Farmers’ understanding on pesticide safety labels in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

Pesticides aim to control pests and weeds and constitute an important input when producing a crop. A key source of information for pesticide use is the label on the pesticide container; however, there is little data on whether farmers in Southern Ethiopia’s Wolaita Zone actually use this information. To investigate small-scale farmers’ knowledge of pesticide labels, a survey was conducted in two districts of the Wolaita Zone. The majority of farmers (75.6%) stated that they had not bought pesticides in the original, informational packaging. 95.5% of farmers who bought pesticides with labels (24.4%) read the labels before using the product. One-fourth of the respondents (25.6%) said they typically trust development agents, whereas a significant portion of farmers (32.2%) said they mostly rely on information on pesticides from farmers who have experience. The survey found that, with an overall knowledge index of 0.29, the majority of farmers in the study area had low levels of awareness about the information contained on pesticide labels. The knowledge index values generally ranged from 0.16 to 0.62. Awareness creation training is vital for the farmers that used pesticides as one important input for their production besides the development agents should get intensive capacity development training to have a positive effect on farmers’ competence concerning pest management practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Attitude
• knowledge index
• label
• pesticides

1. Introduction

Pesticides are chemical substances that are used to kill, repel, or control pests of all kinds. The use of crop protection products has boosted the productivity of land and contributed to greater and more stable income for farmers (Damalas Christos, 2021). Pesticides are agricultural technologies that enable farmers to control pests and weeds and constitute an important input when producing a crop (Jansen & Dubois, 2014). Pesticides protect crops from damaging pests and diseases, helping farmers to ensure a reliable supply of food while making optimal use of the environment. Farmers rely on pesticides more than integrated pest management (IPM) and conventional pest control approaches (mechanical and physical control methods). About 20% of the world’s pesticides are used in developing nations, but they account for 99% of all pesticide poisoning deaths (Kesavachandran et al., 2009).

Pesticides are extensively used to eradicate insect pest weeds and diseases (Sharma et al., 2019). The usage of pesticides has grown over time due to their simplicity and great efficacy (Tyagi et al., 2015). Nonetheless, improper use of pesticides happens, especially in underdeveloped nations like Ethiopia, which leads to significant worries about environmental and personal safety (Mengistie et al., 2017). Misuse of pesticides includes a variety of inappropriate uses, such as application that deviates from the directions on the product label and may promote resistance issues as well as pollute the environment. According to research, the issue is getting worse in regions where farmers who are unable to read pesticide labels are unable to comprehend the most fundamental recommendations for environmental and human safety. As Waichman et al. (2007) indicated pesticide safety problems are usually worsened by illiteracy and poverty that prevail in most farming communities of developing countries.

Globally, pesticide labels are used to provide general and technical information to end users in order to encourage safe and effective handling and use (Bagheri et al., 2019). The label serves as a legally binding document while also providing use and risk assessment information for risk reduction (Tudi et al., 2021). In accordance with international standards, information may be provided in both words and symbols. According to the Globally Harmonized System of categorization and labeling of chemicals, information about health and safety is communicated on labels and safety data sheets as well as the hazards associated with chemical products. Even though pesticide labels are frequently the only way for end users to learn about pesticide risk, only a small percentage of end users are able to understand the information on the labels (Emery et al., 2015). This restriction raises the risk of environmental contamination, insect and pathogen resistance development, and adverse health impacts for pesticide end-users. Consideration of agricultural technologies, including the use of pesticides, as well as the identification of farmers’ best practices and their understanding of pesticide handling are necessary to advance sustainability in agricultural output (Skevas et al., 2013).

Small-scale subsistence farmers used to be the main drivers of Ethiopia’s agriculture, which was characterized by low input and low technology farming techniques. Following the instructions on the pesticide label, using safety equipment, avoiding spills, disposing of pesticide waste and containers properly, eliminating the need for unnecessary application, and using proper pesticide storage are some of the good management practices to keep in mind when working with pesticides (Tadesse & Asferachew, 2008). Yet, the study revealed that farmers frequently do not understand the risk information on the labels (Dalvie et al., 2014). Furthermore, surveys on how farmers use the information provided on the pesticide labels are scarce and studies regarding this aspects are quite limited in the study area. Information on farmers’ use of pesticide labels thus far is important and may be helpful in identifying crucial areas for action and boosting pesticide handling safety. The aim of this study was to evaluate small-scale farmers’ view related with the use of pesticide labels and the knowledge on it in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

The study was conducted in Wolaita Zone of Southern Ethiopia. The zone is located 350–400 km southwest of Addis Ababa, with an altitudinal range from 700 to 2900 meter above sea levels. The area is experienced three ecological zones: kola (lowland—below 1500 m), woina dega (mid-altitude − 1500–2300 m), and dega (highland—above 2300 m). The annual average temperature of and the mean annual rainfall of the zone is 15.1°C and 1,200 to 1,300 mm, respectively. Wolaita is one of the most densely populated zones in the country with an average of 290 people per square kilometers (Central Statistical Agency, (CSA) 2008). Farmers of Wolaita Zone earn their livelihood from subsistence agriculture on fragmented farmland dominated by root crops, cereals and pulse crops of which maize is a major grain crop (CSA, 2019).

2.2. Selection of sample and data collection

A total of 90 farmers from two districts of Wolaita Zone located in the high and lowland areas (Damot Gale and Boloso Bombe) were involved in the study, with the help of local authorities and development agents of the area. The selection of farmers was based on the willingness of farmers to participate in the study and also their experience in the use of pesticides after briefing the objective of the study for the local authorities and development agents.

Based on available research on the subject as well as the author’s field experience, a questionnaire with structured, semi-structured, and unstructured items was constructed. Face-to-face interviews with farmers during farming activities were used to collect data for the survey. To get data on their knowledge of and usage of pesticide labels. With a scale of 0–1 and 0 is for ‘do not understand’ to 1 is ‘very well understand’, (i.e. <0.25 understand with little, >0.25 but < 0.50, .0.5 but < 7.5 understand, > 0.75 but < 1 well understand), knowledge the selected farmers were asked to score their level of understanding of the common safety instructions on the labels. According to Khan and Damalas (2015), a knowledge index was created to gauge farmers’ understanding of pesticide labels. Also, questions regarding the farmers’ ages, education levels, farm land sizes, information sources, and other related factors were asked of them.

2.3. Data analysis

Data were manually coded, entered into Microsoft Access, and checked for probable entry problems. For each question, the relative frequencies of answers and scores were computed. Following that, the data was moved to appropriate spreadsheets for statistical analysis. For each question, descriptive statistics such as frequency values (mean and standard deviation) were computed. For comparisons, relative frequencies of distribution for the tested variables and weighted average scores depending on the weight provided to each answer were employed. SPSS for Windows (version 21.0) and Microsoft Office Excel 2010 were used to analyze all data.

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Farmers’ socio-demographic characteristics

The basic socio-economic characteristics of the farmers are provided in Table 1. In the study areas, farming activities related to pesticides use are performed by men farmers and all farmers involved in this study were men. The average age of the farmers interviewed was 48.6 years, and 51.1% of them were between the ages of 41 and 60. Over 8.9% of farmers were 60 years of age or older. Age is a significant factor in the selection of pesticides and is related to the distribution of potential pesticide poisoning symptoms (de Acedo Liza´rraga et al., 2007). Understanding the contents of pesticide labels are essential to avoiding pesticide dangers because the elderly and young are more susceptible to poisons (Duah, 2002).

Table 1. Socio-demographic background of the farmers surveyed

Parameter	No. of farmers (n=90)	Percentage (%)
Age
Up to 20 years	2	2.2
21–40 years	34	37.8
41–60 years	46	51.1
Over 60 years	8	8.9
Education
Illiterate	51	56.7
Primary	26	28.9
Secondary	13	14.4
Farm size
Up to 0.25 hectare	8	8.9
0.26 _ 0. 5 hectare	52	57.8
0.51 _ 1.0 hectare	23	25.6
Over 1.0 hectare	7	7.8

Source: Own survey data.

It is obvious that transforming farmers’ lifestyles depends heavily on education (Rios-Gonzalez et al., 2013). In this study, the majority of farmer respondents had poor levels of education. The majorities (56.7%) had no formal education at all and were illiterate. As a result, these farmers are unable to read and comprehend pesticide labels about the safe use of pesticides. Similar result was reported by Al-Zadjali et al. (2015). On the other hand, more than 43.3% of the respondents had some form of education, including 14.4% at the secondary level and 28.9% at the secondary level. These groups expected to have a better understanding on pesticides use and handling. Similar finding was made in this study as it was in Rios-Gonzalez et al. (2013) and Karunamoorthi et al. (2012), which demonstrated that more literate farmers have a better grasp of the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment compared to less literate farmers.

A significant aspect that is anticipated to positively correlate with the number of pesticides used is the size of farmland. The majority (57.8%) of the farmers had farmland size of between 0.26 and 0.50 ha, and 7.8% had farmland size above 1.0 ha. The farmers interviewed for this study were typically smallholders with farms averaging 0.50 ha (Table 1).

3.2. Farmers’ practice in relation to pesticide use and safety

The majority of farmers (76.7%) stated they do not read the labels (Table 2). The findings showed that farmers who were older, less educated and unable to understand the language used on the label (Table 1), as well as those who had greater experience using chemical pest control, failed to read the labels. Only few farmers were able to discriminate signal words: Danger, Warning, and Caution of pesticide toxicity.

Table 2. Farmers’ practice in relation to pesticide use

Farmers Practice	No. of farmers (n=90)	Percentage (%)
Purchasing pesticides with labels	22	24.4
Reading the label of pesticides	21	23.3
Knowledge of safety information	8	8.9
Use of pesticides safety measures	82	91.1
Applying pesticides calibration before use	0	0
Using standard sprayers for pesticide application	76	84.4
Integrating other means of management	56	62.2
Having training on pesticides	13	14.4

Source: Own survey data.

In the research area, 75.6% of the farmers are bought and apply unlabeled pesticides (Table 3) or buy labeled pesticides and use them by lowering the dosage each time. Labeled pesticides are often available and packed for smallholder farmers in quantities for half or 1 ha. When farmers use unlabeled pesticides, they miss all vital information about those particular pesticides. As a result, farmers use pesticides inappropriately based on their own experience, and likely risk the health of humans, livestock, and the environment. Similar findings were reported by Abebaw and Abebe in 2022, who found that a large percentage of farmers in Ethiopia’s Basoliben district’s East Gojjam zone purchase unlabeled pesticides due to a lack of small-quantity labels and the scattered and dispersed nature of their farms. The same finding also reported by Okonya et al. (2019), use of small unlabeled pesticides due to the fragmented farm sizes together with low financial capacity by Rwanda and Burundi vegetable producers.

Table 3. Farmers’ understanding on safety information presented on pesticide labels

Safety issues on the label	Knowledge Index *
Understanding safety symbol [skull and crossbones]	0.21
Understanding major signal words meaning	0.62
Understanding the level of toxicity on different pesticides	0.18
Identifying proper protective clothing indicated on the label	0.36
Recalling first aid measure from the label [at least one]	0.24
Understanding routes of exposure to pesticides	0.16
Overall average	0.29

*0 do not understand, <0.25 understand with little, >0.25 but <0.50, .0.5 but <7.5 understand, >0.75 but <1 well understand and 1 very well understand (out of the total farmers responded, n=90).

Training is an important tool in shaping the human mind toward positive and progressive thinking. Training could also improve farmers’ knowledge of pesticide safety precautions and spraying machine calibration. In the study area, farmers have limited access to information sources on pesticide use and control (Table 3). Farmers who are not given adequate training or technical assistance by the relevant organizations, use and handle the pesticides unsafe. This study’s findings are consistent with those of Adamu et al. (2022). Farmers who took part in this survey argued that their biggest obstacle to proper pesticide management is a lack of training. Farmers that rely solely on the usage of pesticides are also impacted by a lack of training. Farmers in the research area do not use integrated pest management or other alternative crop protection methods.

3.3. Farmers level of understanding on pesticide label

Farmers can find pertinent information about the use and nature of pesticides on the label of the pesticide container. The degree to which farmers understand the information on pesticide labels may depend on their level of education. According to this study, the majority of farmers knew little about the details on pesticide labels (overall knowledge index: 0.29) (Table 3). The knowledge index values ranged from 0.16 to 0.62. Understanding routes of exposure to pesticides (0.16) and understanding the level of toxicity on different pesticides (0.18) scored the lowest values of knowledge index. Understanding the meaning of major signal words, particularly the skull and crossbones was relatively well understood by most participant farmers (0.62). Signal words refer to specific words used to indicate the relative level of severity of hazard and alert the end-user to a potential hazard on the label (FAO, 2015).

Most of the small-scale farmers who took part in the survey across the districts had a fair understanding of the skull and crossbones symbol. Nevertheless, only a few farmers comprehended the significance of the key signal words. Only 24% of the farmers who participated in this study successfully remembered at least one of the first aid measures listed on the label. Damalas and Abdollahzadeh (2016) reported similar findings from farmers in Greece that revealed little attention is paid on first aid information.

3.4. Sources of information on pesticide use

Farmers participated in this study reported various sources of information about pesticide use (Table 4). About 12.2% of the respondents who were farmers said they relied solely on their own prior experience for knowledge. A significant portion of the farmers (32.2%) claimed that their nearby neighbors are a good source of general pesticide information. Development agents were also mentioned as a source of information by farmers (25.6%).

Table 4. Farmer’s sources of information for pesticide

Information source	No. of farmers	Percentage (%)
Development agents (DA’s)	23	25.6
Pesticide retailers	19	21.1
Agriculture office experts	8	8.9
Farmers	29	32.2
None	11	12.2

Source: Own survey data.

Agricultural development agents are assigned to kebele level (lower administrative units) with the primary goal of educating farmers on best agricultural techniques and transferring expertise and information. However, the study area’s farmers have not gained the expected benefits, which is why the development agents themselves were not adequately trained in pesticide management. As a result, they are unable to give farmers adequate information regarding the safe use and handling of pesticides. This outcome agreed with (Adamu et al., 2022) research findings as well.

Only 8.9% of respondents indicated that agricultural office experts had contribution in providing information about pesticides for farmers, especially if the pesticides were newly introduced in the region as opposed to other sources, which supports the limited role of government authorities in pesticide management in Ethiopia (Mengistie et al., 2017). Pesticide retailers also served as source of information for the farmers even though the retailers used some technical terms which the farmers do not understand easily.

4. Conclusion

Most of the small-scale farmers in the Wolaita Zone who took part in the survey were unable to read pesticide labels; therefore, they were unable to gather adequate information about the pesticides they were using from the labels. As a result, it may be common to predict pesticide misuse, and pesticide management may raise serious environmental and agricultural concerns. Label formats must be used to effectively communicate to the majority of illiterate farmers the critical details on pesticide management and safety issues found on pesticide labels. Effective pesticide risk communication must be achieved through label information in order to allow for the point-of-use mitigation of any potential risks associated with pesticide handling.

It is a key to conduct well-designed education programs as a first step in order to encourage the use of alternative pest control methods and decrease the risks related to the use of unselective pesticides. Awareness raising training is crucial for farmers who use pesticides as one of the most crucial inputs in their produce; of course the illiterate farmers should be supported by pictorial presentation during the training time. A comprehensive capacity-building training program for development agents is also necessary to improve farmers’ understanding of pest control methods. The manufacturers and importers of agricultural pesticides ought to think about changing the product labels to better cater to the user demographic with the lowest level of education.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thanks the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. The author also would like to acknowledge the support of development agents and farmers participated in this study.

Data availability statement

The author would like to deliver the data upon request

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.