* IPM in the U.S. Seen as a Mere Illusion *
Two IPM-knowledgeable, experienced U.S.
entomologists, writing in the Spring 2000 edition of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences' online periodical, ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, assail modern-day IPM practices in the U.S. asserting that
"despite three decades of research, there is very little 'I' in IPM,"
and that "it's time to start over with an achievable goal."
In their article, "The Illusion of
Integrated Pest Management," L.E. Ehler and D.G. Bottrell contend
that U.S. crop protection practices have not changed much in the past
seven years in spite of government-backed initiatives to foster IPM.
"Much of what is being billed as modern IPM," they assert,
"is really nothing more than a reinvention of the supervised
control of 50 years ago. Simply mixing different management tactics does
not constitute IPM" and, they add, "may actually aggravate
pest problems or produce other unintended effects."
Federal policies, note the two
scientists, need to promote "a proper understanding of IPM,"
address how IPM adoption will be measured in the field, and provide
incentives to encourage adoption. They offer four recommendations:
improve broad-based training in landgrant institutions; increase
long-term financial support for IPM research, especially involving
naturally occurring antagonists of pests found in agro-ecosystems;
increase emphasis on true pesticide reduction--seen as the only
quantifiable measure of IPM adoption and impact; and, shift the approach
for setting goals to achieve various levels of IPM implementation.
|--> IST, PO Box 830688, Univ. of Texas at Dallas, MS JO 30,
Richardson, TX 75083-0688, USA. E-mail: bhendric@nas.edu.
Fax: 1-972-883-6327. Phone: 1-972-883-6323. Web: bob.nap.edu/issues/16.3/ehler.htm. |
