Assessment of Pesticide Exposure Control Practices Among Men and Women on Fruit-Growing Farms in British Columbia

Abstract

Exposure to pesticides can be reduced by wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) or by implementing alternative pest control techniques, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). A cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted to explore the prevalence of these practices and the factors that may be associated with them among men and women involved in fruit growing in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Survey variables were developed using a framework that incorporated aspects of farm structure, health promotion, and risk perception theories. Three hundred and eighty people took part in the survey (response rate 75%). Of those who applied pesticides (n = 119), 63% indicated that they usually wore PPE during application. Individual equipment use varied. Gloves were worn most frequently (84%), followed by a spray suit (77%) and breathing protection (75%). Peer-related factors and farm-specific characteristics such as the type of crops grown were most strongly associated with PPE use, whereas perception of pesticide risk was only weakly associated with this practice. IPM techniques had been tried on 62% of the conventional farms in the study. A range of factors was significantly associated with the use of IPM, including cultural, attitudinal, experiential, and risk-based and farm-specific variables. These results suggest that decisions to adopt exposure control practices may reflect consideration from the multiple dimensions that make up farm life, including structural characteristics of the farm as well as the attributes of the individuals who live on farms. These findings provide a better understanding of current practices and may help in the development of programs to promote pesticide exposure control practices in the BC farming community.

Keywords:

• farm families
• integrated pest management
• personal protective equipment
• pesticides
• risk perception

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the BC Medical Services Foundation and the University of British Columbia's Hampton Fund for their financial contribution to this research project. Dr. Anne-Marie Nicol is a fellow of the UBC Centre for Health and Environment Research, with support from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

Notes

^A Variables measured using scales are described individually.

^B For this variable, appropriate knowledge was assessed through the correct identification of captan's pesticide type and the re-entry interval.

^C Attitudes measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not likely to 5 = extremely likely).

^D Attitudes were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not concerned to 5 = very concerned) including a range of risks that cause injuries.

^E Measured by asking if respondents felt that farming is as safe, safer or less safe than other occupations.

^F Measured on a 5-point scale (1 = not strict enough to 5 = too strict).

^G Measured on a 5 point scale (1 = only I run the farm to 5 = I am not involved in farm decision making).

^H Perception of pesticide risk was measured using a modified version of risk perception measurement developed by Tucker et al.^{( 29} , ^{30 )} Respondents were asked to rate how risky they felt pesticides were (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not risky and 5 being extremely risky) to nine items. These items included the health of applicators, farm families, community members, farm animals, beneficial insects, wildlife, as well as air quality, water quality, and food safety. Responses were summed to create an overall score for each person.

^A For this variable, appropriate knowledge was assessed through the correct identification by Captan's pesticide type and the re-entry interval. Yes means answering both correctly.

^B Includes knowledge of oral, dermal, and inhalation exposure pathways.

^C Can identify at least two of the following routes (drifts through doors or windows, contaminated clothing, or unwashed hands).

^D 5-point Likert scales dichotomized at the midpoint (3 and above = yes, 1–2 = no).

^E Less than 3% grew grains or vegetables in addition to tree fruits, berries, or grapes.

*p < 0.05,

**p < 0.001,

***p = 0.05.

^A Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals from logistic regression modeling.

^A One person did not provide details of PPE use.

^B Majority was defined as over 80%.

*p < 0.01,

**p < 0.001,

***p = 0.05.

^A Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals from logistic regression modeling.