Economic and health trade-offs of pesticide regulation in agriculture

Summary

This paper, published in Science of the Total Environment, examines the tension between the economic interests of agricultural producers and the public health imperative to limit pesticide exposure through regulatory intervention. It likely employs quantitative modelling or comparative policy analysis to assess how different regulatory scenarios affect both farm-level economics and population health outcomes. The study contributes to the evidence base for proportionate pesticide governance by making explicit the trade-offs that regulators and policymakers must navigate.

UK applicability

Although the study appears international in scope, its findings are directly relevant to UK pesticide regulation, particularly in the post-Brexit context where the UK is developing independent regulatory frameworks under the Health and Safety Executive and reviewing active substance approvals separately from the EU. The cost-benefit framing is applicable to UK policy appraisal processes under the Better Regulation agenda.

Key measures

Economic costs of regulation (e.g. farm income, compliance costs); health burden metrics (e.g. DALYs, disease incidence attributable to pesticide exposure); cost-benefit ratios

Outcomes reported

The study likely examined the costs and benefits of pesticide regulation, weighing agricultural productivity and economic impacts against human health risks associated with pesticide exposure. It probably modelled or reviewed trade-offs between regulatory stringency, farm profitability, and population health outcomes.

Topic tags