A cost-benefit analysis of pesticides

A balance has to be achieved between the private costs to the farmers and the external costs to the rest of the society

Pesticides are a modern input used by many farmers to get rid of biological organisms such as weeds and insects that hinder the growth and yield of their crops. Their basic function is to remove the ‘undesirable’ (from the human point of view) components of the natural ecosystem and replacing them with desirable components. However, pesticides negatively impact the natural ecosystem in various ways which affect both the farmer and the rest of the society.

The wide spread use of pesticides in modern farming has led to the termination of many beneficial insects that do not fall into the category of pests. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that at least 67 million birds die each year from pesticides sprayed on the US fields; the annual number of fish killed is conservatively close 6 to 14 million. In addition, the leakage of pesticides into plants and water has also caused deformities in animals. For example DDT, one of the greatest bird killers of all time, was banned in the US in 1972, but it is still manufactured and exported overseas, particularly to Latin America, where many birds from the US migrate over winter. One of the major negative externalities resulting from the use of pesticides in agriculture is exemplified by the ‘bee colony disorder’, a type of immune deficiency disorder. Once crops or members of the food chain such as bees who are involved in the creation of foods, are exposed to these toxic pesticides, human beings are inevitably put at a risk since they are the final consumers of agricultural produce. Many tomato crops are sprayed every week or two with fungicides such as chlorothalonil or mancozeb to control diseases, causing buyers to consume items attached with risk factors/negative attributes that they are technically unaware of.

Farmers use pesticides to avert the natural organisms which hinder crop growth however the application of new pesticides come with a set of side effects that might adversely affect farming practices. Of the billions of pesticide tonnages applied to agricultural land, 99.9 per cent never reach a target pest, but disperse through the environment with unknown effects. The inability of pesticides to get rid of all the desired ‘nuisances’ coupled with the emergence of new breeds of pests leads to the creation of a ‘pesticide treadmill’. Plants also develop resistance to pesticides hence farmers have to combat the side effects of existing pesticides and get rid of new diseases/pests by applying increasing amounts of chemicals. This practice not only undermines the basis of crop growth which is efficient production; it also greets farmers with increasing costs of inputs.

Pesticides provide farmers with a relatively cheap solution to their struggle against unwanted components of the ecological system. The current trend in commercial agriculture supports these farmers’ practices and most farmers do not have enough information regarding alternative solutions available to them. For example, ‘of the 30,000 research projects supported by the USDA in 1995 and 1996, only 34 focused on organic production.’ Farmer’s are hesitant to adopt alternative solutions such as using certain bio-pesticides or releasing/promoting insects such as lady bugs which feed on asphates, because these practices are unfeasible for large scale agriculture. In the case of mass production/large scale farming and the farmer’s primary goal is profit maximization hence it is natural for him to choose the technique that marginally reduces production costs even though it may have high negative externalities. It is easier for small scale/subsistence farmers to make a shift away from pesticides mainly because they can carry out ‘organic farming’ and market their respective products under the increasingly popular ‘organic’ produce label – organic foods cost 57% more than their conventional counterparts. Although consumers are becoming aware of the dangers of conventional foods, many of them choose to go for conventional foods because of the lower price tag which is why farmers keep on running their businesses as is.

Recently, a number of the largest food companies are stepping off the (pesticide) treadmill and they are taking their famers with them. Farmer’s are adopting a technique known as Integrated Pest Management that has a broad based spectrum of operation. It would be unfeasible for large scale farmers to immediately or completely give up on pesticides, instead the more practical alternative would be to operate on low IPM and cut back on certain kinds of pesticides. Small scale farmers should be encouraged to engage in organic farming and adopt high/bio-intensive IPM that involves a number of non chemical methods used to get rid of pests such as planting different crops from year to year to break disease and insect cycles and releasing insects such as lacewings and ladybugs that prey on crop pests.

As in the case of any practice/production method with high negative externalities the government can put taxes on pesticides or ban certain very harmful pesticides. For example, the use of DDT was banned in the United States; however, a problem arises because these goods can be exported to developing countries where governments and farmers do not have enough knowledge or money to support alternative practices.

Ideally farmers should adopt methods which reducing the undesirable aspects of the natural eco-system without overreaching the limit of agro-system resiliency. A balance has to be achieved between the private costs to the farmers and the external costs to the rest of the society in order for any farmer to adopt or get rid of the use of pesticides. Hence, farmers will only let go of pesticides if the alternative methods do not increase their production costs or lower their profit margins.

The writer is a staff member of Pakistan Today and holds a degree from Mount Holyoke College.