Consumer Reports GreenerChoices Consumer Reports GreenerChoices
GreenerChoices.org -- Join our FREE e-mail newsletter
HOME FOOD SAFETY & SUSTAINABILITY ECO-LABELS BUYING GUIDES BABIES & KIDS SUPPORT US

Greener Choices Home > Eco-labels center > Search label report cards by category

Label report card search results

You searched Label Category: Pest Management for report cards.



Print this page
Download the mobile edition
LABEL REPORT CARD | LABEL CATEGORY SEARCH: Pest Management
Label Logo How meaningful is the label? Is the label verified? Is the meaning of the label consistent? Are the label standards publicly available? Is information about the organization publicly available? Is the organization free from conflict of interest? Was the label developed with broad public and industry input?
Bird Friendly Highly meaningful Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Eco Apple and Eco Peach - "Certified by the IPM Institute of North America" Somewhat meaningful Yes No Yes No1 No2 No3
Green Shield Certified Meaningful4 Yes5 Yes6 Yes Yes Yes Yes7
Responsible Choice - Stemilt Not meaningful No No8 No No No No
1. Two organizations are involved in the Eco Apple and Eco Peach "Certified by the IPM Institute of North America" program. Red Tomato is a non-profit organization that markets the fruit, and owns the copyright to the standards. Red Tomato contracts with the IPM Institute of North America, a non-profit organization that maintains and verifies the standards. The IPM Institute of North America is a non-profit organization, but not a 501(c)(3) and financial information is not publicly available.
2. Standards development: No. There is currently no conflict of interest policy to prevent individuals with a conflict of interest from voting on the final standards. There is also no policy that specifies who makes the final decision on revisions to the standards. Verification: No. The IPM Institute of North America makes the final determination on certification approvals. A conflict of interest policy for inspectors and other individuals involved in the verification process is under development.
3. Standards development: No. The standards were developed with broad industry input, from extension agents, growers, and academics but no broad public input. Standards updates: No. The standards are updated yearly, to address emerging pest problems relevant to Northeast growers. Standards updates involve the Advisory Committee, which consists of producers, researchers and crop consultants, members of the IPM Institute of North America and Red Tomato. Growers and other stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide input on the revisions, but draft standards are not posted for public input.
4. The label would be considered "highly meaningful" if onsite inspections occurred annually rather than once every three years, if unannounced inspections were used, and if meeting standards could be verified more objectively.
5. However, on-site inspections only occur once every three years, and unannounced visits are rarely if ever used.
6. Many of the standards are qualitative; they depend on the judgment of the evaluator and on information provided by the company, both of which may vary.
7. Some “commercial” funding comes from certification fees, but the program is primarily funded by grants.
8. Since there are no standards, and growers can make improvements voluntarily (but are not required), the meaning is not consistent.


About GreenerChoices.org   |   Newsroom   |   Your privacy rights   |   Security   |   Contact us
Copyright © 2007-2014 by Consumers Union of United States., Inc., 101 Truman Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10703, a nonprofit organization. No downloading, transmission, photocopying, or commercial use permitted. Visit www.GreenerChoices.org.