The IPM Institute’s Sustainable Food Group has received a grant from the Walmart Foundation to conduct a comprehensive landscape analysis to help accelerate the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices in key U.S. row crop systems. The project will assess the current state of IPM adoption and map networks of trusted advisors to identify key opportunities to reduce reliance on pesticides and improve environmental health.

The initiative will map how farmers make pest management decisions and examine the influence of the university extension agents, crop consultants, agronomists, and agricultural retailers they rely on for guidance. By understanding these networks and the incentives that shape them, the project will provide insight into the best opportunities to expand sustainable practices across agricultural regions.

“The transition to lower-risk, environmentally sound pest management is essential for building a more resilient food system,” said Christopher Stevenson, Executive Director of IPM Institute. “This grant helps us better understand farmer decision-making and pinpoint practical steps that protect ecosystems while strengthening farm businesses.”

Despite proven environmental and economic benefits, IPM adoption in row crops has lagged behind fruits and vegetables. In 2025, corn, soybean and wheat will be planted on over 220 million acres in the United States. A modest increase in IPM practices presents a vast opportunity to reduce pesticide use and risks to farm workers, the environment, and consumers.

“We know that trusted advisors play a key role in shaping the decisions farmers make,” said Ariel Larson, Department Director of the Sustainable Food Group at IPM Institute. “By uncovering where the barriers and opportunities lie, this research will generate practical recommendations to engage advisors and farmers to advance adoption of practices that reduce risk and build resilience.”

Findings will be published in a white paper offering strategic recommendations for future engagement, investment and collaboration. The report will highlight key advisory networks, opportunities to align financial and business incentives, and pathways for scaling sustainable pest management across U.S. agriculture.

To learn more about the project or connect with IPM Institute, visit ipminstitute.org.

About Walmart Foundation

Walmart.org represents the philanthropic efforts of Walmart and the Walmart Foundation. The Walmart.org team works to tackle key social and environmental issues relevant for the retail sector in collaboration with others to spark long-lasting systemic change and help people live better in the communities we serve.

To learn more, visit the Walmart Foundation website.

About the IPM Institute

Founded in 1998, IPM Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving sustainability in agriculture and communities. Through collaborative partnerships and science-based strategies, IPM Institute advances practices that reduce risks to human health and the environment while supporting biodiversity, climate resilience, water quality and soil health. The Institute’s work spans integrated pest management, sustainable and regenerative agriculture and other key sustainability challenges across the food system.

Soil & Climate Initiative (SCI) and IPM Institute of North America, Inc. are proud to announce a new partnership to advance sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices that foster healthy agroecosystems and support farm profitability and long-term resilience. This new collaboration reflects both organizations’ dedication to advancing stewardship and strengthening the agriculture system.

By joining forces, SCI and IPM Institute are opening the door to new opportunities that will strengthen support for farmers while integrating efforts to mitigate pesticide risk and improve soil health, biodiversity, water quality, and climate resilience. Through information exchange, thought leadership, and cooperative engagement, the organizations’ aligned efforts will generate new value for farmers and supply chain partners.

“This collaboration is the natural next step in our shared commitment to regenerative agriculture,” said Adam Kotin, Managing Director of SCI. “Our partnership with IPM Institute positions us to better support growers in implementing feasible, meaningful improvements, regardless of where they are in their regenerative journey.”

Previously, SCI and IPM Institute collaborated to develop the framework for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) planning and pesticide use and risk reduction in SCI’s Soil & Climate Health Commitment & Verification Standard. The standard provides farmers and supply chains with a science-based, third-party verified framework to enhance soil health, improve farm resilience, and demonstrate measurable sustainability outcomes that foster trust and create market opportunities.

The measurement approach SCI and IPM Institute developed for pesticide intensity calculations represents a significant advancement in agricultural sustainability standards. Unlike most certification programs that use binary restrictions, their system tracks active ingredients by EPA signal word categories—creating nuanced reduction pathways that acknowledge the realities of transitioning farms while maintaining rigorous environmental protection. This data-driven methodology enables producers to demonstrate measurable progress in synthetic input reduction, providing supply chain partners with transparent metrics that support both regenerative goals and practical farm management decisions.

Christopher Stevenson, Executive Director, IPM Institute, added, “We’re thrilled to partner with SCI to bring IPM and regenerative agriculture together at scale. Synthetic input reduction is a key pillar of regenerative systems that is often left out of the conversation. With this partnership, we’re equipped to integrate regenerative and IPM approaches in our work with food companies and supply chains to deliver synthetic input reduction, greater benefits for soil health, water quality, biodiversity and human health, while improving the farm’s bottom line. Our collaboration seeks to improves the resilience of our food system.”

This alliance marks a milestone in the missions of SCI and IPM Institute, combining their expertise to expand reach and deliver tangible value across the food supply chain. Farmers, food companies, and stakeholders are invited to join the effort to advance practices that protect ecosystems and create a more resilient, sustainable future for agriculture.

To learn more about SCI and IPM Institute visit soilclimateinitiative.org and ipminstitute.org. To explore opportunities for how your company can lead the way towards a more resilient food system that integrates IPM and regenerative practices, reach out to info@ipminstitute.org, or info@soilclimateinitiative.org

ABOUT

Soil & Climate Initiative (SCI) is a not-for-profit, farmer-first regenerative agriculture transition program with options for third-party verification. SCI empowers farmers, suppliers, food and fashion brands, investors, and landowners to scale regenerative agriculture management and maximize soil health outcomes, biodiversity, carbon storage, water quality, climate resiliency and farm economics. www.soilclimateinitiative.org

IPM Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving sustainability in agriculture and communities. Through collaborative partnerships and science-based strategies, IPM Institute advances practices that reduce risks to human health and the environment while supporting biodiversity, climate resilience, water quality, and soil health. The Institute’s work spans integrated pest management, sustainable and regenerative agriculture and other key sustainability challenges across the food system.

IPM Institute is excited to announce that the latest update to the Pesticide Risk Tool is live as of June 2025. This online decision-support tool helps growers, advisors and sustainability professionals evaluate risks related to pesticide use, enabling informed pest management decision-making and promoting healthier people, pollinators and ecosystems. 

Why the Pesticide Risk Tool? 

Pesticides can pose risks to human health, biodiversity and the broader environment. Making informed, science-based decisions that consider the various risks associated with pesticide use is key to adopting a robust Integrated Pest Management program, protecting natural resources and advancing sustainable agriculture. Choosing products with lower risks also improves farm worker health and safety, protects the health of farming communities and addresses consumer concerns about pesticide residues on food.  

The Pesticide Risk Tool was created to meet this need. Developed by the IPM Institute in collaboration with a team of scientists, the tool assesses pesticide risk across four key areas: consumer dietary risk, worker risk, pollinator risk and environmental risk (including to birds, small mammals, aquatic life, and others). 

Users can compare pesticide options, identify lower-risk alternatives and track progress toward reducing pesticide risk.  

What’s new in the updated Pesticide Risk Tool? 

• A streamlined user interface for faster, more intuitive navigation 

• Quick Product View enabling fast risk assessment for a product without setting up sites or blocks 

These updates make it easier to access important pesticide risk information and make informed decisions. Whether you’re a grower, advisor, or supply chain sustainability professional, the Pesticide Risk Tool is a valuable resource to support achieving your sustainability goals. 

Explore the Updated Tool 

To learn more and explore the latest features, visit pesticiderisk.org 

The Board of Directors of IPM Institute is proud to announce the appointment of Christopher Stevenson as the new Executive Director.  

Stevenson brings more than 15 years of leadership experience in mission-driven organizations, with a proven track record in advancing strategic growth, cultivating effective partnerships, and enhancing organizational strategy and engagement. He most recently served as Principal Partner at Citygate, LLC, where he consulted with mission-driven organizations on strategy, leadership development and market positioning. Prior to that, he spent nearly two decades with the Credit Union Executives Society (CUES), ultimately serving as Senior Vice President and Chief Learning Officer.  

“I am honored to join the IPM Institute as Executive Director. Its mission is both urgent and inspiring,” said Stevenson. “I look forward to building on the organization’s strong foundation, collaborating with our dedicated team and partners to drive innovative, practical solutions that create a measurable difference where it matters most—in our food systems, our environment, and our communities.”  

IPM Institute is dedicated to improving sustainability in agriculture and communities. Through collaborative partnerships and science-based strategies, the organization advances practices that reduce risks to human health and the environment while supporting biodiversity, climate resilience, water quality, and soil health. These goals are accomplished through a dedicated team that Stevenson will lead.  

Stevenson’s experience working with boards, developing impactful strategic initiatives, and managing complex stakeholder relationships equips him to effectively guide the organization in advancing its mission. 

“We’re thrilled to welcome Christopher as Executive Director. The board is confident that his passion for our mission and stakeholders, purpose-driven focus, and track record of leading effective strategy will take IPM Institute to its next level of success and influence in our field,” said Tom Green, Board President. 

Operations Director, Kelly Adams, added, “The leadership team is very excited to work with Stevenson as we focus on organizational strategic planning and growth, enabling us to collectively and collaboratively expand the reach and impact of IPM Institute’s programs.”    

Stevenson holds an Executive MBA from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and has completed executive education programs at Harvard Business School, MIT Sloan, and Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is also a Certified Executive Coach and Certified Association Executive. 

He began his role as Executive Director in April 2025. 

About the IPM Institute  

Founded in 1998, the IPM Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving sustainability in agriculture and communities. Through collaborative partnerships and science-based strategies, IPM Institute advances practices that reduce risks to human health and the environment while supporting biodiversity, climate resilience, water quality, and soil health. The Institute’s work spans integrated pest management, sustainable and regenerative agriculture and other key sustainability challenges across the food system. 

Original Source: 

Global Glyphosate Study Reveals Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Cause Leukemia in Early Life

• WHY ARE PESTICIDES USED?
  Without management, pests can destroy entire crops causing huge losses for growers, retailers and consumers. Managing pests without pesticides can require more labor and time than most large-scale growers have.
• WHAT ARE PESTICIDES?
  A pesticide is a substance designed to kill (or repel, deter or prevent) pests in order to reduce or prevent the resulting damage. There are many kinds of pesticides because there are many kinds of pests; herbicides kill weeds, fungicides kill fungus, insecticides kill insects, and so on.
• WHAT ARE PESTICIDES MADE OF?
  A pesticide product is made up of one or more active ingredients that are used to attack the pest, along with various “inactive” ingredients that are used for other purposes like attracting the pest or reducing pesticide drift. For example, Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate.
• WHAT IS PESTICIDE RISK?
  Pesticide risk depends on two things: toxicity of the ingredients and exposure to the pesticide. Risks are highest when a pesticide is highly toxic and there is great potential for exposure.

HOW ARE PESTICIDES USED IN AGRICULTURE?

Many farms in the U.S. rely on chemical intervention to fight pests and weeds. When farmers use pesticides in a conventional way, without restricting or regulating pesticide use, it can result in killing more pests than necessary, disrupting beneficial insect populations that feed on pests, pesticides drifting to adjacent areas, pesticide runoff into nearby water ways and farmers spending more money than necessary on pesticide products.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Organic farming are two ways to consider non-chemical strategies and significantly reduce pesticide use in agriculture.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) focuses on only using pesticides when the pest is present at high enough levels to cause economic damage, and after non-chemical strategies have failed. Non-chemical practices include planting pest-resistant crop varieties, attracting or releasing natural predators and managing the land in ways that do not attract pests in the first place. When pesticides are used, the least toxic options are use first, and application strategies that protect the health of the farmers and environment are prioritized.

Organic farming is another approach. Organic farming relies on natural principles like biodiversity and composting to produce healthy, abundant food. Many organic farmers use IPM practices to manage pests before reaching for pesticides, and can use only organic-approved pesticides, which, for the most part, are naturally derived, rather than synthetic. Organic farming does not mean that pesticides are eliminated entirely.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS FOR HUMANS?

Humans are primarily exposed to pesticides occupationally, from applying pesticides or working in fields where pesticides have been applied. Certain pesticides have been proven to be detrimental to human health. Organophosphates, for example, have been linked to developmental problems in exposed children. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate that is still widely used in US agriculture, although it is being phased out in some states including California and was banned for use in homes in 2000. Glyphosate is another active ingredient under scrutiny for possible human health effects. Bayer, the company which acquired Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, will be paying more than $10 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits from plaintiffs claiming that glyphosate caused their cancer. According to estimates by the US EPA, occupational exposure poisons around 20,000 farm workers every year in the US, and rural and agricultural communities have higher rates of many different types of cancer and disease including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia.

Humans are also exposed to pesticides by consuming food, which can contain residues. Again, risk depends on the toxicity of the pesticide and the amount of exposure. For each active ingredient, the EPA determines the amount of pesticide residue considered safe for consumption (called a tolerance), and the USDA tests thousands of food samples annually for hundreds of different active ingredients. In the most recent testing, over 99% of samples had residues below the established tolerance, meaning the majority of dietary exposure to pesticides is below the level considered safe for consumption. While 1% is low, this still represents millions of servings of food per day with pesticide residues over the established tolerance.

Fruits and vegetables are an essential part of a healthy diet, containing fiber, which is linked to lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and obesity, and supplying vitamins and minerals. Most experts agree that the benefits of consuming fresh produce far outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.

ARE PESTICIDES DANGEROUS TO POLLINATORS?

Pollinators are responsible for one out of every three bites of food and contribute billions of dollars to agriculture. By some estimates, there may be as many as 350,000 different pollinator species. Honeybees provide an estimated $20 billion in pollination services in agriculture, and native pollinators are incredibly important to certain crops such as apples and cherries.

According to the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, more than 90% of pollen samples from beehives in agricultural landscapes are contaminated with more than one pesticide. Pesticides can have lethal and sub-lethal impacts on pollinator species, and they vary in toxicity. Sub-lethal effects include impaired reproduction, navigation and memory. Neonicotinoids are one of the most widely used classes of insecticide and are highly toxic to pollinators. Some large retailers like Kroger, ALDI and Walmart are promising to phase out neonicotinoid use in their garden centers and from their store shelves. Other insecticide classes, like pyrethroids and organophosphates, and some fungicides are also highly toxic to pollinators.

HOW DO PESTICIDES IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT?

Pesticides can have detrimental effects on organisms in the environment other than the pests they target. They can drift into surrounding areas by wind or be carried in water or soil from agricultural fields into waterways and groundwater. When pesticides move beyond their intended target, they can contaminate nearby homes, schools, neighboring farm fields or natural habitats. When pesticides contaminate water sources, there are potential impacts on any organism living in or using the water, including fish, aquatic invertebrates, pollinators or humans. In the United States, groundwater provides drinking water to about 50% of the population.

How a pesticide is applied impacts potential exposure in the environment, and therefore impacts risk. There are various application methods; some, like aerial applications, can increase the risk of drift, while others, like applications directly to the soil, can increase the risk of the pesticide moving off a field during a heavy rain.

HOW CAN WE DECREASE PESTICIDE RISKS?

There are a variety of strategies that farmers can use to reduce, or mitigate, pesticide-related risks. Buffer zones between an application site and an untreated area like a school, pollinator habitat or body of water are a common risk mitigation strategy. Vegetation planted into strips around bodies of water help to filter pollutants including pesticides, nutrients and sediment out of runoff before it enters the water. Other mitigation efforts include choosing pesticides with the lowest toxicity, wearing personal protective equipment and not applying pesticides before rain or when the wind speeds are too low or too high.

IN CONCLUSION

Pesticides can be harmful to humans, particularly the farm workers whose jobs create more opportunities for exposure than the general public, and to organisms in the environment that are not the intended target, including pollinators and other beneficial species. Understanding where the risks are is an important first step in assessing how to best mitigate them. While much of the risk seems to lay in farmers’ hands, we all have the power to impact the way that pesticides are used. Farmers use pesticides to grow the food that we all eat and to meet market demands for high yields of cosmetically perfect produce. Farmers have a history of changing and adapting to new challenges and market and consumer demands. Some advances already underway include a growing market for “imperfect” produce, companies investing in IPM and regenerative agriculture and consumers increasingly seeking transparency into how their food is grown. People have the power to drive change in the food system by making informed purchasing choices and supporting companies that share their values.

The two-day, in-person course is designed for pest management, municipal, state, university, public school and food safety personnel involved in rodent control.

The event will be held at the New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Administration Building located at 2100 Leon C. Simon Dr., New Orleans, LA 70122. The dates for the Academy are September 14 and 15th, 2022 from 8:00am to 4:30pm.

The Urban Rodent Academy is packed with information about rodent biology, rodent disease, monitoring, trapping, urban rodent surveys and much more. The event will incorporate classroom-style presentations along with field training.

Speakers participating are well known in the field of urban rodent control:

M. Frye, Cornell University :
T. Madere, City of New Orleans Mosquito Control
N. Quinn, University of California, Agricultural and Natural Resources
D. Collins, Independent Pest Management Consulting, LLC

The cost for attending the academy is as follows:
$200 – Member of the Greater New Orleans Pest Management Association
$250 – Non-member registration
$100 – Student
To Register, please use the following link:

News Categories

The City of New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Board and the Greater New Orleans Pest Control Association are pleased to announce the return of the Urban Rodent Academy.
The two-day, in-person course is designed for pest management, municipal, state, university, public school and food safety personnel involved in rodent control.

The event will be held at the New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Administration Building located at 2100 Leon C. Simon Dr., New Orleans, LA 70122. The dates for the Academy are September 14 and 15th, 2022 from 8:00am to 4:30pm.

The two-day, in-person course is designed for pest management, municipal, state, university, public school and food safety personnel involved in rodent control.

The event will be held at the New Orleans Mosquito, Termite and Rodent Control Administration Building located at 2100 Leon C. Simon Dr., New Orleans, LA 70122. The dates for the Academy are September 14 and 15^th, 2022 from 8:00am to 4:30pm.  

The Urban Rodent Academy is packed with information about rodent biology, rodent disease, monitoring, trapping, urban rodent surveys and much more. The event will incorporate classroom-style presentations along with field training. 

Speakers participating are well known in the field of urban rodent control: 

M. Frye, Cornell University

T. Madere, City of New Orleans Mosquito Control 

N. Quinn, University of California, Agricultural and Natural Resources

D. Collins, Independent Pest Management Consulting, LLC

The cost for attending the academy is as follows:

$200 – Member of the Greater New Orleans Pest Management Association

$250 – Non-member registration  

$100 – Student 

To register, please use the following link:  Register Here!

Putting farmland aside for nature does not have a negative effect on food security, a study has found.

A 10-year project by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology revealed that nature-friendly farming methods boost biodiversity without reducing average yields.

Scientists spent a decade intensively monitoring the impacts of a large government-funded experiment at Hillesden, a 1,000-hectare commercial arable farm in Buckinghamshire. Beginning in 2005, this involved creating several wildlife habitats, including seed-bearing plants for birds, wildflowers for pollinators and tussocky grass margins to support a range of birds, insects and small mammals.

In the longest-running study of its kind, researchers succeeded in boosting numbers of wildlife essential for agricultural production such as pollinators and predators of crop pests. Numbers of some butterfly species including the gatekeeper and green-veined white doubled, and birds that usually feed on insects benefited from the shelter provided by hedges and grass margins, including the great tit, up 88%, and blue tit, up 73%.

They also found that overall yields at Hillesden were maintained – and enhanced for some crops – despite the loss of agricultural land for habitat creation. The areas taken out of production were difficult and unproductive to farm, and the other areas benefited from boosted pollinator numbers and pest-eating birds and insects.

This runs contrary to claims made by many politicians that new post-Brexit agri-environment schemes would be “paying farmers to produce less food” and would damage food security. Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor currently running to be prime minister, recently said he would “protect” farmers from rewilding their land for nature.

Jake Fiennes, the head of conservation at the Holkham estate in Norfolk and author of nature-friendly farming book Land Healer, said he was unsurprised by the results of the report.

He told the Guardian: “Historic policies in England tried to get us to produce food everywhere. But now we are realizing that we can increase our average yield by stopping growing food in areas of land that aren’t productive, and in these areas we can make space for nature. We know there are benefits from having more nature in the farm, we know we can improve farm biodiversity without affecting yields.

Fiennes said: “Take a field. If on the southern edge of that field you have a woodland, invariably the first 15 to 20 metres of that edge won’t produce the average yield, it’ll produce anything up to 50% of average. But when you have all the species that would benefit from that edge of woodland, it’s a no-brainer to give it to nature. This is the poorest land for food production, and when you are not focusing on that area you increase your average yield in the rest of the field.

“We know we have a biodiversity crisis, we know we have a climate crisis, we know the two are linked, and this is an opportunity to increase our yields as well as providing for nature.”

Dr. John Redhead of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and lead author of the research published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, said: “Investigating changes in populations over a significant period of time, and comparing these with other sites, means we can be confident that agri-environment options can bring long-term term benefits for bird and butterfly populations.

“Hillesden is a typical, large arable farm with conventional agricultural practices, in an ordinary landscape with no large patches of natural habitat. Therefore, it is likely that the results of our long-term study indicate what can be achieved on other commercial farms with good planning, implementation and management of agri-environment measures.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/03/nature-friendly-farming-does-not-reduce-productivity-study-finds?CMP=share_btn_tw