IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/auagre/335261.html

The Future of Glyphosate in Australian Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Walsh, Alison
  • Kingwell, Ross

Abstract

Glyphosate is a herbicide used widely in Australian and global agriculture. We examine policy, legal and environmental influences over its use. The likely economic consequences for farm businesses and food consumers of widespread bans on the use of glyphosate in agriculture are discussed. We outline why Australian agriculture and Australian food consumers, compared to those in other key global regions, would be comparatively less affected by an unlikely global ban on glyphosate. From an Australian public policy perspective, we argue that chemical registration of herbicides should continue to be evidence-based. However, we also recommend greater investment by government to better understand societal concerns regarding herbicides. Enhanced social engagement and two-way communication will help secure and build trust in an evidence-based policy response to chemical use in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Walsh, Alison & Kingwell, Ross, . "The Future of Glyphosate in Australian Agriculture," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 29(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:auagre:335261
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.335261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/335261/files/AAR-Vol-29-Paper-4-Walsh-and-Kingwell.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.335261?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Thomas Böcker & Wolfgang Britz & Niklas Möhring & Robert Finger, 2020. "An economic and environmental assessment of a glyphosate ban for the example of maize production [Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 371-402.
    3. Andrew R. Kniss, 2017. "Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, April.
    4. Stone, Susan F. & Matysek, Anna & Dolling, Andrew, 2002. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Staff Research Papers 31913, Productivity Commission.
    5. Pannell, David J. & Stewart, Vanessa & Bennett, Anne & Monjardino, Marta & Schmidt, Carmel & Powles, Stephen B., 2004. "RIM: a bioeconomic model for integrated weed management of Lolium rigidum in Western Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 305-325, March.
    6. Jacobs, A. & Kingwell, R., 2016. "The Harrington Seed Destructor: Its role and value in farming systems facing the challenge of herbicide-resistant weeds," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 33-40.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Walsh, Alison & Kingwell, Ross, 2021. "Economic implications of the loss of glyphosate and paraquat on Australian mixed enterprise farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Sean Lonnquist & Deborah Gallagher, 2021. "Use of Fracking Information Disclosure Policies to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk‐Based Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 326-346, May.
    3. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    4. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    5. Beierle, Thomas C., 1998. "Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals," Discussion Papers 10497, Resources for the Future.
    6. Michael R. Greenberg & Lynda Osafo, 2000. "Neighborhood quality in environmentally stressed areas of Accra, Ghana: a comparison with US counterparts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 93-104, June.
    7. Ian H. Langford, 2002. "An Existential Approach to Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 101-120, February.
    8. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    9. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    10. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    11. Chetvertakov, S., . "Welfare Analysis of Lifting the GM Ban in Russia," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 8(2), pages 1-8.
    12. Joanna Burger & Jessica Sanchez & J. Whitfield Gibbons & Michael Gochfeld, 1997. "Risk Perception, Federal Spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of Hunters and Fishermen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 313-320, June.
    13. Mitchell, Paul D., 2011. "Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Chloro-s-triazine Herbicides to U.S. Corn, Sorghum, and Sugarcane Producers," Staff Paper Series 564, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    15. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    16. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "GM food technology abroad and its implications for Australia and New Zealand," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58365, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    18. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    19. Lehtonen, Markku & de Carlo, Laurence, 2019. "Community energy and the virtues of mistrust and distrust: Lessons from Brighton and Hove energy cooperatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:auagre:335261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agrifood.info/review/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.