Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:39:00.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues in Risk/Benefit Evaluation for Pesticide Registration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

C. Robert Taylor
C. Robert Taylor*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University
Get access

Extract

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and its amendments and related legislation currently require that applicants for registration or reregistration of a pesticide demonstrate to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that there is not “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of use of the pesticide.” Present benefit evaluation guidelines call for consideration of effects on users, nonusers, consumers, GNP, and employment. Minimum guidelines call for a partial budgeting analysis and, if output effects of eliminating the pesticide appear large, a more sophisticated analysis using neoclassical multimarket economic-surplus concepts.

Type
Invited Presentation
Information
Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 71 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Aspelin, Arnold L., Grube, Arthur H., and Kibler, Virginia. Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1989 Market Estimates. USEPA/OPP/BEAD/EAB. June 1991.Google Scholar
Boland, L.A. “On the Futility of Criticizing the Neoclassical Maximization Hypothesis.” American Economic Review 71 (1981):1031–36.Google Scholar
Boland, L.A. “The Neoclassical Maximization Hypothesis: Reply.” American Economic Review 73 (1983):828–30.Google Scholar
Burks, A.W. Chance, Cause, Reason: An Inquiry into the Nature of Scientific Evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Buschena, David E., and Zilberman, David. “Similarity of Choices and the Performance of the Expected Utility Approach: Empirical Results.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of Southern Regional Research Group S-232, Orlando, FL, March 22–25, 1992.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B.J. “The Neoclassical Maximization Hypothesis: Comment.” American Economic Review 73 (1983):824–27.Google Scholar
De Alessi, L. “Property Rights, Transaction Costs, and X-Efficiency: An Essay in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 73 (1983):64–81.Google Scholar
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. Regulatory Program of the United States Government. April 1, 1988-March 31, 1989.Google Scholar
Hueth, D., and Regev, U. “Optimal Agricultural Pest Management with Increasing Pest Resistance.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 56 (1974):543–52.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. “Alternative Approaches to Pesticide Regulation.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21 (1992):83–92.Google Scholar
MacCrimmon, K.R., and Larson, S. “Utility Theory: Axioms versus ‘Paradoxes’.” In Expected Utility and the Allais Paradox, edited by Allais, M. and Hagen, O., 333–409. Dordrecht Holland: D. Reidel, 1979.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. “Discussion: Problems of Methodology.” American Economic Review 53(1964 supplement):231–36.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, P.J.H. “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations.” Journal of Economic Literature 20 (1982):529–63.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. “Dynamic Programming Under Uncertainty With a Quadratic Criterion Function.” Econometrica 24 (1956):74–81.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. Robert, and Headley, J.C. “Insecticide Resistance and the Evaluation of Control Strategies for an Insect Populations.” Canadian Entomologist 107 (1975):237–42.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. Robert, Penson, John B. Jr., Smith, Edward G., and Knutson, Ronald D. “Economic Impacts of Chemical Use Reduction on the South.” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics 23 (July 1991):15–23.Google Scholar
Theil, H. “A Note on Certainty Equivalence in Dynamic Planning.” Econometrica 25 (1957):346–49.Google Scholar
United States General Accounting Office. Pesticides: Economic Research Service's Analyses of Proposed EPA Actions. GAO/RCED-89-75BR. March 1989.Google Scholar