Hidden health costs of pesticide use in Zimbabwe's smallholder cotton growers
Introduction
Among the inhabited continents, Africa's farms receive the smallest applications of agro-chemicals. But African cotton is an exception abundantly treated with fertilizers and pesticides. Hence, while the under-use of agrochemicals poses sustainability problems for many crops in Africa, in cotton the relevant question is whether Africa faces the overuse use problems that have bedeviled farmers in the wealthier nations (Wossink, van Kooten, & Peters, 1998).
The health hazards of pesticide use are receiving increased attention globally (Burrows, 1983; Fernandez-Cornejo, 1997; van Emden & Peakall, 1996). In the developed countries, efforts to restrict the use of certain pesticides and promote alternative crop protection methods gained momentum soon after the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962. An increasing number of studies highlight further the gravity of occupational health problems related to pesticide use (Harper & Zilberman, 1992; Hurley, Kliebenstein, & Orazem, 2000; Sunding & Zivin, 2000).
Health risks in agricultural production are a growing problem facing Africa (World Bank, 2000; Ajayi, 1999). Distorted policies that subsidize pesticides worsen health hazards experienced in most African countries (Fleischer, 1999). Poor access to health services and a medical profession that lacks the ability to recognize pesticide-related morbidity raises further concerns (The Pesticide Trust, 1993). Consensus is rapidly growing that farmer health issues in Africa constitute a serious threat to development and have the potential to reverse gains made in agricultural growth (Binswanger & Townsend, 2000).
Research in both economics and medicine corroborates that occupational health problems in agriculture have received scant attention (Watterson, 1988; Smith, Lewandrowski, & Uri, 2000). Yet improved health enhances functionality and productivity (Strauss & Thomas, 1998). Studies conducted in the Philippines conclude that pesticide use has a negative effect on farmer health, while farmer health has a positive effect on productivity (Antle & Pingali, 1994). Similar findings about the health costs of pesticide use have emerged from studies in Ecuador and the United States (Antle, Cole, & Crissman, 1998; Crissman, Cole, & Carpio, 1994; Harper & Zilberman, 1992; Sunding & Zivin, 2000), but the evidence from Africa is thin.
The occupational health threat from pesticide use in the less developed countries (LDCs) is exacerbated by lax environmental laws and poor access to complex pesticide information (WHO, 1990; Tjornhom, Norton, Heong, Talekar, & Gapud, 1997; The Pesticide Trust, 1993). The risk of exposure is worsened by farmer illiteracy (Kiss & Meerman, 1991), unavailable or unaffordable protective equipment, and missing health insurance markets in most poor nations (Antle & Capalbo, 1994; World Bank, 2000).
Although the problem is acknowledged, the extent of the health problems among farm workers in Africa remains unclear. Few African countries keep statistics about pesticide poisonings and fewer yet track chronic pesticide health effects (World Bank, 1996; Rother & London, 1998). Moreover, health impacts may take a long time to appear and could be difficult to trace back to specific pesticide or polluting source (Wossink et. al., 1998).
In Africa, empirical studies in support of the link between pesticide use and farmer health are patchy. Loewenson and Nhachi (1996) looked narrowly at occupational health problems among commercial farm workers in Zimbabwe, but not among smallholders. In West Africa, a survey on pesticide-related occupational health effects found that the social cost of acute poisoning in cotton is substantial (Ajayi, 1999; Fleischer, Andoli, Coulibaly, & Randolph, 1998).
Why are pesticides used copiously on cotton? Cotton has been a remunerative cash crop in Africa for a century. Smallholders in Zimbabwe have been expanding their plantings steadily since majority rule arrived in 1980. But cotton crops in Zimbabwe are vulnerable to a wide range of insect pests (Chivinge, Sithole, & Keswani, 1999). Cotton yield losses to uncontrolled pests in Africa have been estimated to range between 40% and 65% (Jowa, 1995). So successfully managing pests is key to profitable cotton production in Zimbabwe and in Africa as a whole.
However, if the health effects of pesticide use are significant, smallholder cotton farmers may be overestimating the net benefits of pesticides. An increasing body of evidence suggests that the benefits of pesticides are obtained at a substantial cost to the society (Antle & Pingali, 1994; Antle et al., 1998; Cole, Carpio, Julian, & Leona, 1998; Pingali, Marquez, Palis, & Rola, 1995; Crissman et al., 1994; Watts, 1993; Czapar, Curry, & Gray, 1995; WHO, 1990). Whether Zimbabwe's smallholder cotton farmers experience significant pesticide health hazards and, if so, how they might be addressed is the focus of this study.
This study examines the degree and determinants of acute pesticide health symptoms among Zimbabwe's smallholder cotton growers. The results are specific to Zimbabwe, but the analysis provides useful lessons for cotton growers in other African countries. By systematically measuring health costs from pesticide use and tracing the effects of farming practices that contribute to them, this study offers guidance for policies to enhance the sustainability of cotton production. In particular, this study addresses four key questions regarding the health effects of pesticide use by Zimbabwe's smallholder cotton growers:
- 1.
How large are the health costs of pesticide use?
- 2.
What factors are responsible for these costs?
- 3.
What factors account for acute pesticide poisoning symptoms?
- 4.
How might changes in pesticide policy mitigate these symptoms and their associated health costs?
Section snippets
Methodology and data
The analysis begins with a statistical description of the pesticide-related health effects reported by farm households in the two study regions. These effects include both acute pesticide poisoning symptoms and chronic conditions that could be related to pesticide exposure. A conservative estimate of pesticide related health costs is calculated as the sum of both cash and selected non-cash costs, including (1) farmer-reported medical treatment costs at clinics and private physicians, (2) an
Incidence of pesticide-related acute illness symptoms
Pesticide use in Zimbabwe's smallholder cotton production is associated with a range of reported acute pesticide poisoning symptoms (Table 2). Over half of farmers interviewed in both districts reported skin irritations, while more than a quarter reported eye irritation and 7–12% reported stomach poisoning. However, only 2–8% of these cases actually sought medical treatment. Various other pesticide-related symptoms were also reported, most notably dizziness in 10–20% of households. The lower
Conclusions
Balancing the numerous benefits that may accrue from pesticide use on cotton, farmers face health hazards. Pesticide-induced acute symptoms significantly increased the cost-of-illness among Zimbabwean smallholder cotton growers in the two districts studied. Cotton growers lost a mean of Z$180 in Sanyati and Z$316 per year in Chipinge on pesticide-related direct and indirect acute health effects. These values are equivalent to 45% and 83% of annual household pesticide expenditures in the two
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from a Rockefeller Foundation African Dissertation Internship Award and a W.K. Kellogg Foundation doctoral fellowship. They also thank Africa University for its institutional support of Dr. Maumbe's field research, as well as Jm Bingen, Duncan Boughton, Eric Crawford, Carl Liedholm, Chris Petersen and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts.
References (46)
- et al.
Further evidence on pesticides, productivity and farmer healthPotato production in Ecuador
Agricultural Economics Journal
(1998) - Ajayi, O. (1999). Measuring the indirect health benefits of IPM: methodology for estimating pesticide health costs in...
- et al.
Pesticides, productivity, and farmer healthImplications for regulatory policy and agricultural research
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
(1994) - et al.
Pesticides productivity and farmer healthA Philippine case study
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
(1994) - et al.
The growth performance of agriculture in Subsaharan Africa
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
(2000) - et al.
Cancer among farmers
Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health
(1985) Pesticide demand and integrated pest managementA limited dependent variable analysis
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
(1983)Pesticides and occupational safety and health in Zimbabwe
- Chivinge, O. A., Sithole, S. Z., Keswani, C. L. (1999). Trends in agricultural pest problems and mangement strategies...
- et al.
Health impacts of pesticide use in Carchi farm populations
Pesticide use and farm worker health in Ecuadorian potato production
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Environmental health effects
Survey of integrated pest management practices in central Illinois
Journal of Production Agriculture
Is some number better than no number?
Journal of Economic Perspectives
Environmental and economic consequences of technology adoptionIPM in viticulture
Agricultural Economics
The measurement of environmental and resource valuesTheory and methods
Pesticides and worker safety
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Pesticide properties in the environment
An analysis of occupational health in pork production
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Contingent valuation of health
Cited by (103)
The siren song of cicadas: Early-life pesticide exposure and later-life male mortality
2024, Journal of Environmental Economics and ManagementThe impact of different education strategies on rice farmers’ knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) about pesticide use
2021, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural SciencesShowing pesticides’ true colors: The effects of a farmer-to-farmer training program on pesticide knowledge
2021, Journal of Environmental ManagementPredicting farmers' intention to use PPE for prevent pesticide adverse effects: An examination of the Health Belief Model (HBM)
2021, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural SciencesCitation Excerpt :Moreover the use of pesticides is frequently accompanied by undesirable effects such as poisoning and chronic health effects for farmers and farm workers during the load, mix and spray of pesticide products as well as clean pesticide clothing or spray equipment, posing a threat to the quality of agricultural products and food and serious contamination for soil and water (Agne et al., 1995; Damalas, 2009; Abhilash and Singh, 2009; Litchfield, 2005). The most common health effects associated with pesticide exposure in agriculture have been well documents in several studies and include headaches, skin and eye problems, salivation, nausea, diarrhea, respiratory depression, burning sensation, weakness, cough, seizures, and loss of consciousness (Kachaiyaphum et al., 2010; Strong et al., 2004; Esechie and Ibitayo, 2011; Walton et al., 2016; Maumbe and Swinton, 2003; Kori et al., 2018; Akter et al., 2018). Similarly, various chronic effects such as hormone disruption, damages to the brain, birth defects and cancer were reported among different groups of farmers (Mills et al., 2009; Abhilash and Singh, 2009; Alavanja et al., 2004; Kamel and Hoppin, 2004).