IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v20y2000i5p665-680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk/Risk Trade‐offs in Pesticide Regulation: An Exploratory Analysis of the Public Health Effects of a Ban on Organophosphate and Carbamate Pesticides

Author

Listed:
  • George M. Gray
  • James K. Hammitt

Abstract

Efforts to reduce pesticide‐related risks to consumers and farmworkers often neglect the possibility that measures to reduce the target risk may introduce or enhance countervailing risks. These may arise from substitute pesticides or pest‐control practices, from increased levels of pests or pest‐related hazards, from increased levels of toxic natural pesticides in plants, from increased costs and decreased consumption of health‐enhancing fruits and vegetables, or from direct income effects on consumers and farmers. The effect of the countervailing risks may partially or completely offset the reduction in the target risk. A risk‐trade‐off analysis was conducted of a potential ban on the use of organophosphate and carbamate (OP/Carbamate) insecticides in U.S. agriculture. Although this scenario is extreme, it has the analytic virtue of dispensing with the infinite number of “next‐best” OP/Carbamates that might be substituted for specific combinations of crops and pests should only selected uses be banned. The analysis relies on detailed descriptions of the alternative pesticides and pest‐control measures that would be used for each of 14 major crops. The effects of pest‐control cost changes on prices and consumption and effects on consumer and producer incomes are projected using a general‐equilibrium economic model. Several countervailing risks that may be significant were found, including acute toxicity to farmworkers from substitute pesticides, cancer and noncancer risks from substitute pesticides, and mortality induced by changes in disposable income. Other countervailing risks are more difficult to estimate or weigh. Potential increases in natural plant pesticides following an OP/Carbamate ban are discussed but data are lacking to quantify the effects. Changes in diet following the ban have both positive and negative effects, and the ultimate change is difficult to estimate. Although a net risk cannot be estimated, several approaches were illustrated that would be useful in risk‐trade‐off analyses. Key factors complicating comprehensive analysis of risk/risk trade‐offs for pesticides were also identified, including data gaps and shortcomings of current risk assessment methods.

Suggested Citation

  • George M. Gray & James K. Hammitt, 2000. "Risk/Risk Trade‐offs in Pesticide Regulation: An Exploratory Analysis of the Public Health Effects of a Ban on Organophosphate and Carbamate Pesticides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 665-680, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:5:p:665-680
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.205060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205060
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.205060?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Hofstetter & Jane C. Bare & James K. Hammitt & Patricia A. Murphy & Glenn E. Rice, 2002. "Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 833-851, October.

    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:wly:riskan:v:20:y:2000:i:5:p:665-680. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.