NEW SOLUTIONS, Vol.

23(4) 625-642, 2013

Features

PERCEPTIONS OF FARMERS’ AND

FARMWORKERS’ WIVES ON THE USE AND
HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN
RURAL VELLORE

MARK ROHIT FRANCIS PHILIP EARNEST

LEEBERK RAJA RAVI KIRAN
ESTHER INBARANI SHANIAH WAR
HARSH REGI REGINALD ALEX
JOEL NICOLAS VINOHAR BALRAJ
NITIN PAUL VENKATA MOHAN
ROHAN THOMAS

ABSTRACT
Poor handling, storage, and application of agrochemicals have resulted in a
steep rise in mortality and morbidity associated with their use. This study
aimed at assessing the awareness of wives of farmers and farmworkers in rural
Vellore on the use and health effects of agrochemicals to identify gaps in
their knowledge. A cross-sectional survey among 512 wives was conducted.
Nearly 75 percent of the wives (384/512) did not know that agrochemicals
could pass through skin. Also, wives who owned between 1 and 5 acres of
land had a higher odds of knowing that agrochemicals were harmful (OR:
1.71(1.03-2-85), p < 0.05) and need to be disposed safely (OR: 4.76 (1.47-
15.36), p < 0.05), than those owning less than an acre or no land. There is a
need to educate women associated with agriculture in India on the harms and
proper use of agrochemicals in order to better protect and inform their
households and communities.

Keywords: Agrochemicals, rural India, awareness, farmers’ wives

625

Ó 2013, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NS.23.4.f
http://baywood.com
626 / FRANCIS ET AL.

India is a primarily agrarian nation with nearly 67 percent of its population

depending on agriculture and allied activities for subsistence [1, 2]. Since the
green revolution of the 1950s, the production of food grain has increased more
than fourfold to 212 million metric tonnes (2003-2004) [3, 4]. The green revo-
lution sought to replace organic fertilizers with chemical fertilizers and pesticides,
resulting in a shift from organic to chemical farming [1, 5]. The prolonged use of
agrochemicals has not only undermined soil quality and increased pests’ resis-
tance to pesticides, but has also posed a serious threat to the health of agricultural
workers [5, 6].
India is currently one of the largest pesticide manufacturers in the world; nearly
40 percent of the 234 registered pesticides in the country belong to class Ia, Ib, or II
of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended classification of pesti-
cides. The cultivation of cotton, paddy (unmilled) rice, and wheat accounts for
most pesticide use in the country [7-9]. Even though the state agricultural depart-
ments publish information on the recommended choice and amount of pesticides
to use for most crops grown in India, it has been noted that a majority of the
farmers still resort to their own choice of chemicals and spraying schedules.
Poor handling, storage, and application of agrochemicals have resulted in a
steep rise of mortality and morbidity associated with their use. Sri Lanka experi-
enced a 50 percent rise in the rate of hospital admissions due to pesticide poisoning
between the years 1986 and 2000 [10]. A 27 percent rise in mortality among
economically productive men with occupational exposure to unsafe chemicals has
been reported from the Philippines [11]. It is estimated that nearly 200,000 deaths
occur globally each year from acute poisoning due to organophosphate pesticide
poisoning; the majority of these deaths happen in rural parts of developing
countries [12]. Estimates from a study in the district of Warangal in Andhra
Pradesh, India, reveal a figure of 5,000 deaths every year due to acute pesticide
poisoning among the general population of the state [13]. Another study con-
ducted in rural Vellore has reported a suicide rate of 71.4/100,000 population for
the 2 years of surveillance with pesticide consumption being the most common
mode of suicide among the study population [14]. Although the sale and distribu-
tion of highly hazardous pesticides has been restricted in developing nations such
as Sri Lanka, they are still sold without much regulation in India [10, 15].
Exposure to agrochemicals is highest among farmers and farmworkers and may
happen during mixing, loading, and applying pesticides, or during planting, weed-
ing, and harvesting [16, 17]. A large study among farmers from four states in India
reported that nearly 44 percent of medium- and large-scale farmers use hired agri-
cultural laborers for spraying pesticides; most of them did not follow any of the
recommended safety measures, including the use of personal protective equipment
(PPE) that was considered uncomfortable or a hindrance while working. Further,
up to 30 percent of these agricultural workers were found to indulge in harmful
activities such as smoking, chewing tobacco, or eating during the act of spraying
[15]. An unpublished study among 98 farmers in rural Vellore reported poor
 HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE / 627

handling and application of agrochemicals: 38.8 percent (39/98) of the farmers

mixed agrochemicals with bare hands and had a limited awareness of their toxicity,
as 73.5 percent (72/98) did not wash hands after applying these chemicals [18].
Women occupy a crucial position within the household: their influence ranges
from imparting health beliefs to providing basic health care and sometimes even
directing health service utilization [19]. In developing countries, the proportion of
women working in agriculture is usually equal to or higher than the proportion of
men working in agriculture. It is estimated that nearly 70 percent of women
employed in South Asia, and 60 percent of those employed in sub-Saharan Africa,
are involved in agriculture [20]. Recent data from the National Sample Survey
Organisation (NSSO) in India reveal that 18 percent of farming families are
headed by women, and women farmers are fast emerging as the backbone of the
rural economy of the country [21].
Rural housewives have been identified as reliable and effective key informants
for obtaining health information for their households in a study from Japan [22].
Housewives are one of the prime target groups for educational interventions to
promote safe insecticide use, as listed by the WHO; recent studies among farming
communities in the United States have also documented the need to effectively
engage and educate wives of agricultural workers [23-25]. Educating women on
aspects related to health and well-being are known to have direct implications for
nutrition security, economic status, and health indicators, especially among
children [26]. It was therefore decided to assess the perceptions and awareness of
wives of farmers and farmworkers in rural Vellore on the use, storage, and health
effects of agrochemicals to identify gaps in their knowledge—and to use this
information to educate women working in or associated with agriculture to
strengthen a movement in India towards safe and judicious agrochemical use.

METHODS
The study was conducted in the Kaniyambadi block, a rural administrative
subdivision in Tamil Nadu, India, with a 2010 population of 104,792 spread across
85 villages. The Department of Community Health, Christian Medical College,
Vellore, has been providing basic primary and secondary health care to this
community through its Community Health and Development Program (CHAD)
for the last 30 years. Government-run health subcenters, primary health centers,
and a medical college hospital also provide medical care to this region. Agriculture
and animal husbandry are the main sources of livelihood, and the block has an
agricultural office and a Block Development Office located at Kaniyambadi, one
of the larger villages of the block. Five predominantly agricultural villages,
situated close to each other were chosen for this study (Figure 1). The villages
were Naganathy, Kilarasampet, Singrikoil, Kathalampet, and Nanjukondapuram
(populations 1,544; 2,254; 742; 2,565; and 3,680 respectively according to the
2010 census).
 628 / FRANCIS ET AL.

Figure 1. Distribution of study villages in the Kaniyambadi block of Vellore, Tamil Nadu.
 HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE / 629

Sample size was calculated based on the assumption that 20 percent of individuals
in the community perceived pesticides to be hazardous at baseline based on
estimates from previous studies. These calculations were made with a 95 percent
confidence interval (p <0.05) and were adjusted to account for the fact that only a
cluster of 5 villages were chosen out of 82 villages in the rural block. A
cross-sectional survey adopting systematic random sampling was conducted among
512 households; the first street for survey was selected by picking lots (one for each
direction) to ensure random selection, starting at the center of each village. Once a
street was picked, the first house chosen for survey was the one nearest to the village
center. Every alternate household was surveyed, until the street was covered, and
then a contiguous street was chosen to survey. Households with locked doors or with
non-responders were skipped, with the neighboring house chosen for survey. A
verbal informed consent from each of the study participants was obtained before the
questionnaire was administered. Wives of agricultural workers were selected
regardless of their level of participation in agricultural work, and only one
participant per household was selected for the survey. The questionnaire was
administered verbally by the interviewers and the responses were marked.
The questionnaire was developed in English and then translated to the ver-
nacular (Tamil), and was then pilot-tested among a similar population in a smaller
village. It contained questions on the common crops grown; pesticides and
fertilizers used; places of procurement, storage, mixing, and disposal; use of PPE;
exposure to agrochemicals; and perceived health risks and safety practices, as well
as the source of knowledge for this information.
All analyses were performed using StataTM 10.0 [27]. Descriptive statistics
were calculated for the following variables: demographics, agrochemical use,
pesticide storage, and pesticide disposal. Univariate analysis was performed
initially and significant predictors of awareness were used in multivariate analyses
using logistic regression modeling separately for education status of the wife, level
of involvement in agricultural work, and land ownership.

RESULTS
Nearly 95 percent (485/512) of the 512 housewives interviewed had either
limited or extensive involvement in agricultural work, 66.4 percent of the families
(340/512) had their own land for farming (Table 1). The mean age of the
respondents was 42.0 (± 12.5) years. Of all the wives interviewed, 35.7 percent
(183/512) had no formal education, and an additional 23.6 percent (121/512) had
up to primary education (up to 5 years of schooling).

Fertilizer Use, Storage, Application and Disposal

A majority (98.2%; 503/512) of the respondents reported using both fertilizers
and pesticides. The most commonly used fertilizers were inorganic fertilizers
630 / FRANCIS ET AL.

Table 1. Basic Sociodemographic Variables

for the Study Population

Descriptive (N = 512) Number (%)

Age
£ 40 years 267 (52.1)
> 40 years 245 (47.9)

Education
None 183 (35.7)
Primary 121 (23.6)
Secondary or higher 208 (40.7)

Field involvement
No involvement 27 (5.3)
Limited involvement 330 (64.4)
Extensive involvement 155 (30.3)

Land ownership
None 172 (33.7)
< 1 acre 223 (43.5)
1-5 acres 108 (21.0)
> 5 acres 9 (1.8)

(84.6%; 433/512), such as urea; potash; nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium

(NPK); and diammonium phosphate (DAP). As shown in Table 2, fertilizers were
mostly purchased from private retailers (58.7%; 290/494) and stored at home
(57.9%; 291/502) (Table 2); however, most respondents (60.5%; 299/494) indi-
cated that they used the fertilizers immediately after purchase. Mixing of fertilizers
was done largely by the husbands (66.4%; 287/432)—that is, the agricultural
workers. However, 13 (3%) wives reportedly did the mixing themselves. For the
most part, PPE was not used when fertilizers were mixed (92.4%; 431/466) or
applied (86.1%; 436/506). Fertilizer sacks were re-used in the house by 71 percent
(359/506) of the wives, mainly to store food grains.

Pesticide Use, Storage, Application and Disposal

Pesticides commonly used in the study villages were Rogor (organophos-

phate—WHO Class II), Monocotrophos (organophosphate—WHO Class Ib),
Cypermethrin (pyrethroid—WHO Class II), and Mancozeb (carbamate). They
were largely bought from private retailers and mixed at the farms by the sprayer
(89.1%; 452/506). Nearly 45 percent (226/508) of the wives reported that PPEs
were not used by the sprayers during the mixing of pesticides, while 73.8 percent
 HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE / 631

(375/508) reported the use of some form of PPE (either gloves or face masks)
while spraying in the fields. The commonest mode of disposal of empty pesticide
containers was by selling them to hawkers or recyclers (70.1%; 356/508), but 22.2
percent (113/508) of the wives revealed that these containers were discarded in the
open fields by them, their husbands, or the sprayers (Table 2).

Assessing Awareness on the Harmful Effects of Agrochemicals

When questions on the harmful effects of agrochemicals were asked (no table),
33.3 percent (171/512) of the wives thought they were not harmful and 4.2 percent
(22/512) were unsure. Seventy-five percent (384/512) did not know that agro-
chemicals could pass through the skin, and 43.7 percent (223/510) could not list
any health effects of agrochemical poisoning. Nearly 40 percent (206/512) did not
feel that using PPE was important while handling or applying agrochemicals and
an overwhelming majority (95.3%; 488/512) were unsure of or did not know the
safe methods of disposal of fertilizer sacks or pesticide cans following use.
Information on agrochemical use, storage, and disposal was obtained primarily
through hearsay (57.8%; 296/512), either from fellow agricultural workers or
agrochemical retailers.
Differences in awareness of agrochemical use and handling among the wives in
the study were assessed using logistic regression and predictor variables such as
educational status, field involvement, and land ownership. For the most part, there
was no association between wives’ education and their awareness of the harms
associated with agrochemical usage (Table 3), with one exception: when wives
were asked if protection was needed while handling agrochemicals, those who had
a secondary or higher education had a lower odds of responding positively (OR =
0.56 (0.37-0.84); p = 0.005. Differences in awareness across categories of field
involvement were not statistically significant (Table 4). For all four questions,
ownership of a farm of 1 to 5 acres was positively associated with awareness
of agrochemical hazards—results that attained or approached significance (p £
0.063). Ownership of a smaller farm (< 1 acre) was positively associated with
awareness of the need for protection when handling chemicals, but negatively
associated with awareness of the dermal exposure pathway (Table 5).

DISCUSSION
Since it is difficult to measure chronic exposure to agrochemicals over time, this
study attempted to document potential sources of exposure and risky behavior by
assessing the awareness of wives of farmers and farmworkers on agrochemical
use, storage, and disposal—mostly at the household level. Over 95 percent of the
study participants had some form of involvement in agricultural work; this helped
the study team gain better insight into existing perceptions or practices that might
be a risk to the farmer, the wife herself, or the household.
 Table 2. Responses on the Use, Handling, and Disposal of Fertilizers and Pesticides

Questionnaire item (fertilizers) Number (%) Questionnaire item (pesticides) Number (%)

Mode of application (n = 506) Mode of application (n = 503)

Dusting 490 (96.8) Spraying 503 (100.0)
Irrigation 16 (3.2)
Source (n = 494) Place of buying (n = 504)
632 / FRANCIS ET AL.

Government 136 (27.5) Government 156 (31.0)

Private 290 (58.7) Private 282 (55.9)
Both 68 (13.8) Both 55 (13.1)
Storage location (n = 502) Location of storage (n = 504)
House 291 (58.0) House 156 (30.7)
Farm 211 (42.0) Farm 263 (51.8)
Godown (warehouse) 0 (0.0)
Others 89 (17.5)
Duration of storage (n = 494) Duration of storage (n = 496)
Immediately used 299 (60.5) Immediately used 391 (78.8)
< 1 week 155 (31.4) < 1 week 80 (16.1)
> 1 week 40 (8.1) > 1 week 25 (5.1)
Mixing of fertilizer (n = 432) Mixing of pesticide (n = 507)
Husband 287 (68.7) Husband 45 (8.9)
Wife 13 (3.0) Wife 2 (0.4)
Both 122 (28.3) Both 8 (1.6)
Sprayer 452 (89.1)
Person mixing uses PPE (n = 466) Person mixing uses PPE (n= 508)
Yes 22 (4.7) Yes 25 (4.9)
No 431 (92.4) No 226 (44.5)
Somea 13 (2.9) Somea 55 (13.0)
Don’t know 191 (37.6)
Place of mixing (n = 504) Place of mixing (n = 506)
Home 179 (35.5) Home 56 (11.1)
Farm 325 (64.5) Farm 450 (88.9)
Person who applies (n = 505) Person who sprays (n = 503)
Wife 13 (2.6) Wife 1 (0.2)
Husband 263 (52.1) Husband 46 (9.1)
Hired worker 68 (13.5) Hired worker 455 (90.5)
Both husband and wife 159 (31.5) Both husband and wife 1 (0.2)
Worker and one of them 2 (0.3)
Use of PPE while applying (n = 506) Use of PPE while spraying (n = 508)
Yes 25 (4.9) Yes 51 (10.0)
No 436 (86.2) No 82 (16.1)
Some forma 45 (8.9) Some forma 375 (73.9)
Frequency of contact (n = 398) Frequency of contact (n = 319)
Once in 3 months 365 (91.7) Once in 3 months 293 (91.9)
Once in 6 months 3 (0.8) Once in 6 months 23 (7.2)
Don’t know 30 (7.5) Once a year 3 (0.9)
Method of container disposal (n = 506) Mode of disposal (n = 508)
Bury 3 (0.6) Bury 14 (2.7)
Burn 4 (0.8) Burn 10 (1.9)
Sell 103 (20.4) Sell 356 (70.1)
Re-use 359 (71.0) Re-use 15 (3.0)
Discard 37 (7.2) Discard 113 (22.3)
a”Some” use of PPE indicates minimal and/or irregular use.
HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE
/ 633
 Table 3. Logistic Regression for Awareness vs. Education Status (N = 512)

Question Education category Odds ratio (95% CI) p-value

634 / FRANCIS ET AL.

Are agrochemicals harmful? Illiterate 1.00 —

Primary 0.86 (0.53-1.39) 0.557
Secondary or higher 0.86 (0.57-1.30) 0.485

Can agrochemicals pass through the skin? Illiterate 1.00 —

Primary 0.84 (0.45-1.57 0.598
Secondary or higher 1.40 (0.85-2.29) 0.182

Is protection needed while handling agrochemicals? Illiterate 1.00 —

Primary 0.71 (0.45-1.14) 0.165
Secondary or higher 0.56 (0.37-0.84) 0.005a

Do you know the safe methods of disposal of agrochemicals? Illiterate 1.00 —

Primary 0.74 (0.24-2.23) 0.601
Secondary or higher 0.78 (0.31-1.96) 0.602
aSignificant at p < 0.05.
 Table 4. Logistic Regression for Awareness vs. Level of Field Involvement (N = 512)

Question Field involvement Odds ratio (95% CI) p-value

Are agrochemicals harmful? No involvementa 1.00 —

Helps in farm 1.51 (0.67- 3.37) 0.310
Major involvement 0.66 (0.28- 1.51) 0.329

Can agrochemicals pass through the skin? No involvement 1.00 —

Helps in farm 1.06 (0.41- 2.73) 0.895
Major involvement 0.45 (0.16- 1.29) 0.140

Is protection needed while handling agrochemicals? No involvement 1.00 —

Helps in farm 1.23 (0.55- 2.71) 0.607
Major involvement 0.53 (0.23- 1.21) 0.135

Do you know the safe methods of disposal? No involvement 1.00 —

Helps in farm 1.06 (0.13- 8.47) 0.952
Major involvement 1.79 (0.22-14.06) 0.585
an = 27 for this category.
HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE
/ 635
 Table 5. Logistic Regression for Awareness vs. Land Ownership (N = 512)

Question Land ownership Odds ratio (95% CI) p-value

Are agrochemicals harmful? None 1.00 —

< 1 acre 1.32 (0.88- 1.98) 0.177
636 / FRANCIS ET AL.

1-5 acres 1.71 (1.03- 2.85) 0.037a

> 5 acres 0.60 (0.15- 2.32) 0.464

Can agrochemicals pass through the skin? None 1.00 —

< 1 acre 0.54 (0.31- 0.92) 0.026a
1-5 acres 1.67 (0.97- 2.89) 0.063
> 5 acres 0.45 (0.05- 3.76) 0.466

Is protection needed while handling agrochemicals? None 1.00 —

< 1 acre 1.70 (1.14- 2.55) 0.009a
1-5 acres 1.58 (0.97- 2.57) 0.062
> 5 acres 0.94 (0.24- 3.62) 0.931

Do you know the safe methods of disposal? None 1.00 —

< 1 acre 1.76 (0.53- 5.83) 0.351
1-5 acres 4.76 (1.47-15.36) 0.009a
> 5 acresb 1.00 —
aSignificant at p < 0.05.
bn = 9 for this category.
 HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE / 637

Inorganic (chemical) fertilizer use in India began in the 1960s with the green
revolution to increase the production of food grain for the country. The use of
inorganic fertilizers is still widespread as they are believed to impart greater crop
productivity than organic alternatives such as manure [28]. In this study, 85 percent
of the respondents used inorganic fertilizers, which are known to deplete soil quality
and reduce long-term productivity and are associated with lung disorders such as
tracheo-bronchitis and acute pulmonary edema [1, 29]. Organic farming is being
increasingly promoted as an effective alternative to the ills of chemical farming;
combining chemical and organic farming methods has also been suggested as a
viable option for improved farming and land management [1, 28].
Also as a consequence of the green revolution that promoted agriculture on an
industrial scale, local and organic pesticides were replaced by more potent
chemical ones [1]. A majority of the deaths from acute pesticide poisoning in India
occur as a result of exposure to organophosphates, organochlorines, and alu-
minum phosphides [30]. Organophosphates are known to induce acute toxicity,
and organophosphorus insecticides such as Rogor and Monocotrophos are
extensively sold in Southern India. It must be mentioned that although farmers and
their households might have limited exposure to these pesticides, the sprayer who
carries out both the mixing and the application is at significant risk. The effects of
acute and chronic exposure to sprayers have been well documented in a study
among male and female cotton growers in India by Mancini et al. [17]. Further,
risky behavior, malfunctioning equipment, lack of PPE use, irregular health
checkups and poor awareness have been identified as greatly increasing the risks
of unintentional poisoning among sprayers [31]. There is an urgent necessity to
provide pesticide safety education and to improve access to quality health services
for the sprayers; wives of farmers and farmworkers could be educated and
involved to promote organic farming methods in order to gradually reduce
pesticide use in India.
The sale of pesticides by private or unlicensed dealers is known to be backed by
companies that provide the incentives linked to the quantities of pesticides sold by
these dealers [15]. In this study, it was observed that more than half the parti-
cipants purchased agrochemicals from private dealers. Dealers are often unaware
of the toxicity of the chemicals they sell, and the risk of poisoning rises when the
consumer is allowed easy access to these highly toxic chemicals [15]. Methods of
controlling the easy availability of hazardous pesticides must include changes in
current policy and guidelines, altering farming practices, proactive restriction of
pesticide use, and the establishment of a minimum pesticides list (i.e., a list that
would identify a restricted number of less dangerous pesticides to do specified
tasks within an integrated pest management system) [12, 32].
Thirty percent of the study participants reported that they stored pesticide can-
isters at home. Most respondents reported using pesticides immediately after
purchase; however, the storage of pesticides at home for even a short period of
time might pose significant health risks if they are accidentally or deliberately
638 / FRANCIS ET AL.

ingested. Studies in the past have shown that children living with parents who are
agricultural workers, or who live in proximity to pesticide- treated farmlands, have
up to five times higher median concentrations of pesticide metabolites than chil-
dren belonging to non-agricultural families [33]. Accidental poisoning among
children has been widely attributed to direct access to pesticides at home,
contributing to a high mortality rate, especially in developing nations [34].
Further, agricultural pesticides are known to be the most commonly used sub-
stances for self-poisoning, chiefly owing to their easy availability either within or
around the household [35]. A reduction in the sale of highly toxic pesticides by
private dealers, coupled with a complete prohibition of domestic storage of
pesticides, is an immediate need.
The use of personal protective equipment while handling and administering
pesticides has been known to reduce exposure by nearly 50 percent in developing
countries [17]. It has been previously documented that the use of PPE is limited
because it is usually neither affordable nor available, nor is it comfortable in
warmer climates [36]. More than 80 percent of the respondents indicated that PPE
was not used while mixing or administering fertilizers. Further, 45 percent of the
wives indicated that the hired workers/sprayers used no PPE while diluting or
mixing pesticides. This lack of awareness could be addressed by health education
through mass media including local television channels and newspapers. Picto-
grams should be placed on fertilizer bags and pesticide containers.
A large proportion of the respondents revealed that fertilizer sacks were washed
and re-used in the house, most often to store grain. Also, nearly 70 percent of the
respondents indicated that empty pesticide cans were sold to recyclers, while 20
percent discarded these cans in open fields or in the garbage. It has been reported
in previous studies that even empty containers have a small amount of residual
chemical, which can possibly pollute the environment or prove to be a health
hazard to humans. The provision of services to return the empty containers to the
pesticide company itself, with cash incentives, is worth exploring [37]. The
Department of Agriculture of each state should provide periodic training to village
leaders, anganwadi workers (workers in government-sponsored child-care and
mother-care centers in rural India, that cater to children in the 0-6 age group),
government schoolteachers, and farmers on the proper disposal of pesticide
containers and the proper handling of other agrochemicals.
Literacy (primary, secondary, or higher education) seemed to have no effect on
awareness of the harms of agrochemical use and handling among the wives in the
study. The study team also expected that wives who had a higher involvement in
agricultural work would have a better knowledge of the potential harms associated
with agrochemical use; however, this was not observed in this study, possibly
hinting at a deficiency in the education provided in the schools that needs to
be addressed. This may mean that any future efforts to increase awareness among
farmers or farmworkers must target participants regardless of their level of
involvement in field work.
 HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE / 639

In this study, holding one to five acres of land (but not more than five acres of
land) was associated with awareness of the harms associated with agrochemical
use. A previous study has reported a negative influence of higher landholding on
the proper reporting of health effects due to pesticide poisoning [17].
Educating women in agriculture has long been considered both to affect their
identity and to enhance their role in decision-making within the household. Com-
munity participatory methods have been developed focusing on using women
from farming communities to improve the health of their families and commun-
ities [24]. Another study relied on women farmers to provide the knowledge
needed for better agricultural education to the larger community of women asso-
ciated with farming [25]. This study attempted to understand the perceptions of
wives of farmers and farmworkers in rural Vellore on agrochemical use and
exposure to help fill important gaps in knowledge that may endanger them, their
husbands, and their families. The state agricultural departments would benefit by
incorporating the findings of this study into an educational intervention package
that may be used to increase awareness among recipients with influence such as
agricultural officers, village leaders, schoolteachers; such an intervention is much
needed among those either partially or completely involved in agricultural work.
The role of rural Indian women associated with agriculture in improving the health
and safety of their families should be recognized and improved. Educating these
women on the harms and proper use of agrochemicals, and using them to better
protect and inform their households and communities, is the way forward.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Mr. Singarayan (CHAD, Bagayam) for coordinating the study
activities and Mr. Williams (CHAD, Bagayam) for technical assistance with study
documents.

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES
MARK ROHIT FRANCIS is a Research Associate in the Department of
Community Health, Christian Medical College, Vellore.
LEEBERK RAJA is PG Registrar in the Department of Community Health,
Christian Medical College, Vellore.
ESTHER INBARANI, HARSH REGI, JOEL NICOLAS, NITIN PAUL,
ROHAN THOMAS, PHILIP EARNEST, RAVI KIRAN, and SHANIAH
WAR are third-year MBBS students at Christian Medical College, Vellore.
REGINALD ALEX is an Associate Professor, Department of Community
Health, Vellore.
VINOHAR BALRAJ is a Professor, Christian Medical College, Vellore.
VENKATA MOHAN is an Associate Professor, Christian Medical College,
Vellore. He can be reached at venkat@cmcvellore.ac.in.
640 / FRANCIS ET AL.

NOTES
1. H. M. Chandrashekar, “Changing Scenario of Organic Farming in India: An
Overview,” International NGO Journal 5(1) (2010): 34-39.
2. U.S. Gautam, D.K. Paliwal, and S. Naberia, “Improvement in Livelihood Security for
Small and Marginal Farmers through Front Line Demonstrations on Oilseed and Pulse
Crops in Central India,” Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 7(1) (2007): 1-5.
3. S. M. Jharwal et al., eds., Glimpses of Indian Agriculture: Macro and Micro Aspects
(New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2008).
4. D. W. Larson et al., “Instability in Indian Agriculture- A Challenge to the Green
Revolution Technology,” Food Policy 29(3) (2004): 257–273, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.
2004.05.001.
5. R. B. Singh, “Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Development: A Case
Study From the Green Revolution State of Haryana, India,” Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 82(1-3) (2000): 97–103, doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00219-X.
6. F. Mancini, J.L.S. Jiggins, and M. Malley, “Reducing the Incidence of Acute Pesticide
Poisoning by Educating Farmers on Integrated Pest Management in South India,”
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 15(2) (2009):
143–151, doi: 10.1179/107735209799195790.
7. M. W. Aktar, D. Sengupta, and A. Chowdhury, “Impact of Pesticides Use in
Agriculture: Their Benefits and Hazards,” Interdisciplinary Toxicology 2(1) (2009):
1-12, doi: 10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7.
8. S. C. Mathur and S. K. Tannan, “Future of Indian Pesticides Industry in Next
Millennium,” Pesticide Information 24(1) (1999): 9-23.
9. India for Safe Food, “Pesticide Use in India,” http://indiaforsafefood.in/farminginindia.
html (accessed March 10, 2013).
10. D. M. Roberts et al., “Influence of Pesticide Regulation on Acute Poisoning Deaths in
Sri Lanka,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81(11) (2003): 789-798.
11. M. E. Loevinsohn, “Insecticide Use and Increased Mortality in Rural Central Luzon,
Philippines,” The Lancet 329(8546) (1987): 1359-1362, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(87)
90659-3.
12. D. Gunnell et al., “The Global Distribution of Fatal Pesticide Self-Poisoning: Sys-
tematic Review,” BMC Public Health 7 (2007): 357, doi: 10.1186/1471-2458- 7-357.
13. C. S. Rao et al., “Pesticide Poisoning in South India: Opportunities for Prevention and
Improved Medical Management,” Tropical Medicine and International Health 10(6)
(2005): 581-588, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01412.x.
14. A. Bose et al., “Self-Harm and Self-Poisoning in Southern India: Choice of Poisoning
Agents and Treatment,” Tropical Medicine and International Health 14(7) (2009):
761-765, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02293.x.
15. P. K. Shetty, “Socio-Ecological Implications of Pesticide Use in India,” Economic and
Political Weekly, December 4, 2004, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4415873 (accessed
July 24, 2012).
16. R. Magauzi et al., “Health Effects of Agrochemicals Among Farm Workers in
Commercial Farms of Kwekwe District, Zimbabwe,” The Pan African Medical
Journal 9(2011): 26.
17. F. Mancini et al., “Acute Pesticide Poisoning among Female and Male Cotton Growers
in India,” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11(3)
(2005): 221-232.
 HAZARDS OF AGROCHEMICALS IN RURAL VELLORE / 641

18. Venkata Raghava Mohan (Associate Professor, Department of Community Health,

Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India), personal communication,
November 2012.
19. C. H. Browner, “Women, Household and Health in Latin America,” Social Science and
Medicine 28(5) (1989): 461-473.
20. Food and Agriculture Organization, The State of Food and Agriculture 2009, 2009,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680e/i0680e.pdf (accessed June 2, 2013).
21. One World South Asia, “Indian Women Farmers Boost Rural Economy,” October 27,
2012, http://southasia.oneworld.net/news/indian-women-farmers-boost-rural-economy#.
UdtjKdjt6M8 (accessed June 2, 2013).
22. S. Tonai et al., “Illness Behaviour of Housewives in a Rural Area in Japan: A Health
Diary Study,” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 13(4) (1989): 405-417, doi: 10.1007/
BF00052048.
23. World Health Organization, Safe and Effective Use of Household Insecticide
Products: Guide for the Production of Educational and Training Materials, 1999,
https://apps.who.int/ctd/whopes/SafeUseHousehold.pdf (accessed April 4, 2012)
24. S. Jones, K. J. Luchok, and R. H. McKnight, “Empowering Farm Women to Reduce
Hazards to Family Health and Safety on the Farm,” Journal of Agromedicine 5(2)
(1998): 91-98, doi: 10.1300/J096v05n02_11.
25. A. Trauger et al., “Agricultural Education: Gender Identity and Knowledge
Exchange,” Journal of Rural Studies 24(4) (2008): 432–439, doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2008.03.007.
26. Food and Agriculture Organization, The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011.
Women in Agriculture: Closing Gender Gap for Development, 2011, http://www.fao.
org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e.pdf (accessed June 3, 2013).
27. STATA Statistical Software: Release 10, StataCorp, College Station, Texas.
28. N. Ghosh, “Reducing Dependence on Chemical Fertilizers and its Financial Impli-
cations for Farmers in India,” Ecological Economics 49(2) (2004): 149-162, doi:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.016.
29. J. W. Gurney et al., “Agricultural Disorders of the Lung,” Radiographics 11(4) (1991):
625-634.
30. A. Goel and P. Aggarwal, “Pesticide Poisoning,” National Medical Journal of India
20(4) (2007): 182-191.
31. Y. Mekonnen and T. Agonafir, “Pesticide Sprayers’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practice
of Pesticide Use on Agricultural Farms of Ethiopia,” Occupational Medicine (London)
52(6) (2002): 311-315, doi: 10.1093/occmed/52.6.311.
32. F. Konradsen et al., “Reducing Acute Poisoning in Developing Countries—Options for
Restricting the Availability of Pesticides,” Toxicology 192(2-3) (2003): 249-261, doi:
10.1016/S0300-483X (03)00339-1.
33. C. Lu et al., “Pesticide Exposure of Children in an Agricultural Community:
Evidence of Household Proximity to Farmland and Take Home Exposure Path-
ways,” Environmental Research 84(3) (2000): 290-302, doi: 10.1006/enrs.2000.
407.
34. S. Singh et al., “Changing Pattern of Childhood Poisoning (1970-1989): Experience of
a Large North Indian Hospital,” Indian Paediatrics 32(3) (1995): 331-336.
35. M. Eddleston et al., “Epidemiology of Intentional Self-Poisoning in Rural Sri Lanka,”
British Journal of Psychiatry 187 (2005): 583-584, doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.6.583.
642 / FRANCIS ET AL.

36. C. Wesseling, L. Castillo, and C.G. Elinder, “Pesticide Poisonings in Costa Rica,”
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 19(4) (1993): 227-235, doi:
10.5271/sjweh.1479.
37. S. Gun and M. Kan, “Pesticide Use in Turkish Greenhouses: Health and Environmental
Consciousness,” Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 18(4) (2009): 607-615.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Venkata Mohan
Department of Community Health
Christian Medical College
Vellore 632 002
Tamil Nadu
India
email: venkat@cmcvellore.ac.in