Renaming (Redefining) Integrated Pest Management: Fumble, Pass, or Play?

Abstract

• economic benefits to growers and society, • appropriate selection and integration of pest control methods with the aid of decision rules, ,. / / -, I /' V I A definition of proposed by the \' USDA-sponsored Integrated Pest Management Committee (1998) includes many of the same elements: an integration of pest control tactics that emphasize prevention and avoidance of pest problems and meet economic, public health, and environmental goals. We fail to see any meaningful differences between this definition of rPM and the definition of EBPM by the National Research Council (1996). We argue that a welJ designed program is not intended specificalJy to grow a crop or promote a social viewpoint. It is. intended to protect a crop from pests in an economicalJy and environmentalJy responsible way. Yet, its design should be flexible enough to reflect the prevailing technological, economic, and social axioms of the time (Rajotte 1993). Many tactics are preventive and involve ecological manipulations that temporarily or permanently modify the ecology of the crop production system (National Research Council 1996). However, a successful program ultimately is defined by the economic and ecological interactions of the production system, regardless of the social and political constraints placed upon it. Therefore, player-coaches must pay careful attention to an program's economic and ecological foundations. They can move the program along the IPM continuum (Benbrook et al. 1996) and meet the economic, environmental, and social goals of the players and the fans. Despite these caveats, garners its share of criticism. The proponents of EBPM (National Research Council 1996) suggested that is not ecologicalJy based, that remains focused on the effective and efficient use of pesticides, and that is not interdisciplinary in scope. Are these valid criticisms? If the answer is yes, does EBPM represent a fundamentally different paradigm, • consideration of multiple pests. • environmental benefits, and Although the authors did not present a formal definition, the defined goals of EBPM are to provide controls that are effective; economically sound; safe to growers, workers, and consumers; easily implemented; and ensure long-term management of pests (National Research Council 1996). A widely accepted, perfect definition of has not been developed, but Kogan (1998) reported that 64 different definitions cited in the scientific literature included the following elements: Definitions for management of pests in environmentalJy, economically, and socially responsible ways? and (2) Can be practiced effectively within that framework? We believe the answer to both questions is yes and argue in football vernacular that player-coaches must not fumble the ball by renaming it but, instead, must redesign the game plan to keep moving the ball towards the end zone. THE AUTHORS OF THE BOOK Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century (National Research Council 1996) thoroughly examined integrated pest management (IPM) and exposed some valid criticisms regarding its implementation. After reviewing the book, we asked the question: What compelJed the authors to re-invent and rename IPM? We are convinced that the genesis of ecologically based pest management (EBPM) was predicated on a genuine concern about how is practiced. However, we concur with Kogan's (1998) view that [PM practitioners, ed uca tors, and researchers should be troubled by the introduction of repackaged substitutes with new acronyms because the identity of this fully developed, already recognizable archetype [IPM] may be undermined. The title of our article reflects our belief that the identity of sometimes is treated like a loose footbalJ, being fumbled and kicked by every scientist, consultant, activist, educator, or politician who stands to gain from espousing the term. Player-coaches (IPM consultants, educators, and researchers) must articulate the game plan clearly to avoid confusing other players (i.e., agricultural producers) and the fans (i.e., nonfarming consumers) that play in or watch the game. As with professional football, the ultimate success of as an economicalJy viable, widely accepted concept depends upon performance by the players and endorsement by the fans. If is to enjoy widespread public approval and adoption by producers, it must be a clearly defined, economicalJy and socially acceptable concept with strong institutional and political support. Toward this objective we wish to pose and address the following questions: (1) Does IPM, as defined presently, represent a viable framework