Improvements in pesticide drift reduction technology (DRT) call for improving liability provisions to offer incentives for adoption

•Pesticide spray drift may injure others.•Drift reduction technologies are being developed to reduce pesticide spray drift.•Rankings of drift reduction technology allow applications to choose superior equipment.•Applicators may lack an incentive to adopt drift technology due to outdated liability provisions.•A new negligence law can encourage applicators to adopt drift reduction technology.

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.