Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

Northeastern IPM Center – IPM Partnership Grants – 2009 – Proposal Project Description PD: Michael Rozyne Project Title: Meeting New Challenges, Meeting our Consumer 1. Project Category: Eco IPM Working Group (IWG):

2. Project Summary Red Tomato, a non-profit organization, will continue to convene and coordinate an IPM Working Group including apple growers, agricultural scientists and extension agents, and its own in-house team of salespeople, communications manager, and art director. The close working relationship among growers, scientists, and marketers adds unusual depth and practicality to this project. The Eco Apple program has grown at a prodigious pace, from $400,000 in sales in 2005 to over $1.9 Million in 2008. But we need to balance this rapid growth with a strengthening of the Eco Apple IPM Protocol and the program itself, to sustain this growth over the long term. In this project, the Eco Apple IPM Working Group will build on the success of the Eco Apple program by strengthening its development of best practices – specifically, addressing the growing problem of internal Lepidoptera - and by strengthening its educational outreach to consumers. We propose to accomplish this latter goal by collecting and disseminating comparative pesticide use data of Eco vs. conventional , and by utilizing new technologies (including website blogs & videos, social networking, and DVDs) to reach consumers directly. We also propose to expand the program by pursuing relationships with Midwest growers, by researching value-added Eco Apple products, and researching extending this model to other crops. This program can continue to grow rapidly, even expanding to other regions and other , but we must minimize the associated risks to ensure that this growth is sustainable. We’re on the fast track, but the research we are proposing will help to keep this project also on the right track.

3. Background and Justification Problem and Context. Apples represent a significant part of the Northeast’s agricultural economy, generating over $525 million annually. Some apple connoisseurs argue that the Northeast’s particular soil, climate, and diversity of varieties make our region’s apples the best tasting in the country. But apple growers in this region have been struggling for the last fifteen years. From 1997 to 2002 alone lost 542 farms, a 15% decrease. This is due, in large part, to an increase in competition from growers outside the region, and the rising costs of production in the Northeast.

Northeast apple growers have not been participants in the rapid growth of the organic market, due to the unique distinction of having intense insect and disease pressures that are not common to other regions. An eight-year, multi-institution project evaluated the potential for organic apple production of disease resistant apple cultivars, and found that it is, practically speaking, impossible to grow organic apples in wholesale quantities in the Northeast (Merwin et al., 1994).

However, widespread adoption of advanced IPM practices in Northeast apple production has yet to occur. These IPM practices are generally more expensive than conventional practices. Growers are hesitant to adopt practices that make them less competitive, reduce financial returns, or that may cause crop loss or reduction in crop quality. Yet there is a rapidly growing demand for locally grown produce that is accessible, great tasting, and less harmful to the environment. There is also an established demand for Northeast apples in-season, even when organic apples from other regions are available. Some of Red Tomato’s buyers willingly pay $1-$3 more per

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

case above market prices for high quality, locally and ecologically grown produce, when there are tangible, objective differences in the product.

We see this project as building on earlier efforts, including the 2006 and 2007 projects funded by the Northeastern IPM Center to educate supermarket trade buyers and retail consumers about IPM. We will also build on the Center’s 2008 Minigrant to help Red Tomato produce a video about the Eco Apple program. Our ongoing efforts to communicate IPM benefits have succeeded in raising awareness of IPM and of the “eco” position as somewhere between conventional and organic. As a result, many more questions now come from customers about Eco Apples, such as: What does “low-spray” mean? How much less than conventional apples? How is this evaluated, and by whom?

Background on Red Tomato. Red Tomato (RT) is a mission-driven, nonprofit organization that works in the marketplace. RT works closely with farmers and scientists as it creates supply chains of locally-grown products to satisfy the needs of its customers (mostly supermarket chains) and their customers (the ultimate consumers).

Twelve years after co-founding the fair trade coffee company Equal Exchange, Michael Rozyne started Red Tomato in 1997 to translate the fair trade experience to produce grown by U.S. family farmers. The culture of Red Tomato is experimental, entrepreneurial, and devoted to learning and continuous improvement. We spent the first six years finding the right organizational model. In the process, RT won a hard-earned reputation among farmers and retailers as a reliable, fair supplier of high-quality locally-grown fruits and .

Today RT has trading relationships with over 40 farmers in the Northeastern states. Since 1998 RT has brokered over $9 million [wholesale] dollars of family farm produce (over $3 million in 2008 alone). RT products reach hundreds of thousands of consumers through numerous stores and distributors, including:  Whole Foods  Dole & Bailey  Trader Joe’s  City Fresh Foods  Donelan’s  Albert’s Organics  Stop & Shop  Shapiro Produce Co.  Roche Brothers  Associated Grocers of New England

Background on Eco Apples. “An important priority is the development and implementation of economical and effective IPM systems for crops and commodities consumed by humans.” - National IPM Road Map goals - RT participated in the Core Values Northeast eco certification program for years, and then later in the Food Alliance program. But these efforts failed to build marketing programs that delivered tangible economic benefits to growers, and thus ceased to operate in the Northeast. In 2005, with funding from the EPA and private foundations, RT decided to launch its own eco certification for advanced-IPM apples. RT hired Thomas Green of the IPM Institute of North America to write the “Eco Apple Protocol and Grower Self-Assessment,” and to manage third- party certification of farms. RT then assembled a multi-state team of veteran apple growers, plus scientists from U.Mass. and Cornell, to serve as an advisory board over the standards. The aims

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

of this group were to provide economic rewards and incentives that lead directly, and indirectly, to more widespread adoption of advanced IPM practices for apples.

Red Tomato introduced Eco Apples to the market in late August 2005. Six farms, approximately 475 acres total in , Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, earned Eco Apple certification for 2005. The apples reached approximately 200 supermarkets and food co-ops, mostly in New England. Some participating farmers also sold Eco-Apples directly, reaching 25 additional supermarkets in Vermont and New York.

For the 2007 season, Red Tomato doubled the number of certified Eco Apple growers from six to twelve, extending the program into Pennsylvania and Maine, and increased the certified acreage from 475 to 711 acres. RT began the 2008 season at 13 growers, but four growers suffered such extensive hail damage that they were unable to continue. Thus we had 9 growers and 635 acres in the program for 2008.

In 2005, the number of Eco-Apple cases sold for the year was at 16,000. Sales in 2006 were over 23,300 cases, not including direct sales from farms. Sales in wholesale dollars of Eco Apples in 2006 were $643,149, 68% over the previous year. Sales for 2007 were $1,470,000 – 228% of 2006, and for 2008 are projected at $1,939,000, 32% over last year.

Impact of IPM Protocol: Eco Apple growers applied 42% less insecticide in 2005 compared with 2004 (as measured in dollars of insecticide applied). This figure has dropped further as the protocol has been refined and tightened annually. In the 2006 annual meeting, the group agreed on numerous further changes to the IPM protocol, including tightening rules for application of fungicides and reducing the allowable amount of Phosmet, the last allowable organophosphate insecticide.

In 2007, primarily in recognition of conditions in Pennsylvania, new pests were added to the protocol, namely, codling moth, tufted apple budmoth, and rosy apple aphid. Best practices for these insects were identified. Further pesticide restrictions, quality control standards and conservation measures were also added, and the minimum score required on the point-based part of the protocol rating system was raised from 16 to 20, thereby raising the bar. Importantly, the protocol now has no organophosphate insecticide allowed.

Applicability to other regions. The Eco Apple program and protocol are applicable to other regions in the eastern US, especially the upper Midwest. RT has already begun discussions with participants in a similar project in Wisconsin about the prospect for cooperation, even for the possible adoption of Eco Apple marketing materials and approaches to the Midwest. A number of self-called “Eco Apple growers” in WI are interested in marketing them that way with our assistance. There’s also a grower/packer in Rochester, MN who would like to develop an Eco Apple program for the growers in his network. Conversations are underway.

Uniquely poised for success. There are several historical and circumstantial factors that point this project toward success:  Organic apples are next to impossible to raise in the northeastern United States at a wholesale/supermarket volume and quality standard—this due to scab, curculio, apple

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

maggot, fly speck, sooty blotch, and a few other voracious pests. This makes apples an especially good vehicle for education on advanced IPM practices.  Red Tomato is unusual in its combination of mission-driven structure, business experience and culture, and close working relationships with farmers and scientists. This makes RT a qualified messenger for this rather complex message.  Advanced IPM offers an extraordinary opportunity to provide millions of shoppers with earth-friendly safer apples.  RT has been marketing IPM products as IPM products, and promoting IPM fruits and vegetables, since its inception in 1997. Eco Apples have been better received and better understood than any other IPM product we’ve tried previously.

Impact With this effort, RT focuses on the Northeastern IPM Center’s goal to “develop individual IPM guidelines and certification programs” and build communication networks among stakeholders. This project will help to achieve the IPM National Road Map goal to “develop user incentives for IPM adoption reflecting the value of IPM to society and reduced risks to users.” We also will support the goal to “develop economical high-resolution environmental and biological monitoring systems to enhance our capabilities to predict pest incidence, estimate damage, and identify valid action thresholds.”

4. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts Priority objectives for 2008 The Eco Apple Working Group has identified these issues among its priorities for 2008: (See http://northeastipm.org/priority/2008/eco-apple.pdf for details.)

I. Comparison of Eco vs. Conventional pesticide use and hazards – The early Eco Apple growers may have been already below average in pesticide use even before entering the program. Now that we have accurate data over several seasons we can make comparisons of pesticide use with industry averages. We need to research reliable sources for this industry information, and incorporate it into an analysis. This research will answer one of our most frequently asked questions about the Eco Apple program, both from trade buyers as well as consumers.

II. Internal Lepidoptera – This is a significant pest problem in Pennsylvania and is a new and growing problem in New England. This issue was also ranked 17.75/31 in the 2006 Fruit IPM Stakeholder Priorities for New York State (http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/ grantspgm/rfp_ag/fruitpri_06.asp) and was identified as one of five key apple pest strategic issues in the New England Apple Strategic Plan by the New England Pest Management Network (http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/pdf/NewEnglandApple.pdf). It is also an Eco Apple Working Group priority [development of effective IPM programs for organophosphate- resistant Lepidoptera]. An effective IPM strategy to reduce fruit damage from these pests would allow the Eco Apple protocol to make a significant step in pesticide use reduction.

III. Direct outreach to consumers – After years of work with supermarket chains, training store produce managers, developing point-of-sale materials and other efforts, we have had to

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

accept the limits to the extent to which we can rely on retailers to adequately convey the IPM story. We need to find new and creative ways, utilizing new technologies, to reach consumers directly with the story of IPM as it applies to their produce. We are in the process of re-creating our website to be more comprehensive and interactive; we will incorporate social networking into our communications; and we plan to use our new Eco Apple video, partially funded by the Northeastern IPM Center, extensively. These vehicles will enable us to speak directly to consumers about IPM and build customer loyalty for these products.

IV. Market Research, and expansion to other regions and crops: The low limit for some chemical applications is often determined by the degree or percentage of cosmetic blemishes buyers are willing to tolerate. A grower may be willing to accept some increase in the number of blemished apples if he can get a decent price for these “culls”. We need to do further research into value-added Eco Apple products, such as Eco Apple sauce and , which can raise the value of culls and potentially allow growers to reduce pesticide applications even further, while still maintaining the economic viability of the crop. The Eco Apple program is robust, and despite considerable ongoing development, could be considered to be reaching maturity. We want to pursue the conversations we have begun with growers in Wisconsin and Minnesota. We also want to expand this IPM “Eco” program to develop similar protocols and marketing for other crops. Other tree fruit such as , and lettuce seem to be promising next candidates.

5. Approach and Procedures Adaptive Management in practice: the Working Group’s approach is an excellent example of Adaptive Management, or “learning by doing”. Using the developed Eco Apple Protocol during a growing season, the results are monitored and evaluated by all stakeholders working together at the end of each season, and the Protocol is then revised, sometimes significantly, for the following season.

Meetings. The leadership team of this group meets by telephone on a monthly basis. On a quarterly basis, conference calls are held with the entire group, including advisers. In early spring (usually late March), everyone gathers in person for an all-day meeting to evaluate the previous season, revise the protocol accordingly, discuss priority issues, and plan the season to come.

It is also our intention to work with the Northeastern IPM Center, and specifically with the Community IPMWG and the IPMWG, to collaborate on outreach work done and to share the outcomes of this project. Susan Futrell, RT’s Communications Manager and a key manager of this project, is also a member of the IPM Vegetable Working Group.

Methods: I. Comparison of Eco vs. Conventional pesticide use and hazards: This project will be led by Thomas Green, President of the IPM Institute of North America. Dr. Green has been collecting and analyzing the pesticide use data from our growers, who are using “TracApple” software (developed by Cornell and provided by the project) to enter practices and pesticide applications. This data now needs to be compared with industry

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

data. We are currently researching the most useful sources for data on conventional pesticide use. Dr. Green will collect and analyze this data, and create comparative reports of Eco vs. conventional apples, and which adjusts for relative toxicity of different pesticides. We intend for the results of this analysis to be presented at the annual Working Group meeting in March 2010.

II. Internal Lepidoptera: Our first approach to this issue will be through education. Greg Krawczyk, Extension Tree Fruit Entomologist at Penn State University and a Working Group member, will present on this topic to the annual Working Group meeting in March 2009. Following this presentation and a discussion, we expect to decide on a method or variety of methods to address this problem to be implemented during the 2009 growing season. This will likely include a combination of seasonal fruit monitoring programs to detect infestations, and pheromone traps to determine which species is responsible.

III. Direct outreach to consumers: The new Red Tomato website platform will be ready by February 2009. We will add detailed EcoApple information (IPM information, grower, variety and retailer information) and will post the Eco Apple IPM video when it is completed (expected by April 2009). We will set up on several social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) for Red Tomato and Eco Apples. We will send announcements to our mailing list about the website, the new video, and the new social networking opportunities. We will make duplicate copies of the Eco Apple DVD and use them for presentations to buyers, donors and for presentations at conferences and workshops.

IV. Market Research, and expansion to other regions and crops: The Red Tomato Brand Advisory Group, under the direction of Michael Rozyne, will work on developing Eco Applesauce and cider, in cooperation with the growers. They will also research the market feasibility of Eco Peaches and possibly lettuce, or other tree fruits. Based on their recommendations, Red Tomato will work with the IPM Institute to develop an initial protocol for peaches and possibly one additional crop. We will pursue conversations with growers in Wisconsin and Minnesota, with a view to expanding this program into the Midwest. We still have to negotiate what our exact relationship to these initiatives will be, but our interest is that any program in another region would adhere to similar IPM standards and certification requirements as those established in the Northeast.

Timeline: April – June 2009  Send announcements to Red Tomato mailing list about the new website  Circulate reports and updates for review of 2008 marketing experience to Working Group members plus annual RT marketing evaluation  Convene Working Group full-day meeting to review, discuss, and plan marketing and IPM strategies  Present pesticide use data summary reports on 2006 – 2008 seasons’ practices and applications  Presentation by Greg Krawczyk to Working Group on internal Lepidoptera  Decide on approaches to priority issues  Identify sources for industry data on pesticide use  Add detailed EcoApple information to website

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

 Post the Eco Apple IPM video on the website  Send announcements to Red Tomato mailing list about the new video  Make duplicate copies of the Eco Apple DVD

June - August 2009  Red Tomato Brand Advisory Group does research and meets to make recommendations about Eco Apple value-added products, Eco Peaches, other crops  Collect and analyze industry data on pesticide use  Set up on several social networking sites  Send announcements to Red Tomato mailing list about new social networking opportunities

September – November 2009  Peak season for apples: regular ongoing conversations with Red Tomato growers and customers  Create comparative reports of Eco vs. conventional apples

December 2009- March 2010  Conduct independent assessment of grower satisfaction with the project  Pursue conversations with Midwest growers about new Eco Apple program  Convene full-day Working Group meeting for review of 2009 and follow-up planning for 2010  Present comparative reports of Eco vs. conventional apples at meeting  Present results of internal Lepidoptera monitoring and control methods  Red Tomato works with the IPM Institute to develop an initial protocol for peaches and possibly one additional crop

April - June 2010  Final report written and submitted to the NE IPM Center.

6. Evaluation Plan Project success will be measured according to the following indicators: Quantitative: • Summary reports on 2006 to 2008 seasons’ practices and applications will be disseminated, documenting ongoing decreases in use of the most toxic pesticides. • Pesticide comparison analysis will be completed and presented by March 2010. • A summary report on monitoring of internal Lepidoptera will be completed and presented to the Working Group by March 2010. • EcoApple information and the Eco Apple IPM video will be posted on the new Red Tomato website. • Red Tomato will set up on several social networking sites and will publicize these. • Duplicate copies of the Eco Apple DVD will be made and extensively used. • The Brand Advisory Group will work on developing Eco Apple Sauce and cider and research Eco Peaches and possibly lettuce. Red Tomato will work with the IPM Institute to develop an initial protocol for peaches and possibly one additional crop.

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

Impact on sales: key impact indicators will occur as a) new accounts taken during 2009 & 2010 and b) growth in sales of Eco-Apples during the 2009 season. Qualitative: An independent assessment of grower satisfaction with the project will provide the best indicator of growers’ willingness to continue with the project. It is important to note that a higher price per case is not the only factor in determining grower satisfaction: a stable customer/market base and access to new markets are significant factors. In addition, many growers value highly the networking activity which this project facilitates.

7. Cooperation, Institutional Units and Key Personnel Involved Red Tomato serves as the lead organization for the project, with responsibility for contacting and recruiting Working Group members, convening meetings, and overseeing the development, printing, and distribution of text materials and the creation of media releases. Growers, and scientists from UMass and Cornell will be independent participants as will be the IPM Institute lead scientist.

Michael Rozyne, (see Attachments - Michael Rozyne, Project Director CV) Red Tomato Managing Director, as Project Director, will oversee all aspects of the program. He will contact working group members, convene Working Group meetings, and conduct on-going and follow- up conversations with growers, distributors, and target audience members for evaluation purposes.

Thomas Green, President of the IPM Institute of North America, will oversee and certify the use of the Eco Apple Protocol. He will also be the coordinator for the development of new IPM protocols.

Susan Futrell, Red Tomato’s Communications Manager, will oversee all aspects of the website, social networking, DVD duplication, and related publicity and marketing materials.

Partnership 2009 Rozyne Proposal

The Working Group - The Eco Apple IPM Working Group consists of 25 stakeholders from 7 Northeastern states—PA, MA, ME, NH, VT, CT, NY. Its members include 12 Northeast apple growers, 9 researchers and extension agents, an IPM crop consultant, and Thomas Green, President of the IPM Institute of North America—plus convener Michael Rozyne and RT consultant Susan Futrell, Communications. Working Group members include:

Michael Rozyne, Managing Director, Red Tomato Susan Futrell, Communications Manager, Red Tomato John Lyman, Lyman Orchards, Middlefield, Conn. Homer Dunn, Alyson’s Apple Orchard, Walpole, N.H. Aaron Clark, Clark Bros. Orchard, Ashfield, Mass. Zeke Goodband, Scott Farm, Dummerston, Vt. John Rogers, Rogers Orchards, Southington, Conn. Barney Hodges, Sunrise Orchards, Cornwall, Vt. Bob Rigdon, Apple Acres, Lafayette, N.Y. Calvin Beekman, Beekman Orchards, Boyertown, Penn. Peter Ten Eyck, Indian Ladder Farms, Altamont, N.Y. Glenn Schreiter, Saxtons River Orchards, Saxtons River, Vt. Steve Meyerhans, Apple Farm, Fairfield, Maine Vito Truncali, Truncali Orchards, Marlboro, N.Y. Richard Bonanno, PhD, Pleasant Valley Garden, Methuen, Mass. Jon Clements, Extension tree fruit specialist, UMass, Amherst, Mass. Arthur Tuttle, MS, Extension IPM field leader, plant pathology, UMass, Amherst, Mass. William Coli, PhD, Extension specialist, UMass, Amherst, Mass. Daniel R. Cooley, Associate Professor of Plant Pathology, UMass, Amherst, Mass. Juliet Carroll, PhD, Fruit IPM Coordinator, NYSIPM Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Thomas A. Green, PhD, CCA, TSP, IPM Institute of North America, Madison, Wisconsin Harvey Reissig, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Art Agnello, NYSAES, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Rob Koch, crop consultant, Apple Leaf, Kingston, N.Y. Greg Krawczyk, Extension Tree Fruit Entomologist, Penn State University, Biglerville, Penn.