Consumers, pesticide benefits

Consumers can easily calculate the benefits of chemical use. Farmers compufe how pesticides increase crop yields, and people appreci-afe fhe facf fhaf chlorination produces bacferia-free water. It is more difficult to determine the costs of chemical use because, in addition to a commodity s market price, there are less obvious costs, such as increased health risks. 

So although there is no doubt that the presence of pesticide residues and food additives is significantly different between organic and conventional foods, there are no generally accepted volumes of data showing that the difference in composition makes a difference to the health of consumers. However, a more precise estimate of the magnitude of risk from pesticide residues or food additives may not make much difference to the view of many consumers, who do not want to take any risk, no matter how small, when not associated with clear benefits for themselves (Torjusen et al. 2004). 

There may be some effect on consumer views if clear health benefits are proven. However, ensuring a defined level of residues in food will be even more difficult than keeping the levels below a certain limit. As described below (see Indirect measurements of effects on health), if pesticide residues are good for health, organic foods will be better still because of their high content of natural pesticides. 

The agricultural use of pesticides such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides has clearly reduced crop losses due to insects, weeds, and plant diseases in the US and throughout the world. The benefits from agricultural pesticides include improved crop yields, greater availability of fruits, vegetables, and grains, and lower consumer costs (Ecobichon, 1996). 

Large numbers of methods are available to forecast what will happen if a major herbicide is no longer available in some or all crop markets. Models for assessing the most likely farmer responses to removals of pesticides range from simple expert opinion on costs of replacement pesticides on a given acreage base, to elaborate models with yield and cost changes entered into other models to estimate the impact on both farmers and consumers. To understand why there are wide differences in estimates for the costs and benefits of a product, we must understand the specific components of these models. 

One of the major benefits of pesticides is the protection of crop yields. According to the National Research Council (2000), removing pesticides from U.S. agriculture would cause crop production to decline as much as 50%, depending on the crop species. Moreover, farm exports would decrease by 50%, and consumer expenditures for food would increase— and be accompanied by an increase in inflation—as food prices increase. In the United States, we will spend 30-40% of our income on food as opposed to 8.7% currently. It was concluded that chemical insecticides should remain part of a larger toolbox of diverse pest management tactics in the foreseeable future. 

The nature of pesticides is one of a poison deliberately being applied to plants and animals for the benefit of man. Much work has been done on the methods to do this most efficiently and effectively. Finding pesticides to accomplish this task has been rewarding and has increased both the quality and quantity of mankind food supply. This is clearly the beneficial and good side of the coin and is a fairly well-known fact in the agricultural community, but much less well-known and appreciated by the consumers in our society. 

---