Lowering the grade standards for fruits and vegetables has been
suggested as one approach to reducing the amount of pesticide use
in agriculture. This approach is based on the premise that many
pesticides are used to meet the cosmetic requirements of the grade
standards. This premise has recently been the subject of an EPA
study conducted by Leonard Gianessi, a fellow with Resources for
the Future (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Nov. 4, 1992). In his
study, Gianessi concluded most producers use pesticides to control
pest problems, not for the cosmetic benefit fostered by the federal
grade standards. He concludes changing the standards to permit
more surface damage would not significantly decrease the amount of
pesticide use on fruits and vegetables.
Nevertheless, critics of the standards still contend that because of
the standards, growers are required to apply more pesticides.
Gianessi notes federal standards “already have significant allow-
ances for surface damage.” While the EPA study proves a credible
argument, questions still remain regarding the efficacy of lowering
the standards. Gianessi also notes that policymakers need to decide
“to what extent they want to continue funding research, or doing
consumer surveys ...” He adds that policymakers “must decide
whether the administrative costs of changing the standards are
worth it.”
Extension Opportunities
In closing, I have some additional comments about the educational
opportunities the environmental regulatory agenda holds for exten-
sion. Because of environmental law and regulation, the level of
knowledge of law that served our parents only a few decades ago is
inadequate today. People in agriculture have reached a point at
which knowing environmental law is just as important in the suc-
cessful management of an agricultural operation as knowing busi-
ness law and economics. Here lies the challenge and the opportunity
for extension.
The extension network can provide the balanced education neces-
sary for its clientele to effectively and responsibly operate within this
imposing body of environmental law and regulation and the pol-
icymaking process. I am not advocating the training of lay lawyers. I
am advocating education designed to meet the challenges inherent
in implementing a policy that is acceptable to both agricultural and
environmental interests.
NOTES
Appreciation is extended to personnel within the EPA, USDA, and the American Farm Bureau Federation for
their assistance in the preparation of this paper. The author is also indebted to Ms. Rebecca Trudeau, Esq. for her
review and critique of the draft.
REFERENCES
American Farm Bureau Federation. Clean Water Act Reauthorization. Washington, DC, July, 1993.
186