Thus, it does not account for the likely decrease in consumer demand that would accompany an increase in product costs. Secondly, the analysis is conducted on product-crop pairs in isolation of other crops and chemical inputs. While this focus is consistent with the manner in which chemical uses are listed, it does not account for farm-level decisions on producing other crops with other inputs or methods. Both of these limitations may cause the cost of the regulatory policy to be overstated. Third, the method takes a short-term perspective on the changes in costs, as it does not account for changes in pest pressures that may develop as certain chemical inputs are lost.
Farmers often rely on using an assortment of chemical inputs to control pests.
By rotating among a group of products, pests are less prone to develop a resistance to certain chemical inputs. By ignoring the potential for longer term pest resistance, the method may understate costs. Despite these shortcomings, this method still provides useful information for policy discussions. In particular, it aids in identifying the value of certain inputs in their existing use on certain crops, which are discussed next. The substitutes for each of the leading chemical products reviewed in this analysis are identified by crop in table 3.