology and targeting management toward undermining the ability of pests to thrive and cause damage.

Still many barriers persist, slowing progress toward biointensive IPM. Some barriers relate to the pest management knowledge base and tool kits accessible to pest managers. Here, major progress is being made, although the challenges also keep evolving.

Other constraints reflect a historic lack of investments in the infrastructure supporting bio-based alternatives. Simply put we’ve invested more in developing better spray rigs and more efficient ways to use chemicals to manage pests than in rearing and releasing beneficials, breeding resistant varieties, enhancing soil microbial diversity and activity to suppress plant pathogens, or managing insects through landscape, area-wide approaches grounded in population suppression. In general, we’ve got what we’ve invested in, and paid for in pest management technology.

Farmers want to change for a host of reasons. The multiple shortcomings of chemical-based management systems are increasingly hard to ignore even for the most ardent defender of pesticides. Regulators will continue to drive change. And a growing percentage of consumers are seeking green options in the marketplace. One might expect, as a result, a golden era of innovation on the farm, a period when farmers have little reason or need to look back upon a past era of pest management that left much to be desired. With few exceptions though, it’s not happening very quickly. Why?

Bio-based IPM systems are fundamentally and functionally different from chemical-dependent IPM systems. Pest management systems are layered by people upon dynamic, often nutrient and water rich biological systems that are full of life and growth. To change the systems farmers and pest managers must first change the organisms within them and then their interactions. To sustain control and profits, they must learn to manage interactions across a dizzying, unpredictable array of conditions.

This ability takes time and much more definitive knowledge of the ecology of farming systems. It takes a new set of tools and attitudes. Time is money and both are stretched. Strike one. The ecological sciences have been withering on the vine, especially field-based systems research. Strike two. And most of the pesticide industry’s investment capital has been flowing into biotechnology, buying seed and other companies, and defending old, high-risk pesticides. Strike three.

Three strikes and you’re out in baseball, but in the world of pest management, there may be another chance, another way to build momentum for change—tapping into the pent-up demand among consumers looking to exercise freedom of choice in the marketplace. The "new green mainstream," to borrow Harvey Hartman’s term, is looking for ways to support farmers and food companies that make a commitment to push bio-based innovation and enhance environmental quality. Eco labels have emerged as a promising bridge linking consumers with farmers and food companies that place a premium on safer production systems, resource stewardship, and enhancing quality of life.

My job this morning is to survey some of the nation’s eco label initiatives, highlighting lessons learned and promising paths that might help the California wine- grape industry capture value by adding value. First, what goals do most eco label programs share?

Most pest management-oriented eco label programs share two goals: reducing reliance on high-risk pesticides, and promoting the adoption of biointensive IPM. The former goal is designed to draw the interest and support of consumers and environmentalists, the latter the participation, and hopefully enthusiastic cooperation of innovative farmers and farm organizations, and food companies and marketers.

Each of the programs I know of have, and continue to deal in different ways with the inevitable tensions between consumer-environmental and farmer-agriculture industry goals, agendas, and world-views. Indeed, the ways these tensions are confronted, and in some cases turned into ties that bind are among the most interesting characteristics that distinguish one program from the next.

The first and universally essential ingredient is building trust and forging commitment to tapping market forces to reward IPM innovation. This takes time, and a group of people more interested in progress than scoring points, who can continue to work together long enough to develop – and act on a not-always crystal clear vision in a world cluttered with good intentions, intriguing ideas and critics with an axe to grind.

Further complicating progress is the reality that in the world of pesticides and sustainable agriculture, there are many seasoned players on both sides of the struggle who would "rather fight than switch." Some organic industry leaders also are deadset against IPM-based eco labels, fearing that they will siphon off future customers who will soon be ready for the "real thing," certified organic foods. Navigating these choppy waters has required an infusion of new players and organizations. Both have needed time to learn the ropes, and how to circumvent pitfalls that have sucked the life-energy out of many promising efforts in the past.

I think greater progress has been made in recent years because of two critical changes in attitude. First, it has become acceptable within the environmental community to be pro-farmer and an advocate for biointensive IPM. Foundations that once only supported tough-minded and litigious activists interested solely in regulatory solutions are now financing pheromone confusion and public-private sector partnerships. Ten years ago 95 percent of the environmental and consumer agenda was undiscriminating and fundamentally anti-pesticide. The focus was on risk, the goal was to eliminate it, and the means to that end was convincing the public that they, and the natural environment, were being poisoned. Regardless of the merits of the case, that agenda has clearly failed to deliver the degree of progress many see as needed. The one exception, perhaps, was the flurry of regulatory actions in the mid-to-late 1970s that ended the use of several chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, most of which were on the way out anyway because of resistance.

But since the early 1980s regulation has done little to reduce reliance on pesticides. Indeed, in many crops and regions, reliance on pesticides has grown. Regulation has shifted the nature of risks but not necessarily reduced overall risks. I should add here that fortunately this is clearly not the case in the California winegrape industry. You have made great progress in reducing use of high-risk pesticides through a commitment to bio-based alternatives. I have pointed to California grape growers in many speeches as an example of an industry that has seized control of its pest management future. Many environmentalists who have tried for years to use regulation to reduce reliance and risks have grown tired of gridlock. Each time a set of old roadblocks is overcome, sometimes through years of effort, new ones have arisen, like sparks from simmering coals.

The second key shift in attitudes occurred in the farm community. Farmers and agriculture industry leaders were once as narrow-minded and stubborn as most environmentalists. Any attack on a pesticide was seen as an attack on farmers, the food system, and the American way of life. But in the 1980s some farmers and pest management experts broke ranks for a host of reasons, sometimes personal and compelling like a family member getting cancer, other times pragmatic and technology-driven. Some reached across the table in the hope of reducing the collateral damage that seemed unavoidable as pesticide-risk and food safety controversies played themselves out in public forums and the press.

Farm and food sector interest in new approaches coincided with growing recognition on the farm—driven by resistance, control failures, and poisoning episodes—that it was time for change. Also key was the collapse of public confidence in government institutions, and the erosion of state and federal support for field level IPM research.

Events in the late 1980s and early 1990s created opportunities for farmers, IPM experts, agriculture leaders, environmentalists, and consumers to face these trends and shape a positive, proactive agenda. A common goal and conviction emerged—progress toward biologically based IPM could serve everyone’s interests. By the mid-1990s there was a determined core group of environmentalists and farmers that shared this common hope and were working to give it life. Their ongoing efforts and successes have played a key role in bringing us together today.

Still, some farmers continue to worry that they are being pushed toward an ill-defined brave new world of pest management without a compass, an adequate tool kit, and sufficient focus on their need to harvest a profitable crop. Others have made the transition successfully and are not looking back. They are glad to no longer rely routinely on disruptive and dangerous pesticides. Especially in California, most farmers are open to change and many are advancing bio-based IPM on their farms. But universal fear of top-down, policy-driven IPM persists. Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) has rekindled old paranoia, and political backlash threatens to replay the whole Alar episode, no doubt magnified several times in intensity (for more on FQPA implementation and current activities, see the Consumers Union FQPA website at <http://www.ecologic-ipm.com>).

Our mission today is to assess the eco labeling state-of-the-art. New efforts are emerging every week. One of the latest examples of the teaming up of the National Audubon Society with the Smithsonian Institute to certify "bird safe" organic coffee products. Important on-going efforts include: the "Core Values" New England apple IPM program, the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture’s "Made in Nature" program, Stemilt Growers’ "Responsible Choice," California Clean Growers Association, "No Detectable Residue"-based programs, Salmon Safe, ECO-O.K., the Food Alliance, the World Wildlife Fund-Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association (WPVGA) potato IPM project, and the Wegman’s-Cornell University program. For more information on most of these programs, see the "IPM and the Marketplace" section of the PMAC website at http://www.pmac.net/ipm_mark.htm. And then of course, the most well-recognized food sector eco labeling program in the country—organic foods and labeling. Key elements in successful and sustainable IPM-based eco labeling programs include:

• Clear, tangible, and measurable goals;
• A credible measurement system that in some way quantifies the linkage between IPM adoption and reduction in use of high-risk pesticides;
• Willingness to collect and share data on pesticide use and IPM practices, and conduct certification activities in an open, transparent way;
• A commitment to steady improvement, and a good ear for what consumers care about;
• Consumer and grower education about the program, its goals, and why it will make a tangible and positive difference;
• And the bottomline: success in creating and capturing added-value in the marketplace.

Most programs are plagued at the beginning by the understandable inclination to appeal to as many constituencies as possible, a strategic decision that forces programs to be all-encompassing. All-encompassing programs face two major hurdles that often prove enough to break the camel’s back. They must develop the technical competence to set standards, collect data, certify compliance and defend decisions across a broad range of issues and performance attributes—often including some outside the area of expertise of the organization’s founders and movers and shakers.

Even tougher is finding balance among all-encompassing objectives. No one feels equally passionate about the environment, food safety, water quality, worker safety, social justice, local control, and food quality issues. Hence, regardless of how a group balances activities in pursuit of these multiple objectives, the process is likely to leave more people drained and unsatisfied than inspired and moving forward with conviction.

The Food Alliance and Core Values programs have spent much time struggling with broad goal statements and finding balance. The Salmon Safe, Wegmans, and Stemilt programs have been more narrow and focused, and seem to have moved forward more quickly in part as a result.

Broad goal statements can attract wide participation without sapping energy and direction if coupled with an incremental series of concrete objectives that are clearly related to the broader goals. This strategy has guided the WWF-WPVGA potato IPM project in Wisconsin, which has broad goals but narrow, concrete and incremental objectives.

In many respects agreeing on goals is the easy part. The hard part is translating goals into concrete, real-world actions that can be monitored over time. Plus, programs must develop an open and trusted method that shows that changes in farm management and IPM systems brought about by the program are in fact improving environmental quality and supporting other desirable goals.

Most programs have struggled to set performance standards and criteria stemming from their goals. One reason for the struggle has been the lack of methods to link progress along the IPM continuum with changes in reliance and use of high-risk pesticides. Stemilt has been a pioneer in this area. In the early 1990s it developed a point system linked to pesticide properties and hazards that has helped growers understand the environmental consequences of various changes in IPM systems. Given the goals of the Stemilt program, its measurement system is among the most well suited in the country. My sense is that it is as rigorous as organic certification in terms of documenting where participating farmers are along the IPM continuum and in terms of the impacts of various farming systems on environmental performance parameters.

The Wisconsin potato IPM program relies upon an equally comprehensive and data-intensive measurement methodology. Field level information on both pesticide use and IPM practices are collected and assessed using the IPM measurement method outlined in the Consumers Union 1996 book Pest Management at the Crossroads. This method takes into account pest pressure, the scope and intensity of preventive practices, and the highly variable toxicity of pesticides per pound applied.

Most other programs have not developed and do not require such extensive measurement systems for two reasons – they are a lot of work and cost money; and second, most growers are reluctant (and some are unwilling) to share pesticide use records. The Wegmans-Cornell program, Salmon Safe, and Core Values focus on the practice side of the equation. It appears that is the direction of the Food Alliance’s program as well.

Practice-based programs are a good first step but over time they will face questions regarding what they are really accomplishing in terms of reducing pesticide risks. My sense is that five years down the road eco label programs will need a way to credibly document their impacts on pesticide use and risks and water quality, since that issue is on consumers radar screen, in order to create and capture value in the marketplace. One reason is that these are the issues the majority of consumers care most deeply about. Another is that other programs and the organic industry will have increasingly compelling stories to share. Those with the clearest and most compelling message will compete successfully for the dollars of the green shopper. They will thrive and grow and others will fall by the wayside.

Transparency remains an issue for all programs. Those programs still in the formative stages are focusing their attention elsewhere, but if they expect to survive for long, they must build transparency into the process from the beginning. Without it there is little chance of winning and holding trust.

There are no shortcuts or easy answers in building trust, just lots of well-known ways to undermine it. I doubt that one method or model will come to dominate the eco label playing field. There is ample room for experimentation and alternative approaches. What will work for a Community Supported Agriculture, or between a co-op and its growers and customers, will not work with General Foods or the Washington apple industry.

Just as the organic industry has embraced accreditation of certifiers as an interim step, or building block in winning consumer trust in the labels on certified organic produce and products, IPM labeling will likely have to invent a similar mechanism to build trust and weed out charlatans. I foresee a day in the not-too-distant-future when consumer and environmental community-based intermediaries take on the task of assessing what an eco label stands for and the degree to which it deserves support in the marketplace. It is too big a job to be done by each shopper and family and too important to leave to public relations firms and marketing specialists.

But groups will have to choose their roles. It will be hard for any group to run both an eco label program and review and accredit others. As Fred Kirschenmann has so persuasively argued, separation of functions to avoid any perception of conflict of interest will be key in winning consumer confidence.

In terms of constructive models, I am encouraged by the progress made in recent months by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). OMRI has taken on the data-intensive task of reviewing materials to determine whether they comply with basic organic principles and therefore warrant inclusion on the lists of allowed inputs maintained by certifiers. USDA’s slow pass of progress in promulgating the federal organic rule created a vacuum—someone in the private sector needed to step forward with solutions. Trusted leaders in the organic community stepped forward, and against great odds and strong undercurrents, have established a functioning non-profit materials review institute. By commissioning OMRI to work on behalf of the whole organic community, each certifier benefits from much more in-depth, high quality and impartial reviews than would be possible if each certifier carried them out on his or her own. Plus, companies can secure approval across most of the organic community much more quickly and cheaply.

OMRI and the united response to the proposed organic rule are encouraging signs that the organic community can take charge of its own destiny and meet tough challenges by finding better ways to pool resources and knowledge. The IPM eco labeling community needs to follow suit. An independent accreditation body, or one simply commissioned to carry out periodic program evaluations using a common set of questions and criteria, is bound to emerge. The end goal is simple—a recognized seal of approval which consumers equate with a quality commitment to environmental progress.

People recognize that managing pests is like dealing with diabetes or computer software. Science and technology are driving rapid change in what is possible. At the same time Mother Nature is throwing her share of curve balls at farmers. Pest challenges are not static. Progress made in one year can evaporate in a flush of whiteflies or be swamped by the pathogens that thrive in a wet fall.

Eco label programs must build this reality into their goals, performance standards, and monitoring systems. Progress will not be made every year in reducing pesticide use and risks and in some years slippage will occur. Eco labeling programs must accommodate such slippage when it is truly unavoidable. In return, the programs should ask growers and pest managers to make a commitment to steady progress whenever and however it can be achieved.

Most eco labeling programs are not yet ready to deal with this challenge, at least not in a way consumers understand. All need a way to accept slippage when unavoidable, but without opening the door to an endless series of "justified" setbacks. Programs must also find ways to advance progress steadily and incrementally, even when initial goals are reached. This is the only way they will continually create value, and to capture value it must first be created. Successful programs will accomplish both goals through adherence to a common set of principles, criteria and decision processes.

Most consumers know relatively little about IPM. They surely do not know enough about it to change purchasing patterns. Plus, IPM systems exist along a continuum and some IPM does not warrant support. Some programs will be questioned in the media and in the end, consumers may just grow confused and irritable when the topic arises. Consumer education is therefore an essential ingredient for success.

The Wegmans-Cornell program has excelled in this area and shown what can be accomplished in raising consumer awareness over a couple of years. The Core Values program is also making good strides by concentrating its consumer education and marketing efforts on key institutional buyers of apples and opinion-leaders, as well as stores frequented by consumers with relatively strong views about the environment and food quality.

With bulk commodities the key is often getting into a store and onto the shelf. In such cases the challenge often boils down to reaching buyers and store managers. Eco label programs are just beginning to consider how to reach buyers and influence the decisions made by large supermarket and institutional buyers. My guess is that there will be some notable successes in this area within the next year or two, which may well set off a period of rapid change.

The trick will be convincing stores and other major buyers that they can enhance their image among customers by providing food that bears eco labels. The trend toward flashy advertising for locally grown, in-season produce in many supermarket chains is responsive to a message from customers. As more consumers develop preferences for both greener and locally grown produce, the next wave of supermarket promotions might include an eco label component.

Creating and capturing value in the marketplace will, in the end, determine whether eco labeling becomes a stable part of the country’s food marketing system. Those willing to pay for biointensive IPM adoption either in the marketplace, or with tax dollars, will need to be convinced that they are getting what they are willing to pay for—reduced reliance on risky pesticides, along with improvements in water quality. This is why the ability to distinguish between pest management systems along the IPM continuum in terms of reliance on high-risk pesticides will be key in establishing IPM adoption baselines and then in measuring progress.

Considerable effort is underway to develop ways to distinguish between various levels of IPM adoption—for example, the four zones of adoption described in Pest Management at the Crossroads—No IPM, low level IPM, medium IPM, and biointensive IPM. Another key step is to capture differences in pesticide reliance, use, and risks across farms at various stages along the IPM continuum and over time as progress is made toward biointensive IPM.

A common strategy is emerging that entails focus on the information and knowledge relied on in reaching a decision to use certain seminal pest management practices, rather than counting the total number of practices used. This approach is under development as a component within IPM-labeling efforts carried out by WWF-WPVGA, the Food Alliance, and the Core Values apple program in New England. (For details on these programs, see the "Measuring IPM Adoption" portion of the PMAC web page, <http://www.pmac.net>).

Knowledge-based strategies rest upon recording and verifying grower responses to a set of questions linked to seminal pest management system choices. The questions are designed to identify the completeness of the information growers had when deciding what practices to adopt, as well as how they used the information in structuring and carrying out field interventions—whether applying a pesticide, a cultural practice, releasing beneficial organisms, or doing nothing.

An example might help demonstrate this concept. Consider a common dilemma: whether to spray a broad-spectrum insecticide in the face of an early-season leafminer, thrips or aphid infestation, knowing that the application will set off a number of other secondary pests because of impacts on their natural enemies. Sometimes such applications, or other costly interventions, simply cannot be avoided, but in other cases they can and should be. Distinguishing the information a grower should have and use in determining what to do in such situations is the focus of knowledge-based certification. Questions in an annual program application, or a farm plan, might explore:

• The scouting information the grower had and considered in making a decision to spray, or not spray (i.e., scouting reports, and presence of beneficial organisms relative to target pests, and knowledge of alternatives).
• Specific field information used in conjunction with a forecasting model or expert system like the University of Wisconsin's WISDOM program for potato pest and nutrient management.
• Steps taken to minimize future problems and maximize the chances of success.

Knowledge-based systems are promising for many reasons beyond their simplicity and focus. Measuring IPM adoption is going to take effort and cost money, particularly if used to support IPM-labeling programs. Those designing and implementing such systems should do everything possible to keep system costs down and to design approaches that serve as many useful ends as possible.

Knowledge-based systems can do just that by also fostering grower-scientist-practitioner dialog on the cutting edge of IPM implementation in the field. Each year such systems should focus on a different mix of pest management challenges. By continuing to select for in-depth review of emerging challenges that trigger the need for significant interventions (including pesticide use), programs can help everyone explore alternative approaches and identify lessons already learned by various growers. They can hasten refinement of scouting techniques, identification of ecological interactions to monitor and manage, enhance the effectiveness of emerging tools and biopesticides, and create better ways to use decision-support tools and other sources of information.

At the end of each season during grower meetings, the results of the past season should be routinely reviewed. Growers or consultants who feel they have found a better way to deal with a common pest problem will be free to make their case. The resulting exchanges among growers, consultants and researchers will quickly highlight where there is consensus and where further research and experimentation are needed. In this way, knowledge-based IPM measurement systems can serve both as a verification tool and a process fostering dialog and creative, collective problem solving.

A last topic warrants some discussion—how to deal with biotechnology in the context of eco labeling. Almost all consumer and environmental groups working on IPM labeling are skeptical, if not downright hostile toward biotechnology as currently applied in production agriculture. Why?

The answers vary across groups, but common themes include the fact that most current applications of biotechnology are designed to help farmers climb further onto the pesticide treadmill. Most limit farmer choice and are more likely to sustain the agricultural chemical industry profit margins than improve the bottomline for farmers. Take herbicide tolerant varieties, for example. Such technologies are designed to increase reliance on pesticides. By their very nature, they lock growers into reliance on a SINGLE product—a short-term advantage to the company perhaps, but a disadvantage to everyone else.

So, what explains the incredible commercial success of Roundup Ready beans? To most growers their major appeal is simplicity, flexibility and ability to quickly cover large acreage. Have you ever read the labels on most of the new low-dose, persistent herbicides, and fully considered the many restrictions and precautions that must be followed to assure good control and avoid carryover or drift damage? Compared to the management time needed to "get it right" with these products, Roundup Ready beans are a no-brainer.

Still herbicide-tolerant varieties are going to be costly in more ways than one. They are sure to accelerate resistance and some will lead to shifts in weed populations. They might lead to cross-resistance in weeds to whole families of herbicides. Subtle but economically important shifts may be occurring in soil microbial communities, affecting phosphorous uptake. Aquatic ecosystems may be impaired over time, with certain grass species disappearing, affecting nesting and wildlife habitat.

In the marketing arena, use of genetically engineered organisms (GEO) will impose new labeling and marketing challenges and costs, especially for farmers and sectors of the agricultural economy dependent on exports to Europe and Japan. In the U.S. a new segment of shoppers will seek out organic foods that are certified as GEO free.

The other major application of biotechnology reaching farmers and the marketplace are Bt-transgenic plants. Here the problems are even more clear-cut and disturbing. The evidence that Bt-transgenic plants will trigger resistance is now overwhelming. Even the companies offering Bt-varieties admit that resistance is inevitable. The debate is over whether it will happen in three, five, or fifteen years. Given the nature of farming and the importance of this class of very safe biopesticides, the difference between three and fifteen years is largely inconsequential.

Recent research reports published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences conclude that Bt resistance will emerge, encompass all or most strains of Bt, and will last a very long time because of the absence of "fitness costs" to the strains carrying the resistance gene. These important findings—published since the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of Bt-transgenic varieties—are reviewed in a Consumers Union statement delivered at a US-EPA administrative hearing (available at http://www.pmac.net/stoneage.htm; see also other information on Bt-transgenic plants at http://www.pmac.net/bttp.htm).

Risks from the use of genetically engineered plants and organisms differ fundamentally from the risks posed by pesticides. Risks of a conventional pesticide are typically limited to certain circumstances of use and location, and can be mitigated quickly by stopping or restricting further use of a product. But this is not the case with risks that arise in the wake of resistance and the release of live, genetically engineered organisms. These risks literally have a life of their own.

Resistance narrows the pest management tool kit, and in doing so, increases reliance on other approaches and tools. This, in turn, increases the probability of new problems down the road in pest management. Given the likely impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act on California agriculture, it seems a bad time to sacrifice proven, safe crop protection tools.

The release of GEOs can pose a wide array of risks from changes in soil microbial communities to the emergence of weeds tolerant of widely used families of herbicides. But the biggest risk may well prove to be our ignorance of long-term human health and environmental consequences, and the assumption that regulators know how to evaluate risks associated with release of GEOs.

The race to save Bt is just the first of many. No revolution in agricultural technology has proceeded so quickly and with so little attention to ecological and public health consequences. Transgenic plant varieties may generate profits for awhile, but many will not last long because of fundamental flaws when viewed from a farming systems perspective. Each ignores the lessons of history with regard to pesticide resistance, and hence contains the seeds of commercial collapse.

Few consumer and environmental groups, or eco label programs are willing to take on the difficult and risky task of articulating criteria to distinguish between positive applications of biotechnology and those likely to prove damaging to the environment, farmers and/or consumers. But fortunately some groups are beginning to work toward this end. Biotechnology is too important, too diverse and too inevitable to "just say no."

But for the time being, I cannot imagine any eco label program embracing herbicide tolerant or Bt-transgenic plant varieties. To the contrary, labeling food as GEO-free is a major growth sector in the world of eco labeling. The consumer organizations driving this trend, and fighting for mandatory GEO labeling around the world, are winning. They are not likely to look the other way if an IPM eco labeling program proposes to credit a grower for adoption of a genetically engineered variety, notwithstanding the millions in public relations that some companies have invested in spinning the case that GEOs are a green, sustainable technology.

Eco labels must gain public trust and recognition, and represent added value in the marketplace. For this to occur they must stand for real change. Credible eco label programs will rest upon an accepted, transparent method to measure IPM adoption and the interplay between IPM and pesticide use and risks.

The biggest challenge will be isolating and understanding the role of pest managers, and the consequences of their decisions in terms of shaping the interplay over time between pest pressure, preventive practices, and pesticide use. Measurement methods must encompass all three factors—along with shifts in pest pressure, changes in the weather, new technology, and the impacts of regulation. And they must do so without sinking the ship or putting consumers to sleep. A number of private organizations and companies are offering IPM-grown, "green-labeled" foods in the marketplace, and some are making encouraging progress. In the next few years the commitment and vision of early innovators will be tested. Successes in the marketplace will be necessary to trigger the next wave of innovation in the science and art of eco labeling. Critical mass will be reached when a majority of consumers understand what IPM is and can explain its major benefits. Competition in the marketplace for the dollars of the new green mainstream will then take over and will underwrite further innovation.

This will create new investment in bio-based solutions, which will in turn lead to new opportunities to create value and earn rewards in the marketplace. The optimistic among us believe, or at least hope that over time this dynamic can replace regulation and public sector research and education programs as the engine of innovation in pest management. Eco labels will be an essential part of the mix if this vision becomes reality.

I am going to go through a lot of information fairly quickly. Our perspective is a little different in terms of how we address the marketplace. Indeed, we believe that in this day and age the most important constituency out there with regard to eco labeling, in terms of the environment, and in terms of organic, is probably the least understood and the missed component, and that is the consumer. As I travel around the country, as I talk to all kinds of organizations, I am totally amazed on an ongoing basis how little information and little concern people really have about the consumer--about really understanding, not just the niche target green marketer or green purchaser, but the mass market. The mainstream consumer--what we call the new green mainstream.

I will be emphasizing five critical points today. The first point is that the most important constituency today for eco labeling is the consumer. If we are really going to see change in terms of how food is both produced and how it is sold, it is the consumer who is really going to make the difference. We must get these products in their hands. We must get them using these products.

If we understand the importance of the consumer, then point number two is "Who is the consumer we are trying to sell to?" The American population is made up of a diversity of consumers, and the most important thing to understand is that the American population is made up of different segments. We are not talking about just one consumer. We are talking about a diversity of consumers, who have different attitudes, who have different behaviors, who have different ideas in terms of what is going on out there. The Hartman group has done extensive work in segmenting the American population. Forty-eight percent of the American population indicates that they have a tremendous interest in purchasing products that are environmentally sound. That’s the good news; the bad news is that the other percentage of the population really does not care. So, it is not just one consumer, it is a mix of different consumers. Of the 48 percent of the population who are interested in environmentally sound purchases, we can see that this group is made up of the new green mainstream, the true naturals, the young recyclers, and the affluent healers (Figure 1). Each one of those segments has distinct ideas, distinct attitudes, and distinct beliefs. So it is imperative to understand who you are going after. You don’t sell everything to everyone. You have to understand who we are going after, what is interesting to them, what will make them buy. We don’t even talk about a green market. If we talk about a green market--we think the green market is 7 percent. That is a very small marketplace. We talk about different shades of green because consumers are driven by different concepts of the environment. The consumer is not driven solely by environmental initiatives; they are driven by a lot of things of which the environment is just a portion. So we talk in terms of understanding who you are going to sell to and understanding who your target market is composed of.

If you really understand who the target market is composed of, you have to understand how the consumer thinks. If you go to the mass market, I can tell you this. The mass market is really dominated by a female who goes to the store and spends 18 minutes to purchase 21 items out of 30,000 to 40,000 items. They are going to the store to buy dinner, not to save the world. So, we have to understand that. We have to understand who our constituency is, we have to understand what’s important to them, and, most importantly, we have to understand what value we are going to bring them. Point number three, then, is we must figure out how our products add value to the consumer. And in particular to a consumer who really wants to make a difference, but they want to make a difference on their terms. Not on our terms, but on their terms. And so if we want to understand that, we have to understand what drives their purchasing. People don’t go to the store to buy an environmentally sound product. They go to the store and they have some decisions they have to make. Think about yourself. When you purchase something, there is what we call purchase criteria and those purchase criteria involve price, availability, convenience, and quality. Did you hear environment? Environment is not number one or number two. It involves quality, whereby they see environmental initiatives as part of the quality of the product. And when you start talking about the price, do we say you can get a premium price on certain products? Yes! We have done it. We have done it very successfully. How do you do it? You have to know what the price elasticity of the product is. You need to know where the value comes from when you go and pay a higher price for something. You spend it because you see some added value to it. You buy more of it because to you there is an increased value to it.

We believe in many cases that particular increase in value can be linked to an environmental initiative. A lack of pesticides, something about the water, but it has to be specific. It is not global warming or ozone depletion. The consumer does not go to the store thinking about those things. We have to understand what goes through a consumer’s mind. We have to look at them and we have to say where does our product scenario, where do our market attributes, where do our product attributes fall with relationship to what they buy? Those attributes change depending on what you buy. You don’t buy dairy products the same way you buy meat products. Each one of these cases has a different cause. We do an awful lot of work in understanding what specific product environmental attributes make a consumer buy something. We know the environment can make a difference. It is exciting that the environment can make a difference. It can be a differentiator. It certainly can add value. But you have to know exactly where the consumer is coming from. In the research you have to understand what they are telling you and what they are not telling you. I mean how many surveys have you read that say, "Would you buy an environmental product? And it says "Yes I would." "Would you pay a premium?" "Yes, I would." A lot of people would do that. When they go out and have that experience to do it, something changes. We know that attitude and behavior don’t exactly come together every time. So we have to drive in more deeply and we really have to find out specifically what will make the difference. And we know that with a large part of the population, environmental attributes, agricultural practices, stewardship practices, will make a difference, but we have to communicate on their level and understand exactly what they want.

The fourth area to keep in mind is that the consumer is changing and we must understand exactly how they are changing. We have recently done some work in the organic arena. What is very exciting is that the American population is literally going through a cultural change. They call it a mind set. The American population is changing the way they purchase things, and changing the way they live. What is exciting about this change is that it is a change in lifestyle. Consumers have changed their focus to nutrition and exercise. Look at vitamins, minerals, and supplements. We do a lot of work in that area. It is an absolutely exploding market. It is a change towards ecology and community. They want to participate. There is a change in femininity in terms of our attitude towards women. The whole culture is changing and what people are buying is a lifestyle and these products have attributes that can depict that lifestyle. If you go out and ask people about organic, people don’t really know what organic really involves down on the farm. The mass market does not know. They have an idea that it has something to do with the use of fewer pesticides. Yet they are buying the heck out of it. Why are they buying the heck out of it? Because buying organic means something to them. It represents a lifestyle to them. It represents a healthier choice. It represents something that they want to give to their children.

What is important is that we not just look at the empirical data in terms of surveys and cluster analysis. What we try to do is get into the lifestyle of the American consumer. What organic tells you is that the American population is moving more and more toward this changing lifestyle. And that is why we know for a fact from some of our work that whether it be eco labels or whether it be IPM, whether it be organic, or whether it be improved stewardship practices, it can really make a difference with the consumer. But you have to understand who you are selling to. It is not everybody. And not only that, remember that the American consumer has been reared and educated about choices. They want choices. They demand choices. One of the false paradigms that I hear from brand managers and vice presidents of markets is that everyday they say, "Well, what happens if I bring out an environmentally sound product, will the consumer look at that and say, well what about all those other products?" When we brought out the fat free did we get rid of the fatter? No. It increased the size of the actual market for that item. This is marketing information. In many cases we put too much emotion in what we believe is right for the consumer instead of really understanding what the consumer wants. The consumer wants green, red, black, white, and purple. We keep inventing new colors for them. We need to understand that we are talking about a diversity of the American consumer. Each consumer wants something a little different. They don’t look at one and say well how come you don’t do that? What they say is, "That is great. You are doing something that is going to improve my choices."

We were involved with a major jean manufacturer with whom we introduced a new blue jean that was environmentally sound. Talk about tough. We did some focus groups on blue jeans with some people who were hunters and fisherman, and their idea of recycling is throwing their Budweiser cans in the back of their pickup. When we talked about improvement in water, when we talked about improvement in dye process, all of a sudden you saw a light go on. And all of a sudden you see people saying "You mean I can buy a blue jean that makes a difference?" For that particular consumer a new dye process that reduced the release of a residue from the stoning process and left the water cleaner made a big difference. Now it did not make a difference to all of them. Fifty percent of the blue jeans sold are bought by women. It did make a difference to our audience, and we were able to sell 40 million of them in 18 months. Why? Because the market became more differentiated. The company added improvements. The marketers of the particular jean were nervous that those blue jeans that were not environmentally enhanced were going to be targeted. What we found was that a whole new category of people started buying this particular blue jean.

What we need to understand on an ongoing basis is how is this consumer changing, who is our consumer, what is the market, what are the core attributes, and what are the core purchase criteria. These are not simplistic kinds of things that we have to figure out. It is a complex kind of thing. One of the most frustrating things that I do is when we go out and talk to many organizations that are contemplating the very same thing that you are contemplating, we must rely on our intuition. We spend so much time on the stewardship practices and we have an intuition about the consumers there. If we make it they will come. Nothing can be further from the truth. You can do all the right things in the world, but if you don’t understand what the consumer is willing to buy, understand that they want to participate, but they want to participate on their terms.

In summary, for a successful eco labeling program you must:

1. Recognize that the consumer is the target for product sales;
2. Identify the specific consumer(s) that you are trying to sell products to;
3. Determine how your product can you add value to that consumer;
4. Anticipate how the consumer is changing.

If we think about it today, the consumer is already changing. The dynamics of the marketplace are already changing. We have to understand that we don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are. We have got to get out of that mold. If we really want to be successful in selling products we can’t see things the way we are, we have to understand the way consumers look at things. We can’t make assumptions. These are very serious matters. These are matters that you in this room--all of us in this room--can make a difference. We can make a difference. We can develop and deliver and see change for our children. If I were in this for money I would have been out a long time ago. We can make a difference, but we have to understand what it takes to make a difference. We have got an American audience that is eager to have us present to them and to deliver to them products that make a difference, that are more environmentally sound. They are willing to pay a price premium in certain cases. They are willing to make an investment, as we are. Certainly, they are willing to take the products off of the shelves. We just have to understand who they are, what they want, and deliver it to them on their terms.

A very good integrated farming program for winegrapes has been developed in California over the last twenty years due the to the efforts of a wide range of people, such as conventional as well as organic growers, university research and extension personnel, private consultants, winery personnel and pest control advisors. One thing everyone must keep in mind, however, is that it is one thing to develop a great integrated farming program and an entirely different proposition to get the majority of growers to implement it. It is our opinion that the current level of grower participation in integrated farming of winegrapes, as well as in most other crops, is not nearly as high as one would expect given the many years that efforts have been made to increase grower adoption. We propose that this level is not so much due to the lack of viable integrated farming alternatives to conventional practices as much as it is due to the lack of success in getting growers to adopt known, efficacious integrated farming practices. Implementation is therefore where our challenge lies.

Growers adopt new management practices for a multitude of reasons. My experience working with growers has shown me that the right incentives for doing something have a great impact on the level of adoption of integrated farming practices. It is from this angle that I am attracted to the topic of eco labeling. If a winegrape grower can sell his or her grapes more easily by using environmental farming practices that result in an eco label appearing on the wine bottle, or can sell them for a premium, then this may be a powerful incentive for some growers to shift to using integrated farming strategies. Other people at the conference may be interested in eco labeling for other reasons but this is what interests us about their possible use.

The wine industry differs from many other agricultural commodity groups because the label on a bottle differentiates it from all other wines. This has resulted in a tremendous proliferation of wineries and labels. Since the winery puts the label on the bottle, an eco labeling program could never get going without winery interest and commitment. The limited time available at this conference for talks did not allow for a large number of wineries to present their ideas on the topic of eco labeling. To help give the audience an idea of the level of interest in eco labeling held by California wineries we interviewed a number of them. The results of these interviews are presented in this report.

There are over 600 wineries in California and it was not possible to do a comprehensive survey of the entire industry. We selected wineries that gave us a sample of large and small, ones with known interest in environmentally farming and/or organic farming, as well as some whose interest in this area was unknown to us, and ones that we were able to meet with during the time leading up to the conference. Ten wineries were interviewed and their names appear in Table 1. At each winery we spoke with the person in a position to speak for the winery on matters related to the topic of eco labeling.

Each winery was asked a series of questions that would give an indication of their knowledge about and level of interest in eco labeling, and their answers were recorded. These questions appear in Table 2. Before the interview the wineries were sent a page briefly describing the concept of an eco label and the list of interview questions. The main reason for this was to benefit the wineries that may not be aware of the concept of eco labeling. They would then have time to consider the concept in anticipation of the interview. At each interview there was about ten to fifteen minutes of "ice-breaking" conversation before the questions were asked. During this time some general comments were usually made about eco labeling, and these were also recorded.

QUESTIONS: Are you familiar with the eco labeling concept? How does your winery feel about an environmental message on their wine bottles? How consumers of your wine react to an environmental message on your wine bottles? What is your winery’s level of interest in developing an environmental label? What do you think are some of the areas of concern or barriers to developing an eco labeling program? What are some advantages? Are you currently developing and eco label program? If so could you describe it? If not how would you go about starting an environmental labeling project? Do you have any opinions on the certification process for an environmental labeling program? What would you think an environmental label might look like on your bottles?

Table 2. Questions asked during the winery interviews.

All of the wineries reacted positively to the concept of an eco label for California wine. It was interesting that of the ten wineries interviewed, four of them were either already growing winegrapes organically in their own vineyards or were moving in that direction. These four wineries also encouraged the growers from whom they bought grapes to farm organically. One winery had been growing winegrapes organically but had to begin using herbicides again due to an unacceptable weed problem. Two wineries were also involved in developing environmentally friendly strategies in the winery.

Out of the "ice-breaking" conversations with the wineries at least three motives were identified for developing an environmental label; concern for the environment, increased restrictions in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and increasing one’s marketing opportunities. Of the wineries that made these observations all of them indicated that they were motivated primarily by concern for the environment.

The interviewees often made additional comments after answering the specific questions and we tried to compile these comments in a meaningful way.

1. Are you familiar with the eco labeling concept?

Seven wineries were basically familiar with the concept of putting a label on a commodity that indicates that environmentally friendly farming practices were used to produce that commodity. However, the term "eco label" was unfamiliar to all of them. Three wineries were unfamiliar with the concept, including a winery that farmed their grapes organically. Of the seven wineries that were familiar with environmental labeling, four of them were already using environmentally friendly farming practices in their vineyards and encouraging growers from whom they purchase grapes to adopt these practices. Two of the three wineries unfamiliar with the environmental labeling concept were also using environmentally friendly practices in their vineyards. One of the wineries unfamiliar with the concept did not feel they were in position to answer the rest of the questions. However, they are moving in the direction of having all of their vineyards farmed organically in the future, and stated that this was due to the anticipation of regulatory problems with the use of pesticides.

2. How does your winery feel about having an environmental message on their wine bottles?

All of the wineries felt comfortable with the idea of having an environmental message on their wine bottles and felt that it would also be a very positive statement by the wine industry. However, some qualified this answer. One winery felt that the entire "package" i.e. the wine, bottle, label and ink should be the environmental message. In other words the winegrapes are grown with environmentally friendly methods, the bottle shape is appealing, the label is made from renewable resources, and the ink is biodegradable. They suggested that there are other ways to express an environmental message than by an indication on the label. Another winery expressed the concern that there is limited space on labels, and additional symbols or words would compete for this space.

3. How would consumers of your wine react to an environmental message on your wine bottles?

All the wineries felt that there would be a positive reaction by their consumers to an environmental message. As one person said, "who wouldn’t be in favor of an environmental message." However, all wineries believe that their consumers choose their wines based on quality or quality for value. No one felt that an environmental message would be the primary reason someone would choose his or her wine. Nevertheless, some felt that if two wines of equivalent quality and price were side by side in a store, one with an eco label and one without, the consumer would choose the one with the eco label. Other wineries were unsure what the choice would be.

One winery made an interesting observation that a group they called "gate keepers," may also be interested in eco labels. This group is made up of restaurant owners, chefs, and wine shop owners that are in the "hand-sell" situation and have the opportunity to influence a consumer’s purchase. Many of them are concerned with issues such as environmentally friendly farming and could use this information in recommending a wine to a consumer.

Two wineries already known by consumers for their environmentally friendly practices felt that the eco label would not influence purchasing but simply would be a confirmation of what the consumers already knew. Two other wineries felt that many wine drinkers are discerning people who are interested in knowing as much as possible about the wine they consume. They read wine magazines and pay attention to details. Therefore an eco label would be something that would be appealing to them.

One of the wineries using organically grown grapes gets conflicting messages about putting a label on their wine. One school of thought says that the consumer would equate organically produced grape with poor wine quality while another school says that it would be perceived as positive. Since the winery cannot determine which is correct they have left the message off the label for now.

Some wineries were concerned about the ability to communicate a complex message such as environmentally friendly farming to the consumer with a simple label on the bottle. They felt this was a possible barrier to developing an eco label program (see Question 5 below).

4. What is your winery’s level of interest in developing an environmental label?

Seven of the wineries interviewed were moderately-to-highly interested in the idea of developing an environmental label. Of these seven wineries, two rated their interest seven-to- eight out of a scale of one-to-ten, four described their interest as moderate, and one rated their interest as high. Only one winery had no interest at the moment. Another winery was growing winegrapes organically but not indicating this on the bottle. They commented that business was good at the moment but if the business were to get tight they might consider putting an environmental message on their label to help distinguish themselves from other wines.

5. What do you think are some of the areas of concern or barriers to developing an eco labeling program? What are some advantages?

There were far more concerns expressed than advantages. The advantages mentioned were similar among the wineries and mainly revolved around the fact that an eco label would provide a beneficial image for the winery as well as for the wine industry as a whole. One winery felt strongly that this was an opportunity for the wine industry to take a leadership role in developing and marketing environmentally friendly farming, and to show the way for the rest of agriculture. Other observations were that an eco labeling program would provide a uniform, understandable message to consumers of how winegrapes are managed. It would also provide an achievable set of guidelines for growers and provides an avenue for continual improvement of a grower’s farm management practices. One winery observed that it would solidify a grower’s position with a winery. Since several other wineries mentioned that they encouraged growers to use environmental farming practices, we assume they also would favor growers who use these practices.

The nine wineries that answered the question listed 14 different concerns or barriers to an eco labeling program. Most wineries mentioned only one or two concerns rather than a long list. Six were mentioned by two or three wineries but the rest were unique to only one winery. Table 3 lists these and the number of wineries that shared a given concern.

BARRIERS/CONCERNS

***Consumers may have to pay more for an eco labeled wine due to increased costs of farming and costs within the winery.

**Integrated pest management and environmentally friendly farming are vague concepts, and developing a certification system with integrity may be very difficult.

**There is not enough time in the store to communicate a complex issue like Integrated Pest Management or integrated farming.

**Are there enough consumers interested in eco labeled wine to be able to market these wines effectively?

Eco labeling program could be perceived by growers as a mandate.

Eco labeling could be perceived by consumers and others as a self-serving program.

Eco labeling could divide the wine industry into an "in group" and an "out group."

Eco labels will create another choice for consumers in a marketplace where there already are too many choices and limited shelf space.

Who would do the certifying for an eco label?

The wine industry is tradition-bound and slow to change.

Wine is already perceived by many consumers as a healthy product produced in a healthy manner. An eco label could confuse consumers.

It may be difficult to get consensus among growers and wineries on the certification program.

If we are not willing to lose a crop for the sake of qualifying for an eco label then sure-fire management techniques that work and also qualify for the label must be developed.

*Barriers/concerns that were shared by more than one winery. The number of asterisks indicates the number of wineries sharing the concern.

Table 3. Wineries’ list of barriers and concerns regarding an eco labeling program.

Five wineries are not in the process of developing an environmental labeling program. Nevertheless, two of these wineries felt that they already have vineyards that would qualify for an eco label and a third winery would most likely develop such a program if the wine industry started to go in this direction. One winery is developing a new label that will come from vineyards where integrated farming is practiced, but this will not be indicated on the label and management practices are only part of the qualification for this label. One winery has a wine that comes from organically grown grapes and this is indicated on the label while another winery produces wine from organically grown grapes but does not label the wine as such. One winery is in the process of developing a label for organically grown grapes.

All of the wineries interviewed felt that the most likely way to start an eco labeling program is to develop a new line from select vineyards that would qualify for an eco label, and then see how this label performed in the marketplace. There was a general feeling among the wineries that a program would not be started unless there were good indications that it would succeed. None of the wineries wanted to start an eco label program and then have to end it due to lack of performance. This would reflect badly on the wineries.

7. Do you have any opinions on the certification process for an environmental label?

Eight of the wineries interviewed did not have any definite ideas of what a certification program should look like. One winery felt that a good system might be to score management practices with higher scores being awarded for increasingly environmentally friendly methods. To qualify for an eco label a vineyard would have to reach a certain score. This basically describes a positive points system. This winery also suggested that there should be a "kick-out" parameter so that if a particular farming practice used is environmentally unsound, then the vineyard would not qualify for the eco label even if it receives enough points from the other categories.

Although the most wineries did not have definite ideas about a certification program the question did elicit interesting comments and strong feelings. Four wineries mentioned that it was extremely important that whatever system was developed it had to have credibility and its ratings had to be very clearly understood. One winery felt that it would be extremely difficult to develop a system on which everyone could agree. They thought that the only realistic way to develop a system would be with a small group of people. A large group could never come to consensus. They envisioned that once a system was developed it would get criticized from all sides, and no one would be completely satisfied. They were unsure of how to deal with this problem. One of the wineries growing winegrapes organically agreed, in principle, with eco labeling, but felt that growing grapes with standards lower than those of certified organic farming was not desirable.

8. What do you think and environmental label might look like on your wines?

Five wineries thought that a small, well-defined logo or insignia would be the best way to indicate an eco labeled wine. Three wineries felt a short statement on the back of the bottle would be a good way to label the wine. One winery did not have an opinion on this matter. Three wineries indicated that the message might be better relayed to the consumer in another manner, such as a brochure in the store, or a hang-on label.

All of the wineries that were interviewed had a positive reaction to the concept of an environmental label. It was very clear, however, that they all felt that consumers choose their wines primarily based on quality, or quality for price, and that eco labels would not change this. Nevertheless, most of the wineries expressed at least moderate interest in developing an eco label program if the industrial and consumer climates were right.

The impetus for eco labeling and the adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices can come from several directions. The wineries interviewed in this project felt that marketing, concern for the environment, and increased government regulations and safety standards, were the main reasons for eco labels. None of the wineries expressed interest in eco labels strictly from the marketing perspective. They all indicated that the reason they supported and encouraged environmentally friendly farming of winegrapes was because it was the right thing to do rather than simply a marketing ploy. However, if a label could indicate that these practices were being used then they felt it would most likely benefit their winery’s image.

Several wineries talked about the eco label as benefiting the wine industry as a whole, which is laudable, but in some ways surprising, in a competitive industry. However, since everyone we spoke with felt that quality was the key to consumer wine choice, then an eco label would not be viewed as offering a significant competitive advantage. This may be the explanation for such a magnanimous view of the issue by wineries.

Wineries expressed a large number of serious concerns regarding eco labels and their development despite their positive views on the issue. This is not surprising since the concept is new to the industry and involves issues such as certification and farm management practices, and may affect the cost of producing winegrapes and wine. The fact that other commodities have developed, or are in the process of developing, eco labels indicates that these concerns can probably be dealt with. We look forward to the discussion of some of these concerns in the afternoon work sessions.

I was asked to start this panel with some relevant lessons distilled from the development of the organic label. It feels a bit presumptuous and much more than a bit ironic at this moment to make definitive assertions about organic labeling, but I'll try my best here.

Let me first state something about my own subjective bias, which is sort of a "conditional neutrality" about alternative labels. Some people may feel that eco labels are unwelcome competition for the organic industry. I basically believe that as long as a label is (1) truthful, and (2) actually means something specific and tangible that is (3) subject to transparent verification, then it can and should rightfully be put to the test in the marketplace. These conditions are tougher to meet than they seem at first, but if you can fulfill them, I say go for it. If an eco label system does not meet these three tests then we are not in the same ballpark and the rest of my talk does not apply.

The presumptuousness that I referred to is the idea that I or any one person could encompass the extreme complexity and diversity of the organic movement for you. The lessons that I can draw come from my own experience and do not purport to depict a universal or even majority view. My perspective comes from several vantage points: 15 years as a working (vegetable) farmer selling into several levels of the organic marketplace; seven years as an official representative of the organic industry working for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) in the late 1980s; and three years in my current role as part-time "policy hog" for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. At CCOF I contributed to the early development of the organic certification system and to the overhaul of the California Organic Foods Act. From 1991 until recently I chaired the state's Organic Foods Advisory Board.

The irony of doing this talk is that, as this meeting takes place, the 50-year history and $10+ billion global marketplace for organic foods is in a dramatic crisis. It’s a crisis that could possibly destroy what has been achieved, or could launch us into a quantum leap of growth and historical impact. I'm speaking of course about the tremendously disappointing federal regulatory proposal for implementing the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. While the Act itself is still a valid and creative piece of legislation, the proposal of December 15^th is a train-wreck of massive proportions that is still being investigated. It is possible that an equally massive public response during the comment period will somehow spark a new situation in which the movement's original hopes and needs for a federal program are embodied. I'm not holding my breath, but I am certainly not giving up the fight. (For the record, a sub-irony here is that I have the historical footnote of introducing organic labeling issues to the staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee during a visit to Washington, D.C. in early 1989, giving the first push in the long route of the USDA's organic train.)

In this context it is difficult to be drawing historical conclusions, but I think there are some specific lessons at hand for the wider discussion about "eco labeling." Here's the main structural metaphor underlying my analysis: the focal point of this discussion is at the intersection of alternative (i.e., environmentally less harmful) farming practices, the consumer marketplace, and regulatory systems (both governmental and industry-based). The overlap of these three zones of activity defines the universe within which "eco labels" are meaningful. It's a very complex place, subject to many forces and events in each of the three overlapping sectors. So, we are asking, "What features of the organic experience can illuminate this intersection, and tell us something about thriving within it?" Although the new federal regulatory proposal seems to overshadow the organic picture, it is not the most important issue here. What is important to this discussion is the fact that a federal organic statute and rule-making process exist at all. That is, the National Organic Program (NOP) debacle is the most visible current landmark at the intersection, but the historical landscape that made the NOP possible is the real issue for today.

Here is my main premise for this discussion: "Organically Grown" is indeed the original eco label, the prototype for all efforts to market an environmental value. The beginnings of the organic marketplace go back to post World War II Pennsylvania, the Rodale family and a handful of pioneer farms like Walnut Acres. There was no real precedent for building a generic category of products whose label identity stood for a progressive relationship with the biological environment. (The closest analogue was probably the Co-op label, representing a national network of consumer-owned grocery cooperatives. Sadly, that is now a relic.) It is the long-term marketplace survival of the organic label that has made it feasible to speculate about "eco labels" as a way of representing certain environmental relationships in agriculture and business in general.

Because the organic label is so prototypical, there are actually many more lessons for the eco labeling discussion than it is possible to cover here. I will only try to cover some general principles today, but there are a lot of specific problems and technical issues that are worth examining down the road.

Organic farming has taken almost 50 years to become a real force in the marketplace. Even now, after eight years of remarkably strong and steady growth, it still is only one or two percent of the overall U.S. food economy. That is not to say that the cycle of market creation for other eco labels can't be shortened, but without a long-term definition of success, the effort to build eco labels will be neither effective nor worth doing. In short, don't expect anything to happen very quickly.

Let me illustrate one aspect of the long-term journey, which will be familiar to anyone with entrepreneurial experience: the natural leap-frog relationship of supply and demand. The organic sector has grown in a zigzag fashion, moving dialectically from having an oversupply for the available markets, then that oversupply suddenly spills over into new markets. After which there is not enough new production on-line to fulfill demand within the expanded marketplace, so production builds up, creating a new oversupply and the cycle repeats itself. Furthermore, these zigzags get exaggerated and distorted by the chaotic impacts of weather and the macro-economy. This cycle has averaged about five years in the organic vegetable sector, and I've seen it three times in my years as a farmer. These gyrations make it very difficult to analyze success on a short-term basis; you have to be willing to stick it out for a while and expect these ebbs and flows.

This example leads me to my next "lesson." While there is a cyclic relationship between production start-up and market development, you can't really just start anywhere in the cycle. The organic experience suggests that the production--and its intrinsic environmental value--have to come first.

Lesson 2: Eco-products before eco labels! (Or, substance must precede hype.)

Many current discussions of agricultural eco labeling seem to orbit around some analysis of "consumer attitudes" at the center, and attempt to re-position farm practices or products so as to exploit these supposed attitudes. Thus, some current so-called eco labels are the equivalent of "vaporware" in the computer industry: a promise to bring a theoretical product to the marketplace just as soon as some producers can be induced to follow this theoretical incentive. I believe such efforts are generally well intentioned but predict that they will not sustain themselves.

The salient feature of the organic standard is that it has mostly been producer-defined, rooted in the real needs and possibilities of farm operators. The organic label was not developed by environmental activists or marketing consultants. (These players are important, but they have come later in the game.) From this starting point there has been a process of accommodating the demands of the consumer marketplace, but these have been adjustments to the core identity defined by the growers. This process of gradual adjustment has created some difficulties and contradictions, of course. Which brings me to my next point:

Lesson 3: It’s hard to devise meaningful standards (and live up to them).

For the purposes of the marketplace, an eco label must stand for something specific in terms of environmentally beneficial (or distinctly less harmful) farming practices. Given that a group of producers have achieved a set of such practices, the system must then be articulated for the marketplace AND it must be codified for the purposes of verification. Drawing the lines for these purposes has many pitfalls, and the organic industry has plenty of both hits and misses to explore. Here are three versions of the general problem with respect to devising meaningful standards:

1. Despite having clear basic principles to start from, the final end point of some standards will have to be arbitrary, simply to have a clear definition that can be comprehended in the marketplace.
2. Conversely, in order to have technical integrity with respect to the complexities of modern agriculture, some standards may be difficult to explain to retailers and consumers.
3. Finally, if the standards are going to matter, they will be a challenge to achieve. Some producers will not make the grade. If everybody could, then there’s no point in having an eco label to provide distinctive rewards. This has some unfortunate repercussions, but some of this is unavoidable.

Now, once you have a set of standards articulated, they have to be verified, which brings me to

A transparent, independent system of verification provides the biggest value of all in an eco label. That value is information. This may be the most important lesson of all from the organic experience. The real pathbreaking message of the organic label was that it stood for the ability of the consumer to reliably know how a given item of food was produced. This is a subtle quality of the organic label, and not an overt part of its marketing approach; but in a way it is the most revolutionary aspect of the whole organic epic. As the prototype, this aspect of organic foods is so fundamental that I think "information content" about production practices is taken for granted as a salable value in eco labels.

The verification of labeling standards is the quality control of an eco label’s information content, and it is therefore indispensable. I do not think that the organic industry has done nearly as well as it should have in the design and performance of our verification schemes. We have had failures of methodology, ethics, and cost-efficiency. All of these parameters have to be worked on diligently if an eco label is going to maintain its internal integrity. The more compelling an eco labeling claim is to consumers, the more important the verification controls must be. Contemplating the consequences of success brings me to the final point.

The final aspect I have to mention is the least pleasant of all: If a labeling concept works in the marketplace and provides an economic reward, somebody will try to rip it off. A "police" function will ultimately be necessary to keep the value of the label from being degraded, and to maintain consumers' faith. Regulation stinks but it's almost inescapable. The likelihood of government regulation, however is a direct function of the efficacy of private-sector self-policing. IF the trade can regulate itself (a big "if"), then the government may not have to be involved. This is one area where the organic industry has, in my view performed very poorly. We’ve always had a hard time cleaning up our messes and imposing sanctions on those who don't live up to the standards. This was already a problem in the late 1980s and its one of the factors that contributed to the passage of federal legislation. If there is one single precaution implied by the organic experience, it is this: keep the verification system as rigorous as possible right from the start. This will ensure that producers, consumers and regulators alike respect the integrity of the label. It has a cost, but that cost is a necessary part of the eco marketplace.

In closing, let me state one more generality that may have been lost in the list of lessons here. Although "organically grown" is the grandmother of all eco labels, fulfilling the goals of eco labeling does not necessarily require a model that looks just like organic standards and certification as we know them. If the fundamental principles of truthfulness, substantive meaning, and transparent verification are met, any number of technical and organizational approaches might work. However, the organic experience represents a series of practical, compromise solutions to a number of inevitable problems. Its achievements, as well as its shortcomings, should be respected and thoroughly studied by anyone wishing to market an environmental or social value. Good luck in your endeavors.

First of all, I’d sincerely like to thank the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the opportunity to participate in this workshop. Before getting into the main topic, the first Integrated Pest Management (IPM) certification program in the nation, which is known as Partners with Nature, a little background is appropriate. First of all, I approach this topic not as a policy worker, theoretician, or marketing specialist, but as someone who has over 20 year’s experience helping farmers develop and implement workable IPM systems, particularly for tree fruits. I can genuinely appreciate the difficulties farmers face in dealing with insect, disease, weed and other pests in an economically and environmentally sound way. I think this first-hand field experience has helped me put a number of issues in the proper context.

Compared to many other parts of the globe, the food-consuming public in the United States is fortunate to have access to a highly diverse and relatively inexpensive supply of safe and healthful food. Nonetheless, the previous and continuing media focus on the safety of the food supply, particularly regarding residues of pesticides, exacerbates fears that are apparently widespread.

Whether or not such fears are justified is really of little matter, since "Image has become as important as law or science in framing the way politicians and the general public view fresh fruits, vegetables and other food products." (Russell, 1990). According to the 1993 Sandoz Agricultural poll conducted by the Gallup organization, 43 percent of farmers surveyed think that the image of farmers regarding environmental responsibility is getting worse. Food Marketing Institute surveys from 1989-1993 found that the percent of the surveyed consumers who were completely or mostly confident in the safety of the food supply declined (81 percent in 1989, 79 percent in 1990, 82 percent in 1991, 72 percent in 1992, 73 percent in 1993). Results of The Packer Focus Fresh Trends Surveys also revealed that 17 percent of consumers nationwide reported buying fewer fruits and vegetables due to residue concerns (1990), and that 46 percent of shoppers nationwide reported that they were more concerned about pesticide residues than 12 months earlier (1993). Clearly, agriculture in this country has an image problem.

Ironically, we in Massachusetts became involved in such non-production issues partly due to our initial success in implementing IPM programs on commercial farms. The story I will present today has its beginning in 1978, when we initiated the first IPM project in Massachusetts, which dealt with apples. While Massachusetts only ranks about thirteenth in U.S. apple production, the crop has a farm gate market value of around $20,000,000, and represents a significant source of income for about 200 Massachusetts farms. So under the leadership of Ron Prokopy, and with collaboration of disciplinary colleagues in the departments of plant pathology, plant and soil science, and economics, we implemented this project on ultimately 48 orchards from 1978-1982. By any standard, the project was successful in that it demonstrated that it was possible to reduce pesticide use by between 25 and 50 percent without any loss of crop yield or quality. The project was directly responsible for the development of an IPM consulting industry which, had not previously existed, and we estimate that currently well over 75 percent of the commercial apple acreage in the state is under a full-fledged IPM system.

This initial success lead participating growers to ask us if there was some way they could be recognized by their neighbors and in the marketplace for their adoption of IPM. The university’s involvement in this was important to growers since some of their counterparts had already started printing bags and boxes claiming "this product raised with integrated pest management—little or no pesticides used," "no pesticides used on this product," or similar claims. So we reasoned that if a grower was a participant in a University of Massachusetts IPM project (by this time, we had added projects dealing with cranberries, potatoes, sweet corn and strawberries) and was following our recommendations, that they at least should have a sign to display at the farm.

This reasoning led to development of an 11 by 18 inch yellow sign with the University of Massachusetts IPM Program logo and the wording "Cooperating Grower, Integrated Pest Management Program, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension," which we gave out to all participants. Unfortunately, one participant in the Potato Project (he was not truly a "cooperator," since he consistently ignored our recommendations, particularly when they involved not spraying) called in an aerial application of two restricted use insecticides on a field in the heart of the Connecticut River Valley on one of the hottest Fridays of the summer. Because this field was bordered along one side by houses, this application sickened a number of people, and the complaints started pouring in to the state regulatory agency Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. When MDFA inspectors looked into it, they learned that this particular gentleman did not have a current license to buy restricted use materials, having failed the certification exams more than once. He had apparently been able to buy them from a local supplier because the supplier never asked for his license. Upon further investigation, the grower was also found to have been illegally dumping used pesticide containers into the Connecticut rivers.

Fortunately, and to our great relief, none of the press noted "the yellow sign" (he may not actually have displayed it), but this experience made us really gun shy. As a result, from that point on, the yellow sign found its way into oblivion, and we developed another sign that said simply "Yes, We Support IPM," and contained a few lines of text explaining IPM in lay terms.

At about this time, we also began an internal discussion about what it really meant to "do" IPM, and how one could document actual use. Countless general definitions of IPM exist, including one written by Professor Ed Glass from Cornell (1975) that states: "IPM is a system that, in the context of the environment and the population dynamics of the pest species, uses all suitable control strategies in as (ecologically) compatible manner as possible, and maintains pest population levels below those causing economic injury". While this is a perfectly fine definition, it really gives a grower (or other interested party) very little information (and no details) about what such a system looks like for apples or any other crop, and was of potentially no more value than the yellow sign in documenting if a person was really using such a system. Consequently, we concluded that general definitions are not adequate for our purposes.

It has been suggested by some, that, since IPM is a knowledge-intensive approach to crop production, documenting an IPM approach is merely a matter of determining the extent of a grower’s knowledge, since it is this knowledge that enables him or her to make environmentally-sound decisions. While we agree that informed, knowledgeable growers are essential, and that the vast majority of growers are sincere about adopting IPM, a less trusting soul might point out that "You can talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?" That is to say that while one can know all there is to know, an interested third party has no way to be sure that sound actions follow this knowledge.

Since one product of the original apple project was an extension manual called Integrated Management of Apple Pests in Massachusetts and New England, we thought we had a good description of the current state of the art of apple IPM. So in 1987, I wrote an article for inclusion in an extension newsletter (the Annual March Message to the Massachusetts Fruitgrowers) called "Characteristics Defining an IPM Orchard," which was our first effort to define IPM in a detailed and commodity-specific sense.

With the cooperation of a number of other U. Mass colleagues, we duplicated the same process for other crops for which IPM systems were well developed. The process we used had several aspects. First, we categorized the sorts of IPM practices available (e.g., Soil/Nutrient Management, Cultural Practices, Insect Management, Disease Management, etc.). Then, on a crop-by-crop basis, we listed each of the proven IPM practices under each category and assigned points to each practice, giving more points to those practices that were either more important to the IPM system, or more difficult to implement. This process, although initially carried out by university-based research and extension staff, later involved private IPM consultants and growers in a feedback loop to insure that all appropriate practices had been included, and that the weighting system was seen as appropriate by the principal end-users.

In understanding the rationale behind a point system, it may be useful to consider how one would document IPM use (or any other label claim for that matter) without one. For example, one could require that all approved practices be used in every block, every year, and/or that all use of certain materials be avoided, with other (more acceptable) ones used in all blocks, every year. If this looks familiar, this is the basis of most "certified organic" programs at present. Clearly this approach gives very little flexibility to design a program which is site, or even block-specific.

On the other hand, a guideline-based point system, especially one that sets the bar at use of a certain fixed percentage (e.g., 60 percent) of total possible points, while it lists all available practices and materials, allows the grower to custom design an IPM system that is appropriate for individual blocks in highly variable years. To illustrate the importance of this flexibility, imagine an IPM documentation system that required all cranberry growers to monitor for all key pests in every bog, every year. One key pest of Massachusetts cranberries is the Black-headed Fireworm. We learned early on, however, that the Black-headed Fireworm apparently does not occur in all of the cranberry-growing regions of the state. Hence, it is foolish to ask all growers to monitor for it simply to get the needed percentage of IPM points. Consequently, under our system, even the total number of available "practice points" varies from site to site, allowing growers to design a meaningful system for their farm, while still allowing documentation of an IPM system.

However, our system, by requiring that points be gained in all categories, insures that growers do not simply focus on insect and disease management, for example, while ignoring other important aspects of crop production and protection. Another aspect of the system is that it can be used to encourage adoption of the most desirable practices by assigning higher point values to these. That is, makes the system easier to achieve the minimum number of points, by doing fewer, but potentially more difficult, or more environmentally responsible, practices.

Related to both flexibility and encouraging practitioners to use more desirable practices, a point-based system can also be structured to give "partial credit" for using a previously unused practice on a portion of the farm in order to test its utility without having to put the whole crop on the line. As ours does, a guideline can encourage such experimentation by giving Bonus Points (which are not included in the sum of Total Practice Points), but which can help growers reach the minimum point total needed.

I would like to be able to claim that we were the first to develop such a point-based IPM assessment/verification system, but I cannot. To the best of my knowledge, the first individuals to do so were J.L. Boutwell and R. H. Smith, who developed a guideline and point system to use in evaluation of cotton IPM systems, and published their work in the Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America in 1981.

The principal reason we began to develop the IPM Guidelines I have described is because of their value as an educational tool. On numerous occasions, farmers told us that they "had heard of this thing called IPM," and that they had been at training sessions that covered various IPM practices, but that they had never before seen the whole system laid out in front of them before. In addition to use in educational programs, another use of a commodity-specific IPM definition is as a tool to assess the extent of grower adoption of IPM.

This is not a trivial issue, since the U.S. now has a policy to achieve IPM adoption on 75 percent of the U.S. crop acreage by the year 2000. We believe that it is only possible to assess actual adoption using specific guidelines and point systems, rather than through a general definition such as that presented earlier. Related to this is the possibility that IPM Guidelines can form the basis of cost-sharing or other incentive programs, such as those administered by the USDA’s Farm Services Agency (FSA). I will later give an example of how this has worked well in Massachusetts.

In keeping with the theme of this conference, IPM guidelines can also be used in the context of eco labeling programs such as the Partners with Nature Program. But first of all, one could ask why one should consider developing an eco label in the first place. For one thing, eco labels are consistent with a well-established, worldwide trend toward "environmentally-friendly marketing." Virtually everyone has seen examples, including: "Certified Organic," "Dolphin-Safe" Tuna, the European Union’s "Integrated Production" model, "Nature Farming" (Japan), "Alp Action," "Smart Wood," Eco-OK" bananas, "Nutri Clean," the Stemilt Growers’ "Responsible Choice" label, Coleman’s Natural Meats, and others.

While all-of-the above are agricultural examples, the interest in eco labeling is not simply confined to this area, for example automobile manufacturers are advertising environmentally responsible air conditioner refrigerants. Even a major chemical manufacturer has used a tag line "A Growing Partnership with Nature" in its promotional materials. Some of you may have heard of the International Standards Organization’s series of standards, which try to document companies’ use of environmentally sound manufacturing processes.

What this is all about, in my opinion, is giving choices to consumers. It is also about distinguishing your particular product from your competition in an increasingly global marketplace. The idea is to help give the consumer a "warm and fuzzy feeling" about an industry or product. In turn, this ideally should translate to greater market share, improved sales, and improved profitability.

In addition to using IPM guidelines as educational tools to enhance adoption, and to document actual levels of IPM adoption in keeping with national policies, Massachusetts began using the guidelines in the marketplace in 1993. Our principal purpose was to respond to a grower-identified need to be recognized in the marketplace for their use of IPM. This is related to another purpose: to respond to consumer concern over pesticide use. Additional purposes are to help Massachusetts farmers respond to marketing challenges from other countries and states whose farmers are already participating in eco labeling programs, to encourage further adoption of IPM, and to identify research or extension activities that may be required to stimulate greater adoption.

The program was developed as a true collaboration between the partners. The partners include the University of Massachusetts (U. Mass), which initially conceived of and developed the guidelines and point system, the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (MDFA), whose funding helps support the U. Mass IPM program and where reside a number of capable marketing-oriented professionals, and the USDA Farm Services Agency (FSA), whose contacts with farmers, and expertise in cost-sharing programs, greatly advance adoption.

Naturally, the first step is for interested farmers to apply, and to pay a small ($20 per crop) application fee. Application may be made directly to the MDFA, or indirectly to the FSA SP-53 cost-sharing program. Farmers who succeed in receiving FSA cost sharing are automatically qualified for Partners with Nature (PWN) certification as well, although the PWN application fees are still required. Upon application, farmers receive a resource binder containing, among other things, a copy of the U. Mass IPM Guidelines for the specific crop(s) for which certification is sought. Using the guidelines and point system, farmers develop a farm and block-specific IPM plan, which will ensure that they achieve at least the minimum number of required points. In actual practice, private sector IPM consultants often complete this stage of the process on the farmer’s behalf, especially for those farmers who will use the FSA cost-sharing to partially pay the consulting fees. Prior to harvest of the crop, a field verification visit is made by one or more representatives of the collaboration to determine if the farmer is on track toward successful completion of the farm plan. If so, the farm becomes certified and receives an assortment of PWN-related materials. After the end of the season, monitoring and other records are required to be submitted to confirm that the farm completed the planned practices.

After the mid-season field visit, the Commissioner of Agriculture signs a certificate stating that the farmer has completed all the requirements of the program and has license to use the Partners With Nature trademark. Certified farms also receive brochures, posters, fliers, and press kits for use on the farm. In addition, program staff develops public service announcements and press releases for local media, noting that the farm has received certification and describing what IPM is. Participating farmers consistently tell us that it is these press releases and other related certification materials are the principal value of the program.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the number of farms participating in PWN steadily increased from 1993 through 1996, but declined somewhat in 1997. A major reason for this decline is a significant change in the nature of the FSA cost-sharing program that many farmers had used to help defray costs associated with hiring private IPM consultants. According to data generated by the FSA, this decline in PWN participation does not indicate that farmers have discontinued hiring IPM consultants or otherwise using IPM. Rather it appears to reflect the feeling that significant market advantages have not yet been well enough documented for farmers to go through the extra steps of applying to PWN and documenting performance.

Changes in acreage under FSA cost-sharing (Figure 2) show a similar pattern over time.

In a survey that we collaborated with Molly Anderson (Tufts University) on in 1996, 85 percent of surveyed customers said they would prefer to buy IPM-certified sweet corn. In addition, the Shaw’s Supermarket and Bread and Circus Supermarket chains began to recognize and promote PWN Growers in 1997. Other anecdotal evidence provided to us in the form of letters from certified farms suggests those customers’ attitudes about those farms improved. Some farms reported increased business after press coverage, and others report having gained new customers. Availability of FSA cost sharing has measurably increased IPM adoption, and more IPM consultants are now available due to the availability of the cost sharing.

Unfortunately, there is as yet no evidence that certified farmers are receiving a higher price for certified products or selling dramatically more of them, and the paperwork required to show that the program is not "smoke and mirrors" is seen as burdensome.

The "Good Guy, Bad Guy" concern, that is if IPM certified produce is "good" then all other produce will be seen to be "bad," has not even cropped up. In fact, no customers seemed surprised or put off to learn that pesticides were used in farming. Rather, consumers appreciate knowing that farmers use an informed decision-making process in crop production. This supports work done by Christine Bruhn and her co-workers in California who found that consumer attitudes toward agriculture and the safety of the food supply improved when study subjects were presented with information about how farmers incorporate IPM principles into informed decision-making.

From our experience, we conclude that there is a benefit to farmer participation in an eco labeling program such as Partners with Nature although the benefit may be more in improved public relations rather than a documentable increase in the economic bottom line. We also conclude, that, in the absence of a documented market-driven benefit, some other positive financial return, perhaps in the form of incentive payments from government or some other body, is desirable as a means to enhance adoption of environmentally-sound practices.

C. Russell. 1990. A Crisis in Public Confidence. EPA Journal 16 (3): 3-5.

Figure 1. Number of IPM certified farms participating in the Massachusetts Partners with Nature Program.

 

Figure 2. Number of acres receiving FSA cost sharing through the SP-53 program, 1990-1997.

In May 1997, Pacific Rivers Council successfully launched Salmon-Safe, our cooperative agricultural program, in the Pacific Northwest. The program assists growers in both adopting a stream ecosystem conservation plan and marketing their products. Based on voluntary compliance with conservation guidelines, the Salmon-Safe label is placed on food and beverage products, to signify that they were produced using farming practices that restore and protect critical salmon habitat.

The goal of the Salmon-Safe campaign is to reward the farming community for instituting conservation practices that benefit water quality and native salmon populations by providing growers with a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Our other objective is to create broad public awareness of the interest in purchasing products produced by Oregon farms, orchards, dairies, and vineyards that use good stream conservation practices. By educating consumers about the importance of supporting farming practices that restore and protect critical salmon habitat, Salmon-Safe is helping to educate the public that they have a personal stake in watershed restoration.

In 1995, Pacific Rivers Council embarked on this voluntary, market-based project to expand on our successful efforts at establishing economically viable salmon conservation and restoration strategies on public lands by tackling the critical issue of streams flowing through agricultural lowlands in the Northwest. In addition to non-point source pollution, agricultural lands affect stream ecosystems and native fish in many ways, including excessive water and pesticide use, stream channelization that reduces the complexity and diversity of aquatic habitats, and loss of riparian vegetation that is important for soil stability, shading, and temperature control.

Working with farmers and scientists, Pacific Rivers Council created a comprehensive certification program that provides a structured and replicable procedure for recognizing those farm operations that are contributing to the recovery of native fish and stream ecosystem health. The focus of the program is on management practices and the degree to which those practices protect watercourses located within or near the farm. Qualified, independent, and credible consultants conduct Salmon-Safe certifications. The consultants evaluate the extent to which a candidate farm’s management practices impact water quality and stream ecosystem health.

To date, Pacific Rivers Council has certified almost three dozen farms, orchards, and vineyards, primarily in Oregon’s Willamette and Hood River valleys and California’s Sacramento Valley. Salmon-Safe growers include both organic and conventional operations. For vineyards, certification primarily involves erosion prevention measures and soil management, fertilizer usage, and integrated pest management practices. Dairy industry efforts are focused primarily on riparian area management, erosion and sediment controls, and manure management. Critical issues in our work with fruit, vegetable, and rice growers are irrigation practices, erosion control and cover crops, and minimizing pesticide demand.

A major challenge in the Salmon-Safe certification effort has been finding crops where the chain of custody between the producer and consumer can be maintained. An enormous variety of crops are grown in the Northwest and California, but the bulk of our agricultural production is given to the production of commodities that consumers never see or purchase in some processed form. Therefore, for the initial product launch (and much of our fieldwork since), we have concentrated on products such as wine in which we can follow the channel of distribution from the grower to the consumer.

While the salmon crisis has been highly visible on the West Coast for a decade, many people do not associate the impacts of agriculture with the decline in native salmon. A major public awareness challenge has been translating the public’s growing awareness of the plight of native salmon into awareness of the Salmon-Safe logo. Thus the Salmon-Safe public awareness message communicates to shoppers that their food-purchasing behavior can make a difference in restoring watersheds and wild salmon stocks.

Last summer, Pacific Rivers Council launched Salmon-Safe in the Northwest with the start of our public education campaign at selected natural food and specialty retailers in Oregon and Washington and a press event at Sokol Blosser Winery. Food stores across the Northwest have been enthusiastic about Salmon-Safe program participation and the opportunity to educate consumers about ecologically sustainable agriculture. In the most significant expansion of our public education campaign to date, Northwest retail giant Fred Meyer launched Salmon-Safe promotion in January 1998.

Pacific Rivers Council now is poised to dramatically expand Salmon-Safe on the agricultural and public awareness fronts, both in California and across the Northwest.

Later this spring, we will begin our first vineyard certifications in Napa and Sonoma counties. We also plan to launch a Northern California public awareness campaign later in the year with retail promotion and media advertising in the Sacramento Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area.

One valuable lesson we’ve learned from more than six months of Salmon-Safe promotion in the marketplace is that price premium is not the most important form of market incentive that we can provide our growers. To our surprise, growers have reported that Salmon-Safe certification is yielding competitive benefits more important than price premium. Our largest certified vegetable grower in Oregon, for example, has reported that their Salmon-Safe certification is providing them with favorable supplier contracts with the large institutional buyers of their processed vegetables, including Gerber Baby Foods. Other Salmon-Safe growers have been able to enter new retail markets, including the Fred Meyer chain, as a result of their Salmon-Safe certification.

The challenge for Salmon-Safe as we expand our certification efforts and public education campaign is translating the enthusiasm generated by our program launch in the Northwest into broad awareness of the need to change agricultural practices and our own personal behavior to restore our watersheds and imperiled wild salmon.

Based in Eugene, Oregon, Pacific Rivers Council is one of the nation’s leading river and native fish conservation organizations. For more information on Salmon-Safe, please call our Portland office at (503) 294-0786 or visit us on the web at http://www.pacrivers.org/.

[Based on an overview of the IPM labeling program from the 1997 Annual Report of the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, pages 4-5.]

Impetus from a supermarket chain has brought IPM-labeled produce—both fresh and processed—to New York customers for the first time. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. sells IPM-grown, fresh-market sweet corn in its Rochester-area stores and several types of frozen and canned vegetables bearing IPM labels in all of its stores. The labels explain that "Through IPM, growers use less pesticide over time by taking other steps to reduce pest damage. Your purchase supports the efforts of growers who truly care about the environment." The story behind these new labels is one of a food industry initiative and an enthusiastic response by a university IPM program. It is a story of a four-way partnership of vegetable growers, a food processor, a supermarket chain, and the New York IPM Program.

Wegmans first approached Cornell University in 1994, seeking the means to offer its customers IPM-grown sweet corn. The retailer was examining new marketing strategies and wanted to test the marketplace with an IPM product. As a first step, IPM extension educators from Cornell trained the retailer’s fresh-market sweet-corn growers in IPM methods. The training was funded and co-facilitated by PRO-TECH, a Cornell Cooperative Extension program whose mission was to enhance the sustainability and competitiveness of New York’s fruit, vegetable, and ornamental horticulture industries through education programs. IPM-grown sweet corn—with signs promoting it as such—was sold at one store in 1995. It went over so well with customers that Wegmans decided to expand the IPM connection in two ways: 1) sell fresh-market IPM corn at all of its Rochester-area stores and 2) sell canned and frozen vegetables with IPM labels at all of its stores.

When Wegmans presented this second idea to Comstock Michigan Fruit, its supplier of processed fruits and vegetables, the grower-owned company was able to accommodate Wegmans immediately. Comstock selected 10 growers who already practiced IPM to grow processing vegetables for the Wegmans IPM label. Comstock Michigan Fruit, no stranger to IPM, adopted IPM practices on all of its sweet corn acreage in 1991, with a resultant 50 percent drop in insecticide use. Its long-standing efforts to adopt IPM were recognized in 1996 with an "Excellence in IPM Award."

A licensing agreement was signed between Wegmans and the Cornell Research Foundation to use the Cornell IPM Logo on Wegmans products. The agreement stipulates how the logo should be used on the product, how the Comstock growers should be educated and trained, and what documentation and monitoring processes Comstock should use. Once this agreement to market the IPM vegetables was reached, representatives from Wegmans, Comstock, and Cornell began working with growers on the details of carrying the plan to fruition. One crucial endeavor was the formulation of "IPM Elements" for processed beets,

cabbage for sauerkraut, carrots, peas, snap beans, and sweet corn. These IPM Elements are lists of agreed-upon IPM practices to be followed in producing crops that are to be sold under an IPM label.

Since many of the growers enlisted for this project had already adopted many IPM methods, they did not need to make major adjustments to comply with the IPM Elements. The biggest challenge was to document their pest management practices more extensively than in the past. Growers were assigned points for adopting various practices on the lists of IPM Elements, and a specific point total was determined as the required number to qualify a crop as IPM grown. Nearly 3,500 acres of fresh and processing vegetables were grown for IPM labeling in 1996. All of the growers involved in this project exceeded the required point level by about 15 percent. Wegmans and Comstock contract a private consultant in New York State to inspect grower records and determine whether or not the criteria have been met.

This project is aimed at encouraging environmental stewardship. Wegmans is asking its agricultural producers to show progress in stewardship over a period of three years. The results of the point total above show that such progress is taking place and will likely continue. The project also seeks to measure the environmental impact of the pesticide used on each crop. Data collected in this regard were also very favorable in 1996. At least one grower did not use any herbicides, fungicides, or insecticides on one of his crops.

As for the economics involved, IPM-labeled products are sold in the stores for the same price as other Wegmans-brand vegetables. Wegmans does not have its own competing brands, but other brands of similar canned products are offered on the shelves.

Goals of the program are three-fold: encourage growers to adopt IPM practices, use marketing in support of this environmentally friendly farming, use a label to aid consumer education and identification of products that comply with the program. As part of the program, to keep all growers moving along the "IPM Continuum" a grower must achieve an 80% "score" or better on the elements within 3 years or the grower faces losing Wegmans as a buyer.

In terms of marketing, Wegmans recognizes that this IPM label fits into their larger ongoing marketing theme – "Foods you feel good about." The partnership markets the environmental benefits of IPM. There is a weekly newspaper insert that promotes not only the particular products but also the IPM concept in general. For example:

Consumer education about agriculture and the food system is achieved through the use of labels and other marketing materials. The consumer education program within the store and over various media channels includes brochures, short in-store videos, and employee training. This approach provides consumer education about IPM. The whole kernel corn label, for instance, states:

The success of this effort has been due to the willingness of growers, the food processing and marketing industries, and Cornell to learn from one another and to venture into unknown territory. Wegmans views the IPM vegetables as "value-added" products. It had devoted significant advertising resources to the new products. In-store videotapes, brochures, television and radio spots, and an advertisement in its weekly newspaper insert have all been aimed at educating the public about IPM and about the environmental stewardship of New York farmers.

Strong support for IPM was evident in a follow-up survey of 302 of Wegman’s customers after we sold the first IPM-grown sweet corn. While the process of educating customers about IPM will take some time, it’s a wonderful opportunity to tell a very positive story about production agriculture.

Stories like the following one, shared with IPM staff by Dr. Christine Gruhn, biology professor at Nazareth College in Rochester, are proof positive that knowledge about IPM is spreading as a result of the Wegmans initiative. Gruhn typically asks the members of her freshman biology class whether any of them know what IPM means. The answer is usually a unanimous "no." In the fall of 1996, though, 8 out of 20 students said "yes." When she asked them to name the source of their knowledge, all 8 named Wegmans.

For more information see the New York State Web Site on IPM Labels:
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ipmnet/ny/program_news/labeff.html

We are all here to consider eco labeling. That is, "green messages," ways to tell a story of earth friendly farming, which ultimately can convince consumers that we are really pretty good guys, after all.

But we are also all competitors and, as such, we feel compelled to tell our stories a little better than our competitors. In the recent movie, Amistad, great advice is given by former President John Quincy Adams to a weary young lawyer who is trying to secure the freedom of some recently captured slaves. He said, "The one with the best story wins, remember that." Ultimately, President Adams speaks on behalf of the beleaguered defendants and wins the case. When asked by the newly freed men where he had gotten such great words to convince the judges to release them, he responded, "Why, from you." The winning story is not one he makes up, it is based on the defendants own history. Their great story of struggle and hardship resonated with America’s early struggles for independence. The similarity was unmistakable and undeniable, and was enough to sway the vote. The best story is the one based on truth and the one that is completely personal. Truth has always out-sold fiction. Check any library or bookstore.

The temptation to embellish, to paint the picture rosier than it really is, to try to tell the consumer just what he wants to hear, to try to create images which may not be fully based on reality but are great "sellers," will always be with us. As we all begin to develop ideas for green labels, we hope ours will be believable and will be effective, perhaps even get us a premium, or, at least, market preference. But if we try to outdo each other’s eco-stories, we turn protecting the environment into a weapon. Who is the most earth friendly? Who is doing the most to protect the fragile ecology? Who are the best defenders of nature? Who ever can tell the best, most simple, and believable eco-story will win well, that’s what we’ve been told.

But this is like husbands competing against each other to see who is the most faithful to his wife. There are not different levels of faithfulness. You are faithful, or you are not. When it comes to the environment, we are faithful to protecting her, or we aren’t. Faithfulness is not something to compete about. If another husband chooses to be faithful to his wife, should I be jealous? I should celebrate if I care anything about families and my neighbor. There are good reasons why the art of farming is called husbandry.

We must all celebrate each neighbor’s move to faithfulness, to ecologically-sound farming. Ultimately, we will all become faithful to protecting the environment or face being divorced from her, which will mean a loss of any hope of any future. There are no other partners.

While our farming approaches differ, these differences will narrow as we all come to a better understanding of what good farming really means. What then will differentiate us in the marketplace? Earth-friendly farming is no longer a unique story. It must, and will soon become everyone’s story. But this does not mean we do not have unique stories to tell. There are regions, special micro-climates, small enclaves, ethnic traditions, that set us all apart. Americans love variety. The world loves variety. Chinese food tonight, Mexican tomorrow. There is room for all of us. The world wants all of our wonderful stories.

I started the California Clean Grower’s Association in 1987 not to come up with an eco label, but because of a son with leukemia and well water tainted with DBCP nematicide. My motivation was bewilderment, frustration, and fear. My family chose not to leave, but to try to make farming better, cleaner. Since then, with the help of good neighbors and many good folk across this country, American agriculture is changing, for the good. While I celebrate this, I now have come to believe there is more to sustainable farming than just ecologically-sound practices.

More and more I have seen the small family farms in our area wither and die. Some are bought out by developers, some by corporate farming interests. My family and I have come within an inch of losing our farm at least three times in the past ten years, due to weather and bad markets. Some might say, "Who needs all those families on the land anyway? Isn’t the important thing clean farming?" Clean farming is important, but I believe that land ethics are best handed down through families, not corporations. So, California Clean has taken on an additional cause, the revitalization of small family farms. To do this we have reminded farmers it is no inherent virtue to be small. They must offer something unique if they are to be valued and continue in business. Large growers can often offer cheaper prices because of efficiency. They may offer consistency and variety, other things as well, and so they are valued. What can small growers offer? How about a wonderful array of varieties, perhaps older varieties grown with methods not suited to big agriculture.

The California Clean growers try to provide the tastes America has almost forgotten. Large, fully tree-ripened peaches, grown in the time honored tradition of our parents, whose great goal was to produce the best peaches that any farmer could grow, not to have a monopoly on good peaches. Just great peaches that could occasionally win the blue ribbon at the Fresno County Fair. The thought of beating out the neighbor, grabbing more and more of the market, and ultimately being in a position to buy him out, never entered the mind. After all, life without loving neighbors would be just plain lonely.

Let’s all be clean growers. Let’s all farm with our children in mind. And when we think marketing, let’s focus on what makes us truly unique. Large and small, we all have wonderful foods to offer each other. I believe the greater variety in the marketplace, the more people will come. We do not need to beat to win.

Editors Note: California Clean Growers (CCG) support farmers who abide by the following guidelines: 1) use of ecologically sound practices, 2) strengthening farm soils through programs of natural enrichment, 3) arrangement of farms in ways that encourage wildlife to take up refuge, 4) encouragement of natural biological pest controls, 5) creation of good working conditions for workers, 6) a commitment to deliver produce with superior taste and nutrition, and 7) good communication with consumers (California Clean Growers Marketing Group). The program is based on farm practices that protect human health, the environment, and family farmers.

CCG emphasize farmer participation in creating and maintaining the objectives set forth as well as participation in the organization's development. Members have developed general growing practices that cover all crops and help farmers achieve the guidelines. These include growing varieties of produce which have a history of natural disease and pest resistance, using crop rotations, staying as diversified as possible in crops and habitat, continually striving to build and balance soil, using cover crops whenever possible, and only intervening with a farm's natural ecology when necessary. They generally prohibit any material or practice that is known to be hazardous to public health including those that are identified as hazardous by state and federal agencies and other scientific bodies because they cause chronic health effects.

The Central Coast Vineyard Team (CCVT) has described a region-specific environmentally enhancing integrated vineyard management system. This program, called the Positive Points System (PPS), is the first attempt to develop what could serve as the basis for an eco label in California winegrapes.

The Central Coast Vineyard Team, a non-profit organization created in 1996, is made up of 16 growers, vineyard managers, winery personnel, and technical advisors from the University of California. Team grower members farm approximately 17,000 acres within the three counties of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara. The Team’s mission statement is to:

The team hopes to further its mission through the following objectives:

• Develop a Central Coast biologically integrated vineyard management system;
• Promote adoption of reduced risk practices described in the PPS;
• Share information with other growers within the region and outside;
• Collaborate with environmentalists and government agencies;
• Improve the grower-consumer relationship based on science and honesty.

The PPS was developed by the team members based on their own experience as successful vineyard managers along with guidance from technical team members. The PPS as a points system is loosely based on the Massachusetts Integrated Pest Management (IPM) labeling program called Partners with Nature (Autio et al, 1992) and the Swiss Integrated Production System (Boller, 1990). The PPS can be used to describe and then measure grower environmental enhancement by scoring farming practices in the following categories; pest management, soil management, viticulture, water management, wine quality, and continuing education.

Thirty growers have participated in the initial survey to evaluate the PPS effectiveness in identifying reduced risk farm management practices and farming systems. Based on the interviews and scores, the PPS was able to differentiate vineyard blocks that used a fully integrated environmental enhancement program from those that only used a few pest management techniques. It was also able to differentiate newer vineyards that incorporate environmentally friendly management strategies in their design from older vineyards that were created prior to the new practices being developed and extensively adopted. The PPS was published in May 1998 in the trade journal Practical Winery & Vineyard. While higher scores indicate more progress towards environmental enhancement, an improved score from one year to the next is more desirable. An improved score indicates that a grower was able to include more sustainable techniques for that year. Comparison of total scores is not as valuable as demonstrating an improvement from year to year.

• Complete three years of evaluating ten volunteer winegrape growers from each of the three counties for a total of 30 growers over a three-year period
• Work toward having 75 percent of the regional growers use the PPS
• Evaluate the impact of the PPS on pesticide use
• Share experience with legislators, regulators, environmentalists, and the press
• Recognize top growers

The PPS outlines an environmentally-sound integrated grape farming system. It can be used as an educational tool for growers to measure potential changes in the environmental impact of their farming practices over time. And, it can be used as the basis for an eco labeling program.

Autio, W.R. and W.J. Bramlage, 1992. Fruit Notes, 1992 Volume 57, Number 4, Fall Issue, Special IPM Certification Issue for the Partners with Nature Program, University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service.

Boller, E.F., P. Basler, and W. Koblet 1990. Integrated Production in Viticulture of Eastern Switzerland: Concepts and Organization (The Wadenswil Model), Recherche agronom. en Suisse 29:4.

Successful, sustainable grape growing is comprised of several equally important aspects. A program that integrates the best management practices relating to pests, soil, water, and viticulture will result in the production of high quality wine grapes. Encouraging growers to use sustainable farming methods, while maintaining or increasing wine quality is the primary objective of the Central Coast Vineyard Team Positive Points System protocol.

Vineyard pest management is dynamic. Growers must determine the safest and most effective practices for their particular vineyard. Integrated Pest Management includes regular monitoring of vines for pests or damage, the use of management practices that prevent pest buildups or damage, and the responsible use of control techniques. Sustainable farming methods that minimize incidence and spread of insect pests, diseases, and weeds are outlined in the protocol. Our endeavor is to reduce (or eliminate) unnecessary chemical inputs while maintaining good production and fruit quality.

Good stewardship of the land is a prerequisite to good farming as soil structure and nutrient content affect vine vigor. A healthy vine can often tolerate more pest damage and compete better with weeds than a less healthy one. Conservation of the naturally occurring beneficial soil characteristics is essential for sustainable farming. Erosion control, soil fertility monitoring, and the use of cover crops and compost contribute positively to the maintenance of good soil structure and nutrient content.

Good water management also results in healthy vines and more uniform maturation of the crop. An effective program of monitoring water quality, water use, and uniformity of an irrigation distribution system can lead to conservation of water resources while meeting vine water needs. A well-designed on-farm water management system prevents off-site water movement and non-point source pollution of surface and ground waters. The goal is to achieve the most beneficial and efficient use of applied irrigation water.

Sound viticultural management practices use natural conditions to promote healthy vines. Appropriate decisions regarding vine spacing, density, row orientation, trellis type, and rootstock can reduce or avoid many vineyard problems. Choosing the best V. vinifera cultivars and clonal selections for the growing area will certainly enhance resultant wine quality. Good canopy management also insures sound fruit.

Wine quality is founded in the vineyard. The grower and winemaker work together to produce a particular wine style. Harvest is the culmination of an entire year of work in the vineyard, the condition of grapes upon arrival at the winery is critical. The goal is to provide the winery with grapes in the best possible condition and possibly to surpass the winery’s expectations.

All vineyard employees are part of the team working to produce the best grapes possible. An important goal of the protocol is to promote the vineyard as a safe and desirable place to work. Continuing education is an on-going process. Vineyard and winery personnel need to learn and stay aware of the best techniques and latest developments regarding work safety, sustainable farming, quality grape growing, and quality wine production.

Public perception of grape growing is an important part of wine marketing. Educating the public about the positive aspects of the Central Coast Vineyard Team’s Positive Points System and sustainable grape growing is essential. Quality wine making is an art, and quality grape growing is a craft. The Positive Points System is designed to be used as a tool in an integrated farm management plan that guides growers toward more environmentally safe practices. At the same time the winery receives top quality fruit with great winemaking potential. The consumer is getting a quality product and enjoying the benefit of a well managed, sustainable agricultural enterprise.

Category	Points Earned	Total Points
I. Pest Management		200
II. Soil Management		200
III. Water Management		200
IV. Viticultural Management		200
V. Wine Quality		100
VI. Continuing Education		100
Total		1,000

Rate your vineyard on a per block or farming unit basis.

 

Mission Statement: The Central Coast Vineyard Team will identify and promote the most environmentally, viticulturally and economically sustainable farming methods, while maintaining or improving quality and flavor of wine grapes. The team will be a model for wine grape growers and will promote public trust of stewardship for natural resources.

OBJECTIVE: The vineyard pest management situation is dynamic. Pest outbreaks, pest resistance problems, and new sampling and monitoring techniques require that each grower determine the safest and most effective practices for his/her particular vineyard. The objective is to understand which pests can cause damage and under what conditions damage is likely to occur. An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program includes regular inspection of vines for pests or injury, use of the best crop management practices to prevent pest buildups or damage, and responsible use of control techniques that are applied only when necessary.

  Goal: To use sustainable farming methods that minimize insect buildups or damage to vines and crop, minimizing the need for pesticide treatment. If grapes can be grown without broad-spectrum insecticides, take full points for Section A. [51 pts]

B. Disease Monitoring, Management, Control

  Goal: To use sustainable farming methods that minimize incidence and spread of diseases that result in damage to vines and crop, and to work toward reducing the use of chemicals for disease control. If wine quality is maintained by a disease management program where chemical use has been reduced, take full points for Section B. [31 pts]

  C. Weed Monitoring, Management, Control

  Goal: To use sustainable farming methods that minimize weed growth that competes with vines or harbors diseases or insects. If wine quality is maintained by a vineyard floor management program where chemical weed control methods are minimized take full points for Section C. [44 pts]

D. Beneficials Recognition, Monitoring, Releases, Habitat

  Goal: To keep aware of the latest information on biological controls for grape pests and to be able to recognize the beneficial insect species in your own vineyard. If wine quality is maintained by conservation or release of beneficial insect species for pest management, take full points for Section D. [29 pts]

E. Other

II. SOIL MANAGEMENT
  OBJECTIVE: Good stewardship of the land and soil is a prerequisite to good farming. Soil structure and nutrient content affect vine health and vigor. A healthy vine can often tolerate more pest damage or better compete with weeds than a less healthy one. The objective is to conserve or improve naturally occurring beneficial soil characteristics and use the best management practices to correct any deficiencies in soil tilth, water, or nutrient status.

A. Soil Monitoring, Plant Analysis
  Goal: To conserve and maintain the naturally occurring chemistry and fertility of the soil, which promotes vine growth, and to detect potential imbalances (e.g., toxicities, deficiencies) that may deter vine growth. If you have begun or are maintaining a soil and plant monitoring program that includes all components take full points for Section A. [36 pts]

B. Pre-Planting Soil Structure Modification
  Goal: To correct soil-related impediments to vine health and growth prior to planting. If soil-related problems were detected and corrected before planting, take full points for Section B. [25 pts]

C. Post-Planting Soil Structure Modification
  Goal: To correct soil-related impediments to vine health and growth and to reduce farming practices that contribute to deterioration of soil structure. If you have a program to promote and maintain good soil structure in your vineyard, take full points for Section C. [22 pts]

D. Erosion Control
  Goal: To conserve soil stability and eliminate erosion and offsite movement of sediments. If you have eliminated erosion, take full points for Section D. [34 pts]

E. Cover Crop
  Goal: To preserve or improve soil structure and soil nutrient content, conserve soil stability and eliminate erosion, reduce dust-related programs, and provide habitat for beneficial insects with the effective use of a cover crop. If you plant and maintain cover crops, take full points for Section E. [28 pts]

F. Amendments
  Goal: To promote and maintain high levels of biodiversity in soil microbiology or correct deficiencies which may affect soil chemistry, water holding capacity or nutrient holding capacity. If you have improved soil organic matter levels and maintained a balanced soil chemical status, take full points for Section F. [27 pts]

G. Composting
  Goal: To divert agricultural organic or municipal green wastes into vineyard soil in order to benefit soil tilth and health. If compost is produced for your vineyard, take full points for Section G. [28 pts]

III. WATER MANAGEMENT
    OBJECTIVE: Good water management results in healthy vines, enhances resistance to pests, improves weed control, promotes uniform maturation of the crop, and is a responsible use of a natural resource. An effective program in monitoring water quality and distribution uniformity can lead to the conservation of water resources and quality while meeting vine water needs. A well-designed and maintained on-farm water management system prevents off-site water movement and non-point source pollution of surface and ground waters.

A. Monitoring Water Quality
  Goal: To monitor water quality, water resources available for irrigation, and energy efficiencies of the water application system. If you keep records of water quality and well and pump performance tests, take full points for Section A. [28 pts]

B. Offsite Water Movement
  Goal: To prevent off-site movement of rain, irrigation water, and sediments, and to eliminate non-point source pollution of surface waters. If you have eliminated off-site movement of water, take full points for Section B. [28 pts]

C. Irrigation System Efficiency and Maintenance
  Goal: To use available water resources in the most efficient and uniform manner possible. If your irrigation system is operating at peak efficiency, take full points for Section C. [56 pts]

D. Irrigation Scheduling and Amount
  Goal: To achieve the most beneficial use of applied irrigation water while conserving water resources and eliminating non-point source pollution of groundwater. If you use and record the water budget method in your vineyard, take full points for Section D. [64 pts]

E. Fertilization / Fertigation
  Goal: To apply required fertilizers in the most efficient manner and eliminate non-point source pollution of groundwater. If you have optimal fertilizer use efficiency through the use of fertigation, take full points for Section E. [24 pts]

IV. VITICULTURAL MANAGEMENT
  OBJECTIVE: Decisions made prior to vineyard establishment may result in production practices which are environmentally safe and sustainable. Many vineyard insect and disease problems can be reduced or avoided by making informed choices prior to planting.

A. Spacing, Orientation, Density
  Goal: To establish a vineyard that uses natural conditions to promote a healthy microclimate within the canopy and conservation of soil and water resources within a block. If you have matched the vineyard design to the site conditions, take full points for Section A. [50 pts]

B. Rootstock, Scion, Clonal Selection
  Goal: To select a rootstock and scion that will eliminate the need for chemical or cultural intervention to correct a problem with vine vigor, a pest problem, or an environmental condition that would impact either vine health or wine quality. If you have matched the vineyard site to rootstock/scion combinations, take full points for Section B. [50 pts]

C. Trellising
  Goal: To use the optimum trellis design to balance vine capacity and wine quality. If you have matched the trellis system to local conditions and rootstock/scion vigor, take full points for Section C. [50 pts]

D. Canopy Management
  Goal: To monitor canopy microclimate to insure sound and quality fruit. To take corrective actions to improve canopy microclimate when existing conditions may adversely affect vine health or wine quality. If you have improved the wine quality of your fruit through effective canopy management techniques, take full points for Section D. [50 pts]

Viticultural Management Points: (Possible 200) Score _________

V. WINE QUALITY
  OBJECTIVE: The very best wine quality attainable is the ultimate achievement. Harvest is the culmination of an entire year of work in the vineyard, and the condition of fruit upon arrival at the winery is a critical part of the process.

A. Meet Contract Parameters
  Goal: To provide the winery with grapes in the best possible condition. If your fruit meets or surpasses the winery’s expectations, take full points for Section A. [50 pts]

When your fruit is delivered to the winery:

B. Taste "Your Wine"
  Goal: To understand that wine quality begins in the vineyard. The grower and winemaker work together to produce a particular wine style. If you and the winemaker work as a team in producing the best wines possible from your vineyard, take full points for Section B. [50 pts]

Wine Quality Points: (Possible 100) Score __________

VI. CONTINUING EDUCATION
  OBJECTIVE: To learn and to stay aware of the latest developments in one’s field is crucial to career and personal growth. One must constantly strive to keep informed and remain current. Techniques in grapegrowing are changing and improving; therefore, the grapegrower and winemaker must also change and improve.

A. Grower
  Goal: To remain abreast of the latest developments by reading journals, listening to peers, and participating in meetings. If you are fluent with the latest in grapegrowing and pest management techniques, take full points for Section A. [33 pts]

B. Employees
  Goal: To promote the vineyard as a safe and desirable place to work. The grower must be concerned about the health, safety and continuing education of employees. The employee is an integral part of the team that successfully works together to produce quality winegrapes and quality wines. If you are in full compliance, have incentive programs in-place that promote education and reward employee safety, take full points for Section B. [35 pts]

C. Winemaker (Customer)
  Goal: Public perception of grape growing is an important part of marketing wine. Promotion of the positive aspects of winegrape growing is essential. If you are working to improve the image of grape growers and their craft, take full points for Section C. [32 pts]

EPA Category I materials (signal words Poison / Danger) and Restricted materials currently registered for use on wine grapes:

• Insecticides

• Soil Applied

• Herbicides

• Baits

Brady, Nyle C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils, 8th edition. Macmillan Publishing     Co., Inc. New York.

Chaney, D.E., Drinkwater, L.E., and Pettygrove, G.S. Organic Soil Amendments and Fertilizers, UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, UC DANR Publication #21505.

Pearson R.C. and A.C. Goheen, editors. 1988. Compendium of Grape Diseases, APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Flint, M.L. 1990. Pests of the Garden and Small Farm, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, UC DANR Publication 3332.

Webb, A.D. (editor) 1980. Grape and Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings, University of California, Davis, CA, 1980.

Flaherty D.A. et al. editors. 1992. Grape Pest Management, 2nd edition. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, (UC DANR) Oakland, CA. Publication #3343.

Hausenbuiller, R.L. 1978. Soil Science Principles and Practices, 2nd edition. Wm. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

Israelson, O.W. and Hansen, V.E. 1962. Irrigation Principles and Practices, Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons.

United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service and the University of California Experiment Station, 1978. Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, California Soil Survey.

Smart, R.E. and M.D. Robinson, 1991. Sunlight into Wine: A Handbook for Winegrape Canopy Management, Winetitles, Underdale, South Australia.

Kliewer, W.M. (editor) 1978. Symposium on Grapevine Canopy and Vigor Management. Acta Horticulturae: 206.

Van Horn, M., Compost Production and Utilization: A Growers’ Guide, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, UC DANR Publication #21514.

Kliewer,W.M. 1988. Vineyard Establishment and Development, Syllabus for VEN 216. Viticulture and Enology Dept. University of California, Davis, CA.

Winkler, A.J. et al. 1974. General Viticulture, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Participant Work Sessions at the Eco Labeling for Winegrapes Conference

    The keynote talks, plenary sessions and panel presentations provided information on various aspects of eco labels for California wingrapes, from survey results of winery interest in eco labels to descriptions of successful programs under development or currently in-use throughout the country. The participant work sessions were designed to assist winegrape growers and wineries, as well as regulators and educators, to identify both the benefits and challenges to developing and implementing eco labels for winegrapes, to assess the level of interest in pursuing eco labeling within the winegrape industry in California, and to identify the next steps after the conference ended. The work sessions were crafted so participants could voice their concerns about eco labels, start outlining critical elements of a successful program, and finally have an opportunity to form on-going connections with others interested in pursuing eco labeling in winegrapes. Because of the importance of regional and appellation-based grape production and pest management issues, the participants for each work session were grouped by region. The five regional groups included: Napa Valley, Sonoma County, Lodi-Woodbridge, Southern San Joaquin Valley, and the Central Coast and Foothills.

Region: Napa Valley
Facilitator: Dave Chaney, UC SAREP
Recorder: Patrick Troy, UC Davis
Participants: 3 winery personnel, 2 government personnel, 2 non-profit members, 2 consultants, 2 educators, 1 grower

• Greater than 75 percent industry buy-in (growers and processors)
• Similar organic label success criteria
• Alternative label should be clearly distinguished from organic
• Must be regional and specific
• Provide education to the public as consumers
• Maintain consistent standard in the industry
• Must be verifiable to the public
• Certifiable by a third party (independent, consistent, singular governing body)
• Governing board must have a wide range of members
• Label should have health and ecological focus (waste disposal, production, grapes-product)
• Standardized criteria for the industry
• Demonstrable ability in "proving" environmental improvement
• Integrate a scoring system (yes/no, number ranking) or similar grading on label
• Allow for dynamic change (flexibility for variable problems beyond agricultural control pest infestations)
• Support other industry and volunteer efforts to change-providing incentives to producers "free of baggage"
• Label does not = IPM
• Financially self-supporting
• Consumer recognized/accepted provides a premium for the product (tax deduction or financial incentive)

2. Benefits and challenges to instituting an eco label.
Vineyard Management Practices
Benefits

• Incentives to growers
• Increased use of IPM, other practices
• Environmental issues addressed, environmental stewardship (2)
• Increased investment (and conservation) of land resources
• Grower/producer cooperation
• Reduced toxic residue
• Promotion of environmental awareness
• Product premium

Challenges

• Organic standards vs. amorphous standards

Winery Practices

Benefits

• Incentives
• Public perception
• Less work load

• Defining eco-indicators properly

Marketing
Benefits

• Financial impact
• Support for industry
• Consumer choice
• Education opportunity
• Relevance to label

• "Good" vs. "bad" image
• Educate public about quality will take effort

Certification
Benefits

• Certifiable (by whom?)
• Standardized-enforced
• Industry agreement
• Monitoring for compliance
• Defined issues
• Flexibility

Challenges

• "Meaninglessness"

3. Summary of the discussion of benefits and challenges.
The group felt that a broad definition of what an eco label covers is needed and that any program developed should be inclusive. There needs to be a comprehensive and meaningful certification program that should be product-specific and life-cycle oriented. It should include full and frequent documentation. To be successful a program should provide incentives to growers and educate the public on "how food is grown." More specifically growers must take advantage of the educational opportunities and go beyond competition between each other.

In terms of labels, the organic label definitely provided an opportunity for the public to understand organic. Human health claims should take on much broader implications than "just eating" but also include ecological benefits. Should the label be ecological, sustainable, and/or health focused? Should it focus on human health protection, the healthiness of the product, or farm-based environmental and human health protection? Outline a specific "definition" similar to "organic" using product knowledge, farmer knowledge, where incentives may encourage the inclusion of more farmers.

A simple assessment is needed to test for (pesticide) claims that are both broad and specific (residue vs. ecological protection, sustainable farming, health benefits?). Need to convey a clear message of NON-USE of certain inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, citric acid, sulfur etc.). Also convey information on efficient use of energy, protection of soil from erosion, restoration of habitats. Complexities must be addressed (label should mean beyond "residue-free") which makes certification difficult to measure—may be phased into a standard for the industry over time.

Regionally specific label gives consumer recognition and consistency—to account for varying circumstances (Whose needs will be addressed by the label?) Monetary success in Napa already bonds people with common interest. Growers in the valley have "been on tours," incorporated those practices," cover cropped last year," put in owl boxes." Site specific management may reduce inputs and allow for variable responses within and between fields. Habitat protection and creek set-aside programs must be economical.

Claims must be sincere, honest, and science based (don’t mislead the public). The press will be digging to find flaws to create sensationalism and write stories. There are destructive practices out there being done by someone or someone’s neighbor! Land prices will increase; this might make growers more "quality-driven."

4. Where do you stand?

· ---------------------· ---------------------­ ---------------------· -------------------------·

• We can move from work sessions today to draft a certification program based on topics and categories from this conference.
• Must decide WHO will make the decision as a governing body—including the stakeholders with relevant opinions such as: wineries, growers, academic ("UCD should be leading this"), government, environmental interest groups, "Not UCD!", marketing/retail, certifiers.
• Provide for an accurate evaluation of existing programs.
• Need to understand how other countries’ programs work, how does eco labeling play out elsewhere?
• Actively seek funding to support effort.
• Solicit organic industry guidance and remove any possible threat to organic producers.
• Establish a system of rewards for promoting "public good" linked with a label, and punish those who "do bad."

1. Characteristics of a successful eco labeling program for winegrapes.

• It would provide a consistent message.
• It would reward growers by linking the label with the grower.
• Regionally specific concerns need to be addressed. The difficulty with this is that those who are not dealing with the same environmental issues across the country won’t know the regional issues and how best to address them as well as challenges to addressing them.
• Well-defined parameters are essential. For example, there must be a clear distinction between practices such as: IPM, low spray, sustainable, and organic.
• There needs to be a clear mechanism for assessing pesticides/urethane levels or presence in wines.
• The label will be credible and verifiable.
• Information on the label (or about the label) will be educational and not jingoistic. That is, the label will not serve to push emotional buttons or have a catchy slogan at the expense of substance.
• Labeling criteria will be flexible enough to allow for farmers to adapt management practices to suit a particular season or their site specific concerns.
• The label will include the full life cycle of the wine (vineyard, winery, retailer) and involve the full range of those who handle the product (grower, winery, distributor).
• The number of kinds of labels will be kept to a minimum.
• There will be industry-wide support for the label so as to insure its success.
• The label will be accurate so that what the consumer believes it is real.
• It must make economic sense.
• It would use information generated by the EPA or other public agencies.

2. Benefits and challenges to instituting an eco label.
Vineyard Management
Benefits

• Possible vineyard distinctions
• Reduction of inputs and increase in sustainability
• Increase environmental quality and worker safety

• Consistent supply of wine for a label.
• Allow flexibility within regions.
• Minimize economic risk
• Appropriate range of management options.
• Definitions of IPM, eco label etc.
• Need for cheap and effective "soft" materials.
• Independent PCAs.

Winery Practices
Benefits

• A label would promote a better image for the industry.

• Verification of substance behind label.
• Inability to label wine as eco.
• Compensation, compensation, compensation.

Certification
Benefits

• The label has to be credible.
• The label must allow consistent quality of wine production.
• Involving a third party may be good (or it could be bad).

• Establishing well-defined parameters as a basis for the label will be a big challenge.
• Credibility, verification, accuracy of system and creating a meaningful label will also be a huge challenge.
• Economic feasibility of labeling - both in terms of time and money and who will pay for the system.
• Standards should be broad enough, but not so broad that they become watered down and meaningless.
• How will the national organic standards legislation impact labeling?

Marketing
Benefits

• Consumers are demanding it!
• Increase consumer brand loyalty.
• Tell agriculture’s story to consumers.
• Consumer awareness of grower practices.

• Selling "non-eco" eco labels.
• Consumer backlash possible if no substance to label.
• Engage consumer-include range of consumers out there
• Danger of "coat-tail" exploitation.
• Individual brand marketing vs. industry label.
• Complex story to communicate to consumer.
• Accurate consumer education.
• How much will it cost and who pays?
• Need for winery and retail involvement.

Other
Benefits

• Improve overall environmental quality.

• The consumer knows that wine is free of serious toxins and residues.
• Consumer understanding/education.
• Dealing with the impact of the proposed federal organic rule on whole concept of eco labeling.

3. Summary of the discussion of benefits and challenges.
Participants were all very interested in the development and implementation of eco labeling for winegrapes in California. For the most part, the group seemed to share similar sentiments as they discussed both the benefits and challenges of labeling. There seemed to be considerably more participant interest in discussing concerns about labeling than there was in discussing the benefits. Participants explained that because they all chose to attend the conference, clearly they are all interested in labeling, but are concerned that it be done correctly. The group agreed on three major benefits of developing an industry-wide label: 1) positive perception and confidence of the wine industry by consumers, 2) promotes environmental quality and reduces the human and environmental risks associated with pesticide use and poor management practices, 3) allows farmers to control their own destiny. The group identified the following three areas as major challenges of eco labeling: 1) consensus and flexibility of definitions, 2) economics, 3) coordinating incentives. Each of these themes will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Benefits
Consumer perception and confidence
The group believes that consumer demand for "environmentally friendly" products is increasing. The growing market for green goods has provided an incentive for farmers to adopt alternative management practices. Because of the wide range of practices and array of terms used to describe them, consumers are not necessarily able to differentiate between management strategies, nor are growers consistent in their use of management terms. For example, a participant only half jokingly commented that while one grower may define their practice of not using chemical sprays as "spray free," another may use the same term to describe their practice of spraying with chemicals their neighbor gave them for free (free spray). Certifying growers who comply with a given set of regulations may alleviate some of the difficulty green consumers have in differentiating between one label and the next. Building consumer confidence and working within legally approved management strategies may buffer certified growers against consumer scares and changes in regulations. A participant used the Alar scare to illustrate how consistent consumer confidence may prevent growers from going out of business when an industry or particular product is targeted as "unsafe." He stated that years after the Alar issue was resolved, consumers still avoided products they perceived as unsafe. This boycott put many farmers out of business. Having a well-trusted label may buffer participating growers against such drops in consumer confidence.

Promoting environmental quality
Participants agreed that environmental quality and human health are among their major concerns. As an example of how management practices impact human health, one participant described his yearly struggle with hay-fever brought on by cotton defoliation. A pest management consultant stated that growers most often ask her to list safe products. The demand for such lists are growing. She therefore believes that market pressures will help growers over the "hump" toward larger scale adoption of safe management practices. The participants discussed how a label might help growers gain a better understanding of such practices. It might even facilitate a discussion among growers concerning management alternatives.

Controlling destiny
Assuming labeling criteria will allow growers the flexibility to decide among an appropriate range of management alternatives and that by following the criteria they are buffered from changing regulations and consumer scares, labeling might mean that growers will have a better chance of controlling their own destiny.

Challenges
Consensus and flexibility of definitions
To be effective, there needs to be a critical mass of players engaged in both the production and consumption end of labeled products to ensure a predictable supply and demand for certified wine. Because of the number and diversity of players involved in and affected by a labeling process, participants were very concerned about the difficulty in coming up with appropriate labeling criteria. Developing interagency agreements and support may be a major challenge. In trying to build a consensus among players, definitions may become quite broad. Participants stated that they want a system with high degree of integrity, yet one that allows growers an appropriate range of management alternatives. They also believe that it is important to consider how the integrity of the label might change as the system is embraced by a large number of growers and policy persons. In addition, one participant stated that if the federal government enacts the organic labeling laws as currently stated, this conference might be a moot point. The government may not allow labels which are outside of what they define as "Federal Organic."

Economics
"How much will it cost and who will pay for it?" - a question that surfaced throughout the discussion. Adopting practices because it is the right thing to do will only go so far. "The industry will not move based on the ‘good feel’ of it." "How will incentives be structured to bring growers and the rest along?" A participant noted that perhaps labeling would have the same effect as when Washington apple growers started waxing their apples. They were the leaders in the industry and received short-term financial gains. Soon other growers started waxing to receive the same returns. The question is really whether or not farmers will have financial incentives to adopt approved practices.

Coordinating incentives
Incentives are needed both for producers and consumers. Concern was expressed regarding where the incentives and needed definitions would come from. Would they come from top down or from bottom up? How can incentives be structured to ensure a steady supply and demand for labeled wine? Participants expressed their concern about the impacts of extreme seasonal variation. It is believed that if it becomes too expensive to maintain certification, growers will drop out of the program. If consumers are willing to pay a higher price for green products, perhaps growers can overcome such economic constraints. Because there are so many products and labels a consumer may choose from, it is important to provide an informative label that does not confuse consumers. This implies that it is important to educate consumers about some very complicated issues in one or two sentences. It also means that there is a need for extensive consumer education. Again, participants were very concerned about where the money would come from for such efforts.

· ---------------------· ---------------------­ ---------------------· -------------------------·

There were three dots on the interested with reservation portion of the line, one on the fence and the remaining six were in between "interested with reservation" and "very enthusiastic." The one person who was on the fence explained that his position there represented his average evaluation of labeling. That is, he has some very strong reservations, but is also very enthusiastic about the potential.

Participants agreed that the next step would be to define the parameters of eco-practices. They also agreed that it would be critical to identify possible economic incentives for those participating in eco labeling. As part of this, it would be important to conduct research on consumer interest in purchasing eco labeled products--particularly as it pertains to the amount consumers will be willing to spend on these products. A few questions were raised regarding who would steer the movement and who would set up the parameters. Monitoring the relevance of proposed federal regulations was also thought to be an important next step.

• Independence; i.e. third party certification.
• Address all aspects of the ecosystem and farm system.
• Help achieve sustainability.
• Statewide scope.
• Be clear on regional scope.
• Clear definition.
• Should be simple.
• Break down adversity and foster partnerships.
• We need eco-involvement, labeling may or may not be a part of it in the end.
• Scientific credibility is important, labeling is secondary.
• Clearly defined practices with scientific basis showing environmental protection.
• Minimal standards should not reflect status quo.
• May need to be adaptable, exclusion/inclusion may or may not be appropriate.
• Not simply prescriptive. Set goals then arrange practices per regional needs.
• Certification Program: repeatable, reflect on-farm practices and benefits. Improvements need to be documented: seldom done.
• Recognize dynamic quality of landscape and natural events, spatio-temporal variability complicates comparisons among farming systems.
• Who is being served? Local community properties vary (among communities)
• Universal point system needed.
• Certifier should be a recognized authority.
• Education of consumer important.
• Include growers in design.
• Clearly defined benefits for growers.
• Economically viable.
• Nature and people friendly.
• Avoid exaggerated expectations (e.g. via symbols).
• Evaluate standards.

2. Benefits and challenges to instituting an eco label.
Vineyard Management Practices
Benefits

• Positive contribution to ecology.
• Promotes farm stewardship and environmental protection.
• Good neighbor image.
• Incentive for growers to enhance environment.
• Improve management practices over time.
• Helps Mother Nature.
• Get growers to think about impacts of practices on the ecosystem.
• Doing the "right thing."
• Actual reduction in farming costs.
• Long-term planning promotes better IPM.
• Certification process would provide education on best management practices for growers.
• Through fewer contacts influence many growers.
• Tasting room/patio demonstrations.
• Satisfaction in saving the environment.
• Less pesticides.
• Improve public images on agricultural practices as environmentally friendly.
• Revegetation of roadsides and riparian zones.
• Wildlife habitat.
• Zones for ecological compensation.

• Difficult to quantify results.
• Vineyard practices should be allowed to evolve.
• Creating a complete management program that is simple to implement.
• Practices actually do provide an environmental benefit.
• Making sure the small and large farmer can afford to participate.
• To maintain yield and quantity.
• Whole farm plan, not just vineyard.
• Chain of custody.
• Avoiding pooling wine produced differently will provide a tracking challenge.
• Labeling challenge--promotion.
• Developing a sustainable funding strategy.
• Data doesn't exist, much work is required to determine appropriate standards and practices.
• Education a major challenge!

Certification
Benefits

• Promote/reward growers with strong environmental performance.
• Grower is involved, not government regulation from top down.
• Incentive-based collaborative effort--farmers develop a community and protect the environment.
• To get information and help from University and other experts.
• Promote safer and more natural food.
• Create new products and markets.
• Allows you to have credible program (minimizes "green wash").

• Link things farmers do that are eco-friendly with definable environmental benefits.
• Create meaningful, honest, standards.
• Funding the certification program.
• Consistent standardization of quantifiable standards that are also flexible.
• Complexity of ecosystem means it is difficult to define criteria for certification and difficult to define "eco."
• Easy methods for monitoring successes.
• Difficult to get growers to buy into certification.
• How to get objective certifying agency?
• Not overwhelming farmers.
• Education and certification needs coupling.

Marketing
Benefits

• Raising public’s level of eco-literacy.
• Educate public about agricultural issues.
• Improve relationship with vineyard/winery neighbors.
• Provide competitive advantage to growers.
• Enhance public perception of agriculture and helps sustain agriculture.
• To improve image of the wine industry as being concerned about the environment.
• Safer wine.
• Greater consumer awareness.
• Studies mentioned today indicate consumers are pro-ecology.
• Promote/reward growers with high performance standards.

• Creating consumer demand.
• Establishing an identity in the marketplace.
• Overwhelming the public with eco labels.
• Regional vs. Statewide promotion.
• Eco label as stand-alone too myopic might want a more generic program.
• If it is poorly promoted and it fails, this will generate bad public relations for concept.
• But how do you market to the majority of consumers who don’t care?
• Not proven to result in increased profits.

3. Summary of the discussion of benefits and challenges.
Challenges
The program needs to be credible and consistent, yet flexible. It will be important to figure out who will pay for certification. There must be a consistent and easily understood set of standards for growers to feel engaged with the program. Consumers need to understand the program as well and will want to see an accredited label.

Accreditation of certifiers will be important and an organization will need multi-disciplinary experience and will need multiple agency support. There will need to be scientific documentation of environmental benefits from practices. Membership in stewardship groups could be a criterion for using a label. The costs of certification will need to be kept as low as possible.

Benefits
Growers must see the benefit of the labeling program. Major benefits will be improved prices or market access for growers who participate. The environment will benefit from the stewardship.

4. Summary of "Where Do You Stand?"

· ---------------------· ---------------------­ ---------------------· -------------------------·

• Eco labeling is only part of the picture, Sonoma should stay advised as to overall eco labeling framework, then add issues that pertain to Sonoma.
• Involve Sonoma wineries; there are none at this breakout session. Wineries influence growers.
• Make sure that small growers are served.
• Generate working group with major stakeholders represented (growers, wineries, environmentalists, gatekeepers).
• Define goods, i.e. definition of eco labeling.
• Avoid reinventing the wheel: positive-point system looks adaptable (from the Central Coast).

1. Characteristics of successful eco labeling program for winegrapes.

• The program and certification criteria should be simple, focused on reduction of pesticide use, not the whole farm system.
• There should be credible certification and verification from a reputable third party.
• There should be a grower and consumer education program on the processes and goals of the program.
• It should represent a meaningful change from the status quo.
• It should be flexible enough to evolve as needed.
• It should not be government controlled.
• It should be worth the pain.
• It should be adequately funded.
• It should be robust (not all farmers can do all practices, allow for individual farm contexts).
• It should incorporate regional labeling to further identify product in the market.
• It should have statewide /nationwide applicability and recognition.
• It should be designed based on a firm knowledge of consumer wants, needs, concerns.
• It should be consumer friendly.
• It should be designed based on clearly defined goals. Environmental stewardship? Marketing?
• It should save the world.

2. Benefits and challenges of an eco labeling program.
Vineyard practices
Benefits

• Increased grower involvement with management practices.
• The potential for more profitable farming through lowered chemical inputs
• A labeling point system will allow farmers to measure their progress toward more environmentally friendly farm management.
• It will promote more sustainable farming practices by providing farmers an incentive to refine management practices.
• It will lead to a cleaner environment.

Challenges

• Possible increased economic and environmental costs. Lowering the use of some inputs may actually increase the need for others.
• It may be difficult to build a consensus on what constitutes good farm management practices.
• It may be difficult to get grower participation.

Winery Practices
Benefits

• The market incentive wineries will gain from supporting farming with less environmental impact.

• The labeling of blended wines.
• The increase costs to the winery of developing and using new labels.
• The whole issue of BATF approval.

Certification
Benefits

• The general strength of the California winegrape industry will be increased with a proactive, credible, certification program.
• A credible certification program may also lead to increased profits from increased perceived product value.

• Defining and developing a credible system of certification.
• Reaching agreement on the parameters of the system.
• There is concern about who will set the parameters for certification.
• The threat of government intervention and regulation in the process.
• What are the goals of certification and what will certification actually stand for?
• A certification process will also create extra paperwork and inspection/verification costs.
• Maintaining the integrity of the certification process over the long run.

Marketing
Benefits

• Increased sales.
• A more clearly differentiated product.
• It will more closely connect consumers to agriculture.
• Improve consumer perceptions of agriculture as environmental stewardship.

• Fraudulent product claims in the marketplace.
• Consumer confusion about the message behind the label.
• There will be a long-term need for focused consumer and retailer education.
• At the point of purchase it will be difficult to express a complex eco message in the short amount of time that consumers spend considering their purchase.
• It may decrease sales of products that do not carry the eco label.
• Quality and price will continue to outweigh any eco labeling in consumer purchase decisions.

Other
Benefits

• The development of an industry-wide environmental stewardship program.

• Potential conflicts between an eco label and an organic label.
• The possibility that there will need to be legal backing for any eco label process.

3. Summary of the discussion of benefits and challenges.

Within the Lodi/Woodbridge group there was general recognition that many of the challenges could quickly become benefits once they are successfully addressed. Some participants noted that a credible certification program will be powerful in educating, directing and marketing the California winegrape industry.

The greatest challenges in any certification program revolve around who decides the standards and what those standards might look like. One resource person suggested that the general parameters for standards may already be available through the IPM recommendations of the University of California.

While there was general consensus that an eco label would encourage more environmentally friendly farming practices, one participant pointed out that the issue is more complex than it seems. It is possible that the solution may lead to higher costs and more environmental threat than the original problem. There was a general concern that it might be difficult to get growers to adopt the farming practices encouraged by an eco label.

The greatest marketing challenge would be in educating consumers and retailers about the purposes, processes and value of an eco label. The educational investment will need to be long-term. There was discussion on the impact of an eco label on consumer perceptions about the safety of non-labeled products. One participant warned that the label could be marketed to consumers in a way that implies something is wrong with products that don't carry the label. Within the group there was disagreement on the importance of this issue.

BATF regulation of wineries was seen as a pivotal issue. Without BATF support the eco labeling becomes moot in the winegrape industry. There was limited discussion on whether BATF would be responsive to consumer and industry support for an eco label. The group decided to shelve the topic for the time being.

Perhaps the largest challenge expressed by one group member was the importance of determining the fundamental goals of an eco label program. He pointed out that other issues concerning vineyard practices, and certification standards, marketing will all be shaped by the fundamental purpose of the program. A program whose main goal is increased market share will

look different from a program whose main goal is environmental stewardship. He suggested that we may be putting the cart before the horse in not addressing these fundamental questions of program purpose.

· ---------------------· ---------------------­ ---------------------· -------------------------·

--Between disinclined and disinterested but still open (1)
--Hanging on the fence (3)
--Interested with reservations, leaning towards enthusiastic (6)
--Very enthusiastic (2 - both votes from resource persons)

• We need to develop and agree on the goals of an eco labeling program.
• We need to do some serious market/consumer research into the topics.
• We need to decide if eco labeling is the right strategy to achieve our goals.
• We need to see if BATF will support a change in bottle labeling.
• We need to explore possible conflicts between organic standards and eco label.

Once again discussion turned toward the fundamental goals of an eco labeling program. What will it stand for? Will the standards be narrowly focused on pesticide reduction or more comprehensive environmental stewardship including worker safety and soil quality protection and management? What do we really want to achieve and is eco labeling the best way to get there? Any program will require a large commitment to grower, processor, retailer and consumer education. One group member wondered if we really want to open up this "can of worms"? He questioned if an eco label will just add another layer of complexity to an existing system that is already helping the wine industry make the transition to more environmentally friendly farming practices.

1. Characteristics of a successful eco labeling program for winegrapes.

• Top-flight consumer education and marketing program.
• Use compelling symbols.
• Regional component.
• Increases adoption of certified practices.
• Flexible guidelines.
• Broad stakeholder involvement in developing standards.
• Consideration of protection of farmworkers.
• Financially beneficial for participants and self-sustaining.
• Consumer research- focus groups
• Tied to reduction of pesticide use- measurable impacts.
• Standardized certification.
• Incentives for farmers.
• Simplicity and conciseness for consumer.
• Integrated farm plan that includes human and natural resource protection.
• High scientific standards.
• Reduction of highest toxicity products.
• Validated and verifiable.
• Emphasis on purity.
• Clear and fair process for developing standards.
• Wildlife protection and enhancement.
• Pride in California-grown.
• Strong grower education.

2. Benefits and challenges to instituting an eco label.
Vineyard Management Practices
Benefits

• Reward innovation on the farm.
• Incentives for farmers.
• Reduce pesticide use.
• Recognition of advances in eco-management.
• Education and information sharing.
• More adoption of sustainable practices.

• Making it economically feasible, financially sustainable.
• Grower adoption, buy-in to the system.
• Incentive to reduce pesticide use, motivation to change.

Winery Practices
Benefits

• Capture premium prices to pay growers more.
• Increase marketshare.

• Overcoming competition to cooperate, "cowboy syndrome" within industry.

Certification
Benefits

• Positive image of certified farms.
• Grower education and awareness.

• To achieve self funding.
• Measuring environmental benefits.
• Certification creditability.
• Agreement on strictness of program.
• Clear and fair, comprehensive, flexible and feasible standards.

Marketing
Benefits

• Give consumers a choice.
• Increase market visibility of California wines.
• New marketing tool.

• Consumer confusion.
• Consumer education - broad range of issues.
• Has real meaning to label claims – verifiable.
• Making consumers think it’s true, help them understand what the label means down on the farm.
• To achieve financial benefit.
• Fee structure fair to all, small and large.
• Long term funding/self-sufficiency.

Other (Consumer, neighbor, community, environment)
Benefits

• Lessen agriculture’s adverse impacts on public health and environment.
• Environmental enhancement (human and animal).
• Awareness of nature and farming interconnection.
• Wildlife.

2. Summary of the discussion of benefits and challenges.
It was observed that the Post-Its sticky notes used to indicate topics weighed more heavily on the challenge side. However, overall benefits and challenges were more even- it was just that the benefits were more distributed among categories, while the challenges clustered in marketing and certification. It was discussed that it was difficult to put certain issues in a single category when they could probably fit into several. For example, the benefits clustered under vineyard management are very related to the benefits of the other categories. It was also commented that the issues seemed to be very production-oriented probably because of the makeup of the group. It was pointed out, however, that two wineries were represented.

There was a long discussion about competition, trying to be as inclusive as possible while overcoming fierce competition, "the cowboy syndrome" within the industry, and the doubters who view eco labeling as some sort of over-regulation and policing. It was pointed out, however, that any program would be voluntary, and would simply be an extension of what is already happening in the winegrape industry.

There was also a discussion of scale. Bill Coli pointed out that the Massachusetts program covers that whole state, but because of the many variations in pest problems across regions, they had to develop best practices for all. He said that they need to let farmers develop programs around what is pertinent to that area. He also pointed out that in the original Wegman’s program they were asking farmers to meet a minimum of 70 percent of total points. Later, it was the growers that asked that the ante be upped to 80 percent.

Regarding the competition issue, Chuck Benbrook remarked that his gut feeling is that if the labeling is attempted regionally, it will suffer from the competition issues. For him, a better goal would be seeking to develop something that would provide recognition for the state in international markets where they are not yet competing, highlighting the unique characteristics of each region. An argument against allowing a label to reflect regional appellations and differences is that it would be confusing, and that to appeal to the consumer, any program must be simple. Another participant thought that the program should be statewide with diversity incorporated below.

Another concern was that if a program is industry-wide, the more high-end wines might suffer if they carry the same label as a $7 wine. The two wineries represented said that it wasn’t a concern for them. They both offer a variety of wines and that they work to build the whole brand, not just one segment. It was commented that at some point, you just have to have the courage to do it and handle the problems as they come.

· ---------------------· ---------------------­ ---------------------· -------------------------·

This group was surprised that more people were not very enthusiastic, but decided that this response recognized the many challenges discussed above. The negative side of the fence was empty probably due to the "self-selection" of those who came to the conference.

• Continue discussion
• Who is at the table:
  • want to make progress
  • want to be inclusive (tension with above)
  • include consumers
  • address challenges
  • growers must be significant presence
  • maybe regional meeting first to brainstorm ideas
  • "from the ground up" approach
  • address those with the point of view that certification is equal to police – those with this perspective may not choose to participate.
• Topics for discussion
  • Who is certifying agency?
  • Who develops list of practices (growers and others)?
  • Who monitors?
• Process of developing programs
  • What scale (regional or statewide)?
  • Who, what, when, how funded?
• Standards static or evolving?

A big concern of this group was who should be at the table for developing any such program. Do those who currently aren’t at the table belong? It was pointed out that having negative participants at the table can be counter-productive, but if you don’t try to be inclusive that an "us and them syndrome" may develop. If one part of the industry identifies itself as "eco," then is the rest of the industry bad? Someone felt that the process would need to be as inclusive as so as to have any concerns of the naysayers answered and to attempt to bring them into the fold.

It was decided that "from the ground up" is the only way an eco labeling program will ever work. Also, that growers must make money from this or it will never work.

The final (big) question was, what will make the benefits so great that they will outweigh the challenges.

Reflections on the Day’s Explorations: What Lies Ahead

Michael Dimock, Sunflower Strategies, Santa Rosa, CA.

    First of all, I would like to thank the people who took part in putting this event together. Like many of you, I feel I have gained a lot from it. It is a very difficult task to try and sum the whole day up, but I will do the best I can. I hope that you will be gracious and not pelt me at the end of it.

    There are several realities that become apparent as you listen to the conversations and speakers. To begin with, one could become overwhelmed by the complexity of the challenge of eco labeling very quickly. Why? For starters, we are talking about a complex nation of individualists; we are talking about a large state here in California. It is interesting to note that the environment’s health is based on complexity. The more healthy the environment, the more complex it is usually. In fact, I have heard the father of holistic range management, Alan Savory, define a desert as the loss of diversity. If we are talking about a healthy eco-system and healthy farming practices, we are going to have, by definition, a complex system. Complexity is not bad, just difficult to contend with.

    Another thing I noticed about this room is that there are many high-powered minds in here, good minds, creative, intelligent people. We are all trying to wrap our heads around this concept and trying to figure out the perfect system. Well, I am going to offer the possibility that there is no perfect system. I posit that there are many systems that will work and that really what we are talking about is a process of discovery over time.

    Another thing I want to point out is that farming may be the most risky business in the Unites States today. It is becoming increasingly so with the removal of the nets that had been provided in the past by government, the safety nets so to speak. Many programs that used to be funded at higher levels are being removed so farming is becoming more risky and we are relying on the market to rationalize or solve things. Well, if I were a grape grower--I am not--but if I were, I would be pretty nervous. I saw it in the breakout rooms where people said, "Well I am not so sure I want to do this labeling thing." This caution is a rational response to potential change in a system that is already risky.

    It is good we are giving ourselves an opportunity to brainstorm together and find solutions without having to take strong positions at this point. People talked about the goals in the room. I heard many goals being described. Growers have their goals. Wineries may have other goals. Retailers have different goals, and consumers have still different goals. I suggest that we need look at all those goals and dovetail them. Let us use those overlaps or contact points for some constructive structuring of what we hope to develop. I do not know if what I have said is clear, but what I see is that there are places where a grower and a consumer have the same goal. For instance, they both want a good product. The same might be said for a retailer and a winery. Or, let us say the grower is really interested in having a more functional system over the long-term and in saving money. If that is their goal it may fit very well with the other parts of the system down the continuum of participants and activities needed to create a labeling program. In short, we need to create a matrix of goals and find the common ones, the overlaps that allow or provide points of leverage.

    I would say that almost everyone has talked to the need for education. I really think that today is a landmark day in the sense that this is a very conscious effort to educate ourselves at another level. We began today with Chuck Benbrook. That was a very informative talk. He showed the complexity of the phenomenon of eco labeling. We all came here with knowledge. I have seen many people exchanging ideas. I am engaged right now in a program in Sonoma County and I am finding out how much education the growers need, how much education the wineries need, how much education I need about what they are doing. I am working with a restoration biologist, Laurel Marcus. She too is getting educated as we go along. In a sense, there are no experts; we are all learning.

    This is a good thing because a lack of certainty allows for a more creative process. In my experience, the biggest stumbling block we face is resistance to adopting a new idea. If you are feeling real certain, you are likely to be less open to new ideas. At the same time, if your are feeling very threatened you are also resistant to change. Those in the middle might be our early adopters. Or perhaps, we simply need to provide more information to people.

    This is where the market comes in to have an influence on shaking up peoples’ thinking. Today we heard a good talk from Harvey Hartman. I think we need to remember what he said about how people refer to the market or to the consumer as "they." I heard this mistake made in several discussions in the small sessions. I agree with Harvey. There is no "they." There are many markets. In fact, I heard a talk last year in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Vance Corum was there. In fact, he ran the whole thing. It is a great conference, the North American Farmers Direct Marketing Conference. One of the keynote speakers, Dr. Lowell Catlett, who is a futurist in agriculture from New Mexico Sate University, said that there are now 800 million people in the world who do not use the cost of a product as their first purchasing criteria for food. That’s an important statement because what that means is that there are a whole lot of other complex things that can define a consumer’s sense of quality. 800 million people. I would bet that the demands of 800 million people exceed the wine supply.

    I am saying that there is a lot of room for everyone to take their own approach. There is a diversity of consumers, so there should be a diversity of approaches. Different approaches will appeal to different people. This leads back, in my mind anyway, to the idea of goals. I posit that one goal is eventually we will not need eco labels because everybody will be farming in a way that is sustainable. Thus, what we are looking at is a short-term window of opportunity.

    We are looking at a window of opportunity, and because marketing is about story telling that is okay. Marketing is about story telling. We are telling stories to appeal to a certain market segment. So, your story in Lodi-Woodbridge can be different than Napa or Sonoma’s story. They can all be different if you choose, or they could even be the same. However, I think there are dangers in trying to make them the same. My concern is because nature, as I said in the beginning, is diverse. It behooves us, as we look toward the future of these programs, to mimic nature in the sense that diversity is healthy. We are at the beginning of a new system. I think we should have many programs; we should have an attitude that allows many programs to develop.

    We should also be actively assessing these programs. We should do this again maybe in a year, maybe in two years. We should get people up here who are doing programs and start to assess these programs. Also, it is also a good idea for us all, when we can, to collaborate. I think there might be some opportunities with Salmon Safe on the West Coast.

    I think we should support those who have the ability, or the desire, or the guts to throw the dice and try something new. Let us see how they all work. Also, in marketing I think the key is interface. You know in the computer industry they talk about the interface. When you start up your machine, the first image on the screen after it is operational is the interface. Well, in marketing the interface comes down to a logo or a tag line. I think there is power in icons. People spoke to this today. Icons have power. The fish in the Salmon Safe logo is a very powerful icon for a certain segment of the population. Probably wine drinkers who are among the most educated, most sophisticated in their palate, would have a natural affinity to the story of the salmons’ struggle to survive. I was having a conversation with Harvey Hartman and he was saying that they have done some research on the salmon. "Salmon" is a total icon for a certain set of people for whom salmon represent a lifestyle. They love salmon, they love it with food and wine, and it represents health. Well, that is great. There may be another icon maybe in another commodity group, or even in wine, that appeals to another set of people. So, it is important to think about icons.

    I heard several folks say today that people understand what organic means. Well, some people do, to a certain level, and it depends on about whom you are talking. Let us say that ten percent of the people who shop and buy organic know what organic means. There is another group of people, increasing in numbers, who have an idea in their head of what organic means, but if you query them you will find out that they do not all agree on what it means. The point is that it does not really matter if they understand the same thing. They understand enough. If you talk to an organic grower about how they grow the food and all the details of what it takes to grow the food in that way, it is unrealistic to expect the consumer to know that much detail. It does not matter. What matters is they have a sense of what organic means, and that there is integrity to the system.

    And that is the last thing I really want to speak to since we are in this important beginning phase. If you study evolution, it is very interesting, most interesting to note that there are tons and tons of branches which have happened through the course of evolution in every type of species. Some make it, some fail. I think we should have that same attitude about the development of eco labels. However, I also think the piece that we need to build-out more is some way of maintaining integrity that will spawn consumer confidence. What do I mean? Imagine if someone has a system that they put out there on the market, we ought to be able to somehow have a body of knowledgeable people who could examine that system from afar to judge the merits of its ecological claims. This is a proposal, really.

    There are several organizations out there that could play this role. I think the Food Alliance is one of them. Mothers and Others or Community Alliance with Family Farmers are two others. The point is that we need a body of scientists, growers, and consumers who understand what organic and IPM agriculture are about. They might define for us a spectrum of sustainability. Then, lets suppose that California Clean would go to this organization and say, "We’d like you to look at our standards, our program and give us your assessment." That body would include somebody from California Clean’s bioregion because I think it is important to understand and to recognize every region has its own issues. I heard this concern brought up in every group I visited today. So, with a representative from that bioregion, this autonomous body does its evaluation. Then, they issue a report which states, "In our developing judgement of what it means to be sustainable, we think that you fit within the spectrum. Furthermore, we think you fit about here on that spectrum, and these are our suggestions for how you might improve in the next period. Please come back and see us in one or two years. If you agree to come back, we will be willing to defend you in whatever forum you might face." This system of third party validation would be very useful, if a consumer group, the government, or an environmental group attacked California Clean.

    So, in conclusion, let us admit we face a very complex task. Let us encourage diverse approaches in order to see what best survives. Let us analyze the myriad goals of all the players important to the marketing system. Let us remember the market is diverse; there is no "they." Let us share information, and support one another as well as we can in future forums such as this one. Finally, let us begin to think about how a system for third party validation may support the development of integrity and thus, consumer confidence, in the eco labels that emerge throughout the nation. Thank you.

Name/Contact Information
California Certified Organic Farmers
1115 Mission Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone:(408) 423-2263
Fax:(408) 423-4528
http://www.aureus.com/dates/ccof.html

Center for Agriculture & the Environment
Dutch Yardsticks
Wouter van der Weijden
P.O. Box 10015
3505 AA Ultrecht
The Netherlands
Telephone: 31302441301
Fax: 31302441318
Email: clm@gn.apc.org

Centre for Environmental Labelling (CEL) Nic Denyer
Rm. 270-2357 Main Mall
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4
Canada
Tel: (604) 822-3132
Fax: (604) 822-9106
E-mail: ecolabel@unixg.ubc.ca
http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/centre.html

Consumers Choice Council
Alexei Monsarrat
1367 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202/785/1950
Fax: 202/785/8702
E-mail: consumer@ibm.net

Global Ecolabelling Network
GEN Secretariat
Swedish Standards Institution (SIS )
Box 3295, S-103 82 Stockholm, Sweden
St Eriksgatan 115
TEL. + 46-8-610-30-00
FAX. + 46-8-34-20-10
E-mail. gen.secretariat@sis.se
http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/gen.html

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Mark Ritchie
2105 1st Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
tel: 612.870.0453
fax: 612.870.4846
email: iatp-info@iatp.org
On-line news group - LABELS: Linking Consumers and Producers
http://www.iatp.org/

International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC)
General Secretariat
Integrated Production Guidelines & Certification
INRA Station de Recherches de Zoologie et d'Apidologie,
Domaine Saint-Paul Cantarel
Route de Marseille - B.P.
9184143 MONTFAVET
FRANCE

International Standardisation Organisation (ISO)
ISO TC 207 Subcommittee
Environmental Labelling
Secretary
Mr, John Henry
Standards Australia
PO Box 1055
Strathfield, NSW 2135
Australia
Tel: 61 2 746 4700
Fax: 61 2 746 4766

Japan Environment Association (JEA)
Eco Mark Program
Shigeyuki Hashizume
Japan Environment Association
Toaranomon 1 Bldg., 1-5-8
Toranomon, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 105, Japan
ph: 03-508-2651
fax: 03-508-2570
http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/japan.html

Northeast Stewardship Alliance Project (NESA)
Communities Organized in Respect for the Environment (CORE)
Wendy Gordon, Executive Director
Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet
40 West 20th St., 9th Floor,
New York, NY 10011-4211
212-242-0010 ext. 307
FAX 212-242-0545
1-888-ECOINFO
wgordon@igc.apc.org

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Mr. Carlo Pesso
Environment Directorante
2, rue Andre PascalF - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
Tel: 33-1-4524 9870
Fax: 33-1-4524 7876

Stemilt Growers, Inc.,
Responsible Choice© Program
Nathan Reed, Director of Research and Development
Box 2779, Wenatchee, WA 98807
509-663-1451;
FAX 665-0707;
reed@ncw.net
http://bing.televar.com/stemilt

The Environmental Choice Program
Evan P. Bozowsky
Manager - Business Operations
TerraChoice Environmental Services Inc.
2197 Riverside Drive, Suite 300
Ottawa, Ontario
CANADA
K1H 7X3
Telephone: 613-247-1900 Ext. 236
Facsimile: 613-247-2228
E-mail: ebozowsky@terrachoice.ca

The Food Alliance
Deborah Kane
1829 NE Alberta, Suite #5
Portland, OR 97211
Phone: (503) 493-1066
Fax: (503) 493-1069
E-mail: tfa@teleport.com
http://www.thefoodalliance.org/

United Farm Workers
Black Eagle Label
Eva Royale
1188 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone:415/674/1884
Fax: 415/775/1302
http://www.ufw.org/

United Nations Task Force on Environmental Labelling
Ms. Laura Campbell
Rm DC2-0803
United Nations
New York, N.Y. 10017
Tel: (212) 963-8210
Fax: (212) 963-7341

Resources – Bibliography

Anderson, M, C. Hollingsworth, V. Van Zee, W. Coli, M. Rhodes, 1996. Consumer Response to Integrated Pest Management and Certification, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 60:97-106.

Barham, E. 1997. What’s in a Name? Eco-labeling in the Global Food System. Presented at the Agriculture and Human Values Society, Madison WI, June 1997.

Benbrook, Charles, Edward Groth III, Jean Halloran, Michael Hansen, and Sandra Marquardt. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads, Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York.

Benbrook, C. 1996a. "Adoption of Integrated Weed Management Systems by Corn and Soybean Farmers in 1994: An Application of a New Methodology to Measure Adoption of IPM and Pesticide Use and Reliance," Paper presented at the Weed Science Society of America Annual Meeting, February, 1996, Norfolk, Virginia. Available on the Internet at <http://www.pmac.net> Go to "Measuring IPM Adoption."

Bolkan, Hasan and William Reinert, 1994 Developing and Implementing IPM Strategies to Assist Farmers: An Industry Approach, Plant Disease, June 1994 pp. 545-550.

Boller, E.F. 1988. The ecosystem approach to plan and implement Integrated Plant Protection in viticulture in eastern Switzerland in: Proceedings of joint CEC/IOBC symposium, Plant Protection Problems and Prospects of Integrated Control in Viticulture, Lisbon, Portugal, July 6-9, 1988. p.607-617.

Cross, J.V., and E. Dickler, eds. 1994. Guidelines for Integrated Production of pome fruits in Europe: IOBC Technical Guideline III. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 17(9):1–8. International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants, Montfavet, France.ISBN92-9067-067-3.

Dawkins, K. Eco labeling: Consumers’ Right to Know or Restrictive Business Practice? Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Available from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2105 First Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404.

Food Marketing Institute (FMI). 1997. The Greening of Consumers: A Food Retailer's Guide. Washington, D.C.: Food Marketing Institute.

Galli, P. 1992. Present status of guidelines for integrated fruit production and marketing in the Federal Republic of Germany. Acta Phytopathologica Et Entomologica Hungarica. 27(1-4): 251-256.

Grant, Jennifer, James Tette, Curtis Petzoldt, and Joseph Kovach. 1990. Feasibility of an IPM-Grower Recognition Program in New York State. New York State Integrated Pest Management Program, Cornell University, November, IPM Number 3.

Grodsky, Jamie A. 1993. Certified Green: The Law and Future of Environmental Labeling, Yale Journal on Regulation 10:147-227.

Hager, A.G. 1996. "Weed Resistance to Herbicides: Understanding How Resistance Develops in Weeds is the First Line of Defense," Weed Control Manual: Volume 30. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, Ohio.

Hollingsworth, C.S. 1995. Integrated Fruit Production (IFP): A Status Report. Fruit Notes. (Fall):14–15.

Hollingsworth, Craig S., William M. Coli and Ruth V. Hazzard, Editors. Integrated Pest Management Massachusetts Guidelines: Commodity Specific Definitions, University of Mass. Extension IPM Program. Project number 94-EPMP-1-0049.

Hoppin, P. 1996. "Reducing Pesticide Reliance and Risk Through Adoption of IPM: An Environmental and Agricultural Win-Win," Presentation February 27, 1996 before the Third National IPM Symposium/Workshop.

International Organization for Standardization. 1995. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Guidelines. ISO/TC 207/SC5, p. 4.

Kovach J., C. Petzoldt, J. Degni, and J. Tette, 1992. A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides, Cornell University, Geneva Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 139.

Kuhre, W. Lee. 1995. ISO 14001 Certification: Environmental Management Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Kuhre, W. Lee. 1997. ISO 14020s: Environmental Labeling-Marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lefferts, Lisa Y.1996. Green Food Labels: Emerging Opportunities for Environmental Awareness and Market Development. New York: Mothers & Others. February, 1996.

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Cooperative Agriculture for the Environment, Washington, DC, undated.

Niederholzer, F.J.A., Seavert, C., and H.Riedl. 1996. Demonstration and implementation of integrated fruit production (IFP) on pears in Northern Oregon: introduction. International Symposium on Pear Growing, Talca, Chile. Proceedings of the Oregon Horticultural Society.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1995. Report on Trade and Environment to the OECD Council at Ministerial Level. OCDE/GD(95)63. Paris: OECD.

________. 1997. Case Study on Ecolabelling Schemes. Paris: OECD.

Poppe, Krijn J., 1992. Accounting and the Environment, in Integrated Systems in Agricultural Information. G. Schiefer, Ed., Bonn, Germany: ILB.

Reed, A.N. 1995. Responsible Choice: a systems approach to growing, packing, and marketing fruit. In: Hull Jr., J., and R. Perry. The 125th Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Horticultural Society of Michigan for the year 1995. p. 68-78.

Riha, S., L. Levitan, and J. Hutson. 1997. Environmental Impact Assessment: The Quest for a Hollistic Picture, Proceedings of the Third National IPM Symposium, USDA, ERS, Washington, D.C.

Schenk, A.M.E., A.D. Webster, and S.J. Wertheim, Eds. 1993. 2nd International Symposium on Integrated Fruit Production, Veldhoven, Netherlands, August 24-28, 1992. ISHS, International Society for Horticultural Science, Wageningen, Netherlands. p. 377. [series: Acta horticulturae. no. 347]

The National Geographic Society and The Conservation Fund, 1995. Water: Taking a New Tack on Nonpoint Water Pollution. Washington, DC.

The Hartman Group. 1996. Food and the Environment: A Consumer's Perspective. Bellevue, WA: The Hartman Group. (Summer).

The Hartman Group. 1997. The Hartman Report: Food and the Environment: A Consumer’s Perspective -- Phase II, (Winter).

Theiling, K.M., Croft, B. 1988. "Pesticide Side-Effects on Arthropod Natural Enemies: A Database Summary." Unpublished Manuscript, Oregon State University Department of Entomology.

Thrupp, Lori Ann, editor. 1996. New Partnerships for Sustainable Agriculture, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. pp. 136.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. 1991. Assessing the Environmental Consumer Market. Washington, DC. EPA21P-1003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1993a. Evaluation of Environmental Marketing Terms in the United States. Washington, DC. EPA741-R-94-003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1993b. Status Report on the Use of Environmental Labels Worldwide. Washington, DC. EPA742-R-9-93-001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1993c. The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in Environmental Labeling. Washington, DC. EPA742-R-99-003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 1994. Determinants of Effectiveness for Environmental Certification and Labeling Programs. Washington, DC. EPA742-R-94-001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, 1998. Food Production and Environmental Stewardship: Examples of How Food Companies Work with Growers, Washington, DC. EPA 231-R-98-001.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission. 1992. Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. U.S. Federal Register. Vol. 57, No. 157, August 13, 1992: pp.36363-69.

van Ravenswaay, Eileen O. 1996. Emerging Demands on Our Food and Agricultural System: Developments in Ecolabeling, East Lansing, MI: Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper No. 96-88 (September 20, 1996).

Vandeman, A., Fernanedez-Cornejo, J., Jans, S. and B.H. Lin. 1994. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 707, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 1995. Trade, Environment and Development: Aspects of Establishing and Operating Eco-Labelling Programmes. TD/B/WG.6/5, March 28. Geneva: UNCTAD.

________. 1994. Eco-labelling and Market Opportunities for Environmentally Friendly Products. TD/B/WG.6/2, October 6. Geneva: UNCTAD.

________. 1993. Ecolabelling and International Trade. UNCTAD/OSG/DP/70, GE. 93-53875, October. Authored by Veena Jha, René Vossenaar, Simonetta Zarrilli. Geneva: UNCTAD.

World Trade Organization. 1997. Eco-Labelling: Overview of Current Work in Various International Fora. Note by the Secretariat, Committee on Trade and Environment. WT/CTE/W/45, 15 April. (Available via internet at http://www.wto.org, World Trade).

Dr. Charles Benbrook
Dr. Benbrook is the sole proprietor of Benbrook Consultant Services in Sandpoint, ID, established in 1990. His company provides services for domestic and international clients in, among other things, policy and economic analyses, synthesis of scientific information from several fields, strategic assessment of government science and technology development programs, and monitoring of legislative and Executive Branch policy and budgetary processes. His clients include consumer and environmental groups, international organizations, trade associations, academic research institutions, and government agencies. From 1984 to 1990 he was Executive Director of the Board of Agriculture, one of eight major units of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. From 1981 to 1984 he worked on the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture, Committee on Agriculture, US House of Representatives. He served as an Agriculture Policy Analyst on the Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President from 1979 - 1981. Dr. Benbrook received a Bachelor’s Degree in economics from Harvard University in 1971 and Masters and Ph.D. Degrees in Agricultural Economics from the University of Wisconsin in 1979 and 1980, respectively.

Mr. Paul Buxman
Mr. Buxman has been a farmer since 1979 on a 40 acre farm in Dinuba, California, where he grows peaches, plums, nectarines, pluots, apricots, grapes, kiwi and persimmons. In 1987 he was one of the founding members of California Clean Growers Association, which is an educational support group concerning sustainable agriculture for farmers. His experience as a farmer and with California Clean Growers Association placed him in demand with many segments of the agricultural community. For example, he is past chair of the UC Davis Pest Advisory Council, his farm has been the subject of a grant study by Kellogg Foundation and has been featured on documentaries produced by the National Geographic Society, 48 Hours, and the Canadian Public Broadcasting System. He received California EPA’s IPM Innovator Award in 1995 and has lectured at many conferences, such as The Eco Farm Conference in Nebraska, Oregon Annual Farm Advisors Conference, and the American Association of Insect Ecologists. Mr. Buxman has given a lecture tour in Australia on biological farming practices. He is also a painter of California farmscapes.

Mr. William Coli
Mr. Coli is a senior extension specialist and adjunct lecturer in the Department of Entomology, and overall coordinator of the Massachusetts Extension IPM Program. He as over 20 years experience in the field of IPM and holds a B.S. degree from Holy Cross College and an M.S. degree in plant science from the University of Massachusetts. He has published numerous papers and given talks on IPM-related research and education, regionally, nationally, and internationally. His principal professional interests are in studying the behavioral ecology of arthropods pests and their natural enemies, in developing effective pest monitoring devices, and in biologically-intensive pest management systems. Mr. Coli’s current research program is focused on understanding the role of naturally occurring plant defensive compounds against key pests.

Mr. Michael Dimock
Mr. Dimock is the principal in Sunflower Strategies, the nation’s only agricultural marketing firm specializing in the expansion of high value agriculture through environmental values marketing, regional or mystique marketing, and agricultural tourism. He has over 15 years marketing and communications experience and is dedicated to the maintenance, enhancement, and promotion of rural regional identities; and the elimination of farm anonymity from the food system. He is committed to the development of sustainable agricultural systems, rooted in the reconnection of urban and rural people and the introduction of ecological accountability for consumers, farmers, processors, shippers, and green marketing programs throughout northern California; and has begun adapting these models for clients across the nation. In September of 1997, Sunflower Strategies entered a strategic alliance with the Hartman Group, the nation’s leading consulting firm dedicated to environmental management issues, market research on the "green" consumer, and regulatory trends.

Mr. Harvey Hartman
Mr. Hartman is the president of The Hartman Group, which he founded in 1989. In his work developing innovative environmental strategies, he has gained a clear understanding of Americans’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. He has co-authored several major studies on environmental consumer segmentation and marketing strategies. Mr. Harman’s specialty lies in helping organizations with strategic, multi-functional integration of business process and the environment as well as developing winning solutions and opportunities for clients in the areas of marketing, communications, new product development, environmental policy, operations designs, organizational processes and strategic alliances. He has taught courses on environmental business strategy at the University of California, Irvine and the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. He has been a guest lecturer at The Harvard Business School, University of Washington, University of Rhode Island, Washington University and UCLA. Mr. Hartman holds a Bachelors of Science degree in Business from St. Louis University.

Mr. Daniel Kent
Mr. Kent is marketing director for the Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) and directs the Salmon-Safe Program. Raised on a small farm in eastern Washington, Mr. Kent has an agricultural background and a long-time commitment to sustainable agriculture. He has five years of corporate marketing and product management experience in the banking industry in San Francisco. In addition to extensive experience in the development of advertising and marketing campaigns, Mr. Kent has worked in public relations and retail promotion. His graduate course work in business focused on "green" marketing and socially responsible business management. His two-and-a-half years with the Pacific Rivers Council have focused on the implementation of the Salmon-Safe program including the development of the Salmon-Safe marketing and public education campaign, grower and agricultural community outreach, and coordinating PRC’s work with retail food stores and brokers.

Mr. Eric Lauritzen
Mr. Lauritzen has served as a Sonoma County Agricultural Commissioner since his appointment in 1989. He currently serves, and is responsible for, three regulatory divisions and two advisory boards: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, Weights and Measures, and Animal Regulations. He believes that the future success of agriculture in Sonoma County will be, in part, the result of progressive farming practices, marketing efforts, and the consumer’s reaction to both. This is especially true of the winegrape industry. He thinks that an effective enforcement program is an essential element in providing for a fair and equitable marketplace, which can help garner public confidence. Mr. Lauritzen’s enforcement role is balanced by his non-regulatory efforts. He currently serves on the Select Sonoma County Board of Directors, a private non-profit marketing organization. He also serves on the Sotoyome Resource Conservation District Board where he is supportive of efforts to encourage and educate growers on environmentally friendly farming practices.

Mr. Mark Lipson
Mr. Lipson has farmed organic vegetables for 15 years as a member of Molino Creek Farming Collective in Davenport, California. He was the first paid staff person for California Certified Organic Farmers, and established its statewide office in 1985. He midwifed the 1990 California Organic Foods Act and serves as the chair of the state’s Organic Foods Advisory Board. He currently works part-time as the policy program coordinator for the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz and recently completed a two-year analysis of USDA research programs of pertinence to organic farming. In 1992 he received the Steward of Sustainable Agriculture Award from the Ecological Farming Conference.

Dr. Clifford P. Ohmart
Dr. Ohmart is currently Research/IPM Director for the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission. His duties involve managing the Biologically Integrated Farming System (BIFS) program which consists of an elaborate outreach program of meetings, seminars and workshops for LWWC growers and pest control advisors (PCAs), as well as an implementation program working with many individual LWWC growers and PCAs encouraging the implementation of integrated farming practices in their vineyards. He also helps guide LWWC’s research program. From 1989 to 1996 he was an IPM consultant and pest control advisor with a private company that specialized in helping growers of orchard crops implement and maintain IPM programs. From 1977 to 1989 he was a principal research scientist for the Division of Forest Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, Australia. He specialized in forest pest management in native eucalypt and exotic pine plantations. He received a forestry degree in 1972 from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, and a Ph.D. in entomology in 1976 from the University of California, Berkeley. He has authored over 35 research publications in international journals and several book chapters in his areas of specialty, and has co-authored a book on the ecology and management of Australian forest insects.

Mr. William M. Pool
Mr. Pool is Manager, Food Safety and Regulation for Wegmans Food Markets in Rochester, NY. He has been employed by Wegmans since 1970, with primary responsibility for regulatory compliance in all Wegmans retail store locations. He has a B.S. in Food Administration and a M.S. in Service Management from the Rochester Institute of Technology. He is a graduate of the Empire State Agricultural Leadership Institute (LEAD New York) and serves on the LEAD New York Board of Directors, and the advisory Council of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University. Since 1994, Mr. Pool has worked closely with Cornell University, local fresh and processing growers, and food processors to market fresh and processing vegetables grown with IPM practices. That partnership has now expanded to other land-grant universities including Pennsylvania State University, Wisconsin State University, and to growers and processors in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Mr. Craig Rous:
Mr. Rous is the manager of Robert Mondavi Winery-Woodbridge’s Statewide Pesticide Monitoring Program and has worked for the company since 1979. His duties include deciding winery policy with respect to certain chemical uses and being the lead for the winery in relations with the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. He is responsible for promoting the winery’s views and philosophy on environmental enhancement. Mr. Rous is also manager of the winery’s Statewide Grower Quality Enhancement Teams, which entails facilitating the teams, involving grower relations and winemakers, arranging for outside speakers, teaching growers about wines and organizing field trips to local and international vineyards and wineries. He is responsible for writing grant proposals and administering those that they receive. Prior to this position, Mr. Rous was research manager from 1989-1996, creating research direction and policy for the winery and led University and industry groups in helping to improve wine flavors and quality. His initial position with the company was research enologist and was responsible for designing and carrying out enology and viticulture trials. Mr. Rous has a B.S. in Animal science and a M.S. in genetics from the University of California, Davis. Mr. Rous is a graduate of the California Agriculture Leadership Program and is an Active member of the American Society of Enology and Viticulture.

Dr. Janet C. Broome
Dr. Broome is an analyst in ecologically based pest management with the University of California’s statewide Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP). She is the coordinator of the Biologically Integrated Farming System (BIFS) competitive grants program administered by UC SAREP to support demonstration projects of agricultural chemical risk/use reduction as well as natural resource conservation. She is a member of the Central Coast Natural Vineyard Team, a tri-county community-based group of grape growers, vineyard managers, wineries and extension personnel committed to "identifying the most environmentally safe, viticulturally effective, and economically sustainable farming methods." She received her doctorate in plant pathology at UC Davis and is currently developing the plant disease model database for PestCast, a statewide weather-monitoring and disease forecasting network. Dr. Broome serves as an advisor to several non-profit corporations dedicated to improving the environmental, social, and economic performance of agriculture.

Ms. Alisa Greene:
Ms. Greene is the regional agriculture initiative program manager for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in San Francisco. She leads an effort to promote sustainable agriculture in the Western Region where US EPA is working with farmers and scientists to incorporate whole systems farming techniques into agricultural practices in order to reduce risk to human health and the environment and save the farmers money. She has worked for the US EPA for over 10 years in a variety of environmental programs. Prior to her current position, she managed polluted run-off programs, wetlands planning, and watershed projects within the Water Management Division. Before these activities, she managed the clean-up of toxic waste sites for the Hazardous Waste Division. She graduated with B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engineering, with an environmental planning emphasis, from Stanford University.

Ms. Angela Moskow:
Ms. Moskow specializes in the areas of natural resources and agriculture. She focuses on program management; educational outreach; and institutional advancement through grant-writing, individual donor solicitation, and events planning. She works at the University of California Small Farm Center, in addition to working as a consultant. Ms. Moskow directed an outreach team that conducted consumer education and advocacy throughout California. She also worked on truth in labeling and truth in advertising projects. Ms. Moskow serves on the Board of Directors of International House-Davis, an organization that promotes international understanding, cultural exchange, and volunteerism. She is active in the organization's Development Committee. Ms. Moskow earned a Bachelor’s degree in philosophy and environmental studies from Oberlin College, and a Master of Science degree in international agricultural development from the University of California, Davis.

Ms. Robin Kozloff:
Ms. Kozloff has been involved with agricultural program research and education, both in the U.S. and abroad, since 1990. Her primary interest is in working with agricultural producers to integrate sustainable technologies with conventional methods in practical, productive ways. Her interest in current problems facing agriculture has led her to the University of California Cooperative Extension, to help develop tools to educate and mobilize the public such as the program "Losing Ground: What Should We do About California’s Disappearing Rural Land?" Ms. Kozloff has presented this "issue forum," as a method of encouraging public involvement, to communities throughout California. A trained facilitator and social scientist, she is also an independent consultant in public participation strategies, educational outreach, and agricultural extension research. She has recently provided moderator training for environmental issues forums, strategic planning for extension services, and research in agricultural pest management practices. Ms. Kozloff received her undergraduate degree in anthropology from Washington University and her Master’s in international agricultural development from U.C. Davis.

Dr. Clifford P. Ohmart: (see Biographies for Speakers)

Ms. Karen Ross:
Ms. Ross has been president of the California Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG) since June 15, 1996. CAWG was founded in 1974 to represent the interests and concerns of the state’s wine and concentrate grape growers. She came to CAWG from the Agricultural Council of California where she was vice president of Government Affairs for seven years. Previously, she served as the government relations director for the Nebraska Rural Electric Association and on the staff of the late United States Senator Ed Zorinksy (Nebraska). In 1988 she directed the field operations of the successful campaign for U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey (Nebraska). Ms. Ross was raised on a family farm in western Nebraska where her dad and one of her brothers raised wheat and other grain crops, sunflowers, and cattle. She is a graduate of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the Nebraska Agricultural Leadership Program, and the Graduate Institute of Cooperative Leadership.

Mr. Craig Rous: (see Biographies for Speakers)

Dr. Marc Baum:
Dr. Baum is part of the original team that started Eco Rating International (ERI), Switzerland in 1992 and is the founder of the U.S. office. ERI is in the process of completing the second phase of its Eco-Survey of California vineyards and wineries. Phase I was carried out in 1995 and is a statistical environmental survey based on data provided by eleven participants with the aim of evolving into an eco-labeling system. Callaway Wineries & Vineyards, Fetzer Vineyards, and Robert Mondavi Winery sponsored Phase II, which included field visits by ERI members, with the aim of generating a comprehensive ecological audit of their operations. The study will give management an objective overview of their operations’ environmental performance and will include constructive suggestions for improvements. Dr. Baum has a Doctorate in organometallic chemistry from Imperial College, University of London and has extensive experience with bioremediation and air pollution monitoring. He is a member of the UCLA Atmospheric Sciences Advisory Council and has lectured on environmental performance in a global context at a variety of institutions.

Mr. Vance Corum:
Mr. Corum is the marketing director for The Food Alliance, a nonprofit group promoting sustainable agriculture through an "approved" label given to growers who meet their stewardship standards in the areas of pest and disease management, soil and water quality and conservation, and human and resource development. From 1979 to 1989 he headed the southern office of the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Direct Marketing Program, helping organize more than 50 certified farmers’ markets. He organized an industry committee that created A Summer Tasting of California Farms, a one-day event connecting specialty food producers with top chefs, purveyors, wholesalers and retailers, which grew to 1,000 paid attendees. In the early 1990s, before moving to Portland to work with The Food Alliance, he was a consultant and coordinated the North American Farmers’ Direct Marketing Conference. He led seminars on market development, conducting market research and strategic planning, the distribution of organic produce.

Dr. Mary Louise Flint:
Dr. Flint is director, IPM Education and Publications, University of California Statewide IPM Project, and extension entomologist, Department of Entomology, UC Davis. She earned her Doctorate in entomology from UC Berkeley in 1979. She coordinates the University of California’s educational materials in the area of integrated pest management and developed UC’s popular IPM manual series and the UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines for agricultural crops, home and landscapes (now on the Web at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu). Her research has primarily been in the areas of biological control, adoption of alternative pest management practices in agricultural crops, and landscape pest management.

Dr. Richard Kashmanian:
Dr. Kashmanian is a senior economist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, and has been with that office for nearly 13 years. At EPA, he has undertaken numerous incentive- and conservation-based projects. As examples of his work in these areas, he has: (1) summarized how 40 food companies work with growers to encourage them to adopt more environmentally-protective practices; (2) analyzed the applicability of, and issues related to, the use of pollutant reduction trading as an economic incentive tool to achieve water quality objectives; (3) assessed the status of agricultural composting in the U.S.; and (4) tracked environmental consumerism and marketing activities. He has published and/or presented over 25 papers on these and related topics in a variety of journals (e.g., Compost Science & Utilization, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, and The Environmental Professional), books, and proceedings. Dr. Kashmanian received his Master of Science and Doctorate in resource economics from the University of Rhode Island.

Mr. Richard Gahagan:
Mr. Gahagan started with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in 1971 as an inspector and in 1982 was promoted to the Bureau’s Wine Technical Advisor. He is currently assigned to the Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division Chief, Jerry LaRusso. He has a M.S. degree in Agricultural Chemistry (enology option) from California State University, Fresno. He currently serves on the Grape Germplasm Advisory Committee to the USDA, the Technical Projects Committee of the America Society of Viticulture and Enology, and the Board of Directors of the Viticulture and Enology Research Center and CSU, Fresno.

Mr. Paul Gosselin:
Mr. Gosselin joined the California EPA Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) in November 1993 as Assistant Director overseeing DPR’s Division of Enforcement, Environmental Monitoring, and Data Management. In January 1998, he assumed the position of Assistant Director for DPR’s Division of Registration and Health Evaluation. Its three branches are Medical Toxicology, Registration, and Worker Health and Safety. His responsibilities are pesticide product registration activities, pesticide data evaluation, risk assessment, pesticide illness surveillance and workplace safety. Mr. Gosselin earned his B.S. in biochemistry and a M.S. in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts. From 1989 to 1993 he was director of the Division of Regulatory Services for the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. In that position he managed five bureaus, including pesticides, dairy farm inspection, plant pest control, farm products, and animal health.

Ms. Barbara Meister:
Ms. Meister conducts food policy research and analysis for a variety of agricultural interests, primarily in the area of sustainable agriculture. She is a consultant to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s Integrated Farming Systems program working with a team to expand the market for sustainably-produced foods through a communications and policy initiative. Recent clients include the USDA National Commission on Small Farms, the C.S. Mott Foundation and the U.S. Canola Association. Prior to moving to Santa Cruz, California in 1997, Barbara worked as an assistant to the Undersecretary for Research, Education, and Economics at USDA in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Harry Wells:
Mr. Wells, an economist, has worked in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and with USDA for the past ten years. His activities include technical assistance and grant management to agricultural producers who wish to increase their utilization of IPM and biologically-based practices. He is part of a team of agriculture specialists in the US EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs who work with growers and grower groups to reduce risks to human health and the environment from agricultural chemicals. He is active in three programs that provide technical assistance and limited grant funds to producers: the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, the Department of Agriculture’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) and a new public/private partnership with The Pew Charitable Trust, the American Farmland Trust and the Program for Strategic Pest Management. Prior to moving to Washington to specialize in agricultural pest management, Mr. Wells was with the EPA Regional Office in Annapolis, Maryland where he worked on water quality and natural resource issues in the Chesapeake Bay.