Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)
|Abstract||The rationale for pesticide use in agriculture is that costs associated with pesticide pollution are to be justified by its benefits, but this is not so obvious. Valuing the benefits by simple economic analysis has increased pesticide use in agriculture and consequently produced pesticide-induced “public ills.” This paper attempts to explore the research gaps of the economic and social consequences of pesticide use in developing countries, particularly with an example of Nepal. We argue that although the negative sides of agricultural development, for example- soil, water, and air pollution; pest resistance and resurgence; bioaccumulation, bio-magnification; and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience caused by the use of pesticides in agriculture, are “developmental problems” and are “unintentional,” the magnitude may be increased by undervaluing the problems in the analysis of its economic returns. Despite continuous effort for holistic system analyses for studying complex phenomena like pesticides impacts, the development within the academic science has proceeded in the opposite direction that might have accelerated marginalization of the third world subsistence agricultural communities. We hypothesize that, if these adversities are realized and accounted for, the benefits from the current use of pesticides could be outweighed by the costs of pollution and ill human health. This paper also illustrates different pathways and mechanisms for marginalization. In view of potential and overall negative impacts of pesticide use, we recommend alternative ways of controlling pests such as community integrated pest management (IPM) along with education and training activities. Such measures are likely to reduce the health and environmental costs of pesticide pollution, and also enhance the capabilities of third world agricultural communities in terms of knowledge, decision making, innovation, and policy change.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sean A. Weaver (2006). Chronic Toxicity of 1080 and its Implications for Conservation Management: A New Zealand Case Study. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (4).
David Kinkela (2005). The Question of Success and Environmental Ethics: Revisiting the Ddt Controversy From a Transnational Perspective, 1967-72. Ethics, Place and Environment 8 (2):159 – 179.
Maurizio G. Paoletti & David Pimentel (2000). Environmental Risks of Pesticides Versus Genetic Engineering for Agricultural Pest Control. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (3):279-303.
Kathrine Hauge Madsen & Peter Sandøe (2001). Herbicide Resistant Sugar Beet – What is the Problem? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):161-168.
R. Lal, F. P. Miller & T. J. Logan (1988). Are Intensive Agricultural Practices Environmentally and Ethically Sound? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (3):193-210.
L. S. Westra, K. L. Bowen & B. K. Behe (1991). Agricultural Practices, Ecology, and Ethics in the Third World. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4 (1).
David Pimentel (1995). Amounts of Pesticides Reaching Target Pests: Environmental Impacts and Ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8 (1).
Olle Pettersson (1992). Pesticides, Valuations and Politics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (1).
Kishor Atreya, Bishal Sitaula, Fred Johnsen & Roshan Bajracharya (forthcoming). Continuing Issues in the Limitations of Pesticide Use in Developing Countries. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
Added to index2010-02-24
Total downloads16 ( #74,618 of 549,013 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,013 )
How can I increase my downloads?