There is a very interesting paper in the 'New York's Food and Life Science
Bulletin' (1992, 132: 1-8); 'A method to measure the environmental impact of
pesticides'.  The paper outlines a Environmental Impact Quotient, which is a
method of assessing the overall impact of various pest management practices.
The quotient takes into account:

- Mode of pesticide action.
- Toxicity of pesticide to fish, birds, bees and other beneficial insects.
- Short-term and long term health effects of the pesticide to mammals.
- Potential for ground water runoff of the pesticide.
- Peristence of the pesticide in soil.

They used the quotient to evaluate three different ways of mananging pests on
Red Delicious apples in NY state; organic, traditional pest management
(reliant on pesticides), and integrated pest management (monitor and spray
only when pest is causing economic damage, use least toxic pesticides, rely
on biological control).

Which do you think was most environmentally benign?

Environmental Impact Quotient (Red Delicious Apples in NY State)
[the larger the number the more damaging to the environment]
Traditional pest management= 938
Integrated pest managment= 182
Organic= 1799

Why so high for organic pest management?  Organic growers were bound to use
natural compounds like sulphur for the control of apple scab, which were way
more deliterious than the synthetic products (Sulphur EIQ= 1720 vs. Nova or
Captan < 300).  As most people on this thread have commented, natural is not
necessarily safer.

There are a number of regional programs sprouting throughout North America
that market residue-free or integrated pest management grown crops.  Just
like organic, these groups certify farmers for the way they grow their crops,
but differ in that they certify and market crops that have been grown as
safely and sustainable as possible.  In British Columbia Canada their is the
Greenprint crop labeling program.  In Massachusetts their is the Partners
with Nature program.  The Wegmans supermarket chain has their own IPM label.
Growers involved in these programs are able to use this marketing tool to
keep their market share in face of cheap imports, and in some cases, fetch 5%
higher prices in the market, enabliing them to justify higher costs of
production.

I suggest that beekeepers do two things:

1) Spend research dollars to develop production guidelines that focus on
integrated colony management, with the aim of reducing pesticide use and
residues in hive products- not eliminating pesticides, just reducing their
use.  The outcome of this research will be something like an ISO designation
that would assure packers and consumers that you have taken all the steps
towards producing the purest and sustainable product on the market.

2) Do heavy duty marketing.  Find what customers want and make your product
fit that mold.  Get premium prices for making a premium product.

With smart planning and judicious use of marketing dollars beekeepers could
get organic prices and protect their domestic markets without having to even
deal with all the issues that go with organic certification (the ironies and
the headaches).

Regards
Adony Melathopoulos
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA