To tax or to ban? A discrete choice experiment to elicit public preferences for phasing out glyphosate use in agriculture

8Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In 2023, the European Union will vote on the reauthorization of glyphosate use, renewed in 2017 despite concern on impacts on the environment and public health. A ban is supported by several Member States but rejected by most farmers. What are citizens preferences to phase out glyphosate? To assess whether taxation could be an alternative to a ban, we conducted a discrete choice experiment in five European countries. Our results reveal that the general public is strongly willing to pay for a reduction in glyphosate use. However, while 75.5% of respondents stated to support a ban in the pre-experimental survey, experimental results reveal that in 73.35% of cases, earmarked taxation schemes are preferred when they lead to a strong reduction in glyphosate use for an increase in food price lower than that induced by a ban. When glyphosate reduction is balanced against its costs, a tax may be preferred.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bjornavold, A., David, M., Mermet-Bijon, V., Beaumais, O., Dit Sourd, R. C., Passel, S. V., & Martinet, V. (2023). To tax or to ban? A discrete choice experiment to elicit public preferences for phasing out glyphosate use in agriculture. PLoS ONE, 18(3 March). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283131

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free