'Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application
of Pesticides Primarily in the United States'
Environment, Development and
Sustainability
Publisher: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.,
Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V.
Issue: Volume 7, Number 2
Date: June 2005
Pages: 229 - 252
David Pimentel
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY
Abstract
An obvious need for an updated and comprehensive study prompted this
investigation of the complex of environmental costs resulting from the nation’s
dependence on pesticides. Included in this assessment of an estimated $10
billion in environmental and societal damages are analyses of: pesticide impacts
on public health; livestock and livestock product losses; increased control
expenses resulting from pesticide- related destruction of natural enemies and
from the development of pesticide resistance in pests; crop pollination problems
and honeybee losses; crop and crop product losses; bird, fish, and other
wildlife losses; and governmental expenditures to reduce the environmental and
social costs of the recommended application of pesticides.
The major economic and environmental losses due to the application of pesticides
in the USA were: public health, $1.1 billion (per) year; pesticide resistance in
pests, $1.5 billion; crop losses caused by pesticides, $1.4 billion; bird losses
due to pesticides, $2.2 billion; and groundwater contamination, $2.0 billion.
Keywords Agriculture - costs -
crops - environment -livestock - natural resources - pesticide – pesticide
resistance - public health
Conclusion:
An investment of about $10 billion in pesticide control each year saves
approximately $40 billion in US crops, based on direct costs and benefits.
However, the indirect costs of pesticide use to the environment and public
health need to be balanced against these benefits. Based on the available data,
the environmental and public health costs of recommended pesticide use totaled
more than $9 billion each year (Table VI). Users of pesticides pay directly only
about $3 billion, which includes problems arising from pesticide resistance and
destruction of natural enemies. Society eventually pays this $3 billion plus the
remaining $9 billion in environmental and public health costs (Table VI).
Our assessment of the environmental and health problems associated with pesticides was made more difficult by the complexity of the issues and the scarcity of data. For example, what is an acceptable monetary value for a human life lost or a cancer illness due to pesticides?
Equally difficult is placing a
monetary value on killed wild birds and other wildlife; on the dearth of
invertebrates, or microbes lost; or on the price of contaminated food and
groundwater.
In addition to the costs that cannot be accurately measured, there are many
costs that were not included in the $12 billion figure. If the full
environmental, public health and social costs could be measured as a whole, the
total cost might be nearly double the $12 billion figure. Such a complete and
long-term cost/benefit analysis of pesticide use would reduce the perceived
profitability of pesticides.
The efforts of many scientists to devise ways to reduce pesticide use in crop
production while still maintaining crop yields have helped but a great deal more
needs to be done. Sweden, for example, has reduced pesticide use by 68% without
reducing crop yields and/or the cosmetic standards (PCC, 2002). At the same
time, public pesticide poisonings have been reduced by 77%. It would be helpful,
if the United States adopted a similar goal to that of Sweden. Unfortunately
with some groups in the USA, IPM is being used as a means of justifying
pesticide use.