Scientific report: "The awareness of people about the risks of plant protection drugs in vegetable production: case studies in Hanoi and Thai Binh" ppsx

With this regard, this paper aims at examining local people’s perception of pesticide risks and the current status of human and environmental risks caused by pesticides in the the select

Trang 1

People's perception of pesticide risks in vegetable

production :

a case studies in Hanoi city and Thai binh province

Nhận thức của người dân về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật trong sản xuất rau:

Trường hợp nghiên cứu tại Hà Nội và Thái Bình

Do Kim Chung 1 , Kim Thi Dung 2

1 Faculty of Economics and Rural Development 2

Faculty of Accounting and Business Management

TÓM TẮT

Để đáp ứng nhu cầu ngày càng tăng về rau an toàn, việc đánh giá sự hiểu biết và nhận thức của người sản xuất về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật ngày càng được quan tâm, để từ đó, có biện pháp phù hợp loại bỏ nguy cơ độc hại và giảm thiểu hàm lượng hoá chất trong sản phẩm Vì vậy, nghiên cứu này nhằm đánh giá nhận thức của người dân địa phương về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật và hiện trạng rủi ro về thuốc bảo vệ thực vật tới con người và môi trường ở các xã nghiên cứu điểm ở Hà Nội

và Thái Bình Kết quả nghiên cứu chỉ rõ rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật là phổ biến ở các điểm nghiên cứu Tất cả những người sử dụng thuốc và cán bộ địa phương và cả những người bán thuốc bảo vệ thực vật đều có nhận thức rõ ràng về rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật Thuốc bảo vệ thực vật gây ra rủi ro cho cả người và môi trường Trong số những nhóm người chịu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, người

sử dụng thuốc là trung tâm Lĩnh vực trọng yếu cần can thiệp để giảm thiểu rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật không chỉ nâng cao kiến thức và kỹ năng quản lý rủi ro thuốc bảo vệ thực vật của người sử dụng

mà còn xây dựng và thực hiện cộng đồng tham gia giảm thiểu rủi thuốc BVTV nâng cao kiến thức về thuốc BVTV và kỹ năng hướng dẫn người sử dụng

Từ khoá: Nhận thức , rủi ro thuốc thuốc bảo vệ thực vật, rủi ro cho người và môi trường.

SUMMARY

To meet the growing demand for safe vegetables, there is an increasing need to examine producers’ perception of pesticide risks so that suitable measures taken to eliminate use of hazardous and persistent agro-chemicals can be drawn With this regard, this paper aims at examining local people’s perception of pesticide risks and the current status of human and environmental risks caused by pesticides in the the selected distinct case studies of vegetable production in Hanoi city and Thai Binh province Findings indicate pesticide risks are prevailing through the studied communes All applicators, local staffs as well as pesticide sellers had clear perceptions of pesticide risks Pesticides caused risks to both human and environment Among pesticide risk groups, pesticide applicators were found as a focal point Key areas for pesticide risk reduction include not only improving applicators’ knowledge, skills in pesticide risk management, but also development and enforcement of community-based pesticide risk reduction campaign and improving pesticide sellers’ knowledge and skills in instructing applicators to use

Key words: Human and environmental risks, pesticide risks, perception

1 INTRODUCTION

Vietnam’s demands for safe vegetables are

growing due to 1) increasing size of population (85

millions of people); 2) high demands for vegetables

export and domestic market, 3) vegetables considered as high-income induced commodities, 4) the food safety is most concerned by the Vietnam’s society as the country grows, and 4)

Trang 2

safe food standards increased as the country

became a WTO member in early 2007

To meet the growing demands for safe

vegetables, there is an increasing need to examine

producers’ perception of pesticide risks so that

pesticide risk situations, their cause are identified

and suitable measures taken to eliminate use of

hazardous and persistent agro-chemicals can be

drawn Most research studies in Vietnam were

conducted by Matteson (2001), Chung and Dung

(1996), Vietnam IPM Program (2007, 2008),

Centre for Women and Family Studies (1997) and

Chung and Pincus (1997) focusing mainly on

overall impacts of IPM rather than focused on

identify pesticide risks in agricultural production

With this regard, this paper aims at examining

perception of pesticide risks and the current status

of human and environmental risks caused by

pesticides in the the selected distinct case studies of

vegetable production in Hanoi city and Thai Binh

province

The overall objective of this paper is to 1)

examine local people’s perception of level of

pesticide risks to human and environment, their

causes and risk group; and 2) draw

recommendations for reducing pesticide risk to

those risk groups

2 METHODS

This research was conducted in Dang Xa, Le

Chi communes in Hanoi city and Thai Giang and

Thuy Son in Thai Binh province Hanoi city is a

major vegetable-producing region, whereas, Thai

Binh province is representative for an extreme rural

area These locations are also representative for

areas with highly intensified farming where

pesticides risks to applicators are considerably

high Farmers in Dang Xa and Le Chi communes

are growing cabbages while those in Thai Giang

and Thuy Son communes are producing melon

(Cucumis melon L, subsp Melo var conomon (Thunb.) Makino) These vegetables are potential

for consumer risks (melon can be eaten in a fresh form) The research covers an in-depth survey of three samples including 96 community staffs, 251 pesticide applicators and 17 pesticide sellers (Table 1) These sampled respondents were asked to express their perception of pesticide human and environmental risk groups, status of human and environmental risks and reasons for pesticides causing these risks

These in-depth surveys were conducted from March to May 2008 incorporation with cause-effect analysis with local people Collected secondary and primary data were re-checked, cleaned, edited and analyzed Then, a database was developed using SPSS 15.0 for Windows An analysis was done through the help of the SPSS Software Version 14 Descriptive statistical methods such as means, standard deviation, frequencies and cross tab were employed to describe the current situation of people’s perception of risks

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 People’s perception of pesticide risks to human

3.1.1 Pesticide human risk groups

People’s perception of pesticide human risks differed by type of respondents depending upon their views on pesticide risks The number of respondents perceived that pesticides causes risks to applicators were highest (96 to 100%), followed by risks to people working nearby spraying sites (50 to 70%), then, risks to consumers (Table 2)

Table 1 Sample size by type of communes and type of respondents

Hanoi city Thai Binh province Type of Respondent All

Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All

Trang 3

Hanoi city Thai Binh province Type of Respondent All

Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son All

Table 2 Respondents’ perception of human risks caused by pesticides

Hanoi city Thai Binh province Criteria

All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son

1 Caused Risks to Applicators (%)

- Perceived by Community Staffs 100 100 100 100 100 100

- Perceived by Applicators 96.1 97.0 95.0 98.4 98.2 98.5

2 Caused Risks to People Working nearby (%)

- Perceived by Community Staffs 70.5 70.8 70.0 68.9 66.7 70.4

3 Caused Risks to spraying Assistants (%)

- Perceived by Applicators 0.8 1.5 0 17.9 17.9 17.9

4 Caused Risks to Family Members (%)

5 Caused Risks to Consumers (%)

6 Caused risks to sellers (as % of seller perceived) 100 100 100 100 100 100

7 Caused risks to harvesters (as % of

applicators perceived) 24.4 25.4 23.3 16.9 17.9 15.8

Note:Figures in Table are percentages of respondents who perceived a particular human risk in total respondents in the sub-sample

The numbers of people who perceived that

pesticide caused risks to other groups were less

than those perceived by the applicator group

Pesticide caused risks to people working nearby

and consumers much depend on behaviors of

applicators in using pesticides The largest number

of respondents in all three groups perceiving of applicator pesticide risks indicates that the target group for pesticide risk reduction in vegetable production is to focus on applicator group

3.1.2 Levels of human risks

Trang 4

The level of human risks was serious as

reported by 72% of local staffs and very serious

by 63% of applicators in both Hanoi city and Thai

Binh province (Table 3) Applicators were also

asked about whether they have felt uncomfortable

after spraying during the last cropping season

There were 46% of them in Hanoi city and 65% of

those in Thai Binh province reported directly

suffered from pesticide risks (Table 4)

The situation of the health risk in Thai Binh province appeared more serious than those in Hanoi city The most common symptoms of these risks were headache and dizzy, much sweat perspiration and heave up About 25% of them in Thai Binh province reported that they lost appetite when faced pesticide risks (Table 4)

Table 3 Number of respondents by groups and levels of human risks and location

Levels of human risks All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

1 Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) 100 100 100

2 Levels reported by Sellers (%)

3 Levels reported by Applicators (%)

Figures in Table are percentages of applicators reporting a particular level of human risks in total sampled respondents

Table 4 Applicators’ risk situation by location in 2008 cropping season

Hanoi city Thai Binh province Risk Indicator

1 Applicators felt uncomfortable after spraying (%) 45.7 44.8 46.7 64.5 65.7 63.2

2 Applicators by poisoning symptoms

Much sweat perspiration, heave up 13.8 16.7 10.7 15.0 15.9 13.9

Feeling weary in one’ legs and hand 1.7 3.3 0 0 0 0

3 Seriousness of health situation (%)

Table 5 Number of times that applicators had to stopping working due to pesticide risks

Criteria All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

1 Averaged number of times that applicators had to stop working (time) 2.8 3.0 2.8

2 Number of lost working days due to pesticide risks 4.29 3.0 4.3

Trang 5

There were 19 people or 7.5% of respondents

(18 in Thai Binh province) reported that they had to

stop their working at 2.8 times and lost about 4.3

working days (Table 5) There were 17 applicators

(6.8%) reported that their family members were

actually suffered from pesticide risks (15 in Thai

Binh province) during the last cropping season

Group of people suffered from pesticide risks are

supporter, children, aged people and farm workers

(who did weeding after spraying) Although the

proportion of applicators who actually reported

facing risks were less than 8%, the situation in Thai

Binh province seems more serious than those in

Hanoi City

3.1.3 Reasons for pesticides causing human risks

Main reasons causing pesticide risks to

applicators is due to the fact that applicators had

direct contacts with pesticides and had no or

insufficient protective equipment while using

pesticides (Table 6) People working nearby spraying

sites (weeding, harvesting, taking care domestic animals (cows, buffaloes, ducks)) and spraying assistants were suffered from pesticide risks due to the fact that they got a sniff of polluted air caused

by pesticides, use polluted water discharged from sprayed fields, working the newly sprayed fields (Table 7) Pesticide risks to family members were mainly explained by the fact that pesticides, their containers, sprayers and supportive equipments (protective equipments, baskets ect.) were closely kept at home or nearby living places (Table 8) Pesticides causing risks to harvesters and consumers were mainly attributed by a wrong application of pre-harvest interval (Table 9) Thus, measures taken to reduce pesticide risks to applicators, consumers, assistants, and people working nearby spraying sites should focus on improving applicators’ knowledge on pesticides, pesticide use techniques, and treatment techniques after spraying

Table 6 Number of respondents by respondent groups and reasons for

pesticides causing risks to applicators

Reasons for pesticides caused risks to applicators All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

1 Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) 96 45 51

- Direct contact with pesticides (spraying, crop care) (%) 72.9 77.8 68.6

- No or insufficient protective equipment (%) 27.1 22.2 31.4

2 Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) 17 10 7

3 Reasons perceived by applicators (person) 244 122 122

- Wrong spraying techniques (wrong pesticide, time) (%) 4.4 10.6 0

Note: %: percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to applicators in total respondents who reported human risk.

pesticides causing risks to people living and working nearby

1 Reasons perceived by community staffs (person) 66 31 35

Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 36.3 29.0 42.9

Used polluted water discharged from sprayed fields (%) 34.8 32.3 37.1

Working close with sprayed sites (%) 69.6 61.3 77.1

Working in the fields which is newly sprayed (%) 28.8 38.7 20.0

2 Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person) 9 5 4

Trang 6

Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 33.3 20.0 50.0

3 Reasons perceived by applicators (person) 148 76 72

Got a sniff of pesticide polluted air (%) 72.3 98.7 44.4

Note: % percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to people working nearby in total respondents who reported human risk

Note: Applicators reported multiple choices, other single choice only

pesticides causing risks to family members

1 Number of applicators perceived (person) 58 30 20

Close to pesticides kept at home (%) 51.2 52.6 50.0

Sprayers and containers kept close home (%) 81.0 76.3 90.0

2 Number of community staffs perceived (person) 15 8 7

Note: %: Percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to family members in total respondents who reported human risk

Table 9 Number of respondents by reasons for pesticides causing risks to harvesters and consumers

1 Wrong pre-harvest intervals, pesticide remains in vegetable leaves

surface causing risks to harvesters (%)

2 Wrong application of pre-harvest interval causing risk to consumers

Trang 7

Note:%: percentages of respondents who perceived a particular reasons for pesticide risks to harvesters or consumers in total respondents who perceived that particular risk

3.2 Perception of environmental risks

3.2.1 Environmental risk groups

As indicated in Table 10, main environmental

risk groups as perceived by three sampled groups

include water, aquatic plants and animals, natural

enemies, domestic animals, air and land

resources Pesticide caused risks to these

environmental elements differed among three sampled groups

However, water and aquatic resources were considered as key environmental risk groups as perceived by largest numbers of all three sampled groups (Table 10)

Table 10 Respondents’ perception of environmental risks caused by pesticides

1 Pesticide risk to water resources, aquatic animals,

plants (%)

Perceived by community Staffs 86.7 87.5 85.7 96.1 96.8 96.3

Perceived by applicators 81.9 79.1 85.0 94.0 93.1 94.0

2 Pesticide risks to natural enemies (%)

Perceived by community staffs 28.9 29.2 28.6 29.4 29.2 29.6

3 Pesticide risks to dom estic anim als (%)

4 Pesticide risks to air resources (%)

5 Pesticide risk to land resources (%)

Trang 8

All Dang Xa Le Chi All Thai Giang Thuy Son Perceived by community staffs 6.7 8.3 4.8 11.8 12.5 11.1

Note: Figures in Table are percentages of respondents who perceived a particular environmental risk in total sub-sampled respondents reporting environmental risk

3.2.2 Level of environmental risks

All respondents perceived that the level of

risks was serious Applicators saw the situation

more serious than the local staffs did (Table 11)

Applicators expressed their perception of

environmental risks related to natural enemies, aquatic

resources and domestic animals (Table 12) The risks

to these environmental resources were reported at

moderately serious or serious levels However, there

were only 7.2% or 18 applicators (7 in Hanoi city and

11 in Thai Binh province) reporting that in the 2008

crop season, their domestic animals were actually affected by pesticide risks Animal specifies affected were cats, cows, buffaloes, dogs, and fish and chicken In Le Chi commune, Hanoi city, several buffaloes were died due to eating pesticide poisoned grasses and drinking poisoned water from canals Some families of Le Chi commune also lost 400-500 kg of fish due to polluted water discharged from sprayed fields In Thai Giang and Thuy Son communes, Thai Binh province, many dogs, cats have died due to eating rat baits

Table 11 Number of respondents by groups and levels of environmental risks and location

Levels of Environmental Risks All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

1 Levels reported by Community Staffs (%) 100 100 100

2 Levels reported by Applicators (%)

Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular level of environmental risks in total respondents who reported environmental risks

Table 12 Number of applicators by groups, environmental risk levels and location

1 Risk levels of losing natural enemies

2 Levels of aquatic resources affected

Trang 9

3 Levels of domestic animals affected

Figures in Table are percentages of applicators reporting a particular level of environmental risks in total sampled applicators

3.2.3 Reasons for pesticides causing environmental

risks

Main reasons for pesticides causing risks to

aquatic resources as reported by majority of

respondents in three sampled groups are

applicators’ cleaning sprayers at ponds, and

canals, improper disposal of containers (Table 13)

The situations between Hanoi city and Thai Binh

province are identical

Pesticide risks to natural enemies were mainly attributed by direct effects from pesticide containers as indicated by the largest number of local staffs and applicators who have perceived of this risk There were only local staffs and applicators perceiving of reasons for pesticides causing risks to natural enemies (Table 14)

Table 13 Number of respondents by groups and reasons for pesticides causing risks to water resource, aquatic plants and animals

Reason All Hanoi city Thai Binh province

1 Reasons perceived by community staffs (%)

Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 2.3 0 4.1

2 Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (%)

3 Reasons perceived by applicators* (%)

Pesticide polluted water discharged from sprayed fields 8.9 6.7 11.0

Note:Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reasons causing risks to water resources, aquatic plant and animals in total respondents who reported aquatic resource risk

*: Applicators reported multiple choices, other groups reported single choice only

Trang 10

Table 14 Number of respondents by groups and reasons for

resticides causing risks to natural enemies

1 Reasons rerceived by community Staffs (%)

2 Reasons perceived by applicators (%)

Overuse of pesticides, high toxic pesticides 17.4 30.8 0

Figures in Table are percentages of respondents reporting a particular reason causing risks to natural enemies

in total respondents who perceived of natural enemy risks

Domestic animals such as cows, buffaloes,

pigs, dogs, cats, chickens, ducks and other

aquatic poultry were suffered from pesticide

risks by: 1) eating poisoned feeds, 2) drinking

poisoned water, 3) using baskets which were

used for making pesticide compounds for feeding

domestic animals as reported by most local staffs and pesticide applicators (Table 15) Main factors causing risks to air resource were air dispersion Those to land resource were pesticide diffusion, leaching and water discharged from the sprayed fields

Table 15 Number of respondents by groups and reasons for pesticides causing risks to domestic animals

1 Reasons perceived by community staffs (%)

- Eating poisoned grass, drinking polluted water 78.8 52.9 81.4

2 Reasons perceived by pesticide sellers (person-reports)

- Eating poisoned grass, drinking polluted water - - 16.7

Định dạng
Số trang	13
Dung lượng	180,17 KB