External Costs of Agricultural Production in the United States 75grazing vs feedlot production of livestock or monocropping vs diverse cropping
systems. In comparing production methods, trade-offs should be taken into
account. For instance, lower pesticide use often requires increased tillage and pos-
sibly causes more soil erosion. Also of interest would be an examination of positive,
or beneficial, externalities provided by agriculture, i.e. carbon sequestration, wild-
life habitat and aesthetics. Pricing these services may open the door to policy deci-
sions that compensate producers for such ‘products’.
Conclusion
Many in the US pride themselves on our ‘cheap’ food. But, this study demonstrates
that consumers pay for food well beyond the grocery store checkout. We pay for food
in our utility bills and taxes and in our declining environmental and personal health.
These costs total, conservatively, $5.7–16.9 billion (£3.3–9.7 billion) each year. We
also support at least $3.7 billion (£2.1 billion) annually in efforts to regulate the present
system and mitigate damages. Additional public costs of agricultural production in the
US include direct subsidies and other support mechanisms for farmers. These are not
included in our final tally but must be considered in the true cost of food.
What can be done? By using ‘ecological’ or ‘sustainable’ methods, some agri-
cultural producers claim to be internalizing many of these external costs. However,
the market and policy structure in which most producers operate offers narrow
return margins and discourages changes in production methods. Considering this,
the partial estimate of damage costs presented here promotes responsible, creative
policy actions to acknowledge and internalize the externalities of production prac-
tices that are generally accepted and widespread.
Furthermore, the estimates presented in this chapter are conservative for rea-
sons beyond the need for more valuation data. Many industrial agricultural prac-
tices present us with environmental risks that have unknown potential consequences.
Potentialities are difficult to define because effects are diffuse in time and location.
Some of these risks have been acknowledged scientifically but not necessarily polit-
ically, i.e. ecosystem behaviour in a mono-cropped environment, antibiotic resist-
ance in humans, loss of pollinators.
Political intention is required to reassess and reform agricultural policy. Pro-
grammes that highlight sustainable methods rather than destructive, risky prac-
tices would be a start in internalizing the true costs of the present system.
References
Adger, W.N. and Whitby, M.C. 1991. National accounts and environmental degradation: Accounting
for the impact of agriculture and forestry on environmental quality. European Economic Review
35, 629–641.