INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE RESTRICTIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, AND COST TO SOCIETY'

Usiq an ecooomeuic: model, projected estimates of farm outpUt and apeodi. ture lor food aacl fiber were awie ~ qricu1tural pesticides are restricted 10, % of the avenae quantities wed in 196'·1961) hue period. At the end of a two-year adjuscment IJeiiocL farm output win decrease 41 percent and the cost of food will iDcreue 1~. ~ peKent over the 1965-69 hue. At the end of the seven year intermediate run period, farm output will be 14 percent less and costs will be 8 perceat more than the 1965-69 base. Society abo should recognize the possi. lliUda of reduda. the qaality of the environment if pesdcides are restricted. The Environmental Protection Asency (EPA) recently banned nearly all uses of DDT after December 31. 1972. Agriculture is being accused of polluting the environ-ment because of its use of pesticides. En-vironmentalists attack pesticides because of the adverse effects due to drift during ap-plication, ruo-off into streams, and persis-tence in the environment. EPA curreody is considering cancellation of registration for mirex, 2.4.5,-T, aldrin and dieldrin (1). Emotionalism appears to be guiding many of the environmental groups in their fight against pesticides. Before all agricultural pesticides are restricted. both beneficial and adverse effects of such restrictions on society need to be considered. The research reported herein considered the COSt to society of restricting pesticides. Specifically, the ob-jective was to estimate the increased cost to society for food and fiber if pesticide use were restricted to 5 % of the averase quan-tity used in 1965-1969. METHOD To estimate the cost to society two func-tions are specified: an aggregate agricul-tural production function and an aggregate demand function for farm output. The pro-duction function estimates farm output with a pesticide restriction by assuming durable inputs are find in the short ruo, except that about-40 million aaes of Jaod cunent-ly in government diversion programs could be brought bIICk into production in the IeCODd year of the short l'Uft. In the inter-~ l'Uft (years three through sneo