PLoS ONE (Jan 2023)

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

  • Amalie Bjørnåvold,
  • Maia David,
  • Vincent Mermet-Bijon,
  • Olivier Beaumais,
  • Romain Crastes Dit Sourd,
  • Steven Van Passel,
  • Vincent Martinet

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283131
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 3
p. e0283131

Abstract

Read online

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.