Reducing pesticide use in fruit and vegetables: Are economic, environmental, and health dimensions always aligned?

Chemical inputs used in agriculture raise environmental and public health concerns. This article evaluates three policy instruments designed to reduce the use of mineral fertilizers and synthetic pesticides in the French fruit and vegetable sector: a tax on these inputs, subsidies for organic production, and subsidies for organic consumption. The results reveal marked contrasts. Taxation reduces the intensity of chemical input use but has limited effects on the share of organic area, whereas subsidies lead to substantial shifts toward organic farming. Biodiversity outcomes depend on the shape of the relationship between chemical input use and biodiversity: taxation performs best under a concave form, while production subsidies dominate under a convex form. Regarding health, consumption subsidies consistently improve outcomes, whereas taxation and production subsidies are beneficial only when organic products pose lower relative risks than conventional ones. Budgetary costs are highest for consumption subsidies, moderate for production subsidies, and lowest for taxation. Social cost rankings depend on the level of ambition concerning biodiversity and health objectives, the relative health risks of both product types, and the curvature of the chemical input–biodiversity function.