Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:36:35.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The linkage between pesticide use and pesticide residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Fred Kuchler
Affiliation:
Economists in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1301 New York Ave., NW, Washington DC 20005-4788.
Ram Chandran
Affiliation:
Economists in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1301 New York Ave., NW, Washington DC 20005-4788.
Katherine Ralston
Affiliation:
Economists in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1301 New York Ave., NW, Washington DC 20005-4788.
Get access

Abstract

Newly available data from USDA's Pesticide Data Program allow us to trace pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables to their sources among various uses. We show that pesticide residues come from four sources: on-farm pesticide use; post-harvest pesticide use; pesticide use on imported food; and canceled pesticides that persist in the environment. Post-harvest pesticides account for the largest share of residue detections. Farmers' pest control choices influence consumers' dietary intake of pesticides, but the way in which food is marketed and the history of pest management techniques used on farms may have a greater influence. For pesticides that U.S. farmers currently use, the data show the geographic sources of residues and the extent to which use contributes to dietary intake risks. This information could be used to target development of pest control alternatives more narrowly. However, research to develop on-farm pest control alternatives will not address all pesticide residue risks in consumers' diets.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Eichers, T., Jenkins, R., and Fox, A.. 1971. DDT used in farm production. Agric. Economic Rep. No. 158. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
2.Elkins, E.R. 1989. Effect of commercial processing on pesticide residues in selected fruits and vegetables. J. Assoc. Official Analytical Chemists 72:533535.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Engler, R. 1993. List of chemicals evaluated for carcinogenic potential. Memorandum, August 31. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
4.Gonzalez, A.R., Davis, D.R., Elkins, E.R., and Kim, E.S.. 1989. Reduction of ethylenethiourea residues in canned spinach. HortScience 24:990992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Hickey, K.D. 1991. Fungicide benefits assessment, fruit and nut crops—East. National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
6.Kuchler, F., Lynch, S., Ralston, S. K., and Unnevehr, L.. 1994. Changing pesticide policies. Choices 9(2):1519.Google Scholar
7.Kuchler, F., and Ralston, K.. 1994. Pesticide residues and food safety. In Anderson, M. (ed). Agricultural Resource and Environmental Indicators. Agrie. Handbook No. 705. Natural Resources and Environment Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C., pp. 102105.Google Scholar
8.Kuchler, E., Ralston, K., Unnevehr, L., and Chandran, R.. 1996. Pesticide residues: reducing dietary risks. Agric. Economic Rep. No. 728. Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agric., Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
9.Love, J. 1995. Specialty crops overview. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Agricultural Outlook, November 9–11.Google Scholar
10.National Research Council. 1987. Regulating Pesticides in Food: The Delaney Paradox. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
11.National Research Council. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
12.State of Florida. 1994. Official Rules Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry. Part 1, Rules of General Application. Dept. of Citrus, Lakeland, Florida, March 20.Google Scholar
13.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1991. Nationwide food consumption survey 1987/8, public use data file. Human Nutrition Information Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
14.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1992. Agricultural Chemical Usage—1991 Fruits and Nuts Summary. AgCh1(92). National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1993. Agricultural Chemical Usage—Vegetables 1992 Summary. AgCh1(93). National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
16.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1994. Pesticide Data Program (PDF) Summary of 1992 Data. Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
17.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1995. Fruit and Tree Nut Situation and Outlook. FTS-274. Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C., September.Google Scholar
18.U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. 1993. Food and Drug Administration Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring, 1992. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
19.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Exposure assessment guidelines. Federal Register 57:104:22915, May 29.Google Scholar
20.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Office of Pesticide Programs Reference Dose Tracking Report, Office of Pesticide Programs. Mimeo. April 18.Google Scholar
21.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. Prevention, pesticides and toxic substances. Pest Smart Update #3. EPA-733-N-95-002. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
22.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. Prevention, pesticides and toxic substances. Partners for pesticide environmental stewardship. EPA-730-F-95-002. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar