Some Economic and Social Aspects of Pesticide Use - ACS Publications

Chapter 3

Some Economic and Social Aspects of Pesticide Use Allen L. Jennings

Downloaded by AUBURN UNIV on April 17, 2017 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: December 31, 1991 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1991-0446.ch003

Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460 Pesticide chemicals are used for the same reason we use any other chemical tool—they offer some real or perceived advantage over the alternatives. Pesticides are an integral part of modern agriculture because they reduce the labor or cost of production, reduce the risks of crop loss, and remove some of the market uncertainties. While the techniques of modern farming have improved the economic efficiency of production, these same techniques have led to increased reliance on pest control chemicals. Specialization, geographical concentration of production, grower flexibility, and large monoculture farming are all made possible by pesticides. Pesticides are also policy tools used to support the complex array of markets and economic regulations that affect the price, quality, and availability of food. Pesticide chemicals are tools used in the production of goods and services. As with other chemical tools, ranging from oven cleaners to vinyl chloride monomer, they are used because they offer either real or perceived advantages over the available alternatives. The typical advantages of any chemical tool are that they reduce the labor or cost required to produce goods and services that fulfill some societal or consumer demand. In some cases, they produce a better product or permit a new or unique product not achievable with nonchemical tools. Unlike most other chemical tools, pesticide chemicals are designed to have some form of biological activity. They are broadly distributed in the environment and they are intentionally used on our food. Virtually everyone in the nation is exposed daily to some level of biologically active pesticides in their diet. This is the reason for society's growing concern about pesticides and it is the reason for this conference. The purpose of this paper is to describe the "whys" of pesticide use in rather broad social and economic contexts. Reducing the amount of pestiThis chapter not subject to U.S. copyright Published 1991 American Chemical Society

Tweedy et al.; Pesticide Residues and Food Safety ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1991.

PESTICIDE RESIDUES AND FOOD SAFETY

32

cide usage and reducing food residues will in all likelihood require major shifts in U.S. agriculture. These shifts will involve more than simply changing the pest control strategies and may amount to restructuring our entire agricultural industry.


Overview U.S. agriculture today is a true industry—and a very major one. In a typical year, the farm-gate value of U.S. agricultural production is around $100 Billion. The value of U.S. agricultural exports is around $30 Billion or roughly 15% of all U.S. exports. Pesticides play an important role in the industry. The annual use of agricultural pesticides in the United States approaches 800 million pounds of active ingredient or about 3 pounds per person. Agricultural production has been maintained and improved with fewer and fewer farmers. Over the years, the picture of U.S. agriculture has changed dramatically. The pastoral family farm featured in Currier and Ives prints is a thing of the past. Agriculture has moved from a system of many small farms producing a wide variety of animals and crops to a relatively few number of large acreage, highly specialized production units. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, plant and animal breeding, and machinery improvements all combine in an integrated fashion to create the present day industry. Compared to the farms of only a few decades ago, modern agriculture is incredibly efficient. As a result of this efficiency, Americans pay less of their income for food than any other nation and they can enjoy a wide variety of foods nearly year round. Why pesticides are used in the "micro-sense" or from the perspective of the farmer is fairly straight-forward. An individual grower uses pesticide inputs in place of other alternative pest control inputs. Why pesticides are used in the "macro-sense" is that today's agriculture evolved by integrating the tools available to maximize economic efficiency. They are an integral part of most of our nation's production agriculture just as are the plow, the combine harvester, and the diesel tractor. The pesticide chemical tools have replaced other means of pest control because they offer some economic or social advantage over the alternatives. Nevertheless, there is hope of changing the picture. The industry and the technologies are constantly changing, and as new tools become available, they will be adopted and integrated. In all likelihood, the tools of genetic engineering will be a major factor in shaping agriculture in the future. The consumer's demand for pesticide-free food is increasing and some farmers are changing their agricultural practices and charging premium prices to meet the demand. The concerns of the public are having an effect, but the transition to reduced pesticide agricultural production cannot occur overnight. USDA research on "low input, sustainable agriculture" (LISA), biological controls, and integrated pest management holds much promise and has already had some successes. However, the development and transfer of new crop production strategies to the individual farmer will require time.


3.

JENNINGS

Economic and Social Aspects

33


Economics vs. "Environomics" Like any industrial production unit, the farm of today seeks efficiency in its outputs. The inputs into this production industry are many and varied. They include: seed, pesticides, fertilizers, fuel, labor, capital equipment, and land and water resources. The successful manager of the agricultural production unit must find the optimal mix of inputs and integrate them into a system of maximum efficiency. Mechanical tillage of corn fields can effectively reduce weed pressures to produce a higher yield than would be possible without any form of weed control. However, the vast majority of corn farmers use a variety of herbicides to control both grassy and broad-leaf weeds. There seems to be ample evidence that herbicides do the job much cheaper or with less labor than the alternative of mechanical tillage. The savings are the time of the farmer, fuel cost, equipment depreciation, and possible crop damage. From the farmer's point of view, the economics of herbicide use are quite clear. However, society is now asking if the "environomics" make sense. The environmental costs of herbicide use are not totally captured by the price the farmer paid for the product. For example, the individual grower will not end up paying the cost to clean up aquifers contaminated by herbicides that leach. The cost of future health effects that may result from dietary and incidental exposure to the chemical does not appear on the pesticide invoice. From the larger social perspective, the argument then amounts to one of using fewer pesticides because society as a whole is paying a number of hidden costs associated with their use. While that argument has a lot of appeal, we have to look a little deeper at the "environomics" of the alternative weed control strategy^-primarily mechanical tillage. Are all of the future environmental effects and costs associated with petroleum production and refining captured by today's price of diesel fuel? What about the energy consumption and waste associated with foundry operations needed to produce more tractors and tillage equipment? What are the real costs of soil erosion? Have we thoroughly evaluated the impact of increased diesel emissions on air quality? The bottom line is not that one method of weed control is better than another from a broad social perspective. It is simply that in seeking to lower pesticide residues by changing agricultural production practices, we cannot afford to have a "single issue agenda". We must think about the alternatives and assure ourselves that we are making the right trade-offs. Some Specifics Some of the reasons why pesticides are used in the agricultural industry and by individual farmers are obvious. Others are not. Market concentration, marketing standards, basic national agricultural policies, as well as the economic behavior of individual farmers, may not immediately come to mind but all play a part.



34


Market Concentration. Pesticides allow market concentration and specialization. The large monoculture practices of today contribute to the economic efficiency of farming operations and they are made possible, in part, by pesticides. However, such geographic concentration and intense monoculture production set the stage for widespread insect, weed, and disease infestations. The small family farm of the past was less dependent on chemical controls because they produced a wide variety of crops on relatively small fields. This practice provided natural barriers to the spread of pest infestations and a habitat for natural predators. Without these barriers, farmers today are more dependent on the use of pesticides. The economics of market concentration are probably more significant in fruit and vegetable production where costly and highly specialized harvesting and processing facilities are required to bring the crop from the field to the grocer. It is simply the economy of scale. For example, if carrot production is concentrated in a limited geographical area, only a few carrot harvesters and one processing facility can service many growers. While smaller, more dispersed carrot production may be less prone to pest problems, the cost of the specialized equipment would certainly place these growers at an economic disadvantage. Marketing Standards. Pesticides are also used to maintain certain standards in the marketplace. Quality standards exist for nearly all commodities ranging from field corn to bell peppers. In the case of grains, the global market demands the establishment of quality standards which must be maintained if we hope to preserve our export markets. The marketing standards applied to fresh fruits and vegetables are more visible to the average consumer. Many people refer to these standards as "Cosmetic Standards" and are questioning their value because the standards themselves can lead to excess pesticide use. Presumably, the opponents of cosmetic standards believe that pesticide use to create a blemish free, perfectly sized, shaped, and colored piece of produce is unnecessary. The rationale holds that consumers would be better off with less pesticide residue and less than perfect produce. While I cannot argue with the logic, changing marketing standards or doing away with them will not be a simple matter and involve some basic social and economic issues. First, when given a choice, the vast majority of consumers will reject the less than perfect fruit. The social issue here is consumer education, but before we proclaim that bad looking fruit is better, we need to be certain that the linkage to reduced pesticide use is real. Any number of factors can affect the quality of produce. Peaches from the same orchard in California can look very different on the supermarket shelf depending on how they have been handled between the orchard and the store. A bad looking peach in one store could have just as much pesticide residue as a perfect peach in another store. I think the proper social action in the case of cosmetic standards is to create a larger system of certification for "organically grown produce", "pesticide free produce", or "reduced pesticide produce". Once



3.

JENNINGS


35

these programs are in place, the consumer will have greater assurance that they are getting something for their money. Labeling must be carried to the grocers' shelves as part of a consumer education program and information must be provided for making informed choices. The economic issue involves the large and complex market that operates between the grower and the consumer. The grading standards or "cosmetic standards" help ensure that the produce wholesaler in Baltimore gets what he expects for his money when he orders celery from California. The standards provide for predictable quality and help maintain the economic efficiency of our agriculture because buyers do not need to inspect every fruit and vegetable in every field. The role of government standards must also be raised and questioned. The industry itself has standards that many argue are more stringent than those established by the Federal government. Were government grading standards to disappear, we would probably not see any major changes. Basic economics and marketing are the reasons. Surveys of consumer attitudes consistently show that the quality of a supermarket's produce is the single most important factor in choosing one store over another. Consumer demand and preference have created the system and the system is not likely to change until the consumer does. Policy Tools. Pesticides are also used as policy tools. The Food Security Act, better known as the "Farm Bill", is the basis for the Department of Agriculture's incredibly complex regulatory system. The economics of agriculture are the focus of this regulatory system. Despite the image of the farmer as a highly independent individual, the agricultural industry probably ranks with investment banking as one of the most highly regulated U.S. industries. The extent of this economic regulation is driven by the competing goals of the Food Security Act and the need to balance those goals. As the name implies, a fundamental social and economic need of the nation is to have a secure food supply. Generally speaking, a secure food supply means one independent from foreign control, but it also means keeping consumer prices low, maintaining reserve supplies, and preserving the infrastructure required to assure adequate production today and into the future. On one hand, we want high levels of agricultural production in order to keep food prices low and ensure reserve supplies. On the other hand, we need to preserve the infrastructure by making the farming and allied industries profitable enough to keep people working at production. Standard supply and demand economics simply don't work so we have created the economic regulations that are intended to strike the balance. Although the programs differ from commodity to commodity, they all amount to subsidy payments for growers. Instead of higher prices in the grocery store, we pay a higher tax bill that is returned to the grower to help keep him in business. Why and how pesticides are used as policy tools in this framework of economic regulation can be demonstrated by the USDA corn program. As


36



a matter of public policy, we want excess corn production to ensure adequate reserves and to supply the foreign market. We maintain the excess by paying farmers to overproduce. However, we do not want too much overproduction so we also control the supplies. Among other features, the program requires a certain "base acreage". One result of this requirement is that some corn is planted on the same acreage year after year. The result of this practice is the proliferation of a pest known as the corn root worm. The corn root worm is easily controlled without pesticides by simply rotating to another crop the next year. Farmers who are unable to rotate because of the base acreage requirement must use a pesticide or face yield and income loss. Corn root worm control pesticides are clearly tools of the corn program and the policy of excess production. Crop Insurance. Financially, farming is a high risk occupation. An entire year's income can be lost by any number of natural disasters ranging from floods and draughts to fungus diseases and grasshoppers. The use of pesticides is one way to reduce some of the risk of crop loss. Many pesticides are used prophylactically because application after the pest appears may not be economically efficient. Pesticide treatment after the pest appears may also be biologically less efficient and result in some yield or quality loss. The risk of yield loss due to the weather can be reduced through the use of herbicides. The farmer who relies on mechanical tillage to control weeds faces significant yield loss if wet weather prevents him from getting his equipment into the fields at therighttime. There is also a financial arrangement that farmers can use as a hedge against crop loss disasters. Farmers can purchase insurance against any such losses. Policies are issued by private insurers but are underwritten by the Federal government. Like any good insurance industry, the crop insurance industry seeks to reduce the potential liability so farmers are required to employ "best management practices" in order to qualify for coverage. Typically, best management practices are interpreted as farming techniques that rely heavily on the use of pesticides. While much of the pesticide use associated with crop insurance may not be any different from what most farmers normally do, it seems clear that the present system does not favor or encourage innovative pest control strategies. One of the interesting features of the draught relief package for 1988 is that farmers who received payments were required to sign up for crop insurance. Grower Flexibility. One of the more common reasons why pesticides are used is that they allow growers to produce crops where they would be impossible to grow economically otherwise. For example, nematode control chemicals allow cotton farmers in the Mississippi Delta region to rotate soybeans. A wide variety of vegetable crops is produced in Florida and other Southern states where temperature and humidity favor the outbreak of a number of plant diseases. Without effective chemical controls, much of the production in these areas would cease.


3.

JENNINGS


37

As a result of this flexibility, farmers can meet the changing demands of the American consumer and maximize their profits by producing the crops that demand the highest prices. Flexibility in the fruit and vegetable production industries has kept consumer prices low, reduced the need for imports, and ensured nearly a year-round supply offreshfruitsand vegetables.


Summary In summary, U.S. agriculture as an instrument of national economic and social policy has been very successful. Although our position in the world market has been eroded over the last 10 to 15 years byfierceinternational competition, we still maintain a significant role. More importantly, the political necessity of a plentiful and inexpensive domestic food supply has been met. The economic efficiency of modern farming techniques is the main reason for the successes. This economic efficiency is the result of the integration of the available technology including pesticide chemicals. Viewed as a production industry, farming requires a broad array of inputs, encounters substantial production risks, and faces uncertainty in the level of outputs and the price of the product. Why pesticides are used as the input of choice for most farmers amounts to selecting the best available technology to control the pest and to reduce the risks and uncertainties in production and output. RECEIVED September 16,1990


Some Economic and Social Aspects of Pesticide Use - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents