Rabin 1
Pesticides and Sanitation in the Fields:
Pierson, FL (2007-2008)
Sam Rabin
SY363 (Community-Based Research)
Dr. Schorr
May 9, 2008
Abstract
Agriculture in the form of ferneries and nurseries is the main industry in Pierson, Florida. We conducted 70 surveys of farm workers there from March 2007 to March 2008 regarding issues of pesticide safety and health & sanitation laws. We found that laws regarding these issues were routinely violated, with about a fifth of respondents reporting violations for each law examined. Better enforcement is needed to ensure that workers’ rights are supported.
Introduction
Farm workers have historically been some of the most poorly treated workers in American society. From the time of slavery through the struggles of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers and even today, the rights of farm workers have always been something that must be fought for. Modern laws exist that attempt to provide farm workers with basic facilities and protections, but they are not always strongly enforced; thus, even these simple rights are often violated.
The use of pesticides is prevalent throughout American agriculture, to control (among other things) weeds and insect pests. While they can be very helpful in terms of enhancing agricultural output, they carry a number of risks to human health. Acute effects of pesticide exposure include eye irritation, skin irritation, rash, headache, dizziness, tiredness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pain, difficulties breathing, convulsions, and even death. The long-term effects of pesticides are even more frightening, including cancer, nervous system disorders, organ damage, immune system damage, reproductive problems (including infertility, miscarriage, and birth defects), and physical and mental developmental delays in children (Saavedra et al., n.d.).
A number of laws at the federal and state levels regulate the use of pesticides so as to best protect farm workers who might come into contact with these potentially dangerous chemicals. One of the most important is the Worker Protection Standard. This federal law, last amended in 1992, requires and regulates the display of certain information about pesticides used in fields, the posting of a sign forbidding entry during pesticide application (and during a period afterwards called the Restricted Entry Interval, if necessary), the posting of a safety poster, employee training, and immediate medical attention following pesticide exposure (Flocks et al., 2007). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is officially in charge of this law, the responsibility of enforcement falls to the states. In addition to its duties under the WPS, the state of Florida has also renewed the Florida Agricultural Worker Safety Act (FAWSA) in 2004. This is a “right-to-know” law that requires employers to give workers health and safety information about pesticides used in the fields where they work upon request (Fishel, 2008). However, while these laws are on the books, they may not be totally effective. A recent study found that many workers in central Florida ferneries and nurseries felt that they were not given adequate information about the pesticides used in their workplaces, that workers often did not know what products were and were not classified as pesticides, and that it was actually common for workers to come into contact with pesticides (Flocks et al., 2007). Workers also reported that they feared retribution from their employers if they were to report violations (Flocks et al., 2001).
In addition to protection from pesticides, advocates have fought strongly to have basic amenities provided to workers in the fields. In Florida, the 2003 Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employers and Workers stipulates that workers must be provided with clean, cool drinking water, disposable cups, clean restrooms, and hand-washing facilities with soap and disposable towels, all within a quarter mile of the work area (Polopolus et al., 2002). In addition to being basic sanitation needs, the hand washing facilities can help farm workers avoid oral pesticide exposure while eating lunch. Like the pesticide laws, however, these requirements are commonly not followed (Flocks et al., 2001).
Researchers and farm workers’ advocates have reported weak enforcement of the above laws here in Florida and elsewhere. For example, Flocks et al. (2001) found that “regulations are poorly enforced, violations are underreported by workers who fear retribution…, and few violators who are identified are penalized” (461). When officials do inspect fields, their visits are often announced ahead of time. This allows employers to “clean up their act” in time for the inspectors’ arrival, allowing violations to occur throughout most of the year (L. Garzón, pers. comm.). This study attempts to quantify the types of violations that are most commonly committed in the fields of a central Florida agricultural community, and how often.
Research Design and Methods
Our surveys were conducted in Pierson, Florida. Pierson is a rural community with a population of 2,596 people, 62.4% of them Hispanic or Latino (of any race). Only 34.2% of residents have a high school diploma or higher, and 22.8% of families are below the poverty level. 1,825 people comprise Pierson’s employed labor force, with 253 (36.3%) employed in the agricultural, forestry, fishing & hunting, or mining industries. (All data above taken from the 2000 U.S. Census.) This last number is significant because it is the population out of which our sample was taken, on which we based our margin of error calculations. Pierson bills itself as the “Fern Capital of the World,” and farmworkers there are, appropriately, mostly employed in ferneries or nurseries.
We conducted two sets of surveys, one from March 8 to November 15, 2007, and the other from March 19 to March 28, 2008. The 2007 surveys were drawn up by the National Farm Worker Ministry (NFWM) and are attached as Appendix A. The interviewers, all fluent Spanish speakers, asked respondents questions orally and filled out the survey themselves. They went door-to-door through known farm worker neighborhoods in the Pierson area, and also approached people at community events, to find participants. 55 surveys were conducted, of which 50 were usable for this study.
We used the 2007 surveys as the basis of the 2008 surveys. However, Dr. Schorr, Lariza Garzon (of the NFWM), and I refined and augmented the questions somewhat. Generally, we tried to reduce the number of questions that were “double-barreled”; that is, questions that asked several things which would not be revealed through a simple answer. (For example, Question 1 from 2007 was split up into Questions 1 and 2 on the 2008 survey.) We also added new questions that we thought would be prudent to ask. The 2008 surveys are attached as Appendix B. We again went door-to-door in farm worker neighborhoods to conduct the survey. For efficiency’s sake, we had previously driven through the neighborhoods and noted which houses would likely be occupied by farmworkers. Observations throughout the survey process confirmed our evaluations. Two-person teams, containing at least one fluent Spanish speaker, conducted 20 surveys (all usable). Two interviews were conducted in English after the interviewees volunteered it.
One respondent was interviewed in both 2007 and 2008. We used his 2008 data only.
Findings and Discussion
Margins of error given below represent a 95% confidence interval calculated for a population of 253 (the number of Pierson residents employed in the agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting, or mining industries) using Raosoft’s Sample Size Calculator (
75% (±18%) of the 2008 respondents said that their employer gave them written information about pesticides, while 70% (±19%) said that their employer gave them oral information. 15% (±15%) of the 2008 respondents said that they received no information at all (that is, they answered “No” to Questions 1 and 2). (n=20 for all above).
60% (±10%) of the respondents in both years (n=67) said that their employer did not give them the names of the pesticides used in the fields where they worked (Question 3). When we were designing the survey, we thought that this would have been a violation of law. However, as discussed in the Background section of this report, FAWSA only requires employers to give employees this information upon request. I discuss possible modifications to this question below, in the Future Research section.
17% (±8%) of respondents in both years (n=69) said that their employer did not train them on how to protect themselves from pesticides. This is a clear violation of the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). Furthermore, out of the 2008 respondents that received training (n=17), 18% (±16%) said that they had not been trained in the past 5 years – also a WPS violation. All in all, fully 30% (±19%) of the 2008 respondents (n=20) reported a violation regarding the training requirement of the WPS (that is, they answered “No” to either of Questions 4 or 4e).
Of the 2008 respondents who received training, 29% (±19%) said they received written materials, 41% (±21%) said they were trained orally, and 88% (±14%) said they watched a video. 47% (±21%) said that they only received video training. (See Appendix C, Figure 1 for a visual version of these numbers.) Video training is likely the least effective of the three methods, because one can refer back to written materials later or can dialogue with the trainer if training is given verbally. While no respondents said that training was given in a language they couldn’t understand, 18% (±16%) said that a translator was present for the training (Question 4d). Again, this is probably not very effective, especially if combined with a video. Anyone who has ever listened to a translator while trying to follow along with the body language of a presenter, or a video track that is likely a few seconds ahead of the translator, knows that it can be very difficult to comprehend everything.
22% (±18%) of 2008 respondents (n=18) said that their employer told them the date and time of safe re-entry to the fields after pesticides have been applied (Question 5). This may not be too much of a problem; several respondents indicated that although they were not told this information, their supervisor kept them out of the fields until it was presumably safe to re-enter. 60% (±21%) of 2008 respondents (n=20) said that no sign was posted with the date and time of safe re-entry to the field (Question 6). We had originally thought that this would be a WPS violation, but further examination of that law revealed that while a sign must be posted during application and throughout any Restricted Entry Interval, it does not have to show the date and time of safe re-entry.
20% (±17%) of 2008 respondents (n=20) said that their employer applies pesticides with workers in the fields (Question 7), a violation of the WPS. Not a single respondent, however, said that their supervisor allowed children in the work area (Question 11), which also would have been a violation.
50% (±21%) of 2008 respondents (n=20) said that they had worked in an area wet with pesticides, or that had a white residue (Question 10). (This is likely a violation of the WPS, since workers are not allowed in recently-sprayed areas within a certain time span.) As the survey went on, we modified this question somewhat. First, we added “white powder” to the question. Second, we had neglected to ask sub-questions similar to sub-questions 8a-d for this question. We began asking such sub-questions about halfway through the survey, and even then we did not ask them consistently. Of those we did ask, all reported experiencing complications (“10c,” n=5) and half reported experiencing sicknesses (“10d,” n=2). Some such complications or sicknesses included swollen hands and/or face, rash, eye irritation, and body pain (with one respondent saying that even his hair hurt). Only one respondent said that they reported this to their supervisor, and their supervisor had not given them immediate medical attention (in violation of the WPS).
15% (±15%) of 2008 respondents (n=20) said that they had been sprayed by pesticides (Question 8). Of those, all 3 reported having experienced complications from this (Question 8c), and 2 out of 3 (67% ± 20%) reported having experienced a sickness due to having been sprayed (Question 8d). Similar symptoms were reported for this as for Question 10, including rash, swollen hands, nausea, eye irritation, and body pain. 2 of the 3 respondents that had been sprayed said that they reported this incident to their supervisor, and only one of those two reported that their supervisor provided them with immediate medical attention (in accordance with the WPS).
No female respondents (n=10) reported having experienced any issues with a pregnancy or with their feminine health (Questions 9a and 9b).
The next part of the surveys (both 2007 and 2008) dealt with the health and sanitation requirements put forth in the 2003 Handbook. (I have grouped the “No” and “Sometimes” responses together as “Not consistently,” because even if one of these was provided “Sometimes,” that’s still a violation. Furthermore, I excluded workers who said that there were less than 5 people in their work area, since these regulations only apply to groups of 5 or more workers.) 25% (±9%, n=65) said that they were not consistently provided clean, cool, fresh drinking water. 24% (±9%, n=66) said that they were not consistently given disposable cups with which to drink water. 21% (±8%, n=66) said they were not consistently given a place to wash their hands, with 33% (±9%, n=67) of all respondents saying that soap was not consistently provided and 31% (±9%, n=67) saying they were not consistently given disposable towels. 19% (±8%, n=67) of all respondents said that they were not consistently provided a restroom. Of the respondents who were provided with a restroom (n=54), 9% (±6%) said that it was not consistently clean, and 13.8% (±7%) said that it was not consistently located within a quarter of a mile of the work area. (See Appendix C, Figure 2 for a visualization of these numbers.)
I thought it would be interesting to examine how often workers reported violations of pesticide law, looking at the 2008 respondents only. I included Question 7 (“Does your company apply pesticides with workers in the fields?”) and Question 11 (“Does your supervisor permit the presence of children in the work area?”), as well as Questions 4 and 4e. I combined Questions 4 and 4e into one question for the purposes of this analysis, if a respondent said “No” to either of those question then it was counted as a violation. The average rate of violation was 16.7% for Questions 4+4e, 7, and 11. I also performed another calculation including Question 10 (“Have you ever worked in an area wet with pesticides, or that had a white residue?”). I did not include it in the above calculation because a “Yes” answer to Question 10 is not necessarily a violation of the WPS, since a residue might remain past the restricted entry interval. With Question 10 included, the average violation rate was 25.0%.
I also looked at violations of health and sanitation law. I pooled the people responding “No” and “Sometimes” together, since either is a violation. I ignored any worker reporting less than 5 people in the work area, because that is the minimum group size where the rules in the 2003 Handbook apply. For the bathroom questions (Questions 6, 6a, and 6b), I performed an operation similar to what I did for Questions 4 and 4e above. That is, if the respondent answered “No” to any of those questions, the respondent was recorded as reporting a violation. All in all, the average violation rate for health & sanitation laws was 22.6%.
The total average violation rate for both pesticide laws and health & sanitation laws was 20.6%, 23.5% with Question 10 included.
Since most of the questions did not actually involve violations of law, I decided to evaluate how often an answer was given that was at least disappointing. I looked at Questions 1, 2, 3, 4+4e (as above), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and all the health & sanitation questions (with the bathroom questions as above). I also included the percentage of workers who had been trained but only by video, and the percentage of workers who responded that a translator was present for their training. On average, 28.5% of workers gave a disappointing answer.
I also thought it would be interesting to examine whether a worker being trained (Question 4) or being given information (Questions 1 and 2) affected their likelihood of their working in an area wet with pesticides (“Yes” to Question 10). I combined Questions 1 and 2 into one group; if respondents said “Yes” to either then I considered them as having received information. To perform a chi-square test, I normalized the sample sizes of the “Not trained” and “No information given” groups to match the “Trained” and “Given information” groups, respectively. (See tables below.)
I had expected that training or information would make it less likely for a worker to say “Yes” to Question 10; that is, to work in an area wet with pesticides or that had a white residue. However, there was no significant difference for either (p=0.105 for both tests). The direction of difference was actually the opposite of what I had hypothesized for the effects of training; that is, training apparently made it more likely that a worker would say “Yes” to Question 10. Again, however, this difference was not significant. An explanation for the lack of significant difference may be that even if a worker is trained or is given information, they have no control over where they work and enter fields with pesticides if they are told to do so.
Finally, I looked at what ferneries were, on average, the worst offenders in terms of violations and disappointments. Gregory Dickson and Terry Taylor Enterprises both had one respondent each, and each of those respondents reported 7 violations – the highest average of any company represented. Gregory Dickson and D.L. Hansen Ferneries, the latter of which was represented by two respondents, each averaged 10 “disappointments.” One Ronald Jones employee reported 8 violations of law, while one D.L. Hansen employee reported 14 “disappointments.”
Future Research
While Dr. Schorr, Lariza, and I vastly improved the 2007 survey, I think that some more changes would make it even better. This section will deal with questions taken from the 2008 survey.