Draft IPM Standard: Review and Comment

[treeseer]

ANSI A300 Part 10--Draft IPM Standard

Pest managers are encouraged to review and comment on this draft: http://tcia.org/files/A300Part10-IPM-Drft1-V1.pdf

The wording is subtle but crucial: "shall" is required, while "should be considered" is about as weak as it can get. What do you think of the values and priorities expressed in this document? The contrast with European standards is significant.

 

[sac-climber]

The whole document seems so basic. I think there is a general lack of understanding regarding what IPM actually entails.

102.2.3.4 basically makes any selective pesticide an "IPM" option. A lot of wiggle room there for the big guys to make no changes and label themselves as "environmentally friendly". Thus, taking away credibility from the those who follow real IPM guidelines.

 

[treeseer]

The whole document seems so basic. I think there is a general lack of understanding regarding what IPM actually entails.

102.2.3.4 basically makes any selective pesticide an "IPM" option. A lot of wiggle room there for the big guys to make no changes and label themselves as "environmentally friendly". Thus, taking away credibility from the those who follow real IPM guidelines.

Mike Raupp did a good job starting to detail some of those guidelines in his book. They were in the body of the standard in prior drafts, then later were pushed back to Annex C, which isn't an official part of the Standard. As a "Subject Matter Expert", his name is (ab)used in an attempt to give credibility to Part 10, but he was not part of the group that wrote it.

Like the subgroup for the cabling/support standard, which was recently renewed with very little change, this small group was hand-picked by the VP of a dominant company. There was just one small businessman, and no input from environmental interests. That's why it's so important for users to comment during this 45-day period. As outsiders, it's our one chance to insist that it reflect the whole IPM industry, not just the corporate approach.

 

[sac-climber]

If they really want it to reflect an appropriate IPM approach they need to get in touch with the University of California and work with them. Not some executive that has been driving a desk for the past twenty years and still can't figure out why Aldrin and DDT were pulled from the market.

This is an area I'm very passionate about, I devoted my education and career to it. It upsets me to see an opportunity like this to set real standards in motion, that can actually have an impact, and it just falls short on its ass. Treeseer, you nailed it with your term "corporate approach". We know how devoted big companies are to doing the right thing.