IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/usppxx/v6y2019i1p14-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global Zoning and Exchangeability of Field Trial Residues Between Zones: Are There Systematic Differences in Pesticide Residues Across Geographies?

Author

Listed:
  • James Nguyen
  • Carmen Tiu
  • Jane Stewart
  • David Miller

Abstract

Mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the global zoning concept using residue data from a comprehensive database of supervised field trials performed in various countries and regions on a variety of pesticide–crop combinations. No statistically significant systematic differences in pesticide residues were found between zones among the pesticide uses examined. In addition, we conducted a simulation to assess the impact of using regional versus global datasets for calculating maximum residue limits (MRLs). The conclusion of this assessment supports the concept of exchangeability of pesticide residue values across geographic regions and opens the possibility of improving harmonization of pesticide regulatory standards by establishing more globally aligned MRLs. Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Suggested Citation

  • James Nguyen & Carmen Tiu & Jane Stewart & David Miller, 2019. "Global Zoning and Exchangeability of Field Trial Residues Between Zones: Are There Systematic Differences in Pesticide Residues Across Geographies?," Statistics and Public Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 14-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:usppxx:v:6:y:2019:i:1:p:14-23
    DOI: 10.1080/2330443X.2018.1555068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/2330443X.2018.1555068
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/2330443X.2018.1555068?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:usppxx:v:6:y:2019:i:1:p:14-23. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uspp .

    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.