From Pesticides to People 87exchange rates, median costs associated with pesticide poisonings were estimated
as follows: public health care direct costs of $9.85/case; private health costs of
$8.33/case; and lost time indirect costs for about six worker days of $8.33/agricul-
tural worker. All of these were over five times the daily agricultural wage of about
$1.50 at the time (1992). Antle et al (1998a) showed that the use of some products
adversely affects farmer decision making capacity to a level that would justify
worker disability payments in other countries. Neither group of researchers
included financial valuation of the deaths associated with pesticide poisonings nor
the effects of pesticides on quality of life, both of which would substantially increase
the overall economic burden of illness estimates.
A Myth – the Highly Toxics can be Safely Used
Following the research results, limitations in the pesticide industry’s safe use of
pesticides (SUP) campaign became apparent. In a letter to the research team, the
Ecuadorian Association for the Protection of Crops and Animal Health (APCSA,
now called Crop Life Ecuador) noted that an important assumption of SUP was
that exposure occurred because of ‘a lack of awareness concerning the safe use and
handling of [pesticide] products’. Although our Carchi survey showed a low per-
centage of women in farm families had received any training on pesticides (14 per
cent), most male farmers (86 per cent) had received some training on pesticide
safety practices. Furthermore, labels are supposed to be an important part of the
‘hazard communication process’ of salesmen. Yet our work in Carchi indicated
that farm members often could not decipher the complex warnings and instruc-
tions provided on most pesticide labels.
Although 87 per cent of the population in our project area was functionally
literate, over 90 per cent could not explain the meaning of the coloured bands on
pesticide containers indicating pesticide toxicity. Most believed that toxicity was
best ascertained through the odour of products, potentially important for organo-
phosphates with sulphur groups but not generalizable to all products that are
impregnated by formulators for marketing purposes. Hence even the universal,
seemingly simple toxicity warning system of coloured bands on labels has not
entered the local knowledge system. If industry is seriously concerned about
informing farmers of the toxicity of its products, it should better match warning
approaches to current perceptions of risk, such as considering using toxicity-related
odour indicators.
In addition, the SUP campaign’s focus on pesticides and PPE is misguided.
Farmers regard PPE as uncomfortable and ‘suffocating’ in humid warm weather,
leading to the classic problem of compliance associated with individually oriented
exposure reduction approaches (Murray and Taylor, 2000). Examination of the
components of the classic industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls (Table 4.1)
shows PPE to be among the least effective controls and suggests that the industry