Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Standard

Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment. / Sellare, Jorge; Meemken, Eva-Marie; Qaim, Matin.

In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 176, 106718, 2020.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Sellare, J, Meemken, E-M & Qaim, M 2020, 'Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment', Ecological Economics, vol. 176, 106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106718

APA

Sellare, J., Meemken, E-M., & Qaim, M. (2020). Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment. Ecological Economics, 176, [106718]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106718

Vancouver

Sellare J, Meemken E-M, Qaim M. Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment. Ecological Economics. 2020;176. 106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106718

Author

Sellare, Jorge ; Meemken, Eva-Marie ; Qaim, Matin. / Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment. In: Ecological Economics. 2020 ; Vol. 176.

Bibtex

@article{23703051b5a341aba03463a638f88409,
title = "Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment",
abstract = "It is often assumed that voluntary sustainability standards - such as Fairtrade - could not only improve the socioeconomic wellbeing of smallholder farmers in developing countries but could also help to reduce negative health and environmental impacts of agricultural production. The empirical evidence is thin, as most previous studies on the impact of sustainability standards only focused on economic indicators, such as prices, yields, and incomes. Here, we argue that Fairtrade and other sustainability standards can affect agrochemical input use through various mechanisms with possible positive and negative health and environmental effects. We use data from farmers and rural workers in Cote d'Ivoire to analyze effects of Fairtrade certification on fertilizer and pesticide use, as well as on human health and environmental toxicity. Fairtrade increases chemical input quantities and aggregated levels of toxicity. Nevertheless, Fairtrade reduces the incidence of pesticide-related acute health symptoms among farmers and workers. Certified cooperatives are more likely to offer training and other services related to the safe handling of pesticides and occupational health, which can reduce negative externalities in spite of higher input quantities. These results suggest that simplistic assumptions about the health and environmental effects of sustainability standards may be inappropriate.",
keywords = "Agrochemicals, Certification, Fairtrade, Health, Pesticides, Sustainability standards, Toxicity, SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS, COFFEE CERTIFICATION, SMALLHOLDER FARMERS, FOOD STANDARDS, BT COTTON, AGRICULTURE, SECURITY, POVERTY, WELFARE, BENEFIT",
author = "Jorge Sellare and Eva-Marie Meemken and Matin Qaim",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106718",
language = "English",
volume = "176",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fairtrade, Agrochemical Input Use, and Effects on Human Health and the Environment

AU - Sellare, Jorge

AU - Meemken, Eva-Marie

AU - Qaim, Matin

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - It is often assumed that voluntary sustainability standards - such as Fairtrade - could not only improve the socioeconomic wellbeing of smallholder farmers in developing countries but could also help to reduce negative health and environmental impacts of agricultural production. The empirical evidence is thin, as most previous studies on the impact of sustainability standards only focused on economic indicators, such as prices, yields, and incomes. Here, we argue that Fairtrade and other sustainability standards can affect agrochemical input use through various mechanisms with possible positive and negative health and environmental effects. We use data from farmers and rural workers in Cote d'Ivoire to analyze effects of Fairtrade certification on fertilizer and pesticide use, as well as on human health and environmental toxicity. Fairtrade increases chemical input quantities and aggregated levels of toxicity. Nevertheless, Fairtrade reduces the incidence of pesticide-related acute health symptoms among farmers and workers. Certified cooperatives are more likely to offer training and other services related to the safe handling of pesticides and occupational health, which can reduce negative externalities in spite of higher input quantities. These results suggest that simplistic assumptions about the health and environmental effects of sustainability standards may be inappropriate.

AB - It is often assumed that voluntary sustainability standards - such as Fairtrade - could not only improve the socioeconomic wellbeing of smallholder farmers in developing countries but could also help to reduce negative health and environmental impacts of agricultural production. The empirical evidence is thin, as most previous studies on the impact of sustainability standards only focused on economic indicators, such as prices, yields, and incomes. Here, we argue that Fairtrade and other sustainability standards can affect agrochemical input use through various mechanisms with possible positive and negative health and environmental effects. We use data from farmers and rural workers in Cote d'Ivoire to analyze effects of Fairtrade certification on fertilizer and pesticide use, as well as on human health and environmental toxicity. Fairtrade increases chemical input quantities and aggregated levels of toxicity. Nevertheless, Fairtrade reduces the incidence of pesticide-related acute health symptoms among farmers and workers. Certified cooperatives are more likely to offer training and other services related to the safe handling of pesticides and occupational health, which can reduce negative externalities in spite of higher input quantities. These results suggest that simplistic assumptions about the health and environmental effects of sustainability standards may be inappropriate.

KW - Agrochemicals

KW - Certification

KW - Fairtrade

KW - Health

KW - Pesticides

KW - Sustainability standards

KW - Toxicity

KW - SUSTAINABILITY STANDARDS

KW - COFFEE CERTIFICATION

KW - SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

KW - FOOD STANDARDS

KW - BT COTTON

KW - AGRICULTURE

KW - SECURITY

KW - POVERTY

KW - WELFARE

KW - BENEFIT

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106718

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106718

M3 - Journal article

VL - 176

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

M1 - 106718

ER -

ID: 249864948