# data[].attributes.headline
"You are poor because you are making others rich."

# data[].attributes.subject
"You are poor because you are making others rich."

# data[].attributes.body
This quote was said by one of the workers when talking about how farm workers fall below the poverty line, but big supermarkets are thriving. Publix, for example, was the store focused on in the movie and if they were to just give one more penny per pound it would cost them $1 million out of their $22 billion net profit. An article for Business History also points out how large supermarket chains have put a lot of local farmers out of business and has even caused smaller grocery stores to be taken over by the large chains (Collantes, 2016).

# data[].attributes.headline
"There was terrible poverty and exploitation just hidden from view." 

# data[].attributes.subject
"There was terrible poverty and exploitation just hidden from view." 

# data[].attributes.body
This quote was referring to Edward R. Murrow's documentary in the 1960s about farm workers. Even though this documentary is from 50 years ago a lot of the conditions are still the same today. Today many people do not know the struggles these farm workers face. When at a supermarket many people would not stop to think about how the food got there and at what price to the workers. The realization of the issue is improving though through organizations like CIW as discussed in the movie the larger suppliers in the food chain are being held more responsible for worker conditions and bringing the issue into the main stream media (Dias-Abey, 2018).

# data[].attributes.headline
"Sometimes you can feel a nice breeze from the pesticides were spraying over there. It felt good. They don’t tell you about the risks." 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Sometimes you can feel a nice breeze from the pesticides were spraying over there. It felt good. They don’t tell you about the risks." 

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this quote because it shows how bad working conditions are. The majority of farm labor is done outside, weather conditions are uncontrollable but the fact that workers are excited about a breeze from chemicals shows that their working standards are well below standards and potentially dangerous. The International Journal of Environmental Health and Research reported that the majority of farmers know pesticides can be harmful to workers but, because of lack of knowledge farmers and farm labor do not follow safety instructions or precautions when dealing with pesticides. This can result in intense and prolonged exposure and lead to chronic health problems for workers (Jallow, 2017).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mohamed-Bassem A. Ashour, Academic Editor

Abstract

The unsafe and indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture represents a major hazard to the environment and human health. The aim of this study was to assess the levels of knowledge, attitude and practices of Kuwaiti farmers regarding the safe use of pesticides. A total of 250 farmers participated in this study through in-depth interviews and observations on-farm. The majority of the farmers acknowledged that pesticides were harmful to their health (71%) and the environment (65%). However, farmers' level of knowledge of pesticide safety is insufficient. Over 70% of the farmers did not read or follow pesticide label instructions, and 58% did not use any personal protective equipment (PPE) when handling pesticides. Educated farmers were significantly more likely to use PPE compared with famers with limited formal education (χ ² = 9.89, p < 0.05). Storage of pesticides within living areas was reported by 20% of farmers. When disposing of pesticide wastes, respondents adopted unsafe practices such as discarding, incinerating, or burying empty pesticide containers on-farm, or reusing the containers. Farmers also reported disposing leftover pesticide solution or old pesticide stocks on-farm or in the sewer. A significant number (82%) of the farmers reported at least one symptom of acute pesticide poisoning. Although farmers' knowledge of pesticide hazards was high, the reported safety measures were poor. Comprehensive intervention measures to reduce the health and environmental risks of pesticides are needed, including pesticide safety training programs for farmers, stringent enforcement of pesticide laws, and promoting integrated pest management and non-synthetic methods of pest control.

Keywords: pesticide exposure, knowledge, risk, health hazards, smallholder farmers

1. Introduction

Pesticides have become an integral part of present day farming, and play a major role in increasing agricultural productivity. However, the indiscriminate and extensive use of pesticides represents one of the major environmental and public health problems all over the world [ 1, 2]. If improperly used, pesticides can lead to secondary pest outbreaks [ 3], destruction of non-target species [ 4], soil, water, and air contamination [ 5, 6], and residues in primary and derived agricultural products [ 7] that endanger both the environment and human health. Farm workers' exposure to pesticides has been associated with adverse health effects like cancer and birth defects resulting in hundreds of fatalities, the majority of which occur in developing countries [ 8, 9]. Farmers, and especially those directly involved in the handling of pesticides, are at a high risk of exposure to pesticides through contact with pesticide residues on treated crops, unsafe handling, storage and disposal practices, poor maintenance of spraying equipment, and the lack of protective equipment or failure to use it properly [ 8, 10].

These risks may be exacerbated by lack of information on pesticide hazards [ 10], the perception and attitude of farmers regarding risk from pesticide exposure [ 11], and to lack of education and poor knowledge and understanding of safe practices in pesticide use, including storage, handling and disposal [ 12]. Higher levels of education gives pesticide users better access to information and more knowledge of the risks associated with pesticides, and how to avoid exposure. While less educated farmers may be hampered in their ability to understand the hazard warnings on pesticide labels, how to avoid exposure, and how to follow recommended safety and application guidelines. For example, illiteracy and lack of knowledge on the extent to which pesticides represent a hazard have been considered the most important barriers for the adoption of self-protective behaviors by farmers, in particular the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) [ 13, 14].

Kuwait has made significant investments in the past four decades towards developing new agricultural strategies, and has created a favorable environment for agricultural expansion to help facilitate at least a modest level of self-sufficiency in food production. Consequently, there is a growing interest in agricultural activities, especially vegetable production in open fields and protected environments for fresh market consumption. The prevalence of the problems caused by insect pests and diseases has resulted in high demand for pesticides in Kuwait [ 15]. For most farmers, vegetable production, especially in greenhouse environments, is not possible without intensive use of chemical pesticides due to farmers' lack of access to non-synthetic methods of pest control. The annual consumption of pesticides in Kuwait was about 4.5 (kg ai)/ha per year in 2007 [ 16], and by 2015 this figure has increased to 12.8 (kg ai)/ha per year [ 17]. This excessive amount of pesticide use does not translate into increased crop yields for the farmers, but rather increases the potential to adversely affect human health and the environment. Pesticide use is further complicated by farmers' not perceiving these chemicals as hazardous or that they have to be handled correctly.

Due to the potential health effects of pesticides, most countries, including Kuwait, have developed laws and regulations to encourage safe pesticide use. For example, Law No. 21 of 2009 and Law No. 42 of 2014, dealing with procedures for the use of pesticides including, registration, sale, distribution, transportation, storage and handling. Similarly, resolution No. 95 of 1995 is concerned with banning the circulation of hazardous pesticides to protect human health and the environment. However, the basic problem lies in the inadequacy of enforcing these laws at the retail and farm level due to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms. Evidence exists of pesticide-related health effects in Kuwait [ 18, 19, 20]. Pesticide residues have been detected in a number of vegetables in Kuwait [ 21, 22, 23, 24], and the presence of chlorinated pesticides in the breast milk of lactating women has raised even greater concerns about possible health risks to breastfed infants [ 25].

Research on pesticides in Kuwait has primarily focused on pesticide toxicity, the effects of pesticides on human health and the environment [ 22, 24], and more recently the determinants of pesticide overuse by farmers [ 17]. Jallow et al. [ 17] reported that 58% of smallholder vegetable farmers in Kuwait overused pesticides. Pesticide application frequency ranged from two times a month up to once a week, depending on the crop. In this paper, we focus specifically on the understanding of farmers' knowledge and practices with respect to pesticide safety. Understanding farmers' knowledge of pesticides and safety practices is vital not only for identifying exposure situations and knowledge gaps, but also to provide valuable information that can contribute to educational and policy recommendations aimed at preventing or reducing the health and environmental hazards associated with pesticides. Therefore, the aim of the work described in this paper is to assess the levels of knowledge, attitude and practices of Kuwaiti smallholder farmers regarding the safe use of pesticides. Specifically we aim to:

1. Determine the knowledge and awareness of the farmers regarding pesticides, and their experiences with acute pesticide poisoning in connection with handling pesticides.

2. Assess farmers' practices and attitudes regarding storage, handling and disposal of pesticides.

3. Evaluate the protective measures taken by farmers, including the adoption of PPE, to reduce occupational pesticide exposure.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Questionnaire Development and Delivery

Diagnostic surveys, formal interviews, and field observations were used to gather information on farmers' knowledge of pesticides and safety practices. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews with 250 farmers (farm managers and their employees directly involved in pesticide use and management), from 200 farms in Kuwait's two major agricultural regions (Wafra and Abdally). Detailed description of the study area, including cropping systems is highlighted in Jallow et al. [ 17]. The sample size (200 farms) was determined using the Leslie Kish [ 26] formula to provide a good estimate of the sampled population. Wafra and Abdally regions account for more than 90% of the total crop production in Kuwait [ 27]. Cropping systems are mainly based on open field and greenhouse production, with about 30,000 ha under cultivation. Farms of about 5 ha dominate the agricultural landscape, mostly growing dates, vegetables, cereals, pulses, and forages. It is worth noting that the majority of the farms, although owned by Kuwaitis, are typically operated and managed by predominantly expatriate laborers from North Africa and the Indian subcontinent who also constitute the majority of the agricultural labor force in Kuwait [ 27]. Multistage-sampling was used for the purpose of the survey. Each region was divided into four clusters, and within each cluster individual farms were selected by random sampling using an automatic random number generator. In all, 120 farms from Abdally and 80 farms from Wafra were selected for the survey.

A questionnaire was designed in English and translated into Arabic, the national language that is understood by majority of the farmers, and was administered either in Arabic or English on-farm. The questionnaire included closed and open-ended questions, and was pre-tested by randomly interviewing twenty farmers not included in this study. The closed questions were in a multiple choice format so that respondents had to select only the appropriate answer or answers that they thought best described their opinion or attitude on a particular issue. The questionnaire contained three main sections. The first section was designed to collect information on personal characteristics of the farmers including age, educational level, and years of farming experience. The second section focused on collecting information on farmers' level of awareness of pesticide laws and regulations, and knowledge and understanding of pesticides with respect to the environmental and human health. In addition, we also collected data on self-reported toxicity symptoms associated with pesticide use, as well as farmers' knowledge about exposure routes. When symptoms were assessed, respondents were asked if within the past year prior to the date of the interview they experienced at least one heath impairment immediately after applying or handling pesticides. If the answer was yes, respondents were asked to specify which symptoms they had experienced. The third section included questions regarding pesticide handling and safety practices including reading and following label instructions, storing and disposing of pesticides and empty containers, and use of PPE and other protective practices during and after pesticide application.

2.2. Data Analysis

All data were coded, entered, and then analyzed using SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Microsoft Office Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). Descriptive results were expressed as frequencies and percentages, and the Chi-square test (χ ²) was used to measure the possible association between nominal variables [ 28]. We used α ≤ 0.05 as a criterion for statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics and Profile of the Farmers

All farmers surveyed in the study were men, as farming activities especially those related to pesticide use are performed exclusively by men in Kuwait. The majority of the farmers (69.70%) interviewed were between 21 and 40 years old, with the average age being 29.8 years. Slightly more than 9% of the farmers were 50 years and over. A considerable number of the farmers (16.8%) were illiterate or had not completed elementary education, 69.2% had completed either elementary or secondary education, and 14% were educated to a tertiary level. The majority of the farmers educated to the tertiary level were expert agronomists (71.4%), and 22.9% had received training in pest management. Most of the respondents (68%) had 5-10 years of farming experience, with 10.4% having more than 10 years of farming experience. Farm sizes varied from less than 5 ha to over 10 ha, with an average of 4.5 ha.

3.2. Pesticides Used

A total of 76 pesticide active ingredients were found to be in use during the survey period (). About 47% (35 out of 76) of the pesticides used belonged to the World Health Organization (WHO) toxicity class II (moderately hazardous), with a few (9%) under toxicity class Ib (highly hazardous). WHO toxicity class II pesticides (moderately hazardous) were used by 90% of the farmers, followed by class III (slightly hazardous) 68%. Slightly more than 12% of the farmers used class Ib pesticides (highly hazardous), including monocrotophos, oxamyl, abamectin, beta-cyflurthrin, methomyl, fenamiphos, triazophos, and fenamiphos. Insecticides were used by 98% of the farmers, followed by fungicides and bactericides (79%), nematicides (24%) and herbicides (5%).

Table 1

3.3. Farmers' Knowledge, Attitude, and Understanding about Pesticides

The farmers' level of knowledge of pesticides, including exposure routes, effects on the environment and human health, and their awareness of pesticide laws and regulations was analyzed in . The majority (64%) of the farmers had not received any training or technical support on the judicious use and safe handling of pesticides, while 36% were trained. Although most farmers agreed that pesticide use poses some risk to human health (71%) and the environment (65%), they also indicated that pesticides were indispensable for high crop yield (80%). Over 70% of the farmers did not read or follow instructions on pesticide labels, because they were unable to read and understand the meaning of the labels (56%), the labels were written in English (a foreign language to them) (35%), and the instructions were too long and complicated (45%). Slightly more than 15% of the farmers indicated that font sizes on the labels were too small to easily read. Only 28% of the farmers were able to read, understand, and follow pesticide label instructions correctly.

Table 2

Do you think that pesticides affect human health?

Do you think that pesticides affect the environment?

Do you think pesticides are indispensable for high crop yield?

Do you read, understand and follow pesticide labels?

How do pesticides enter the human body? a

Do you know some pesticides are banned or restricted for use?

Do you know the pesticides that are banned or restricted for use?

Do you know the reasons for banning or restricting pesticides? a,b

When farmers were asked to indicate how pesticides enter the human body, dermal (54%), inhalation (86%), and oral (42%) were stated as the most common routes of exposure to pesticides. About 14% of the farmers indicated lack of knowledge of any route of exposure to pesticides. The majority of the farmers (58%) are aware that some pesticides have been banned or are restricted for use. However, among this group, only 20% of the farmers knew the names of some the pesticides that are banned or restricted for use. Examples include dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), permethrin, methiocarb, and methamidophos, all of which are highly hazardous to human health and the environment. Among farmers who are aware that some pesticides have been banned or restricted for use, the high toxicity of the pesticides (58%), not effective (79%) and expensive (28%) were cited as major reasons for the ban or restriction.

3.4. Farmers' Practices on Storage and Disposal of Pesticides

Farmers' attitudes towards storing of pesticides and disposal of residual pesticide solutions, expired pesticides, and empty pesticide containers are shown in . The majority of the farmers (59%) stored their pesticides in locked chemical stores designated only for pesticides. Respondents also stored their pesticides in open sheds just for pesticides (34%) and in the open field (30%). A worrying 15% of the farmers reported storing pesticides in an animal house, in a refrigerator with other items (8%), or within their living area (20%). Respondents with higher education levels were significantly less likely to store pesticides in their home (χ ² = 20.89, p < 0.01). When asked what they do with residual pesticide solutions, 82% of respondents reported that they apply the leftover solution on other crops, disposed the solution in the field (35%), in the sewer (4%) or deliver the solution to the municipality hazardous waste collection sites for disposal (23%). Only 18% of respondents reported mixing only the amount of pesticides that is needed for the application at hand.

Table 3

Where do you store pesticides?

What do you do with the unused leftover (mixed, diluted) pesticides?

What do you do with old pesticides stocks?

What do you do with empty pesticide containers?

Disposal of old pesticide stocks is often done by delivering them to the municipality hazardous waste collection sites (16%), disposing in open fields (27%), in the sewer (3%) or returning the obsolete pesticide to pesticide retailers (5%). Over 60% of the farmers claimed that they buy only the amount of pesticides they need. The common way of disposing of empty pesticide containers was placing them in garbage containers and/or dumpsters for disposal at the landfill (50%), incinerating them on the farm (43%), or delivering them to the municipality hazardous waste collection sites for disposal (39%). Respondents (25%) also buried the containers on-farm or discarded them on the farm (27%). Alarmingly, 6% of the farmers reported re-using empty pesticide containers for household purposes. A significant association (χ ² = 8.98, p < 0.05) was observed between years of farming experience and safe pesticide storage and disposal.

3.5. Farmers' Safety Practices against Occupational Exposure to Pesticides

Protective measures during and after pesticide application are important to reduce exposure to pesticides. The majority (58%) of the farmers did not use any PPE when mixing or spraying pesticides (). When respondents were asked to indicate the main reasons for not using PPE, lack of availability when needed (35%), and PPE being uncomfortable in the local hot and humid climate (90%), too expensive (65%), and slowing you down (29%) were the most reasons cited. Respondents (6%) also cited not experiencing any health problems from using pesticides as reason for not using PPE. Among respondents who reported using PPE, less that 5% wore all the recommended six key PPE items (coveralls, protective boots, glasses/goggles, gloves, respirator, and hat). The PPE most often used were protective gloves (61%), hats (42%), and glasses/goggles (48%). A significant number of respondents reported not wearing respirators (70%), coveralls (68%), or protective boots (54%) at all. Younger and educated farmers were more likely to use PPE compared with older farmers or famers with limited formal education (χ ² = 9.89, p < 0.05). However, no association was observed between farming experience and use of PPE.

Table 4

Apart from PPE use, farmers were asked if they implement other safety measures to reduce their risk of exposure to pesticides. The majority of respondents reported not eating (72%), drinking (65%) or smoking (59%) when mixing or applying pesticides (). Furthermore, 82% of respondents reported taking a shower immediately after mixing or spraying pesticides. Over 70% of respondents, however, did not wash work clothing used while mixing or spraying pesticides separately from other cloths. Similarly, 46% of respondents reported that they did not consider wind direction when spraying pesticides.

Table 5

3.6. Self-Reported Toxicity Symptoms Related to Pesticides

A significant number (82%) of the farmers reported at least one symptom of acute pesticide poisoning in the previous year immediately after applying or handling pesticides, while 18% of respondents did not ascribe any health problem encountered to pesticide exposure (). The most frequently reported symptoms were headaches (82%), skin irritation (58%), nausea (49%), itchy eyes (79%), dizziness (41%), fatigue (50%), and coughing (22%). Other symptoms reported by respondents were poor vision, stomach ache, excessive sweating, shortness of breath, and vomiting. When respondents were asked what action they took following an incident of poisoning, a majority (75%) reported taking no action as the incident was minor or required only self-medication. Only 5% of respondents reported a serious poisoning incident that required medical attention in a hospital.

4. Discussion

Understanding farmers' level of knowledge and practices regarding the safe use of pesticides is vital for providing sound educational and policy strategies that aim at limiting the health and environmental hazards caused by pesticides. The majority of farmers in this study were well aware of the harmful effects of pesticides with regard to the environment and human health, but contrary to expectations, this did not significantly change their practices or attitudes towards safe pesticide use. This suggests that even though farmers may know the hazards of pesticides very well, they may often adopt risky behaviors because of lack of education and poor knowledge and understanding of safe practices in pesticide use [ 10], or they are more concerned with high economic returns from their crops than with their own health [ 29]. A considerable number of the respondents in this study were illiterate or had limited formal education, and did not receive any training or technical support in pesticide safety. Consequently, these farmers are hampered in their ability to read and understand pesticide labels regarding the correct and safe use of pesticides, or written communication about how to avoid the risks of exposure [ 30]. The fact that the majority of the farmers (72%) indicated that they did not read or follow pesticide labels () is a great cause for concern, and perhaps indicates a general ignorance of the importance of pesticide labels in reducing exposure risk. Educated farmers are more knowledgeable about pesticide safety, have better ability to read, understand and follow hazard warnings on labels, and conceptualized the consequences of poor pesticide usage practices [ 12]. Even when able to read, some respondents in this study acknowledged they were reluctant to read pesticide labels because of their experience with pesticide use.

Our study showed some worrying practices about storage of pesticides, with 20% of the farmers storing pesticides in living areas or in refrigerators (8%) with other items (). This demonstrates the farmers' lack of knowledge of pesticides and the appropriate approach for storing pesticides. Storing pesticides in living areas can increase the potential for high exposure, especially when these areas are the places where farmers prepare food, eat, and sleep. Farmers also stored pesticides in animal housing that could pose a danger to farm animals (). Unfortunately, storing of pesticides in residences and in the open is prevalent in many developing countries. Matthews [ 10] reported that 27% of 8500 smallholder farmers in 26 countries stored pesticides in the home or in open areas, and nearly half indicated that they rarely or never locked pesticides away. These risky behaviors can be attributed to farmers' lack of technical knowledge and training on safe pesticide use. Educated farmers and farmers who have access to training on pesticide use are more likely to store pesticides in locked stores designated for pesticides [ 31]. Likewise, they are more likely to be aware of pesticide-related adverse health and environmental effects [ 32].

Farmers in this study generally demonstrated a poor knowledge of pesticide disposal, and more than 80% of respondents re-spray treated areas with leftover pesticide solutions. Leftover pesticide solutions or old pesticide stock were also disposed of in the field or in the sewer (). These poor pesticide handling practices can lead to harmful residues in harvested produce, and soil and water contamination, posing a threat to both human and environmental health [ 11]. Some respondents reported that they only mixed the amount of pesticides needed or they deliver leftover solutions to hazardous waste collection sites for disposal, both good options for reducing the hazards of pesticides (). Unfortunately, these farmers represented less than 25% of all farmers interviewed in this study. Unsafe disposal of pesticide containers may be an important source of pesticide exposure [ 31]. When disposing of empty pesticide containers, the majority of respondents adopted unsafe behaviors such as discarding, incinerating or burying containers on-farm. These practices may lead to environmental contamination and a risk to human health, and have been reported as a major problem in a number of studies [ 10, 33]. About 5% of the farmers indicated that they reuse the empty pesticide containers for household purposes, increasing their chances of exposure to pesticides. Respondents emphasize that they always wash the empty pesticide containers before reuse, and they reinforce this by saying that there is no exposure risk because they do not smell the pesticides. Evidence of farmers' reuse of empty pesticide containers has been reported in other studies [ 34].

Use of appropriate PPE, such as coveralls, and the adoption of other protective measures and good personal hygiene such as showering, not smoking, eating or drinking while handling pesticides are considered good practices to reduce occupational pesticide exposure [ 10]. An increase in the use of protective measures decreases the probability of poisoning by 44% to 80% [ 35], whereas lack of PPE use increases the potential for dermal and respiratory exposure to pesticides [ 36]. An important finding in this study is that there are low levels of adoption of protective behaviors to reduce occupational exposure to pesticides. The majority of farmers fail to use any PPE, while fewer than 5% use all the recommended equipment (). The main reason mentioned for not using PPE was the discomfort under hot and humid conditions, as the environment in Kuwait is characterized by high ambient temperatures, with summer temperatures exceeding 45 °C [ 37]. This indicates that farmers may be more willing to risk exposure to pesticides than to use PPE under such climatic conditions [ 38]. Lack of PPE use is made worse by some farmers not spraying according to the wind direction, and drink, eat and smoke when handling pesticides, all of which increase the danger of poisoning [ 10]. Similarly, they sprayed more often than required, up to once a week depending on the crop, using pesticides highly hazardous to human health and the environment [ 27]. Education status and training in pesticide use and safety are strong determinants of the appropriate use of PPE. For example, the perception that PPE were useful to prevent exposure to pesticides was associated with at least a high school education among migrant farm workers in USA [ 39], farmers in India [ 40] and in Mexico [ 14].

Findings in this study will enable government and regulatory agencies to make better-informed decisions and policy recommendations aimed at preventing or reducing the health and environmental hazards associated with pesticides. The knowledge gaps identified in this study could also be used to designed knowledge-based training programs for farmers. Participation in training programs leads to increased levels of knowledge about safety precautions while handling pesticides [ 29, 41]. It is imperative that proper training programs on pesticide safety and on the hazards of pesticide exposure be developed to address gaps in farmers' knowledge about pesticides. The national agricultural extension service should play a pivotal role in the training of farmers, and the information they provide should be up-to-date, accurate, and easy to understand to inspire confidence and trust among the farmers. Farmers' source of information and the degree to which they trust the informants may shape their perceptions of risk of pesticides and the adoption of preventative measures [ 42]. Our study pointed to significant illiteracy rates among farmers, and this represents a challenge in the design of appropriate training programs. Given that most farmers are unable to read and write, a more interactive and participatory training model is required, for example, by using pictograms to simplify pesticide labels and communicate risk information. The pictograms should be unambiguous and easy to understand, to prevent misinterpretations of the risk information. Using pictograms is seen as a key element for overcoming literacy challenges in transmitting pesticide risk information [ 43]. Knowledge of the farmers can further be reinforced through field demonstrations. Such capacity-enhancement activities will provide farmers the opportunity to learn and understand how to handle pesticide safely, and how to adopt preventative measures to reduce the risk against occupational exposure. It is also important to educate farmers about alternative cropping systems that are less dependent on pesticides, while at the same time promoting integrated pest management practices.

Pesticide retailers play a critical role in the dissemination of agricultural information to farmers, and farmers in Kuwait rely on them as the primary information and knowledge source on pesticides [ 17]. Retailers can downplay environment and health effects of pesticides when dealing with farmers for greater profit-making [ 44], or may be constrained by the lack of knowledge of pesticides [ 45]. Therefore, training pesticide retailers to increase their knowledge of pesticide safety and risk communication is critical. Retailers should have, at minimum, a technical advisor with competence in the handling of pesticides and knowledge of their hazards to appropriately advise farmers and other end-users. Lack of training of pesticide retailers, who may serve as advisors to farmers and other end-users, has been considered a key factor contributing to occupation exposure to pesticides [ 46]. Promoting safe pesticide use will also require educating farmers and pesticide retailers about the pesticide regulatory framework in Kuwait, and the obligations currently in place. Some farmers lack any knowledge of the pesticide regulatory framework, and were completely unaware that some pesticides are banned or restricted for use because of their toxicity (). This lack of knowledge is likely to contribute to increased risk to the farmers.

Training farmers alone may not be sufficient to reduce the risk posed by pesticides. Interventions that provide farmers with information and knowledge of pesticide safety should be complemented with other strategies. Greater priority must be given to enforcing existing pesticide laws and regulations at the retail and at the farm level, through surveillance and monitoring activities. Ideally, there should be a pesticide safety certification program for pesticide applicators and retailers to ensure that only those certified are allowed to sell, handle, or apply pesticides. It is also critical to raise awareness among the general public, who may be directly or indirectly be exposed to pesticides, about the risk of these chemicals. Risks to the general public may include inadvertent dermal and inhalation exposure from sprayed fields, contact with treated crops during farm visits, or through harmful residues in primary and derived agricultural products [ 47].

A limitation of a study such as this is that it is based mainly on self-reported data, relying on the honesty of respondents which is subjected to bias [ 48]. As a self-report, it is possible that there may be some inaccurate data such as respondents wanting to report socially desirable behaviors. For example, self-report of PPE use and safe disposal of empty pesticide containers, and the adoption of other safety practices may be influenced by the respondents' desire to indicate that they comply with protective measures against occupational pesticide exposure. However in some farms, observations were conducted to verify farmer reports, and we often observed farmers discarding empty pesticide containers or incinerating them on-farm. These observations were supported by the responses of the interviewed farmers. Another limitation relates to the inability to directly link health symptoms experienced by respondents to pesticide exposure. The health symptoms experienced by respondents, such as headaches and fatigue, were not specific, and in some of the cases these symptoms might have been due to causes other than exposure to pesticides, such as long exposure to the sun, especially if no head protection is worn. Nevertheless, that the symptoms reported by respondents occurred immediately after applying or handling pesticides and the frequency of occurrence is a great cause of concern. Finally, based on the number of respondents (250 farmers), we cannot claim that the results are representative for all Kuwaiti farmers. It was not feasible to interview all farmers in Kuwait. However, our intention is not to generalize, but to explore and highlight important occupational health and pesticide safety issues for individual farmers. Furthermore, our findings and previous studies on pesticide poisoning conducted in Kuwait [ 18, 19, 20] all pointed to unsafe pesticide handling practices among farmers. Despite its limitation, this study provides an overview of pesticide safety knowledge and practices among farmers in Kuwait, and can contribute to educational and policy recommendations that aim at preventing or reducing the hazards associated with pesticides. The results may be relevant in other countries where greater and widespread use of pesticides among smallholder farmers is a dominant trend.

5. Conclusions

The adverse effects of pesticides have been widely documented. However, awareness among farmers and other applicators of the importance of protecting themselves and the environment from hazards associated with handling pesticides is still lacking. This study investigated the levels of knowledge and practices of Kuwaiti smallholder vegetable farmers regarding the safe use of pesticides. Our study reveal farmers lack adequate knowledge of pesticides, and often adopt risky behaviors when handling pesticides. Knowledge deficits included the poor use of PPE and other safety measures, and the improper storage and disposal of pesticides. To increase farmers' knowledge about pesticide and limit the hazards associated with pesticides, it is recommended that priority is given to developing and implementing pesticide safety educational and certification programs for farmers. Where provided, the training must address health effects associated with exposure to pesticides, the effects of pesticides on the environment, improvements in disposal and storage of pesticides, pesticide risk reduction strategies, and understanding of the pesticide regulatory framework in Kuwait. Training pesticide retailers to increase their knowledge of pesticides is also critical, since they are farmers' primary source of information about pesticides. Finally, intervention strategies by regulatory agencies to strengthen enforcement mechanisms of current pesticide laws, through regular surveillance and monitoring pesticide safety compliance at the retail and farm level is a necessity in promoting safe pesticide use. In addition, the importation, sale and the use of highly hazardous pesticides should be restricted.

Acknowledgments

This study was financed by the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (FA117K). The contribution of the farmers and the staff of the Kuwait Public Authority for Agriculture and Fish Resources to this study is gratefully acknowledged.

Author Contributions

Mustapha F.A. Jallow conceived and designed the study, developed the questionnaire, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. Dawood G. Awadh, Binson M. Thomas, and Vimala Y. Devi were responsible for data collection, data entry, and administrative support. Mohammed S. Albaho participated in all parts of the work. All authors have read, reviewed and approved the final manuscript before submission.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsor had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

References

9. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations . Pesticides: Balancing Crop Protection and Responsible Use. Plant Production and Protection Division; Rome, Italy: 2014.

13. Damalas C.A., Hashemi S.M. Pesticide risk perception and use of personal protective equipment among young and old cotton growers in Northern Greece. Agrociencia. 2010;44:363-371.

16. Bashour I. Pesticides, fertilizers and Food Safety. In: Tolba M.K., Saab N.W., editors. Arab Environment Future Challenges. Arab Forum for Environment and Development; Beirut, Lebanon: 2008. pp. 137-145.

18. El-Desouky M.A., Hassan R.Z., El-Enany F.F. Exposure to pesticides in Kuwait. J. Kuwait Med. Assoc. 1978;12:215-227.

20. Abahussain E.A., Ball D.E. Pharmaceutical and chemical pediatric poisoning in Kuwait: A retrospective survey. Pharm. Pract. (Granada) 2010;8:43-49. doi: 10.4321/S1886-36552010000100005. [ PMC free article]

22. Saeed T., Sawaya W.N., Ahmad N., Rajgopal S., Al-Omair A. Organophosphorus pesticide residue in the total diet of Kuwait. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 2005;30:17-27.

24. Hajjar M.J. The persisted organic pesticides pollutant (POPs) in the Middle East Arab countries. Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 2012;3:11-18.

26. Kish L. Survey Sampling. John Wiley & Sons Publishers; New York, NY, USA: 1965.

28. Agresti A. An Introduction to Categorical Data analysis. John Wiley & Sons Publishers; New York, NY, USA: 2007.

44. Alam A., Wolff H. Do pesticide sellers make farmers sick? Health, information sources and adoption of technology in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2016;41:62-80.

46. Lekei E.E., Ngowi A.V., London L. Pesticide retailers' knowledge and handling practices in selected towns of Tanzania. Environ. Health. 2014;13:79-87. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-13-79. [ PMC free article]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pesticide Knowledge and Safety Practices among Farm Workers in Kuwait: Results of a Survey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unsafe and indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture represents a major hazard to the environment and human health. The aim of this study was to assess the levels of knowledge, attitude and practices of Kuwaiti farmers regarding the safe use ...

# data[].attributes.headline
"The history of farm labor in the United States is a history of exploitation." 

# data[].attributes.subject
"The history of farm labor in the United States is a history of exploitation." 

# data[].attributes.body
Ever since the abolition of slavery in the United States a new form of somewhat legal slavery has arisen in farm labor in the jobs that other Americans have deemed undesirable. These jobs are typically worked by immigrants for low wages that don't allow then to live above the poverty line. This type of abuse of farmworkers has been going on decades. The Journal for Citizenship Studies states that the same problem that is happening in America with the long running history of exploitation of minorities is also happening in Canada. The article states that Canada has passed laws that limit the rights and freedoms of immigrant workers to keep them at their same economic level, so they continue to work the jobs that other citizens will not but are crucial to everyday life (Perry 2012).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article investigates how colonial attitudes towards race operate alongside official multiculturalism in Canada to justify the legally exceptional exclusion of migrant farm workers from Canada's socio-political framework. The Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program is presented in this article as a relic of Canada's racist and colonial past, one that continues uninterrupted in the present age of statist multiculturalism. The legal continuation and growth in the use of non-citizens to conduct labour distasteful to Canadian nationals has provided an effective means for the Canadian state to regulate the ongoing flow of non-preferred races on the margins while promoting a pluralist and ethnically diverse political image at home and abroad. In the face of a labour shortage constructed as a political crisis of considerable urgency, the Canadian state has continued to admit non-immigrants into the country to perform labour deemed unattractive yet necessary for the well-being of Canadian citizens while simultaneously suspending the citizenship and individual rights of those same individual migrant workers. By legislating the restriction of rights and freedoms to a permanently revolving door of temporary non-citizens through the mechanism of a guest worker programme, the Canadian state is participating in the bio-political regulation of foreign nationals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Barely legal: racism and migrant farm labour in the context of Canadian multiculturalism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article investigates how colonial attitudes towards race operate alongside official multiculturalism in Canada to justify the legally exceptional exclusion of migrant farm workers from Canada's socio-political framework. The Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program is presented in this article as a relic of Canada's racist and colonial past, one that continues uninterrupted in the present age of statist multiculturalism.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The farmers in this country are not poor. We are screwed." 

# data[].attributes.subject
"The farmers in this country are not poor. We are screwed." 

# data[].attributes.body
This shows how hopeless some farm labors are. Farm laborers work so hard for such little money and have done it for so long they feel like any changes to improve their working and living conditions are nearly impossible. The US Department of Human Health Services reports that that 90% of farmworkers are paid by the hour and that there were many wage rate violations with many workers making less than minimum wage. The article also reports that workers who are without a H-2A visa are more prone to worker wage violations and pesticide safety violations (Robinson, Nguyen, Isom, Quandt, Grzywacz, Chen, Arcury, 2011). Workers are afraid to speak up about issues and mistreatment because they do not want to risk losing their job or getting deported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Migrant farmworkers experience a myriad of problems. These problems include occupational hazards, including pesticide exposure, that are exacerbated by the limited set of regulations and limited enforcement of these regulations [ 1- 3], a lack of access to health care and social services [ 4], and poverty and food insecurity [ 5]. Another potential problem farmworkers face is not receiving the wages they have earned [ 6- 8].

Migrant farmworkers in the United States number in the hundreds of thousands, although their exact number is not known [ 9]. These farmworkers are overwhelmingly Latino immigrants from Mexico [ 10]. Most are unaccompanied young men with limited formal education [ 9, 10]. Migrant farmworkers face an extraordinary set of occupational (e.g., pesticides exposure, machinery and equipment), environmental (e.g., poor housing), and lifestyle (e.g., separation from family) exposures that affect their health [ 1, 11- 14]. At the same time, farmworkers have limited access to health services [ 4] and to culturally appropriate occupational safety training [ 15].

BACKGROUND

Few safety regulations are available to protect migrant farmworkers [ 3]. Due to what is often referred to as "agricultural exceptionalism," many current occupational safety regulations do not apply to the small agricultural employers of most migrant farmworkers. Current policy efforts include the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act [ 16], a bipartisan effort that would provide the opportunity for "earned legalization," enabling many undocumented farmworkers and farmworkers with temporary H-2A work visas to earn a "blue card" (temporary immigration status with the possibility of becoming permanent residents by continuing to work in agriculture and by meeting additional requirements), and would revise the existing H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker visa program. The only current agricultural guest-worker program, the H-2A visa program, has been criticized for the potential for worker intimidation, limitations on freedom of association, and limitations on other labor rights [ 17].

Farmworker Pesticide Exposure and Safety Regulations

Pesticide exposure is a major occupational health risk for migrant farmworkers. Pesticide exposure has immediate health effects, such as rashes, dizziness, burning eyes, and vomiting; immediate health effects in severe cases of pesticide exposure include coma and death [ 18]. Pesticide exposure can also have long-term health effects, including increased risk for cancer, neurological decline, and problems with reproduction. Farmworkers are exposed to a variety of pesticides across the agricultural season [ 15, 19, 20].

The major regulation to protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Worker Protection Standard (WPS) [ 21]. The WPS requires that those employed in agriculture receive pesticide safety training before they accumulate five days of work in fields to which restricted-use pesticides had been applied in the previous 30 days. The WPS also requires that a set of safety procedures be in place. These safety procedures include notifying farmworkers where pesticides have been applied, observing the restricted entry intervals after pesticides have been applied, and providing appropriate personal protective equipment to farmworkers when they work with pesticides. However, training and safety procedures required by the WPS often are not provided [ 2, 22- 27].

Farmworker Wage Regulations and Wage Violations

Minimum wage violations are a problem faced by many low-wage workers in the United States, regardless of geographical location, industry, or nationality. In 2008, 26 percent of low-wage workers in the three largest U.S. cities were paid less than the federally mandated minimum wage [ 28]. Farmworkers have a very low national average annual income of approximately $11,000 [ 10]. Farmworkers in the eastern United States earn about 35 percent less annually than do farmworkers in other regions [ 29]. The total average annual income in 2005 for farmworkers in the eastern United States was $7,150. This annual income is based on an average of 34.5 weeks of labor with 42 hours of labor per week. This is equivalent to an average hourly wage of $4.93 [ 10]. However, aside from the National Agricultural Workers Survey [ 10], systematic information on underpayment and wage theft for farmworkers is not available.

Minimum wage regulations for farmworkers are contingent on their visa status. Seasonal farmworkers and immigrant farmworkers without H-2A visas cannot be paid less than the higher of the applicable state minimum wage or the federal minimum wage established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Immigrant farmworkers with H-2A visas must be paid the highest of 1) the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for the county in which they work; 2) the "prevailing rate" for a given crop, task, and area; or 3) the federal or applicable state minimum wage [ 30]. The Adverse Effect Wage Rate is a separate minimum wage set by the Department of Labor that will not have adverse effects on employment opportunities of United States workers [ 31]. The prevailing rate is established by the Department of Labor and reflects the hourly wage paid to the majority of workers in the largest city in each county [ 32].

Aims

This analysis uses survey data collected from migrant farmworkers in eastern North Carolina to address three aims. First, it describes the wages and the presence of minimum wage violations among farmworkers. Second, it determines whether minimum wage violations are associated with personal characteristics of farmworkers. Finally, it determines whether minimum wage violations are related to violations of pesticide safety regulations.

METHODS

This research is based on a community-based participatory research program that began in 1996. The primary partners for this collaboration are the North Carolina Farmworkers Project, a nonprofit service and advocacy organization located in Benson, North Carolina, and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Data for this analysis are from a cross-sectional survey of migrant farmworkers completed from June through August, 2009. The Wake Forest University Health Sciences Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved the study protocol.

Locale

This study includes migrant farmworkers in three eastern North Carolina counties: Harnett, Johnston, and Sampson. Migrant farmworkers in these counties include those who are documented permanent residents of the United States, those who have temporary H-2A work visas, and those who are undocumented. These farmworkers are overwhelmingly from Mexico. The levels of pesticide exposure experienced by farmworkers in these counties have been documented in previous studies [ 15, 19, 20]. These studies show that farmworkers in North Carolina are exposed to a variety of pesticides, including several organophosphorous and pyrethroid insecticides, carbamate fungicides, and numerous herbicides. These farmworkers are repeatedly exposed to these pesticides across the agricultural season. Many of these farmworkers are not provided with the training and field sanitation resources required by regulation to protect them from pesticide exposure [ 2]. Migrant farmworkers in these counties, including documented United States permanent residents, those with H-2A visas, and those who are undocumented, generally live in grower-provided housing, referred to as camps. Substandard conditions are common in North Carolina migrant farmworker camps. Based on repeated measures data, Vallejos and colleagues [ 33] report that at any point in the 2007 agricultural season, between 11 percent and 44 percent of camps had inadequate bathing, laundry, or storage facilities. When housing was assessed in 2008, 89 percent of camps had more than one condition that violated the Migrant Housing Act standards.

Farmworkers in this region commonly experience several additional health problems. Some of these health problems, such as green tobacco sickness [ 34], skin disease [ 35], and eye symptoms [ 36], result from occupational exposures. Other health problems, such as food insecurity [ 37], human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted infections [ 38], and psychological problems [ 39] are related to poverty and migratory lifeways.

Participant Recruitment

Participant recruitment and selection involved two steps: 1) identifying and selecting camps; and 2) identifying and selecting workers within camps. As camps are widely distributed and not occupied every year, an approach similar to that described by Arcury and colleagues [ 35, 40] was used. The North Carolina Farmworkers Project serves the camps in the study counties. They provided their list of camps to the study team. Camps from the list were selected and visited in random order. If a randomly selected camp was not being used, interviewers went to the next camp on the randomized list. Access and participation of farmworkers in these camps was facilitated by the long-term relationship and trust between the North Carolina Farmworkers Project staff members and farmworkers in these counties. Following the standard procedures of this research program, growers were not consulted before camps were approached for participation. According to North Carolina law, farmworkers are considered de facto renters and they have the right to have any visitors whom they choose, including occupational health researchers. However, if a grower is present at a camp and asks the researchers to leave, they comply so as not to endanger themselves or the farmworkers.

A census was completed at the selected camps in which farmworkers gave preliminary consent to participate. Farmworkers at each camp were recruited from the census list; up to six participants were recruited at each camp. The overall sample size included 300 farmworkers recruited from 52 camps. Farmworkers at 62 camps were asked to participate in the study; workers at eight camps declined to participate, and growers refused to allow study personnel to recruit at two camps. At the 52 camps included in the sample, 157 individuals refused to participate, for a participation rate of 66 percent (300/457). Reasons for the refusals by camps and individuals were not recorded.

Data Collection

Data collection included an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Questionnaire items addressed participant demographic and background conditions, hours worked, method of determining payment, and pesticide safety and safety training. The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into Spanish by a native Spanish speaker familiar with Mexican Spanish and farmworker vocabulary. Five farmworkers were recruited to pretest the questionnaire. Modifications to the questionnaire were made based on farmworker feedback. This approach to questionnaire development has been consistently used in this community-based participatory research program, and it has provided reliable and valid information.

The Spanish-speaking interviewers were former farmworkers who have had a long-term association with the North Carolina Farmworkers Project. Their backgrounds and their association with the North Carolina Farmworkers Project were helpful in establishing trust with the farmworkers participating in this study. The interviewers completed a one-day program conducted by investigators and project coordinators. The program included a thorough review of camp and participant selection, recruitment procedures, and interview data collection procedures. All participants provided signed informed consent before data collection began. Participants received an incentive of $20 for participating in the study.

Measures

Analysis is based on three sets of measures derived from the questionnaire data: 1) participant wages and earnings in the current agricultural season; 2) personal characteristics; and 3) adherence to pesticide safety and training regulations. Measures of actual wages that participants received and whether a minimum wage rate violation occurred were determined by a series of questions on hours worked, total earnings, and whether earnings were based on an hourly rate, a daily rate, or a piece rate (e.g., paid by the bucket or by the barn). If a participant was paid hourly and reported an hourly rate that was below the current federal minimum wage, a minimum wage violation was recorded. If a participant was paid on a piece rate, effective hourly earnings were derived by dividing amount paid per unit (e.g., bucket or barn) by the total number of hours it takes to complete that unit. If the effective hourly earnings did not meet the current minimum wage, a minimum wage violation was recorded. Wage measures are based only on federal minimum wage regulations, not on AEWR or prevailing rate.

Participant personal characteristics included gender; age in the categories 18 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, 30 to 39 years, and 40 years and older; educational attainment in the categories zero to six years, and seven or more years; and years in U.S. agriculture in the categories less than one year, two to seven years, and eight or more years. Participants indicated whether they could speak Spanish, English, and an indigenous language. Finally, participants reported whether they had an H-2A visa.

Measures of adherence to pesticide safety and safety training regulations were based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Worker Protection Standard [ 21]. These dichotomous measures indicate whether the participants reported that 1) supervisors (growers or contractors) gave farmworkers instructions on safety when they were hired; 2) proper safety equipment was provided by supervisors; 3) they were told when pesticides were applied; 4) they were told when the no-reentry interval had ended in fields in which they were asked to work; 5) they were told to enter a field to which pesticides had been applied before the reentry interval had ended; 6) they worked in a field while pesticides were being applied; 7) they worked in a field adjacent to one in which pesticides were being applied; 8) water for washing hands was always available in the fields; and 9) soap for washing hands was always available in the fields. A final measure was the total number of pesticide safety violations based on the nine individual items.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the baseline characteristics of workers both with and without H-2A visas. All tests of significance and means take into account the clustering within camps. For the tests of categorical variables, a camp variable was added as a cluster in the surveyfreq procedure and the resulting Rao-Scott chi-square tests are presented. The association between wage violation and compliance with safety regulations was measured using a mixed model with a camp variable as a random effect. The resulting lsmeans, standard errors, and p-value are presented. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Participant Characteristics

One-third of the participants did not have an H-2A visa (). Participants were largely (95.0%) male. About one-third were under 30 years of age, while about one-third were aged 30 to 39 years, and about one-third aged 40 years and older. More than half (53.7%) had less than seven years of education. Most (47.0%) had worked in U.S. agriculture for two to seven years. Almost all spoke Spanish (99.7%), with 11.7 percent speaking English and 20.0 percent speaking an indigenous language.

Table 1

A greater percentage of those without an H-2A visa than with an H-2A visa were female (12.3% versus 1.0%). A greater percent of those without an H-2A visa were under 25 years of age (28.3% versus 14.9%), and had less than seven years of education (68.9% versus 45.4%). Those without an H-2A visa had less experience in U.S. agriculture; 23.6 percent of those without an H-2A visa were in their first year compared to 8.2 percent of those with an H-2A visa. More of those without an H-2A visa spoke English (17.9% versus 8.2%), and spoke an indigenous language (29.2% versus 14.9%).

Farmworker Wages

Most farmworkers (90.0%) were paid hourly; two (0.7%) were paid daily; 23 (7.7%) were paid by the bucket; and 12 (4.0%) were paid by the barn (). A smaller percentage of participants without H-2A visas were paid hourly than were participants with H-2A visas (84.9% vs. 92.8%). A greater percentage of workers without H-2A visas were paid by the bucket than were participants with H-2A visas (17.0% versus 2.6%). A smaller percentage of participants without H-2A visas were paid by the barn than were participants with H-2A visas (none vs. 6.2%).

Table 2

Five participants (1.7%) reported having difficulty in obtaining their pay from their supervisors; two (1.9%) were workers without H-2A visas and three (1.5%) were workers with H-2A visas. Fifty-five (18.3%) of the farmworkers reported wages that fell below the federally mandated minimum wage. Forty-eight (45.3%) of the workers without H-2A visas reported wages that fell below minimum wage. Seven (3.6%) of the workers with H-2A visas reported wages that fell below the minimum wage.

Personal Characteristics and Wage Violations

Almost all farmworkers with H-2A visas reported receiving correct wages. Therefore, all remaining analyses of minimum wage violations were limited to workers without H-2A visas. Among farmworkers without H-2A visas, no associations between worker personal characteristics and wage violations were statistically significant ().

Table 3

Farmworker Pesticide Safety and Training

Many of the farmworkers reported a lack of adherence to pesticide safety regulations where they worked (). Only a third (34.8%) reported being provided pesticide safety instruction by their supervisor, and 14.8 percent were provided with pesticide safety equipment. About half were told when pesticides were applied (51.0%) and when the no-reentry interval had ended (51.3%). About one-quarter (25.2%) were asked to enter fields before the no-reentry interval had ended, 16.0 percent worked in fields when pesticides were being applied, and 28.0 percent worked in areas adjacent to fields in which pesticides were being applied. Most (75.3%) had water available in the fields for hand washing, but only 44.3 percent had soap.

Table 4

The work environments of farmworkers without H-2A visas differed in many aspects of pesticide safety from the work environments of farmworkers with H-2A visas. Farmworkers without H-2A visas were less likely to be provided with pesticide safety equipment (1.4% versus 18.2%), to be told when pesticides were applied (34.9% versus 59.8%), and to be told when the no reentry interval had ended (33.0% versus 61.3%). Fewer of those without H-2A visas reported being asked to enter fields before the no-reentry interval had ended (17.1% versus 29.5%). However, those without H-2A visas more often reported working in fields when pesticides were being applied (21.7% versus 12.9%), and working in areas adjacent to fields in which pesticides were being applied (41.5% versus 20.6%).

Farmworker Wages Associated with Safety and Training Conditions

Farmworkers without H-2A visas who reported wages that fell below the minimum wage were also less likely to report being told when pesticides were applied (22.9% versus 44.8% of those who reported wages that met the minimum wage), and to report being told when the no-reentry interval had ended (20.8% versus 43.1%) (). Other associations of minimum wage violations and adherence to pesticide safety regulations for workers without H-2A visas were not statistically significant; however, workers experiencing wage violations also tended to experience improper pesticide safety and training conditions. For example, workers with minimum wage violations were less likely to receive safety instructions than those with legally adequate wages (29.2% versus 37.9%). These workers were also more likely to work in a field while pesticides were being applied to that field than those without minimum wage violations (29.2% versus 15.5%). The mean total number of pesticide safety violations among those with minimum wage violations was 4.9, while the mean number of pesticide safety violations among pesticide safety violations among those without minimum without wage violations was 4.1.

Table 5

DISCUSSION

Wage violations are prevalent among migrant farmworkers in eastern North Carolina. About one in five of all farmworkers and 45 percent of farmworkers without H-2A visas were found to experience minimum wage violations. Farmworkers lack control over their work environment [ 41] and often fear retaliation for reporting any type of violation [ 42]. Combining these occupational characteristics with limited staff in government agencies responsible for monitoring farmworker wages may result in minimum wage violations going unchecked.

Far fewer workers with H-2A visas (3.6%) than those without H-2A visas (45%) receive wages below the federally mandated minimum. The wages paid to workers in North Carolina with H-2A visas are closely monitored by the federal H-2A visa program as well as by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, the union representing many North Carolina farmworkers with H-2A visas. Among workers without H-2A visas, the percent of workers experiencing minimum wage violations does not differ by age, gender, education, speaking an indigenous language, or years in agriculture. Therefore, it is not likely that wage violations are due to supervisors targeting or exploiting specific groups of people. The lack of targeting individuals with specific characteristics is similar to findings of previous studies regarding more general labor markets and wage violations [ 28].

The proportions of study participants reporting violations of pesticide safety regulations are similar to those reported in other studies conducted in North Carolina [ 2, 23, 26] and elsewhere [ 22, 25, 27]. Also similar to other studies in North Carolina, fewer farmworkers with H-2A visas than farmworkers without H-2A visas report violations of pesticide safety regulations [ 23]. However, a substantial percentage of farmworkers in this study with H-2A visas still report violations of pesticide safety regulations.

The H-2A visa program has been criticized because the control and intimidation exerted over these workers by their employers limits the workers' ability to voice concerns over unsafe working conditions [ 17]. Although the H-2A program raises serious human rights concerns, and the enforcement of program regulations is not adequate, the few empirically based, peer-reviewed papers in which the occupational safety and living conditions of migrant farmworkers with H-2A visas are compared with those of migrant farmworkers without H-2A consistently report that work and living conditions are better for farmworkers with H-2A visas. Compared to workers without H-2A visas, workers with an H-2A visa are more likely to receive pesticide safety training, and they are more likely to work for employers who follow the pesticide safety regulations [ 2, 23]. Workers with H2-A visas are likely to live in housing with fewer violations [ 33].

Although regulatory scrutiny is far from adequate, the employers of farmworkers with H-2A visas are under far greater scrutiny than are other migrant farmworkers' employers. The greater compliance available to migrant farmworkers with H-2A visas for wages and pesticide safety, as well as housing regulations, indicates that we could expect higher compliance for all farmworkers with more regulations and with greater monitoring and review of these regulations.

Limitations of this study need to be noted when considering the results. First, we could not fully assess H-2A wages because no information was collected to determine the exact crop in which the farmworkers were working or the exact task being completed by workers. This may have affected determining the number of workers with H-2A visas experiencing wage violations. Secondly, farmworkers did not report their paycheck amount, only hours worked and wage rate. Finally, a community partner identified the camps included in this study; camps not known to the community partner could not be included. The study was also limited to the farmworkers present at the time of recruitment. However, the camp list compiled by the community partner was very extensive and was randomized before beginning data collection. A strength of this study is its high participation rate (65.6%).

Implications that arise from this research are the obvious need for designated regulatory staff to oversee farmworker wages. Also, due to the relationship between pesticide safety violations and wage violations, inspectors should investigate for wage violations when pesticide safety violations are found. This could greatly benefit the lives of all farmworkers as well as streamline the process of investigation for inspectors. These results argue for greater regulation and greater enforcement of regulation resulting in safer work and living conditions for all farmworkers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WAGES, WAGE VIOLATIONS, AND PESTICIDE SAFETY EXPERIENCED BY MIGRANT FARMWORKERS IN NORTH CAROLINA*

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Migrant farmworkers experience a myriad of problems. These problems include occupational hazards, including pesticide exposure, that are exacerbated by the limited set of regulations and limited enforcement of these regulations [ 1- 3], a lack of access to health care and social services [ 4], and poverty and food insecurity [ 5].