Activities
which have been
designed under the Health Component enable farmers to
assess the adverse effects of pesticides on their own
personal health; this complements IPM training activities,
which enable farmers to assess the adverse impacts of
pesticides on the environment.
Financial assistance for the Health Component, in
addition to IPM training in a number of countries, has been
provided by the Government of Norway.
Three
types of studies make up the Health Component depending on
the country’s needs, resources and individual programs.
They are as follows:
I.
Farmer Self-Surveillance on the incidence of
Pesticide Poisoning
II.
Farmer-to-Farmer Health Studies
III.
School Children’s Health Studies
The
primary purpose of all three activities is educational. By
conducting their own studies, farmers and their children
will have a first hand understanding of the health effects
of pesticides. In addition, valuable data is generated.
Because those stakeholders who are the most experienced and
affected by pesticides gather the data, the information is
highly valid and closer to reality than scientific studies
conducted by outsiders.
I.
Farmer Self-Surveillance on the Incidence of Pesticide
Poisoning
Rationale:
A farmer self-surveillance system was created because
reliable data on the incidence of mild to moderate
occupationally related pesticide poisoning does not exist. The
only source of pesticide poisoning data is from health
facilities.
These figures represent only a small fraction of
pesticide poisoning for a number of reasons.
First, only a small number of severe poisonings
present to the health care system.
These usually are suicide attempts.
The bulk of cases - milder, occupationally related -
will not necessarily report to the health care system due
to costs, inaccessibility of services, or fear of reporting
and loss of employment.
Finally, those few farmers that do present
themselves for treatment are often misdiagnosed because
pesticide poisoning mimics other health problems.
Therefore the magnitude of occupational pesticide
poisoning is so underestimated that it cannot effectively
inform policy.
Surveillance
systems also do not provide feedback to their client
communities. Commonly the data is seen as the domain of the
health care system and upper level policy makers. Rather
than being analyzed and used at a local level, the data
migrates only up to central government institutions.
As a result, communities from which the data are
derived are not aware of the magnitude of pesticide
poisoning nor are they given the opportunity to take
preventive action or develop community solutions.
Therefore,
the FAO/Community IPM program developed a system for
farmers to self-report the acute effects of pesticide
poisoning not necessarily seem by the health care system.
This data is kept within the community and is shared among
farmer groups and with local health authorities.
Description of the surveillance system:
After each spray session, the farmer fills out a
single-sheet form that is primarily pictorial. (See Fig.1).
He or she circles the sign or symptom experienced
during or up to 24 hours after spraying.
