Safety research study - Nigerian farm household hazards

This study by Dr AJ Udoh of pesticide use in one state of Nigeria found unsafe practices of storage and application of pesticides among farmers. Intervals between pesticide application were not observed by farmers.  Many highly hazardous and environmentally harmful pesticides, including those banned, are still in use.

One of the most important tasks for the economy of a developing country like Nigeria is to develop the agricultural sector. A strong agricultural sector can increase and generate employment, promote self-sufficiency in food, improve the standard of living, increase the gross domestic product and contribute to general development.
    To attain food sufficiency, governments encourage farmers to use improved seeds, fertilisers, irrigation and pesticides. However, off-setting the benefits are many problems identified with pesticides use: unsafe use; persistence in the environment; toxicity to bees, fish and wildlife; contaminated water sources; persistent pesticides accumulating in the food chain; impact on earthworms and other beneficial organisms. In developing countries, pesticides are routinely used in unsafe conditions, and farmers lack training and resources to increase safety to their own health and the environment.
    Nigerian farmers buy and use many pesticides for protecting crops and livestock. A study conducted between September 1996 and June 1997 investigated conditions of use and impact of pesticides in the six agricultural zones of Akwa Ibom State: Abak, Eket, Etinan, Ikot Ekpene, Oron and Uyo (in southern Nigeria). More than 600,000 farming households in Akwa Ibom State may have been exposed to various problems due to poor handling and use of pesticides.
    To study conditions, a schedule of questions was designed for interviews with heads of 180 farming households who were randomly selected from various cells of the agricultural zones. Women heads of households represented 20% (36) of the households in the survey, and men 80% (144).  Questions covered: personal and socio-economic characteristics of farmers, level of awareness on pesticide use, sources of pesticides for farm use; pesticides used; and application and handling practices. The data obtained were analysed with appropriate statistical tools.

Profile of the community
The variables considered included educational level, size of family, source of labour and income. The study was conscious that women take an active part in farming in Nigeria, and are exposed to pesticide use in food and fibre production.
    The respondents had various levels of educational qualifications: a negligible number, six, or 3%, had not been to school, while 53% had a primary school education and 43% had been to secondary school. This implies that most respondents could read and write and could thus make use of extension leaflets, posters and pesticide labels, and share such information with friends and neighbours.
    While acquisition of formal education facilitates adoption of improved farming practices, professional training is important for proper use of agricultural inputs. About 28% of the 180 respondents had special training in agriculture, 3% in agriculture and related areas: but  60% had no special training.
    In rural Nigeria, the high cost of hired labour means household labour is the only reliable and affordable source of farm labour, and this was the case for over 90% of the respondents. Therefore, improper application and handling of pesticides tend to increase exposure of members of the same household, including women and men, boys and girls.
    The majority of respondents (82%) were crop farmers, while 18% were involved in livestock and poultry production. Crop production was the main area of pesticide use, with farmers producing maize, cowpea, cassava, garden egg, tomato, fluted pumpkin, oil palm, citrus and cocoa. Over 50% of the farm produce is for family consumption. Pesticide residues in farm produce is a further source of exposure to the farming households.
    A majority of the respondents, 93%, were aware of pesticides and had received some information. Seventy one, or 39%, attributed their awareness to extension agents, 43% to neighbours and friends, 5% to mass media (radio) and 5% to various other sources of information.
    Eighty eight, or 49%, of the respondents had between one and five children, followed by 33% with six to 10 children, and 1% with 11 children or more. This averages six children per respondent household, indicating a crowded environment in these rural farm homes. A significant number of children are being exposed to hazards from pesticides stored in farm homes: studies have shown that pesticides in household dust and soil increases exposure pathways for children of agricultural families(1).

Banned chemicals in common usage
Farmers obtain pesticides from a variety of sources, predominantly from the Akwa Ibom Agricultural Development Project (AKADEP) (49%) and the open market (38%). A smaller number obtain them from neighbours and friends (4%), and other sources. AKADEP is a credible source of supply, but farmers use other sources when products are not available, or because of lower prices elsewhere. 
    Some farmers were using pesticides which are highly hazardous, widely banned or environmentally persistent, for example:  33% were using lindane, mainly on tree crops such as cocoa;  21% were using paraquat, which is highly toxic;  17% were using DDT;  6% aldrin; and others indicated they were using dieldrin.
    The predominant pesticides used are lambdacyhalothrin (Karate), cypermethrin (Cymbush), monocrotophos (Nuvacron 40 EC), pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic 25 EC), carbetamide (Furadan), paraquat, atrazine (Primextra), oxidiazon (Ronstar), followed by significant use of diazinon (Basudin 40EC), phosphine (Phostoxin) and lindane.
    These products show the danger to which farmers and members of the households are exposed. Banned pesticides are still used by farmers because they are readily available or cheaper than recommended pesticides.

Methods of application
Methods of application adopted included spraying, dusting, dipping, baits and injections. Most respondents, 51%, apply by spraying, particularly on cowpea, fluted pumpkin and cocoa production. Effective and regular training on spray safety-covering pesticides formulations, the equipment, and mode of application-should be conducted for all farmers.

Methods of storing 
Storing pesticides in original containers and in secure stores can reduce the effect of contamination and poisoning. Most farmers are not conscious of the risks of decanting pesticides: only 20% of the respondents stored pesticides in their original containers. As many as 50% used any type of bottles for storage, 15% used food and soft drink bottles, and 5% used any other available container.
    It was also observed that farmers store pesticides with food stuffs, in non-ventilated rooms and in living rooms: a highly dangerous practice. Children sleeping in these rooms may inhale fumes from pesticides and may be tempted to drink contents of soft drink bottles. Educational campaigns on the effects of pesticides are therefore essential for the farming households. Targeting women may be effective on this issue.

Interval before crop harvest 
For most of the common recommended pesticides, such as Karate, Cymbush, Nuvacron 40EC and Actellic 25EC used by farmers for controlling sucking, chewing and mining pests in cowpea, soybean, tomatoes, peppers, okra and leafy vegetables, the safety period before harvesting ranges from 5-21 days. However, 22% of the household-respondents harvested their produce leaving only three days after the last spray; a further 19% harvested after a six day interval; 22% after 9-12 days; 37% after 15-18 days. None of the households observed a maximum safety period of 21 days.
    The danger of harvesting fruits, seeds and vegetables before the safety period cannot be overemphasised. Intensive educational campaigns through workshops for both women and men heads of households is essential. Illustrations on the effects of pesticide residues in crops, livestock, and people should be shown, and the effect on children should be particularly emphasised. The Nigerian government should inspect fruits and vegetables from farms and in markets to ensure quality of produce for human consumption.

Conclusions and policy implications
Capacity building through regular workshops and training for farmers on pesticides use and awareness programmes on the effects of pesticides for the public will reduce the incidence of pesticide residues in the food ecosystem.
    The curtailing of imports of banned pesticides into the country, availability of recommended pesticides all year at affordable prices, coupled with a consistent educational campaign to inform farmers and the public of the disastrous effects of poor handling and use of pesticides will reduce the rate of pesticide residues in food, contamination of environment and poisoning of people and livestock.
    The current emphasis by government on control of pests for higher crop yields needs to be matched with emphasis on human safety and the environment. Lack of specialised training in pesticide use may be one reason why most respondents were using banned pesticides and did not observe recommended safety periods before harvesting of vegetables and fruits.
    Pesticide handling and use needs to be improved. The study shows that the 620,000 farm families in Akwa Ibom State, and hundreds of thousands of other farm families in Nigeria need to be targeted to improve their understanding and ability to use pesticides safely on both crops and livestock. Training should be worked into an IPM approach, to encourage the use of other methods of pest control, while maintaining high crop and livestock productivity.

1. Simcox, NJ and Feaske, RA, Pesticides in Households dust and soil: exposure pathways for children of agricultural families. Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives 12(103):1126-1134, 1995.

Dr AJ Udoh works for the Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 40, June 1998, page 8]