IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae06/25504.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bt and Ht Corn versus Conventional Pesticide and Herbicide Use. Do Environmental Impacts Differ?

Author

Listed:
  • Nillesen, Eleonora
  • Scatasta, Sara
  • Wesseler, Justus

Abstract

In this paper we empirically assess and compare the environmental impact of pesticide programs for Bt, Ht (glufosinate) and conventional corn in Europe, employing the Environmental Impact Quotient. We use field trial data from Narbons, France 2004 as well as secondary data. Our results show that management of Bt corn has a lower environmental impact than conventional corn programs. Herbicide treatment of the Ht variety also has a much lower environmental impact than that of the two conventional programs. Our empirical findings support the argument of lower environmental and health impacts with respect to pesticide use when growing Bt and Ht corn. The outcomes are relevant for environmental benefit-cost analysis of Bt and Ht corn.

Suggested Citation

  • Nillesen, Eleonora & Scatasta, Sara & Wesseler, Justus, 2006. "Bt and Ht Corn versus Conventional Pesticide and Herbicide Use. Do Environmental Impacts Differ?," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25504, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae06:25504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/25504
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scatasta, Sara & Wesseler, Justus & Demont, Matty, 2005. "Irreversibility, Uncertainty and the Adoption of Transgenic Crops: the Case of BT-Maize in France," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24758, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EIQ; pesticide use; Bt; Ht corn; Crop Production/Industries; Environmental Economics and Policy; Q10; Q16;

    JEL classification:

    • Q10 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - General
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services

    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:iaae06:25504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.