Hazard Communications for Agricultural Workers

October 2007

James Glasnapp, Jorge Nakamoto,   CONTACT _Con-3E0DB6AC11 \c \s \l 
Amparo Bustos-Navarro 

JBS International, Inc.

Aguirre Division

555 Airport Boulevard, Suite 400

Burlingame, CA 94010-2002

650.373.4900

Executive Summary

Pesticide exposure is one of the many occupational risks facing
agricultural workers.  Workers may be exposed to pesticides by preparing
pesticides for use, applying pesticides, or working in fields where
pesticides have been applied.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) is responsible for implementing the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which includes the 1992 Worker
Protection Standard (WPS) and the Certification and Training (C&T)
requirements.   FIFRA establishes standards for safe use of pesticides
and specific protections for agricultural workers from occupational
exposure to pesticides under the WPS and C&T regulations.  

The USEPA is currently reviewing the existing Worker Protection Standard
in preparation for a formal rule-making process to revise, update and
improve the regulations protecting agricultural workers.  This research
was undertaken to help USEPA and other federal and state agencies revise
the WPS and C&T rules to better protect farmworkers and their families
from pesticide exposure.  This report is a follow-up to “Evaluation of
the Effectiveness of Symbols and Hazard Communication Materials,”
released in August 2006. This study probed deeper into two particular
areas touched on in the original study: what kind of information
farmworkers would like to know about pesticides and how they want the
information transmitted. This study increased the size of the original
hazard communication study group by 50% (from 54 participants to 83
total participants) and on the overlapping questions and themes, this
two studies strongly supported each other.

Key Findings

This study asked farmworkers want they wanted to know about pesticides
and how they felt that information could best be communicated (Figure
1).   Farmworker participants clearly wanted:

Information on short and long-term health effects of the pesticides they
are working with, including the risks for pregnant women.  Above all
other topics, participants worried about the long-term effects of
pesticide exposure and had misconceptions about pesticide exposure. Some
workers expressed the view that common pesticide exposure symptoms (like
headaches, rashes, and upset stomachs) are simply normal consequences of
daily farmwork, rather that an indicator of the need for urgent
corrective action.  The finding that chronic pesticide exposure is not
well understood or respected reiterates the need for better information
about health effects as well as other improvements in pesticide safety
training noted below.

Annual pesticide safety training. Farmworkers wanted regular ongoing
trainings, preferably annually, before they start work in an area that
has been treated with pesticides.   Farmworkers want to receive this
training in Spanish and English and from someone knowledgeable,
certified, and independent of employers.  They prefer to receive
information verbally and on paper with simple drawings, or in a video.
Throughout the workshops, participants revealed a variety of
misconceptions about pesticides that point to the need to increase the
frequency of pesticide safety training. These misconceptions include the
beliefs that acute symptoms of pesticide exposure are a normal by
product of working in the fields and need not be taken seriously,
misconceptions about the difference between a pesticide and a
fertilizer, and a general lack of support or regular reinforcement for
pesticide knowledge leading workers to focus less on safety. 

Specific information about pesticide applications. Farmworkers wanted
information on the specific danger levels of the pesticides they may be
exposed to at work.  If there is a re-entry interval in effect, they
would like information from a supervisor about when the pesticides were
applied and when it is safe to go back in. 

The Skull and Crossbones symbol.  Farmworkers agreed that the skull and
cross bones was recognized as a universal sign for danger that keeps
people out of areas and that benefits even those people who cannot read.
 

Information on preventative measures and what to do in case of exposure.
 Farmworkers wanted to know about the preventive measures they need to
take both in general and with specific pesticides which they may be
exposed to. Finally, they want to know what to do in case of exposure.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 : What workers want to know about
pesticides

 

Based on workshop discussion with farmworkers, a number of factors
likely influence an individuals ability to protect themselves from
pesticide exposure (Figure 2).  These factors include:   

The amount and frequency of pesticide training;

Positive social norms around pesticide safety prevention; 

The length of time spent in farmwork; 

Social support for taking protective measures from coworkers, superiors,
family, and friends; 

Ability to understand spoken instructions as well as written materials
in Spanish; 

Knowing someone personally who has suffered from pesticide exposure.  

As the USEPA revises and updates the pesticide safety standards and
hazard communication regulations, these factors should be taken into
account to ensure that proposed program reflects the needs, desires and
realities of farmworkers. 

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 : Factors contributing to farmworker
knowledge about pesticides

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

According to the National Safety Council, agriculture is the most
hazardous industry in the nation. And pesticide exposure is one of the
many occupational risks facing of agricultural workers.  Workers may be
exposed to pesticides by preparing pesticides for use, applying
pesticides, or working in fields where pesticides have been applied. 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for
implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)   FIFRA establishes standards for safe use of pesticides.  FIFRA
also includes specific protections for agricultural workers from
occupational exposure to pesticides under the 1992 Worker Protection
Standard (WPS) and the Certification and Training (C&T) requirements.  

The WPS offers protections to approximately 2.5 million agricultural
workers (people involved in the production of agricultural plants on
farms, forests, nurseries and in greenhouses) and pesticide handlers
(people who mix, load, or apply pesticides) that work at over 600,000
agricultural establishments nationwide.  The WPS contains requirements
for pesticide safety training, notification of pesticide applications,
use of personal protective equipment, restricted entry intervals
following pesticide application, decontamination supplies, and emergency
medical assistance.  Certain Pesticides may be applied only by or under
the direct supervision of applicators trained in accordance with Federal
C&T requirements.  The C&T regulations establish standards for the
training of certified applicators nationwide.   While the WPS and C&T
programs provide minimum national standards of pesticide safety, both
regulations need revisions, amendments and improvements to ensure
agricultural workers, pesticide handlers and the public are protected
from pesticide exposures.   

The USEPA is currently reviewing the existing WPS rules in preparation
for a formal rule-making process to revise, update and improve the
regulations protecting agricultural workers.  This research was
undertaken to inform USEPA and other federal and state agencies on a
Federal Hazard Communication rule and revisions to the WPS.  This report
is a follow-up to the “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Symbols and
Hazard Communication Materials,” released in August 2006. This study
increased the size of the original hazard communication study group by
50%. This study also probed deeper into two particular areas touched on
in the original study: what kind of information farmworkers would like
to know about pesticides and how they want the information transmitted.

METHODS

Three pesticide workshops were conducted in two California communities,
one in Delano (a central valley location) and two in Salinas (a central
coast location). The two separate geographical locations were selected
in order to have participation from workers from different agricultural
sectors (field workers and nursery workers). Workshops were held in
farmworker friendly locations. Each 2-hour workshop was conducted in
Spanish and included a 20-minute presentation on pesticide safety.
Refreshments were provided for all groups. Childcare was also provided
during the women’s workshop in Salinas. Each participant received an
honorarium of $50 for his or her participation. Participants in each
workshop were as follows:

Workshop 1: The Delano workshop consisted of 11 men who were currently
employed in fieldwork. The average age of the men was 33, and they had
an average of 10 years’ experience in fieldwork. Ten of the men worked
in the grape harvest and one worked with the blueberry crop. 

Workshop 2: The Salinas workshop had 6 women participants, all of whom
were currently employed in fieldwork. The average age of the women was
38, and they had an average of 19 years’ experience in fieldwork. The
women were currently working in the following crops: lettuce,
strawberry, grape, and apple. Two of the women had previously worked in
nurseries but only for brief periods (3 and 8 weeks).

Workshop 3: The third workshop was held in Salinas and consisted of 12
women participants, 9 of whom were currently employed in nurseries and 3
in the field. The average age of the women was 42, and they had an
average of 12 years’ experience in fieldwork and nursery work. The
women had varying work experience, with the majority of the nursery
workers having worked previously in the field for a number of years or
in packing houses.

The research design originally envisioned conducing just two workshops,
one with male participants, and the other with female participants. The
second workshop was intended to have a good mix of crop and nursery
workers.  Our standard recruitment procedures notwithstanding, we had a
poor turnout for this workshop. While the data collected from the six
participants who did turn out for this workshop was useful, we conducted
a third workshop in order to obtain a high number of overall workshop
participants and a more representative sample of nursery workers.  

In recruiting for the workshops, we sought out potential participants
with the following characteristics: 

Currently working in fieldwork (such as harvesting, pruning, caning,
weeding, etc.) or nurseries/greenhouses, but not directly working with
pesticides (such as mixing/loading, applying or otherwise handling
pesticides)

Previous participation in pesticide safety training

Fairly new to fieldwork to prevent highly experienced workers from
dominating discussions. 

Not members of the same household (family members, roommates etc.) 

From different places of origin (not everyone should be from same
sending community) 

Monolingual Spanish speakers (minimally first language Spanish speakers)


A range of ages (18-50) 

Different literacy levels (including illiterate workers) 

Not too dissimilar education levels

SUMMARY OF WORKSHOPS

This section is organized by research question.

1. Knowledge of Pesticide Safety

Research Question #1: What do fieldworkers know about pesticide safety?

1a. Knowledge of pesticides

Summary of Key Findings 

Workshop Participants were aware of pesticides, but sometimes had an
imperfect conceptual understanding of how they worked. 

Participants correctly understood pesticides as substances that are
helpful when applied to crops but are harmful to humans.



Detailed Findings 

Workshop participants defined pesticides as chemicals that “hurt your
body,” but useful to “kill weeds,” “combat insects so that the
crop is not damaged,” “cover the fruit as a spray to cover and
protect the grape,” “help the fruit grow,” and “protect oranges
against freezing weather.” Female participants tended to discuss
pesticides mostly as a product for combating pests: “Chemicals that
they spray on plants to ward against any infestations.”  Some of the
men and women had misconceptions about the difference between a
pesticide and a fertilizer. One participant, for example, said: “They
throw chemicals on the grapes to make [them] grow, the grape, the bulb. 
The more chemicals they throw on, the more [they] grow . . . there are
chemicals for that.”

1b. Knowledge of Pesticide Safety

Summary of Key Findings

Overall, workshop participants were aware of pesticide safety
precautions that included:

staying out of the fields after pesticide spraying

wearing protective clothing or equipment 

taking personal responsibility for protecting themselves.

Participants understood the meaning of the skull and crossbones symbol
and recalled seeing it in the fields.



Detailed Findings 

Warning Signs.  Workshop participants knew of the use of signs posted to
ensure people stayed out of treated areas. They were all familiar with
the signs with the skull (calvera) and crossbones on it. They not only
understood what this symbol of danger means, they recalled seeing it in
the fields. They appreciated the need to wait a certain number of days
before entering a pesticide-treated field. One participant stated: “We
know how much time we have to wait because the supervisors, those in
charge, have to put up a sign, a skull that announces it.”

Protective Gear. Many of the men shared their knowledge about the need
to use proper protection and following certain rules when working in
areas exposed to pesticides. The men mentioned masks, gloves,
long-sleeve shirts, and closed shoes. Some reported being unable to
smoke in certain areas due to the pesticides applied. Similarly, many of
the nursery worker women mentioned using masks, bandanas, gloves, suits,
boots and sometimes complete bodysuits. Participants were aware of the
varying dangers among the pesticide chemicals used. They shared that the
stronger chemicals require more protection. Regarding body suits, one
female participant said, “Only when the chemical is really strong do
they use a complete suit.” Participants were not always distinguishing
between protective equipment worn by applicators, by early entry
workers, or by workers entering areas treated with pesticides not under
any entry restrictions. 

Personal Precautions. Overall, both male and female participants
mentioned personal responsibility for pesticide safety that included
many precautions must be taken to not touch, contaminate, or be near
family members or use other shared utensils/tools because the chemicals
are very strong. One participant said, “Wash your hands before you eat
or before using the bathroom.”  Regarding safe drinking water, another
said, “the water always has a filter, the one we drink. They have the
hoses marked with signs, which one is the one [for using] with
pesticides and which one is for drinking.”

1c. Pesticide Exposures

Summary of Key Findings

Virtually all of the participants were aware of pesticide exposures that
they themselves, or coworkers had experienced.  

A few shared what they perceived as severe consequences of pesticide
exposure (cancer, miscarriage). 

Nursery workers surveyed claimed to be unaware of any actual pesticide
exposures. 



Detailed Findings 

Male Farmworkers’ Experience. None of the male participants claimed to
have personally suffered from pesticide exposure but some knew of
coworkers who had. Symptoms that they have witnessed among other
fieldworkers included those who got a skin rash “with a lot of
bumps” due to the “sulfur” used on the grapes. One participant
said, “I know some people who did not notice that before they entered
that they had sprayed a strong chemical and they started to vomit . . .
it was in the grape. There was a warning but the supervisor did not
notice it.”  Another participant noted skin concerns in relation to
sulfur: “Right now that we are working in the field, we get full of
rash spots because they use sulfur. They do not put signs when they use
sulfur.” Some participants also told about coworkers who experienced
dizziness, upset stomachs, vomiting, and diarrhea after eating fruit
that had been treated with pesticides. Participants understood that they
should not eat treated fruit, but as one explained, “Sometimes the
fruit looks really good and it is treated, they get sick in the stomach
with diarrhea because they eat it.”

Female Farmworkers’ Experience. Many of the female fieldworkers and
co-workers they know had suffered headaches, nausea, or rashes that they
attribute to pesticide exposure. Two of these fieldworkers reported
having been ill with skin rashes due to pesticide exposure. A third
fieldworker reported knowing co-workers that have had bad skin rashes.
Two women also shared their concerns about potentially severe
consequences from exposure. One woman suffered a miscarriage several
years back when she was working in a field near a pesticide treated
area.  She stated, “Many years ago I was pregnant and we were far away
but there was a plane flying over but I think that [the pesticides]
affected me because I got a pain in my stomach that same day and I lost
my baby and another woman that was in the same place as I but in a
different group that was nearby, she also lost her baby at the same
time.” Another woman thought her husband’s experience with cancer
was possibly a consequence of farmwork, noting “My husband got a
cancer called lymphoma and they told him that it may have been where he
got it and also that it could have been the chemicals. He worked for a
time fumigating but they told him it may have been because of that, they
are not sure.”

Nursery Workers’ Experience. Interestingly, none of these workers
reported having been ill or had seen ill co-workers due to pesticide
exposure. 

1d. Preventing Exposure

Summary of Key Findings

Responses varied in terms of to what extent workers could do to prevent
pesticide exposure. 

All mentioned personal behaviors which could minimize their exposure to
pesticides.

Many cited agricultural practices outside of their control and placed
much of the responsibility for avoiding exposure on their supervisors. 





Detailed Findings

Changes in Agricultural Practices.  One participant suggested more
organic farming would be the best way to prevent pesticide exposure.
Another wanted pesticide applications to occur only at night, stating
“I think that to avoid pesticides or chemicals they should apply those
at night when there aren’t people there.  Because sometimes they spray
in one area and there are workers in another and the wind still brings
it over.”  Night applications are common in certain areas of
California but do not prevent residue exposure from treated plants. 
This discussion clearly indicated a lack of understanding of how
fieldworkers are potentially exposed to pesticides.

Supervisors’ Responsibilities. Many farmworkers felt that the surest
way to prevent exposure to pesticides is to stay out of the treated
fields until it is safe to enter.  Some of the male participants thought
that it is the responsibility of the supervisor (mayordomo) to alert the
workers when it is safe to go into a field to work. While the WPS
regulations require workers to stay out of treated areas during the
period of greatest risk (the Restricted Entry Interval, or REI), early
entry is allowed in certain situations.   Some of the female
participants stated that they had been told to make sure that their
supervisors take them to a different place to avoid pesticide exposure
during pesticide applications. There was also a desire expressed to know
more about the chemicals being used. Participants who had reported
spraying chemicals for a brief time in the past said that they were not
told which pesticide they were applying, but just where to apply it. One
of them said, “Last year I worked spraying pesticides . . . but they
did not tell us what we were applying. They just tell us to put it down
there . . . they give us a mask, gloves and protection.” (Federal and
State regulations require employers to assure pesticide applicators and
handlers know what pesticides they are applying and understand the label
requirements).

Fieldworkers’ Responsibilities. Regarding measures that could be taken
to minimize the risk of exposure, several of the men suggested washing
the fruit before consumption to prevent stomach illnesses and diarrhea.
Many of the women mentioned that they always wear protective gear while
they work in the nurseries. The items mentioned include gloves, long
sleeve shirts, hats, and handkerchiefs. One of the participants noted
that some people have more sensitive skin than others and are still
prone to skin irritations even when they wear protective gear: “There
are people that are very sensitive, I am one of those people that, even
though I have on long sleeves, I still get sick on my skin.”

2. Pesticide Safety Training 

Research Question #2: What do fieldworkers know about any previous
pesticide training?

2a. Previous Pesticide Training 

Summary of Key Findings

Nearly all (26 out of 29) of the workers in our workshops reported
having received some type of pesticide training, but it was not always
perceived as formal “training” when offered.  

There were differences of opinion about why and when these trainings
were typically provided. 



Detailed Findings

Extent and Timing of Training. Seven of the eleven men reported having
been provided with pesticide training in the past. Four of them stated
the last time they had received training was over a year ago, while the
other three said that it had occurred over two years ago.  All eighteen
of the female participants reported having had received pesticide
training sometime in the past. Participants also realized that the
timing of trainings was dependent on different circumstances and was not
consistent. Some participants pointed out that the information was
provided when the pesticide application was occurring: “They have had
meetings when they spray so that we do not go in. That if a person tells
us that to go in a house and if the sign is there, we should not go
in.” Another participant noted that the trainings appeared to be
offered to meet their employers’ insurance requirements: “It is
because the insurance demands it. Every month they give talks because of
the insurance.” Others pointed out that the training occurred when
they first began their job or once a year.  As one of them noted, “For
us, who work in the field, we get explanations when we first start the
job. It is once a year.”

Workers’ Comprehension. There were varying levels of understanding
regarding the level or depth of training that had occurred. For example,
when initially asked this question, the women from the nursery did not
recognize the process they had gone through as being a “training.”
They described it more like a brief, informative chat or talk:
“Training no, they give us chats.”  This discussion mirrored the
results of a study conducted San Luis Obispo County, California by the 
“Farmworker Safety Initiative” (FSI).  Participants in the FSI study
identified ‘information’ as the term used most often at the job site
and participants regarded ‘information’ as less formal than a
‘training’. Advising a worker of the risk of contamination, how to
use a tool or machines correctly, or how to reduce risks at work was
considered ‘information’. The San Luis Obispo study also found that
while 80% of the farmworkers surveyed had received pesticide safety
training, their overall knowledge of pesticide exposure, first aid
measures, and routing decontamination was incomplete. (Source:
Farmworker Safety Initiative, Phase II:  Final Report.)

3. Pesticide Exposure Knowledge and Perceived Needs

Research Question #3: What kind of information do fieldworkers want to
know about pesticides?

3a. How Farmworkers Know a Pesticide Application Has Occurred 

Summary of Key Findings

Farmworkers reported identifying a pesticide application through smell,
physical reactions, observation, direct communication from supervisors. 

Farmworkers conceded that at times they could not tell for certain but
suspected that pesticides had been applied.

Detailed Findings 

Odor. Farmworkers reported identifying the application of pesticides
through the sense of smell. Participants agreed that the smell is a sure
sign that pesticides have been applied to a field. One of them stated,
“Sometimes there are no signs. One time when I was working in
watermelon, they had sprayed but there were no signs, but we knew they
had sprayed because of the smell . . . we even told the supervisor, and
he told us to just work there [anyway].” (Pesticide labels include
Restricted Entry Intervals (REI) following pesticide applications during
which time entry is prohibited, except with certain protections. 
Federal and State regulations do not require posting of fields for all
pesticide applications.)

Visual Observation. Several farmworkers stated that they became aware of
the use of pesticides by observing planes spraying far away. In these
situations, the winds are liable to carry the pesticide towards them as
they continue to work in their own location. One participant noted,
“We see that they are there with the spray.” Another point that a
participant made was that there can be visual cues on the plants
themselves: “Another thing is that [even] if they don’t have the
sign up, the plants have a white residue.”

Verbal Warnings. Farmworkers reported that supervisors often post a sign
with the date that a field was sprayed, and how long workers should keep
away from that field. On this topic, one nursery worker said, “When we
are working in a house that needs to be sprayed, they take us out. They
tell us that they sprayer is coming and we exit to work in other
houses.” 

Adverse Physical Reactions. In some cases, farmworkers reported
identifying the application of pesticides through physical reactions. 
In response to this question, workers discussed symptoms such as
headaches, skin irritation, nausea, and dizziness.

Uncertainty. Farmworkers reported not always being able to identify when
pesticides were applied. One of the men reported that there are not
always signs posted after spraying and that he has been forced to go
into a field and work even though he suspected that pesticides had been
applied in that location. (Federal and State regulations do not require
posting warning signs for all pesticide applications.)

3b. How Farmworkers Recognize Exposure to Pesticides 

Summary of Key Findings

Workshop participants were vocal about the ways in which they are aware
of exposure to pesticides. 

All participants were aware of common signs of pesticide exposure.



Detailed Findings 

Participants agreed that signs of pesticide exposure include dizziness,
headaches, teary or red eyes, sore throat, nausea, upset stomachs,
vomiting, and skin irritation such as rashes. One worker said, “If you
are dizzy, have teary eyes or dry throat, which means you’ve been
exposed to pesticides.” Another worker declared, “Most of us that
work in the field have tired and red eyes. If you look at the eyes of a
person that works in an office and then look at the eyes of a field
worker, you’ll know who’s working where.”

3c. What Farmworkers Want to Know about Pesticides 

Key Finding

Both male and female workers were concerned about the danger levels,
long and short-term effects of any pesticides applied, preventive
measures, and what to do in case of exposure. 

Some thought supervisors should be chiefly responsible for warning
farmworkers about potential dangers from pesticide exposure.

Detailed Findings 

Fieldworkers’ Concerns. Several of the male participants wanted to
know more about what pesticides were used in order to take appropriate
preventive measures and to know what to do in case of exposure. Some
male fieldworkers also expressed concern about long term safety of
pesticides.  One wanted to know “what the harm is to us once we have
worked a long time at this job or how many years we can last [at this
job] before it becomes harmful further down the line.” Another said
that he had heard reports about “workers that become sterile after 10
or 15 years or their children are born sick.” One man said, “I think
that we all want to make sure that it is really safe and that it won’t
affect us in the future.” This concern about long-term health effects
is in line with previous findings.  

Some thought supervisors should be responsible for warning workers of
dangers.  As one male participant stated: “[The supervisor] should let
us know what type of chemical was used so that we can use the
appropriate protection.” The female participants also wanted to know
the risks for pregnant women and how far into their pregnancies they
should work because their supervisors were reluctant to send them home.
Some of the male participants stated that the information they sought on
pesticides should be provided by someone, such as a supervisor who knows
who “knows how to speak well so that people can understand him.”
They also reiterated that signage should always be posted where it can
be seen. 

Nursery Workers’ Concerns.  The biggest concern for this group of
women was whether pesticides will have long-term effects on their
health. There was a lot of uncertainty about safety levels, even when
they were being told it is safe to work around certain materials. One
participant stated: “I would really like to know more about whether or
not this will truly affect us in the future, in our health a few years
down the line . . . we are working with a grass not fully grown
(zacatito) which comes treated already, but we could be eating something
during our mid-break and we are not washing our hands.  (It was not
clear whether they are not washing their hands because there is not time
or access to water, or if they are simply choosing not to wash their
hands.  Either way, this discussion reiterates the need to improve
training on preventing exposure through hand washing.)

4. Preferred Pesticide Training Methods 

Research Question #4: How would fieldworkers like to receive information
about pesticides? 

a. How Farmworkers Have Received Information about Pesticides

Summary of Key Findings

Participants had received pesticide information through both informal
communications through friends and coworkers and formal notifications
through supervisors and certified or professional outside trainers. 

Workers also mentioned the mechanisms by which they received this
information, including didactic lessons, chats, pamphlets, and video
presentations. 

Detailed Findings 

The male participants shared receiving information from coworkers,
supervisors, trainers and other people that know about pesticides. Both
genders stated that they generally received pesticide information
orally, in classes or workshops, or from someone would come in to speak
with them. The nursery workers referred to these as “chats.” One
participant noted, “For us, there’s a person that comes here,
someone who’s trained. I think they have a license for that and they
gave us information and a book where they were reading from and we were
reading along.  Whatever the book said, that’s what they read and . .
. it has words and photos.” Some participants also mentioned that they
had been shown a movie on the subject and liked it because they could
visualize the lessons in real life scenarios. 

4b. How Farmworkers Would Like to Receive Information about Pesticides

Summary of Key Findings

Direct, personal presentation was the preferred method of receiving
pesticide information, while visual methods (through illustrated
pamphlets with pictures or though videos) were as also preferred.

Written materials should not be the sole method of communication with
workers because many workers do not know how to read or to read very
well.

Detailed Findings 

Participants preferred verbal warnings and visual presentations to
written materials in order to understand pesticide exposure dangers. 
This is in line with previous findings.

Direct, Personal Presentations.  Participants stated that the preferred,
most efficient method of receiving pesticide information was verbally
and in person. As one participant stated, “If we have doubts, we
can’t ask a pamphlet. Pamphlets are to have the information later.”

Written Materials.  One participant warned against reliance on written
materials distributed to workers: “They make us go to the meetings and
the papers they give us sometimes end up misplaced somewhere, when we
get home, we don’t even know where.”  Another woman stated, “I
don’t think that it should be written because many don’t know how to
read and we’re embarrassed to say, ‘I don’t know how to read,’
and we take the paperwork they give us and we put it in our back pocket
and we get home and we throw it away. I don’t know how to read
[either, but] I’m not embarrassed to ask . . .” If written materials
like pamphlets are to be used anyway, participants thought they should
be in both English and Spanish, with either examples or pictures. Female
participants noted that written materials should contain figures as few
words as possible because most workers do not know how to read.   

According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2003-2004
data, the majority of workers born in Mexico and other foreign-born
Hispanics could not speak or read English “at all”.   Considering
77% of the national hired crop labor force is foreign born (in
California, 96% of the farmworkers are estimated to have been born in
Mexico), high illiteracy rates should be expected.

Video Presentations. Another favored method of receiving information,
mentioned by both men and women, is through video presentations. One
participant noted that videos are a good way to transmit information to
non-readers:  “It would be nice if the contractors and companies would
show videos because there are many farm workers that know how to read a
little but there are many that don’t know how to read at all.”
Another participant noted that video is a good way to convey how other
farmworkers have suffered consequences from pesticide exposure, stating
“I have seen a video where a fellow worker is seen telling his
experience about something that happened to him . . . an inspector from
the company insurance brought us that video, I think it shows a person
without fingers, they are real people that have suffered accidents.” 

4c. How Often Farmworkers Want To Be Trained

Summary of Key Findings 

Workers believed that training was important, particularly for
newcomers. 

They thought pesticide training should occur at a minimum once every
year. 

Some workers believed that trainings should occur monthly.

Detailed Findings 

Male Fieldworkers’ Opinions. There was a range of opinion on the
intervals between training.  Six workers thought that pesticide training
should occur once every year. Thirteen (including 12 nursery workers and
3 fieldworkers) thought it was needed twice as often, every 6 months. 
Others preferred even more frequent trainings: one said once every three
months, and seven thought that trainings taking place monthly or every
other month would be best because there are many new workers that come
into the workforce so frequently that they would otherwise not be
assured of receiving the training they need for safety’s sake. One
participant suggested, to general agreement, that trainings should be
scheduled flexibly based on specific job tasks, the number of new
employees, or the type of crop involved. He said specifically, “I
think it depends on the work and what we need to do . . . sometimes
there are new workers and they do not know [about pesticides].”

Female Fieldworkers’ Opinions. The female participants stated that
trainings would be best if they were mandatory and if they offered
incentives for workers to show up to the trainings in order for them to
take them seriously. One female participant said disapprovingly, “I
get really sad when I see them separate themselves far away [when
they’re] giving us information for our own good and they’re over
there playing and joking and saying things . . . they don’t take it
seriously.” Two of the fieldworker women also agreed that every 6
months for training was enough.

Nursery Workers’ Opinions. All of the nursery participants preferred
training every 6 months. They believed that would be sufficient since
they did not come in direct contact with pesticides at their work site.
They agreed that it would be needed more often if someone worked in
spraying the pesticides herself or in the fields where they felt there
is a higher degree of exposure to pesticides.

4d. Language Preferences for Pesticide Information

Summary of Key Findings

Workers prefer pesticide information to be provided in Spanish (as well
as in English).

Special consideration should be given to those workers who speak only
indigenous languages.

Detailed Findings 

Spanish was the preferred language for receiving pesticide information
among all workers, but both male and female participants agreed that
pesticide information should also be provided in English. Providing
information to workers in English reinforces the intended message. Some
workers are bilingual, and their language preference (knowledge) depends
on the topic being presented. Moreover, English versions allow for
English learning and legitimize the information so that the workers are
not receiving different information than the general public (English
speakers). Another important point is that English words are commonly
translated to not-so-commonly-used Spanish words. Instead, some of these
"neologisms" are converted into "Spanglish". Such was the case with our
learnings around the proper Spanish translation of pesticide
(plaguicida). We found that “Spanglish” version (Pesticida) was
better understood than the proper Spanish term plaguicida. 

One of the male participants shared his concerns about coworkers that
speak indigenous languages. Although the majority of them also speak
Spanish, he stated that some do not and they struggle to understand
things anyway they can. He said, “I know some that only speak their
dialect and they try to understand anyway they can. They help each other
out among themselves.” Of special concern are farmworkers who cannot
speak Spanish (or English), but are embarrassed to admit it. According
to NAWS data, 20% of the workers in California in 2003/2004 were of
indigenous origin (roughly 100,000 people) and this group likely speaks
Spanish as a second language, if at all. In addition, the indigenous
worker population is considered the fastest growing farmworker
population in California, and likely the nation

4e. Whom Farmworkers Prefer to Conduct Pesticide Trainings

Summary of Key Findings 

Farmworkers want to receive pesticide training from someone who is: 

Knowledgeable

Certified

Independent from those for whom they work.  

Detailed Findings 

All the male participants and most of the female participants expressed
more confidence if the person providing the pesticide training were an
outside person, like an inspector, either male or female. One
participant said, “Someone that comes from the outside that is not in
favor of the company.”  A couple of the female participants stated
that it would be good for the supervisors to receive training as well as
the workers “because some go from being workers to supervising.”
This would ensure that everyone is equally informed. “The supervisor
should be there so that he can also learn a little.” The female
participants also stated that it would be convenient for them to do the
trainings at the job site.  

5. Field Posting Signs

Research Question #5: What do fieldworkers understand about field
posting signs? 

5a. The Best Ways to Notify Farmworkers about Pesticide Applications 

Summary of Key Findings

Participants said that they prefer to be told directly about pesticide
dangers and want posted signs. 

Most believed that the skull and cross bones were recognizable as a
universal sign for danger and using it benefits even those people who
cannot read. 

Detailed Findings 

Verbal Warnings. Participants preferred being told personally by the
supervisor when pesticides are applied and when it is safe to return to
work. One participant said on the subject,  “Since they let the
supervisor know, where we are going to change fields, the ranch owner
also should let him know with time that the field has been sprayed, and
that way he knows he can’t take us there.” Another workers shared
how it generally was supposed to occur at their job site: “The boss
where I work comes and leaves a paper that says how long ago they
applied the chemical, the supervisor comes, he tells him, and he tells
us.” 

Warning Signs.  These were also a clear mechanism by which workers could
understand that pesticides had been applied. Workers clearly recognized
the skull and crossbones as a sign of danger.  As said by one
participant, “They put a small skull and crossbones of death so that
we won’t go in.” Participants liked the skull and cross bones as a
means of communicating and getting attention. One said, “I think that
the skull and cross bone is what calls to your attention.” One
participant noted that simplified signs in conjunction with a verbal
confirmation make the message clear: “I think that is enough
[information] because we already recognize the signs and the supervisor
tells us as well.” 

5b. Farmworkers’ Past Experience with Warning Signs 

Summary of Key Findings 

Workshop participants all had seen posted warning signs in their work
places, in Spanish only or in Spanish and English. 

Male workers recalled the information posted on the signs.

Detailed Findings

All of the workshop participants reported having seen posted signs
telling them not to enter a pesticide treated area. 

Language. The majority of participants agreed that they have seen
signage presented in both English and Spanish. Nursery workers indicated
that the signage was mostly in Spanish. Two of the male participants
stated that they have seen signs with warnings in English only.
Participants with limited reading skills said that they also depend on
the supervisor to inform them of any dangers.

Content. The male participants reported the types of information
presented on the signs as including the dates when the pesticide was
applied, when the chemical is no longer active, and when it is safe to
enter the area. 

Symbols. Both male and female fieldworkers agreed that the signs posted
have a skull and cross bones with “Danger” written below in both
Spanish and English. One of the male fieldworkers stated that
“everyone knows what the skull is,” meaning that there is danger.
The female nursery workers also stated that the warning signs have a
skull, the word “danger,” or stop and a circle with a slash red line
through it, all of which serve to warn them not to enter an area. 

5c. Following Instructions from Posted Warning Signs

Summary of Key Findings 

All of the participants stated that they follow the instructions on
posted signs, but also admitted that they have known coworkers who do
not. 

Reasons for not following directions on posted signs included lack of
comprehension and literacy, a desire to go the most direct route through
the field, and varying levels of pesticide training among workers.



Detailed Findings

All of the participants stated that they follow the instructions on
posted signs, but also admitted that they have known coworkers who do
not. Reasons stated for possibly not following directions on posted
signs include:

Lack of Comprehension and Literacy.  Some of the female fieldworkers
have worked with people that don’t understand what the signs say
because they don’t know how to read.  For those folks, the skull is
their clue not to enter. “Some don’t know how to read but when they
see the skeleton they know [not to enter].”  Although one male
fieldworker said that the majority of his co-workers understand and
follow the signs posted, but there are some that do not.  He said,
“There are some [workers] that just don’t understand. Even though it
is explained to them.”

Taking the Shortcut.  One of the male fieldworkers stated that there are
some that know the dangers but choose to cut through treated fields
“to avoid walking all the way around a block of field” to get to the
other side. 

6. Increased Pesticide Awareness

At this point in the workshop, participants were given a short,
20-minute presentation on pesticide safety from an EPA staff member. 

Research Question #6: How do fieldworker-training experiences differ
from that of the training provided during this workshop?

6a. Similar Training Received 

Summary of Key Findings 

Twelve of the 29 participants reported receiving similar trainings to
the one they received at the workshop.  

The other participants reported differences in the amount of training
received and in the depth of the content provided.

Detailed Findings 

Less than half (12 or 41%) of the participants in our workshops had
received similar pesticide training in the past. One of the women
employed in fieldwork recognized the training book used during the
workshop presentation from a previous training she had attended.  There
were complaints from some that previous trainings they had received were
shorter in length and did not go into as much detail. The nursery worker
women in particular thought that the “chats” that they had received
were both shorter and less detailed, with one of them stating, “It is
not like how [this presenter] explained things. [Our trainings were]
very brief. They tell us that we have to wash our hands before using the
bathroom and before eating.” 

6b. New Pesticide Information Farmworkers Learned after Receiving the
Workshop

Summary of Key Findings

Workshop participants said they learned many new things about working
safely around pesticides from the workshop.  

Detailed Findings 

Many of the ideas the participants reported learning through the
workshop are fundamental pesticide safety concepts that are covered in
the pesticide safety training that fieldworkers are required to receive
only every five years. The participants reported at least one or more of
the following as new information: 

Employers’ Responsibilities. Employers must post important information
about the pesticides used, how harmful they are, and the name and
address of the closest medical clinic.  

Precautions When Working Around Pesticides. Workers who may be exposed
to pesticides must understand that the skin is the largest organ of the
body capable of absorbing poisons. They should always be careful around
sprayed chemicals and realize that a supervisor cannot force anyone to
work in a field that has been sprayed.  One participant appreciated the
importance of knowing “What they [employers] used the last 30 days . .
. what they sprayed.” Employees also need to provide employers with
emergency contacts and their doctors’ contact information.

The Importance of Cleanliness and Hygiene. One women lamented, “What
we always do first right after work is to go for our children, pick them
up and give them a hug and a kiss,” realizing that by doing this
without cleaning up first “we expose them to whatever we have from
work.” 

Specific Things to Do in Case of Exposure.  Workers must make their own
health their first priority and not wait for someone else to take
action.  On participant said he learned, “What to do in case we feel
bad,” specifically, “that we should tell the supervisor as soon as
possible and not wait for them to take us to the doctor.” Also
important, as one participant realized is taking a pesticide tag [label]
along to the clinic “so that they will know what chemical was used, so
they know what to combat.”

6c. The Most Important Pesticide Safety Information Identified by
Farmworkers

Summary of Key Findings

Personal safety and the safety of others (including family, and
coworkers) were considered by workshop participants to be the most
important pieces of information they had learned. 

Detailed Findings 

Participants understood how important pesticide safety was for
themselves and for others. The participants realized it was important to
think about the health and safety of their families as well as
themselves. Some participants agreed that the pesticide trainings do
cover important information but reiterated that some workers do not take
the trainings seriously. Participants stated that in order to motivate
participants to attend trainings and take it seriously, employers should
make them mandatory and pay them for attendance, and stamp workers’
training Female participants in particular discussed at length the
real-world challenged of practicing good hygiene. The women conceded
that they knew a lot about the danger and the appropriate steps to take
to protect their families, but often times it is too difficult to follow
these recommendations. One big issue is the limited amount of time
available between getting off work and having to pick-up their children
from daycare. They do not have time to go home to bathe or change their
clothes. Some are charged extra by the day care centers if they are a
few minutes late. This creates a barrier between what they know they
should do to protect their children and what they are actually able to
do in practice. They also expressed a need to take into account cultural
norms when they pickup their children from daycare providers looking
like they had come straight from work rather than freshly bathed. One
woman said, “We can’t go bathe first because the other women will
say ‘look at her she went to get fixed-up first’ before coming for
her children.”

Discussion

Power dynamics and social norms

Demonstrated pesticide safety knowledge among workers does not
necessarily translate to healthy decision making around pesticide safety
practices.  Although many of our participants were aware of pesticide
safety measures, they may not practice it in the real world. Some of the
men noted that when they were younger they violated many safety
precautions (e.g., by eating fruit treated with pesticides, not wearing
protective material, not washing up).  We know that for many new and
young workers, the need to earn money motivates some of them to accept
or volunteer to do work such as spraying pesticides that they are not
properly trained to do. It is also important to note that crews do not
always have the same workers throughout the season.  New workers may
join a crew mid-season and work without benefit of pesticide-safety
training which is often only given at the beginning of the of season
(though, legally employers must verify that every worker has received
pesticide safety training before the first day of work in a treated
area).  These new workers are also vulnerable because they depend on
other crew members for information about pesticides. This underscores
the need to provide pesticide safety training to the newest and most
vulnerable farmworkers, who being the youngest often think they are
“invincible.” 

Power dynamics and social norms seem to affect whether farmworkers seek
additional information from coworkers or superiors or whether they adopt
positive preventive behaviors to prevent and/or limit pesticide
exposure. The fact that workers receive information about pesticides
through informal social mechanisms is important because the knowledge
and social norms of workers who have either been at the job site for
longer periods, or have a longer work history, help determine what newer
workers know about pesticides and how they behave to minimize their
exposure. 

There was an underlying current of dissatisfaction among the
participants with the level of information provided by superiors about
pesticides and some doubted the accuracy of that information. Yet
despite the fact that workers have the right to know this information,
they are not likely to proactively seek it out because of concerns that
inquiries might alienate them from their employers and limit future work
opportunities. Even when the employer or crew leader provides
pesticide-safety instructions, workers do not necessarily understand
everything and fail to ask for clarifications or additional information,
either because they are intimidated or fear of embarrassment (i.e.,
demonstrating "ignorance" in front of other workers). This is why
participants requested during the workshops that pesticide trainings be
conducted by neutral persons to whom they could relate with confianza
and ask questions without hesitation.

Perhaps the most important implication of how social norms impact
behavior was the example that one female participant brought up
regarding bathing after work. The women in the workshop were reminded
after the presentation about the importance of bathing before collecting
their children after work, yet as noted in our report above, there are
social and financial obstacles to doing it (such as being obliged to pay
extra fees for children picked up after a particular time) and these are
affecting decision making around pesticide safety practices. In
addition, we learned that women feel obliged to look like working
women—which they are—when collecting their children from daycare
providers (many unlicensed enterprises or just friends or family
members), whom they feared might resent them (or expect more
compensation) if they were mistakenly thought, based on superficial
appearances, that they were not. 

Hazard Communication

The issue of language, communication, neutrality, directness, and timing
came up with regard to training and ongoing communication regarding
pesticides. There is a dichotomy between how workers actually received
information about pesticides and how they preferred to receive this
information. As was noted by the male participants, they typically
received pesticide information from coworkers. We saw that language
plays a role in pesticide safety and that written instructions are not
enough because the reading skills of many workers are limited (due to
low educational levels in Spanish). Written materials, therefore, must
be accompanied by verbal instructions. In addition, not all members of
indigenous populations know enough Spanish to understand pesticide
instructions conveyed in that language. They obtain their information
from those indigenous members who have more knowledge of Spanish or have
more practical knowledge about pesticides by virtue of being more
seasonal in their farm working careers. It was clear that workers
overwhelmingly felt that they preferred personalized information and,
moreover, from a neutral (non-employer related) party for general
training events. Secondly, workers also felt, that in addition to
training provided by a neutral party, that supervisors should play a
more direct role in communicating about pesticide used.

Workers also valued and appreciated the importance of clearly marked and
properly located signage for keeping informed about pesticide dangers.
Workers understood the key messages in posted signs (symbols like the
skull and crossbones and words such as “danger”).  Farmworkers
declared that they were not always satisfied with the placement of these
signs, however, nor did they believe that the messages were sufficient
in terms the information supplied (e.g., dates when the pesticides were
applied). Given that we know from our research work that respondents
tend to provide answers that please the interviewer, it was interesting
that workshop participants often claimed to know people who did not
follow directions regarding posted hazard information even though they
asserted that they themselves were careful to do so.  This suggests the
possibility that they also disregarded warnings despite their reluctance
to acknowledge this explicitly. 

Although some of our participants reported receiving previous training
similar to that provided in our workshops, they also claimed to have
learned new things at our presentations. 

It is hard to know how to reconcile these reports. Previous trainings
may have been more cursory, or farmworker retention of what was
presented may have been low over time  (the last pesticide safety
training they had could legally have been five years ago). It is also
possible that the discussions around pesticide safety in our workshops
engaged workers and reinforced pesticide safety information they had
heard previously. The Farmworker Safety Initiative in San Luis Obispo
identified a similar issue. In their study, 80% of farmworkers surveyed
had received pesticide safety training, however the research also found
that completion of training requirements may not result in
farmworkers’ understanding of pesticide safety.

Rather worrisome and worth more exploration was the view expressed by
some workers that common pesticide exposure symptoms (like headaches,
rashes, and upset stomachs) are simply normal consequences of daily
farmwork and not serious symptoms that ought to be taken seriously. At
least one participant expressed the view that limited pesticide exposure
is probably acceptable up to a point, but that these exposures build up
(“What the harm is to us once we have worked a long time at this job
or how many years we can last [at this job] before it becomes harmful
further down the line”). As noted, another participant reported
stories that “there are workers that become sterile after 10 or 15
years or their children are born sick.” These reports suggest that
workers are not insensitive to the threat pesticide exposures pose to
their long-term health, but the focus on long-term outcomes to the
exclusion of short-term impacts is a cause for some concern.

Concluding Points

From our workshops with farmworkers, it would appear that many factors
influence positive protective behavior around pesticide prevention.
Primary factors influencing an individual’s ability to protect
themselves from pesticide exposure include:   

The amount and frequency of pesticide training;

Positive social norms around pesticide safety prevention; 

The length of time spent in farmwork; 

Social support for taking protective measures from coworkers, superiors,
family, and friends; 

Ability to understand spoken instructions as well as written materials
in Spanish; 

Knowing someone personally who has suffered from pesticide exposure.  

As the USEPA revises and updates the pesticide safety standards and
hazard communication regulations, these factors should be taken into
account to ensure that proposed program reflects the needs, desires and
realities of farmworkers. 

  This was asked as a screening question in a way that did not reveal
the topic of the focus group.

   Participants’ actual ages ranged between 20 and 40.

  After participants shared their definitions of pesticides, the
workshop moderator of each workshop provided this definition:
“Pesticides are deemed as any chemical used to kill unwanted weeds or
animals in a field, nursery or greenhouse.” (Los Pesticidas se definen
como cualquier químico usado para matar a malas hierbas o a animales
indeseados en el campo o un invernadero.)

 California state regulations require use of the field posting sign with
the skull and crossbones, not the Federal WPS field posting sign (with
the ‘stern-faced man).

 Table 30: What kind of information would you like to know about the
pesticides that may have been used in the field where you do farmwork?
(P. 26) Glasnapp et al. (2006) Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Symbols and Hazard Communications Materials: Final Report: Phases I and
II. 

 Table 31: How would you like that information to be transmitted to you?
(P. 26) Glasnapp et al. (2006) Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Symbols and Hazard Communications Materials: Final Report: Phases I and
II. 

 The California Farm Labor Force:  Overview of Trends from the National
Agricultural Workers Survey

 California state regulations require use of the field posting sign with
the skull and crossbones, not the Federal WPS field posting sign (with
the ‘stern-faced man).

  PAGE  1 

