IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/ucsbrw/qt15q4z6xj.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California

Author

Listed:
  • Larsen, Ashley E
  • Gaines, Steven D
  • Deschênes, Olivier

Abstract

Virtually all agricultural communities worldwide are exposed to agricultural pesticides. Yet, the health consequences of such exposure are poorly understood, and the scientific literature remains ambiguous. Using individual birth and demographic characteristics for over 500 000 birth observations between 1997-2011 in the agriculturally dominated San Joaquin Valley, California, we statistically investigate if residential agricultural pesticide exposure during gestation, by trimester, and by toxicity influences birth weight, gestational length, or birth abnormalities. Overall, our analysis indicates that agricultural pesticide exposure increases adverse birth outcomes by 5-9%, but only among the population exposed to very high quantities of pesticides (e.g., top 5th percentile, i.e., ~4200 kg applied over gestation). Thus, policies and interventions targeting the extreme right tail of the pesticide distribution near human habitation could largely eliminate the adverse birth outcomes associated with agricultural pesticide exposure documented in this study.The health consequences of exposure to pesticides are uncertain and subject to much debate. Here, the effect of exposure during pregnancy is investigated in an agriculturally dominated residential area, showing that an increase in adverse birth outcomes is observed with very high levels of pesticide exposure.

Suggested Citation

  • Larsen, Ashley E & Gaines, Steven D & Deschênes, Olivier, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," University of California at Santa Barbara, Recent Works in Economics qt15q4z6xj, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:ucsbrw:qt15q4z6xj
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/15q4z6xj.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine J. Morrison Paul & V. Eldon Ball & Ronald G. Felthoven & Arthur Grube & Richard F. Nehring, 2002. "Effective Costs and Chemical Use in United States Agricultural Production: Using the Environment as a “Free” Input," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 902-915.
    2. Douglas Almond & Janet Currie, 2011. "Killing Me Softly: The Fetal Origins Hypothesis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 153-172, Summer.
    3. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    4. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Niklas Möhring & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Robert Finger, 2020. "Are pesticides risk decreasing? The relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 429-444, May.
    2. Jones, Michael S. & Brown, Zachary S., 2023. "Food for thought: Assessing the consumer welfare impacts of deploying irreversible, landscape-scale biotechnologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    3. Möhring, Niklas & Finger, Robert, 2022. "Pesticide-free but not organic: Adoption of a large-scale wheat production standard in Switzerland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Chen, Juhui & Bai, Junfei & Van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2024. "Savior or Driver? Retailer recommendation and pesticide overuse," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Zheng, Yanan & Goodhue, Rachael E., 2022. "Intensive or Extensive Margin Effects? Growers’ Responses to the Restriction of High-Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Pesticide Products in the San Joaquin Valley, California," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322085, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Daniel C. Voica & Troy G. Schmitz, 2022. "Trading risk for ambiguity: Production versus health under pesticide application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1327-1342, August.
    7. Koppenberg, Maximilian & Hirsch, Stefan & Finger, Robert, 2023. "Effects of the debate on glyphosate's carcinogenic risk on pesticide producers' share prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    8. Wei, Hanlin & Goodhue, Rachael & Zhang, Minghua, 2024. "Pesticide Use and Cropland Consolidation in California Organic Agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).

    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. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    2. Trautman, Dawn & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Unterschultz, James R., 2012. "Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Adoption -- Direct Farm Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs," Project Report Series 139638, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    3. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Li, Xinyi & Zhang, Weina & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2021. "Policy-oriented versus market-induced: Factors influencing crop diversity across China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    4. Liu, Wenjing & Wang, Jingsheng & Li, Chao & Chen, Baoxiong & Sun, Yufang, 2019. "Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem Services Research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 293-305.
    5. Noelia S. Bedoya-Perales & Guilherme Pumi & Angel Mujica & Edson Talamini & Antonio Domingos Padula, 2018. "Quinoa Expansion in Peru and Its Implications for Land Use Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    7. Aiyar, Anaka & Cummins, Joseph R., 2021. "An age profile perspective on two puzzles in global child health: The Indian Enigma & economic growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Brausmann, Alexandra & Bretschger, Lucas, 2018. "Economic development on a finite planet with stochastic soil degradation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-19.
    9. Alex Hollingsworth & Krzysztof Karbownik & Melissa A. Thomasson & Anthony Wray, 2024. "The Gift of a Lifetime: The Hospital, Modern Medicine, and Mortality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(7), pages 2201-2238, July.
    10. Nandi, Arindam & Sahoo, Soham & Haberland, Nicole & Ngô, Thoại D., 2023. "A glass ceiling at the playhouse? Gender gaps in public and private preschool enrollment in India," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    11. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Xi Chen & Chih Ming Tan & Xiaobo Zhang & Xin Zhang, 2020. "The effects of prenatal exposure to temperature extremes on birth outcomes: the case of China," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 1263-1302, October.
    14. Verónica Amarante & Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2016. "Do Cash Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes? Evidence from Matched Vital Statistics, Program, and Social Security Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-43, May.
    15. Adamopoulou, Effrosyni & Olivieri, Elisabetta & Triviza, Eleftheria, 2024. "Eating habits, food consumption, and health: The role of early life experiences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    16. Eric B. Schneider & Kota Ogasawara & Tim J. Cole, 2021. "Health Shocks, Recovery, and the First Thousand Days: The Effect of the Second World War on Height Growth in Japanese Children," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 47(4), pages 1075-1105, December.
    17. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    18. Jürges, Hendrik, 2015. "Ramadan fasting, sex-ratio at birth, and birth weight: No effects on Muslim infants born in Germany," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 13-16.
    19. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    20. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    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:cdl:ucsbrw:qt15q4z6xj. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/educsus.html .

    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.