And this is where everyone laughs at me. "No one uses EIQ you dummy," is what you're probably thinking. Well yeah, the too good to be true way to quantify pesticide toxicity is just that, too good to be true. It really is too bad because having an easy-to-use way to assign pesticides a toxicity was very convenient and promised to be a very powerful decision making tool. For those of you who are concerned about quantifying pesticide toxicity it is helpful to learn why the EIQ doesn't work and what, if anything, we can use to quantify our pesticide use going forward. Basically, the reason that that EIQ is flawed is that it relies way too heavily on application rate. The higher the application rate the higher the EIQ would be. The impact on rate was so high that a weed scientist, Andrew Kniss , assigned random values to the EIQ toxicity parameters 73,000,000 times and found that the random values "provided the same recommendation as the EIQ about 88% of the time.&q