“…This tool has been used in previous studies [12] [13] and consists of a game in which the farmers and/or their associated workers identify different types of the pesticides they use through the labeling on the pesticide containers. In those cases where a farmer could not read, one of the family members' or farm workers assisted, to ascertain that all participants knew the labeling brand.…”
It has been shown that farmers with limited knowledge of the use and safe handling of pesticides may suffer exposure which results in adverse health effects. In Buea, Cameroon, small-scale tomato farmers commonly use pesticides for pest control. Information was obtained from these tomato farmers to determine the extent and types of their pesticide use, their knowledge of pesticide use and effectiveness, and their perception of potential harm resulting from pesticide use. A standardized questionnaire, interviews, field observations and an analytical ranking game were used to describe the pesticide use of 93 tomato farmers. Many farmers (47.6%) used pyrethiod and organophosphorus insecticides and identified these chemicals as the most effective in pesticide control; these are WHO Class II pesticides which are the most hazardous to humans. Most farmers (83.8%) used knapsack sprayers to apply pesticides, with 76.3% using no or partial personal protective equipment (PPE). It was notable that 55.5% of farmers expressed no concern regarding the wind direction (pesticide drift) during spraying. The results showed a significant association between the method of pesticides application and farm size (P < 0.001). Most farmers (85.0%) reported at least one symptom of acute pesticide poisoning following spraying. This study revealed that the tomato farmers have a high exposure to pesticides secondary to inadequate knowledge of the safe and judicious use of pesticides. Strategies that provide training on the appropriate use of pesticides, how to reduce exposure to and health risks of pesticides and alterna-* Corresponding authors.
T. E. Tandi et al.
2946tive options of pest management and control are required. The study also raised concerns that further control of the sale and distribution of pesticides may be indicated.
“…This tool has been used in previous studies [12] [13] and consists of a game in which the farmers and/or their associated workers identify different types of the pesticides they use through the labeling on the pesticide containers. In those cases where a farmer could not read, one of the family members' or farm workers assisted, to ascertain that all participants knew the labeling brand.…”
It has been shown that farmers with limited knowledge of the use and safe handling of pesticides may suffer exposure which results in adverse health effects. In Buea, Cameroon, small-scale tomato farmers commonly use pesticides for pest control. Information was obtained from these tomato farmers to determine the extent and types of their pesticide use, their knowledge of pesticide use and effectiveness, and their perception of potential harm resulting from pesticide use. A standardized questionnaire, interviews, field observations and an analytical ranking game were used to describe the pesticide use of 93 tomato farmers. Many farmers (47.6%) used pyrethiod and organophosphorus insecticides and identified these chemicals as the most effective in pesticide control; these are WHO Class II pesticides which are the most hazardous to humans. Most farmers (83.8%) used knapsack sprayers to apply pesticides, with 76.3% using no or partial personal protective equipment (PPE). It was notable that 55.5% of farmers expressed no concern regarding the wind direction (pesticide drift) during spraying. The results showed a significant association between the method of pesticides application and farm size (P < 0.001). Most farmers (85.0%) reported at least one symptom of acute pesticide poisoning following spraying. This study revealed that the tomato farmers have a high exposure to pesticides secondary to inadequate knowledge of the safe and judicious use of pesticides. Strategies that provide training on the appropriate use of pesticides, how to reduce exposure to and health risks of pesticides and alterna-* Corresponding authors.
T. E. Tandi et al.
2946tive options of pest management and control are required. The study also raised concerns that further control of the sale and distribution of pesticides may be indicated.
“…Pesticide perceptions and health risks were assessed through a ranking game described by Warburton et al 2 Farmers, labourers and their spouses participated in the game. All participants were individually shown a total of 33 empty containers and/or labels of pesticides commonly available in the area.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Ghana there has not been any known comprehensive study. However, the perceptions of farmers regarding, in particular, pesticide risks to human health are important for a number of reasons:2 first, they may influence decisions regarding pesticide use; second, if these perceptions differ from expert opinion, it is useful to know why and whether they lead farmers to take more risks than they realise; third, they may influence the methods of protection used against pesticides; and, last, technical advice given to farmers on pesticide use and crop protection may be inappropriate and irrelevant if it does not tally with their own views of pesticide health effects.…”
As an initial part of a programme aimed at promoting safe and sound agricultural practices in Ghana, a study was made of farmers' perceptions of pesticides for use and application in vegetable production, using a small survey of 137 farmers who applied pesticides. Field surveys, interviews, questionnaires and analytical games were used to obtain information on the type, scope and extent of use of pesticides, farmers' knowledge of pesticides, and their perceptions about the chemicals' potential for harm. Data from this sample of farmers were used to describe the status of use of pesticides in vegetable cultivation in Ghana. Using chi2 tests, associations between farmers' age and possible pesticide poisoning symptoms, their farm size and method of spraying pesticides, and their perception of pesticide hazard and its perceived effectiveness against pests were also examined. The survey showed that knapsack sprayers were the most widely used type of equipment for spraying pesticides. However, on large-scale vegetable farms of 6-10 acres, motorised sprayers were also used. Various inappropriate practices in the handling and use of pesticides caused possible poisoning symptoms among those farmers who generally did not wear protective clothing. Younger farmers (<45 years of age) were the most vulnerable group, probably because they did more spraying than older farmers (>45 years of age). Farmers did not necessarily associate hazardous pesticides with better pest control. The introduction of well-targeted training programmes for farmers on the need for and safe use of pesticides is advocated.
“…A priori , we expect farmers would be less likely to use a pesticide that is relatively higher in toxicity, if an equivalently effective and less toxic pesticide is available to the farmer. Studies have shown that farmers tend to rank pesticides more generally, with less distinction at the higher levels of toxicity (Warburton et al. , 1995).…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A farmers’ perception of pesticides can be shaped by a variety of factors including the potential health implications, formal education and pesticide training (Warburton et al. , 1995).…”
Section: Determinants Of Farmer's Pesticide Overusementioning
In a recent survey of 820 rice, potato, bean, eggplant, cabbage, sugarcane and mango farmers in Bangladesh, over 47% of farmers were found to be overusing pesticides. With only 4% of farmers formally trained in pesticide use or handling, and over 87% openly admitting to using little or no protective measures while applying pesticides, overuse is potentially a great threat to farmer health as well as the environment. Pesticide overuse was initially modelled using a three-equation, trivariate probit framework with health effects and misperception of pesticide risk as endogenous dummy variables. Significance tests revealed that health and misperception were not endogenous to overuse, suggesting a bivariate probit model for health effects and misperception and a separate probit model for overuse. Health effects were found to be a function of the amount of pesticides used in production, nutritional status and income, while misperception of pesticide risk was determined by health impairments from pesticides and the toxicity of chemicals used. Pesticide overuse was significantly explained by variation in misperception, income, farm ownership, the toxicity of chemicals used, crop composition and geographical location. These results highlight the necessity for policymakers to design effective and targeted outreach programmes which deal specifically with pesticide risk, safe handling and averting behaviour. Ideally, the approach would be participatory in nature to address key informational gaps, as well as increasing: farmers' awareness. The results also point to specific crops and locations experiencing a higher prevalence of overuse. Focusing efforts on these crops and geographical areas may have the most measurable effects on pesticide overuse. Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Thanks are due to two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions for improvement, especially for the suggestions to estimate an ordered probit model of overuse and to provide the marginal effect implications of the estimates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.