NYS integrated pest management program doubles return on taxpayer investment

A new study estimates, for the first time, the economic value of the state-funded Cornell Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program over the last 40 years, finding that the program as much as doubles the return on taxpayer investment.

In the paper, published in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management on Nov. 2, researchers found documented benefits to agriculture of as much as $143.7 million in 2024 dollars, a $2.19 return for every tax dollar spent. The study underscores the value of Cornell IPM's work but also provides a framework for other IPM programs - which exist in all 50 states - to estimate their value.

"This brings together the evidence of how Cornell IPM, through its 40-year history, has helped farmers reduce costs and avoid crop losses due to pests," said first author Allan Pinto, research associate and agricultural economist for Cornell IPM. "At the end of the day, a farm is a business, so farmers care about how much they'll save or gain by doing one practice instead of another. This also shows the government that the money is being put to good use."

Pinto analyzed 19 studies across crop types that track the cost savings after an IPM-recommended practice was adopted. He then scaled up that savings according to the number of acres of the crop in the state that year. Even in models where adoption of a practice only reached 50%, or when 50% of adoption couldn't be attributed to Cornell IPM, the program still broke even in terms of taxpayer investment.

The authors write that the $143.7 million figure is likely conservative; Pinto couldn't account for all crops or all benefits because of a lack of economic data, as many past studies showed the effectiveness of a practice but not the cost savings. Online resources like the Cornell IPM website and a widely used online forecasting tool - as well as more intangible benefits, like a cleaner environment and fewer pesticide-resistant crops - are also unaccounted for in the final tally.

"The final $143 million looks promising, but at the same time, the program has done much more than I'm able to show," Pinto said.

No going back

In the 1970s, the federal government tasked the U.S. Department of Agriculture with creating IPM programs in every state - a response to the insecticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) overuse and its impacts on human health and the environment. DDT, widely used for decades in the U.S., has been linked to cancer and reproductive issues in animals and is classified as a possible carcinogen in humans. The Environmental Protection Agency banned the pesticide in 1972.

"The origins of IPM are closely tied to the lessons learned from DDT," said co-author Alejandro Calixto, director of Cornell IPM. "There was significant use of an insecticide without knowing the risks of exposure, and that impact on human health and the environment has a price. We want to avoid going back to the '60s and invest in developing tools for preventing and reducing risk."

Researchers at Cornell AgriTech had already been working with New York state apple growers to manage pests in the '70s, and the USDA anointed the group as the first iteration of IPM in New York. Then in 1985, New York state saw the value of the work and wrote funding for the program - then called New York State Integrated Pest Management (now Cornell IPM) - into the budget. The program has been largely state-funded ever since.

Since 1985, Cornell IPM has transformed integrated pest management in New York, Calixto said, conducting and communicating research about new pests and how to manage them. This has included the use of biological controls, the effectiveness of different pesticides, prevention and management of pesticide-resistance and more, while also developing tools to improve decision-making.

One example: In the 1980s and '90s, growers would typically spray crops on a regular, frequent schedule to keep pests at bay; now they use Cornell's Network for Environmental and Weather Applications (NEWA), an online platform that forecasts when a given pest will emerge based on weather and the pest's lifecycle.

"Growers can now time their applications - they can go to that window in the pest's lifecycle and do one application," Calixto said. "So they went from something like 10 applications to maybe two. That's not only a reduction of the use of pesticides but also an economic benefit."