IPM Adoption and Processor Stewardship

1. IPM Adoption and Processor Stewardship National IPM Symposium April 2003

2. Agenda Gerber background Processor requirements Factors affecting the adoption of IPM Push-Pull Partnerships Safety Net

4. Gerber Products Company Leading manufacturer of nutrition & health products for infants and small children. Started as Fremont Canning Company in 1901 We live and die by consumer TRUST our consumers tell us what they expect of us consumer surveys purchase records educate our consumers many different mediums

5. What is Gerber? Converter Business �for profit� we do what our CONSUMERS want! cheap food vs. safe environment - they want BOTH

6. Processor Requirements Crop Quantity tonnage requirements Crop Reliability need a stable amount of available produce eliminate crop shortages and rejections due to: weather (hail, frost, flooding) pest damage and/or infestations Crop Storability off-season processing requirements apples, carrots, etc. need to maintain quality through long-term storage Notes:Notes:

7. Processor Requirements Notes:Notes:

8. Gerber Requirements Crop Quantity Crop Reliability Crop Storability Pesticide Residue Elimination pesticide residues have become a Quality Control defect HACCP program for residues through processing Consumer TRUST consumer perception of a pure and wholesome food for their infants and young children is vital to the survival of the Company their perception is our reality Notes:Notes:

9. Why IPM? Our goal No detectable residues in our finished products Benefits reduced residues on the incoming produce some opportunities to reduce the cost to the grower environmental benefits to the adoption of IPM increased beneficial insects in the orchards certain secondary pests decreased IPM is an important part of our ability to track produce from �dirt-to-jar.�

10. Factors in the Adoption of IPM RISK There is no room for mistakes by either the grower or the processor. Grower will lose the crop Processor will lose the available produce In most cases, the grower assumes all of the risk.

11. Factors in the Adoption of IPM Lack of IPM Infrastructure all stakeholders need to be �on board� grower buyer (processor) land-grant universities scouts and PCA�s if one of these four are missing, opportunities to implement significant advances in IPM are severely limited. Developing that IPM Infrastructure in our production areas is critical to the sustainability of our alternative pest management programs

12. Factors in the Adoption of IPM Cost of Implementation IPM scouting costs The cost of IPM monitoring traps The cost of mating disruption In many cases, material costs are greater than the cost of equivalent pesticide applications The cost of applying the pheromone is significant

13. Factors in the Adoption of IPM FDA standards maximum levels of insect fragments in the finished product USDA standards used for grading fruits and vegetables Gerber standards may deviate from USDA standards for purely cosmetic defects misshapen flyspeck, sooty blotch, sooty mold

14. Factors in the Adoption of IPM IPM systems require increased management Designed to replace pesticide applications with improved information and technology Greater emphasis on orchard and field management move away from pesticide replacement how can the grower adjust the micro-climate around the perimeter of the orchard to discourage pests and increase control through alternative means? eliminate alternate hosts design orchard layout to enhance pheromone efficacy resistant varieties

15. Factors in the Adoption of IPM Working within the fresh-market framework requires an even higher level of management cosmetic standards for fresh-market pesticide standards for Gerber Working with the processing plant Additional processing equipment is required to remove residues and cosmetic defects education within the plant to deal with cosmetic defects

16. Gerber Ag Research Sustainable Orchard / Field Management Apple Mating Disruption - U of Ark. Alternative controls for apple maggot & TPB - MSU Scab-resistant apple showcase - MSU Organic / Transitional Organic apple & pear projects - MSU Organic peach production - U of Cal. Organic control of CM - U of Cal. Organic apple thinning - U of Ark.

17. Push / Pull Clearly convey to our growers consumer expectations residue information Restrict use to direct grower practices ( PUSH ) Eliminate old materials ? only alternatives or new low-risk practices Encourage or Require non-pesticide techniques when available & known to work( PULL ) fund research in alternatives pay for scouting

18. Partnerships Ag staff works directly with growers On-farm demonstration if growers can see where IPM will work for them, they�ll embrace it Grower Education Grower meetings emerging issues - allergens, etc highlight research results residue data �Making Our Best�Better� IPM Newsletter

19. Bringing Stakeholders Together EPA Tours MI, NC & CO highlight the successes and challenges of our growers establish communication between growers & gov�t Southern Appalachian Apple IPM Project NCSU, NRCS, Growers, NGO�s & Gerber OP-free, pyrethroid-free & reduced-fungicide program MI Apple IPM Project EPA, Pew, AFT, CAP, MSU, MAC, growers & Gerber intensive IPM - statewide almost 10,000 acres in 2001

20. Safety Net The adoption of IPM In most cases, the grower assumes all of the risk. Ultimately, decisions are made by the grower if the grower messes up, he/she accepts the responsibility Where Gerber has pushed aggressive IPM, Gerber has assumed additional risk. Verbal commitment to protect the grower codling moth in pears apple maggot Compensated the grower as if the damage did not occur Then eliminated the fruit that was unusable

21. Summary Gerber will continue to push both ourselves and our growers to produce the high level of quality our consumers expect Partnerships are critical for the maintenance of our consumer trust Gerber will continue to push our growers away from controversial pesticides and towards alternatives as quickly as the science will allow us to do so.