POVERTY AND PESTICIDE USE IN VIETNAM THE CASE OF FARMERS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN THE MEKONG DELTA VIET

1
POVERTY AND PESTICIDE USE IN VIETNAMTHE CASE
OF FARMERS IN RICE PRODUCTION IN THE MEKONG
DELTA VIETNAM

• Khuc Xuyen
• The Centre of Occupational and Environmental
  Health, Vietnam Association of Occupational
  Health
• Nguyen Huu Dung
• Environment Economics Unit
• University of Economics-HCMC
• SUB-REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON POVERTY ENVIRONMENT
  NEXUS LAO PDR
• June 21-22, 2006

2
HYPOTHESES OF INTEREST

• Whether the use of hazardous pesticides is more
  prevalent among poor farmers than in the general
  farming population
• Whether overuse and misuse of pesticides is more
  prevalent among poor farmers than in the general
  farming population
• Whether poor farmers have less access to
  information on risk, training for safe handling
  of pesticides and protective measures than the
  general farming population
•  
• Whether health impairments, that may be
  attributed to pesticide use, are
  disproportionately higher for poor farmers.

3
METHODOLOGY

• Survey of Farmers (pesticide applicators)
• Clinical Exam
• Blood and Skin Test
• Sample selection criteria
• a. According to information from the poverty map
  of the World Bank,
• b. Province, district, and communes where rice
  production is dominant,
• c. A geographical distribution of the study sites
  (i.e. not very close together),
• d. Selected sites are not located inside a city
  or center of the district (since the poor may not
  be the farmers, e.g. jobless people in the city
  or town).

4
STUDY SITE
5
Survey findings
6
Spaying Pesticides of the Respondents ()
7
Pesticide Use Amount
Mean pesticide application, risk-weighted
amount and number of applications by
poor/non-poor (kg)
- Statistically significant at 1 level of
significance - Statistically significant at 5
level of significance
8
Pesticide Use Class
Mean application of WHO Ia b and common
pesticide classes by poor/non-poor (kg)
- Statistically significant at 1 level of
significance
9
Summary and Conclusions-I

• Although the poor are currently using smaller
  amounts of pesticides (as well as on a per
  hectare basis), they are using relatively more
  toxic pesticides.
• By weighting a pesticides active ingredient by
  its degree of lethality (or by the LD50 value)
  and categorizing this measure according to the
  WHO risk classification system, the poor are
  using a greater percentage of WHO Ia Ib
  pesticides.
• The non-poor are using a greater amount of
  carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids.

10
Overuse of pesticides

• Poor farmers have a significantly lower
  probability of overusing pesticides.

11
Misuse of pesticidesDo farmers use any
pesticides recommended for other crops, on rice?
Non-poor farmers tended to misuse more often
significant at the 5 level of significance.
12
Farmer Perception on the Risk of Exposure to
Pesticides
13
Use of protective clothing while using pesticides
()
Non-poor farmers use more protective measures and
this is statistically significant at the 10
level.
14
Prevalence of Environment-Friendly Pest Control
Measures by poor/non-poor
Non-poor farmers were more likely to adopt
alternative pest control methods significant at
the 1 level.
15
Summary and Conclusions-II

• Poor farmers have a significantly lower
  probability of overusing pesticides.
• Non-poor farmers are more likely to misuse.
• There is no difference in the level of training
  among the poor and non-poor.
• Non-poor farmers use more protective measures
  while handling pesticides.
• Non-poor adopted more env.-friendly pest control
  methods.

16
Health Effects
Chronic cardiopulmonary problems neurological
and hematological symptoms adverse dermal effects
Acute mild headaches flu-like symptoms skin
rashes blurred vision other neurological disorders
17
Overall Health Effects found in the Survey

• 98 of the farmers in the survey reported health
  problems such as irritation in their eyes,
  headaches, dizziness, vomiting, shortness of
  breath, skin effects, and even convulsions among
  others.
• Among those (respondents) who experienced
  ailments 82 were quite sure that their ailments
  were due to exposure to pesticides.
• The interviews further revealed that 88 of the
  respondents experienced multiple health effects,
  with the maximum number of ailments as nine.

18
Specific Health Effects found in the Survey
19
Blood (Cholinesterase Enzyme)Test Results
20
Medical blood tests for the detection of acute
and chronic pesticide poisoning, by poor/non-poor
()
21
Medical skin tests for the detection and
reactivity of commonly used pesticides, by
poor/non poor ()
22
Summary and Conclusions-III

• Health effects of organophosphates and
  carbamates is serious, in general.
• Although Blood tests for internal pesticide
  poisoning showed that the poor had a slightly
  higher prevalence rate than the non-poor, however
  this difference was not statistically
  significant.
• Suitable averting behavior should be advocated.
• Pesticide contamination may be pervasive in
  certain areas.
• Tests of pesticide residues in surface/ground
  water and soil is necessary.