Integrated pest muddling.

I found Mindy Pennybacker's tips on protecting children from environmental hazards very informative, but I was puzzled by her use of the term "integrated pest management" (IPM) when calling for an end to pesticide use [Green Guidance, November/December 2005].

In Canada, IPM has been latched on to by lawn care businesses in an attempt to greenwash their industry. IPM calls for pesticide use as a last resort, but in practice many of these businesses expend little or no effort in reducing pesticide use. I am curious if IPM is more effectively monitored in the United States and why Mindy chose to use this term without explaining what it means.

ALLAN MCKEOWN

Sarnia, Ontario, Canada

Mindy Pennybacker replies: As Mr. McKeown notes, IPM does not ban pesticide use. As I reported in my column, IPM does dictate that pesticides should be employed only as a last resort and when other remedies have been exhausted, according to the IPM Institute of North America and the Bio Integral Resource Center (BIRC) in California. Natural controls, such as introduction of beneficial insects that eat pests; denying pests food, entry, and water; and least-toxic baits, are first priority. Whether practitioners truly follow this process, however, is hard to tell without clear standards enforced by a third-party verification system.

At home and in the garden, "least-toxic" pest control may be a less confusing and more accurate term to use than IPM. Given children's sensitivity to neurotoxins, the health risks of applying synthetic pesticides in homes, schools, or play areas far outweigh the benefit of poisoning pests. The term "nontoxic" is unregulated and inaccurate. Powdered boric acid and baits, which do not disperse in the air as do pesticide "bombs" and sprays, and are less toxic than organophosphates or pyrethroids, can still harm children or pets if eaten.

I'm sorry to hear that IPM is being used to greenwash lawn care businesses in Canada. In the United States and in some Latin American countries, this practice is being effectively monitored, at least with regard to some agricultural ecolabels for foods cultivated using IPM. Consumers Union, via its Eco-Labels program has given top ratings to Rainforest Alliance Certified (which currently covers coffee, orange juice, and bananas), Food Alliance (for a wide variety of vegetables grown in the Pacific Northwest), and Protected Harvest (for Wisconsin potatoes). Core Values Northeast (for New England and Mid-Atlantic tree fruit, berries, and certain vegetables), Salmon Safe (for Northwest wines, juices, yogurt and rice), and Wegman's IPM (certain fruits and canned or fresh vegetables) get a mostly positive, "somewhat meaningful" rating.