Here are the meeting notes that were distributed for the meeting: Meeting Handout- August 31, 2017

Below are the notes for the meeting, which were compiled by Linda Brewer of OSU. Advisory Council

8.31.17, Food Innovation Center in Portland Oregon



Weston Miller, OSU

Linda Brewer, OSU

David Greenberg consultant funding

Clint Burfitt ODA

Nichole Linehan PDX Parks and Rec IPM program

Michelle Delepine W Multnomah SWCD

Mitch Frister PPRC

Dominic Maze Bureau PDX Environmental Services

Chip Greening MG Clackamas Co.

Cathy Shearin E Multnomah SWCD

Sharon Selvaggio NCAP

Dennis Brown Multnomah Co. MG program

Carl Grimm Metro

Gilbert Uribe ODA pesticide program

Adriana Escobedo-Land Samara Group

Jolene Littlejohn Samara Group


Shawn Van Doren Clackamas Co. MG

Stevan Cohen Multnomah Co. MG

Jeff Choate OSU Extension Lane County

Paul Jepson OSU

Andony Melathopoulos OSU

Kevin Masterson ODEQ

Bryan Mayjor EESC OSU

Keri Handaly City of Gresham



  • Review of funders – see June 2016 funder report.
  • Long term nature of the project:
    • Michelle asks whether EESC will be the long-term technical contact? Depends on funding and staffing.
  • Technology development: EESC instrumental in the planning. Drupel developer Tom Wheeler of bilingual Food Hero fame, drupel, experienced in the culture of academics. Next steps: mock ups and content examples, due in +/- 6 months.
  • Pesticide communications: Paul Jepson stepping aside for the time being. Kaci Buhl (OSU, NPIC) contributing to the planning process.
  • Project plans 2017: Listening Sessions. See the agenda document.
    • Zoo event has blog participation and feedback
    • Geographic diversity: Deschutes Co.
    • Spanish speakers, and community groups representing them 2 sessions
    • Development of a final plan based on the 6 components listed in the document

Andony thumbnails his publications, postcards, landscaper outreach. Outreach for landscapers and light version for homeowners – for protection of pollinators.

Jeff suggests that we do what we can to crosslink other parts of the site to pollinator health pages.

Michelle asks whether active outreach has begun for the zoo events? Not as much as would be liked at this point.



Intent is to take a broad issue and specifically serve key audiences that have been traditionally under-served and/or marginalized.

Opportunities for feedback and input

Opportunities for leadership

Broad outreach list for community organizations

Community leaders and organizations serving, representing Spanish speakers

Options for engagement

  • Telephone outreach
  • Community connectors
  • Offering Opportunities based on their feedback and capacity to participate.
  • 1:1, web-based, listening sessions, advisory council, others unknown?
  • Chip Greening asks how Latino landscape workers are going to be reached? Work with community organizations that have contact with those workers.
  • Jalene: Separate feedback engagement from the marketing plan. Examine and validate judgments. It’s in the budget.
  • Kathy: when contacting landscape companies, you may never reach the person doing the work. And Jolene discusses her plans for addressing those issues.
  • Sharon: have you already started recruiting these organizations, given that the zoo event is a month away? Pesticide communication framed as tho’ it’s the only part of interest to diverse audiences. Weston will review the language. List in development, being vetted. Request for the group’s connections
  • Chip: health care organizations that focus on Spanish speakers. These staffers might be a good conduit for information dissemination. Appreciated comment. Weston comment on retail workers too.
  • Michelle – Make it appealing to retail workers, don’t want to alienate retailers. Weston – messaging issue.
  • Jalene should get Andony’s input
  • From Shawn to Everyone: (11:44 AM)
    • It would be awesome if the retailers could provide a way for shoppers to access the site right in the pesticide aisle



$3.3 M would be comprehensive for 660 pages of content, technology, pesticide risk analysis. Conservative estimates of costs.

Grant writing and other forms of fundraising. See agenda document. About 56% – $1.8+ M has not yet been identified. Weston shares examples of possible linkages toward closing that gap.

Thoughts on missed opportunities for fundraising?

Jeff: Can think of example franchises (Ace, Tru-Value, Do It Best, Wilco, Coastal Farm & Ranch.)

Kathy: Kaiser, Providence, Peace Health Oregon Assn Conservation Districts

Michelle: OACD leadership on web calls. Tax-based SWCDs.

Sharon: Would you invite funding from the pesticide industry? Well if we were transparent about our goals, they could decide whether to participate. Dominic: be really clear about their level of influence.

Chip: Objection vs concern. Carl explains his position. The group is community based.

Keri: we can’t control OSU, but they are supposed to be science based. Don’t accept funding from the pesticide industry.

Paul: Understands concerns. There are several levels of protection against influence here:

  1. The project is community driven and community based.
  2. Generally, extramural funding is based on a proposal.
  3. OSU scrutinizes contract terms and conditions; the federal agencies have restrictions about how their monies can be used.
  4. Don’t accept money from organizations with an implicit bias. Approach organizations with open rounds of funding, a clearly state mission, and propose projects with defined scopes of work.

Adriana comments that there is an opportunity to identify a company with IPM interest, and that has interest in making a shift in their orientation. Once it’s published, the mission of the website would be less likely to change.

David: Socially responsible fundraising. It’s complicated. Find a forum for a series of these conversations so that the group can develop a list of “stops” beyond which they will not go. Continue the conversations as funding opportunities arise. Continue the conversations. Avoid surprises down the road. Weston – draft guidelines, vet with advisory group.

Paul approves – be vigilant for ways in which bias could be introduced. Weston – we want to be unbiased.

Michelle: other possible sources – Oregon Health Authority. Federal worker safety grants, OSHA. County health authorities.

Sharon: OACD – minimize impacts to human health and pollinators, but alternatives to pesticides has benefits for water, fish, think about water organizations, OWEB, and others. EWEB.



Revisit the basic assumptions of the website. Carl’s charge is that we identify common ground among ourselves the plan is not yet word-smithed.

  1. Purpose See agenda document page 4.

Michelle eliminate or reduce is a strong starter, could be rewritten? If we describe clearly – (Keri) reduce overall use of pesticides and shifting some categories of users to other categories. Sharon – frame in the positive. Positive would be an easier way to bring other people in. Keri: some things might be eliminated from escaping into water. Mitch: acknowledge identification data points. Paul: IPM now speaking about balance among health, economic, and environmental. At present, there is no mention of the aesthetic in this project– social dimension of much gardening activity. Try to address that by promoting IPM. Reestablish connections with environmental services: pollination, Michelle: encourage all the group to realize how easy it is to alienate audiences that would use the resource as we go through the framing. Kathy: there are a lot of messages pushing pesticide use, and too few science base messages telling the public of the consequences of pesticide use. It‘s high time that we come together and get an alternative message out there. Dominic cast the message in the context of true IPM.

And further with the core messages.

Adriana: define IPM. Weston – See UC Davis see: Shelve this topic for later specific discussion.

From Shawn to Everyone: (11:18 AM)

As a master gardener talking to the public about Metro’s challenge the word ‘eliminate’ has never been a problem

From Shawn to Everyone: (11:26 AM)

Swap the words reduce and eliminate

From Paul to Everyone: (11:32 AM)

Promote the aesthetic, cultural and recreational and ecological value of gardens and landscapes by employing IPM to manage pests, and limits impacts of pests and pest control practices on human health and the environment

  1. Key audiences add retail workers broadly. Mitch asks whether the information is accessible and equal to all audiences? That’s the idea. As much visual information as possible. Culturally appropriate and cost effective
  2. Key recommendations as part of IPM
    1. Pest identification: see the agenda document
    2. Sharon: efficacy and cost: give some idea of efficacy and cost? Possible? There is data missing. Cost differential information would be useful. If these are listed as important, how will it be done? Paul: Cost and efficacy are important to raise, but rating is difficult. Efficacy is not required for labeling pesticides in the US. May be worthwhile to have a deeper conversation on this. Nichole – who is the end user? What is the goal? What is the damage tolerance threshold? Scale is really important for cost and it is user defined. Jeff: threshold is a critical component of IPM. See PNW Plant Disease Handbook. Balance between short-and long-term outcomes.
  3. Pesticide communications
    1. Kevin wonders about the third bullet and how chemicals will be categorized. Weston reviews Paul’s contribution to this work.

Clint asks how to deliver the message to people who are not interested vs people who do not know. Jalene responds from an outreach perspective.

Shawn: We don’t stand a chance of changing their minds if we don’t offer education and information. Weston mentions that Claudia has a special interest in outreach to the big box shopper.

Paul liked Clint’s comment about how to access decision making in an informative way that meets the decision making need. These are questions rarely asked, and we don’t know the answers. Must not criticize the regulatory agencies, but pesticides available to homeowners are classified as highly hazardous, yet for sale to Oregonians. Making people aware of the hazards is important. Many of the public may assume that if it’s available in retail, it’s safe to use. We don’t want to create a chemophobic populations, but there are serious problems out there to be solved, some of them connected with chemistries. Steven is assured by Weston that funding has been budgeted for emerging pest issues.

From Paul to Everyone: (11:47 AM)

focusing on label information to start with

From Jeff to Everyone: (11:55 AM)

I like the idea of identifying products rather than simply active ingredients.  Aside from the monumental task of pulling that together initially, this will require annual review.  Has that been built into the cost structure?