IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v13y2023i1d10.1007_s13412-022-00788-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients

Author

Listed:
  • Analena B. Bruce

    (University of New Hampshire)

  • Yetkin Borlu

    (American Institutes for Research)

  • Leland L. Glenna

    (Pennsylvania State University)

Abstract

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide regulatory policy only requires environmental impact and safety testing and labeling of the active ingredients of pesticide products, rather than the end use formula. This policy is thought to partially explain the conflicting outcomes of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and EPA assessments on glyphosate, and there is substantial scientific evidence that this approach has led to an underestimation of risk. In this paper, we present a review of EPA pesticide policy governing the regulation of active and other ingredients and findings from a survey of US agricultural scientists focused on their views of this EPA policy. The survey findings indicate that the scientists we surveyed support a more comprehensive approach to the regulation of pesticide products, including both active and inert ingredients, as well as the end use product, to test for combined effects. They also support the disclosure and labeling of inert ingredients to support independent testing of these chemicals. The results also indicate that university scientists oriented towards public science are more likely to support regulation than university scientists oriented towards private science. Overall, despite substantial evidence that the combination of all ingredients in pesticide products may be more toxic than the active ingredients alone, the current regulatory approach does not provide a pathway for the agency to respond to this science. In this sense, the scientific support for the agency’s current regulatory approach is unclear.

Suggested Citation

  • Analena B. Bruce & Yetkin Borlu & Leland L. Glenna, 2023. "Assessing the scientific support for U.S. EPA pesticide regulatory policy governing active and inert ingredients," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-022-00788-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-022-00788-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-022-00788-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-022-00788-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
    2. Jennifer Clapp, 2018. "Mega-Mergers on the Menu: Corporate Concentration and the Politics of Sustainability in the Global Food System," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 18(2), pages 12-33, May.
    3. Peter T. Gianiodis & William R. Meek, 2020. "Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1167-1195, August.
    4. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    5. Martha E. Richmond, 2018. "Glyphosate: A review of its global use, environmental impact, and potential health effects on humans and other species," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(4), pages 416-434, December.
    6. Brett Aho, 2017. "Disrupting regulation: understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 698-706.
    7. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    8. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    9. Glenna, Leland L. & Welsh, Rick & Ervin, David & Lacy, William B. & Biscotti, Dina, 2011. "Commercial science, scientists' values, and university biotechnology research agendas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 957-968, September.
    10. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    11. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    12. Jain, Sanjay & George, Gerard & Maltarich, Mark, 2009. "Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 922-935, July.
    13. Dirk Czarnitzki & Christoph Grimpe & Maikel Pellens, 2015. "Access to research inputs: open science versus the entrepreneurial university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1050-1063, December.
    14. Glenna, Leland & Bruce, Analena, 2021. "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    15. Bruce Small & Mary Mallon, 2007. "Science, Society, Ethics, and Trust: Scientists' Reflections on the Commercialization and Democratization of Science," International Studies of Management & Organization, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 103-124, January.
    16. Fuglie, Keith O. & King, John L. & Heisey, Paul W. & Schimmelpfennig, David E., 2012. "Rising Concentration in Agricultural Input Industries Influences New Farm Technologies," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, issue 04, pages 1-6.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Glenna, Leland & Bruce, Analena, 2021. "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    2. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Michaela Trippl & Tanja Sinozic & Helen Lawton Smith, 2015. "The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1722-1740, September.
    4. Battaglia, Daniele & Paolucci, Emilio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2021. "The role of Proof-of-Concept programs in facilitating the commercialization of research-based inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    5. Olmos Peñuela,Julia & Benneworth,Paul & Castro-Martínez,Elena, 2014. "Explaining researchersâ readiness to incorporate external stimuli in their research agendas," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201408, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    6. Choi, Haneul & Yoon, Hyunjung & Siegel, Donald & Waldman, David A. & Mitchell, Marie S., 2022. "Assessing differences between university and federal laboratory postdoctoral scientists in technology transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    7. A. E. Rodríguez Salazar & M. A. Domínguez-Crespo & A. M. Torres-Huerta & A. I. Licona-Aguilar & A. Nivón-Pellón & V. N. Orta-Guzmán, 2021. "Analysis of the Dynamical Capabilities into the Public Research Institutes to Their Strategic Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    8. Würmseher, Martin, 2017. "To each his own: Matching different entrepreneurial models to the academic scientist's individual needs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-17.
    9. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    10. Siegel, Donald & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Jennings, P. Devereaux & Xue, Lan, 2023. "Technology transfer from national/federal labs and public research institutes: Managerial and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    11. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    12. Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2018. "Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1626-1638.
    13. Freel, Mark & Persaud, Ajax & Chamberlin, Tyler, 2019. "Faculty ideals and universities' third mission," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 10-21.
    14. Belitski, Maksim & Aginskaja, Anna & Marozau, Radzivon, 2019. "Commercializing university research in transition economies: Technology transfer offices or direct industrial funding?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 601-615.
    15. James Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 93-110, February.
    16. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    17. D'Este, Pablo & Rentocchini, Francesco & Grimaldi, Rosa & Manjarrés-Henríquez, Liney, 2013. "The relationship between research funding and academic consulting: An empirical investigation in the Spanish context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1535-1545.
    18. Lauretta Rubini & Chiara Pollio & Giuseppe Lucio Gaeta & Elisa Barbieri, 2021. "Heterogeneous effects of spinoff foundations on the means of technology transfer: the role of past academic-industry collaborations," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(1), pages 261-292, April.
    19. Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:13:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s13412-022-00788-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.