Home › News › County News
Pesticide rule loss estimate is reduced
Farmers take little solace in revised figures of $11 million to $31 million
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
A new estimate of economic losses that farmers could suffer under proposed pesticide restrictions is substantially less than previous projections.
Ventura County farmers who use fumigants stand to lose $11 million to $31 million under the proposed new rules, much less than previous estimates of $80 million.
Authors of the analysis, released Friday by UC Davis, said they had the advantage of time to crunch the numbers and factor in market reactions. California Department of Pesticide Regulation officials said the previous figures, which had to be produced quickly, were always approximate and subject to change.
Either way, farmers don't like the proposed new rules.
"Is it really that important if the losses are $11 million or $110 million?" said Rex Laird, the Ventura County Farm Bureau chief executive officer. "The question is: Is DPR (the pesticide department) using sound science to assess agriculture's impact on air quality and are the losses, whatever they are, justified with improvements in air quality?"
Farmers could be forced to use less fumigants on their crops starting in January, when the new restrictions are scheduled to take effect. Under pressure from a 2006 court order, the state is being forced to reduce air pollution from pesticides.
Emissions from fumigants used to sterilize soil before planting can lead to smog, which is linked to chronic lung disease. Fumigants are used primarily on strawberries, but also on flowers and peppers.
The state estimates 3,000 to 4,000 acres of crops in Ventura County would go untreated under the new rules. Farmers worry they will be forced out of business because there are no viable alternatives to fumigants.
But how it plays out for farmers depends partly on how the market reacts, said Richard Howitt, a professor of agricultural economics and one of the new study's authors.
The $11 million loss figure assumes that no other farmers outside the county — if not the state and nation — will try to fill the market with fruit that local farmers can no longer produce. Without that supply, prices will rise and losses won't be as great.
The $31 million figure assumes that other growers will enter the market of strawberries, peppers and flowers, increasing the losses for local farmers.
Howitt said the model also assumes farmers aren't going to stop growing strawberries — they'll just find a way to make it work, by weeding more or taking other measures.
"Farmers think things are going to be really tough, and they don't want to hear that it's only medium tough," he said.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 14, 2007 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank God Howitt is a college professor and not a farmer... he'd go broke! Reading what he said tells the story of a guy playing a guessing game on the backs of farmers. It's damn easy for someone with no direct experience as a farmer to "guess" what might happen. Medium tough? If Howitt had his pay cut, I doubt he'd be happy with "medium tough". We should plant houses with 3 cars each on those 4000 acres and "guess" which would create more smog: thousands more cars or fumigants?
Posted by Ventura22 on July 14, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More lies uncovered(previous estimates)...as expected! They dont have to like the new rules but they'd better get used to them fast.
Posted by katiec23 on July 14, 2007 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly. Ventura County will be turned into the San Fernando Valley because of measures like this that force farmers out of the business. Goodbye open fields. Hello sprawl, strip malls, and higher gas prices due to people having to drive everywhere. The enviros mean well, but too often they lack the prudence and foresight to implement any effective measures.
Posted by Ventura22 on July 14, 2007 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The cars are already here, crammed into numerous apartment complexes & low-income neighborhoods overcrowded by thousands of migrant workers employed by the farmers who brought them here in the first place. Now try and tell me again who contributes to the smog/sprawl problem?? How about all the farm trucks I see belching out diesel smoke as they travel from the fields to the packing hoses? A lot of them look barely roadworthy, let alone safe to operate at the speed limit. And let's not forget the countless stationary diesel water well pumps running wide-open and pumping out more pollution. I see some along PV road that obviously need fuel injector maintenance as they throw-out a smoke column visible for a half-mile, much more in a day than a subdivisions worth of commuter cars could produce. Tell me about the dust some of the fields stir-up and release into the air too as a result of poor dust control measures.
Hmmm...so we see here without any fancy research(just simply opening our eyes) that the farms already contribute a great deal to the smog problem WITHOUT even factoring in the toxic chemicals they want to keep using to fatten-up their profits. So, they already contribute just as much to the smog problem as other industries and the vehicles driven daily by VC commuters. And they expect the public to not say NO when they want to pump more pollutants into our already smog-ridden air?
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.