Conflicts of Interests When Connecting Agricultural Advisory Services with Agri-Input Businesses

Abstract

Conflicts of interests have been hypothesized when agricultural advisory services are connected to agri-input businesses. However, these have not been examined using large sets of advisory service and grower data. We provide quantitative insights into dependencies between service, crop production, sustainability and the level of agri-input business-linkage of extension workers. We analyzed 34,000+ prescription forms (recommendations) issued to growers in China, as well as grower interview data. Results revealed some conflicts of interest, but to a small extent and not always as expected. Both forms of advisory service (with and without business-linkages) heavily emphasize chemical pest management. However, grower interviews revealed that business-linked advisors recommend pesticides even 18% more often than non-business-linked advisors do (96% vs. 78% of advice). This advice was also often implemented (94% and 90% uptake). There is a slightly higher chance that dangerous pesticides are being recommended by business-linked advisors (0.4% vs. 0.14%), but these advisors recommended antibiotics less frequently (1.6% vs. 2.5%). No effects of the source of advice on yields or grower profits were found. Thus, there is no apparent economic disadvantage of growers taking advice from business-linked advisors. However, if pesticide use is a concern for human health and the environment, then the increased use of such products may further exacerbate existing problems. Depending on national priorities, countries may re-consider moving away from governmental extension services, and more closely analyze the advantages of promoting agri-business-linked advisory services (no public funds, better outreach) versus the disadvantages (slightly higher pesticide risks).

Antibiotic use on crops in low and middle-income countries based on recommendations made by agricultural advisors

“…Literature that describes contemporary use of antibiotics on plants is usually confined to that of extension literature (https ://exten sion.psu.edu/pear-disea se-fire-bligh t), or reporting concerns over the development of antibiotic resistance in populations of plant pathogens (Sundin and Wang 2018;Farfán et al 2014). Exceptions to this are two recent papers from China that provide some insights into antibiotics being recommended by extension services in the country (Zhang et al 2017;Wan et al 2019). These papers use information derived from plant clinics in China and suggest that antibiotics appear in between 2.5 and 4.5% of the recommendations.…”

“…There are reports of other antibiotics being used in agriculture, such as gentamicin in Mexico and Costa Rica, oxonilic acid in Israel and kasugamycin in Japan and other Asian countries. However, with minor exceptions, (Rodríguez Sánchez 2008;Zhang et al 2017;Wan et al 2019) there are very limited data available on the extent of their use, on which crops and problems they are used against.…”

Implementing Agri-policies on Pesticide Reduction through Subsidies and Plant Clinics in China - CABI Working Paper 13 (English)

“…More toxic/longer residual pesticides were not allowed to be prescribed in 2018. As for the 2015-2017 data, farmer surveys conducted in 2016 revealed that more than 90% of the plant protection recommendations on the plant clinic prescriptions were accepted and implemented by the farmers (Wan et al, 2019). Therefore, we assume that changes in the advice given by plant doctors, following the pesticide policy of China and subsidies by the local government, indeed led to a reduction in pesticide use.…”

“…In a complementary study most growers visited a plant doctor about once a month (i.e. 13 ± 12 times/year; Wan et al, 2019).…”

“…Therefore, regulations, standards and subsidy prices should be adapted based on the yearly lessons learnt from analysis of the BPRMS data. Fourth, some of the plant doctors involved in the BPRMS are also engaged in agri-input shops and thus have a direct financial interest, which may raise some conflicts of interest (Wan et al, 2019). A plant doctor supervision mechanism could be developed within the BPRMS framework to avoid potential risk, as well as to improve transparency on decisions.…”