Abstract
BackgroundThe widespread use of pesticides has contributed to increased crop productivity accompanied by problems of releasing toxic substances into the environment. One of the concerns is the release of pesticide spray drift that is carried to off-target properties causing injuries. ObjectivesIn 2016, the EPA released a generic verification protocol for pesticide drift reduction technology (DRT). With this protocol, applicators of pesticides can select verified products and equipment with the assurance that the technology will reduce the risk of spray drift damages, but there are inadequate incentives for its adoption. DiscussionDrift reduction technology can only reduce injuries to people, flora, and fauna if it is adopted by applicators. To address incentives for adoption, an analysis of liability provisions governing spray drift damages suggests that the jurisprudence governing liability might need updating to capture technological benefits. Two proposed legislative provisions are offered that would incorporate DRT into negligence law. ConclusionThrough the amendment of negligence law, liability provisions for pesticide spray drift damages can offer encouragement for applicators to adopt DRT.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
