Policy Forum

New Directions for
Farm Policy



May 21,1997

The regulation of farms' uses of pesticides is a tough issue because
of the risks and benefits these substances impose. The major risks are
environmental contamination where pesticides may enter food chains and
water systems and also the potential for bioaccumulation. The benefit is
the obvious increase of agricultural productivity. Weed competition
accounts for a ten percent loss of U.S. agricultual production;
herbicides are the most widely used pesticides in the world to combat the
weeds. The best solution for regulating farm use of these products is to
find a good medium bectween the benefits and the risks.
-K.Quattlebaum


May 22,1997



Regulation of Farms

The EPA and the federal government do not like pesticides. They all
want the farmer to decrease thier use and to reduce the liklihood of
spills. The farmer realizes this and does his best to comply with
all the regulations. One way to totally comply with these
regulations and to reduce harmful spills would be to build a
pesticide loading,rinsing, and storage facility. The farmer would be
more than willing to build one of these facility's if he could afford
it. A facility such as this would more than comply with all their
regulations, but it would cost more than $25,000.00 plus tax and
insurance on the buildings. I believe the government should provide
a program to help pay for the construction of these facility's. At
the present time the government helps farmers pay for livestock
feeding areas. If they implemented a program such as this for the
pesticide facility's we would see alot more construction of these
facility's on the farm.
J Lowrey




There is considerable evidence to suggest that many agricultural
policies have a negative effect on environmental quality. As a source
of pollution (due to its use of pesticides and fertilizers),
agriculture will increasingly come in conflict with environmental
regulations. Farmers, however, have historically been resistant to
these increased regulations. One possibility which could both improve
the environment and decrease federal spending would be to phase out
commodity and other agricultural programs which have been shown to have
a detrimental effect on the environment. Overall, consumers,
taxpayers, and the environment would be better off under a free market
agricultural policy. Direct and indirect payments to farmers should be
eliminated, and all supply control programs should be ended. Several
commodities, such as soybeans and potatoes, are currently operated in
this way and should serve as models for all federal agricultural policy.
-J A Lawson



To participate in the formu send your response to this address,
and use as a subject "Farm Policy Forum".
fwhite@agecon.uga.edu





Return to AAE 340 Page.