Current Agriculture, Food & Resource Issues
S.B. Cash et al.
times as protective as the mean risk of pesticide uses that were banned between 1975 and
1989 (Van Houtven and Cropper, 1996). Although these results can not be applied
directly to most individual pesticide bans - which typically affect the price of only a few
crops - the study shows that pesticide regulations that reduce relatively small risks at high
cost may actually have a negative impact on overall consumer health. Furthermore, the
research also suggests that low-income consumers may be the hardest hit by the negative
health impacts of price-induced dietary changes, whereas high-income consumers tend to
reap the greatest direct benefits from reduced residue exposures.
Discussion
Economic theory tells us that regulatory intervention is justified in the presence of
market failures. In the case of pesticide residues on food, the two most salient
sources of failure are externality and incomplete information. The externality arises
because the costs associated with dietary exposure to pesticide residues are not in the
main borne by the producers who make the application decisions. The incomplete
information problem arises because a consumer cannot easily determine the level of
pesticide residue on produce. Even if the level were readily apparent, the nature of the
risks posed by these residues is not well understood.
The problem illustrated in the previous section is that regulatory decisions that are
based on narrow criteria may give rise to other undesirable outcomes. When the target risk
is small and the costs of reducing it are relatively large, there is a strong possibility that
the net effect of a regulatory effort may be negative. Although consideration of such
tradeoffs may be repulsive when the metric is in “body counts”, the reality is that it is
impossible for government to eliminate all risks to our health and well-being. A standard
of discretion must be applied, whether it be benefit-cost analysis, established levels of
acceptable risk, or some other measure.
The Food Quality Protection Act is a wide-reaching law that will have a large impact
on U.S. agriculture in the coming years. While an increased awareness of the effects of
agricultural chemicals on vulnerable groups - especially infants - is a welcome addition
to the nation’s pesticide laws, regulators need to take into account the potentially high
costs of additional pesticide bans on both producers and consumers. These costs can be
measured not just in dollars, but also in dietary changes that may have negative health
consequences. In implementing the regulations required by the FQPA, The EPA should
keep in mind that this most recent overhaul of the pesticide laws specifically grants the
agency discretion in setting standards when use of the pesticides prevents other risks to
consumers or avoids “significant disruption in domestic production of an adequate,
wholesome, and economical food supply” (United States House of Representatives,
1996).
78