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

• Published in: PloS one 2023-03, Vol.18 (3), p.e0283131-e0283131
• Main Authors: Bjørnåvold, Amalie, David, Maia, Mermet-Bijon, Vincent, Beaumais, Olivier, Crastes Dit Sourd, Romain, Van Passel, Steven, Martinet, Vincent
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agricultural industry; Agriculture; Bans; Biology and Life Sciences; Choice Behavior; Costs; Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Environment and Society; Environmental aspects; Environmental impact; Environmental Sciences; Environmental tax; Externality; Farmers; Farms; Food; General public; Glycine; Glyphosate; Laws, regulations and rules; Medicine and Health Sciences; People and Places; Pesticides; Pollution; Preferences; Prohibition; Public health; Quantitative Finance; Reduction; Regulation; Respondents; Social Sciences; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tax rates; Tax revenues; Taxation; Taxes; Willingness to pay
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283131

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.