Paper presented at Annual Conference of Indian Public Health
Association Lucknow, India 2005
PESTICIDE HANDLING BEHAVIOUR OF THE VEGETABLE
GROWERS OF WEST BENGAL AND ITS IMPLICATION OVER
PUBLIC HEALTH
Dr Debabrata Basu, Reader, Agricultural Extension, Bidhan Chandra
Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal, 741252,
drdbasu@hotmail.com
Ms. Gayatri Basu, Sr. Faculty Member, State Institute of Panchayat
and Rural development, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, 741235,
basugayatri@hotmail.com
Rupak Goswami, Lecturer, Integrated Rural Development and
Management Faculty Centre, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda
University
Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama, Narendrapur, Kolkata-700103
E-mail: goswamirupak@rediffmail.com
Introduction:
The production protection axis holds the agricultural system and pesticide is the key
ingredient in the protection process. It benefits us by killing unwanted organisms called
pests or by controlling their attack. Although their potentiality of affecting life and
environment adversely are well established and accepted facts. Therefore, the persons
who are directly exposed to these toxic chemicals as a part of their occupation may be at
risk. Farmers and farm labourers constitute a major segment among the workers who are
mostly exposed to pesticides in the third world countries. In most of the countries
pesticides are subjected to pre-market assessment for determine their efficacy and safety.
Food residue data and toxicity test results on animals are scrutinized but scant attention
has been paid to the user or bystander (people inadvertently exposed to pesticides, used
by others).
The long-term, unintentional, occupational exposure to pesticide of the farming
community is of concern by the development practitioners and environmentalists as the
estimates of unintentional death worldwide is however much higher than the intentional
accidental poisoning. The majority of these fatalities occur in tropical developing
countries despite the fact that they account for only a small proportion (about 25%) of
global pesticide use (Rainbird et al., 1994). And some studies indicated high correlation
between chronic exposure of pesticide and adverse health effect on workers (Conway and
Pretty, 1991). The results of the health assessments showed that farmers and agricultural
workers faced chronic health effects on eye, skin, heart, nervous system, kidney etc. due
to prolonged exposures. One or more of these symptoms lead to lower productivity due to
farmers’ absence from work during treatment and recuperation or to impaired capacity to
do a fool load of work. The value of crop lost to pest is invariably lower than the cost of
treating pesticide-caused diseases.
In this context the study of pesticide handling behaviour of the farmers has some
relevance to explore the effect of pesticide exposures on them in the context of adhering
safety norms and to throw some insights related to feasible interventions for minimizing
the adverse effect on them.
Methodology:
Haringhata block of Nadia district, West Bengal was chosen purposively for the study
due to its high cropping intensity, vast acreage under vegetable and long tradition of
using different pesticides over the past years. Multistage proportionate random sampling
was adopted for selecting four villages. Total enumeration technique was employed for
selecting the respondents who qualify as vegetable growers in the chosen villages. A
structured schedule was prepared based on the objectives of the study. The data was
collected through personal interview method after pre-testing the schedule in the year
2003-2004. Finally, 400 vegetable growers were retained as respondent after three
repeated visits. Two specific case studies were done where severe health problems were
observed.
Results and discussion:
The obtained results have been analyzed and presented in a tabular manner for better
understanding of the health problems, related pesticides, extent of following safety norms
and sources of information for purchasing and handling pesticides. A brief presentation
of the case studies is furnished in oral narrative form.
Table 1 Health problem related with pesticide application (N=400)
Sl.
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Nature of Health Problem No. of Affected
farmers
Headache
85
Skin irritation or Itching
213
Breathing problem
59
Vomiting
35
Weakness
101
Eye splashes
69
Drowsing
24
No problem
187
Percentage
Rank
21.25
53.25
14.75
8.75
25.25
17. 25
6.00
46.75
3
1
5
6
2
4
7
In the present investigation, the respondents were asked about their felt problems during
and after application of pesticides on various vegetable crops. At the most, 53.25 per cent
of the respondents reported that they had the problem of skin irritation or itching after
application of pesticides. The problem occupied 1st rank when the problems were
arranged in rank-wise. At the lowest 6 per cent of respondents had drowsing problem
and it occupied 7th rank among the other problems. About one –fifth of respondents
(21.25%) in the study area had the headache problem during and after application of
pesticides and it possessed 3rd rank. About one –fourth of respondents (25.25%) replied
that they had the problem of weakness and also responded that it was a common problem
to all after applying most of the pesticides and it obtained 2nd rank. Eye irritation was
reported by 17.25% of respondents and it occupied 4th rank accordingly. Breathing
problem was reported by 14.75 per cent of respondents, which occupied 5th rank among
the other problems reported by them. Only 8.75 per cent of respondents reported that they
had the problem of vomiting that occupied 6th rank. Most of the respondents in the study
area opined that application of pesticides after eating reduced the vomiting problem up to
a certain level.
Health problems related with pesticide
application
Health problems
No problem
Drowsiness
Eye irritation
Weakness
Vomiting
Breathing problem
Skin irritation or itching
Headache
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage of farmers
Table 2 Percentage of affected farmers due to specific pesticide exposure (N=400)
Sl
No
1
Name of
pesticide
Malathion
2
3
4
Furadon
Thimate
Vapona
5
Thiodan
6
Folidol dust
7
8
Ekalaux
Metacid
Associated Health
Problem
Breathing problem
Headache
Itching Vomiting
Itching Vomiting
Drowsing Eye
splashes
Headache Eye
splashes
Skin irritation
Breathing problem
Weakness Drowsing
Breathing Problem
Weakness
No of Affected
farmers
192
Percentage
Rank
48
1
173
104
35
43
26
8.75
2
5
8
136
34
3
35
8.75
4
56
61
14
15.25
7
6
Among the several pesticides, few of pesticides namely-Malathion, Furadon, Thimet,
Vapona, Thiodan, Falidol dust,Ekalux, Metacid were identified by the respondents those
caused various health problems. Malathion was an eco-friendly pesticides though it
caused breathing problem and headache and it was reported by 48 per cent of respondents
60
About half of respondents (43.33%) reported that Furadon caused Itching and vomiting
problem to them.Thimet also had the similar effect like Furadon, it was reported by 26%
of respondents. Only 8.75%of respondents had the problem of Drowsing and eye splashes
those were caused by Vapona. One- third of respondents (34%) reported that they had the
similar effect due to application of Thiodon. Folidol dust caused skin irritation and
breathing problems and it was reported by 8.75 per cent of respondents of study area.
Metacid, a major insecticide in the study area also causes breathing problem along with
weakening of the applicators as reported by 15.25 percent of the respondent. The
pesticide, Ekalux promotes weakness and drowsiness among 4 per cent of the respondent
according to their perception.
Percentage of affected farmers due to pesticide
exposure
Name of pesticides
Metacid
Ekalaux
Folidol dust
Thiodan
Vapona
Thimate
Furadon
Malathion
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percetage of affected farmers
Table 3 Distribution of the respondents (%) according to precautions taken as per safety norms (N=400)
Sl
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Statements
Always
Frequently Sometimes
Never
First, identify the pest and then assess the
damage.
Contact the experts if the remedy is not properly
known.
Apply pesticide judicially as per
recommendation.
Select the most safe and environment-friendly
pesticide among the set of recommended
pesticides.
Application after reading the label of the packets
Open the bottle/sachet of pesticide with a knife
instead of teeth.
Keep the bottle/container/sachet at safe places
(out of the reach of children)
Keep the bottle/container/sachet at safe distance
21
4
30
45
5
15
20
60
20
60
15
5
10
10
20
60
60
96
5
4
0
0
35
0
100
0
0
0
95
5
0
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
from food.
Apply pesticide with wearing adequate clothing.
Cover the body and face with towel at the time of
pesticide application.
Wash body and face with soap after pesticide
application.
Wash the body part with soap in case of
accidental contact with pesticides.
Abstain from taking food or smoking during
pesticide application.
Check the spraying implement before pesticide
application.
Avoid blowing the clogged nozzle of the sprayer
before pesticide application.
Abstain from pesticide application at the time of
high wind.
Do not apply pesticide against the wind direction.
Do not leave the field keeping the pesticide
container behind.
Do not use the container of the pesticide for other
causes.
Do not wash the containers like bottle, mug,
bouquets, and sprayer in the pond.
Use the harvested crop only after knowing the
residual effect of the pesticide ingredients
Do not apply pesticides during the flowering
period of the crop.
Do not apply pesticide in the hot noon hours.
25
20
30
35
40
25
5
20
80
14
6
0
75
25
0
0
95
0
5
0
90
5
5
0
65
10
25
0
0
20
30
50
53
38
.27
25
20
30
0
7
21
22
57
0
80
10
10
0
10
30
45
15
0
50
30
10
95
0
5
0
Precautions in applying pesticides
A special effort was taken in the present investigation for knowing the various
cautions followed by vegetable growers. Twenty-three statements were selected from
the literature of plant protection and expert views. There were four columns (Always,
sometimes, seldom, never) under the heading of ‘What you do’ in respect of each
statement. The respondents replied satisfactorily and the responses had logical basis.
Proper diagnosis, choice of pesticide and determination of dose
Twenty one percent respondents in the present study, first identified the insect- pests
and diseases and thought about their nature of damage or level of damage and 4
percent of respondents some times did it whereas thirty percent of respondent seldom
did it and remaining 45 per cent never did it. More than half of the respondents (60%)
reported that they did not contact with agricultural staff (ADO, KPS) in their locality,
whereas 20 percent of the respondents replied that they seldom kept contact with the
agricultural staff and 15 percent of the respondents sometimes did it. Only 5 percent
of the respondents always did it when they were unable to tackle the problems due to
pest infestation. Most of the respondents had lack of faith on Government
recommendations but the educated and innovative farmers applied pesticide on the
basis of recommendation. Majority of the respondents (60 %) reported that they
sometimes used pesticides on the basis of recommendation and 20 percent of
respondents replied that they always used recommended pesticides whereas 15
percent of the respondents seldom did it and remaining 5 percent of the respondents
never did it.
Most of the farmers had a mis -conception that more amounts of pesticides beyond its
recommendation per unit of area or per unit of water will give better results. When
the recommended dose of pesticides did not give desired result then they motivated to
another option. Actually, it expressed their mental puzzling condition. “If there is lot
of recommended pesticides for a particular insect- pest or disease then you select that
pesticide which is safe and having less hazardous effect on environment”, in the
response of this statement, 60 percent of the respondents told that they never did it, 20
percent of the respondents seldom did it and 10 percent of the respondents always did
it whereas another 10 percent sometimes did it. Farmers general view in this respect
was that, they were mainly concerned about the effectiveness of the pesticides, either
these were hampering environment or not they were not bothered, because they were
business minded.
Application of pesticides after careful reading of label of bottle or packet of
pesticide
More than half of the respondents (60%) reported that, they always applied pesticides
after careful reading of label of bottle or packet whereas 35 percent of the respondents
told that they were applied pesticides whatever the retailers prescribed at the time of
purchasing. Only five percent of them sometimes followed the prescription of the
label of bottle or packet.
Opening the packets or bottles by using knife or by mouth
Almost all the respondents (96%) replied that they used special knife for opening the
bottles or packets of pesticides whereas remaining 4 percent of the respondents
replied that they sometimes opened the bottles by mouth.
Keep the bottles, small containers and packets of pesticides in a particular place,
which is out of touch of children.
All the respondents in the present investigation reported that they keep the bottles,
small containers and packets of pesticides in safety place which is out of touch of the
children.
Keep the products in certain distance from the food materials
Almost all the respondents (95%) replied that they kept the bottles; small containers
and packets of pesticides in a certain distance from the food materials whereas only
remaining 5 percent of the respondents told that they sometimes kept, it ignoring the
restriction.
Application of pesticides without proper clothing
Twenty five percent of the respondents reported that they had applied pesticides
without proper clothing and 30 percent replied they sometimes did it where as 40
percent of the respondents reported that they seldom did it. Only 5 percent of the
respondents told that they were habituated with the application of pesticides with out
wearing any shirt.
During application of pesticides, use thick napkin to cover mouth and body
Twenty percent respondents answered that they always used thick napkin to cover
mouth and body during application of pesticides whereas 35 percent of the
respondents sometimes did it and 25 percent of the respondents seldom did it. Only
20 percent respondents told they never use any napkin to cover the mouth during
application of pesticide.
After application of pesticides to wash hands and legs by soap
Maximum number of the respondents (80%) replied that they always used soap to
wash hands and legs after application of pesticides on vegetable crops whereas 14
percent respondents sometimes did it and only 6 percent of the respondents told that
they seldom did it. The pesticide penetrated in the body of pesticide applier, which
created various health problems. So they did it to remove the hazardous effect and
offensive odor from their body.
Sticking together of pesticides with any part of body requires washing by soap
Maximum number of the respondents (75%) told that they always washed the body
part by soap when a pinch of pesticides solution was touched the body whereas rest
25 percent told that they sometimes did it.
Taking food or smoking during application of pesticides
Almost all the respondents (95%) reported that they did not take any food materials or
smoke during application of pesticides and remaining 5 percent told that they
sometimes smoked during application of pesticides.
All the respondents either literate or illiterate knew it, that pesticides were poisonous
substances though 5 percent of them were the slave of their smoking habit.
To check the implements before application of pesticides
To check the implements before application or spraying of chemicals was very
essential for smooth running of function. Maximum number of respondents (90%)
replied that they always checked the plant protection equipments before spraying the
chemicals whereas 5 percent of respondents some times did it and remaining 5
percent of respondents seldom did it.
Clean the nozzle of sprayer machine through whiff
Sixty five percent of the respondents answered that they never cleaned the sprayer
machine through whiff because there was possibility of contact of pesticides with
mouth, which leaded health problem. In this study 25 percent of the total respondents
told that they seldom did it whereas only 10 percent vegetable growers sometimes did
it.
No application of pesticides during high velocity wind blowing
Half of the respondents (50%) in the present study reported that they did not apply
pesticides during high velocity wind blowing due to much loss of pesticides, created
health hazards and ineffectiveness of pesticides. Whereas 30 percent of the total
respondents seldom applied pesticides during wind blowing and remaining 20 percent
replied they sometimes applied pesticides according to their urgency of application.
No application of pesticides against the direction of wind blowing
More than half of the respondents (53%) did not applied pesticides against the
direction of wind blowing whereas 27 percent of the respondents sometimes did it and
reaming 20 percent of them seldom applied pesticides against the direction of wind
blowing. At the most 53 percent respondents were comparatively more health
consciousness over profit consciousness. Those applied pesticides against the wind
direction, they were very much profit oriented.
Do not move anywhere leaving the pesticides in field
Thirty eight percent of respondents reported that they did not move anywhere leaving
the pesticides in the field during application of pesticides and 25 percent of them told
that they sometimes did it. Thirty percent of the respondents told that they seldom
moved anywhere during application of pesticide whereas 7 percent respondents
always moved anywhere without any hesitation.
Due to several causes they moved sometimes, the identified causes were – to cut the
bunds for irrigation, to bring the spraying water, and urgent work in house etc.
No use of empty packets, bottles of pesticides for other purpose
Twenty one percent of the respondents (21%) reported that they did not use the empty
bottles or packets of pesticides and more than fifty percent of the respondents (57%)
seldom used it and remaining 22 percent of the respondents sometimes used the
empty bottles of pesticides.
Do not wash the empty tin, bucket, mug and bottle of pesticides in the pond
Eighty percent of the respondents reported that, they did not wash empty tin, bucket,
mug and bottle of pesticides in the pond whereas 10 percent of the respondents
sometimes did it and remaining 10 percent of the respondents seldom washed the
empty tin, bucket, mug and bottle of pesticides in the pond which was not used for
domestic purpose.
Harvest the vegetable after knowing the stability of pesticides in that vegetable
after application of pesticides
Majority of the respondents (45%) reported that they seldom collected the vegetable
after knowing the stability of pesticides in that vegetable crop after application of
pesticides, whereas 10 percent of the respondents told that they always did it and 30
percent of the respondents sometimes did it. Only fifteen percent (15 %) of the
respondents never did it due to their profit mindedness.
Application of pesticides during flowering
Exactly, half of the respondents (50%) reported that they sometimes applied
pesticides during flowering whereas 30 percent of the respondents seldom did it. Only
10 percent of the respondents did not apply any pesticides during flowering but
another 10 percent of them reported that they used pesticides without considering the
flowering period. Actually, a pesticide is not applied during flowering because of its
ill effect on flowering and fruit setting.
Application of pesticides during noon period of the day when very hot and bright
sunlight prevailed
Most of the respondents (95%) in the study area reported that they did not apply
pesticides during noon period of the day when very hot and bright sunlight prevailed
whereas only 5 percent of the respondents seldom applied pesticides during noon hours
of the day under compulsion. Naturally farmers did not apply pesticides during noon
period because of desiccating effect, irritating weather condition, and lower incidence of
insect- pests (hide in bushes and soil or cracks of the soil).
Table 4 Distribution of respondents according to sources of information for
purchasing and using pesticides
Sl. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Name of the
Insecticides
used
Thiodan
Endocel
Sevin
Furadon
Diafuran
Metacid
Ustad
Cymbush
Sumithion
Kelthane
Padan
Asataf
FLASH
Hostathion
Rogor
Metasystox
Monocil
Sumithion
Demecron
Confider
Blitox
Fytolan
Cuman L
Indofil M 45
Diathane M45
Bavistin
Derosal
Krilaxyl
Pusamycin
Streptocycline
Sources of Information for Purchasing And Using Pesticides
Dealer
35
70
60
51
80
49
58
78
82
97
45
66
73
56
18
7
85
69
8
43
51
50
46
28
37
17
54
93
45
39
Self
55
20
30
5
37
7
50
5
42
50
30
29
19
5
16
42
38
60
2
5
25
Neighbour
10
20
15
12
15
9
35
13
8
3
5
29
27
40
40
43
2
25
62
28
30
45
38
30
25
23
35
7
28
36
Govt.Agent Company
10
5
7
5
9
10
4
13
6
9
12
The table under reference indicates the names of pesticides used by vegetable growers
and their sources of information for purchasing and using pesticides. The
respondentswere asked about most commonly used pesticides (30) and the respondents
responsed according to their level best perception .At the most 97 percent of respondents
collected information about Kelthane from the dealers of the study area whereas only 7
percent of respondents gathered information about Metasystox from dealers. More than
half of respondents (55%) had the experience about the Thiodan and the rest (10%)
collected the information from Neighbours. Seventy percent of respondents got the
information about Endocel from Dealers and 20 percent got it from the Neighbour
whereas 10 percent got it from the Company personnel. At the most 60 percent collected
the information about Sevin from the Dealers and 25 percent took their own decision.
Only 15 percent of them accepted the information from their Neighbours. Exactly, 50
percent of respondents received the information about Furadon from the pesticide Dealers
and 12 percent of them from their Neighbours. Remaining 38 percent of growers had the
idea about application procedures of Furadon. In case of Diafuran, 80 percent of
respondents got the message from the retailers during the purchasing period whereas 5
percent of them used the pesticide from their past experience and remaining 15 percent of
growers collected the information from their Neighbours.
Box 1
Case 1: Anwar Mondal, Mollabelia, Haringhata block, Nadia, West Bengal. ‘I have been
spraying pesticide regularly for five years on contractual basis. Recently I have severe
gastro intestinal tract problems possibly caused by my earlier exposure to pesticides for
the last few years’.
Case 2: Babla Monadal, Nalkudia, Haringhata block, Nadia.’ I served as permanent
labour in rich farmer’s house for last 12 years and assigned as applicator of pesticides for
my skills. Recently I am suffering from kidney ailment and I presume my exposure to
pesticides may have some connection to my ill state of health’.
Conclusion and recommendation:
A high portion of pesticide intoxication related health hazards due to pesticide exposure
caused by unsafe attitudes and dangerous personal work habits, lack of knowledge, lack
of proper personal protective and spraying equipments, loading methods, the technology
available is often unsuitable to small and marginal farmers of the tropical countries.
Agricultural extension mostly promoted by the untrained retailers or his peer group
members is not oriented to need-based information for safe handling of these dangerous
chemicals, first aid etc. The recommendations emerged out from the study clearly spell
out for a holistic approach to combat the grim situation. They belong to three basic
domains of interventions, namely extension, research and policy.
Extension
 Training of stakeholders
in safety precautions,
recognition and
management of
pesticide related ill
health as a matter of
urgency.
 Sensitization of policy
makers, teachers and
students.
Research
 Epidemiological studies
for investigating
pesticide induced ill
health.
 Development for
appropriate and
affordable personal
protection equipment.
 Biological monitoring
Policy
 Incorporation in school
syllabus.
 Plant protection
equipment subsidization.
 Policy for appropriate
product packaging and
use of protective
equipments and apparels.
References:
Conway, G. R. and Pretty, J. N. (1991) Unwelcome Harvest – Agriculture and Pollution.
Earthscan Publications Ltd. pp. 17-155.
Rainbird, G., O’ Neil, D., Robertson, S. A. (1994) Ergonomics for All. Proceedings of the
Ergonomics Society annual conference, Coventry, UK, 19-22 April, pp. 28-32.