ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDE EXPOSURE AND KNOWLEDGE OF PESTICIDE SAFETY AMONG HISPANIC AND PUNJABI FARMWORKERS IN SAN JOAQUIN, SOLANO, YOLO, AND YUBA/SUTTER COUNTIES

NIEHS Center for Environmental Health Sciences at UC Davis

Investigator: Faith Boucher, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor

fkboucher@ucdavis.edu

BACKGROUND

The known health effects of pesticide exposures have engendered worker protection and education programs aimed at educating and licensing farmworkers who are designated by their employers to handle and apply agricultural chemicals. While the applicators are at the greatest risk of adverse health effects, the majority of farmworkers who are not applicators, as well as their families, are exposed to pesticides in the fields where they work and in the migrant labor camps where they live. In the fields, failure to observe safe entry intervals and aerial spraying are behavioral and ambient causes of exposure. Exposures in the home, in this case the migrant labor camps, are of special concern because of research showing graver health effects of exposure on children and women. Previous studies have shown that farmworkers' house dust, and subsequently the hands of many toddlers, contains dangerous levels of pesticide residue. Pesticide-contaminated work clothes washed with family laundry can provide another route of exposure. While these cautions apply to all farmworkers, those most likely to be exposed to pesticides through lack of education are the non-English speaking, represented in our area by Spanish and Punjabi speakers.

RATIONALE

While previous activities have provided pesticide education for those farmworkers who do not regularly apply or handle pesticides, no study has outlined the actual exposures borne by farmworkers, or assessed the average farmworkers' knowledge of pesticide safety practices and first aid measures in case of acute exposure. The purpose of this study is: 1.) to conduct a survey of randomly chosen farmworkers resident in migrant labor camps in Yolo, Solano, San Joaquin, and Yuba/Sutter counties, to include: a.) knowledge of basic pesticide safety procedures; b.) pesticide contact incidents including pesticide illness and the agricultural tasks and crops associated with those contacts; c.) recognition of and first aid for acute pesticide illness; 2.) to analyze the survey data and produce a report describing the results of the study in order to: a.) inform future pesticide safety education programs for farmworkers; and b.) provide a valuable tool for the assessment of pesticide exposures among farmworkers. After the conclusion of the study, the results of the data analysis will be released to the community by the lay health advisors previously trained. The development of educational materials and the conduct of community meetings is included in the scope of work.

Pesticide exposure assessment instrument - Progress Report November 2001

1. What were the initial goals and background of the program?

The initial goals of the program were to devise a pesticide exposure assessment instrument that could be used with migrant farm workers speaking only Spanish.

2. Methods

a. What tasks/steps were performed to complete the goals?

I obtained other pesticide exposure assessment instruments and got the most suitable one translated into Spanish. The first focus group reviewed the instrument on 10-26. The revisions are under way and the second focus group should have them in a couple weeks.

b. Specifically, how was the research focus of the NIEHS Center at UC Davis incorporated into the program? The research focus is health effects of agrochemicals and related xenobiotics in the Northern California region.

We lack a non-invasive method of assessing chronic pesticide exposure, and are therefore handicapped when questioning the long-term effects of such exposure. This project tried to gather what has been successful elsewhere and adapt it for our populations.

c. What other sources of funding did the program receive? List agencies and $ amounts. –0- from other sources.


3. Results

a. Who was the target audience? – Spanish-speaking farmworkers

b. How many people were reached? - 13 people attended the focus group that reviewed the instrument.

c. What were the products, outcome/impact of the program--i.e., workshops given, questionnaire developed, publications? The instrument is attached.

d. Specifically, which Center investigators were directly involved in the project?
Faith Boucher

e. How did this Center funding facilitate new collaborations with non-Center investigators? List names of other faculty/staff/departments/agencies involved in the project.
The instrument under review is being used in the present form but another language to assess farmers in Thailand. It has been noted by UCSF researchers who are working with the Hmong in Fresno, and we are putting together a joint project.

f. Did you evaluate the "success" of the program? If yes, please describe which methods you used--i.e., pre- and post-questionnaires, external evaluator, informal feedback.

Focus group participants wrote their comments on the survey.