Document Type: Original Articles

Authors

1 Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, India

2 Department of Ophthalmology, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, India

3 Undergraduate MBBS Student, Shri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute, India

Abstract

AbstractBackground: Hazardous pesticides continue to be used in thefarming industry purely because of economic reasons. Farmersneed to understand this risk. Pesticide labels and pictograms wereenforced to propagate this risk information to the farmers in asimple way. However, their effectiveness has not been evaluated inIndia. This study attempts to evaluate the efficacy of these labelsand pictograms to help farmers understand the pesticide risks.Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey wasconducted among 172 paddy farmers in Kancheepuram districtof Tamil-Nadu, India. Their interpretation of four pesticidelabels and fifteen pesticide safety pictograms were analyzedusing (SPSS version 20) for descriptive statistics. Chi-squaretest was used for dichotomic variables. A p value of < 0.05 wasconsidered significant.Results: Of the 172 farmers interviewed, 93% were unawareof the pesticide regulations and 72.6% had never attempted toread the labels. Only, the red color in the label was identifiedcorrectly by 66.1% of farmers. Four out of fifteen pictogramswere interpreted correctly by more than 60% of the farmers.Educational status had a significant influence on the way thelabels and pictograms were interpreted.Conclusion: We need to consider restructuring these labels ina more scientific way. Instead of a top-down approach, we needto start working at the grass root level if we tend to have betterappreciated labels. It is recommended that plans and strategiesshould be devised to educate the farmers about the labels andpictograms.

Keywords

  1. GDP- Composition by sector of origin. The World Factbook. Central intelligence agency. Retrieved 28 April 2016.Available from URL: https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/theworldfactbook/fields/2012. html.
  2.  Abhilash PC, Singh N. Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario. Journal of Hazardous Materials.2009; 165: p1–12.
  3.  Mohit Gupta. Pesticide Poisoning in India. Occupational health and safety. Asian Labour Update. March 2010; p32-35.
  4.  Insecticides Rules. Central Insecticides Board. 1971; Available from Url: http://cibrc.nic.in/insecticides_ rules.htm
  5.  Rother HA, London L. Classification and labelling of chemicals: new Globally Harmonized System (GHS). Encyclopedia Pest Manage. 2008; 1 (1): p1–6.
  6.  Rother HA. South African farm workers’ interpretation of risk assessment data expressed as pictograms on pesticide labels. Environmental Research. 2008; 108: p 419–427.
  7.  Waichman AV, Eve E, Nina NCS. Do farmers understand the information displayed on pesticide product labels? A key question to reduce pesticides exposure and risk of poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon. Crop Protection. 2007; 26: p 576–583.
  8.  Damlas CA, Khan M. Farmers’ attitudes towards pesticide labels: implications for personal and environmental safety. Int j of pest management. 2016; Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2016.1195027.
  9.  Hasing T, Carpio CE, Wills DB, Sydorovych O, Marra M. The Effect of Label Information on Farmers’ Pesticide Choice. Paper prepared for presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, and July 25-27, 2010. Available from:
  10.  Wilkinson RL, Cary JW, Barr NF, Reynolds J. Comprehension of pesticide safety information: effects of pictorial and textual warnings. Int j of pest management. 1997; 43(3): p239- 245.
  11.  Deputy Director of Statistics. District Statistical Hand Book 2013-2014. Kancheepuram Dist. 2015; Available from: www.kanchi.tn.nic.in/Aboutdistrict/ dhb_2013_14.pdf
  12.  Vari,A. The Mental Models Approach to Risk Research–An RWM Perspective Secretariat Paper. NEA/RWM/FSC (2003)7/REV1. 2004; Unclassified. France: Nuclear Energy Agency. Available from URL: http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/docs/2004/ rwm-fsc2004- 7-rev1.pdfS.
  13.  Mayhorn CB, Wogalter MS, Bell JL. Homeland security safety symbols: are we ready? Ergon. Des. Fall. 2004; p6–14
  14. Edworthy J, Hellier E, Morley N, Grey C, Aldrich K, Lee A. Linguistic and location effects in compliance with pesticide warning labels for amateur and professional users. Hum. Factors. 2004; 46 (1): p11–31
  15. Silver NC, Braun CC. Perceived readability of warning labels with varied font sizes and styles. Safety Sci. 1995; 16: p615-625.
  16.  Braun CC, Kline PB, Silver NC. The influence of color on warning label perceptions. Int J Ind Ergon. 1995; 15: p179-187.
  17. Van Der Hoek W, Konradsen F, Athukorala K, Wanigadew T. Pesticide poisoning: a major health problem in Sri Lanka. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998; 46 (4): p495–504.
  18.  Salameh PR., Baldi I, Brochard P, Saleh BA. Pesticide in Lebanon: a knowledge, attitude and practice study. Environ. Res.2004; 94: p1–6.