Pesticides are a serious concern for farmworkers, especially kids, due to lack of training and access to health care. To comprehensively address pesticide issues, Farmworker Justice advocates for policy change at the state and federal levels; conducts  pesticide litigation; issues reports and develops and implements educational programs aimed at health professionals, lay health educators (promotores de salud), and policy makers.

NEW!  FJ wins Pesticide Research Program in 2008 Farm Bill!

Pesticide Hazards and Incident Data

Pesticides pose risks of short- and long- term illness to farmworkers and their families. Workers who mix, load or apply pesticides (known as pesticide handlers) can be exposed to toxic pesticides due to spills, splashes, defective, missing or inadequate protective equipment, direct spray, or drift. Workers who perform hand labor tasks in areas that have been treated with pesticides face exposure from direct spray, drift or contact with pesticide residues on the crop or soil. Farmworker families can also be injured by pesticide when farmworker children play in treated fields, when workers inadvertently “take home” pesticide residues on their hair, skin or clothing or when pesticides drift onto outdoor play areas and get tracked into homes, etc.

The exact number of workers injured each year by pesticides is unknown because there is no national incident reporting system. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 10,000-20,000 farmworkers are poisoned on the job due to pesticide exposure. (EPA, Worker Protection Standard, Economic Impact Analysis 1993). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that farmworkers suffer the highest rate of chemical-related illness of any occupational group:  5.5 per 1,000 workers. (52 Fed. Reg. 16050, 1987)

Several states, e.g., California and Washington State, have state incident reporting systems. In California, in 2004, there were a total of 1,238 cases reported of which 828 were found to be possibly, probably or definitely related to pesticides. Of those 828 cases, 390 (47%) involved agricultural workers.

It is widely recognized that pesticide incidents are underreported for numerous reasons. First, many farmworkers do not seek – or cannot --medical attention for mild to moderate symptoms because of cost, lack of transportation, reluctance to take time off work, etc. Even when they seek treatment, my cases of pesticide-related illness are not recognized because the symptoms are common to many ailments (e.g., nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, skin rashes and eye irritation). Even cases that are correctly diagnosed are often not reported.

Recognizing pesticide-related illness is also difficult because there are few, inexpensive, widely available clinical diagnostic tests for identifying acute pesticide poisoning and workers usually do not know the name of the chemical to which they were exposed.  For health care providers, taking an occupational health history can be helpful in identifying these cases. In addition, health providers have a federal right to contact the employer and obtain the name of the pesticide and the information on the circumstances of exposure. (For information on clinical competencies for identifying pesticide-related illness, see National Environmental Education and Training Foundation 2000).

In 2005, Farmworker Justice and three other groups released “Messages from Monitoring,” a report on the results of medical monitoring of Washington State farmworkers' exposures to pesticides.  An executive summary of this report is also available in Spanish.

In 2006, we released a new report, “More Messages from Monitoring,” on the second year of the medical monitoring.  An executive summary of this report is also available in Spanish. Click here for a news release about the 2006 report in English or in Spanish.

Chronic Effects of Pesticide Exposure

Even low levels of pesticide exposure over time can lead to chronic health effects such as cancer, infertility, birth defects or neurological damage. One study compared cancer rates among members and retirees of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) to those of other Latinos living in California. (Mills, P, Cancer Incidence in the United Farmworkers of America 1987-1997, Am J. of Ind. Med. 40:596-603, 2001).  The researchers found elevated rates of: certain cancers among the farmworkers. They included: a 59% higher rate of leukemia (OR: 1.59); a 69% higher rate of stomach cancer (OR: 1.69); a 63% higher rate of uterine/cervix cancer (OR: 1.63); a 68% higher rate of uterine corpus cancer (OR: 1.68); and a 57% higher rate of brain cancer (OR: 1.57). “Occupational exposure, particularly to pesticides may explain the elevated risk of leukemia and brain cancer.  (p. 600).” 

A study was undertaken to compare rates of birth defects among offspring of pesticide applicators as compared to those of infants of city dwellers. Researchers examined 210,000 live births in Minnesota and found that the offspring of pesticide applicators had a birth defect rate of 30 per 100,000 live births, whereas residents of the Twin Cities had a birth defects rate of 18.3 per 100,000 live births. (Vincent (F. Gerry and Mary Harkin, “Pesticide Appliers, Biocides and Birth Defects in Rural Minnesota,” Environmental Health Perspectives, April 1996).

FIFRA and the Worker Protection Standard

Occupational exposure to pesticides is governed by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and a set of regulations called the Worker Protection Standard.

FIFRA requires that pesticides sold or distributed in the United States be registered by the EPA.  Under this statute, the EPA can only register a pesticide if it determines that the pesticide, when used in accordance with its label, will not cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment, taking into account the risks and benefits to the agricultural economy.  To secure an EPA registration, pesticide manufacturers conduct a series of tests on the product’s active ingredient to determine its immediate (acute), intermediate (sub chronic) and long term (chronic) effects on the nervous and reproductive systems, as well as the likelihood that it would cause cancer.  In addition, the active ingredient is studied for its persistence in soil and water and its effects on non-target fish, birds and other wildlife.  The EPA evaluates these data, using a risk assessment and risk management process.  Any required mitigation measures (such as personal protective equipment for handlers or restricted entry intervals for harvesters) are stated on the pesticide label, and the failure to follow label requirements constitute a violation of law, which may result in fines (or in rare cases in criminal penalties).  Since FIFRA mandates the use of a cost-benefit analysis, even health risks “of concern” have been disregarded when the EPA determines that the benefits of using a pesticide outweigh the risks.   

The EPA has established minimum safety requirements when using pesticides on farms, and in nurseries, greenhouses or forests, which are called the Worker Protection Standard (WPS), 40 C.F.R. Part 170.  The WPS requires that all workers receive basic pesticide safety training by their sixth day of working in pesticide-treated areas, that decontamination water be available, that minimum restricted entry intervals and personal protective equipment requirements be observed (based on the product’s immediate toxicity), and that medical assistance be provided in case of emergency.  Farm workers, however, do not have the same right-to-know protections as do other employees under OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard.  For example, farm workers receive no information about the specific short and long term health effects associated with the products used at their work site. 

Enforcement of the WPS, which is primarily carried out by the states under cooperative agreements with EPA, has been severely criticized by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO 2000: 20-23), and by farm worker advocates reporting on California (Reeves, et al. 2002), Colorado (Jackson 2002) and Florida (Davis and Schleifer 1998). Because of limitations imposed by FIFRA, most violations merely result in a letter of warning, and few monetary penalties are issued.

Pesticide Reports and Educational Materials

FJ developed a training module for lay health educators. These materials can be used to train peer educators who, in turn, can educate farmworkers and their families on how to reduce their risk of pesticide exposure and pesticide-related illness. For more information or to download these materials, visit our Environmental Health page.

In 1998, FJ Deputy Director Shelley Davis co-authored the report, Indifference to Safety: Florida’s Investigation into Pesticide Poisoning of Farmworkers.  Indifference to Safety reviews the State of Florida's investigation into 46 complaints of farmworker pesticide poisoning from January 1992 to mid-May 1997. It examines the thoroughness of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' (FDACS) investigation into medical records; witness testimony and other evidence; FDACS' conclusions drawn from the evidence; and effectiveness of FDACS' final action to ensure compliance with the protections provided in the Worker Protection Standard. The State's handling of pesticide poisoning complaints revealed a pattern of indifference to its obligation to protect the safety and health of Florida's farmworkers.

Read our Farmworker Pesticide Policy Brief from October 2004.