PESTICIDE WORKER SAFETY RE GULATORY DEVELOPMENT

Issue: EPA is considering changes to the agricultural worker protection regulation and to the pesticide applicator certification regulatio n. These regulations, for 11 and 32 years respectively, have been unchanged.

Background:

• The agricultural worker protection regulation is intended to safeguard workers in farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses that enter pesticide treated areas to perform crop-related tasks, such as harvesting or pruning, and for those who mix, load, or handle agricultural pesticides. The regulation has provisions for training, posting in treated areas, entry restrictions, and pe rsonal protective equipment.

• The certification of pesticide applicator s regulation requires that those who intend to apply restricted use pesticides demonstrate competency and become certified to use these pesticides. This requirement is designed to assure that certified applicators are adequately prepared to protect human health and the environment from misapplication and exposure to pesticides.

• The changes to the regulations being considered are based, in part, on the culmination of separate assessments of the certification of pesticide applicator and the agricultural worker protection programs. The process for, and the findings from, these assessments are summarized in the Report on the National Asse ssment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program. In both asse ssments, issues were identified that only can be addressed through regulation change.

• For more information about these proposed regulatory changes, please refer to the Report on the National

Assessment of EPA’s Pesticide Worker Safety Program at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workshops.htm

Status:

• Based on internal program review and stakeholder input from the assessments, EPA has developed issue papers which describe the concern, the background, and the proposed regulatory options for addressing the concern. These issue papers provide the beginning point for developing regulatory text, which in turn will be formed into a proposal for regulatory change.

• A workgroup of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) has been formed to provide a mechanism for stakeholder input on the regulation change process. The PPDC Worker Safety Regulation Change Workgroup met in February and in June 2006, and a process has been developed for their informed participation in the regulation change discussions.

• At the June 2006 PPDC meeting, OPP committed to sharing the preliminary draft issue papers with the PPDC workgroup, and to follow up with conference calls for discussion.

PPDC Workgroup Process:

• The issue papers, in draft, are sent to the workgroup for conference call discussion. Input from the PPDC workgroup and from other processes will be used to refine existing options and identify new ones. The process is expected to be iterative as stakeholders provide their input.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVA Hazard Communication 1 of 4 8/9/06 Title Protect the Health of Agricultural Workers by Providing Them Pesticide Specific Hazard Information

Issue Statement

• The current agricultural work er protection regulation ( 40 CFR 170) lacks provisions requiring employers to provide agricultura l workers with pesticide-specific hazard information for the pesticide hazards they are ex posed to in the workplace. This lack of knowledge inhibits their ability to protect themselves or respond appropriately in an emergency situation, placing these workers at significant risk of experiencing adverse effects from workplace exposures to pesticides.

Public Health / Risk Concern

• Agricultural pesticide worker s need appropriate informati on about the pesticide hazards they are exposed to on the job. It is wide ly recognized that pr oviding employees with appropriate information and tr aining about workplace hazards increases their ability to take measures to protect themselves and reduc es their risk for occupational injuries or illness. This premise is the basis for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA's) Hazard Communication Standa rd (HCS) regulation (29 CFR 1910.1200).

• In promulgating the HCS regulations, OSHA has established that employees have a "right-to-know" the hazards and identities of the chemicals they are exposed to in the workplace, as well as the measures they can take to protect themselves. Further, OSHA determined that employees also have a need to know about these hazards in order to better protect themselves and reduce their chance for illness/injury as they are at significant risk of experienci ng adverse health effects in the absence of such knowledge (48 FR 53280, 52 FR31852, 59 FR 6126).

• The revised HCS regulation of 1987 applies to the agricultural industr y, but in practice OSHA's HCS is only applicable to a limited number of agricultural establishments, and only to those hazardous chemicals that are not pesticides (59 FR 6126). OSHA is prohibited from enforcing the HCS on farms w ith 10 or fewer employees unless the farm has a temporary labor camp. Additiona lly, even on HCS cove red agricultural establishments OSHA generally does not enfo rce the HCS requirements with respect to pesticide hazards since these establishments are covered under EPA' s worker protection regulation. OSHA generally defers to EPA in this area since the worker protection regulation has requirements designed to protect agricultural pesticide workers exposed to pesticides and EPA is recognized as the Agency with the authority to regulate pesticides

under FIFRA.

• By lacking a pesticide-specific hazard co mmunication (hazcomm) provision similar to OSHA's HCS, the worker protection regula tion does not provide OSHA-equivalent protections to agricultural pesticide workers. Therefore, these employees do not receive HCS protections (or OSHA-e quivalent protections under EPA regulation) that are intended to be provided to employees in all industries. This regulatory gap putsPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVA Hazard Communication 2 of 4 8/9/06 agricultural pesticide workers at higher ri sk for occupational illnesses and injuries because they are being exposed to pestic ide hazards in the workplace they are not adequately informed about or trained on. Th is significantly inhibits their ability to protect themselves or respond appropriat ely in an emergency situation, creating unacceptable occupational risks for these workers.

Background

• The 1992 agricultural worker protection re gulation amendments added several hazcomm and right-to-know protections for agricultural pesticide workers including requirements for: providing general pesticide safety training; pr oviding notice of pestic ide applications and posting of warning signs at entry-restricted areas; posting of gene ral pesticide safety information; providing cert ain information ab out pesticide applications on the establishment; and provid ing pesticide labeling in formation to handlers.

• The regulation now provides occupational protecti ons for agricultural pesticide workers that are essentially equivalent to that required for workers in other in dustrial sectors under OSHA's HCS - with one major exception. OSHA's HCS require s that chemical-specific

hazard information be made available to worker s. The EPA regulation does not have such a provision.

• The Agency intended to add pesticide-speci fic hazcomm requiremen ts to the regulation

when it was revised in 1992. However, there were still several unresolved issues associated with adding these provisions that would have held up the 1992 issuance of the final regulation. The Agency deci ded to proceed without adding pesticide-specific hazcomm provisions, believing it was unreasonable to delay issuance of all the other protective

measures unrelated to the hazcomm requirements. The Agency believed agricultural pesticide workers would be better protected by receiving the bulk of the new protections as soon as possible.

• Instead, the Agency published a companion pr oposed hazcomm rule at the same time the final worker protection regulation was issued (57 FR 38167). The Agency proposed to amend the regulation to add pe sticide-specific hazcomm requirements. However, the 1992 proposal to add hazcomm requirements was never finalized.

• Internal and external program assessments since the time of the 1992 hazcomm proposal have resulted in recommendations to the Agen cy to add appropriate pesticide-specific hazcomm provisions. The Government Acc ountability Office and Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee i ssued reports that recommend adding pesticide-specific hazcomm requirements. During public meeti ngs held in the course of the National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program (National Assessment), health agencies, the medical community and those w ho often respond to re ports of pesticide illnesses among migrant workers (e.g., Migran t Clinicians Network, community health programs, advocacy groups, etc.) told the Agency that workers should have access to pesticide-specific hazard information for pesticides they may be exposed to in the workplace so they receive appropriate medical care in the event of a pesticide exposurePesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVA Hazard Communication 3 of 4 8/9/06 incident or illness. [Note: The full repo rt from the National Assessment can be found

online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/2 005/workersafety-assessrpt.pdf ]

• In the original 1992 hazcomm proposal, the Agency noted that it met with OSHA to resolve issues related pesticide hazcomm re quirements and EPA/OSHA jurisdiction. It was OSHA's position that once the proposed pesticide-specific hazcomm requirements were added to the EPA regulation and en forced, the regulations would provide protections effectively equiva lent to OSHA's HCS. In view of this similarity, OSHA agreed they would defer to EPA and not en force their HCS with regard to employees exposed to pesticides who are covered by the EPA regulation (57 FR 38167). By not adding the pesticide-specific hazcomm provisi ons the issue of OSHA deferral to EPA in this area has been left in doubt, resulting in agricultural employers being potentially subjected to compliance with two sets of similar, but still substantially different regulations.

Options Under Consideration

1. Protect the health of agricult ural workers by adding requi rements for pesticide-specific hazard communication to the agricul tural worker protection regulation.

The current requirements are inadequate and provide a lower standa rd of occupational protection for agricultural workers compared to workers in other industrial sectors. The Agency believes provisions should be added to the regulation to require employers to make certain pesticide-specific hazard inform ation available to agricultural pesticide workers for those pesticides which they are exposed to in the workplace. The Agency believes these changes are needed to assu re that agricultural pesticide workers:

o have access to adequate information about th e pesticide hazards they are exposed to in their workplace so they can take st eps to protect themselves and respond appropriately in an emergency situation;

o know what pesticides they are being exposed to so they receive appropriate medical care in the event of a pesticide e xposure incident or illness; and

o receive occupational protecti on under the EPA regulation that is equivalent and comparable to that which workers would be entitled to under OSHA's HCS when they are exposed to chemical hazards in the wo rkplace so that existing OSHA equivalency, jurisdiction, and preemption issues are resolved.

There are numerous options and approaches be ing considered regard ing how to implement pesticide-specific hazcomm re quirements. The Ag ency has undertaken several hazcomm pilot projects and studies, based on the sugg estions of the hazard communication pilot project workgroup formed as part of the Natio nal Assessment, to evaluate some of these options / approaches. The fina l results from these various efforts will provide the Agency with better information regarding the best options and approaches for communicating pesticide-specific hazards to ag ricultural pesticide workers.

Even with the information obtained from the hazcomm pilot work, the Agency is seeking input on the issues and options that must be considered a nd resolved before developingPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVA Hazard Communication 4 of 4 8/9/06 its final proposal for adding pesticide-speci fic hazcomm requirements to the agricultural worker protection regulation. Some of the i ssues the Agency must consider and resolve

include:

o how should the pesticide-specific hazard info rmation be made available and conveyed (posted or handed out; orally or written; if written - MSDSs, fact sheets, crop sheets, or label; text-based or text and pi ctograms; what language(s); etc.);

o what pesticide-specific hazard informa tion should be conveyed to workers and handlers (acute toxicity, chronic toxicit y, flammability, other chemical/physical hazards, etc.);

o who should have the responsibility for deve loping the required pesticide-specific hazard information materials (registrants, em ployers, EPA, states/tribes, etc.); and

o what other issues must be considered rega rding implementation of pesticide-specific hazcomm requirements.

The Agency is seeking input and comment on the full range of options/approaches that are associated with adding pesticide- specific hazcomm requirements to the EPA regulation. For additional information on th e full range of issues and options being considered regarding adding pest icide-specific hazcomm requirements, refer to the original 1992 hazcomm proposal (57 FR 38167) which is provided as an attachment.

2. Make no changes and do not amend the WPS to add pesticide-specific hazard communication requirements.

Not amending the EPA regulation to add h azard communication requirements will result in the inadequate protection of human health since agricultural pesticide workers will not have access to the information necessary to pr otect themselves or take appropriate action in the event of an emergenc y. It would also not addre ss the OSHA jurisdictional and preemption problems that currently exist.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVB Require Timely Training 1 of 3 8/9/2006 Title Improve Timing and Frequency of Sa fety Training to Help Agricultural

Workers Protect Themselves fr om Pesticide Exposure

Issue Statement

• Agricultural workers can be made ill from pesticide residues in treated fields. A key element in worker protection is the worker's ability to help in their own protection. Agricultural workers must receive pesticide sa fety training prior to entry into pesticidetreated fields.

Public Health / Risk Concerns

• Agricultural worker risk is managed through lim iting entry into treate d fields (Restricted Entry Intervals or REIs) and by pesticide safe ty training to inform workers of the risks and how they may protect themselves. When pesticide use benefits outweigh risks, the Agency allows shorter REIs to accommoda te crop production, increasing reliance on pesticide safety training as a protection for agricultural work ers. Without rigorous and frequent safety training, there is a serious gap in their protection.

• The current regulation requires that workers be trained once every five years. Employers may delay full training until the 6 th day that a worker enters an area in which a pesticide has been applied or an REI has been in eff ect within the last 30 days. This weakness in protection does not adequately manage risk s to agricultural field workers and their

families.

• The pesticide safety retraining interval of five years is cl early inadequate. A study with second-year medical students which provided a focused trai ning intervention related to infection control demonstrated that although immediate post-test gains were made, the long-term (two year) retention of this information was negligible. 1 Obviously, this raises concerns for the five-year interval for field worker training, particularly when combined

with the transitional nature and low-literacy characterist ics of the population and the abstract concepts of pesticide risk.

• Between 1998 and 1999, 313 farmworkers in Calif ornia doing routine field work were made ill from pesticides 2 . Agricultural farm workers are extremely vulnerable to exposures to pesticides as they enter trea ted fields because they do not recognize the potential for harm, and theref ore do not protect themselves.

• Allowing farmworkers to enter treated areas before they receive full safety training weakens their ability to protect themselves. The reduced information provided prior to

1 Calabro K, Bright K, Kouzekanani K. Long-Term Effectiveness of Infection Control Training among Fourth Year Medical Students. Med Educ Online. 2000. URL: http://www.med-ed-online.org

2 Das R, Steege A, Baron S, Beckman J, Harrison R. Pesticide-related Illness among Migrant Farm Workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health Vol 7/No 4,Oct/Dec 2001.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVB Require Timely Training 2 of 3 8/9/2006 field entry fails to describe hazards associ ated with pesticides, provide information on how to recognize poisoning symptoms, or how to access emergency medical care if made ill. Workers entering fields with this limited information are vulnerable to exposures without recognizing their poten tial impacts and how to fu lly protect themselves. Additionally, it is possible for a worker to miss full training by moving from employer to employer, as is not uncommon during some harvesting periods.

Options Under Consideration

1. Eliminate the grace period and the opti on for the brief training; require annual retraining to ensure that workers have an adequate understanding of risks and protective measures.

The current training grace period allows field workers to enter treated fields for five days prior to receiving comprehensive safety trai ning. Without complete training, workers are at a higher risk of exposure because they do not have the tools or knowledge available to protect themselves and their families. Field workers must have the full array of safety information on how to protect themselves, and they must know how to react if they are over-exposed. To ensure these protections ar e made available, the grace period for full training must be abolished, so that field worker s would be trained in the full set of safety information prior to entering pesticide-treat ed fields. If the training grace period is eliminated, there would be no need for a br ief training requirement, as all agricultural

field workers would receive full tr aining before their work begins.

The regulations permit a retraining interval of up to five years. A shorter training interval

would reinforce the information and elevat e its importance. Many employers already conduct annual training on pesticid e safety and other topics. Studies have shown that the retention of even highly releva nt information to a well-edu cated audience deteriorates rapidly. Based on this, it is reasonable to require annual training for agricultural field

workers.

These changes to the regulations would signifi cantly enhance protecti ons to agricultural field workers by providing them with high quality, timely, and meaningful pesticide safety training.

2. Eliminate the grace period and the opti on for the brief training; require bi-annual retraining to ensure that workers have an adequate understanding of risks and protective measures.

The current training grace period allows field workers to enter treated fields for five days prior to receiving comprehensive safety trai ning. Without complete training, workers are at a higher risk of exposure because they do not have the tools or knowledge available to protect themselves and their families. Field workers must have the full array of safety information on how to protect themselves, and they must know how to react if they are over-exposed. To ensure these protections ar e made available, the grace period for full training would have to be abol ished, so that field workers w ould be trained in the full setPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVB Require Timely Training 3 of 3 8/9/2006 of safety information prior to entering pestic ide-treated fields. If the training grace period is eliminated, there would be no need for a br ief training requirement, as all agricultural

field workers would receive full tr aining before their work begins.

The regulations currently permit a retraining in terval of up to five years. A shorter training interval would reinforce the info rmation and elevate its importance. Many employers already conduct annual training on pe sticide safety and other topics. Studies have shown that the retention of even highl y relevant information to a well-educated audience deteriorates rapidly. Based on this, it is reasonable to re quire more frequent training for agricultural field workers.

These changes to the regulations would signifi cantly enhance protecti ons to agricultural field workers by providing them with high quality, timely, and meaningful pesticide safety training.

3. Eliminate the grace period and the option fo r the brief training to ensure that workers

do not enter the field without fu ll safety training. No change to the five year re-training

interval.

The current training grace period allows field workers to enter treated fields for five days prior to comprehensive safety training. Without complete training, workers are at a higher risk of exposure and do not have the tool s available to protect themselves and their families. Field workers must have the full array of safety information available to protect themselves, and they must know how to react if they are affected by exposure. To ensure these protections are made available, the gr ace period for full training would have to be reduced or abolished, and field workers trained in the full set of safety information prior to entering pesticide-treated fields.

4. No change

No change to the training interval or gr ace period would impose no additional burden on states. Agricultural field workers would cont inue to receive training after grace periods have expired and or at lengthy intervals.

Stakeholders have held that quality training is necessary for agricultural farmworkers to appreciate the risks they face and learn tools to protect themselves. Without this critical safety information, they may continue to f ace pesticide risks without options to protect

themselves.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVC Trainer Competency 1 of 3 8/9/2006 Title Ensure that Safety Trainers are Competent to Provide Needed Safety

Information to Workers

Issue Statement

• Agricultural workers are exposed to potential health risks from pe sticide residues when entering treated fields. Because residues can be difficult to identify on plant surfaces, workers may not realize they are contacting potential toxins while performing their work. A key element in worker protection is the work er's ability to help in their own protection. Agricultural workers must receive high quality training from competent trainers in order to adopt protective behaviors.

Public Health / Risk Concerns

• Trainers influence behavior and are a primar y source of information for agricultural field workers, but are not currently re quired to demonstrate competency as trainers. This lack of training skills increases risks to workers and others.

• The current requirement for training may be satisfied by using an approved video. Concerns have been raised about the passive nature of this traini ng. Studies have shown that comprehension of pictorials for safety-r elated information is significantly enhanced when accompanied by even brief training 1 . If workers are not actively engaged during video training, they may miss critical pr otective information. A skilled, competent

trainer ensures that workers are attent ive and better understand the information.

• Because field workers are less likely than pes ticide handlers or applicators to recognize risks from pesticides, pesticide safety inform ation must be presented by trainers who are knowledgeable and competent in educating th is difficult to reach population. A recent pilot study using train-the-traine r materials shows that partic ipants who learned training techniques applicable to this population were more successful in e ducating their target audience. Data from the farm worker training program implemented by the American Farmworker Opportunities Program, which pr ovides significant tr aining skills to its trainers, reinforces these findings.

• Between 1998 and 1999, 313 farm workers in Calif ornia doing routine field work were made ill from pesticides 2 . Agricultural farm workers are extremely vulnerable to exposures to pesticides as they enter trea ted fields because they may not recognize the potential for harm.

• Worker education goals must focus on releva nt information, the development of problemsolving skills, and the confidence needed to use these tools. Training programs should help assure that workers become, and remain, active participants in protecting their health

1 Brelsford J, Sojourner J, Wolgalter S. Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials. Ergonomics Vol 40/No 5/May 1, 1997.

2 Das R, Steege A, Baron S, Beckman J, Harrison R. Pesticide-related Illness among Migrant Farm Workers in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health Vol 7/No 4,Oct/Dec 2001.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVC Trainer Competency 2 of 3 8/9/2006 from occupational risks. In a program for tr aining challenging populations such as these, issues such as literacy and the use of a ppropriate adult education techniques must be

addressed.

Background

• Part of the rationale for the trainer eligibil ity requirements in the agricultural worker protection regulation was to make adequate num bers of trainers available. Agricultural workers and handlers may be trained by a cer tified applicator, a tr ainer of certified pesticide applicators, one who has completed a pesticide safety trai n-the-trainer program recognized by the state agency, or one who has completed a pesticide safety training course. After training, handlers are eligible to train workers. While persons may have significant knowledge about pest icides and their application, their ability to impart key self-protective information in a competent manner is not currently verified.

Options Under Consideration

The Agency had considered requiring a dem onstration of competency for trainers of agricultural handlers. However, proposed amendments include requiring that handlers – as occupational users of pesticides – demonstrate a level of competency appropriate to their

level of use. Under the revi sed regulation at 40 CFR 171, agri cultural handlers would be required to demonstrate their competency, sim ilar to that currently required for applicators of restricted use products. Imposing this requ irement will reduce the need for competency gauges for agricultural handler trainers, because handler competency will be verified by a

competency gauge.

1. Establish verification of competency for trainers of field worker by requiring certification under the pesticid e applicator certification regulation at 40 CFR § 171.

Trainers influence behavior and are one of the primary sources of pesticide safety information for agricultural workers. To ensure this occupationally-exposed group is adequately protected, safety trainers must not only be knowledgeable about pesticides, they must also possess training competencies . Requiring trainers to demonstrate the appropriate knowledge and training skills woul d enhance the likelihood that agricultural workers receive and use information on how to protect themselves from potential

exposures.

Providing adequate training for field workers who work in areas that have been treated with pesticides is challenging – the pesticid e-exposed workers have low literacy, may not speak or read English, and are more concerned with satisfying their basic needs than with the abstract concepts of pesticide risks. For these reasons, it is important that their training be highly relevant, pr actical, and motivating. Requiri ng trainers to demonstrate competency is particularly important, because agricultural workers are not tested on their knowledge of pes ticide risks.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVC Trainer Competency 3 of 3 8/9/2006 This population’s safety from pesticide ri sks relies on adequate training, which is relevant, understandable, and useful to them . Requiring that traine rs possess appropriate competencies would encourage field workers to adopt practices to protect themselves from pesticide exposures, help them identify if exposures make them ill, and understand how to mitigate exposures. Requiring that a trainer accompany video training would help ensure that workers would be attentive, and would be more likely to absorb the information presented.

2. Require under 40 CFR 170, that trainers su ccessfully complete an approved train-thetrainer workshop to advance thei r skills in teaching to this difficult to reach population

Trainers influence behavior and are one of the primary sources of pesticide safety information for agricultural workers. To ensure this occupationally-exposed group is adequately protected, safety trainers must not only be knowledgeable about pesticides, they must also possess training competencies . Requiring trainers to demonstrate the appropriate knowledge and training skills woul d enhance the likelihood that agricultural workers receive and use information on how to protect themselves from potential

exposures.

Providing adequate training for field workers who work in areas that have been treated with pesticides is challenging – the pesticid e-exposed workers have low literacy, may not speak or read English, and are more concerned with satisfying their basic needs than with the abstract concepts of pesticide risks. For these reasons, it is important that their training be highly relevant, practical, and motivating. Re quiring trainers to attend relevant Train the Trainer workshops is importa nt in assuring their skills are adequate to provide quality training, because agricultural workers are not tested on their knowledge of pesticide risks.

A recent pilot study using train-the-trainer mate rials shows that participants who learned training techniques applicable to this populati on were more successful in educating their target audience. Data from the farm wo rker training program implemented by the American Farmworker Opportunities Program , which provides significant training skills to its trainers, reinforces these findings.

This population’s safety from pesticide ri sks relies on adequate training, which is relevant, understandable, and useful to them . Requiring that traine rs possess appropriate competencies would encourage field workers to adopt practices to protect themselves from pesticide exposures, help them identify if exposures make them ill, and understand how to mitigate exposures. Requiring that a trainer accompany video training would help ensure that workers would be attentive, and would be more likely to absorb the information presented.

3. No Change

Trainers would continue without additional verification of their adequacy, which puts agricultural workers at risk fo r their health and safety.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVD WPS Recordkeeping Page 1 of 2 8/9/2006 Title Protect Agricultural Workers’ Health by Ensuring Pesticide the Verification of Safety Training

Issue Statement

• Agricultural workers who have not received pest icide safety training are at increased risk for pesticide poisoning from entering treated fields. The lack of a required national standard to verify pesticide safety traini ng creates a burden for employers, workers, and regulators.

Public Health/ Risk Concerns

• Untrained agricultural workers are not equippe d with self-protective information when they enter a pesticide-treated area. A wo rker protection program that requires training records improves the ability of enforcement to verify that the required safety training has been provided.

• Agricultural worker risk is managed through lim iting entry into treate d fields (Restricted Entry Intervals or RE Is) and through providing required pesticide safety training to inform workers of the risks and how they ma y protect themselves. When pesticide use benefits outweigh risks, the Agency allows shorter REIs, increasing reliance on pesticide safety training. Without this safety training, there is a serious gap in their protection.

• In 2005, States reported 614 enforcement ac tions taken involving pesticide safety training 1 . Pesticide safety training violations we re the second most frequently reported

violation in 2005.

• Florida reported 106 of these pesticide safe ty training violations; the state regulatory agency identified these violations as untrain ed workers or the use of incorrect training materials. Florida expressed misgivings a bout the current voluntar y training verification card system and recommends recordkeeping.

• EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance reports similar concerns from state inspectors about the current voluntar y training verification card system. The majority of state inspectors prefer required recordkeeping.

• A recent study of farm worker parents in NC found that, based on interviews, up to 40% had not received pes ticide safety training. 2

Background

• In 1994, EPA implemented a voluntary program intended to alleviate employers' training burden by establishing a system of training verification cards indi cating that safety

1 WPS Inspection and Enforcem ent Accomplishment Report 2005

2 North Carolina Employment Security Commission interviews with farm workers, 2004Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVD WPS Recordkeeping Page 2 of 2 8/9/2006 training had been give to employees. The pr ogram requires that employers keep a roster of those trained. Many states use the program, but some states and growers chose not to adopt the program. There is an issue of inc onsistent state and nati onal recordkeeping. The establishment of a consistent employe r recordkeeping system could replace the voluntary program.

• Agricultural workers are currently required to receive pesticide safety training within 5 days of entering pes ticide-treated fields. This safety training provides agricultural workers with information on how they can best protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure. Employers must ensu re that their employees have been trained in the basic concepts of pesticide safety.

• Several states have incorpor ated recordkeeping of trained workers into state law. Consistent recordkeeping of workers who recei ve pesticide safety training would assist inspectors in determining if a training violation occurred.

Options Under Consideration

1. Require employers to keep records of workers who receive WPS training for at least
two years.

Recordkeeping of trained agricultural worker s will facilitate inspections and provide evidence of employer compliance. Currentl y, inspectors may not have access to such records, making it necessary to interview worker s. Agricultural work ers may misunderstand the question or not connect it to the training they had, and report they have not been trained, when in fact they were trained. Inspectors freq uently affirm that the lack of a recordkeeping provision prevents states from pursuing enfor cement action in cases where workers’ training is in question. Having a record of who was trai ned will provide evidence that the employer is in compliance and has acted to help protect his workers.

2. Require employers to keep and submit records to the state lead agency.

Recordkeeping by employers could provide reliab le numbers of workers trained each year. The state regulatory agency could use this in formation to help shape their programs and target outreach. Recordkeeping will facilitate inspections a nd provide evidence of employer compliance. Recordkeeping by the employer will enhance enforcement efforts and

demonstrate and effort to help protect workers.

3. No change

Agricultural workers will continue to be at risk if pesticide sa fety training is not delivered.

Enforcement of this as a violati on will continue to be difficult.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVE Children in Fields Page 1 of 4 8/9/2006 Title Protect Agricultural Workers’ Child ren Who Enter Pesticide-Treated Areas

Issue Statement

• Children are more susceptible to effects fr om pesticides than adults because their neurological, immunological, dige stive and other bodily system s are rapidly developing. The presence of children in the fields pres ents the potential for exposure. There is currently no requirement to keep children of agricultural work ers out of pesticide-treated

areas.

Public Health/ Risk Concerns

• Children eat, drink, and breathe more than ad ults in proportion to their body weight and can be proportionally exposed to more pesticide as a result. 1

• Pesticides can harm a child by blocking th e absorption of important food nutrients necessary for normal healthy growth. 2 Toddlers are at a critical growth period for absorption, detoxification, and organ development; these are particularly vulnerable to

environmental toxins. 3 When a child's excretory system is still developing, the body does not have the capacity to completely eliminate pesticides. 4 Teens in agricultural fields that are exposed to endocrine disrupters are more susceptible to damaging their reproductive systems during puberty. 5

• Exposure to a chemical may have no effect on an adult while having negative health consequences for a child at the same level of exposure. Therefore, “studies of adult pesticide exposure and associated adverse he alth effects cannot be extrapolated to

children.” 6

• In 1996 and 1997, the Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) reported that 7% of agricultural workers with ch ildren 5 or younger took their children with them, at least sometimes, to the fields.

• In 1989, The National Agricultural Worker s Survey estimated 587,000 children, age 21 or younger, of seasonal migrant wo rkers in the United States.

1 Pesticides and Food: Why Children may be Partic ularly Sensitive to Pesticides found online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/pest.htm

2 ibid

3 Pediatric Environmental Health, Agen cy for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Case Studies in Environmental Medicine, July 2002 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/pediatric/susceptible.html

4 ibid

5 Pediatric Environmental Health, ATSDR Case Studies in Environmental Medicine, July 2002 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/pediatric/susceptible.html

6 Cooper, et al, 2001 Ascertainment of Pesticide Exposures of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Children, Findings from Focus Groups . American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40:531-537.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVE Children in Fields Page 2 of 4 8/9/2006 • A Bureau of Labor Statistics summary of 1993-1998 NAWS data showed that

“ 7 percent of all farmworkers were between the ages of 14 to 17, equivalent to 126,000 children who did farm work in that period. ” 7

• A comparative study in Mexico observed two groups of children with similar characteristics, the one distinction being expos ure to pesticides. On e group lived in an agrarian environment with heavy pesticide us age; the other lived in ranch settings and avoided pesticide use. The study found that those children expos ed to pesticides demonstrated comparatively diminished motor skills and had reduced short-term memory skills, among other issues. 8

Background

• The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) as amended, sets standards for child labor in agriculture. These standards differ from those for non-farm jobs. The Department of Labor establishes the age standard for youths in agriculture. In general, youths 12 and older may work on farms. Youths of any age may work at any time in any job on a farm owned or operated by their parents.

• Children living in agricultural communities or whose family members work with or around pesticides may be at risk of being e xposed to pesticides. The concerns raised through the National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safe ty Program highlighted the fact that children of migran t workers who accompany parents to their workplace do so in order to generate additional income or due to lack of viable daycare options.

• The National Agricultural Worker’s Survey ( NAWS) data suggests that some children of migrant and seasonal agricultural laborers a ccompany their parents into pesticide-treated fields. Restricted Entry Intervals (REIs) ar e designed to protect adults and children at least 12 years old, but may not provide adequa te protection for children younger than 12. 9

• Children, especially very young children, ca nnot be expected to understand pesticide risks or how to avoid exposure. Children a ccompanying their parents to treated fields can contact pesticide-treated surfaces. Young ch ildren’s hand-to-mouth activity may increase their risk of oral exposur e to pesticide residues. 10 Children may also play in dirt containing pesticide residues, and cont aminate their clothing as well.

• EPA has taken steps to protect children’s he alth from environmental contaminants in homes, schools, and playgrounds. Additiona lly, EPA has developed outreach materials designed to protect children of farmworker s from parental take-home exposure.

7 Samardick et al. (2000). Youth employment in agriculture . In U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Report on the youth labor force: Revised (pp. 52-57). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

8 Guillette et al. (1998) An Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed to Pesticides

in Mexico

. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106, Number 6, June 1998

9 GAO (2000). Pesticides – Improvem ents Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and their Children.

10 Pesticides and Food: Why Children may be Partic ularly Sensitive to Pesticides found online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/pest.htmPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVE Children in Fields Page 3 of 4 8/9/2006 • The GAO 11 and EPA’s Office of Children’s He alth Protection Federal Advisory

Committee 12 highlighted pesticide risks to the chil dren of agricultural workers, and have advocated further protections fo r this vulnerable subpopulation.

Options under Consideration

1. Amend the regulations at 40 CFR 170 to re quire employers to res trict field access, prohibiting farmworker children und er age 12 from being in the field.

Employers would be responsible to ensure that persons in their fields were employed. It is likely that employers would pass the burde n of restricting farmworker children from

the fields to the fa rmworker parent.

This would restrict access to treated fields by farmworker children less than 12 years old. Although this places burden on both the farmer employer and the farmworker, it is the most enforceable option.

2. Enhance training requirements to include the effects of pestic ides on children and additional information protecting farm worker families.

The National Assessment General Traini ng Workgroup recommended bolstering the farmworker training with more information a bout the effects of pes ticides on children and ways to better protect children and families. Placing more emphasis on the dangers of pesticide exposure to children would increase awareness among workers.

3. No change

No change would allow children to conti nue accompanying their parents into areas covered by the WPS where the potential for exposure to pesticide residues exists.

11 GAO (2000). Pesticides – Improvem ents Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and their Children.

12 Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (11/15/2005). Recommendations Regarding Protecting Farmworker Children from Exposure to Pesticides. Letter to Stephen Johnson, Administrator, EPA.Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVE Children in Fields Page 4 of 4 8/9/2006 References

1. Lessons Learned for the Assessment of Childre n’s Pesticide Exposure: Critical Sampling and Analytical Issues for Future Studies, Envi ronmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 10,

October 2005

2. Agricultural Health Study

3. Pesticides and Food: Why Children may be Partic ularly Sensitive to Pesticides found online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/pest.htm

4. Pediatric Environmental Hea lth, ATSDR Case Studies in E nvironmental Medicine, July 2002

5. Children’s Environmental Health 2005 EPA Offi ce of Children’s Health Protection, October

2005

6. GAO Report on Pesticides Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of Farmworkers and Their Children, March 2000

7. National Commission on Migran t Education. Invisible childre n: a portrait of migrant education in the United States. A final report of the National Commissi on on Migrant Education. Washington (DC): US Govern ment Printing Office 1992.

8. Samardick et al. (2000). Youth employment in agriculture . In U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Report on the youth labor force: Revised (pp. 52-57). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Labor.

9. Guillette et al. An Anthropological Approach to the Eval uation of Preschool Children Exposed

to Pesticides in Mexico

. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 106, Number 6, June 1998Pesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVF Expand WPS Training 1 of 4 8/9/2006 Title Enhance Safety Training to Better Pr otect Agricultural Workers and Their

Families

Issue Statement

• Safety training and safety information help s farm workers and their families protect themselves from the adverse effects of pesticid es. Gaps in current sa fety training must be filled to address take home exposure, h azard communication, incident reporting, family protection, and workers’ rights.

Public Health / Risk Concern

• Agricultural workers are at a higher risk of exposure than the gene ral population due to their occupational exposure to pesticides. Fa rm workers need to understand the inherent risks associated with exposure and the potenti al to transfer residue s to their homes and families. For workers to be able to protect themselves and their families from risk of exposure, pesticide safety trai ning must address these issues.

• Children are more susceptible to the effects of pesticide exposure than adults, and agricultural workers should receive more in formation on preventing exposure to their families. Providing them with knowledge on how to protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure are needed training enhancements.

• Studies have shown that agri cultural workers’ housing ha s higher concentrations of pesticide residues in dust than others in the same community. 1 Other studies have demonstrated that children of agricultural wo rkers have higher levels of metabolites than other children in the same community, i ndicating exposure to organophosphates, the active ingredient in many commonly used insecticides. 2 These data demonstrate that take-home exposure is a key route by which agricultural worker families may be exposed to pesticides.

• Workers do not currently receive informati on on the hazards of working in pesticide treated areas comparable to the informa tion required by the Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA) for other occupa tions. Pilot studies have been conducted on how to provide such critical self-protectiv e information. The results presented to the Agency will offer suggestions on the best me thods to communicate risks to workers.

• A study of agricultural handlers and workers shows that, 79.4% of handlers wash their hands right after work compared to 48.8% of workers. Only 51.2% and 45.4% of handlers and workers respectively shower or bathe within 1 h our of returning home. The study shows that a common route of pesticid e exposure to farm worker children is through residues brought into the home on the clothing and skin of farm workers. This study shows that farm workers are not aw are about the dangers of carrying home

1 Simcox et al

2 Loewenherz et alPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVF Expand WPS Training 2 of 4 8/9/2006 pesticide residues from their work in the fi elds. The training currently required for handlers includes significantly more inform ation on the hazards of pesticides and preventing take-home exposure, which coul d account for the difference in hygienic practices. 3

• Although the content of the tr aining provides valuable info rmation to workers on the potential hazards of pesticides, program a ssessments and stakehol der recommendations have highlighted gaps in the current requi rements. The current training's 11 points present valuable information to workers, but in a very general fashion. Training content must be specific enough to ensure that work ers can be active partic ipants in their own protection.

• Underreporting of pesticide illnes ses is a major issue, especially for agricultural workers. Modifying the existing training requiremen ts to include information on preventing exposures and on what to do in the case of an exposure would provide agricultural

workers with tools that would enable them to participate in their own protection, without significantly increasing the burden on employers or state lead agencies. More wellinformed workers reporting suspected illnesse s would allow the Agency to better tailor the program to address specific defi ciencies in worker protection.

• Gaps and unclear requirements have been highlighted by both internal and external program reviews. The General Training I ssues Workgroup, formed as part of the

National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program, presented a series of recommendations related to pesticide safety training to the Agency in March 2003. The Government Accountability Office and Ch ildren’s Health Protection Advisory

Committee also have reco mmended bolstering the safe ty training content.

Background

• The Worker Protection Standard (WPS; 40 CFR 170) requires that an agricultural employer assure that a worker has been trained on a minimum of the 11 safety points

before the 6 th day that the worker enters a pesticide-treated field (i.e., a field in which a pesticide has been applied or a restricted entry interval has been in effect within the last 30 days). Before entering any treated fiel d, employers must ensure that workers have received the basic pesticide safety information.

• The 11 points currently required in WPS training for agricult ural workers are: 1) where and in what form pesticides may be encount ered during work activit ies, 2) hazards of pesticides resulting from toxicity and expos ure, including acute and chronic effects, delayed effects and sensitization, 3) routes through which pesticid es can enter the body, 4) signs and symptoms of pesticide pois oning, 5) emergency first aid for pesticide poisonings, 6) how to obtain emergency me dical care, 7) routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including emer gency eye flushing techniques, 8) hazards from chemigation and drift, 9) hazards from pesticide residues on clothing, 10) warnings

3 Thompson et alPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVF Expand WPS Training 3 of 4 8/9/2006 about taking pesticides or pesticide contai ners home, and 11) requirements of the WPS designed to reduce the risks of illness or in jury resulting from workers’ occupational exposure to pesticides.

• The National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program brought together a wide variety of program stakeholders who pa rticipated in assessment workshop meetings and workgroups. Members were recognized as national experts in th e area of pesticide safety education.

• The Assessment's General Training Issues Workgroup was comprised of a diverse, balanced group of stakeholders with experience related to pesticide safety education. The group was charged with reviewing the trai ning requirements in the WPS and existing EPA-approved training material s and providing recommendations for improvement. This workgroup reached consensus on a set of reco mmendations related to pesticide safety training content and delivery. The full re port is posted on the Agency website at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safe ty/newnote/wksp4-training.pdf

.

Options Under Consideration

1. Enhance the existing pesticide safety traini ng for agricultural workers by including all of the recommendations made by the assessment workgroup, focusing on areas such as:

General Training

• How to prevent pesticide exposure while working, including the following subpoints: 1) Following directions and/or signs about keeping out of treated or restricted

areas. 2) Washing before eating, drinking, using ch ewing gum or tobacco, or using the

toilet. 3) Wearing work clothing that protects the body from pesticide residues. (Add reference to appropriate wo rk clothing – wear clothe s that cover the skin.) 4) Washing/showering with soap and water, shampooing hair, and putting on

clean clothes after work. 5) Washing immediately in the nearest clean water if pesticides are spilled or sprayed on the body. As soon as possible, shower, shampoo and change into

clean clothes.

• Subdivide the 11 th point into the following requirements: 1) Entry restrictions (REI) and di fferent types of applications. 2) Posting of warning signs, oral warnings and the design of the warning sign. 3) The availability of specific informati on about applications and where it is located within the workplace. 4) Protection against retaliatory acts. 5) How to initiate a complaint.

• Prevention, recognition, and first aid treatm ent of heat-related illness, based on the content in the current training for agricultural handlersPesticide Worker Safety Program Enhancement Material for Pesticide Program Di alogue Committee Workgroup Discussion

IVF Expand WPS Training 4 of 4 8/9/2006 Protecting Families

• Populations who may be more sensitiv e to pesticide expos ure – children and

pregnant women

• Properly washing clothes that mi ght contain pesticide residues

• Preventing take-home exposure to pesticide residues

• Keeping children out of the field to work or play

Reporting Suspected Pesticide Illnesses

• Contact Information: 1) State-specific toll-free telephone number for tips, complaints and questions

about the WPS. 2) The National Poison Control number, to allow workers to access more

information related to the pesticide exposure, to repor t suspected i llnesses and to get information on treatment.

• Recognizing and seeking car e for pesticide poisoning

2. Enhance the existing pesticide safety trai ning for agricultural workers by including points on hazard communication and on protecting families.

At a minimum, points related to hazard comm unication and protecting families must be added to pesticide safety training. Improvement s to these two areas would have the most impact on the health and safety of agricultural workers and their families.

3. No change

The current pesticide worker safety traini ng is inadequate given the evolving knowledge of risks that agricultural workers face. No t amending the content of pesticide worker safety training would not provide workers with information necessary for their own protection.

Citations EPA 2006-2011 Strategic Plan: Charting Our Course (Draft Document for Public Comment). http://www.epa.gov/cfo/plan/06strat_plan.pdf Section 4, pp. 4-5. Accessed on 25 July 2006.

Loewenherz C, Fenske RA, Simcox NJ, Bellamy G, Kalman D. “Biological Monitoring of Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure Among Childre n of Agricultural Workers in Central Washington State.” Environmental Health Perspectives . 1997. 105:1344-53.

Simcox NJ, Fenske RA, Wolz SA, Lee IC, Kalman DA. “Pesticides in Household Dust and Soil: Exposure Pathways for Children of Agricultural Families.” Environmental Health Perspectives

. 1995. 103:1126-34.

Thompson, B., Coronado, G., Grossman, J., Puschel, K., Solomon, C. C., Islas, I., Curl, C. L., Shirai, J. H., Kissel, J. C., and Fenske, R. ( 2003). “Pesticides take-home pathway among children of agricultural workers: Study desig n, methods, and baseline findings.” Journal of Occupational

and Environmental Medicine. 45, 42-53.