Public Perceptions and Willingness-to-Pay for Nanopesticides

Abstract

The usage of pesticides is deemed essential to ensure crop production for global food security. Conventional chemical pesticides have significant effects on ecosystems. Nanopesticides are increasingly considered an emerging alternative due to their higher efficiency and lower environmental impacts. However, large knowledge gaps exist in the public perceptions and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for nanopesticides. Thus, we conducted a regional survey of pesticide users and food consumers on perceptions and WTP for nanopesticides across China. We found that 97.4% pesticide users were willing to pay for nanopesticides, with a main price from 25% to 40% higher than for conventional pesticides. Experience with applying pesticides, income, familiarity with and attitude toward nanopesticides, and trust in industries were significant determinants of WTP. Although the public were not familiar with nanopesticides, they had positive attitudes toward their future development and supported labeling nanoscale ingredients on products. Pesticide users presented high trust levels in governments and industries, while 34% of food consumers neutrally or distrusted industries in selling and production. This study highlights the socioeconomic and technological aspects of nanopesticides, which could provide guidance for industries to develop market strategies and for governments to design relevant regulation policies effectively, contributing to crop yield improvement and sustainable agriculture.

Efficacy-Associated Cost Analysis of Copper-Based Nanopesticides for Tomato Disease Control

“…To realize the full potential of nanopesticides, several barriers must be further overcome, including inconsistent regulatory approaches, uncertain consumer acceptance, and willingness to pay. 67,68 ■ CONCLUSIONS In this study, we compared Cu-based nanopesticides with conventional pesticides from the perspectives of disease suppression efficiency and economic cost and evaluated the factors influencing nanopesticides' efficacy. As the results indicated, Cu-based nanopesticides performed better than conventional Cu pesticides from the technological perspective: improved efficacy, better material efficiency, and increment in biomass yield.…”

“…Therefore, future research should assess the environmental impacts of nanopesticides along their life cycle and focus on long-term field experiments with low concentrations of nanopesticides to address it more realistically environmentally. To realize the full potential of nanopesticides, several barriers must be further overcome, including inconsistent regulatory approaches, uncertain consumer acceptance, and willingness to pay. , …”

Nano-Agrochemicals as Substitutes for Pesticides: Prospects and Risks

“…By adopting sustainable pest control strategies, one can effectively mitigate environmental impacts and reduce reliance on pesticides. Disseminating information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of nano-agrochemical use is crucial to fostering well-informed public discourse and ensuring responsible progress [ 200 ]. The implementation of nanocarriers to deliver pesticides specifically to pests has the potential to mitigate ecological risks and decrease environmental exposure [ 17 ].…”

Comparative Environmental Impact Assessment of Copper-Based Nanopesticides and Conventional Pesticides

“…Based on their unique properties (e.g., improved solubility and bioavailability, controlled release, targeted delivery, and increased stability of active ingredients (AIs)), nanopesticides can maintain or increase yields with significantly reduced application dosages relative to conventional pesticides, which poses the potential to reduce environmental burdens. , Recently, researchers have studied nanopesticides’ efficacy performance, mechanisms, public willingness-to-pay, cost-effectiveness analysis, environmental fate, and qualitative ecosystem implications. , Specifically, nanopesticides have been demonstrated with a 24–150% increase in pesticidal efficacy and a 43% decrease in toxicity to non-target organisms compared with conventional analogues . Nanopesticides were highly accepted by 97.4% pesticide users, with a higher main price range from 25 to 40% over conventional pesticides . CuO, Cu­(OH) 2 , and GO–Cu nanopesticides were found to be similarly or more cost-effective (reduced cost 11.6–83.4%) than conventional CuSO 4 and Cu­(OH) 2 pesticides .…”

“…14 Nanopesticides were highly accepted by 97.4% pesticide users, with a higher main price range from 25 to 40% over conventional pesticides. 12 CuO, Cu(OH) 2 , and GO−Cu nanopesticides were found to be similarly or more cost-effective (reduced cost 11.6−83.4%) than conventional CuSO 4 and Cu(OH) 2 pesticides. 10 Nanopesticides' environmental transportation (i.e., release to air, water, and soil) 15 and transformation (e.g., dissolution, sorption, degradation, and aggregation) 9,16,17 can affect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, such as inducing toxicity to fish, earthworms, and human health (e.g., via occupational exposure, food, and water).…”