Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:04:42.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding farm operator opposition to government regulation of agricultural chemicals and Pharmaceuticals: The role of social class, objective interests, and ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr  and
Frederick H. Buttel
Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801.
Frederick H. Buttel
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801.
Get access

Abstract

This study seeks to identify the social factors related to opposition to government regulation of agricultural chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Analysis of data from a 1982 survey of farm operators in New York State shows that, in contrast to much of the literature that represents farmers as being almost universally opposed to regulation, farm operators' orientations toward government regulation of these substances vary considerably. Indicators of the class status or position of farm operators were found to be directly related to opposition to regulation. Willingness to assume risk and the importance placed by farm operators on making profit were also directly related to opposition to regulation, while farm men's off-farm work, cynicism toward agribusiness, non-economic orientation toward agriculture, perceptions of potential side effects of agricultural chemicals and drugs, and liberal political attitudes were inversely related to opposition to regulation. The results of a multivariate analysis suggest that farmer opposition to government regulation of agricultural chemicals is primarily due to farmer ideology and has little relationship with whether farmers actually use these chemicals.

Keywords

ground water pollutionsoil contaminantshealth effectsfeed additivesantibioticsagribusinessfarm profitsfarmer ideologyattitudes
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 12 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.Baird, F. L., with Smith, R. E.. 1976. Attitudes and Public Participation on the High Plains Toward Groundwater Planning and Management Institutions. NTIS PB-253 519. Research report prepared for Office of Water Research and Technology. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2.Bernstein, A. D., Stewart, D., and Lowry, R.. 1976. A Study of the Short Term Agricultural User Adjustment Problems Associated with Major Pesticide Regulatory Restrictions. NTIS PB-270-641. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
3.Buttel, F. H., Larson, O. W. III, Harris, C. K., and Powers, S.. 1982. Social class and agrarian political ideology: the determinants of political attitudes among full- and part-time farmers. Social Forces 61 (September):277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cochrane, W. W. 1979. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
5. Colorado State University, n.d. Surveys to various extension audiences concerning pesticide chemicals: general report. Colorado State University, Cooperative Extension Service (mimeographed).Google Scholar
6.Conservation Foundation. 1987. State of the Environment. Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
7.Coyer, B. W., and Schwerin, D. S.. 1981. Bureaucratic regulation and farmer protest in the Michigan PBB contamination case. Rural Sociology 46(Winter):703–723.Google Scholar
8.Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York, New York.Google Scholar
9.Eichers, T. R., Andeilenas, P. A., and Anderson, T. W.. 1978. Farmers' Use of Pesticides in 1976. Agricultural Economic Report No. 418. U. S. Department of Agriculture; Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
10.Friedland, W. H., Furnari, M., and Pugliese, E.. 1980. The labor process and agriculture. Paper presented at the Working Conference on the Labor Process, March, University of California, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
11.Gillespie, G. W. Jr., 1987. Antibiotic animal feed additives and public policy: farm operators' beliefs about the importance of these additives and their attitudes toward government regulation of agricultural chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
12.Goodman, D., Sorj, B., and Wilkinson, J.. 1987. From Farming to Biotechnology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
13.Hadwiger, D. F. 1978. Agriculture policy. In Lowi, T. J. and Stone, A. (eds.). Nationalizing Government: Public Policies in America. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
14.Hoiberg, E. O., and Bultena, G. L.. 1981. Farm operator attitudes toward governmental involvement in agriculture. Rural Sociology 46 (Fall):381–390.Google Scholar
15.Kim, N. K., and Stone, D. W.. 1980. Organic Chemicals and Drinking Water. New York Department of Health, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
16.Lowry, O. H. 1974. A scientist's viewpoint. In National Academy of Sciences, How Safe is Safe? The Design of Policy on Drugs and Food Additives. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. pp. 107–115.Google Scholar
17.Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1986. Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture. OTA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
18.Padgitt, S. 1988. Farmers' views on groundwater quality: concerns, practices, and policy preferences. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
19.Powers, E. C., and Jarecki, E. A.. 1977. Survey of U.S. Great Lakes Basin Farmers Regarding Water Pollution from Agricultural Activities. NTIS PB-296-847. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
20.Ross, J., Min, J. H., and Bemis, J.. 1967. Communications patterns among rural Wisconsin residents on pesticide use. Department of Agricultural Journalism Bulletin 37 (December). College of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
21.Russell, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Safe Drinking Water: Current and Future Problems. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
22.Salcedo, R. N., Read, H., Evans, J. F., and Kong, A. C.. 1971. Rural-urban perspectives of the pesticide industry. Rural Sociology 36(4):554–562.Google Scholar
23.Von Rumker, R., and Horay, F.. 1974. Farmers' Pesticide Use Decisions and Attitudes on Alternate Crop Protection Methods. NTIS PB-234 633. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar