EAST LANSING, Mich. — The tart cherry industry is in the midst of a struggle to figure out what pesticides it can use that will eradicate pests effectively and still be acceptable to U.S. regulators.
That’s the upshot of the latest research update from the Tart Cherry Integrated Orchard Management Project, also known as TC RAMP I.<br>
The seven-page report is now available at the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) website, which is operated by the Michigan State University (MSU) IPM Program.<br>
The research thus far has shown that OP-alternative pesticides are more expensive, less effective and less ecologically healthy than AZM, also known as Guthion, the main OP pesticide used on tart cherries.<br>
According to the report, “A significant difference was found between AZM orchards and the RAMP I alternative orchards. The AZM orchards were actually healthier ecologically than the OP-alternative orchards, based on both measures of higher natural enemy or beneficial insect diversity, and the higher economic payoff from biological control in AZM orchards to growers.”<br>
For example, the research found that, although the OP-alternative pesticide was somewhat effective against cherry pests such as plum curculio and cherry fruit fly, over several growing seasons it became less effective: “By 2007, five out of nine of the RAMP I alternative orchards were forced to revert to OP rescue or clean-up sprays to prevent worms in the crop at harvest.”<br>
Mike Vanagtmael, a cherry producer near Hart, Mich, participated in RAMP I. Right now Mike, along with his brother Bob, raises 90 acres of asparagus, 150 acres of tart cherries along with peaches, plums and apples.<br>
“We’re finding pests now that we didn’t ever know we had,” he said. “We have zero tolerance for worms in the fruit. As we move away from OPs, we certainly have a higher risk that we’re going to have larvae. As we move away from OPs, we also have a higher financial burden.”<br>
Vanagtmael puts the blame on EPA employees who, he said, don’t understand what is going on. “A lot of them are just out of college,” he said. “There’s a real learning curve to this business.”<br>
He also said that there are few if any tart cherry farm workers exposed to pesticides, because cherries are harvested by machine.
Mark Whalen, an entomologist at MSU and a member of the TC RAMP I Executive Committee, agreed. He also said that pesticide residues from AZM are short lived, and therefore pose no risk to consumers.<br>
He said that AZM is an ideal pesticide both in terms of human health and the health of the fruit.<br>
According to the research update, the backdrop for this problem is two laws, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972: “These two federal laws direct USEPA to severely curtail or cancel most of the insecticides that have been the mainstay of tart cherry production since the 1960s.”<br>
In November 2006, the EPA announced it would delay cancellation of AZM for use on tart cherries and several other crops until September, 2012.<br>
The report states, “the RAMP I results were instrumental in the EPA’s decision to give the tart cherry industry an extension . . .. These data also contributed directly to the justification for USDA’s funding of the new TC RAMP II research, which will start in spring, 2008.”<br>
According to the EPA press release announcing the phase-out of AZM, “to facilitate the transition to safer alternatives, growers, registrants, and other stakeholders will meet with EPA periodically during the phase-out to discuss alternatives to AZM. The pesticide manufacturers have also agreed to develop training materials to educate workers regarding how to avoid unnecessary exposure.”<br>
For his part, Whalen doesn’t blame the EPA directly for the problems that cherry growers are now facing. He said that there are people at the agency who agree that AZM is safe and effective, but he said they don’t have the power to change the law or influence the regulations.<br>
“These growers have their backs against the wall because of legislation that isn’t scientific,” Whalen said. “Things have to make scientific sense, and this doesn’t make scientific sense. It’s a catch 22, and it’s unfair, and it’s not scientific. Guthion is on the dirty dozen list of all the radical environmental groups.”<br>
Whalen, who describes himself as an environmentalist, characterizes the legislation affecting specialty crop producers as “a one-size fits all law that doesn’t fit all commodities.”<br>
Dale Kemery, an EPA spokesman, responded to these concerns by writing the following in an e-mail last week: “The agency believes that because of the mitigation measures that are being implemented during the phase-out, the transition away from AZM can be managed in a way that minimizes risks to farm workers and the environment while providing ample transition time to effective and economically-feasible reduced risk alternatives.<br>
“Also, EPA and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture have formed a federal advisory committee composed of growers, researchers, farm worker advocates and other stakeholders specifically to address transition issues.”<br>
Phil Korson, President of the Cherry Marketing Institute and the Michigan Cherry Committee, said that the TC RAMP I research results proved to the EPA that the proposed alternatives to AZM don’t work.<br>
As a result, the EPA has approved a TC RAMP II project so that the industry can continue to explore other alternatives. He isn’t confident that the new proposed alternatives will work, however, and he doesn’t know what will happen if they don’t. He recently met with some 30 EPA officials to talk about the problem.<br>

Korson said he felt the problem was based more on the economics of specialty crops due to their small size, rather than politics.
To access the research update, visit http://ipm.msu.edu/pdf/RAMPcherry08.pdf