Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books from the 

National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of

Medicine, and the National Research Council: 

• Download hundreds of free books in PDF 

• Read thousands of books online, free 

• Sign up to be notified when new books are published 

• Purchase printed books 

• Purchase PDFs 

• Explore with our innovative research tools 

Thank you for downloading this free PDF. If you have comments, questions or just want 

more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, you may 

contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or 

send an email to comments@nap.edu. 

This free book plus thousands more books are available at http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. Permission is granted for this material to be 

shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the 

reproduced materials, the Web address of the online, full authoritative version is retained, 

and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written 

permission from the National Academies Press. 

ISBN: 0-309-11580-9, 413 pages, 7 x 10, (2008)

This free PDF was downloaded from:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at 

NIOSH 

Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, 

and Fishing Research Program, National Research 

Council 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, 

Forestry, and Fishing Research Program

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH

Reviews of Research Programs of the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the 

National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy 

of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of 

the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard 

for appropriate balance.

This study was requested by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention and supported by Contracts 211-2006-19152 (Task Order 001) 

and 200-2005-10881 (Task Order 0004). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. The content of this publication 

does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, 

nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-11579-7

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-11579-5

Cover: Photo credits: winter wheat harvest near Crary, North Dakota by Erin Wood; logging by 

Professor Garland, Forest Engineer, Oregon State University; speedboat by Wojciech Kielpinski.

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, 

NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington 

metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2008. Agriculture, Forestry, 

and Fishing Research at NIOSH. Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Research Program. Rpt. No. 3, Reviews of Research Programs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished 

scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and 

technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it 

by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy 

of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National 

Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its 

administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences 

the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also 

sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, 

and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National 

Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure 

the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters 

pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National 

Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon 

its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg 

is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering 

knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies 

determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the 

National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the 

government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered 

jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. 

Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE NIOSH AGRICULTURE, 

FORESTRY, AND FISHING RESEARCH PROGRAM

PAUL D. GUNDERSON (Chair), National Farm Medicine Center (Emeritus), 

Marshfield, Wisconsin

MARIA T. CORREA, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

R. ALAN DAVIS, American Seafoods Company, Seattle, Washington

JAMES A. DOSMAN, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

WILLIAM A. GROVES, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

RONALD L. McALLISTER, CNH America LLC, New Holland, Pennsylvania

JAMES D. McGLOTHLIN, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

SUSAN H. POLLACK, University of Kentucky, Lexington

LORANN STALLONES, Colorado State University, Fort Collins

DON VILLAREJO, California Institute for Rural Studies (Emeritus), Davis

SUSANNA G. VON ESSEN, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha

JAMES J. ZUICHES, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

Project Staff

PEGGY TSAI, Study Director

ROBIN SCHOEN, Director, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

JANET MULLIGAN, Research Associate

KAREN L. IMHOF, Administrative Assistant

NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

vii

Preface

“Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They 

are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, 

and they are tied to their country, and wedded to its liberty and 

interests, by the most lasting bonds.”

—Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s perception has largely been replaced by other interpretations, but 

the perception remains unchanged that the agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AFF) 

workforce engages in noble activity that secures the nation’s present and future 

fate. These populations deserve to work in environments that contribute to the 

production of safe consumer products and that protect their health. The National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to be commended for its 

keen desire to respond to decades of evidence suggesting that the AFF workforce 

experiences some of the highest occupational disease and injury rates.

Congressional mandates regarding worker health and safety in agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing date back only 2 decades for agriculture and just over 3 decades for fishing. Yet, the interest of safety specialists, hygienists, engineers, public 

health professionals, clinicians, and policymakers dates back to the 1940s, when 

the war effort demanded an able, fit workforce to produce food and fiber for the 

allied armed forces. Drawing on that long tradition, NIOSH forged an agricultural occupational safety and health agenda in response to the 1990 congressional 

mandate. Using public health approaches, the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P r e f a c e viii

Fishing Research Program (AFF Program) attempted to respond to worksites risks 

and hazards numbering more than 3 million, a complex collage of child and adult 

worker exposures, technological change unseen before in the history of human 

labor in extractive industries, unprecedented public policy gyrations, and emerging genomic capability. En route, it conducted surveillance, deployed an innovative 

regionalized system for the conduct of useful research and outreach activity, nourished a generation of scientists and occupational health clinicians, and developed 

useful linkages with organizations and entities that share a workforce safety and 

health agenda. Now, under the guidance of the National Research Council and 

the Institute of Medicine, it is time to pause, assemble results, analyze program 

outcomes, and reflect for the future.

The committee’s composition was broad, reflecting both the diverse nature of 

the three industry sectors covered by the NIOSH AFF Program and the diversity of 

occupational exposures experienced by workers in the sectors (see Appendix D). Its 

professional skill set spanned from agricultural engineering to agricultural extension and education, from clinical medicine to epidemiology, from anthropology 

to physics, and from occupational hygiene to occupational safety. The committee 

is due a full measure of gratitude for its selfless pursuit of its charge and its review 

of published materials, other resources, and a large body of fugitive facts, publications, and other materials. It has been dogged in such activity, intent on securing 

that which would enable it to discharge its mandate. To each member: a generous 

measure of thanks is due for carrying this heavy load, all the while maintaining a 

helpful demeanor and a charitable sense of humor and continuing to discharge 

normal professional activity.

Not enough good can be said about staff assembled for this task by the Board 

on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Always attentive, yet working under intense time pressure, these professionals ably discharged both the exciting and the 

mundane, responded to the committee’s numerous entreaties, patiently recruited 

experts capable of assisting the committee, assembled background materials, and 

maintained liaison with a large number of agencies and organizations. The committee would have been useless without their assistance, and to them an enormous 

amount of gratitude is due.

This program evaluation has been difficult. The worksite complexity and 

demographic makeup of the at-risk workforce is unprecedented, in terms of both 

NIOSH program evaluation and worker health and safety programming across 

North America. That NIOSH or other affected organizations or entities were not 

always able to produce documentation is made all the more understandable once 

the breadth of these combined sectors is grasped. Nevertheless, the committee 

was not timid in formulating useful recommendations for program improvement 

across future timeframes, and it believes that its present assessment reflects the best 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P r e f a c e ix

evidence marshaled to date of AFF worker outcomes in response to an occupational 

safety and health program mandated by Congress.

The committee persevered in the belief that this nation’s AFF workforce deserves the best protection from risk that the nation can provide. Its work was 

launched in the belief that that workforce is vitally important for the nation’s future. 

To that workforce the committee dedicates its analyses reported herein.

Paul D. Gunderson

Committee Chair
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xi

Acknowledgments

This report is a product of the cooperation and contributions of many people. 

The committee would like to thank all the speakers who attended the first committee meeting on January 19, 2007, and the second committee meeting on March 28-

29, 2007, and others who provided information and input (see committee meeting 

agendas in Appendix B).

The report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse 

perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by 

the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this 

independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the 

institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that 

the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness 

to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following for 

their review of this report:

John C. Bailar III, University of Chicago (Emeritus)

Dorianne Beyer, LMC Labor & Monitoring Consultants

Susan E. Cozzens, Georgia Institute of Technology

Vincent F. Garry, University of Minnesota (Emeritus)

James C. Helmkamp, West Virginia University

Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.

James A. Merchant, University of Iowa
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xii A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s

Barbara Neis, Memorial University, Canada

Robert (Chip) Petrea, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Sam Steel, Pennsylvania State University

John R. Wheat, University of Alabama School of Medicine

Although the reviewers listed above have provided constructive comments 

and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of 

this report was overseen by Dr. Frederick A. Murphy, University of Texas Medical 

Branch at Galveston, and Dr. Harley W. Moon, Iowa State University (Emeritus). 

Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making 

certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully 

considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the 

author committee and the institution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xiii

Contents

SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 15

Study Charge and Evaluation Committee, 15

Evaluation Approach, 16

The U.S. Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Industries, 20

Legislative History and Historical Perspective, 25

Organization of the Report, 31

2 THE IDEAL AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING 

RESEARCH PROGRAM 32

Overarching Program Characteristics, 32

Specific Program Components, 34

3 OVERALL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT 46

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program Goals, 47

4 REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE RESEARCH 69

Strategic Goals and Objectives, 69

Logic Submodel, 70

Inputs, 70

Activities, 72
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

C o n t e n t s xiv

Outputs, 75

Intermediate Outcomes, 77

End Outcomes, 77

Other Outcomes, 78

5 REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON HIGH-PRIORITY POPULATIONS 

AT RISK 79

Strategic Goals and Objectives, 79

Logic Submodel, 81

Inputs, 81

Activities, 81

Outputs, 86

Intermediate Outcomes, 90

End Outcomes, 92

External Factors, 93

6 REVIEW OF HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH 94

Strategic Goals and Objectives, 94

Logic Submodel, 95

Inputs, 95

Activities, 97

Outputs, 102

Intermediate Outcomes, 108

End Outcomes, 109

7 REVIEW OF INTERVENTION RESEARCH 111

Strategic Goals and Objectives, 111

Logic Submodel, 112

Inputs, 112

Activities, 112

Outputs, 118

Intermediate Outcomes, 121

End Outcomes, 122

External Factors, 123

8 REVIEW OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES: KNOWLEDGE 

DIFFUSION AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 124

Strategic Goals and Objectives, 124

Logic Submodel, 124

Inputs, 125
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

C o n t e n t s xv

Activities, 128

Outputs, 128

Intermediate Outcomes, 129

End Outcomes, 131

Review of the NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury

 Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers), 132

Evaluation, 139

9 OTHER PROGRAMMATIC ELEMENTS IDENTIFIED BY 

THE COMMITTEE 140

Stakeholders, 140

Health Services Research and Training, 147

Public Policy and Regulatory Advice, 153

Program Evaluation Initiatives, 155

10 PROGRAM SCORING AND RATIONALE 158

Assessment of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program

 Relevance and Impact, 159

Discussion of Ratings for Relevance and Impact, 160

Additional Comments about Relevance, 167

Additional Comments about Impact, 169

Key Program Limitations, 171

Conclusion, 174

11 NEW AND EMERGING RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURAL, 

FORESTRY, AND FISHING SAFETY AND HEALTH 175

Identification of New and Emerging Research by the National

 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 175

New Research Identified by the Committee, 178

Emerging Research and Issues Identified by the Committee, 183

Conclusion, 194

12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT 195

Recommendations, 196

Summary, 210

GLOSSARY 211

REFERENCES 214
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

C o n t e n t s xvi

APPENDIXES

A Framework for the Review of Research Programs of the National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 231

B Committee Methods for Gathering Information 275

C Information Provided by the NIOSH AFF Program 288

D Biographic Sketches of Committee Members 294

E Methods for Identifying the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Workforce Population 301

F Policies and Regulations Affecting the Agriculture, Forestry, and 

Fishing Workforce 317

G Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources 326
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xvii

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

TABLES

1-1 Size of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Workforce Populations, 22

3-1 Conferences, Symposia, and Working Meetings to Engage Stakeholders, 58

4-1 NIOSH Programs with Surveillance Activities, 73

6-1 Research Emphases of Some NIOSH Ag Centers, 101

7-1 Programs with Intervention Research Activities, 114

7-2 Federal Agencies Partnering with the NIOSH AFF Program on 

High-Priority Populations at Risk, 117

E-1 Directly Hired Farm Workers and Agricultural Service Workers in the 

United States, 2006, 305

E-2 Classes of Workers: Civilian Population 16 Years Old and Older Employed 

in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting (AFFH), 307

E-3 Census Special Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulations, 

United States, 1990 and 2000, 308
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xviii T a b l e s , F i g u r e s , a n d B o x e s

E-4 Hired Farmworker Employment, 1998-2006, Annual Average Economic 

Research Service (ERS) Analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) (at 

least 15 years old) versus Farm Labor Survey (all ages), 310

E-5 Hired Farmworker Employment, Farm Labor Contractors, California, 

2000: Comparison of Farm Labor Survey, Agricultural Bulletin Surveys, 

and ES202 Reports, 315

E-6 Paid Claims Under Workers’ Compensation Insurance, Hired Farm 

Workers, California, 1990-1999, Claim Frequency Report (Level 5), 316

FIGURES

1-1 The AFF Program logic model, 18

2-1 The intervention research framework and phases, 41

4-1 Surveillance logic submodel, 71

5-1 Priority populations at risk research logic submodel, 82

6-1 Health effects research logic submodel, 96

7-1 Intervention research logic submodel, 113

8-1 Knowledge diffusion and technology transfer logic submodel, 126

8-2 The PNASH Center partnership model, 127

BOXES

1-1 Statement of Task, 17

3-1 Major Goals of the AFF Program, 47

3-2 Logic Model Terms and Examples, 49

3-3 NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, 

and Prevention (Ag Centers), 55

3-4 External Factors That Affect the AFF Program (as identified by NIOSH), 67

8-1 Research to Practice (r2p), 130

10-1 Scale for Rating Program Relevance, 159

10-2 Scale for Rating Program Impact, 161
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T xix a b l e s , F i g u r e s , a n d B o x e s

10-3 An Exemplary AFF Program: Commercial Fishing Injuries and Fatalities, 

NIOSH Alaska Field Station, 162

B-1 Letter Inviting Comment on the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and 

Fishing Research Program, 277

B-2 Emerging Research Areas in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and 

Health Suggested by Stakeholders, 280
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xxi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACS American Community Survey

AFF agriculture, forestry, and fishing

AFS Alaska Field Station

AgDARE Agricultural Disability Awareness and Risk Education

AMSEA Alaska Marine Safety Education Association

AOISS Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System

APMP Agricultural Personnel Management Program

ARC agricultural research center

ASABE American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers

ASAE American Society of Agricultural Engineers

ASH-NET Agriculture Safety and Health Network

ASPH Association of Schools of Public Health

ATR Alaska Trauma Registry

ATV all-terrain vehicle

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CA EDD California Employment Development Department

CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation

CAIS Child Agricultural Injury Survey

CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration

CARE Children’s Act for Responsible Employment
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xxii A b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d A c r o n y m s

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

CES Cooperative Extension Service

CEW Census of Employment and Wages

CFIVSA Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act

ChE cholinesterase

CIRS California Institute for Rural Studies

CoA Census of Agriculture

CPS Current Population Survey

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

CROPS cost-effective rollover protective structure

CSF Certified Safe Farm

DART Division of Applied Research and Technology

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DOL Department of Labor

DRDS Division of Respiratory Disease Studies

DSHEFS Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies

DSR Division of Safety Research

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity

EID Education and Information Division

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERC Education and Research Center

ERS Economic Research Service

ESA Employment Standards Administration

FACE Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation

FFA Future Farmers of America

FFHHS Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance

FISH Fishing Industry Safety and Health

FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act

FOPS falling object protective structure

FTE full-time equivalent

FY fiscal year

GAO Government Accountability Office

GLCASH Great Lakes Center for Agricultural Safety and Health

GM genetically modified

GMO genetically modified organism
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A xxiii b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d A c r o n y m s

GPCAH Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health

HAVS hand-arm vibration syndrome

HELD Health Effects Laboratory Division

HHE Health Hazard Evaluation

HICAHS High Plains Intermountan Center for Agricultural Health and 

Safety

HO hazardous orders

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration

IFISH International Fishing Industry Safety and Health

IFQ individual fishing quotas

ILO International Labour Organization

IOM Institute of Medicine

IPM integrated pest management

IRCA Immigration Reform and Control Act

MAF Master Address File

MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

MSAWPA Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

MSD musculoskeletal disorder

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

NAGCAT North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NASC NIOSH Agricultural Steering Committee

NASD National Agriculture Safety Database

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWS National Agricultural Workers Survey

NCASH National Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Health

NCCRAHS National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and 

Safety

NCHS National Center for Health Statistics

NCI National Cancer Institute

NEC Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health

NEISS National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

NFMC National Farm Medicine Center

NGO non-governmental organization

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

xxiv A b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d A c r o n y m s

NIFS National Institute for Farm Safety

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NORA National Occupational Research Agenda

NPFVOA North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association

NPPTL National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory

NLRA National Labor Relations Act

NSC National Safety Council

NTOF National Traumatic Occupational Fatality

NYCAMH New York Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health

OEP Office of Extramural Programs

OHNAC Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PNASHC Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center

PRL Pittsburgh Research Laboratory

QALS Quarterly Agricultural Labor Survey

r2p research to practice

RAW replenishment agricultural worker

RFA request for application

RFP request for proposal

ROPS rollover protective structure

RR relative risk

SAW seasonal agricultural worker

SENSOR Sentinel Event Notification of Occupational Risk

SMV slow-moving vehicle

SOII Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

SRL Spokane Research Laboratory

SW Center Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and 

Education 

TRAC-Safe Tractor Risk Abatement and Control

UI unemployment insurance

USCG U.S. Coast Guard
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A xxv b b r e v i a t i o n s a n d A c r o n y m s

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

UTHCT University of Texas Health Center at Tyler

WCAHS Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety

WCIRB Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau

WHO World Health Organization

WoRLD Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html



Summary

ABSTRACT The agriculture, forestry, and fishing sectors are the cornerstone of industries that produce and market food, fiber, and fuel. Collectively, 

the three sectors make up a huge component of the U.S. economy and are 

a major employer in the United States. Annually, these industries generate 

more than $1 trillion and create exports exceeding $68 billion. The National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) estimates that more 

than 5.5 million workers are employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. 

These sectors also consistently rank in the top six most hazardous occupations; 

fishermen and loggers have the highest fatality rates. Collectively, the three 

sectors consistently have the highest injury and fatality rates of any U.S. industries, so the overall effect on the safety and health of exposed populations 

in agricultural, forestry, and fishing worksites is enormous.

In conjunction with planned reviews of up to 15 NIOSH research programs, the National Research Council convened a committee of experts to 

review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (AFF 

Program) to evaluate the relevance of its work to improvements in occupational safety and health and the impact of NIOSH research in reducing workplace illnesses and injuries. Relevance was evaluated in terms of the priority 

of work carried out and its connection to improvements in workplace protection. Impact was evaluated in terms of its contributions to worker safety and 

health. The committee was also asked to assess the program’s identification 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

and targeting of new research areas, to identify emerging research issues, and 

to provide advice on ways the program might be strengthened.

Although responsibility for controlling workplace exposure to agricultural, forestry, and fishing safety and health hazards lies with others, the AFF 

Program can be expected to contribute to efforts to reduce the effects of these 

workplace hazards through its research and information dissemination. Taking into account several important factors beyond the program’s control, the 

committee found that from 1990-2006 (the period covered by this review), 

the AFF Program has made meaningful contributions to improving worker 

safety and health in agriculture, forestry, and fishing.

Using a five-point scoring scale (where 5 is highest), the committee converted its assessment of the relevance of AFF Program research into a score of 

4 because research has been in high-priority and priority research areas, and 

research has resulted in some successful transfer activities. The committee arrived at this score after considerable deliberation: research carried out in some 

subprograms was more relevant than in others, and the program has been 

somewhat engaged in transfer activities, but not always the most appropriate. Had the committee been given the option of providing non-integer scores, 

the score for program relevance most likely would have been between 3 and 

4. In addition, there was little evidence that the research activities, outputs, 

and intermediate outcomes contributed to the stated end outcomes of reducing workplace injury and illness. For this reason, the committee assigned the 

research program a score of 3 for impact, indicating that research program 

activities are ongoing and outputs are produced, which are likely to produce 

improvements in worker safety and health.

To enhance the relevance and impact of its work and fulfill its stated mission of providing national and world leadership to reduce workplace hazards 

through a focused program of research and prevention, the AFF Program 

should foster effective leadership to create a cohesive program, establish strategic goals, implement a comprehensive surveillance system that identifies and 

tracks worker populations at risk, engage stakeholders for input on research 

priorities, develop new approaches for technology and information dissemination, and incorporate current national developments in its targeting of new 

and emerging research areas.

STUDY PROCESS

The committee was charged with reviewing the AFF Program, evaluating the 

relevance of its work to improvements in occupational safety and health, and evaluating its impact on reducing workplace illnesses and injuries. As suggested in the 

statement of task, the committee’s review was guided by the Framework Document 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

S u m m a r y

(Appendix A) that was developed by the National Academies’ Committee for the 

Review of NIOSH Research Programs. The review of the AFF Program was based in 

large part on written materials provided by NIOSH (see Appendix C). Information 

gathering included presentations by NIOSH staff and other invited guests in open 

sessions of committee meetings in January and March (see Appendix B).

To evaluate the research program’s work in its entirety, the committee chose 

to evaluate it from its inception in 1990 to the most current timeframe in 2006. 

In 1990, Congress directed NIOSH to develop an extensive agricultural safety and 

health program in surveillance, research, and intervention to address the high 

risks of injuries and illnesses in agricultural workers and their families. The Congressional Agricultural Occupational Safety and Health Initiative applies directly 

to activities in agriculture, but timber harvesting and commercial fishing-related 

activities are implicitly included.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN IDEAL AFF RESEARCH PROGRAM

As its first step in evaluating the NIOSH AFF Program, the committee was directed by the Framework Document to independently identify the major program 

challenges for an occupational safety and health research program in agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing. When considering the ideal research program, the committee 

focused its efforts on identifying the following program components that would 

comprehensively and effectively address the safety and health issues that face workers in agriculture, forestry, and fishing:

• Identify and engage stakeholders,

• Identify populations at risk,

• Conduct surveillance,

• Conduct health effects research,

• Conduct intervention research,

• Conduct health services research and training,

• Conduct research on knowledge diffusion and technology transfer,

• Inform public policy and provide regulatory assistance,

• Conduct program evaluation initiatives.

The committee used the ideal program as a benchmark to measure the goals and 

activities of the existing NIOSH AFF Program.

AFF PROGRAM GOALS

The ideal NIOSH AFF Program would have adequate resources to set priorities 

among and accomplish the congressionally stated goals of surveillance, research, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

and intervention through (1) identification and characterization of injuries and illness and detailed characterization of populations at risk through surveillance; (2) 

identification and characterization of special populations and the unique health 

and safety risks they face; (3) identification and characterization of health effects

associated with chemical, physical, and biological agents encountered in agriculture, fishing, and forestry; (4) identification, development, evaluation, and implementation of control systems to reduce injury and illness; and (5) development 

of efficient and effective outreach mechanisms for dissemination and delivery of 

knowledge developed through research.

ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANCE AND IMPACT

On the basis of information provided by NIOSH and others and its own experience and expertise, the committee assessed the degree to which the AFF Program 

has led and carried out research most relevant to improvements in workplace protection in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The Framework Document provides a 

scale for rating program relevance and impact (Box S-1). The committee also considered external factors in scoring for program relevance and program impact.

Resources have been inadequate for the AFF Program to carry out its congressional mandate in the area of agriculture, let alone in the additional areas of 

forestry and fishing. In contrast with other NIOSH programs that focus research 

on narrow sectors and well-defined problems, the AFF Program has the task of 

addressing manifold issues that affect the occupational safety and health of nearly 

all natural resource workers on land and sea. NIOSH non-sector based programs 

address extremely narrow topics and can focus good science on well-defined problems, whereas the AFF Program is expected to spread its resources to address broad 

issues, so it is difficult to conduct research on all of them. In agriculture, the AFF 

Program responded in a reasonably effective manner to the extreme diversity that 

characterizes agricultural production in the United States. The extensive sectoral, 

technical, and geographic diversity of the agricultural industry left NIOSH with 

no alternative but to focus on key subjects.

Despite those enormous challenges, the AFF Program has proved that it is able 

to conduct sound research on focused areas when given the opportunity. That is the 

case with the Alaska commercial fishing program, which is an exemplary research 

program with concentrated research topics, clear goals, and adequate resources. 

Work on agricultural risks to respiratory health conducted by AFF Program staff 

in collaboration with other researchers has included cutting-edge research that has 

moved the field forward. Several factors contributed to these successes: research that 

was focused and targeted, use of clear and consistent surveillance methods, involvement of key stakeholders, and motivated core staff to ensure project continuity.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

S u m m a r y

BOX S-1

Scale for Rating Program Relevance and Impact

Rating of Relevance

5 = Research is in highest-priority subject areas and highly relevant to improvements in 

workplace protection; research results in, and NIOSH is engaged in, transfer activities 

at a significant level (highest rating).

4 = Research is in high-priority subject area and adequately connected to improvements in 

workplace protection; research results in, and NIOSH is engaged in, transfer activities.

3 = Research focuses on lesser priorities and is loosely or only indirectly connected to 

workplace protection; NIOSH is not significantly involved in transfer activities.

2 = Research program is not well integrated or well focused on priorities and is not clearly 

connected to workplace protection and inadequately connected to transfer activities.

1 = Research is an ad hoc collection of projects, is not integrated into a program, and is not 

likely to improve workplace safety or health.

Rating of Impact

5 = Research program has made a major contribution to worker health and safety on the 

basis of end outcomes or well-accepted intermediate outcomes.

4 = Research program has made a moderate contribution on the basis of end outcomes 

or well-accepted intermediate outcomes; research program generated important new 

knowledge and is engaged in transfer activities, but well-accepted intermediate outcomes or end outcomes have not been documented.

3 = Research program activities or outputs are going on and are likely to produce improvements in worker health and safety (with explanation of why not rated higher).

2 = Research program activities or outputs are going on and may result in new knowledge 

or technology, but only limited application is expected.

1 = Research activities and outputs are NOT likely to have any application.

NA = Impact cannot be assessed; program not mature enough.

The NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, 

and Prevention (Ag Centers) are an invaluable component of the AFF Program 

and have contributed to its successes. The Ag Centers serve as a national resource 

for addressing agricultural safety and health problems through research, education, 

prevention, and intervention. The regional nature of the centers allows research to 

be focused, targeted, and relevant to U.S. worker populations. The centers are based 

in university settings, enabling researchers to draw on university resources. Over-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

all, the Ag Centers have methodically carried out and encompassed the necessary 

components of an occupational safety and health research program: surveillance, 

research in various subject areas, partnerships and collaborations with state and 

local stakeholders, and information dissemination. Nearly one-third of the research 

conducted by the AFF Program was conducted through the Ag Centers, and the 

centers have strategically addressed issues that affect various populations.

Relevance

The committee assigned the AFF Program a score of 4 for relevance because 

it found that research has been in high-priority and priority subject areas, and 

research has resulted in some successful transfer activities.

The AFF Program has engaged in some high-priority research areas and has 

done an adequate job of addressing major problems. A number of relevant, effective, 

and important research and intervention pieces have resulted from the program. 

As previously mentioned, the work on Alaska commercial fishing has focused 

on highly important issues and has had an impact. The Childhood Agricultural 

Injury Prevention Initiative is extremely relevant, and some evaluations of the 

North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks have shown reduced 

injuries when the guidelines were applied. The National Agricultural Tractor Safety 

Initiative is another example of a focused research effort that has been extremely 

relevant. Research on musculoskeletal disorders that assessed simple and direct 

solutions for agricultural worker populations is an important issue that was addressed and that had a direct impact on workers. The research conducted on 

injuries and respiratory diseases is notable, even though efforts were somewhat 

disjointed at times. The AFF Program’s current collaboration with other federal 

agencies on the Agricultural Health Study is a crucial endeavor that addresses the 

effects of environmental, occupational, dietary, and genetic factors on the health 

of the agricultural population.

Although the AFF Program has been engaged in some high-priority research, it 

has not balanced its research efforts to reflect areas that merit the highest priority. 

Forestry work remains one of the deadliest occupations in the United States, but 

the AFF Program has yet to demonstrate substantial effort in this area outside of 

Alaska and the Southeastern United States. The committee is concerned that the 

AFF Program is not in tune with modern agricultural and forestry practices, lacks 

the ability to review efforts and know when to move on to other emerging issues, 

and consequently NIOSH does not have an accurate grasp of issues most pressing 

to agriculture and forestry workers. As seen in information provided to the committee, the AFF Program has struggled to conduct surveillance to identify subjects 

that warrant the highest priority for attention and has not been able to accurately 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

 S u m m a r y

define the populations that it serves. It has also struggled to effectively engage 

stakeholders to identify current issues and to disseminate its research findings to 

practice. Those are important matters that affect the kinds of research conducted; 

leaving them unaddressed will severely hinder the AFF Program’s ability to conduct 

research relevant to worker safety and health.

The AFF Program is engaged in transfer activities, but it has not been entirely 

successful in developing integrated approaches to disseminating research findings so 

as to yield additional reductions in injuries and illnesses in the AFF sectors. The AFF 

Program does not appear to be as heavily involved in translational research activities as it should be. Where it is involved, it does not always appear to know how and 

to take credit for that involvement. The outreach approaches that do exist tended 

to have been developed in other industrial settings and have not been appropriate 

or effective in reaching most target AFF populations; industrial settings differ dramatically from AFF worksites and workforce, and different approaches are needed 

to reach worker populations in the AFF sectors. Many examples of such models 

have been used by the Ag Centers and are described in Chapter 8. As previously 

mentioned, some projects have been successful in outreach because they first and 

foremost successfully engaged stakeholders and target populations and understood 

how to translate research results into workplace practices.

The AFF Program has been ill equipped, even among university-based and 

clinical researchers, to address cultural and language barriers. Bench scientists cannot be expected to become instant experts in unfamiliar cultures, foreign languages, 

and rural lifestyles or practices. Several first-rate scientists have courageously and 

frankly admitted their lack of expertise and experience in community outreach and 

have asked for assistance in public conferences that involved the AFF Program.

Impact

The committee concluded that AFF Program activities or outputs are going 

on and are likely to produce improvements in worker health and safety, and gave 

the AFF Program an impact score of 3. That score was merited by the fact that the 

program has made some contributions to worker safety and health, as seen in the 

success of projects that have affected children, commercial fishermen, and tractor 

operators. But the committee had a difficult time establishing a clear record of 

positive impacts because the AFF Program itself has not given much priority to 

documenting the impact of its efforts. In some instances, the committee was aware 

of impacts that could be attributed to the AFF Program for which the program 

itself did not take credit. In other cases, however, it is clear that the contributions 

of the program have not been accepted by stakeholders nor has the research program engaged sufficiently in transfer activities. The committee concluded that the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

impact of the AFF Program’s research has been hampered by a lack of leadership, 

stakeholder buy-in, and effective dissemination of knowledge and practices.

The committee finds that the NIOSH AFF Program has made important contributions that are likely to produce improvements in worker safety and health. The outputs 

of the AFF Program include a wealth of information that is still considered current 

and important by the scientific community. However, the information has not 

been organized in a manner that is understandable by or helpful to others and has 

not been accessible to its own researchers; the AFF Program holds great potential 

for impacting workers if it is able to organize information in an accessible, understandable, and helpful format. Research has informed public policy and regulatory 

initiatives at the federal level and in several states. It is vital that independent, 

scientifically based research continue to inform policy and regulatory discourse. 

Many in the AFF industries are well aware that safety and health are woven into 

the fabric of successful businesses. As illustrated by the tragic loss of life associated 

with the recent sinkings of fishing vessels off New Bedford, important gaps still 

allow extremely dangerous conditions to continue.

NIOSH has a unique role as the only federal agency capable of convening all 

players dedicated to preventing workplace injury and disease, and it has deployed 

itself credibly on this task and funded other partners to function in consensusbuilding roles. NIOSH-sponsored symposia and workshops have had a great 

impact on the work of many occupational safety and health professionals and probably on the lives of AFF workers, but it is difficult to measure the direct impact of 

these indispensable capacity-building activities on worker safety and health.

The AFF Program has made important contributions to occupational health 

services and training endeavors across the nation. The committee members themselves have benefited from NIOSH-sponsored meetings and symposia, which have 

sparked the interest of occupational safety and health practitioners and provided 

others with valuable avenues for professional growth that would otherwise not have 

been available. It remains vital that NIOSH continue such support because it has 

singular influence in convening clinicians, scientists, and training institutions; conducting clinical research that produces occupational training insight; prescribing 

appropriate content for occupational training; and providing scientific and clinical evidence that informs practice standards. But there is room for improvement. 

For example, there is a need for physicians to become more involved in preparing 

training materials and to enroll in training courses. In light of the growing numbers 

of schools of public health, there is a need to prepare appropriate education and 

training curriculum materials for health professionals.

The AFF Program evidence package and supplemental materials lacked substantial data demonstrating any substantial changes in the annual number of occupational 

fatalities or disabling injuries in hired farm workers and several other populations. 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

S u m m a r y

The lack of data may be attributed in part to the failure to conduct surveillance 

comprehensively and to poor data management and collection. There was also a 

lack of evidence of concerted efforts to address hazards, safety, and health in forestry workers and in fishermen outside of Alaska.

Worker populations have not been adequately defined or tracked; therefore 

injuries and illnesses and changes in these populations have not been documented. 

The AFF Program’s unfamiliarity with standard sources of data on hired farmworker employment, including the long-established USDA quarterly Farm Labor, 

is an indication of its inability to obtain accurate denominator data for its separate populations. The program has not used state-level data and data from other 

sources, such as workers’ compensation insurance coverage, that contain a rich 

body of information on hired farmworker morbidity and mortality that would 

be valuable in informing discussions of changes in rates of occupational injury 

or illness.

Key Program Limitations

Although on the whole the AFF Program demonstrated success in addressing 

some relevant issues and showed that it had impacted some populations, the committee identified limitations that affected the program’s progress and effectiveness. 

The committee observed several issues that affected both the AFF Program’s ability 

to conduct research on issues relevant to AFF workers and its ability to conduct 

research that would have an impact on worker safety and health.

Leadership and Strategic Planning

The overarching concern about the AFF Program is the lack of a single cohesive 

vision to drive the research agenda. The lack of consistent leadership, long-term 

strategic planning, and periodic review of that course has led to a piecemeal approach to the research program, and the program appears disjointed more often 

than not. However, the patchwork approach has produced some successful efforts 

because of the efforts of talented and dedicated researchers.

Surveillance

The AFF Program appears to have had considerable difficulty in applying 

the principles of and engaging in surveillance. Constraints to successfully implementing comprehensive surveillance may be due to external factors and funding. 

Basic demographic and health effects surveillance of each human population at 

risk of worksite exposure is essential because without it no effective targeting of 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

10 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

other programmatic elements can occur, nor can one know when an intervention 

has been effective and move on to address other priorities. Surveillance must be 

broad-based in its population targets inasmuch as the sector is diverse in settings 

and employment practices and places that put populations at risk, such as children, 

wives, and the elderly.

Stakeholders

On the basis of the information provided by the AFF Program, remarks provided by stakeholders, and comments submitted by the public, the committee understands that the AFF Program has not fully engaged its stakeholders. It has had 

some remarkable partnerships to reach stakeholders, such as those with the commercial fishing industry in Alaska, but it has struggled to engage other stakeholders. 

The program has met the most success when it has understood stakeholder needs 

by asking for direct feedback from farm workers, loggers, and fishermen. It has also 

garnered the most credibility when researchers have demonstrated that they are 

sensitive to stakeholder needs, which vary greatly among the three sectors.

Without a strong buy-in from its targeted populations, the program may appear to be out of touch with its stakeholders and unresponsive to the realities of 

the workplace environment, and its work may therefore not be credible among 

farm workers, loggers, and fishermen. Stakeholders have also at times confused 

NIOSH with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); most 

workers are more familiar with OSHA’s role in the workplace than with NIOSH’s 

research.

Populations at Risk

The AFF Program targeted specific populations that it deemed at higher risk 

than others but omitted certain other populations and fell short in defining the 

entire population of AFF workers at risk of injury and illness. There has yet to be a 

program-wide endeavor to characterize the numbers and types of workers involved 

in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Some populations, such as hired farm workers, 

have also been poorly defined or miscategorized, and others, such as ranchers, have 

been largely unaddressed.

IDENTIFYING EMERGING ISSUES AND RESEARCH AREAS

The committee was charged with assessing the program’s targeting of new 

research in occupational safety and health most relevant to future improvements 

in workplace protection. It was also asked to identify emerging issues important 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

11 S u m m a r y

for NIOSH and the program. In keeping with the guidance of the Framework 

Document, the committee provided suggestions on the basis of the expertise of 

individual members rather than as a product of a formal process to explore and 

synthesize recommendations that could be developed through a comprehensive 

review of the field.

AFF Program’s Identification of New Research Areas and Emerging Issues

The AFF worksite of tomorrow clearly will be different from the worksite of 

today, given trends in agriculture that will affect forestry and fishing. The changes, 

both predicted and unpredicted, will fuel the need for surveillance of such human 

factors as worksite organization and management, climate, technology, and policy 

change and of economics. On the basis of information provided by NIOSH, the 

committee concludes that the AFF Program has not developed a consistent process 

for identifying new research issues and developing a way to address emerging issues. 

The success of a public health research program is marked by its ability to recognize 

and address the needs of a targeted population. Because the AFF Program on the 

whole has struggled to conduct surveillance to understand the current needs of its 

worker populations, it is unable to forecast future needs.

In light of the fact that the program lacks an established procedure for assessing 

emerging issues in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, the committee furthermore 

concludes that the AFF Program has fallen behind in understanding current practices and how these practices can create new hazards for workers. The program has 

instead focused resources on issues that have already been resolved by changes in 

work practices and environments. Thus, the AFF Program has not kept up with 

emerging issues and has lost the capability to gain useful knowledge and to respond 

with appropriate new technologies.

A few projects, however, have more successfully identified emerging issues and 

conducted research to address them. The fishing projects in Alaska and the farmresident child-injury initiatives, for example, have consistently carried out sound 

research practices to affect fishermen and children, respectively, and have been able 

to identify new and emerging issues for these populations.

Emerging Research Needs Identified by Evaluation Committee

In evaluating the AFF Program’s research, the committee identified several 

kinds of research missing in health effects, health services, intervention, and regulatory policies (Chapter 11). Some research issues that have not been investigated 

are of great relevance to improvement of AFF worker safety and health and could 

substantially affect safety and health with help from NIOSH.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

12 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

The AFF Program is the sole federal research program dedicated to enhancing 

the safety and health of workers in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. As such, the 

AFF Program should be the definitive leader and source of expertise in occupational safety and health in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. From its evaluation of 

BOX S-2

Recommendations for Program Improvement

Establish Strategic Goals for Improvement in Administration and Evaluation

Recommendation 1: The AFF Program should establish strategic goals for the overall program and for 

separate subpopulations to provide a basis for improving program leadership, administrative oversight, 

and program evaluation.

1.a: The AFF Program lacks a concerted effort and should focus its administrative efforts on improving 

program leadership, administrative oversight, and program documentation.

1.b: The AFF Program should develop a comprehensive program evaluation mechanism to assess and set 

priorities among its research and transfer activities.

Develop a Cohesive Program

Recommendation 2: The AFF Program should provide national leadership and coordination of research 

and transfer activities in agricultural, forestry, and fishing safety and health.

Implement a Comprehensive Surveillance System

Recommendation 3: The AFF Program should implement a comprehensive surveillance system.

Identify and Track AFF Populations at Risk

Recommendation 4: The AFF Program should clearly identify and track its target populations.

4.a: A clear definition of worker populations “at risk” is needed.

4.b: The AFF Program should conduct comparative studies across agriculture, forestry, and fishing to 

better set priorities and to respond to dynamic workforce and workplace conditions.

Conduct Research on Knowledge Diffusion Processes

Recommendation 5: NIOSH should conduct research on the science of knowledge diffusion to identify 

effective methods for AFF research-to-practice programs.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

13 S u m m a r y

5.a: The AFF Program should incorporate broader social science expertise into the research diffusion 

process.

5.b: The AFF Program should explore communication tools capable of reaching the AFF workforce.

Improve Stakeholder Engagement and Partnerships

Recommendation 6: The AFF Program should establish a new model to involve stakeholders throughout 

the research process, and should also establish an effective multipartite stakeholder mechanism that includes at-risk workers and other organizations to focus on occupational safety and health.

6.a: The AFF Program should develop a new model for targeting all key stakeholders as full participants 

in its research program design and execution.

6.b: The AFF Program should establish a coordinating council that would serve as a public advisory committee and would assume lead responsibility for informing public discourse on occupational safety and 

health issues.

6.c: The AFF Program should continue to partner with appropriate federal and state agencies and establish additional interagency partnerships to increase the capacity for carrying out research and transfer 

activities.

6.d: The AFF Program should establish public-private partnerships to work more closely with equipment, 

facility, and pesticide manufacturers in design and development processes.

Implement Integrative and Interdisciplinary Approaches

Recommendation 7: The AFF Program should implement integrative and interdisciplinary approaches in 

its research practices.

7.a: Researchers that receive funding from the AFF Program should visit worksites regularly so that they 

can acquire understanding of the workplace environment and thus develop and integrate culturally appropriate and sensitive approaches.

7.b: The AFF Program should increase the use of interdisciplinary teams to address the environmental, 

social, cultural, and psychological complexities of issues that face AFF workers.

Enhance Awareness of National Policy

Recommendation 8: The AFF Program staff should develop greater awareness of national policy activities 

because they can have a substantial impact on AFF worker populations and risk factors.

the relevance and impact of the program (Chapter 10) and its assessment of new 

and emerging research (Chapter 11), the committee identified several potential 

opportunities to improve the relevance of the program’s work and strengthen its 

impact on reducing injuries and illness in the AFF sectors. The committee’s recommendations are aimed at improving the program as a whole (summarized in 

Box S-2):
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

14 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

• Establish Strategic Goals for Improvement in Administration and 

Evaluation

• Develop a Cohesive Program

• Implement a Comprehensive Surveillance System

• Identify and Track AFF Populations at Risk

• Conduct Research on Knowledge Diffusion Processes

• Improve Stakeholder Engagement and Partnerships

• Implement Integrative and Interdisciplinary Approaches

• Enhance Awareness of National Policy

The AFF Program plays a positive and crucial role in providing information 

and tools to promote a safer and healthier work environment in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The committee hopes that its recommendations will help refocus 

and redirect program efforts to have a greater impact on the safety and health of 

all populations at occupational risk in agriculture, forestry, and fishing.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

15

1

Introduction

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was established by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (U.S. Congress, 1970). 

Today, the agency is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIOSH is charged with 

the responsibility to “conduct . . . research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health” and to develop “innovative methods, techniques, and approaches for dealing with [those] problems” (U.S. Congress, 1970). 

Its research targets include identifying criteria for use in setting worker exposure 

standards and exploring new problems that may arise in the workplace. NIOSH 

does not have the authority to establish or enforce regulations for workplace safety 

and health. Regulatory and enforcement authority rests with such agencies as the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA).

STUDY CHARGE AND EVALUATION COMMITTEE

NIOSH asked the National Academies to conduct reviews of as many as 15 of 

its research programs with respect to their impact on and relevance to reducing 

workplace injury and illness and to identify directions for future research. The 

NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (the AFF Program) 

is the third to undergo such evaluation: the Hearing Loss Research Program and 

the Mining Safety and Health Research Program were the first two programs evalu-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

16 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

ated, respectively, and used evaluation criteria and scoring mechanisms provided 

by the Committee for the Review of NIOSH Research Programs (IOM and NRC, 

2006; NRC and IOM, 2007).

The Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program was convened by the National Research Council in late 2006 under 

the auspices of the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources (see Appendix 

G). Committee members were chosen because of their expertise in epidemiology, 

agricultural engineering, industrial hygiene, respiratory diseases, zoonotic diseases, 

mental health, rural health, exposure assessment, child and adolescent safety, ergonomics, farmworker safety and health, and fishing safety and health. Committee 

members have varied experience in such settings as academe, industry, and labor 

organizations. The statement of task for the committee is in Box 1-1.

EVALUATION APPROACH

The committee was charged with reviewing the AFF Program, evaluating the 

relevance of its work to improvements in occupational safety and health, and evaluating its impact on reducing workplace illnesses and injuries. As suggested in the 

statement of task, the committee’s review was guided by the Framework Document 

(Appendix A) that was developed by the National Academies’ Committee for the 

Review of NIOSH Research Programs.

The Framework Document

The Framework Document directs that relevance be evaluated in terms of the 

significance of research and connection to improvements in workplace protection. 

It identifies factors to take into account, including the frequency and severity of 

health outcomes and the number of people at risk, the structure of the program, 

and the degree of consideration of stakeholder input. The impact of the program’s 

research is to be evaluated in terms of its contributions to worker safety and health. 

The evaluation is to take the form of qualitative assessments and the assignment of 

integer scores of 1-5 for the relevance and impact of the AFF Program’s research 

and other activities.

The guidance in the Framework Document reflects the terminology and organization of a logic model adopted by NIOSH to characterize the steps in its work. 

The logic model used by the AFF Program appears as Figure 1-1. To assess the relevance of the program’s research, the committee examined goals, inputs, activities, 

and outputs; to evaluate the impact of the program’s research, it focused principally 

on intermediate and end outcomes. External factors were taken into consideration 

in the evaluation. The committee separately envisioned what an ideal AFF research 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

17 I n t r o d u c t i o n

BOX 1-1

Statement of Task

In response to a request from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), the Institute of Medicine and the Division of Earth and Life Studies of the National 

Academies are conducting a series of evaluations of NIOSH research programs. Each 

evaluation will be conducted by an ad hoc committee, using a methodology and framework 

developed by the Committee for the Review of NIOSH Research Programs (framework 

committee).

Each evaluation committee will review the program’s impact, relevance, and future directions. The evaluation committee will evaluate not only what the NIOSH research program 

is producing, but will also determine whether it is appropriate to credit NIOSH research with 

changes in workplace practices, hazardous exposures, and/or occupational illnesses and 

injuries, or whether the changes are the result of other factors unrelated to NIOSH.

The program reviews should focus on evaluating the program’s impact and relevance 

to health and safety issues in the workplace and make recommendations for improvement. 

In conducting the review, the evaluation committee will address the following elements:

1. Assessment of the program’s contribution through occupational safety and health 

research to reductions in workplace hazardous exposures, illnesses, or injuries through

 a. an assessment of the relevance of the program’s activities to the improvement of 

occupational safety and health, and

 b. an evaluation of the impact that the program’s research has had in reducing workrelated hazardous exposures, illnesses, and injuries.

The evaluation committee will rate the performance of the program for its relevance and 

impact using an integer score of 1 to 5. Impact may be assessed directly (e.g., reductions 

in illnesses or injuries) or, as necessary, using intermediate outcomes to estimate impact. 

Qualitative narrative evaluations should be included to explain the numerical ratings.

2. Assessment of the program’s effectiveness in targeting new research areas and 

identifying emerging issues in occupational safety and health most relevant to future improvements in workplace protection. The committee will provide a qualitative narrative assessment of the program’s efforts and suggestions about emerging issues that the program 

should be prepared to address.

program would entail (Chapter 2) and used the components of an ideal program 

as a benchmark with which to compare the existing program. The terms used and 

the details of the committee’s evaluation are presented in Chapters 3 and 4.

The study charge also directed the committee to review the progress that the 

AFF Program has made in identifying new research and provided the committee 

with the opportunity to identify emerging research relevant to the program’s mis-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html 18 Inputs Activities Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes Production Inputs Budget, Staff, Facilities, 

Managerial

Infrastructure,

Extramural

Systems

Planning

Inputs

Surveillance

Data,

Stakeholder 

Needs,

Collaborator 

Aims,

Goals and 

Subgoals

Surveillance

Research

Intervention 

Studies

Dissemination of

Information

Training and 

EducationCenters of

Excellence

Improvements 

in Occupational 

Safety and 

Health in

Agriculture,

Forestry, and 

Fishing

Recommendations

PublicationsInvestigation 

Reports

Training Materials

Scientific

ManuscriptsEngineering 

Designs

Alternative 

Methods

Conference

Proceedings

Technologies

Trained and 

Educated

Professionals

Demonstrated

Results

Standards and 

RegulationsResearch to 

Practice

Informed Citizens

Change in Social

Norms

1-1.eps

Response to Requests for 

Assistance

External Factors

Economic and Social Conditions and Regulatory Environment

FIGURE 1-1 The AFF Program logic model.SOURCE: NIOSH, 2006a.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

19 I n t r o d u c t i o n

sion. According to the Framework Document, the committee’s identification of 

emerging research areas is to be based on members’ expert judgment rather than 

a formal research-needs identification effort.

Program Period Evaluated

The committee was given the discretion to determine the period to be covered 

by its review. To evaluate the research program’s work in its entirety, the committee chose to evaluate it from its inception in 1990 to the most current timeframe 

in 2006. In 1990, Congress directed NIOSH to develop an extensive agricultural 

safety and health program in surveillance, research, and intervention to address 

the high risks of injuries and illnesses in agricultural workers and their families 

(U.S. Congress, 1990b). The Congressional Agricultural Occupational Safety and 

Health Initiative applies directly to activities in agriculture, but timber harvesting 

and commercial fishing-related activities are implicitly included.

Information Gathering

The review of the AFF Program was based in large part on written materials 

provided by NIOSH (see Appendix C). The AFF Program gave the committee a 

350-page evidence package and a CD containing more than 3000 pages of appendixes (NIOSH, 2006a). The committee also submitted written requests to NIOSH 

for additional information on the AFF Program. The committee met three times 

from January 2007 through May 2007 and conducted additional deliberations 

through conference calls and e-mail. Information gathering included presentations 

by NIOSH staff and other invited guests in open sessions of committee meetings 

in January and March (see Appendix B).

The committee also invited comments from stakeholders, that is, organizations and individuals with a potential interest in the AFF Program. Given that 

the research program is related to an enormous and disparate portfolio of sectors—agriculture, forestry, and fishing—the population of potential stakeholders 

is diverse and not easily defined. As a result, the committee made an effort to reach 

a varied national and international audience in federal and state agencies, industry, 

labor, and academe but did not attempt to make its information-gathering effort 

a comprehensive or systematic survey of the program’s stakeholders, because of 

the short timeframe for its work. (Additional details on committee methods and 

a list of stakeholders who provided information to the committee are available in 

Appendix B.)

The committee chose not to visit facilities used by the AFF Program staff, inasmuch as most members had a working knowledge of the facilities based on visits in 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

20 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

their professional activities. Furthermore, relative to the AFF Program’s extramural 

portfolio, the committee was confident that they had received sufficient input 

from a few directors of the extramurally funded NIOSH Agricultural Centers (Ag 

Centers): The director of the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural 

Health and Safety presented information at the first committee meeting in January 2007, four Ag Center directors were invited to speak at the second committee 

meeting in March 2007, the other five directors were queried by the committee for 

additional information.

Evaluation Data Limitations

In the 9 months given to conduct the program evaluation, the committee based 

its assessment of the AFF Program on the “evidence package” (NIOSH, 2006a) and 

supplemental information (Appendix C) provided by NIOSH, and also consulted 

with experts and conducted information searches. The committee found that 

the materials provided by NIOSH were neither a comprehensive nor an accurate 

reflection of work that has been done by the AFF Program; rather it was a mere 

snapshot of the program that poorly cataloged basic information about the program’s work. The committee knows of seminal publications and substantial data 

that were not included in the evidence package or in the supplemental materials. 

In addition, several committee members who had worked with the AFF Program 

in the past noted that there were several insightful internal publications (such as 

NIOSH, 1992b) that should have been publicly released years ago, which would 

have been helpful for the evaluation. The committee is concerned that the AFF 

Program is unaware of its own work.

THE U.S. AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING INDUSTRIES

The agriculture, forestry, and fishing sectors are the cornerstone of industries 

that produce and market food, fiber, and fuel. Collectively, the three sectors make 

up a huge component of the U.S. economy and are a major employer in the United 

States (GAO, 2007). Annually, these industries generate more than $1 trillion and 

create exports exceeding $68 billion. NIOSH estimates that more than 5.5 million 

workers are employed in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (2007). These sectors 

also consistently rank in the top six most hazardous occupations; fishermen and 

loggers have the highest fatality rates (BLS, 2007a). Collectively, the three sectors 

consistently have the highest injury and fatality rates of any U.S. industries, so 

the overall effect on the safety and health of exposed populations in agricultural, 

forestry, and fishing worksites is enormous (Hard et al., 2002; Frank et al., 2004; 

BLS, 2007a).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

21 I n t r o d u c t i o n

Agriculture Sector

The agriculture sector, which the 1990 enabling legislation targeted, is composed of about 2.1 million farms (Hoppe and Banker, 2006). Its structure is bifurcated: large capital-intensive operations rely on scale to survive economically, and 

smaller operations rely on niche production of high-value commodities (Midwest 

Center for Agricultural Research, Education, and Disease & Injury Prevention, 

2002). The former constitute about 7 percent of all farms in the United States; these 

farms typically each have agricultural product sales of $1 million or more per year 

and generate 75 percent of farm cash receipts from the sale of agricultural commodities (USDA, 2004; Hoppe and Banker, 2006). They operate enterprises on 44 

percent of all U.S. harvested cropland and account for a large majority of farm cash 

receipts in every category of agricultural commodity except tobacco and specialty 

livestock, such as sheep, goats, and horses (USDA, 2004). In 1987, a ranking of 

farms by value of commodities marketed demonstrated that the largest 13 percent 

accounted for 75 percent of total sales (USDA, 1987). Thus, from 1987 to 2002, the 

size concentration in the U.S. agricultural sector doubled (USDA, 1987, 2004).

At the other extreme are agricultural enterprises that operate on 56 percent 

of U.S. cropland and generate 25 percent of total farm cash receipts (USDA, 2004; 

Hoppe and Banker, 2006). Some are limited-resource farms, which report gross 

product sales of less than $100,000 in 2003 dollar equivalents and low (below 

the poverty level) operator household income; others are retirement farms (run 

by retirees who are also farm operators), residential or lifestyle farms (smaller 

enterprises whose operators report a major occupation other than farming), or 

conventional farming-occupation farms (such as family farms whose operators 

report farming as their major occupation) (Hoppe and Banker, 2006). The committee recognizes that congressional testimony surrounding NIOSH’s 1990 agricultural health and safety mandate used findings from midwestern and northeastern 

(largely New York) family operations, and public and congressional debate relative 

to the role of family farm operations in the agriculture sector has been spirited. 

However, the committee believes that in the context of NIOSH’s agricultural health 

and safety initiatives the most useful definition of a “family farm” is the one used 

by Congress in the 1985 Food Security Act: any farm that is organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or family corporation and uses less than 1.5 person-years 

of hired labor per year (U.S. Congress, 1985). This definition has the advantage of 

including the notion that family owners are responsible for providing the major 

share of labor required to operate the farm—an important dimension in allocating federal resources to surveillance and intervention among different agricultural 

settings in the sector.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

22 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Of all farms in the United States, 61 percent do not participate in any federal 

farm program (Hoppe and Banker, 2006) and so have no incentive to respond to 

agricultural subsidies, federally subsidized conservation programs, or acreage setasides. That occurs because of absentee ownership (for example, over 50 percent 

of the land in Iowa); targeting of national agricultural policy, which excludes many 

agricultural commodities; and individual owner, operator, or corporate decisions 

to remain out of program spheres (Duffy, 2004; Hoppe and Banker, 2006).

Since Congress passed NIOSH’s enabling legislation in 1990, the role of farm 

management companies, agricultural labor contractors, and other types of nonowner operation has substantially increased in importance. In part, that has occurred because of shifts in the demographic profile of those who own land and 

facilities, technological changes in production practices, capitalization requirements, and incentives embedded in federal agricultural policy (Stofferhan, 2006). 

The result has been a large change in who is exposed to worksite risk: custom 

farmers and other employees who are under contract to agricultural management 

companies are typically as important as farm owner-operators in large sections of 

the Midwest and Southwest where row crops (corn, potatoes, sorghum, soybeans, 

and sugar beets) predominate and the West Coast where vineyards are present 

and other specialty crops are grown (CIRS, 2006). The trend could intensify as a 

“bioeconomy” based on agricultural biomass emerges in portions of the nation’s 

cropland, spurring both monocultures of annual and perennial crops and seminatural plant communities and the intensive industrialization of cropping activity 

(Hunt, 2006; Jordan et al., 2007). Other exposed populations have also increased 

in importance, including hired workers, many of whom are immigrants—probably 

the majority of employees in the agriculture workforce.

The agriculture workforce is estimated to number about 5,296,000 people, including self-employed workers and working youth (see Table 1-1). U.S. agriculture 

TABLE 1-1 Size of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Workforce Populations

Workforce Sector Number of Persons at Risk

Agriculture 3,167,000a-5,296,000b

Logging and forestry 88,000c-202,000d

Fishing and hunting 55,000d-160,000e

TOTAL 3,314,000-5,658,000

aSource: Farm Labor, NASS, USDA, November 2001, p. 13.

bSource: Occupational Injury Survey of Production, Response to Committee Question #4, NIOSH, 

February 16, 2007. c

Source: Occupational Outlook Handbook, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008.

dSource: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007c.

e

Source: U.S. Fishing Industry, NIOSH, 2007b.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

23 I n t r o d u c t i o n

has typically employed proportionally more people 16-19 years old and 55 years old 

and above than have other economic sectors (BLS, 2001a). Of the total workforce 

in 2001, about 993,000 were 15 years old and younger and reported to be working 

on U.S. farms and ranches (NIOSH, 2006b). The injury and occupational disease 

experience of the agriculture workforce has varied with age, gender, cohort, and 

calendar interval. Fatal injury rates are proportionately lower than in the other 

two AFF sectors (see below), but nonfatal injuries occur in as many as 10 percent 

of exposed workers (NIOSH, 2006a). Other nonfatal occupational hazards result 

in eye injury, cumulative hearing loss, low-back and other musculoskeletal injury, 

cumulative trauma disorders, some cancers, and respiratory disease. Most of those 

conditions, excluding cancer, were known to occur among working agricultural 

populations when Congress established the AFF Program in NIOSH.

Forestry Sector

The forestry sector has played a pivotal role in the economic, social, and cultural development of the United States. It comprises an array of lands managed for 

an evolving constellation of objectives: timber and other commodity production, 

recreation, maintenance of wildlife habitat, water-quality protection, wilderness 

and open-space preservation, and more recently as a buffer against climate change 

and an effective carbon sink (Holmgren and Thuresson, 1998; Peterson et al., 

1999). The total U.S. forest land area has remained relatively unchanged since the 

1920s (Peterson et al., 1999). Currently, about one-third of the nation’s overall land 

base, 737 million acres, is forested (Peterson et al., 1999). The federal government 

controls about 35 percent (249 million acres) of all forest land, and about 10 million private owners control over 60 percent of it (Rand, 1990; Garland, 2007). In 

the East, most forested land is under state and private control; however the federal 

government is the principal owner of forestland in the West (Powell et al., 1993).

The forestry workforce is composed of all who harvest forest and forest-related 

products and those who provide other support services for the maintenance and 

sustaining of the nation’s forests. It includes owners and managers of forested 

acreage, timber harvesters (loggers and fellers), caretakers (involved in silvicultural 

activities and fire control), harvesters of non-wood forest products (such as nuts, 

cones, other greenery, and mushrooms), transport drivers and road-building and 

-maintenance crews, and others in support functions, such as machinery manufacturers, logging-rigging outlets, recreation managers and guides, and state and 

federal natural resources employees. The size of the workforce has been estimated 

to range from 88,000 to 202,000 workers (BLS, 2007b, 2008). This workforce has 

been described as relatively isolated geographically and possessing a unique subculture (Myers and Fosbroke, 1994; Garland, 2007). Historically, the workforce has 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

24 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

had little labor organization; however, with the advent of offsite management firms 

that specialize in providing workers during times of high need, such as for fire suppression or mandated vegetative removal, the population exposed to forestry risk 

has changed to include numerous newly immigrant workers of Hispanic, Asian, 

and eastern European origin.

The workforce, particularly that involved in felling and logging, has experienced some of the highest injury rates in the AFF sector. In 1955, the fatality rate 

was 214 per 100,000 workers, and the nonfatal injury rate was 16 events per 100 

full-time workers (NIOSH, 2006a). By the late 1980s, deaths attributed to injury 

had dropped to 161 per 100,000 workers (NIOSH, 2006a); but nonfatal injuries 

had increased to almost 20 events per 100 full-time workers (BLS, 1990). By 1996, 

the fatality rates had dropped even further, to 128 per 100,000 workers (NIOSH, 

2006a). More recent reliable injury-related data are unavailable, and numerous 

types of worker categories have not been included in published analyses because 

of reliance on “official” numerator (event) and denominator (population-at-risk) 

data. The prevalence of occupational diseases is unknown.

Fishing Sector

The fishing portion of AFF comprise several fisheries, which are identified by 

region: the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, the West, 

and the Alaskan shelf. Fishing is conducted in both the open ocean and adjoining 

states’ internal waters by vessels that vary in size and fitting, totaling approximately 

82,000 operating units in 2006 (U.S. Coast Guard, 2007). Operations can range 

from technologically sophisticated with expensive gear and advanced electronics 

to those with simple gear and modest electronics. Most fishing vessels along the 

Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and Gulf Coast are small owner-operated, whereas many 

vessels in the West and Alaska are in larger multi-vessel enterprises. At-risk workers 

can range from one, two, or three per boat to upwards of 150 (U.S. Coast Guard, 

2007). The U.S. Coast Guard regulates most aspects of the industry; its Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee is charged with developing 

workable recommendations for the health and safety of vessel employees.

The workforce is composed of both native-born and immigrant populations, 

including workers from several African nations. Of the estimated 55,000-160,000 

workers exposed to occupational risk while engaged in maritime fishing activity 

(BLS, 2007b; NIOSH, 2007b), more than half are self-employed. The workforce 

experienced the nation’s highest occupational fatality rate due to occupational 

exposures in 2006: 141.7 per 100,000, nearly 30 times higher than the rate in the 

overall workforce (BLS, 2007a). Its overall nonfatal injury rate is unknown, but 

the Alaska fishery had 410 injury hospitalizations per 100,000 full-time fishermen 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

25 I n t r o d u c t i o n

(NIOSH, 2007b). Fishermen go out to sea in poor weather, especially in heavy 

New England seas and Aleutian Island storms, and a fall overboard often results in 

drowning. Fishermen also work with dangerous power tools, such as huge winches 

and hoists, and heavy nets and cages, all of which can turn into lethal missiles on 

slippery wet or icy decks in heavy seas. The prevalence of occupational diseases is 

unknown.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The U.S. Census Bureau’s North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) classifies economic units that have similar production processes in the 

same industry (BLS, 2001b), and categorizes agriculture, forestry, and fishing in the 

same industry classification because the three sectors are involved in the harvesting 

of food, fiber, and fuel. NIOSH is obligated to address all three sectors under the 

NAICS while the original congressional mandate only specifies funds for agriculture (U.S. Congress, 1990a; BLS, 2001b). However, as early as March 1992, NIOSH 

included loggers, fishermen, children, unpaid workers, and racial minorities when 

developing goals to carry out the new NIOSH research program in agricultural 

safety and health (NIOSH, 1992b). In 1991, 1992, and 1996, congressional appropriations language continued to specify funds for agriculture, and NIOSH has 

continued to carry out plans according to the original mandate. Perhaps future 

appropriations language may specify funding allocation among the three sectors, 

but as it stands agriculture will continue to dominate the program’s portfolio 

unless AFF Program leadership directs otherwise. Because the AFF Program only 

addresses occupational issues related to harvesting of food, fiber, and fuel, it does 

not address processing concerns related to food processing, lumber mills, or fish 

processing.

Agriculture

Attention to injury and disease prevalence among farmers and ranchers took 

a long time to take root in the last century. Though the farm injury toll was 

recognized from the introduction of the steam traction engine in 1908 (Avery 

Machine Corporation, 1912), it was not until 1938 that the farm injury problem 

attracted national attention at the annual National Safety Congress sponsored by 

the National Safety Council (Rasmussen, 1989). The mentality emerged that “The 

careless farmer who gets injured in an accident this year not only hurts himself 

and his family, but he curtails the nation’s ‘Food for Freedom program’” (Wickard, 

1943). A few years later, the wartime labor shortage allowed the safety community 

to create a national consensus focusing efforts on improving worker safety (Hall, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

26 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

1943; Anon, 1944; Oden, 2005), and resulted in President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

instituting policy (USDA, 1942), which would be used decades later as the basis 

of the 1990 congressional appropriations language to establish the NIOSH AFF 

Program.

In 1944, the first farm safety week was jointly sponsored by Cooperative Extension across the nation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the 

National Safety Council (NSC, 1954), and was a sentinel development because 

it paved the way for key players to closely cooperate over the next 3 decades. The 

NSC, an organization dedicated to protecting life and promoting health, convened annual conferences from the late 1940s onward to highlight intentional 

and unintentional injuries at agricultural worksites and provided a training and 

networking venue for state-level agricultural safety specialists and others engaged 

in agricultural safety. In the 1950s, the National Institute for Farm Safety (NIFS) 

was formed by agricultural safety and health leaders. NIFS formed single-purpose 

committees—such as those on tractor and safety, fire and electricity, emergency 

preparedness, home and farmstead, rural traffic, and farm chemicals—to identify 

unique agricultural worksite and home-site risks and dangers, and explore ways 

of reducing injuries for farmers and ranchers. The NSC provided needed national 

leadership until 1972 and aided in the continual development of engineering safety 

standards by the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. By the mid-1970s, 

however, controversy emerged that was fueled by the passage of the Occupational 

Health and Safety Act and alarmed many in agricultural production, as professionals involved in agricultural safety and health desired greater autonomy for its 

educational and other professional venues (Oden, 2005).

Numerous technological and other workforce developments in production 

agriculture galvanized professionals and others around the injury experience of 

the nation’s farmers and ranchers. As early as 1915, California enacted provisions 

regulating agricultural labor camps (Parker, 1915; California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2007). The adoption of corn picker technology 

on American farms quickened by 1950 because it yielded enormous labor savings, 

but the injury toll mounted: in Iowa alone in 1951, 299 fingers, 32 thumbs, and 

32 hands were severed by the corn picker technology (Wallaces’ Farmer, 1952; 

Scranton, 1952). California was an early leader with its enactment of legislation 

in the 1970s limiting the use of short-handled hoes to reduce cumulative trauma 

(Jourdane, 2004). As the overall agricultural health and safety movement came of 

age, professional perspectives diverged from time to time, including controversy 

about which federal entity should be charged with overall programmatic responsibility (Burke, 1968).

In 1972, the Congress appropriated $1 million to fund state-level safety efforts 

in the 50 agricultural extension services (Murphy, 2003) that functioned at the state 

level. The resources could be used to fund extension safety positions or to fund 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

27 I n t r o d u c t i o n

safety programs with a blend of state and federal funding. The effort continued 

until Congress eliminated the funding from its agricultural appropriations activity 

in 2002 (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002), thus spelling a near 

total collapse of extension activity in agricultural safety and health.

While nearly all agricultural safety professionals were united behind the banner of more safety education for all exposed to agricultural and forestry risks 

(fishing was not mentioned at this early stage), lone voices were calling for public 

policy intervention (Plambeck, 1983). OSHA’s regulatory activities were not only 

controversial in agriculture and forestry but attracted an unusual array of critics 

in a variety of other American worksite sectors (Stang, 1952; OSHA, 1974). As 

enthusiasm for policy advocacy waned, educational approaches gained popularity; 

however, the efficacy of such approaches was continually questioned, and targeting 

the appropriate population proved to be elusive as unintentional injuries continued 

to mount.

Independently of those activities, clinical interest in and response to the 

mounting disease and injury toll were being documented. The Institute of Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health was established at the University of 

Iowa in the 1950s, the National Farm Medicine Center of Wisconsin in the 1970s, 

and the Farm Safety and Health Center at the Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital in 

Cooperstown, New York, in the 1980s. Clinical acumen was gathered to target 

disease syndromes and acute and chronic injuries related to agricultural work. 

Clinicians in Canada were hosting international symposia to highlight exposures 

and results of selected interventions across the whole of North America and in selected European and Asian countries, and Scandinavians in agricultural safety and 

occupational health developed specific clinical “tracks” at European occupational 

symposia (see, for example, Dosman and Cockcroft, 1989; Svanström et al., 1989). 

By the mid-1980s, the CDC had awarded the first substantial resources for unintentional injury surveillance in rural areas of the United States (Gerberich et al., 

1990). All those efforts added weight to the proposition that a national effort was 

needed, at the very least, as a response to moral imperatives surrounding a decent 

society and national security interests—security interests that suggested that a 

safe and affordable food supply for the nation’s growing population was essential 

(Eken, 1991).

Several federal agencies other than NIOSH have contributed to AFF workrelated research, including the CDC’s Injury Prevention Branch, USDA, theNational 

Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS), and the National Center for Health Statistics 

(NCHS). Fatal occupational injury surveillance efforts were provided by NIOSH, 

the NCHS, and several state-level agricultural safety specialists funded by USDA 

and state-level funding; occupational disease surveillance was conducted by NIOSH 

and NCI; rural injury surveillance was done through the CDC; intentional death 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

28 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

surveillance was conducted by the NCHS and select state health departments 

(Burkart et al., 1978; Marx et al., 1985; Zey et al., 1985; Gunderson et al., 1987, 

1993; Blair, 1988; Meyers, 1988; National Mental Health Association, 1988; Pearce 

and Reif, 1988; Rodricks and Rachman, 1988; Stallones, 1988; Cohen et al., 1989; 

Wiener et al., 1989; Bresnitz et al., 1990), and a large body of educational initiatives 

was supplemented by those in academe involved in intervention research (Roman, 

1987; NCASH, 1988; Gunderson, 1989, 1990; Schwartz and Cohen, 1990; Lexau et 

al., 1993; Ambruster, 1991; McGinnis, 1991; Von Essen, 1996). This has resulted in 

a body of research literature, clinical findings, and injury control education.

By 1988, state agricultural safety specialists, epidemiologists, policy analysts, 

and public health professionals were routinely meeting at professional conferences 

to explore the potential for national congressional action. Working from a template 

constructed by the Association of Schools of Public Health, they consulted with 

U.S. House and Senate staff as ideas entered formal stages (ASPH, 1988). Meetings, such as one sponsored by the National Coalition for Agricultural Safety and 

Health (NCASH) in 1988, provided an opportunity to explore recent surveillance 

findings and potential interventions (Donham and Storm, 1988; NCASH, 1988). 

Those efforts culminated in the passage by Congress of Public Law 101-517 in 1990 

(U.S. Congress, 1990a), which directed NIOSH to establish a program for improving the health and safety of agricultural workers and their families. P.L. 101-517 

specifically called for

• A Farm Family Health and Hazard Survey in order to develop more complete information on the circumstances of agricultural injury and other disease 

problems.

• Research exploring the etiology of agricultural injuries and disease.

• Establishment of extramural Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury 

Research, Education, and Prevention at selected universities.

• Establishment of a national Agricultural Health Promotion System in collaboration with the nation’s county extension agents.

• An Agricultural Health Nurse Surveillance Program in which rural hospitals 

would provide ongoing responsive (focused at intervention) surveillance to identify 

agriculture-related disease and injury problems.

Congress recognized that agricultural workers were suffering higher rates of 

unintentional injury and illness than other U.S. workers, even those in other extractive industries. Congress was led to believe, by the sheer weight of expert testimony 

delivered in support of P.L. 101-517, that NIOSH was capable of leading a comprehensive national effort devoted to preventing injury and disease in the nation’s 3.4 

million workers in agricultural settings (NIOSH, 1992a). The testimony pertained 

to production agriculture alone; forestry and fishing were not conceptually ad-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

29 I n t r o d u c t i o n

dressed in expert testimony during the formative stages of the AFF initiative. And 

intentional injuries, largely suicides, were not addressed by the legislation.

An innovative feature of P.L. 101-517 was the call to establish extramural centers. The legislation specifically charged NIOSH with responsibility to select and 

fund agricultural occupational safety and health centers at select universities. Specific language stated: “these centers would: (1) develop model programs for the prevention of illness among agricultural workers and their families; (2) develop model 

educational programs on agricultural safety and health for workers in agriculture; 

(3) evaluate agricultural injury and disease prevention programs implemented by 

agricultural extension programs, state health departments, federal agencies, and 

others; (4) conduct applied research and evaluations of engineering and ergonomic 

control technology and procedures developed by Federal and private agents; and 

(5) provide consultation to researchers, safety and health professionals, agriculture 

extension programs, and others” (NIOSH, 2000c).

As surveillance results became available, the burden of injury borne by children 

and adolescents on farms and ranches was recognized (Gerberich et al., 1991). 

However, sentinel calls for attention to these vulnerable workers had been issued 

for decades, even when surveillance data were lacking. For at least 3 decades, children and youth had been the target of educational interventions (see, for example, 

National Safety Council, 1953; Farm Safety Review, 1954; or National 4-H Club 

News, 1958), even though the efficacy of such approaches was open to question. 

By 1958, the NSC had created the Youth Safety Activities Committee, whose role 

was to provide educational programming guidance and information exchange to 

individuals and agencies that wished to embark on youth safety programming. 

Those educational interventions for children in agriculture had high priority because people under 16 years old were excluded from OSHA regulations, given the 

exemption of labor for family farms.

The first national consensus conference relative to the unintentional injury 

burden in youth occurred in 1992 (Lee and Gunderson, 1992); other formative 

activities, including development of a National Action Plan for Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention, followed and resulted in the design of a second national 

initiative that targeted vulnerable child and adolescent populations (NCCAIP, 

1996). Congress adopted the plan in 1996 and passed legislation in the same year 

(P.L. 104-208), with the conference report (H. Rept. 104-863) specifically appropriating for

• Establishment of a national Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural 

Health and Safety to plan and coordinate a national response to the epidemic of 

injury among children and adolescents exposed to agricultural worksite risk.

• Surveillance exploring the etiology of child and adolescent agricultural 

injury.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

30 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

• Development of work guidelines and other aids for use by parents and 

supervisors in agricultural worksites.

• Design of communication strategies capable of reaching agricultural 

populations.

Fishing

U.S. fishing industry policies predate the Fair Labor Standards Amendment of 

1989 (P.L. 101-157). The hazards of commercial fishing did not fully capture congressional attention until the death of Peter Barry when the fishing vessel Western 

Sea sank in August 1985. Peter Barry was the son of Robert and Peggy Barry. He 

was chief U.S. delegate in North Atlantic Treaty Organization talks with the Soviet 

Union. With a variety of factors at play and the right timing, Peggy Barry made 

it her mission to bring the lack of safety regulations of commercial fishing to the 

attention of Congress and gave a voice to the efforts of many in the U.S. Coast 

Guard and other groups. Through their combined efforts, Congress enacted the 

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act (CFIVSA) of 1988 (P.L. 100-424). 

Among other items, the CFIVSA required each vessel to carry various survival 

equipment and charged the U.S. Coast Guard with regulation enforcement. It led 

to Regulation 26 CFR Part 28, released in 1991.

The CFIVSA also directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct an 

assessment of safety problems in the industry. The National Research Council 

completed the safety assessment in the 1991 report Fishing Vessel Safety—Guide to 

a National Program. The report’s recommendations included proposals for safety 

administration and for alternatives related to vessels, personnel, survival, and fishery management. The recommendations resulted in several programs: the Coast 

Guard Fishing Vessel Safety Decal Program (1992), the Fishing Vessel Safety Decal 

(1998), and the Dockside Enforcement Program for Crab Fisheries (1999) (DHS, 

2005). More recently, rules pertaining to additional safety procedures and vessel 

seaworthiness assessment have been developed, but they have not been formally 

released. The National Transportation Safety Board also proposed several safety 

recommendations for the commercial fishing industry. NIOSH itself has commented on selected aspects of congressional interest in fishery management that 

affect worker safety and health (U.S. House of Representatives, 2007). Testimony on 

the affect of the Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota policy on search 

and rescue efforts and fatalities was also used to develop recent crab rationalization efforts and other similar efforts in other fisheries, which allow fisheries to be 

managed by vessel-allocation quotas. The quota system enables fishermen to wait 

an additional day or so rather than rushing out to sea in tumultuous weather or 

using a vessel or equipment that needs repair.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

31 I n t r o d u c t i o n

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The remainder of the report presents the findings from the committee’s evaluation. Chapter 2 provides the committee’s assessment of the “ideal” research program in AFF, which is intended to provide a benchmark with which to compare 

the existing program. Chapter 3 evaluates the overall AFF Program according to its 

strategic goals and other elements. Chapters 4-8 review the subjects of the major 

research goals of the AFF Program: hazard surveillance, priority populations at risk, 

health effects of agricultural agent exposures, hazard control systems, and outreach. 

Chapter 9 evaluates other AFF Program elements that the committee identified as 

compared to its ideal program. Chapter 10 rates the research program’s relevance 

to and impact on reducing workplace injury and illness, and provides rationale 

for the AFF Program’s scores. Chapter 11 reviews the program’s mechanisms for 

identifying emerging issues in the AFF work sectors, and identifies issues that merit 

future attention. Chapter 12 provides recommendations to strengthen the NIOSH 

AFF Program and increase its relevance and impact.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

32

2

The Ideal Agriculture, Forestry, and 

Fishing Research Program

As its first step in evaluating the National Institute of Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (AFF 

Program), the committee was directed by the Framework Document to independently identify the major program challenges for an occupational safety and health 

research program in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The committee relied on 

surveillance findings and its expert judgment to determine the major components 

of an “ideal” research program that would cut across the three sectors. This chapter outlines the committee’s deliberations regarding the ideal safety and health 

research program in agriculture, forestry, and fishing and provides a methodology 

for the program to fulfill its congressional mandate. The committee used the ideal 

program as a benchmark to measure the goals and activities of the existing NIOSH 

AFF Program, which is assessed in Chapters 3-10.

OVERARCHING PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

The ideal NIOSH AFF Program would have adequate resources to set priorities 

among and accomplish the congressionally stated goals of surveillance, research, 

and intervention through (1) identification and characterization of injuries and illness and detailed characterization of populations at risk through surveillance; (2) 

identification and characterization of special populations and the unique health 

and safety risks they face; (3) identification and characterization of health effects

associated with chemical, physical, and biological agents encountered in agricul-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 33 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

ture, fishing, and forestry; (4) identification, development, evaluation, and implementation of control systems to reduce injury and illness; and (5) development 

of efficient and effective outreach mechanisms for dissemination and delivery of 

knowledge developed through research.

Those resources would include adequate staff, scientists, engineers, and administrators who work together with clearly defined goals, strategies, and evaluation methods to ensure success in achieving AFF Program goals. Their combined 

experience and expertise would be specific to agriculture, fishing, and forestry, 

to the extent possible. There would be clearly defined reporting mechanisms and 

procedures for maintaining accountability, and a well-organized system would be 

in place for creating an archive of program work products for future reference. A 

single person would be charged with directing the entire program and overseeing, 

evaluating, and communicating its plans. However, content experts would be in 

charge of each arm of the program: a separate leader for agriculture, for forestry, 

and for fishing. The committee envisions a relatively flat organization chart; the 

person in charge of each arm would have a fair amount of responsibility to make 

decisions. The management matrix or organization structure would be flexible so 

that the AFF research teams can recognize and react quickly to changes in the AFF 

industries, the economy, new technologies, and relevant results of research in other 

programs, and managed in such a way that AFF research teams are encouraged to be 

proactive in anticipating and mitigating emerging risks and hazards. The AFF Program would be informed of current issues through contacts in the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension System, and industry representatives.

The AFF Program would have world-class research facilities and laboratories 

devoted to solving problems specific to the strategic plan. The facilities would focus 

on elements of the strategic plan that may not be adequately addressed through 

extramural research projects, such as the development of analytic methods directly 

relevant to the AFF mission. AFF resources would not be used to duplicate capabilities available in partner agencies or programs or when the foremost expertise 

is available through extramural programs. In addition to projects funded at the 

NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and 

Prevention (Ag Centers), the AFF Program would consider funding extramural projects that address important issues and innovative technologies. The AFF 

Program would include the means to fund large multicenter studies to answer 

scientific questions that cannot be addressed any other way; an example might 

be gene-environment interaction studies, which have become important in fields 

ranging from the risk of lumbar disk herniation to the risk of airway obstruction related to animal feeding operations. Ethical issues related to findings from 

gene-environment interaction studies would be considered, including the possible 

impact on employment.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

34 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Resources would be distributed among the three industries covered by the program according to appropriate measures of impact, such as numbers and types of 

fatalities and nonfatal injuries and illnesses, and the application of objective metrics 

of direct and indirect costs. Appropriate resource distribution requires a complete 

understanding of populations at risk, and requires surveillance to characterize injuries, illnesses, and associated costs and to detect new trends. Surveillance methods 

specific to the regions of the population at risk would be used to ensure adequate 

coverage. Strategies for developing new objective approaches to measure the socioeconomic impact of work-related injury and illness would be established.

The ideal AFF Program would be highly visible in the industries covered at 

federal, state, and local levels. The program would have representation across the 

country in numbers proportional to the population at risk. The program would 

form partnerships with existing agencies, universities, or other organizations that 

have complementary missions and would leverage infrastructure and relationships 

toward accomplishing its goals, with emphasis on surveillance and outreach. The 

ideal program would address the research needs of large, medium, and small-sized 

operations. Large corporations produce most of our food and fiber products, are 

able to harness resources to implement many recent technological developments, 

and would be viewed as valuable partners of NIOSH.

Program evaluation procedures that use both internal and external reviews 

would be conducted at regular intervals. A short summary of the reviews would 

be accessible to the public.

SPECIFIC PROGRAM COMPONENTS

When considering the ideal research program, the committee focused its efforts 

on identifying the following program components that would comprehensively 

and effectively address the safety and health issues that face workers in agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing:

• Identify and engage stakeholders,

• Identify populations at risk,

• Conduct surveillance,

• Conduct health effects research,

• Conduct intervention research,

• Conduct health services research and training,

• Conduct research on knowledge diffusion and technology transfer,

• Inform public policy and provide regulatory assistance,

• Conduct program evaluation initiatives.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 35 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

Stakeholders

The occupational safety and health program for the AFF industries would be 

founded on an understanding of and respect for the unique characteristics of the 

AFF communities. Healthy and safe workers and families are the foundation of the 

economic and social well-being of the industries. Government, private, academic, 

and healthcare professionals all have unique strengths that complement those of the 

AFF Program, and all parties are needed to maximize its effectiveness. The program 

would be participatory and community- or work population-based and have the 

support of the AFF community so that there is buy-in for research intervention 

developments. The program would also empower the community to action so 

that involvement goes beyond involving stakeholders merely at the beginning and 

end. The concept of broader deliberation and decisionmaking among researchers 

and populations at risk from the inception of research ideas to their completion 

as applica­tions would be explored more in-depth.

Partnership and collaboration with stakeholder groups are integral to favorable 

change and improved outcomes. Involving these groups would enable the AFF Program to “think outside the box”; stakeholder involvement is especially important 

when researchers devise various ways to reach AFF workers for input. Regional 

priorities would be developed in collaboration with carefully selected community 

study groups in each U.S. Department of Agriculture region where a substantial 

portion of the identified population at risk resides and works. For example, a statelevel or regional community study group would include representatives of each of 

the five types of workers (see Populations at Risk section within this chapter for 

worker classification). The private sector—including the agricultural service and 

supply industries, insurance companies, private foundations, legal services providers, industry trade associations, ethnic self-help groups, and community service 

organizations—is an essential part of an effective national strategy. Careful selection implies that both organizational representatives and unaffiliated individual 

workers will be represented. It is expected that community study groups will also 

monitor and report to the public on the progress of the program. A reasonable 

allocation of program resources to staff and nurture these groups will be required 

to support a successful long-term effort. Special efforts will be required to include 

full participation of and direct representation of non-English speaking workers, 

whether self-employed or hired.

Surveillance

A successful surveillance program requires knowledge about the size, distribution, and characteristics of “at-risk” populations. That would be followed by systematic analysis of data and surveillance of hazards, injuries, and illnesses. NIOSH 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

36 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

AFF Program staff would routinely provide surveillance data so that intervention 

initiatives can be appropriately targeted. Furthermore, periodic evaluation of AFF 

surveillance mechanisms is needed to update procedures as work practices, hazards, 

diseases, injuries, and worker populations change.

Health and hazard surveillance is central to the design of interventions for 

the AFF sectors. Surveillance would be broad in light of the diversity of settings, 

employment practices, and populations, such as female spouses, the elderly, and 

children. Datasets would include demographic characteristics to assist in the identification of populations at risk. It has been noted that “hazard surveillance is the 

assessment of the occurrence of, distribution of, and secular trends in levels of 

hazards (toxic chemical agents, physical agents, biochemical stressors as well as 

biological agents) responsible for disease and injury” (Halperin et al., 1992). Surveillance would be continuous to monitor the effects of technological changes, geographic and other shifts in production, policies, population changes, and market 

forces that affect AFF worksite organization and management. On occasion, special 

non-routine surveillance efforts would be launched to address rapidly emerging 

developments and unique populations of workers.

Surveillance is the cornerstone of a successful long-term program; it is a means 

of identifying dangerous conditions and monitoring trends in AFF industries and 

is aimed at prevention and knowledge translation. Surveillance of important risk 

factors for injury and illness would be continuous so that the effects of technological change, geographic and other types of shifts in production, population changes, 

and other external factors can be monitored. Surveillance will rely on various 

sources: in addition to federal or other government institutions, other sources 

would be consulted, such as workers’ compensation insurance records, death certificates, and hospital emergency room records. Trade association meetings and 

conferences can also provide useful information on current trends.

For some industries and populations, it may prove necessary to commission 

special surveillance studies. Such studies would be initiated by a group of experts 

who meet jointly with carefully selected spokespersons representing important 

subgroups of the population of interest.

The surveillance effort would regularly produce summary reports that are 

carefully designed in collaboration with experts and that are made available to the 

public through the Internet. Each AFF project would have priorities in surveillance 

for not only gathering data but analyzing findings to assist NIOSH in establishing 

research and intervention priorities.

Populations at Risk

Risk exposure is a component of research in occupational safety and health. 

It is fundamental that increased risk exposure leads to a greater incidence of 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 37 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

occupational injury or illness. Injury and disease rates in occupational settings 

would be computed to appropriately assess populations that are at higher or lower 

risk of exposure. Rate computation requires knowledge of the number of people at 

risk (the denominator). Assessing the number of AFF workers by race or ethnicity, 

age, and gender requires use of information outside traditional occupational safety 

and health data collection systems. Unlike nearly all other major industry sectors, 

the AFF workforce is comprised of mostly self-employed and seasonally employed 

workers. In addition, because of the reliance on natural resources for production, 

there are millions of distinct AFF worksites: farms, forests, and fishing vessels on 

open waters.

The ideal AFF Program would have thorough, accurate, and up-to-date knowledge of the AFF workforce. The size, geographic distribution, seasonal variations 

in employment, and demographic characteristics of the overall population and of 

substantial groups would be identified with reasonable precision.

There are five types of workers to consider (some examples of each are 

indicated):

• Self-employed workers (such as farmers, ranchers, fishermen, and 

loggers).

• Unpaid family workers (such as spouses, adult children, and children under 

18 years old).

• Direct-hire workers (such as farm laborers, fishing vessel crews, and lumber 

company employees).

• Contract-hire workers (such as labor contractor employees, custom harvesters, and service company employees).

• Workers employed by larger-scale businesses.

AFF workplaces are, by their relationship to natural resources, extensive as opposed to localized; therefore, other persons may be at risk owing to their residence 

on or next to worksites. They may include children, spouses, or other kin of AFF 

workers. Minors, whether they are unpaid family workers or hired workers, are of 

special concern in the AFF workforce. Non-working minors who reside on a farm, 

near crop fields, or adjacent to livestock facilities are also of concern as they may 

face exposure to hazards normally associated with employment. The occupational 

safety and health of minors working in agriculture is addressed in federal law and 

in several state laws (see Appendix F). A few farm family health and hazard surveillance studies have included women in the study populations, and reports have been 

published on work-related injuries (Xiang et al., 1997; Stallones and Beseler, 2003). 

Some studies have documented the extent of women’s contribution to work in 

agriculture and their risk of injuries (Engberg, 1993; Xiang et al., 1997; Reed et al., 

1999; McCoy et al., 2001; Stallones and Beseler, 2003; Stallones, 2004); however, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

38 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

little has been done in either forestry or fishing. The ideal program’s extramural 

research review process would include gender-related studies, because women have 

thus far received little attention as a group of concern.

The committee established a detailed analysis for the ideal AFF Program to 

identify various AFF workforce populations in Appendix E.

Health Effects Research

Investigation of health effects in AFF would be the foundation of the AFF 

Program. Health effects to be studied include those caused by physical, chemical, 

and biological hazards. The health effects would include traumatic injury, hearing 

loss, cancer, musculoskeletal conditions, lung disorders, dermatological conditions, 

psychosocial effects, mental health disorders, and zoonotic diseases. Tuberculosis 

is a persistent problem and would also be studied in AFF workers, because it is 

transmitted in the work setting and disproportionately affects AFF workers. The 

physiological effects of working in extreme temperatures and of exposure to vibration from tools would also be explored in AFF workers. The relationship between 

incentive pay, worker productivity, and product quality has been studied (Billikopf, 

1985), but the health effects of incentive-based pay systems—such as piece rate 

that is widely used in agricultural harvest work and other forms of incentives to 

increase worker productivity—remains unknown and needs to be examined. There 

is also an urgent need to investigate the effects of shift work and other causes of 

work-related sleep deprivation on AFF workers. The results of all those studies will 

be the foundation of intervention research in the AFF Program. A key element of 

intervention research is to disseminate research findings to AFF workers, company 

safety officers, Cooperative Extension agents, and public health workers. The existing NIOSH Ag Centers could play a larger role in this effort than they have to date. 

Means of disseminating information relevant to forestry and fishing will have to 

be devised. Accurate evaluation of the results of the dissemination effort would be 

part of the dissemination plan. Epidemiological research, toxicological research, 

laboratory-based physical and safety risk factor research, and exposure assessment 

research would be conducted as part of the ideal AFF Program.

Epidemiological Research

An ideal research program would use the surveillance results to identify target 

illnesses for further epidemiological study. Appropriate study designs for discerning 

disease associations and causation, such as long-term prospective cohort studies, 

would be used in such a way as to ensure that results are applicable to the overall 

population and important subpopulations. The ideal AFF Program would conduct 

population-based studies with adequate staffing to define a variety of health effects 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 39 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

related to production AFF. This effort would require a large financial commitment 

and careful coordination on a local and national level. Some critical work aimed 

at answering many important questions can be done only with a multicenter 

approach. The ideal program would explore emerging topics, including genetic 

susceptibility to health effects of AFF exposures. Gene-environment interactions 

relevant to various illnesses and injuries common in AFF workers would be explored with a combination of laboratory and clinical methods in the new field of 

genetic epidemiology. The risk of zoonotic disease transmission has emerged as 

a concern; specifically, there have been several cases of avian influenza A (H5N1) 

transmission from birds to humans in Asia and Europe (CDC, 2007), and this 

could emerge as a threat to U.S. poultry handlers if the disease spreads to the 

United States. Challenges to conducting large epidemiological studies include the 

resources required and the diversity of the AFF industries with regard to regions, 

occupations, methods, and exposures. Existing collaborations between NIOSH 

and other agencies conducting the Agricultural Health Study could be expanded 

to avoid duplication of efforts.

Toxicological Research

The ideal AFF Program would have partnerships with other agencies and organizations, including chemical manufacturers, to ensure that toxicological studies 

are performed to characterize mechanisms of health effects and disease in connection with all exposures relevant to AFF occupations. Challenges would include the 

resources required for detailed toxicological studies, the logistics of partnering with 

other agencies to influence direction, and the large number of chemical, physical, 

and biological agents to which AFF workers are exposed.

Laboratory-Based Physical and Safety Risk-Factor Research

The ideal AFF Program would have access to state-of-the-art laboratory facilities adequately equipped to conduct the research needed to characterize safety risk 

factors for each AFF occupation. The program would also work closely with the 

manufacturers of equipment identified as being most often associated with injury 

exposure. Challenges include the resources required, including physical facilities, 

technical expertise, and partnerships with equipment manufacturers.

Exposure Assessment Research

The ideal AFF Program would have projects in place to ensure that exposures to 

physical, chemical, and biological agents in the AFF industries that cause injury or 

illness are fully characterized. Typical exposures, ranges of exposures, and exposure 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

40 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

distributions would be characterized. The ideal AFF Program would develop convenient and effective clinical methods for detecting and characterizing exposures 

and disease in the populations at risk. Tests would be economical, noninvasive, 

field-ready, and reliable. Exposure assessment algorithms would be developed for 

use in retrospective epidemiological studies and prospective studies. Ideally, exposure assessment would be a continuous part of prospective cohort studies. Where 

resources limit the establishment of large cohorts, exposure assessment activity on 

a smaller scale would form the basis of algorithms for use in quantifying exposure 

in epidemiological studies. Challenges include financial resources, technical expertise and limitations in available technology, the variability of exposures among 

the different AFF occupations, and the extreme diversity of chemical, physical, and 

biological agents to which workers are exposed. The ideal AFF Program would take 

into consideration the complex mixtures of chemicals and environmental factors 

to which workers are routinely exposed.

Intervention Research

Intervention research has been described as the study of planned and applied 

activities designed to achieve desired outcomes (Goldenhar and Schulte, 1994), and 

focuses on the examination of the efficacy of new and existing prevention strategies in the workplace (Rosenstock, 1996). In explaining a commitment to increase 

extramural and intramural support in 1996, NIOSH Director Linda Rosenstock 

stated that it was important for NIOSH to use intervention research more aggressively to provide a mechanism of evaluation that goes beyond investigation, 

identification, and recommendations (Rosenstock, 1996). Given the focus on intervention research and the development of guideline documents for evaluating the 

effectiveness of interventions (see Figure 2-1) (Goldenhar et al., 2001; Robson et al., 

2001), it is appropriate to consider an ideal or benchmark intervention research 

program in describing the ideal AFF program.

The ideal or benchmark intervention research program would have the following characteristics:

• A comprehensive surveillance program to ensure that the incidence of 

acute and chronic illness and injury, relevant exposures and risk factors, and the 

affected populations can be fully characterized.

• Funding, facilitation, and promotion of intervention research that focuses 

on the highest-priority populations and problems (identified through surveillance) 

and that is conducted according to established and accepted theory and frameworks 

related to development, implementation, and evaluation.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 41 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

2-1.eps

2.

Background 

Information 

(Conduct Needs 

Assessment)

1.

Develop 

Partnerships

3.

Choose Methods

and Designs 4.

Conduct and

Complete

Work

5.

Report and 

Disseminate

Developmental 

Research Phase

Effectiveness 

Research Phase

Implementation

Research Phase

FIGURE 2-1 The intervention research framework and phases.

SOURCE: Adapted by L.M. Goldenhar from Goldenhar et al., 2001.

• Funding mechanisms that allow for the evaluation of long-term 

effectiveness.

• Support of long-term prospective cohort studies of which intervention 

research is a substantial component.

• Preference of research on engineering intervention strategies when feasible but consideration of administrative and personal or behavioral intervention 

research when appropriate.

• Partnerships with production equipment and personal protective equipment manufacturers throughout the process to assist in identifying good candidates for modification and to facilitate testing and deployment of new control 

technologies.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

42 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

• Intervention effectiveness research conducted according to scientific 

standards.

• Ensuring that detailed results are disseminated quickly and effectively so 

that all stakeholders are aware of both successful and unsuccessful intervention 

strategies.

• High visibility at all levels in each of the industries and active engagement 

in community-based participatory programs to deploy effective interventions and 

disseminate information.

• Evaluation mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of different strategies 

for implementing controls and transferring information.

• A group devoted to evaluating policy development and potential effects 

on implementation of control strategies for reducing injury and illness in AFF 

industries.

• Extensive involvement in research to characterize and identify the best 

strategies for implementing new control approaches.

• Development and use of objective measures for assessing the cost-effective 

distribution and acceptance of control strategies.

• Coordination and sharing of activities and results across all intramural and 

extramural research groups and external partners to avoid duplication of efforts 

and to ensure dissemination of effective strategies.

• Established effective national networks for rapid dissemination of relevant 

intervention strategies to users.

• Readily available results of all intervention research to anyone interested 

and in a standardized format that allows for quick determination of the relevance 

and likely effectiveness of a given strategy for another application.

Health Services Research and Training

The ideal AFF Program would fully describe access to occupational health 

services for each AFF industry in all regions and for all subpopulations. All important barriers to obtaining such services would be identified and characterized. 

The program would then use strategies that allow effective delivery of occupational 

healthcare services to all populations at risk in each industry. When feasible, health 

promotion and preventive health services would also be offered. The workplace is 

the primary location at which those services are delivered to many workers, and 

this justifies the allocation of occupational health resources to meet general wellness needs.

A special effort will be required to integrate health services research into the 

NIOSH agenda. Health services research is central to the NIOSH agenda and would 

be conducted in both intramural and extramural settings. A substantial propor-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 43 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

tion of resources would be devoted to extramural, competitive grant programs 

that complement intramural research. Approaches may be specific to industries, 

occupations, regions, and workforce demographics. Each of the three sectors—

agriculture, forestry, and fishing—would receive resources for health services research in an equitable way that is proportionate to injuries and illnesses affecting 

their worker populations. An effort would be made to nurture the careers of young 

investigators engaged in occupational health services research. Training programs 

for occupational safety and health students and practitioners pertinent to all aspects of occupational health relevant to AFF would be further developed, including 

training for subspecialist physicians with expertise in areas such as pulmonary disease and allergies. The existing NIOSH training of rural nurses with occupational 

expertise would be expanded. Barriers to completing this work include the historic 

difficulties encountered when attempting to insert material on occupational and 

environmental health relevant to all aspects of AFF into the curriculum for health 

professions students. Existing programs would be reviewed for the relevance of 

their content and approach. Monetary support of training programs would be 

offered to fill a gap left by waning institutional support of such programs.

The ideal AFF Program would seek new ways to reach worker populations 

with preventive services and information. The possibilities include partnerships 

with workers’ compensation insurance carriers to improve characterization of the 

incidence of illness and injury in the AFF industries and to quantify and control 

costs. The AFF Program could also work with WC carriers to develop and implement strategies for reaching workers with training materials to increase their 

awareness of key health and safety topics and to offer incentives for reduction 

in occupational illness and injury. Incentive-based programs carry the possible 

danger that workers may be discouraged from reporting injuries or illnesses, but 

new research is needed to more fully document the impact of such programs. To 

implement such a program, WC insurance companies would need the cooperation 

of employers that purchase their insurance, because insurance companies ordinarily do not have direct access to workers unless a claim is filed. NIOSH could play 

a key role in facilitating such relationships by preparing educational materials and 

interpreting injury and illness data.

Knowledge Diffusion and Technology Transfer

For research and technological development to be effective, people at risk 

of disease or injury would need to apply the information that results from such 

research and technological development. Knowledge diffusion makes it possible 

for new information to be shared beyond the narrow confines of researchers. AFF 

workers can be difficult to reach because they do not work in well-defined settings 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

44 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

and often are not native English speakers. New approaches need to be developed to 

reach such disparate groups. In some instances, research is needed to develop new 

approaches and to evaluate their effectiveness and efficiency in reaching the at-risk 

population. That would be a critical activity in the ideal AFF Program.

Technology transfer refers to the application of new approaches that can reach 

at-risk working populations. There are opportunities to develop highly technical 

approaches to reducing illnesses and injuries among AFF workers, but these approaches would need to be useful in extreme work conditions with highly variable 

temperatures and weather conditions and with minimal disruption of work productivity. Field testing of new equipment and approaches is essential in an ideal 

AFF Program because the work environments of farmers, hired farm workers, 

loggers, and fishermen are substantially different from those in manufacturing 

and other work settings.

Public Policy and Regulatory Advice

As the research arm in occupational safety and health, the ideal AFF Program 

would offer independent, scientifically sound advice to inform public policy and 

assist regulatory agencies in protecting AFF worker populations. Research would 

include retrospective cohort studies that aid decisionmaking and inform regulatory activities to reduce workplace injury and illness. In Appendix F, the committee 

provides detailed information about federal and state policies and regulations that 

directly affect AFF workers.

Program Evaluation Initiatives

Effective periodic evaluation throughout the NIOSH process as indicated in the 

logic model is crucial. All aspects of the AFF Program—including activities, outputs, and outcomes—need to be evaluated for relevance and impact. Assessment of 

the impact of such programs and use of the assessment results in priority-setting 

are essential. For such assessment to be useful, the program needs both clear and 

repeatable processes for tracking and collecting information on fatalities and injuries. Robust surveillance data constitute an absolute foundation for quantitatively 

measuring program impacts.

In some cases, research initiatives would be evaluated on an ongoing basis by 

third-party professionals who contract directly with the AFF Program. Whenever 

practical, interventions developed by the AFF Program would rely on the “gold 

standard” of evaluation: comparing workers exposed to the hazard with all or 

randomly selected non-exposed workers. An essential element of evaluation is 

transparency, which can be enhanced by holding local, regional, or national con-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

T 45 h e I d e a l A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m

ferences at which information derived from basic and applied research and from 

surveillance is exposed to public scrutiny.

In addition to internal and external program reviews, overall program evaluations can provide a high level of evaluation of the overall NIOSH program, with 

examples including recent National Academies studies (IOM and NRC, 2006; NRC 

and IOM, 2007). Such reviews are essential to help NIOSH maximize its impact 

on safety and health.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

46

3

Overall Program Assessment

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing are three distinct sectors with disparate workforce populations, relevant stakeholders, and occupational concerns. The committee initially attempted to conduct a separate evaluation of the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) research program in each of those 

sectors. After considering information provided by the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (the AFF Program) and discovering that 

agricultural safety and health represented nearly 99% of the program’s resources, 

the committee decided instead to evaluate the AFF research program as a whole. 

The committee focused its evaluation on research in agricultural safety and health 

but also assessed safety and health efforts in forestry and fishing to the extent that 

information was provided by NIOSH.

The committee provides an overall evaluation of the AFF Program’s strategic 

goals, including “external” factors that, although beyond the program’s control, 

affect its activities and performance. It then identifies other important activities 

that the AFF Program ought to pursue and is pursuing: identifying and engaging stakeholders, conducting health services research and training, carrying out 

program evaluation initiatives, and providing input to public policy. Finally, the 

committee highlights an element that in many ways has the characteristics of the 

ideal AFF Program described in Chapter 2.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 47 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING RESEARCH PROGRAM GOALS

The AFF Program identified five major goals consistent with its congressional 

mandate: surveillance, special populations at risk, health effects of exposure to 

agricultural agents, control systems, and outreach (see Box 3-1). The committee evaluated each major goal and compared programmatic components of the 

existing program with those of the ideal AFF Program described in Chapter 2. 

The committee chose to rename the major goals so that their names would better 

encompass and depict the subjects that the AFF Program had identified: surveillance (Chapter 7), populations at risk (Chapter 8), health effects research (Chapter 

9), intervention research (Chapter 10), and knowledge diffusion and technology 

transfer (Chapter 11).

Following the guidance of the Framework Document, the committee carried 

out its evaluation by using the terminology and organization of a logic model 

BOX 3-1

Major Goals of the AFF Program

Goal 1: Surveillance—Reduce injuries and illnesses in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing 

workforce by understanding the characteristics of those injuries and illnesses so as to target 

research and interventions that reduce hazardous exposures.

Goal 2: Priority Populations at Risk—Reduce injuries and illnesses of special populations 

of workers in these sectors by determining their significant risk factors and identifying and 

recommending interventions.

Goal 3: Health Effects of Agricultural Agent Exposures—Reduce injuries and illnesses by 

understanding the long-term, chronic effects of exposures from agriculture-related chemical 

or physical agents to farmers, their families, and applicators so as to implement controls 

that prevent harmful exposures.

Goal 4: Hazard-Control Systems—Reduce injuries and illnesses resulting from workrelated exposures by developing, demonstrating, and making available control systems that 

eliminate, guard against, or warn of the hazard.

Goal 5: Outreach—Reduce injuries and illnesses by informing and educating employers and 

employees in AFF about occupational safety and health hazards and control systems.

SOURCE: NIOSH, 2006a.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

48 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

adopted by NIOSH to characterize the steps in the committee’s work. An examination of goals, inputs, activities, and outputs was used to assess the relevance of 

the program’s research. Intermediate outcomes and end outcomes were examined 

to evaluate the impact of the program’s research. Illustrative examples of each of 

those terms, as defined by the Framework Document and used in this report, are 

provided in Box 3-2.

Evaluation of Strategic Goals and Objectives

The AFF Program’s stated goals are general and appear appropriately aligned 

with congressional mandate, but they do not include specific measurable objectives 

that would guide the subprograms and allow for assessment of progress. Furthermore, it does not appear that strategic goals have been developed specifically for 

each sector, that is, agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The committee requested 

additional information from NIOSH regarding the strategic plan for the AFF subprograms and questioned whether there were separate plans for each sector. The 

NIOSH response indicated that although a series of informal planning meetings 

focusing on safety and health research in agriculture was organized in the early 

1990s, management of the resulting projects followed the established process and 

structure: projects were primarily investigator-initiated and proposed to meet 

needs described in general plans but with very little institute-wide tactical planning 

or programmatic management. Each NIOSH division then made annual continuation and funding decisions on the basis of perceived need on a project-by-project 

basis (NIOSH Response to Committee Questions 1-3, see Appendix C).

In 1996, on the basis of input from more than 500 stakeholders, NIOSH 

presented the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) that identified 

21 priority research areas in the broad categories of Disease and Injury, Work Environment and Workforce, and Research Tools and Approaches. Priority research 

included traumatic injuries, special populations at risk, control technology and 

personal protective equipment, intervention effectiveness research, and surveillance 

research methods. It appears that NORA was used in lieu of a more formalized 

sector-specific strategic planning process for the first decade (1996-2005).

NORA repeatedly raised the question of sector-specific research (NORA, 2000). 

NIOSH decided that the most effective way to integrate consideration of research 

in specific sectors was to apply a “matrix approach” of coordinated research in 

some or all of the 21 priority areas for each sector. As evidence of the success of 

that approach, NIOSH presented data showing roughly half the NIOSH NORA 

research funds for FY 2000 going to agriculture ($8.3 million), construction ($9.3 

million), mining ($12 million), and healthcare ($5.1 million). However, it is not 

clear whether funds spent in those sectors were directed toward projects that would 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 49 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

BOX 3-2

Logic Model Terms and Examples

Planning Inputs: Stakeholder input, surveillance, and intervention data, and risk assessments (e.g., input from Federal Advisory Committee Act panels or the National Occupational 

Research Agenda research partners, intramural surveillance information, Health Hazard 

Evaluations [HHEs]).

Production Inputs: Intramural and extramural funding, staffing, management structure, 

and physical facilities.

Activities: Efforts and work of the program, staff, grantees, and contractors (e.g., surveillance, health effects research, intervention research, health services research, information 

dissemination, training, and technical assistance).

Outputs: A direct product of a NIOSH research program that is logically related to the 

achievement of desirable and intended outcomes (e.g., publications in peer-reviewed journals, recommendations, reports, website content, workshops and presentations, databases, educational materials, scales and methods, new technologies, patents, and technical 

assistance).

Intermediate Outcomes: Related to the program’s association with behaviors and changes 

at individual, group, and organizational levels in the workplace. An assessment of the worth 

of NIOSH research and its products by outside stakeholders (e.g., production of standards 

or regulations based in whole or in part on NIOSH research; attendance in training and 

education programs sponsored by other organizations; use of publications, technologies, 

methods, or recommendations by workers, industry, and occupational safety and health 

professionals in the field; and citations of NIOSH research by industry and academic 

scientists).

End Outcomes: Improvements in safety and health in the workplace. Defined by measures 

of health and safety and of impact on processes and programs (e.g., changes related to 

health, including decreases in injuries, illnesses, or deaths and decreases in exposures due 

to research in a specific program or subprogram).

External Factors: Actions or forces beyond NIOSH’s control (e.g., by industry, labor, regulators, and other entities) with important bearing on the incorporation in the workplace of 

NIOSH’s outputs to enhance safety and health.

SOURCE: Framework Document (see Appendix A).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

50 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

be identified by stakeholders as having the highest priority. And it is unclear how 

the manager or coordinator of a sector-specific research program (such as the 

AFF Program or the Mining Program), even if armed with a well-defined, clearly 

described strategic plan with detailed measurable objectives, could influence allocation or direction of resources to achieve sector-specific goals.

NIOSH is currently restructuring its research portfolio (NORA 2). The research programs will be subdivided into eight NORA sector programs based on 

industry-sector groups; 15 NIOSH cross-sector programs based on occupational 

health outcomes, statutory programs, and global health efforts; and seven NIOSHcoordinated emphasis areas, which are cross-cutting programs to be integrated into 

the sector and cross-sector programs (FY07 Project Planning Guidance in NIOSH, 

2006a). Each of the 30 research programs will have a manager and coordinator.

AFF is one of the eight sector programs and is developing strategic goals. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires that the strategic goals 

be organized by outcomes, such as reductions in injuries and illnesses, instead of 

more general topics, such as reducing all occupational mortality in AFF industries. 

That approach would yield specific targeted outcomes, performance measures for 

evaluating progress toward meeting outcome goals, and intermediate objectives 

necessary to meet goals. NIOSH identified the following challenges to setting such 

goals (available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs/agff/goals.html):

• The focus is on a subgroup of issues where NIOSH can have an impact. 

A long list would spread resources too thin; not all worthwhile topics can be 

included.

• It is difficult to develop performance measures. Injury statistics have limitations, and exposure and health outcome measures are often unavailable.

• NIOSH is a research agency and so it does not often directly influence 

outcomes. It is ambitious to set goals to achieve such outcomes as reductions in 

a national mortality rate; NIOSH would need to form effective partnerships and 

influence other groups to show results.

On the basis of that information, it appears that the AFF Program will be moving toward an improved strategic planning process that will entail development 

of well-defined, clearly described goals with measurable objectives. However, it 

remains to be seen whether the complex nature of this program portfolio matrix 

will facilitate or hinder research planning, implementation, communication, and 

assessment. It was noted that intervention effectiveness research no longer has 

specific emphasis in NORA, although it would probably fall in the AFF sector or 

appropriate cross-sector programs or coordinated emphasis areas, such as personal 

protective technology or engineering controls.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 51 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

Inputs

Planning Inputs

Planning inputs include surveillance data, stakeholder needs, partner aims, 

information emanating from symposia and conferences, program evaluations, and 

program goals. Complete and accurate surveillance data with complete detail are 

critical for the success of the AFF Program and are required to define the current 

health status of the population at risk, identify health risks within the population, 

track changes in the population health risk, and identify the need for and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Most available data on occupational illness, 

injury, and hazard surveillance have relied heavily on the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII). However, the SOII has shortcomings that result in incomplete information on the AFF Program population at 

risk: it does not cover farming establishments with 10 or fewer full-time workers 

(which make up more than 95 percent of U.S. farms) and does not track injuries 

on farms that have no hired workers (74 percent of U.S. farms) (NIOSH, 2006a). 

NIOSH has attempted to fill the surveillance gaps through various means, including intramural and extramural programs in illness surveillance, injury surveillance, 

and traumatic death surveillance. Despite those efforts, the surveillance input 

remains inadequate, and the size and characteristics of the populations at risk, the 

health risks, and changes remain uncertain. The uncertainties hamper the ability 

of AFF Program personnel to plan and to evaluate the effectiveness of previously 

implemented programs.

Shortcomings in the program goals themselves have been described previously: 

the stated goals of the AFF Program are general and do not include specific measurable objectives that would guide the subprograms and allow for assessment of 

progress. The strategic goals do not appear to have been developed specifically for 

each AFF sector. Thus, progress toward measurable objectives cannot be used as a 

planning input to direct future activities.

The lack of more specific program goals and objectives also limits the effectiveness of program evaluations. The AFF Program has undergone several evaluations over the last decade to examine various components of the overall program 

(NIOSH, 2006a). The evaluations included review of the extramural cooperative 

agreement programs (Kennedy, 1995), review of intramural research by the subcommittee for agricultural review of the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors 

(NIOSH, 2000), and an annual self-evaluation of the NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers) 

orchestrated by the High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health 

and Safety (HICAHS). NIOSH has responded to recommendations made in the 

1995 and 2000 evaluations, but the ability of those review groups to evaluate the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

52 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

AFF subprograms was probably hindered by a lack of formal program goals with 

measurable objectives.

Planning inputs in the form of stakeholder needs, partner aims, and information on emerging issues and the effectiveness of practices and programs seem to 

come largely from interaction and networking at conferences and symposia. In 

addition, on the recommendation of the 1995 program review, NIOSH established 

an internal NIOSH Agricultural Steering Committee (NASC) that included representatives of all divisions engaged in the agricultural research program. The group 

met annually and established research priorities; however, NASC did not manage 

existing projects or approve new ones, so participation waned; there have been no 

meetings since 2003. The history of the steering committee is cause for concern 

because it is unclear whether the approach outlined for NORA 2 addresses the 

supposed causes of the lack of effectiveness, that is, will the sector-based approach 

give the director of the AFF Program adequate authority and resources to direct 

the intramural and extramural research subprograms effectively?

Production Inputs

Production inputs include budget, staff, facilities, management structure, extramural entities, and partners. Over the period 1997-2006, the annual agriculture 

budget averaged about $24 million (a total of $237,750,550 for 1997-2006). The 

funds were distributed among Ag Centers (31 percent), intramural programs (44 

percent), and other extramural programs (25 percent). Of the total research budget 

for the 10-year period, about 57 percent ($136 million) was administered through 

the Office of Extramural Programs (OEP) and directed toward goals in surveillance, 

priority populations, health effects, control systems, health promotion, support, 

and the Ag Centers. The remaining 44 percent was distributed among the various 

divisions, laboratories, and offices performing agricultural research, including the 

Division of Applied Research and Technology (DART), the Division of Respiratory 

Disease Studies (DRDS), the Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and 

Field Studies (DSHEFS), the Division of Safety Research (DSR), the Education 

and Information Division (EID), the Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), 

the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), the Pittsburgh 

Research Laboratory (PRL), and the Spokane Research Laboratory (SRL).

It is difficult to determine the total amount of funding directed specifically to 

intervention research in the AFF Program because detailed funding information on 

the Ag Centers was not provided. The lack of that information limits the effectiveness of a review of the subprograms and hinders efforts to evaluate progress toward 

goals. Apart from intervention research that occurs in the Ag Centers, cumulative 

total funding for AFF intervention research appears to be around $16 million, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 53 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

which represents about 7 percent of the AFF Program budget ($238 million) 

for 1997-2006. That percentage, which would increase with the inclusion of Ag 

Center intervention research, demonstrates a substantial commitment by the AFF 

Program.

The annual number of NIOSH full-time equivalents (FTEs) working on agriculture has ranged from the current low of about 60 (in 2006) to slightly more than 

90 in 1999. A breakdown of cumulative FTEs for the 10-year period by program 

goals shows about 270 FTEs (43 percent) devoted to health effects, about 140 (22 

percent) to surveillance, about 110 (17.5 percent) to control systems, about 70 (11.1 

percent) to health promotion, and about 40 (6.4 percent) to priority populations. 

That distribution reflects only NIOSH FTEs and does not show the distribution of 

Ag Center personnel by AFF Program goals. It is difficult to evaluate the inputs for 

the Ag Centers because the evidence package presents the overall funding and does 

not provide more detailed information on how funding was distributed among 

centers and toward which goals the funds were allocated.

It is difficult to assess the adequacy of AFF Program budget and staff allocations 

without some type of benchmark or reference research program for comparison. 

The AFF Program could accomplish more with additional funding, but there is 

no way to assess the performance of the program without additional information 

or metrics. Regarding staff inputs, a simple comparison of the ratio of FTEs to 

intramural research dollars shows that the AFF Program has a higher result (62 

FTEs/$9 million = 6.9 in 2006) than other research agency or institute intramural 

programs, such as that of the National Cancer Institute [1766 FTEs/$687 million 

= 2.6 in 2006 (NCI, 2006)] and that of the National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences [468 FTEs/$167 million = 2.8 in 2006 (NIEHS, 2007)]. The ratio 

of FTEs to budget dollars is 5.5 FTEs/$1 million for NIOSH as a whole in 2006 

compared with 0.6 and 0.9 for NCI and NIEHS, respectively. That metric may not 

be appropriate for comparing intramural staffing for research programs of such 

widely different scope and size, but the result suggests that NIOSH staffing levels 

are at least as high as those of other organizations when standardized according 

to funding levels.

Despite the fact that the total number of FTEs associated with the AFF Program 

seems to be adequate, the management structure and its influence on the effective use of production inputs would also need to be considered. The management 

structure of NIOSH is based on the divisions, laboratories, and other administrative organizational components, whereas the research programs are organized in 

groupings that cut across the divisions. As a result, a tabulation of FTEs for the AFF 

Program includes scientists and engineers in the divisions and laboratories who do 

not report to the director of the AFF Program. That most probably limits the ability of the AFF director to manage and allocate resources, and this limitation could 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

54 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

lead to the same set of circumstances that limited the effectiveness of the NASC, 

that is, the inability to manage existing projects or approve new ones.

NIOSH has division, laboratory, and office facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Morgantown, West Virginia; Spokane, Washington; Cincinnati, Ohio; Washington, DC; and Atlanta, Georgia. No information was provided regarding the 

condition of those facilities, so it is not possible to assess their adequacy as production inputs.

No specific production input information on extramural entities and partners 

was provided.

Intramural and Extramural Research

Faced with a relatively small annual budget and what was characterized by 

Congress as a national crisis concerning the health of farmers and other agricultural workers, NIOSH made two pivotal and far-reaching decisions. The first was to 

conduct intramural research in fields of science that appeared less well developed. 

For example, NIOSH conducted ground-breaking work in endotoxin analysis and 

assisted university-based scientists in describing respiratory effects of particulate 

exposure in intensive animal production just as that industry was undergoing 

marked production changes from small, family, largely outdoor operations with 

little human exposure to large indoor facilities with the emergence of the intensively exposed “8-hour/day” worker.

The second was to establish the Ag Centers: university-based, regionally distributed centers for research, training, and prevention (see Box 3-3). NIOSH was 

able to encourage regional capacity development across the nation and to take advantage of the extensive support that is a characteristic of university-based research 

and development. When the 1985 NIOSH-supported International Symposium 

on Health and Safety in Agriculture was held in Canada, the majority of the little 

science available was descriptive; there was almost no analytical research and virtually no advanced training or prevention programs. That NIOSH was able, in a 

period of less than 20 years, to stimulate the development of a legitimate scientific 

field with new students being trained and good science being conducted across the 

country has to be regarded as one of the major successes in linking government, 

universities, and the private sector. Notwithstanding those accomplishments, the 

committee concludes that a more tightly led cohesive program might have resulted 

in more gains for AFF workers and their families.

The move to support regionally distributed, university-based programs as a 

key aspect of the AFF Program has produced far-reaching effects on the quality of 

research and training and on the diversity of subjects studied. In establishing the 

university-based Ag Centers, NIOSH appears to have successfully predicted that, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 55 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

BOX 3-3

NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, 

Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers)

The Ag Centers were established as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) NIOSH Agricultural Health and Safety Initiative in 1990. The enabling legislation 

(P.L. 101-517) called for the Ag Centers to “develop model programs for the prevention of 

illness among agricultural workers and their families . . . and [to] educat[e] on agricultural 

safety and health.” The centers were established as cooperative agreements that are geographically distributed to be responsive to agricultural health and safety issues peculiar to 

different regions of the country. At the time of this report, 10 centers were listed on the 

NIOSH Web site. The Ag Centers represent well over half the AFF Program investment in 

extramural research and constitute one of the most important contributions to the AFF 

Program. The centers are described briefly below.

Great Lakes Center for Agricultural Safety and Health, Columbus, Ohio

The goal of the Great Lakes Center for Agricultural Safety and Health (GLCASH) is to promote 

agricultural safety and health for farm, forestry, and fishery employers, workers, families, 

and their communities in the Great Lakes region. GLCASH serves Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Other Ag Centers 

overlap in some of those states; it is expected that activities in these states will be communicated and coordinated among centers. The states in the GLCASH working circle share 

many attributes, such as crops, farming practices, farm sizes, migrant streams, poverty in 

the Appalachian areas, and strong commercial fishing and timber industries.

Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health, Iowa City, Iowa

Serving Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska, the Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health 

is dedicated to one central goal: finding ways to protect and promote the health and safety 

of farmers, farm workers, their families, and their neighbors.

High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural 

Health and Safety, Fort Collins, Colorado

The High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (HICAHS) is dedicated to the improvement of the occupational health, safety, and well-being of the residents 

of Colorado, the High Plains, and the Rocky Mountain region. HICAHS has served the 

agricultural population of Public Health Service Region VIII (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota) for more than 10 years. The overarching goals 

of HICAHS are to reduce agricultural injury and illness through focused research, education, 

and intervention.

continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

56 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural 

Health and Safety, Marshfield, Wisconsin

The National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety provides guidance 

for childhood injury prevention programs in the private and public sectors; guides and supports efforts of major agriculture-related organizations in identifying potential interventions 

to protect children from agricultural hazards; convenes consensus development sessions 

to address complex or controversial issues in childhood injury prevention; addresses rural 

recreational safety, including horses and all-terrain vehicles; provides technical assistance 

and training for professionals on youth-safety issues; collaborates with major agricultural 

organizations, health and safety professionals, and youth-serving groups; and enhances 

communication linkages among child-safety advocates in the public and private sectors.

Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health, Cooperstown, New York

The New York Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health (NYCAMH) was established by 

the New York state legislature in 1988. Recognizing the unacceptably high rates of occupational injury and illness in New York’s largest industry, the legislature charged NYCAMH to 

provide research into the causes and prevention of agricultural injury and illness, education 

and prevention activities in the farm community, education of professionals serving the 

farm community, and clinical help for farm-related health problems. In addition to its state 

mandate, NYCAMH has been designated by NIOSH as the Northeast Center for Agricultural 

Safety and Health (NEC). Serving a 13-state region from Maine through Virginia, NEC promotes farm health and safety research, education, and prevention activities.

Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center, Seattle, Washington

The Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health (PNASH) Center works with the farming, forestry, and fishing industries to improve workplace safety and health in Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. The main research focus is on developing interventions to reduce 

injuries and illnesses. The PNASH Center extends the knowledge gained to employers and 

workers through outreach and professional education.

Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention, Lexington, Kentucky

The mission of the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention is to 

develop and sustain an innovative program of research, education, and health advocacy to 

prevent work-related illness and injury and to improve the safety and health of agricultural 

workers and their families in the southeastern United States. The center serves stakeholders in Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, 

Georgia, West Virginia, and Virginia.

BOX 3-3

Continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 57 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

by and large, the centers would be responsive to regional issues. That the budgets 

for the Ag Centers have been generally modest appears to have reflected NIOSH’s 

understanding that in an extremely diverse set of industries, the AFF Program could 

aspire to be only representative, not comprehensive. Given the budget amounts 

available to NIOSH and the magnitude of the task, the committee believes that 

that was a prudent approach.

Funding and Review Extramural research is funded by two different mechanisms: cooperative agreements and research grants (such as R01 or R21 grants). The 

Ag Centers are funded through cooperative agreements, and individual researchers or groups of investigators are funded through traditional research grants. The 

Southern Coastal Agromedicine Center, Greenville, North Carolina

The Southern Coastal Agromedicine Center is an integral component of the North Carolina 

Agromedicine Institute. The center extends the reach of the institute’s activities through the 

involvement of partner states in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. These states and territories face 

many common agromedicine issues related to climate, crops, strong timber and fishing 

industries, a large migrant worker population, and endemic rural poverty.

Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education, Tyler, Texas

The mission of the Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education is to foster, disseminate, and evaluate activities related to health, injury prevention, 

and education among agricultural interest groups to promote health and safety practices 

among agricultural workers and their families in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, 

and Louisiana.

Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety, Davis, California

The Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary 

program dedicated to the understanding and prevention of illness and injury in western 

agriculture. The center is affiliated with the University of California, Davis Medical School 

and the Department of Public Health Sciences. The center conducts extensive surveillance 

and documentation of health needs. Research focuses on small particulate matter and 

respiratory health.

SOURCE: NIOSH, 2007a.

BOX 3-3

Continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

58 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

committee believes that there has been too much reliance on the latter for national 

direction on AFF research issues. National priorities would stem from AFF Program 

leadership to guide extramural research efforts; cooperative agreements provide 

structure for specific responses to AFF issues, while the research grants maximize 

investigator interests and competencies.

Stakeholder Input

The AFF Program organized or participated in numerous conferences, symposia, working meetings, and so on, devoted to engaging stakeholders in discussions 

of vulnerable working populations and small operators. Some activities are found 

in Table 3-1. The Iowa Center for Agricultural Safety and Health has sponsored 

regional and national symposia structured around specific AFF issues, such as the 

national agricultural research agenda (1992 Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Health and Safety), design of occupational and environmental medical 

TABLE 3-1 Conferences, Symposia, and Working Meetings to Engage 

Stakeholders

Conference Year

CHILDHOOD AGRICULTURAL INJURY

Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health 1991

Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention Symposium 1992

Child and Adolescent Rural Injury Control 1995

4th International Symposium: Rural Health and Safety in a Changing World 1998

Agricultural Safety and Health in a New Century 2000

National Occupational Injury Research Symposium 2000

Federal Interagency Working Group on Preventing Childhood Agricultural Injuries 2001

National Institute for Farm Safety—Annual Meeting 2001

2001 Summit on Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention 2001

National Injury Prevention and Control Conference 2005

MINORITY POPULATIONS

Expert Panel on Hired Farmworker Occupational Health and Safety 1995

LOGGING

Three workshops devoted to helicopter logging standards in Alaska 1993-1997

FISHERMEN

Fishing Industry Safety and Health (FISH) Workshop 1992

FISH II Workshop 1997

1st International Fishing Industry Safety and Health (IFISH) Workshop 2000

IFISH II 2003

IFISH III 2006

SOURCE: NIOSH, 2006a.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 59 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

capacity within Education and Research Centers and the Ag Centers (1988 Institute 

of Agricultural Medicine and Occupational Health), conducted annual training 

since 1996 of healthcare professionals who prevent and treat occupational illnesses 

and injuries occurring on agricultural premises, studied violence prevention within 

rural areas (1992 Conference on Handgun Injuries: A Public Health Approach), 

and responded to the agricultural tractor-related death and injury crisis in the 

United States (1997 Tractor Risk Abatement and Control: The Policy Conference) 

(Donham et al., 1998). Both the High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural 

Health and Safety and the Southwest Center for Agricultural Health and Safety cosponsored a national conference examining worker health issues associated with 

agro-terrorism in 2004. Additionally, the Southeast Center for Agricultural Health 

and Injury Prevention led the effort from 2005-2007 to assess farmer and rancher 

attitudes towards retrofitting older agricultural tractors as a part of the National 

Agricultural Tractor Safety Initiative. The Western Center for Agricultural Safety 

and Health assembled a multi-disciplinary team from the United States and Canada 

in 2006 to assess the ergonomic and anthropometric parameters of the North 

American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks (NAGCAT) pertaining to 

tractor operations.

In January 2007, the High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health 

and Safety prepared a report evaluating the 10 Ag Centers, and found that the centers 

collectively produced over 800 products and reached about 4.2 million people.

Responsiveness to Stakeholder Input

Much of the interaction between AFF Program personnel and stakeholders occurs at formal meetings, conferences, and symposia and through NORA town hall 

gatherings. It is apparent that there is also extensive interaction among investigators and research staff and the stakeholders who partner or participate in research 

activities. There are numerous examples in the project descriptions of activities 

that undoubtedly provide opportunities for stakeholders to offer input. However, 

despite those opportunities and NIOSH’s response to stakeholder input, only a 

small fraction of all stakeholders participated in the process and felt that they were 

actively engaged in AFF Program efforts.

There is also a conceptual gap between seeking stakeholder involvement and 

actually engaging stakeholders, given the large numbers of AFF workers. Convening 

a conference or a public gathering, in the manner generally used by federal agencies, normally brings “the usual suspects” to the forefront. Advocacy groups claim 

to speak on behalf of various AFF workers and are often readily able to participate 

in the types of gatherings described above, whereas a paucity of AFF workers speak 

on their own behalf. This gap is not entirely the fault of the agency; it is difficult to 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

60 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

engage important segments of the AFF workforce, especially non-English speaking 

workers, or the large numbers who lack authorization for U.S. employment.

Special efforts are clearly needed to reach and engage workers in settings that 

they feel comfortable in, and the AFF Program staff in general has yet to show inclination to initiate direct worker involvement. The notion that simply “hearing” 

what stakeholders and their representatives have to say about workforce needs is 

sufficient for input is wrong. A more meaningful way to engage stakeholders would 

be to directly include them in ongoing discussions of designing and implementing 

AFF research.

Consistency of Production Inputs with Program Goals and Objectives

Considerable resources are being directed toward achieving the goals of the 

AFF Program. It is difficult to assess the adequacy of production inputs given the 

lack of detail regarding the distribution of Ag Center funding and how it is directed 

toward program goals. The management structure of NIOSH seems to limit the 

role of AFF Program personnel in directing resources, managing projects, and 

evaluating progress toward measurable objectives. The lack of a formal strategic 

planning process with stated aims and measurable objectives exacerbates the problem of management structure and hampers program evaluation. If the role of the 

AFF Program management is only to compile and manage information, there are 

substantial shortcomings in the current process for compiling, categorizing, coding, and sorting through the large quantity of information related to the activities, 

outputs, and outcomes of the various projects.

Activities

Promotion of Activities: Quantity and Quality

The committee found no evidence that inputs were squandered or devoted 

to activities unrelated to the defined program goals. A more difficult and more 

important question is whether the limited resources were allocated in a way that 

would maximize the impact on the highest-priority subjects for the program. The 

general nature of the program goals and the lack of a more formal strategic planning process with measurable objectives make it difficult to determine how well 

the inputs were used.

Adequate surveillance data are important for achieving an effective AFF Program, and there are recognized problems with the available sources of surveillance 

data for AFF populations; the inputs might not be adequate. On the basis of budget 

information provided in the evidence package (Figures 2-9 and 2-10 in NIOSH, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 61 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

2006a), about 15 percent of AFF funding has been allocated to surveillance (Ag 

Center allocation to surveillance unknown). Additional surveillance efforts occur 

with respect to high-priority populations and would increase surveillance funding, but the amount cannot be determined from the data provided. As mentioned 

previously, the distribution of FTEs by AFF Program goals (Figure 2-14 in NIOSH, 

2006a) shows a disproportionate number devoted to health effects (roughly twice 

that to surveillance). There may be valid logistical reasons for program goals to 

require different levels of personnel, but it is unclear why a goal that is fundamental 

to the success of the AFF Program (surveillance) would require so many fewer FTEs. 

Even if high-priority population FTEs (about 40) are combined with surveillance 

FTEs (about 140), the total (180) is still much lower than the number for health 

effects (about 270).

The distribution of intramural and extramural funding across the AFF Program appears to be roughly comparable (about $30-40 million) for surveillance 

and health effects over the period 1997-2006 (Figure 2-9 in NIOSH, 2006a). Again, 

given the critical nature of surveillance, an equal distribution of resources across 

the goals may not be the most effective strategy. AFF Program leaders, stakeholders, 

partners, and so on would need to first determine what resources would be required 

to establish a comprehensive surveillance program for AFF populations, implement 

the strategy, and then use the resulting data to allocate remaining resources and 

direct research in the other subjects.

Planned Transfer Activities

The most recent request for application (RFA) for Ag Centers (PAR-06-057) 

states specific goals requiring elements of transfer activities. These include the 

development, implementation, and evaluation of education projects; providing 

consultation or training to researchers, safety and health professionals, and agricultural extension agents; development, implementation, and evaluation of model 

programs for prevention of illness and injury; and development of linkages and 

communication with other government and non-government bodies involved in 

agricultural health and safety with emphasis on communication with other agricultural safety and health programs. Those requirements ensure that Ag Centers 

engage in some minimal amount of transfer activity. That is not to suggest that 

the centers are not now engaged in transfer activities; centers undertake extensive 

education and outreach activities as described in the comprehensive reports in the 

evidence package.

Although the AFF Program does not have a planned set of transfer activities, it has funded the development and maintenance of the National Agriculture 

Safety Database (NASD). That project established a national central repository of 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

62 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

agricultural health, safety, and injury prevention materials for the agricultural community and agricultural safety specialists. The goals of the NASD are to provide a 

national information resource for the dissemination of information; disseminate 

information to agricultural workers on prevention of occupational hazards associated with injury, death, and illness; promote the consideration of safety and health 

issues in the management of agricultural operations; and provide a convenient 

way for the agricultural safety and health community to share educational and 

research materials.

Peer-Review Process

The peer-review process for intramural and extramural research programs is a 

strength of the AFF Program. Ag Center activities are supported under an RFA process specifically requiring centers to include prevention or intervention programs 

that address agricultural safety and health. The most recent RFA (PAR-06-057) 

says that Ag Centers will

1. Conduct research studies related to the prevention of occupational disease 

and injury in agricultural producers, workers, and their families.

2. Develop, implement, and evaluate education projects for promoting health 

and safety for production agriculture, forestry, and fishing, including farmers, 

workers, and their families. This would include providing consultation or training 

to researchers, health and safety professionals, graduate and professional students, 

agricultural extension agents, and others in a position to improve the health and 

safety of agricultural workers.

3. Develop, implement, and evaluate model programs for the prevention of 

illness and injury in agricultural producers, workers, and their families.

4. Develop linkages and communication with other government and nongovernment bodies involved in agricultural health and safety with emphasis on 

communication with other agricultural health and safety programs.

The RFA and the peer-review process that leads to an Ag Center award ensure 

that there is a commitment to intervention research and specifically requires that 

centers include process and outcome measures of intervention research to the 

extent possible. The process measures are to be detailed enough to allow for replication in other fields. The outcome measures include exposure to injury hazards, 

knowledge of safety and health hazards, documentation of safety and health behavior change, and changes in the incidence of disease, injury, and death.

Given the management structure of the AFF Program, the peer-review process and the Ag Center RFAs are critical for ensuring that resources are directed 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 63 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

toward high-priority topics and that activities are consistent with achieving the 

program goals. The peer-review process is similarly critical for other extramural 

and intramural research projects. Because AFF Program personnel do not directly 

manage projects, the only mechanism to ensure that research funding can support 

projects related to AFF goals is the inclusion of the priorities in NORA and in the 

initial peer-review process that directs funding to the most relevant projects. An 

important disadvantage of this approach to project funding is that it assumes an 

adequate pool of intramural and extramural investigators who will submit highquality proposals that target the priorities of the AFF Program. If for some reason 

there are not enough proposals directed toward AFF Program priorities, the funding is likely to go elsewhere. It seems likely that the NORA 2 sector-based approach 

will strongly encourage proposals targeting AFF priorities; under NORA 1, there 

were no AFF-specific priorities.

Quality-Assurance Procedures

The AFF Program lacks a program-wide approach to monitoring quality assurance. Quality-assurance controls occur mainly at the beginning of a project through 

the peer review of the proposal and the comments of reviewers and toward the later 

stages of a project when outputs are typically presented as peer-reviewed manuscripts or at professional conferences or meetings where peers have the opportunity 

to review and comment. Although opportunities to assess quality through review 

of progress reports are needed, there is usually little feedback provided to investigators through this mechanism. In general, investigators assume the responsibility for 

quality assurance and for oversight of a research project that will lead to credible 

data, analyses, and conclusions.

Outputs

In the early years of the AFF Program, conferences were the principal mechanism for evaluating progress. The conferences brought together intramural and 

extramural investigators to facilitate coordination of activities and promote collaboration. The conferences have included the following:

• Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health (1991)

• Farm Flood Response Workshop—Implications for Agricultural Safety and 

Health (1993)

• First National Conference for NIOSH-Sponsored Centers (1994)

• Second NIOSH Agricultural Health and Safety Conference (1995)

• Third NIOSH Agricultural Health and Safety Conference (1996)
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

64 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

• National Action Plan: Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention (1996)

• Second National Fishing Industry Safety and Health Workshop (1997)

• TRAC: The Policy Conference (1997)

• Construction-Agriculture-Mining Partnership (CAMP) Workshop (1999)

• International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference (2000)

• ASH-NET Agricultural Safety and Health Conference (2001)

• Summit on Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention (2001)

• Second International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference 

(2003)

• National Symposium on Agricultural Health and Safety (2004)

• Third International Fishing Industry Safety and Health Conference 

(2006)

It is not possible to characterize how well the AFF Program outputs are disseminated as a whole. Because there is no unified, program-wide approach to 

transfer activities, the program relies on individual centers and investigators to 

undertake the process of research-to-practice. In general, it is more difficult to accomplish transfer activities on a larger scale, so the projects that are most successful are probably the ones that have a manageable number of stakeholders or that 

have partners and existing infrastructure to facilitate widespread dissemination of 

outputs. The success of transfer activities also depends on the targeted audience. 

If the primary “consumer” of an output is the community of agricultural health 

and safety researchers and professionals, presentation at a professional conference 

or research symposium or in the peer-reviewed literature can be a highly effective 

means of transfer. Because of the diverse nature of the numerous intervention research projects undertaken and differences in the targeted consumers and partners, 

some projects are more successful than others; there is no standardized objective 

means of evaluating the success of transfer activities.

Intermediate Outcomes

The committee lists here a number of the contributions of AFF Program research to inform public policy and regulatory action.

State-level policies in which AFF Program research informed decisionmaking:

• Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) article in August 2004 

about chloropicrin drift exposure in California (CDC, 2004) provided justification 

of new legislation in California requiring growers to reimburse medical expenses 

incurred by persons injured by pesticide drift.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 65 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

• Wisconsin Act 455, passed in 1996, prohibits people younger than 16 years 

old from driving farm tractors on public roads until they complete a tractor and 

machinery certification course; it was based on Agricultural Health Promotion 

System research in Wisconsin.

• MMWR article in November 1999 about illnesses associated with pesticides 

used to control Medfly infestations (CDC, 1999a) led the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Florida Department of Agriculture to adopt non-pesticide 

methods for Medfly control.

• Washington State Supreme Court mandated in 2000 that the Washington 

State Department of Labor and Industries develop a cholinesterase (ChE) monitoring program for workers handling acutely toxic pesticides. Research supported by 

the AFF Program in California discovered substantial limitations on the accuracy 

of ChE field testing and led to a new approach to optimize clinical determinations. 

In 1995, a Technical Advisory Group formed by the Washington department found 

that a ChE monitoring program was technically feasible and necessary to protect 

worker health. The rule was implemented by the department in February 2004.

Federal policies in which AFF Program research informed decisionmaking:

• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) used a 1976 

NIOSH document for a proposed logging standard as a basis of the 1994 OSHA 

logging standard (29 CFR 1910.266). From July 1989 to October 1990, NIOSH 

provided three sets of comments to OSHA supporting a proposed logging rule. 

OSHA’s final logging standard incorporated most of the comments.

• In 1999, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) initiated a Dockside Enforcement 

Program to identify and correct safety hazards identified by NIOSH in crab fishing. 

The program has been “institutionalized” by USCG.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned chlorpyrifos 

for residential use in 2000 partly on the basis of AFF Program neurological effect 

studies.

• On October 25, 1994, the AFF Program submitted comments to the U.S. 

Department of Labor (DOL) in response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding child labor. In its comments, the AFF Program provided recommendations for new hazardous orders for both nonagricultural and agricultural 

industries.

• The Youth Worker Protection Act introduced in both 2003 and 2005 by 

Representative Tom Lantos intended to revise child-labor law was based largely on 

NIOSH hazardous order recommendations released in 2002. In 2005, the CARE Act 

(HR 3482) introduced by Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard proposed changes 

in child-labor laws in agriculture and identified youth farm injury data collected 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

66 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

by the AFF Child Agricultural Injury Survey as a source of data to be used in an 

annual report on occupational injuries in youths working on farms in the United 

States.

End Outcomes

Aside from data provided by the Alaska Field Station and the childhood agricultural initiative, few data were available to link AFF Program research conclusively 

with reductions in injuries and illnesses in AFF populations. A more thorough 

examination of end outcomes by research goals is found in Chapters 4-8.

External Factors

The AFF Program operates in an environment shaped by many factors that it 

cannot control. Some are so fundamental to the nature of the program that the 

committee found it essential to keep them in mind for all aspects of its review.

The AFF Program is limited in its ability to effect change in the workplace 

because of the various stakeholders involved (Box 3-4). As a program in a research 

agency, the AFF Program is in a position to produce knowledge about workplace 

hazards that could cause injuries and illnesses and to promote the application of 

this knowledge in the workplace, but it is not responsible for minimizing hazardous workplace environments or ensuring worker compliance; this responsibility 

falls ultimately on employers, who respond to economic and regulatory imperatives. Some employers may resist implementing recommended measures in the 

workplace for economic reasons. Authority to establish and enforce workplace 

regulations lies with DOL’s OSHA. NIOSH is expected to make recommendations 

to OSHA, but OSHA needs to consider the views of other interested parties that 

may have concerns that differ from those of NIOSH. Where statutory and labor 

exemptions apply, NIOSH faces federal regulatory constraints that make it difficult 

to affect worker safety and health.

NIOSH is a part of a federal agency whose agenda and budget are subject to 

congressional directive; this makes it difficult for the AFF Program to develop 

subprograms and dedicate funding for long-term research activities. As a government entity, NIOSH complies with rules and standards in seeking and submitting 

information. The external approval process has yet to be streamlined by other government agencies, so long delays are common and often hold up research projects 

and information dissemination. Furthermore, national policy developments can 

affect employment and harvest patterns in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The 

Food Security Act (the Farm Bill), management of fisheries, energy policies, immigration policies, and trade policies are examples of policies that dictate the types 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 67 v e r a l l P r o g r a m A s s e s s m e n t

BOX 3-4

External Factors That Affect the AFF Program

(as identified by NIOSH)

The extent to which research activities lead to reductions in injury, illness, or exposure 

is affected by stakeholder activities and inputs. Actions of industry, labor, and other entities 

are beyond NIOSH control and have a substantial bearing on the adoption of AFF Program 

outputs in the workplace. NIOSH has identified three general categories of external factors 

that may influence AFF Program outcomes: social conditions, economic conditions, and the 

current regulatory environment.

Social Conditions: NIOSH identified difficulties in identifying and working with the 

most effective partners as an external factor in the category of social conditions. It stated 

that early attempts to use the USDA extension service model to distribute research findings 

and outputs was abandoned to move toward application of the community nurse model in 

rural settings combined with an active surveillance component. No additional information 

on the change in tactics was provided. NIOSH also reported some difficulty in partnering 

with the medical community to deliver cancer-prevention messages directly to patients: It 

was found that physician cooperation was partial or uneven. As an example of favorable but 

unpredictable external factors, NIOSH noted the activities of several stakeholder organizations. The National Safety Council adopted a “Farm Safety and Health Week” and established 

the National Education Center for Agricultural Safety in Iowa. The American Society of 

Agricultural Engineers (now the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers) 

established priorities in safety and health and initiated the Journal of Agricultural Safety and 

Health. The Farm Foundation established an agricultural safety workgroup, and a number 

of tractor manufacturers launched at-cost rollover-protective-structure retrofit programs. 

Finally, the Kellogg Foundation funded several grants that targeted sustainable interventions 

for special populations.

Economic Conditions: NIOSH noted a continuing decrease in the number of farmers 

and a corresponding increase of concentration in agricultural production. Although the 

number of farms has declined, the demand for agricultural products has increased. The 

demand has been met through the use of large-scale mechanization, improvements in crop 

varieties, and the use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides. The need for human labor 

has decreased, as indicated by an increase in labor efficiency from 27.5 acres/worker in 

1890 to 740 acres/worker in 1990. Another trend in farms is the aging of self-employed 

principal farm operators. This “graying” of the farm population raises concerns about the 

long-term health of family farms. It was noted that during the period 1989-2003, farm size 

shifted toward the smallest and largest sales categories, and production shifted sharply to 

very large family farms and non-family farms. It was predicted that shifts in production 

away from farms in the $10,000-249,999 sales class would continue. Small farms tend to 

specialize in raising beef cattle and various crops, whereas large farms tend to raise hogs 

and higher-value crops. Some 22% of farms produced more than two commodities, and 

65 percent produced one or two commodities. Medium and large farms were more likely to 

continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

68 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

of products that a region can produce, the amount harvested, and the number of 

workers employed. The AFF Program can and needs to anticipate policy changes, 

but it is difficult to predict how the changes will affect worker safety and health.

Over the course of its information gathering, the committee came to understand the degree to which the AFF Program is undergoing change as part of 

NIOSH’s reorganization effort in conjunction with NORA 2 and by virtue of its 

self-scrutiny in preparation for this committee’s evaluation. The program identified new research goals and named new leadership in 2006 as it prepared for this 

evaluation. The program intends to develop a strategic plan through its newly 

formed NORA 2 AFF Sector Council, but it has deferred results from that activity 

until the conclusion of the present committee’s evaluation.

produce more than one commodity. NIOSH also observed that although equipment dealers 

have generally resisted safety legislation, some have helped with interventions by selling 

safety equipment and accessories.

Current Regulatory Environment: AFF sector regulation is spread across several 

federal agencies, and there are large gaps in the coverage and enforcement of regulation. 

Agricultural operations are addressed in specific OSHA standards for agriculture and general 

industry; however, restrictions set through the appropriations process limit enforcement 

of regulations to operations that employ more than 10 workers. Similar limitations apply 

to regulation of commercial fishing. Regulation at the state level has varied: It has been 

somewhat effective in states such as California and Washington with a long history of labor 

organizing or workforce activism, and less effective in states where self-employed labor is 

dominant. With respect to the latter, a notable exception is rules requiring the use of slowmoving vehicle signs on farm vehicles traveling slower than 25 mph now in place in 49 

states. Most AFF workers are not covered by workers’ compensation programs or do not 

work for entities that are required to report injuries and illnesses, so few data are available 

to estimate injury and illness rates and economic costs. Several federal agencies have regulatory responsibilities for portions of AFF operations: EPA regulates pesticide applicators, 

DOL enforces the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, USCG enforces 

standards under the Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Act, and the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Aviation Administration, and EPA oversee aerial applications of 

pesticides and fertilizers.

SOURCE: NIOSH, 2006a.

BOX 3-4

Continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

69

4

Review of Surveillance Research

Surveillance is a cornerstone of public health and provides evidence of emerging hazards, illnesses, and injuries as well as providing baseline information from 

which to evaluate the success of intervention programs. Occupational illness, injury, 

and hazard surveillance has developed over the past 35 years, but due to reliance on 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Survey of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries, 

standard surveillance has not provided adequate information on populations who 

work in AFF sectors. To address the issues related to the AFF sector, AFF Program 

staff have attempted to identify alternative data collection systems to augment the 

more traditional approaches.

STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 1: Hazard Surveillance—Reduce injuries and illnesses in the agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing workforce by understanding the characteristics of those injuries and illnesses so as to target research and interventions that reduce hazardous 

exposures.

The strategic goal related to hazard surveillance is critical to the development, 

implementation, and evaluation of all AFF sector efforts. The AFF Program goal 

has been met with mixed results that differ by sector, population at risk, and 

hazardous exposures. Overall, the focus of the program has been primarily on 

agricultural production, pesticide exposures, Alaska fishing, children, and hired 

workers. Where efforts have been focused clear progress in surveillance-based 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

70 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

information is evident, but other areas need better and more surveillance data. 

Further, the surveillance data need to be used in a more systematic manner for 

the development of research agendas and for the development and evaluation of 

intervention programs.

Logic Submodel

Information received from the NIOSH AFF Program (NIOSH, 2006a) related 

to inputs, activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and end outcomes in surveillance is summarized in the surveillance logic submodel (Figure 4-1). Several 

factors were missing in the creation of an accurate logic submodel to evaluate the 

program’s surveillance efforts. No formal infrastructure for the coordination of 

surveillance activities was described. A schema for identification of populations at 

risk that merited surveillance was not provided. And, planning input from stakeholders regarding surveillance activity was not identified.

INPUTS

Planning Inputs

Congress spelled out a specific charge to NIOSH for conducting surveillance 

in the Senate appropriations language of 1990 (as quoted in http://www.cdc.gov/

niosh/nas/agforfish/pdfs/app2-02.pdf): Funds were specifically earmarked for a “U.S. 

farm family health and hazard” surveillance program. Testimony rendered by 

agricultural safety and public health professions in support of the legislation was 

explicit that surveillance of these worksites was central to all ensuing effort. The 

phrase farm family was not intended to refer only to farmers, ranchers, and their 

families; rather, it referred to all persons performing tasks or residing on a farm, 

including hired laborers and accompanying family members. The other planning 

input that was referred to in the evidence package was the National Coalition for 

Agricultural Safety and Health report (Appendix 2-01 in NIOSH, 2006a), which 

suggested that adequate population-based rates were not available for agriculturally 

related diseases and injuries, therefore health and hazard surveys of agricultural 

workers needs to be conducted. In forestry, strategic planning evidence came from 

the Pacific Northwest Center and addressed northwest forestry only. Significant 

efforts related to fatal injury surveillance in the Alaska fishing sector have been 

conducted with evidence that Gulf Coast fishing is being addressed by one of the 

NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and 

Prevention (Ag Centers).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

71

FIGURE 4-1 Surveillance logic submodel.AOISS = Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System, CAST = Cooperative Agricultural Surveillance Training, FACE = Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Program, FFHHS = Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance, IPM = integrated pest management, MMWR = Morbidityand Mortality Weekly Report, NCASH = National Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Health, NTOF = National Traumatic Occupational Fatality Surveillance System, OHNAC = Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities, SENSOR = Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk, WoRld = Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report.

Inputs Activities Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes 

1. FFHHS2. NTOF3. OHNAC

4. Child Agricultural Injury

Surveillance

5. FACE6. Occupational Injury

Surveillance ofProduction Agriculture

7. Traumatic Injury Surveillance

of Farmers

8. National Electronic Injury

Surveillance

9. National Agricultural Workers

Survey

10. Emerging Issues in Injury

Surveillance

11. WoRLD12. SENSOR-Pesticides13. AOISS14. The Keokuk Rural Health Study

15. The Farmer Health Study

16. The Regional Rural Injury

Study

v Social and economic conditions v Regulatory environment

v State and local differences in information, such as mismatched public health

information systems

v Seasonality of work practices, diverse workforce

External Factors

1. MMWR2. 185 peer-reviewed journal

articles

3. 6 NIOSH updates

4. Alert on carbon monoxide

poisoning

5. How-to guide on pesticide

surveillance

6. 4 “other” NIOSH

publications

7. 150 presentations

8. Unpublished reports9. Web sites

10. Policy briefing in California

11. Brochures, checklists, fact

12. sheets, white papers

13. 12. OHNAC exhibits

1. FFHHS spirometry and

audiometry protocols

2. CAST materials and training3. Work-related lung- disease

report

4. OHNAC materials

5. Safety day-camp materials

(drowning in farm ponds) andsafety day camps

6. SENSOR report generated

adoption of IPM programs in

schools

7. Data used to prepare National

Agenda for Action-land grantresearch

1. Reduction of pesticide

poisonings

2. Reduction in fatal injuries in

farm youth

3. Reduction in logging

accidents and helicopter

crashes

4. Declines in deaths from

fishing and accidents in

fishing

Planning inputs:

1. Agriculture:

• NCASH report

 • Senate appropriation

2. Forestry:

 • Northwest forestlands

strategic document

3. Fishing: None reported

Production inputs:

1. Budget

2. Intramural staff

3. Extramural researchers

4. Infrastructure

• No infrastructure described
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

72 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Production Inputs

Production inputs include staff time, external investigators’ time, and intramural and extramural budgets.

ACTIVITIES

Activities and funding related to surveillance identified in the evidence package (NIOSH, 2006a) and through review of other materials provided by NIOSH 

and available on the NIOSH Web site are detailed in Table 4-1. There has been 

substantial activity related to determining the hazards and injuries associated with 

agriculture, with less relative to forestry and fishing. There is little evidence of work 

on the surveillance for illnesses other than respiratory diseases. Absent from surveillance activities cited in the evidence package and supplemental materials were 

other disease and injury outcomes on the National Occupation Research Agenda 

(1996 to date) list (allergic and irritant dermatitis, hearing loss, infectious disease, 

musculoskeletal disease, and reproductive outcomes). Research on surveillance 

methods was also limited. AFF surveillance needs to be a major priority of the 

intramural program activities so that the appropriate information is used to plan 

future directions. Hazard surveillance has included extensive work related to the 

leading causes of injury-related deaths, tractors, and has focused on rollover protective structures (ROPS). FACE investigations have identified emerging problems 

related to AFF sector injury deaths.

Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance (FFHHS): These surveys were 

conducted with no planned long-term surveillance, and only six states were funded 

across the nation. A number of important issues for agricultural safety and health 

were identified by investigators involved in these survey and publications from 

these surveys continue to provide important information (NIOSH, 2006a). The degree to which the FFHHS programs interacted with the NIOSH Ag Centers has not 

been evaluated. Although NIOSH staff attempted to standardize data elements and 

definitions across the six efforts, that effort was not entirely successful, but there is 

limited evidence that the uniform elements were used effectively in comparative 

analyses (Zwerling et al., 1997b; Scarth et al., 2000). How successful the FFHHS 

programs were in completing surveys and generating information also varied by 

state. NIOSH has ensured that data obtained from the surveys can be accessed on 

a Web site (http://www2a.cdc.gov/ffhhs/dictmain.asp).

The committee identified barriers to the recommended surveillance activities. 

The evidence package indicates the full extent of underfunding of surveillance of 

hired farm laborer occupational safety (NIOSH, 2006a). The allocation of resources 

described in the document “Composite of Ag Budget by Goals and Program Areas” 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 73 e v i e w o f S u r v e i l l a n c e R e s e a r c h

TABLE 4-1 NIOSH Programs with Surveillance Activities

Program or Project Division Dates Funding

Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance DSHEFS 1990-2000 $1,540,907-2,000,000 

per year for 10 years

Agriculture research, development, and planning use of 

state farm-family health and hazard surveys

DSHEFS 1998-2004 $1,001,616

National Traumatic Occupational Fatality Surveillance 

System

DSR 1984-2003 $226,663;

1990-1996, $300,000 

in agriculture industry

Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural 

Communities

DSHEFS 1990-2000 $15,000,000-

16,000,000

Community Partners for Healthy Farming DSHEFS 1996-2007 $6,550,341

Keokuk County (Iowa) Rural Health Study — 1990- Extramural unknown

The Farmer Health Study (California) — 1990- Extramural unknown

The Regional Rural Injury Study (Minnesota) — 1990-1993 Extramural unknown

NEISS-CPSC sample of emergency department records 

and follow-up

DSR 1991-2010 $1,019,019

Work-related lung disease surveillance report DRDS 2005-2010 Unknown

Respiratory health and hazards in agriculture report DRDS 2000-2005 $496,321

National Agricultural Worker Survey DSHEFS 1998-2008 $2,345,448

Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention Initiative DSR 2006-2015 $8,455,000

Child Agriculture Injury Prevention Initiative DSR 1996-2010 $1,107,379

Surveillance of Occupational Injuries among Children 

and Adolescents

DSR 1995-1999 $13,827;

1995-1996, $9,300 in 

agriculture

Occupational traumatic injury surveillance of farmers DSR 1993-1997 $40,374;

1993-1996, $1,160,000 

in agriculture industry

Occupational injury surveillance in production 

agriculture

DSR 2001-2015 $1,725,687

Emerging problems in occupational injury epidemiology DSR 1990-2004 $237,222

Injury risk factors in migrant and seasonal workers DSR 1997-1998 $57,635

Traumatic injury surveillance of farmers DSR 1993-1997 $40,374;

1993-1996, $1,160,000 

in agriculture industry

continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

74 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Program or Project Division Dates Funding

Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE)—

technical assistance

DSR 1983-2010 $406,113;

1990-1996, $552,000 

in agriculture industry

Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE)—

state-based model

DSR 1988-2010 $3,476,602;

1990-1996, $1,200,000 

in agriculture industry

Emerging Issues in Injury Surveillance DSR 1985-2015 $213,751

Workplace Hazards to Children and Adolescents in 

Agricultural Work Settings

DART 1997-2000 $1,127,468

Occupational Injury Prevention in Alaska Alaska 

Field 

Station

1990-2010 $3,388,092

SENSOR-Pesticides DSHEFS 1987-2010 $1,554,918

NOTE: CPSC = Consumer Product Safety Commission, DART = Division of Applied Research and Technology, 

DRDS = Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, DSHEFS = Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, 

and Field Studies; DSR = Division of Safety Research, NEISS = National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, 

SENSOR=Sentinel Event Notification of Occupational Risk.

TABLE 4-1 Continued

indicates that the cumulative total agriculture program funding allocated to the category “Migrant & Minority” was less than 10 percent of all its resources dedicated 

to “Priority Populations”. In 1995, NIOSH staff convened a 12-member advisory 

group to recommend priorities for surveillance among hired farm laborers. This 

effort could be a model for future surveillance. NIOSH Cincinnati brought together 

a group of nationally known researchers and medical practitioners with many years 

of experience both studying occupational safety in this population and/or providing health services. The effort was chaired by noted stakeholders (Valerie Wilk of 

the Farmworker Justice Fund and Rose Holden of the Rural Community Assistance 

Corporation), and the California Institute for Rural Studies was eventually commissioned to prepare the report of this task force and forward the final document 

in 1998. The report and some of its recommendations were briefly mentioned in 

the evidence package (page 174 of NIOSH, 2006a).

National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS): NIOSH partnered with the U.S. 

Department of Labor (DOL) for the purpose of adding an occupational health 

and safety supplement to DOL’s ongoing National Agricultural Workers Survey 

(NAWS) of hired crop farm workers during 1999.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 75 e v i e w o f S u r v e i l l a n c e R e s e a r c h

Childhood Agricultural Injury Survey (CAIS): The definitions used for children 

in this survey were nonstandard. Child workers are legally minors and under 18 

years of age. The inclusion of 18- and 19-year-olds created confusion because of 

the different legal status of child workers in agriculture under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In fact, the 1998 General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government 

Accountability Office) report clearly states that the best available data indicated 

that there were about 155,000 15- to 17-year-olds working in agriculture in 1997; 

most (116,000) were hired workers (GAO, 1998). About 39,000 were self-employed 

and unpaid family workers (GAO, 1998). Workers under the age of 15 years need 

to also be considered, and the GAO report acknowledges that the finding is an 

underestimate.

Work-Related Lung Disease (WoRLD) Surveillance Report and System: This 

report (NIOSH, 2000b) contains data collected from only 22 states. Of the 22, 

only one corn-belt state was included, and most of the nation’s major agricultural 

states were not included: Texas, Florida, and California were excluded. The authors 

grouped all crops together, even though “crop” could be anything from vegetables 

to citrus to soybeans. From the committee’s perspective, the document is an example of a weak study design and of release of information by NIOSH that is not 

representative and therefore not as useful as it could be.

Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System (AOISS): This surveillance system includes fatal occupational injuries. Information provided focused on fishingrelated fatalities. Oral testimony provided by AFF Program staff to the committee 

suggested a potential for replication of its design for the West Coast, Gulf, and 

North Atlantic fisheries. No details about how the effort would be expanded to 

national or regional settings outside Alaska were provided (NIOSH, 2006a).

OUTPUTS

Historical institutional experience may be helpful in assessing the adequacy 

of surveillance definitions routinely used by NIOSH as it implemented the 1990 

congressional mandate for the AFF sector. Six years before the mandate, J. Donald 

Millar, former director of NIOSH, stated: “in the practice of epidemiological surveillance, the field of occupational safety and health is at least 70 years behind the 

field of communicable disease and control” (Halperin et al., 1992). The committee’s 

review of materials relevant to surveillance for occupational illnesses and injuries 

related to AFF suggests this is still true.

NIOSH documents provided to the committee (NIOSH, 2006a) suggest there 

is no ongoing national health, hazard, or injury surveillance in agriculture, fishing, and forestry. There is little emphasis on hazard surveillance; the surveys have 

mostly collected disease and injury data with little attention to hazards and poten-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

76 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

tially hazardous jobs, so it has been difficult to meet surveillance goals. Although 

NIOSH was encouraged as early as 1992 to address bias in surveillance effort related 

to Midwestern, Caucasian perspectives and values, the preponderance of the efforts reviewed suggests that such perspectives persist in the agriculture sector (Lee 

and Gunderson, 1992). The committee notes three exceptions. NIOSH has made 

some effort to obtain information on the number of tractors in use in the United 

States that lack ROPS. In the SENSOR-pesticides program, a surveillance system 

has been established with well-developed case definitions, and materials have been 

developed from which comparable data could be collected on pesticide poisoning 

and illness cases. And the occupational fatal injury surveillance system in Alaska 

appears to be well developed and comprehensive with regard to injuries and the 

dissemination of summary information; it might be possible to expand to other 

regions of the country.

Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR)-Pesticides 

Database: There is a how-to guide for developing a state-based surveillance program which includes a SENSOR case definition of acute pesticide-related illness 

and injury, signs and symptoms associated with several pesticides, a severity index 

for acute pesticide-related illness and injury, a flow diagram for assigning severity 

to cases, tables of signs and symptoms by severity category, and software to assist 

states in entering data (NIOSH, 2006a). A number of Morbidity and Mortality 

Weekly Report (MMWR) articles have been published on pesticide illnesses and 

injuries and are available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web 

site (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). Peer-review articles are also available. Web sites for 

state-based pesticide poisoning surveillance programs, general pesticide resources, 

and other materials are also provided on the Web site.

Childhood Agricultural Injury Survey (CAIS): There were government reports 

based on the CAIS for 1998, 2001, and 2004 (NIOSH, 2006a,b).

Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) program: From 1986 to 

2003, there were 16 investigations conducted by NIOSH staff related to agriculture and 360 state-based investigations (NIOSH, 2006a). From 1983 to 2004, there 

were 28 logging-related deaths investigated by NIOSH staff and 67 state-based 

investigations. From 1992 to 1999, there were two NIOSH staff and 11 state-based 

investigations of fishing-related fatalities; only two of the state-based investigations 

were conducted outside Alaska (both in Massachusetts) and both NIOSH staff 

investigations were conducted in Alaska (NIOSH, 2006a).

Occupational Health and Safety Supplement to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS): In 1999, an Occupational Health and Safety Supplement was 

added to the NAWS (NIOSH, 2006a). Results have not yet been published, but a 

final report was prepared and is undergoing internal review in NIOSH. Several 

oral presentations of initial results were offered at various conferences on hired 

farmworker health.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 77 e v i e w o f S u r v e i l l a n c e R e s e a r c h

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

The AFF Program has not yet made extensive use of surveillance to produce 

intermediate outcomes. In the evidence package (NIOSH, 2006a), the program staff 

list as intermediate outcomes related to hazard surveillance one NIOSH Hazard 

Alert on farm machinery (1993), one state FACE investigation related to the use 

of Micotil 300® (tilmicosin) in cattle (to prevent shipping fever) that resulted in a 

farmer’s death from self-injection, and the resulting workplace-solutions document 

and additional warnings by Elanco to all Micotil purchasers (NIOSH, 2006a).

The most logical intermediate outcome would be the use of surveillance data 

in developing and evaluating intervention programs. The fishing program in Alaska 

was the only program that used surveillance data to develop and monitor interventions in which the intermediate outcomes of the use of surveillance data were 

clearly evident (NIOSH, 2006a).

To a lesser degree, traumatic injury surveillance data related to tractors were 

used to identify commonly used farm tractors without ROPS. This information 

became the basis for providing low-cost designs to encourage farmers to retrofit 

tractors.

END OUTCOMES

The AFF Program staff provided evidence of the following changes (NIOSH, 

2006a):

• A reduction in acute pesticide poisoning from 13.1 to 8.9 cases per 100,000 

as a result of surveillance and research activities.

• A reduction, in both absolute numbers and rates, in youth injuries.

• Reductions in logging accidents and helicopter crashes.

• Significant reductions in fishery accidents and deaths brought about as a 

result of safety training and inspections.

Only the reductions in fishing accidents and deaths were linked with a specific intervention and the surveillance system (NIOSH, 2006a). The reduction in 

pesticide poisonings may have been due to the reduced use of organophosphate 

pesticides or due to decreased reporting resulting from increased healthcare costs; 

thus the reduction in poisonings may not be directly related to the work of the 

AFF Program.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

78 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

OTHER OUTCOMES

Reports cited in documents provided to the committee (NIOSH, 2006a) related 

to agriculture (1986-2003) and logging (1983-2004) are sporadic. NIOSH Alerts occurred in 1986, 1988, 1990, 1994, and 1998 and appear to have been linked to some 

extent with the OHNAC programs (that is, they were agriculture-related) and to 

have ended when program funding ended. Hazard identifications and monographs 

(1994, 1998, and 2000) also are sporadic, and agricultural equipment was the only 

specifier that related to AFF.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

79

5

Review of Research on 

High-Priority Populations at Risk

“Priority populations at risk”, “populations at risk”, and “special populations” 

are descriptors used by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) in referring to selected groups of people with various degrees of involvement in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AFF) activities. The definition includes 

those “underserved by traditional occupational health approaches” and at high risk 

of illness or injury. In the agricultural sector, the AFF Program presented information on research among selected populations while for the forestry and fishing 

sectors all workers were viewed as special populations.

STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 2: Priority Populations at Risk—Reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities 

in subgroups of the working population determined to be at high risk or underserved by traditional occupational health approaches.

Population studies outside the traditional occupational health approach make 

reference to the study of illness and injury, focusing less on the workplace and more 

on the social context within which illnesses and injuries occur. Although social 

context has been integrated into the study of illness and injury in many of the 

projects conducted by NIOSH in the last decade, research focuses on traditional 

views of worker populations that exclude family members, the elderly, and oftentimes women in the activities of the AFF Program.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

80 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The program listed goals for populations identified as meriting special 

attention:

• Child labor: Protection of children living and working on farms, understanding the exposure. Reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among children 

working on farms.

• Minority populations: Reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among migrant and minority farm workers.

• Logging: Reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among logging workers.

• Fishing: Reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among commercial 

fishermen.

The NIOSH research priority-setting process in relation to AFF populations 

at risk was based on perceived needs, consultation with experts, and charges given 

to the agency.

As defined by NIOSH, populations at risk include children, minority groups, 

logging workers, and fishery workers. Child labor is a complicated issue because 

children living in a farm environment are involved in various farming activities 

often viewed as chores rather than work by parents. Minorities are classified by race 

and ethnicity, and studies included Hispanic and Latino, Navajo, and black farmers 

and farm workers. Many of the studies of Hispanics and Latinos have centered on 

hired orchard workers. Loggers and fishermen have received less attention in the 

AFF Program than agriculture, consequently high-risk populations in those sectors 

have not been well described. Other age, gender, racial, and ethnic minority groups 

were not included as populations at risk in the agricultural sector. Intramural activities related to populations at risk in all sectors have focused on surveillance to 

fill in data gaps peculiar to AFF, such as gaps in data from the Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (DOL/BLS). The extramural activities have been regionally appropriate and include a wide range of agricultural settings and populations 

that integrate the social context in which illnesses and injuries occur. In forestry 

and fishing, there was some extramural funding provided on a regional basis.

The high-priority research topics defined in the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) have been modified recently to adopt an approach based 

on industry sectors and to establish sector-specific research goals and objectives. 

This emphasis promotes research-to-practice through sector-based partnerships. 

“Special populations at risk” were aligned with work environment and workforce 

categories and share priority status to a lesser degree with emerging technologies, 

indoor environment, mixed exposures, and work organization. It is not apparent 

how the priorities based on industry sectors might be used to differentiate issues 

associated with, for example, child labor in the context of a small family fishing 

operation or a small family farm operation. Although the setting is different, some 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 81 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

of the concerns about children working in family-run operations—such as youth 

operating machinery and children playing at or visiting the workplace—are similar. 

To establish an approach based on industry sectors and to develop sector-specific 

research goals and objectives may be disadvantageous in relation to an approach 

that requires the integration of social context and the interconnectedness of all AFF 

activities and populations at risk.

Given that there was no clear definition of populations at risk in its review 

of NIOSH’s AFF activities, the committee used the NIOSH AFF classifications of 

populations at risk.

LOGIC SUBMODEL

Information received from the NIOSH AFF Program (NIOSH, 2006a) related 

to inputs, activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and end outcomes in research 

on priority populations at risk is summarized in the priority populations at risk 

research logic submodel (Figure 5-1).

INPUTS

Child Labor

In 1996, NIOSH was charged with reducing injuries and illnesses in child 

workers. As a result, it assigned 75 percent of available funds ($5 million dollars) 

to extramural research and 25 percent to intramural activities, which consisted 

primarily of surveillance.

ACTIVITIES

Child Labor

The major issues in relation to child labor identified by NIOSH and stakeholders were traumatic and cumulative injuries related to farming activities. Those 

activities included living on, working on, and visiting a farm. Efforts were focused 

on childhood injury prevention, surveillance of fatal injuries, and childhood agricultural musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). In consultation with experts, NIOSH 

did a thorough qualitative review of the hazardous orders (HOs) for youth working 

in agriculture and made recommendations for changing 8 of the 11 HOs.

Surveys were conducted over a number of years that were focused on identified problems or populations, such as the migrant and seasonal farm workers, 

selected farm operations, and racial minority farm operators. One follow-up study 

was conducted when injuries occurred on a farm using a national representative 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html 82

FIGURE 5-1 Priority populations at risk research logic submodel.CAIS = Child Agricultural Injury Survey, CES = Cooperative Extension Service, ESA = Employment Standards Administration, FACE = Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation, FOPS = falling object protective structure, ROPS = rollover protective structure.

Inputs Activities Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes 

1. Child labor

v Surveillancev Hazardous orders (HOs)v Researchv Partnerships and extramural

activities

2. Minority populations

v Varied degrees of research and

outreach activities

v Hispanic/Latino and AfricanAmerican farmersv Panels on hired farm workers

v Collaborations and partnerships

with other agencies including

CES

v Farm operatorsv Information sharing

3. Logging

vHelicopter-related deaths

vNational logging standardsvROPS and FOPSv FACEvMechanical harvesting

4. Fishing

vAlaska Field Station

v Surveillancev Fatality reductionv Partnerships

v Unclear definitions of populations at risk used by different agencies v Lack of child labor laws

v Poor surveillance and reliance on outside sources of data v Poor understanding of the scope and cost of AFF studies

v Indecisions regarding long-term support of different projects v Regulatory environment

External Factors

1. Child labor

v Publications included in CAISv Meetings and conferencesv Testimony to ESAv Department of Labor use of

HOs

v Safe areas for children

2. Minority populations

v Hired farmworker survey

v Partnerships for dissemination

of survey results

v Peer-review publications

v Outreach publications

3. Logging

v Peer-review publications

v Conferences and public

testimonies

4. Fishing

v Peer-review publicationsv Fishing vessel safety

conferences and workshops

v Decline in the fatality rate

v Lobster fisheries

v Deck safety

v Full-time equivalents

1. Child labor

v Childhood injury and

prevention

v Use of data/information for

other programs, such as FarmSafety 4 Just Kids and the

National Safe Kids Campaign

v Citation of 10 of the HOs

v Use of 4 HOs for regulatory

action

2. Migrant

v Positive testimonials from

pesticide training

3. Logging

v Workshopsv Participation in inter-agency

prevention programs

v Training of Mexican MDs

through FACE

v Expansion of FACE to different

states

v Training on accident

investigation

4. Fishing

v Preseason dockside inspection

v Marine safety training

v Technical assistance for fishery

management

1. General and work-related

decrease in number of injured

youths

2. Decline of fatalities and

occupational injury and illness

associated with logging

3. Impressive reduction of fatalities

in commercial fishing

Planning inputs:

1. Child labor2. Minority populations

3. Logging4. Fishing

Production Inputs:

1. Budget2. Staff3. Facilities

4. Management structure5. Extramural entities

6. Partners
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 83 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

sample of emergency department records. Important data were collected in the 

surveys. However, comparison of results across the surveys has been hampered by 

differences in data collection procedures, in definitions of target populations, and 

in denominators. MSD studies were more comprehensive and included plans for 

dissemination of information and for community involvement.

A majority of the activities conducted in the extramural programs and partnerships were investigator-initiated research project grants (R01 grants) and included 

support for conferences and interactions with extramural partners. The R01 component was strong and involved different centers, such as the National Children’s 

Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (NCCRAHS), a center that 

conducts research on children’s agricultural injury prevention. Research in the 

center has produced measurable results in the form of qualitative and quantitative 

outcomes. The materials produced from the childhood agricultural initiative have 

been referenced and used in outreach activities. Conferences were useful for sharing 

experiences and ideas among the different centers and extramural participants.

Minority Populations

Under the assumption that different minority farmworker groups face different 

hazards, the AFF Program has studied American Indians, Hispanic and Latino hired 

laborers and orchard workers, and minority farm operators, including Hispanics 

and African Americans. Cultural factors and conceptions of health and disease in 

minority group workers have been proposed as affecting the underreporting of 

various conditions. Further, different agricultural activities have been associated 

with different hazards. For example, the variety of jobs that orchard workers perform at different times of the year, the long working hours involved in these jobs, 

and the strenuous working conditions (such as carrying heavy containers up and 

down ladders) are some of the possible causes cited for high rates of illness and 

injury. In addition, changes in agricultural practices among certain populations 

may also lead to changes in the hazards in a specific population. An example of 

this is the move among Navajo from subsistence farming to cattle ranching. These 

types of changes require monitoring and quick response to reduce the risks among 

the worker populations involved.

In 1995, NIOSH convened a panel of experts on hired farm workers. Three 

years later, the panel issued its report and made recommendations for surveillance. 

Several high-priority subjects were identified, including MSDs, pesticide-related 

conditions, traumatic injuries, respiratory conditions, dermatitis, infectious diseases, cancer, eye conditions, and mental health. In 1998, an Occupational Health 

Supplement was developed to be included in the National Agricultural Workers 

Survey (NAWS) in collaboration with government organizations including DOL, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

84 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 

the National Cancer Institute, the Health Resources and Services Administration 

(HRSA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); and 

with researchers from community organizations, universities, industry, advocacy 

groups and extension. The questionnaire was translated into Spanish, pilot tested, 

and revised. The survey results indicated that hired farm workers and migrant 

workers were younger than other workers. The results also indicated low English 

literacy, which has implications for health because of the inability to understand 

job-related instructions in English. The current survey focuses on mental health 

and psychological factors, but the continuation of this survey is uncertain because 

of funding issues.

As part of the AFF Program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a Minority Farm Operators Occupational Health Survey in 2000. Several 

other organizations took part at different stages during the project, including 

academic institutions and research organizations. The response rate was low, and 

additional sampling was required; at that point, the method was changed, and 

data were collected using face-to-face interviews. The prevalence of various health 

and related conditions, including hearing loss, access to medical care, and mental 

health symptoms were estimated. This work highlights the importance of adapting 

methods to meet the needs of special populations in order to obtain health- and 

injury-related data for occupational health.

Several extramural studies have been conducted in conjunction with the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) assigned to the Navajo Nation to assess Navajo 

occupational safety and health needs. Projects included cattle handling and safety 

equipment, development of a training video, a loan program to purchase safety 

equipment, and development of an education program related to flash flooding. 

These projects were conducted with cultural sensitivity of the target population 

using stakeholder involvement and provided an important example of how to use 

CES, extramural researchers, and AFF Program staff to conduct needs assessment 

to develop educational and hazard reduction interventions.

Participatory research has been used in several other extramural studies funded 

by the AFF Program in several states involving Hispanic and Latino workers. Use 

of a participatory approach has resulted in improved success with interventions in 

relation to pesticide exposures and ergonomics.

Logging

Logging is historically one of the most hazardous industries in the United 

States. Logging fatality and injury rates have slowly declined since the mid-1950s; 

injury rates are twice the rate of all U.S. workers. In 1994, NIOSH published re-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 85 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

search indicating the differences in logging-related fatality rates across the country; 

the highest fatality rate was associated with manual harvesting of saw timber, for 

which there was no logging safety standard.

Several logging-related activities have been conducted by NIOSH, including support of OSHA’s adoption of a national standard for the logging industry, 

coordination of a statewide injury and helicopter-fatality intervention in Alaska, 

targeting logging fatalities in Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) 

investigations, and evaluation of mechanical logging methods.

In 1989, OSHA proposed a new standard in logging, which was largely based 

on standards developed in the 1976 NIOSH document titled “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Logging from Felling a First Haul.” From 1989 to 1990, NIOSH 

continued to offer comments to OSHA, provided data from the National Traumatic 

Occupational Fatality (NTOF) Surveillance System of the AFF Program, and made 

several important recommendations related to safety equipment, snakebite protection, work organization and communications, and safe felling techniques. These 

efforts culminated in the adoption of standards by OSHA in 1994, which included 

many of the recommendations made by the AFF Program.

Helicopter logging emerged in the late 1980s as a form of transportation mainly 

because of restrictions on road-building in Alaska’s national forests. Investigations 

conducted by NIOSH staff showed that improper operation and maintenance were 

the main problems associated with the crashes. In 1993, a prevention matrix was 

developed by the Alaska Interagency Working Group for the Prevention of Occupational Injuries, which included representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

USDA Forest Service, OSHA, the Alaska Department of Labor, the Alaska Department of Social Services, and the AFF Program to identify risk factors for helicopter 

crashes. The result was a reduction in helicopter crashes: only one helicopter crash 

has occurred since 1993. Clearly the active involvement of other organizations in 

cooperation with NIOSH provides an example of successful partnering resulting 

in direct benefits for loggers in Alaska.

The programs in logging have focused on acute traumatic injuries and have 

not addressed other hazard and illnesses that might be related to logging. There has 

been a lack of work on the cultural and social issues that influence work-related 

illnesses and injuries among loggers.

Fishing

In 1990, the AFF Program goal was to reduce the number and rate of commercial fishing fatalities by 50 percent by 2005. In 1991-1992, data sharing agreements 

with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and Alaska state troopers were established and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

86 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

a comprehensive surveillance system for occupational fatalities, the Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System (AOISS), were established. High-risk groups 

and types of gear were identified as deserving of attention for interventions. An 

interagency effort was created that included the participation of many organizations. 

Many intervention programs have been implemented since then, and assistance has 

been offered on prevention of vessel-related fatalities, nonfatal work-related injuries, and fatalities due to loss of vessels. The program provides a model for building collaborative working relationships with other agencies to provide surveillance 

data from which to design intervention programs. However, the work focused on 

traumatic injuries and neglected other health hazards associated with fishing.

OUTPUTS

Child Labor

Numerous peer-reviewed publications were part of the Childhood Agricultural Injury Survey (CAIS), as were presentations in scientific conferences and 

professional meetings and NIOSH internal documents that were published and 

disseminated through a variety of media outlets. The overall citation index of the 

peer-reviewed papers is high. Although a vast number of publications are available through the NIOSH Web site, documents are not cataloged, and searches are 

cumbersome and time consuming.

In 2004, the AFF Program provided testimony on child labor regulations to the 

Employment Standards Administration (ESA). The DOL used NIOSH recommendations regarding the HOs covering youths of all ages and farms of all types. The 

AFF Program HO report was presented to the International Labour Organization 

(ILO). No evidence was provided on the impact of the presentations. NCCRAHS 

documents were used to design safe areas for children on farms. Although the 

idea for safe play areas was well received, the impact of the program is unknown 

because there is no information available on how many safe areas for children 

have been built on the farms as a result of the study. Three prominent outcomes 

are highlighted in the NIOSH evidence package (NIOSH, 2006a). One is a paper 

showing that motor vehicles and intentional causes of death are major issues for 

youths living on farms (Goldencamp et al., 2004). Another is a conference report 

that influenced the AFF Program in 2002, in reference to childhood agricultural 

injury prevention and modifications that were made in NORA priorities (Lee et al., 

2002). The third is a 1996 report on children in agriculture (National Committee 

for Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention, 1996). It is not clear why those items 

were highlighted, inasmuch as no policy change or intervention program development is cited or connected to them. No comparative study is offered to show that 

motor vehicle issues, for example, are different for youths not living on farms. 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 87 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

Furthermore, we cannot determine whether the results of the report on children 

in agriculture were used as the basis of intervention programs.

The CAIS database on youth farm injuries contains data from surveys conducted in 1998, 2001, and 2004. Only basic information with regard to traumatic 

injuries is available. Children are particularly vulnerable to risks and hazards when 

performing complex agricultural tasks, considering their age, sociological and developmental status, and body size. These types of sociological and psychological 

factors, among others, are rarely considered and would be important to understand. 

Thus a more integrated and interdisciplinary approach is needed when dealing 

with children in agriculture.

Migrants

The National Agricultural Workers Survey Occupational Health supplement 

is currently under review. The document summarizes results of the survey, will be 

shared with researchers and the ten Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury 

Research, Education, and Prevention, and will be available on NIOSH and DOL 

Web sites. The National Center for Farmworker Health will assist in the dissemination of survey results by sharing data with migrant worker health clinics, HRSA, 

the DOL, Migrant Health Promotion, the National Institutes of Health, and other 

organizations. The document may be essential for disseminating the results of the 

survey, but the survey was conducted in 1999, and the information will be dated 

when it is published. No specific date for the completion of the document and 

dissemination of the results was provided.

Educational materials for migrants and minority groups have been included in 

the National Agriculture Safety Database (NASD) for the agriculture community 

and for adaptation by agricultural safety specialists. The NASD contains many 

cataloged educational materials and resources in English and Spanish from different sources. Particularly highlighted is the inclusion in the database of a bilingual 

NIOSH document: Simple Solutions: Ergonomics for Farm Workers. The accessibility 

of this document for workers was not addressed, as many agricultural workers do 

not read English or Spanish. Use of the standard approaches to dissemination of 

information for agricultural workers is evident throughout the AFF Program and 

neglects social and cultural differences in terms of preferred modes of communication, as well as literacy and language barriers.

Logging

Outputs related to logging include peer-reviewed publications, conferences, 

testimony, government publications, and NIOSH Web sites. Three workshops 

with proceedings were held between 1993 and 1997 to address helicopter logging 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

88 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

crashes. NIOSH testimony that influenced OSHA’s logging standards is cited. Three 

government publications on prevention of logging injury and death prevention 

were produced in 1976, 1994, and 1998.

NIOSH seems to have reached a plateau in relation to logging research and 

programs in 2002. The issues or challenges for the logging industry seem to be 

specific to that sector, and the industry has been responsive to proposed improvements. However, there are significant changes in logging procedures and practices 

that need to be addressed in the future.

Fishing

A number of articles have been published in a variety of media and range 

from scientific publications to industry trade articles. Five conferences centering 

on fishing vessel safety have been sponsored by the AFF Program. Seven selected 

outputs are highlighted by NIOSH with various levels of development, completion, and impact:

Fishing Industry Safety and Health Workshop

In 1992, a conference was held to raise awareness and promote injury and 

disease prevention programs, and resulted in workshop proceedings. There were 

77 attendees from Alaska and the West Coast.

NIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin

A decline in the fatality rate in commercial fishermen has been noted since 

1998, when the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act was passed. The 

implication is that NIOSH work in this matter has contributed to the decline 

in fatalities. However, the number of vessel sinkings has not decreased. The AFF 

Program made 11 recommendations regarding improvements in vessel stability, 

training, avoidance of harsh weather, falls overboard, and other issues associated 

with deck safety. The document has been used as a resource by six states and by 

federal, academic, and private organizations. Eight of the 11 recommendations 

were adopted by USCG.

FISH Workshop

The Second National Fishing Industry Safety and Health Workshop (FISH 

II) was sponsored and organized by the AFF Program in 1997; the proceedings 

became available in 2000. Attendance at the workshop is not given, but attendees 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 89 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

were divided into working groups and developed recommendations on prevention 

of vessel-related fatalities, man-overboard fatalities, diving fatalities, and nonfatal 

work-related injuries. Three interventions were implemented on the basis of the 

recommendations; the success of the recommendations cannot be determined 

from the information provided.

Line Entanglement in the Lobster Fishery

Lobster fishermen experience a fatality rate 2.5 times the national average for 

all industries (NIOSH, 2005b). Recommendations were developed with regard to 

work practices and engineering controls to reduce the risk of entrapment injuries, 

an industry-related publication was produced and distributed, and two peer-reviewed articles and one NIOSH document were issued. No data were provided on 

the long-term effect of the project on reduction of injuries among lobstermen.

Deck Safety Products

The Deck Safety Project started in 2000 with a clear plan that included the 

development of a program for crab fishermen. Focus groups and tours of vessels 

to identify safety problems were conducted, and the resulting information was 

published in a handbook in 2002. The second focus of the project was the Southeast 

Alaska fishermen. The emergency-stop system (e-stop) was developed for use in 

the event that a fisherman is entangled around a winch and was tested in 2005 and 

2006. Work on the distribution and impact of the e-stop continues, but it seems 

that it is being installed in many vessels. No data on how many e-stops have been 

installed were provided, so the impact is yet to be determined.

IFISH I, II, and III

Three International Fishing Industry Safety and Health (IFISH) conferences 

have been held in conjunction with academic, industry, and international partners. The AFF Program has been a sponsor and major collaborator for these three 

conferences.

Full-time Equivalent Estimates

Given the nature of the industry, counting fishermen to obtain injury or illness rates is problematic. The AFF Program has developed a procedure to estimate 

the number of “full-time equivalent fishermen” for Alaska fisheries to compare 

fatalities and injuries to other Alaskan workers. No data are provided on how good 

the estimation is or has been, and no comparative study is shown or referenced 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

90 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

to evaluate it. If this approach can be used in other studies of fisheries in other 

regions of the country it will provide an important advance in comparative risk 

and in focusing interventions.

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

Child Labor

Surveillance activities have been influential in defining what types of outreach 

and research programs on childhood injury and prevention were needed. The 

data generated have been used by NCCRAHS and other programs, such as Farm 

Safety 4 Just Kids and the National Safe Kids Campaign. The data have been cited 

in proposed congressional legislation, and the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment (CARE) Act (HR 3482).

The AFF Program has been actively involved with child labor HOs and the 

dissemination of information about the HOs. A number of stakeholder groups 

including government agencies, the Young Worker Health and Safety Network, 

the Farmworker Justice Fund, and the ILO have used data and recommendations 

on the HOs to support recommendations to reduce the risk of injury to young 

workers in agriculture.

Migrants

Five testimonials given after a 2006 pesticide training workshop are offered as 

examples of the intended use of extramural AFF Program efforts. All the testimonials are complimentary, but they do not constitute program evaluation results, 

and they constitute merely a collection of comments made by participants in a 

training workshop. These intermediate outcomes address a small percentage of 

the overall activities involving migrant workers that have been conducted by the 

AFF Program.

Logging

Results of investigations of helicopter logging fatalities offered sound information that was used by an interagency group in Alaska and other agencies, including 

the Future Farmers of America, the USDA Forest Service, and the Alaska Department of Labor. Three workshops were held in 1995, 1996, and 1997 by the Alaska 

Interagency Working Group for the Prevention of Occupational Injuries and the 

AFF Program. A Helicopter Logging Safety Committee was formed in 1997 with 

support from the Helicopter Association International (HAI) and has established 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 91 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

its own helicopter logging guidelines. NIOSH reports that owing to its involvement in HAI activities, the insurance industry has also become involved and has 

substantially discounted helicopter insurance costs for operators. Reports from 

the AFF Program and FACE have been adapted and distributed by Forest Research 

Association (FRA) and its members.

The AFF Program and FACE participated in an evaluation of logging and 

wood-processing plants in Mexico and in the training of 35 Mexican occupational 

medicine residents. In 14 years, 65 logging-related fatalities have been investigated 

through FACE programs; the highest numbers were in Alaska, Kentucky, and 

West Virginia. The distribution of NIOSH findings from different studies is done 

by FRA. On the basis of results related to the reduction of injury rates with use 

of mechanized logging systems, the West Virginia Workers Compensation Board 

is holding meetings on incentives for logging companies and may establish lower 

rates for mechanized logging companies. These activities demonstrate significant 

involvement of stakeholders in use of data generated through the AFF Program.

Fishing

Preseason Dockside Inspection Program

As a result of working group activities in the 1997 FISH Workshop, USCG 

designed and implemented a preseason dockside inspection program for vessel 

safety in the Bering Sea crab fisheries. The industry supports the initiative, and in 

an evaluation conducted by USCG with assistance from the AFF Program, there was 

only one fatality between 1999-2005, whereas seven had occurred in the preceding 

5 years. This collaborative effort provides evidence of a successful program which 

involves stakeholders from industry, USCG, and the AFF Program.

Marine Safety Training

The AFF Program funded the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association 

(AMSEA) to develop the training project for certified drill conductors who observe 

required monthly emergency drills. The AFF Program conducted an evaluation for 

AMSEA of the effectiveness of the training program for prevention of commercial fishing fatalities. In an evaluation of the training program, there was a small 

non-significant increase in the likelihood that victims had not received training, 

but victims were significantly less likely to have worn an immersion suit and more 

likely to have not used a life raft. AFF Program data have provided AMSEA with 

information that can be used to focus training efforts and to justify increasing the 

number of trained workers.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

92 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Technical Assistance for Fishery Management

NIOSH has been involved in assisting various groups or programs since 1992. 

In 1995, individual fishing quotas (IFQs) were implemented. NIOSH analyzed 

USCG data and showed that search-and-rescue missions declined by 63 percent after the implementations of the IFQs. There was also a decline in deaths 

among halibut fishermen from eight in 1992-1994 to zero since implementation 

of the IFQs. Another quota-based system was implemented for the Bering Sea crab 

fisheries. NIOSH data were used, and its work was mentioned in the materials 

developed and distributed when the quota system was debated. Therefore AFF 

Program activities have been used to increase safety through administrative control 

approaches to fishing.

END OUTCOMES

Child Labor

Data provided by NIOSH show a decrease in the number of youth injuries in 

general and in work-related youth injuries. For example, a 51 percent reduction 

in work-related youth injuries is reported as a direct effect of NIOSH programs. It 

is not easy to establish a direct association with the AFF programs that produced 

these results.

Logging

NIOSH reports that AFF Program activities and outputs have contributed to 

the declines in fatalities and occupational injury and illness associated with logging since the proposed OSHA logging standard of 1989. For example, from 1989 

to 2003, the number of cases of logging-related occupational injury or illness per 

100 full-time workers decreased by 13.1. The American Pulpwood Association distributed the summaries and recommendations from the AFF FACE investigations 

targeting the leading causes of deaths in logging nationally. The rates of injuries and 

leading causes of deaths in logging, such as being struck by falling objects, decreased 

by 38 percent and machinery-related deaths by 48 percent between 1984-1989 to 

1996-2001. AFF Program activities likely had an impact on these reductions.

Fishing

Fatalities in commercial fishing have been reduced dramatically; there has been 

a 74 percent decline since 1990 in Alaska and a 51 percent annual decline in the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 93 e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h o n H i g h - P r i o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n s a t R i s k

fatality rate in Alaska. The NIOSH AFF Program involvement in various programs 

and projects has likely contributed, in part, to those declines. Its contribution 

includes offering assessments, analyzing injury data, identifying high-risk groups, 

estimating denominators and rates, offering support for interventions, and assessing the success of the interventions.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

Changes in national leadership, including changes in DOL and ESA, have 

affected the NIOSH AFF Program. Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 

economic impact of proposals, and this may be difficult to estimate when the proposals are for exploratory or qualitative studies.

Child Labor

The absence of adequate child labor laws, as applied to youth on family farms, 

may increase the risk of injury and exposure to hazards to young workers.

Migrants

A series of events are cited as external factors that affected the completion of 

surveys or programs. Among them are the hiring of contractors to conduct surveys, 

collaborations with other federal organizations, and DOL’s indecision regarding 

support of the NAWS. Continued support of this program is warranted.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

94

6

Review of Health Effects Research

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Program (AFF Program) has been an important and 

effective program that has addressed health effects in a practical and responsible 

manner. The major portion of the budget has been allocated for agriculture, and 

the results of NIOSH investment are most visible in that sector although some 

notable achievements in commercial fishing are evident; the attention to forestry 

has been more limited. Because of the historic funding placed in agriculture, the 

committee focused to a considerable extent on the agriculture sector and on the 

health effects research conducted intramurally by NIOSH scientists and extramurally through research development and support in university-based Centers for 

Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers) 

and among researchers in the broader community; the committee also evaluated 

health effects research in forestry and fishing to the extent that the available information permitted.

STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 3: Health Effects of Agricultural Agent Exposures—Reduce injuries 

and illnesses by understanding the long-term, chronic effects of exposure from 

agriculture-related chemical or physical agents to farmers, their families, and applicators so as to implement controls that prevent harmful exposures.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 95 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

The AFF Program appears to have commenced with a somewhat narrow focus 

in health effects research. Despite its stated goal, the AFF Program, particularly the 

extramural component, came to encompass a wide array of exposures and their 

effects that contribute to the risk of injury and illness in AFF workers. However, 

it is possible that NIOSH, because of the discrepancy between the stated goal 

and program inputs, failed to exert the kind of focused leadership that would 

be necessary for a cohesive national research agenda. Production inputs reflect 

the fact that many AFF researchers have understood that, but the AFF Program 

would have benefited from stronger direction in evolving goals and greater communication, both between the intramural and extramural components and among 

the university-based NIOSH Ag Centers. The extramurally funded Ag Centers 

routinely compiled detailed annual reports and generated specific planning documents, but it is difficult to ascertain evidence that the information was used in a 

constructive manner. An apparent managerial deficiency of the program was the 

lack of resources allocated by NIOSH to archive documentation and organize such 

materials for strategic and planning purposes. In fact, one of the challenges that the 

committee faced was obtaining program information and documentation from the 

intramural AFF Program or extramural Ag Centers. The apparent lack of resources 

and staff to adequately catalogue a history of funded projects and their products 

has lead to an institutional memory deficit that is a major deficiency of the overall 

AFF Program. Given the size of the task, addressing the needs of the entire AFF 

worker population is difficult. The requirement for prudent allocation of resources 

underscores the need for strong leadership.

LOGIC SUBMODEL

Information received from the NIOSH AFF Program (NIOSH, 2006a) related 

to inputs, activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and end outcomes in health 

effects research is summarized in the health effects research logic submodel (Figure 6-1).

INPUTS

Planning, production, and other input data were assessed and found to be adequate in part; however, it was not clear that the data were gathered by NIOSH in 

an organized manner. Staffing appears to have been adequate in some well-defined 

subprograms, but resources in many other parts of the AFF Program did not appear to permit adequate staffing. Surveillance data were gathered by intramural and 

extramural investigators; however, an overall surveillance scheme was not apparent 

in the evidence. Stakeholder needs of various sectors were taken into consideration 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

96

FIGURE 6-1 Health effects research logic submodel.AMSEA = Alaska Marine Safety Education Association, CAFO = concentrated animal feeding operation, CES = Cooperative Extension Service, ERC = Education and Research Centers, FACE = Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation , FOPS = falling object protective structure, HHE = Health Hazard Evaluation, MMWR = Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, NCI = National Cancer Institute, NPFVOA = North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owner’s Association, NTOF = National Traumatic Occupational Fatality, OHNAC = Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities, PPE = personal protective equipment, ROPS = rollover protective structure, SENSOR = Sentinel Event Notification of Occupational Risk , USCG = U.S. Coast Guard.

Inputs Activities Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes 

Planning inputs:

1. Surveillance data2. Stakeholder needs

3. Other partners interested in safety and

health

4. Symposia and conferences

5. Program evaluations

6. Program goals

Production inputs:

1. Budget

2. Staff3. Facilities4. Management structure

5. Extramural entities

6. Partners

1. National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities

(NTOF)

2. Industry specific programs:

v Agriculture

oCommunity partners for healthy farming

intervention research

oChildhood Agricultural Injury Prevention

Initiative

oErgonomic interventions for youth

working in agriculture

oFarm Family Health and Hazard

Surveillance

oOHNAC

oHHEs

oFACE reports

oSENSOR-Pesticides

oAg Safety Promotion System

oAg Centers

oAgricultural Health Study (in

collaboration with NCI)

oRegional Rural Injury Study II

oLaboratory-based intramural initiatives on

biomonitoring and exposure assessment

v Forestry

o Alaska interagency working group

o State-based FACE investigation reports

o Evaluation of mechanical harvesting

techniques

v Fishing

oAlaska Trauma Registry and Alaska

Occupational Injury Surveillance System

oInteragency working group (including

USCG, AMSEA, and NPFVOA)

1. Publications in scientific journals from NIOSHfunded work in the following areas with

reference to AFF

v Respiratoryv Cancerv Neurological

o Vibration-induced injury

o Parkinson’s disease

v Reproductivev Chronic musculoskeletal conditions

v Hearingv Dermatologicalv Traumatic injuries

v Poisonings

o Pesticide

o Carbon monoxide

o Tilmicosin

v Infectious diseases

v Gene-environmental interaction studies

v Psychological effects

o Depression and suicide

v Workplace violencev Sleep deprivation

2. NIOSH publications

v NIOSH Alertsv NIOSH monographs

v NIOSH FACE reportsv Web-based information and newsletters

3. MMWR reports4. NAGCAT5. Symposia and workshops

v Surge on General Conference on Agricultural

Safety and Health (1991)

v National and international fishing industry

safety and health workshops (1992, 1997, 2000,

2003, 2006)

v Summit on Childhood Agricultural Injury

Prevention (2001)

v Helicopter Logging Safety Workshop (2005)

1. Training and education outputs

v ERCs

o Educational curriculum

v Extramural Ag Center initiatives

o Symposia and other professional

career development opportunities

o Agroterrorism

v OHNAC outreach (currently active only

in Ohio)

2. Interventions

v Certified Safe Farmsv Public policy for ROPS implementation

v Farmer cancer control initiatives (6

projects)

v Ergonomic innovations for safer harvest

v Injury prevention through safe play areas

v Confined space entry interventions

v Development of respiratory PPE

v Development of methods for dust

reduction in CAFOs

v Work organization interventions

3. Unique staff and laboratory capability

v Ag Center labs

o Biomechanics lab

o Basic science labs

v Epidemiology projects

4. Partnerships with stakeholders

v National Institute for Farm Safetyv Farm Safety 4 Just Kids

v Farm health safety projects funded by

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (such as the

Agricultural Safety and Health Network

(Petrea, 2003), which is no longer

active)

v Workers’ compensation insurance

company partnerships

v American Thoracic Society

(Environmental and Occupational

Health)

1. Decrease in helicopter logging fatalities.

2. Decrease in fishing vessel sinkings.

3. In general, morbidity and mortality due

to agricultural, forestry, and fishing

exposures have been extremely difficult

to quantify. Death from cancer and

trauma have been easier to quantify than

other outcomes. It has not always been

possible to make clear- cut associationsbetween AFF exposures and cancer

death in specific cases. Thus, it has not

been possible to describe specific end

outcomes associated with many health

effects research projects.

4. Morbidity and mortality statistics from

respiratory diseases have recently been

described in documents published by

NIOSH (2002, 2007). These documents

do not contain information from all

states, including a group of states that

produce the majority of agricultural

products. The published results indicate

that rates of respiratory illness and

injury in agricultural workers have not

changed greatly between 1995-2001.

However, these documents may not

offer a complete picture.

5. See sublogic model in Chapter 7 for

specific injury prevention end outcomes.

6. Relatively little is known about illnesses

associated with work in forestry and

fishing.

v Time needed to build relationships with partners and constituents v Current political climate v Farms becoming larger with less reliance on child labor

v Lack of resources and interest in funding surveillance v Seasonality of industries, weather, climate change v Funding periods limit ability to evaluate long-term effects of intervention

v Negative effect of economic downturn v Uncertainty regarding immigration issues v Poor national/political understandingof scope and cost of occupational

External Factors

disease and public health 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 97 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

to various extents over the life of the AFF Program. Stakeholders with whom it 

was more difficult to hold a discussion, such as farm workers and forestry workers, did not appear to be consulted during planning. The array of other partners 

was large, and some were not consulted by AFF Program staff during planning. 

The Alaska fishing safety program has been quite successful, because it began with 

good surveillance and progressed to the design and implementation of research in 

an organized way, which contributed greatly to its efficacy.

A pivotal NIOSH-sponsored symposium on agriculture was the 1991 Surgeon 

General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health. It came at a critical point 

in the history of the discipline and had far-reaching favorable consequences for 

the agriculture component of the AFF Program. The national and international 

workshops on commercial fishing safety also came at a critical point in establishing plans for the Alaska Field Station. While local and regional impact has clearly 

been made, it is not clear that NIOSH has had a similar impact on a national level 

in forestry or other aspects of fishing.

Planning, production, and other inputs were used effectively to promote the 

major activities in the Alaska fishing program. It is a well-defined program with a 

small scope that effectively addresses risk of death by drowning, hypothermia, or 

traumatic injury in a small number of workers. In contrast, the forestry component attempts to address the safety and health needs of a larger number of workers 

without the benefit of surveillance or well-articulated planning. Agriculture is a 

vast topic with diverse worker populations and exposures; surveillance has been 

fragmented in agriculture. It has at times been effective but not consistently. Inputs, 

including surveillance, were used effectively to plan and implement some projects, 

such as the Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention initiative. For projects targeting adult workers, the benefits gained from planning and production resources 

have been less obvious because outcome measures are not available.

Some sources of inputs were adequate. For example, inputs from the Alaska 

fishing program were excellent. Other AFF projects had less adequate inputs, partially because of cultural, geographic, financial, and other types of barriers; the paucity of interventions aimed directly at farm workers is evidence of the limitation. 

Overall, a lack of evidence of strategic planning and coordination was apparent 

and may explain some of the variability in the quality of inputs.

There is little evidence that input was obtained from vulnerable working 

populations, such as farm or forestry workers, owners of small farms or forestry 

enterprises, the elderly, and non-English speaking workers.

ACTIVITIES

Activities are defined as the effort and work of the AFF Program, its staff, and 

its extramural partners. The committee has defined health effects research activi-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

98 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

ties as surveillance of injuries and illness; identification and characterization of 

the unique health and safety risks faced by special populations; identification and 

characterization of health effects associated with chemical, physical, and biological 

agents encountered in AFF occupations; development of methods to characterize 

and measure potentially hazardous substances and exposures; and development of 

methods and strategies for the transfer of health effects knowledge to others who 

design and evaluate interventions and outreach mechanisms.

The AFF Program has at best modest reach into some AFF sectors. For example, 

geographic dispersion of AFF worksites, rural isolation, non-English dialects, social dynamics, access to workers at occupational sites, the undocumented status 

of some exposed AFF workers, and patterns of worksite task organization may 

militate against effective penetration. Nevertheless, Congress’s intent was clear: 

to safeguard and promote the safety and health of AFF worker populations in the 

nation’s fundamental interest.

The committee separated its assessment of the health effects research portion of 

the AFF Program into review of National Traumatic Occupational Fatality (NTOF) 

Surveillance System activities and industry-specific activities. NTOF is an intramural effort that relies on state-level death certification programs and, for the purposes 

of the AFF Program, appears to have focused largely on agricultural events with a 

secondary emphasis on forestry-related fatalities. The limitations of the system are 

openly acknowledged and include the lack of program-related comprehensiveness 

given the gaps in industry and occupation coding in state vital-statistics programs. 

States with some of the nation’s leading agricultural and forestry production do 

not code their death certificates for industry or occupation. In addition, because 

data are provided by key informants, such as family members of the deceased or 

local coroners, key occupational features and exposures may be missing. The use 

of NTOF data to target Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) program initiatives and portions of the Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural 

Communities (OHNAC) program appears problematic because the methods used 

by NTOF were flawed.

Industry-specific health effects programs encompassed both intramural and 

extramural activity and were highly varied. In forestry, there were activities involving interagency working groups, FACE investigation reports, and machine 

harvesting exposure assessment. In agriculture, some research programs focused on 

disease and injury surveillance, biomonitoring and exposure assessment, and hazard surveillance. In fishing, surveillance of worksite trauma and interagency policy 

working group activity occurred. Collectively, those activities expanded program 

effort well beyond the narrow goal specified by NIOSH for the AFF Program. In 

total, the industry-specific activities were much more congruent with congressional 

intent than with the narrow NIOSH-defined focus.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 99 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

The activities addressed some of the most important exposures in AFF worksites. However, when reviewing the array of outputs described in the evidence 

package, the committee noted some gaps and uneven emphases. For example, sleep 

deprivation and the effects of nightshift work have not been extensively explored, 

workplace violence has received little attention, the health impact of volatile organic 

chemicals and solvents that are ubiquitous in AFF worksites remains unknown, 

infectious disease has received little exploration, and reproductive health effects 

have received only sporadic support in both the intramural and extramural parts 

of the AFF Program. The study of gene-environment interactions is a nascent 

program; it has become clear that research in this field requires large numbers of 

subjects to generate useful results, so there is a need to conduct well-organized 

multicenter studies with careful exposure assessment and characterization of disease phenotypes. The AFF Program has given substantial attention to respiratory 

disease and traumatic injury, some cancer end points, childhood exposure, hearing loss, selected dermatoses, and some neurological conditions. Program efforts 

have also been devoted, through the extramural Ag Centers, to employed workers 

(as distinct from owners or managers) in all three AFF sectors. The Agricultural 

Health Study is an important collaborative prospective cohort study—cosponsored 

with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute of Environ­mental 

Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—

of nearly 90,000 farmers and their wives to explore the potential causes of cancer 

and other diseases (National Cancer Institute, 2007). In addition, other epidemiological studies conducted through the Ag Centers serve as valuable program-wide 

resources. Emphases on AFF sex-specific exposure, common disease end points, 

and serious health consequences have been noted, but the evidence presented to 

the committee suggests limited reach.

Evidence of AFF stakeholder input into research activity varied. Beginning 

with the Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health in 1991 

(for the agricultural sector), the FACE-based logging initiative in five key industry 

states (for the forestry sector), and an interagency working group (for the Alaska 

fishing sector), stakeholder input appears to have been consistently sought by 

NIOSH scientists. Indeed, that may be one of the AFF Program’s strengths. Some 

rural populations represented by, for example, voluntary agricultural organizations initially declined to participate in NIOSH initiatives, believing them to be 

programmatic extensions of the nation’s occupational safety and health regulatory 

mechanism. Other populations, such as employed workers, appear to have been 

underrepresented in advisory structures convened by NIOSH to secure stakeholder input. To its credit, NIOSH has recently convened an AFF-sector advisory 

mechanism; it could profit from more thorough representation of AFF employed 

worker domains.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

100 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The participation of potential AFF partners has ebbed and flowed. When 

state-level agricultural safety specialist offices were receiving U.S. Department of 

Agriculture funding, numerous agricultural extension safety professionals were 

directly involved in research conducted by the extramurally funded Ag Centers. 

Organizations such as Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, the National Institute for Farm 

Safety, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation have partnered with the AFF Program on 

strategic initiatives. Other professional organizations—such as the Environmental 

and Occupational Health Assembly (of the American Thoracic Society), the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and the American Society of Agricultural and 

Biological Engineers—have provided insight into and critiques of both planned 

and current activities. More recent stakeholder involvement has positionedworkers’ 

compensation insurance entities in roles complementary to research endeavors 

through their deployment of experimental translational programs.

The committee has noted that, in light of the plethora of potential AFF Program 

initiatives, prudent allocation of resources is required. Lacking formal continuing 

disease surveillance in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, NIOSH has crippled its capability for allocation of resources in a manner consistent with sound public health 

principles. Only top-level management in NIOSH can fix that dilemma; anything 

less than a fix would mean the loss of an irreplaceable opportunity to realign the 

sector initiatives in keeping with the original congressional intent.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, the regional focus of the Ag Centers has produced 

a diversity of approaches and issues and has been a strong suit of the AFF Program 

(see Table 6-1).

The committee reviewed copious documentation of peer-reviewed publications capable of rendering programmatic advice, and it is unclear whether such 

activity affected the direction of the AFF Program. NIOSH has used internal review mechanisms through the National Occupational Research Agenda that have 

resulted in program redirection. Other external reviews include a commission 

chaired by Susan Kennedy that issued a seminal report in 1995 calling for program 

adjustment in both the intramural and extramural venues (Kennedy, 1995). Cyclic 

review, through external peer-review mechanisms, has been applied repeatedly to 

the extramurally funded Ag Centers, childhood agricultural injury initiatives, other 

R01 initiatives, and the NIOSH Education and Research Centers (ERCs). Such review has resulted in some redirection of program effort, including discontinuation 

of funding of some extramural partners.

Evidence presented to the committee suggests that NIOSH-sponsored AFF 

research has typically used quality-assurance procedures for surveillance activity, 

basic laboratory science, and intervention research. The exception of which the 

committee is aware involved the six state-level Farm Family Health and Hazard 

Surveillance projects funded in the first 5 years of AFF Program effort. Created 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 101 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

TABLE 6-1 Research Emphases of Some NIOSH Ag Centers

Ag Center Research Strength or Emphasis

Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety 

and Health Center, Washington 

Prevention of occupational disease and injury in farmers, 

fishermen, forestry operators through occupational 

medicine, epidemiology, industrial hygiene

Western Center for Agricultural 

Health and Safety, California 

Health promotion and disease prevention, injury and 

ergonomics, neurotoxicity and pesticides, respiratory 

diseases, industrial hygiene and exposure assessment, 

evaluation, biostatistics

Southwest Center for Agricultural 

Health, Injury Prevention, and 

Education, Texas 

Farm-family health and injury control, hired farmworker 

health and safety, animal-handling injuries, stress, health 

and safety training and education

Deep-South Center for Agricultural 

Disease and Injury Research, 

Education, and Prevention, Florida 

Asthma, ergonomic injuries, heat stress in farm workers; 

prostatic cancer in licensed pesticide applicators; health, 

exposure assessment of poultry producers; incidence of 

logging-related injuries; safety of farm children

Southeast Center for Agricultural 

Health and Injury Prevention, 

Kentucky 

Special populations, community-based interventions, 

engineering, ergonomics, green tobacco sickness, 

environmental health

Northeast Center for Agricultural 

and Occupational Health, New York 

Hearing loss, arthritis, skin cancer, allergies, mechanical 

injuries, migrant farm workers, older farmers, women, 

children

Midwest Center for Agricultural 

Research, Education, and Disease 

and Injury Prevention, Wisconsin 

Infectious pathogens, women, developing and evaluating 

health promotion and disease and injury prevention 

programs, engineering control technologies, injuries in 

children

High Plains Intermountain Center 

for Agricultural Health and Safety, 

Colorado

Engineering, industrial hygiene, education, toxicology, 

social work, epidemiology, environmental health, 

agricultural sciences

Great Plains Center for Agricultural 

Health, Iowa 

Environmental health, health and safety of farmers, 

occupational health, injury prevention, rural health

National Children’s Center for Rural 

and Agricultural Health and Safety, 

Wisconsin

Health and safety issues for farm children, guidelines for 

acceptable agricultural tasks

in response to an explicit directive of Congress, those surveillance efforts could 

have shaped the direction of the program for years to come. Instead, data remain 

unanalyzed in several of the states, and one state experienced such basic difficulty 

in planning, organizing, and directing the effort that little could be salvaged.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

102 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Transfer of research findings has been implemented through the OHNAC 

program; the Agricultural Safety Promotion System (direct funding of state-level 

agricultural safety specialists in land-grant institutions); fishing and forestry interagency working groups; explicit funding of such projects as ergonomic interventions for youth working in agricultural worksites and ergonomic designs for tools 

and work areas in nurseries, turf and garden entities, and orchards; and specific 

ERC-sponsored symposia and other training initiatives. The reach of those efforts 

has been nation-wide for the agricultural sector and largely regional for the forestry 

and fishing sectors. Stakeholders have been involved, particularly when the regional 

Ag Centers and the ERCs anchored the transfer activity. Research and educational 

capability were enhanced extramurally, and intramural capability in NIOSH also 

expanded. Numerous basic scientists, clinicians, engineers, and other researchers 

now active in the AFF arena received their original impetus from those efforts.

OUTPUTS

Major outputs of the AFF Program have been publications in scientific journals, fact sheets on the NIOSH Web site, summaries of disorder- or organ-systemfocused epidemiological projects (for example, the documents Epidemiology of 

Farm-Related Injuries: Bibliography with Abstracts and Injury and Asthma Among 

Youth Less Than 20 Years of Age on Minority Farm Operations in the United States, 

2000), and monographs (such as Simple Solutions: Ergonomics for Farm Workers, 

2001; Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries, 

2001; and Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention: Issues and Interventions from 

Multiple Perspectives, 1992) designed to serve as tools for translating research to 

practice. The degree to which those outputs addressed clinical problems varied 

greatly, so each category of output is discussed separately below.

Injury Research and Ergonomics

The AFF Program has stimulated extensive research across the nation on traumatic injuries; deaths and disabling injuries account for a considerable proportion 

of the intramural and extramural research. National Safety Council statistics indicate that agriculture continues to rank as one of the most dangerous industries. 

However, lack of a cohesive surveillance program makes it difficult to track the 

effectiveness of the programs. Nonetheless, the AFF Program has attempted to 

focus on some important subjects, such as tractor safety and rollover protection 

structures (ROPS), for which cause and effect have been demonstrated. Research 

in ergonomics seems to have been much more limited—despite its importance to 

health and safety and to the mission of NIOSH—with several notable exceptions, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 103 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

such as the development of handles for flower pots in the greenhouse industry, 

smaller fruit containers that result in lighter loads, and longer rake handles.

Respiratory Disorders

NIOSH AFF staff and the leadership of the NIOSH Ag Centers gave respiratory disorders high priority. They have been leaders in characterizing respiratory 

exposures to organic dust by using modern industrial hygiene methods. They have 

also helped to describe disease phenotypes associated with those exposures and to 

define the epidemiology of the respiratory disorders of interest. The AFF Program 

was one of the first to fund a study of gene-environment interactions in the farm 

setting. Work in respiratory disorders has been done by intramural researchers and 

NIOSH-funded extramural researchers that generally have worked well together. 

Overall, the publications have had a large impact on the national and international 

scientific community. That impact was amplified through funding of well-attended 

national and international conferences on agricultural safety and health in which 

respiratory disease was one of the main themes. The impact of the output on farmers and farm workers is much more difficult to assess but does not appear to be as 

great as it could be. The AFF Program effort in respiratory disease appears to be 

limited almost completely to agriculture except for some work in asthma caused 

by exposure to snow crabs.

Cancer

The AFF Program has not had a major focus on research in occupational cancer 

detection or prevention since the 1990s except through its partnership with NCI 

and NIEHS in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). That illustrates a reasonable 

approach to division of health effects research among partner agencies in theory, 

but it suffers from the lack of any reported intentional decisionmaking on the part 

of NIOSH. The AHS is a prospective study of pesticide health effects in over 88,000 

people. Subjects include private and commercial pesticide applicators and their 

spouses living in Iowa and North Carolina, most of whom are farmers. The major 

focus has been on defining associations between pesticide exposure and cancer. 

To date, much less effort has been devoted to creating recommendations, devising 

interventions, and building capacity.

Neurological Disease

The AFF Program has not had a major focus on research on occupational 

neurological disease detection or prevention. NIOSH has had some activity in this 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

104 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

field primarily through its partnership with NCI and NIEHS—a reasonable division of labor. As noted above, the major focus of the joint effort through the AHS 

has been on defining associations between pesticide exposure and cancer; research 

on neurological disease outcomes related to pesticide exposure, such as Parkinson’s 

disease, has been a secondary interest. Much less effort has been devoted to creating recommendations, devising interventions, and building capacity in this field 

as well. However, the effort in general is an excellent example of NIOSH collaboration with other government agencies interested in the health and well-being of 

AFF workers. The AHS has collected a wealth of data that can ultimately be used 

to address clinically important questions. The information generated would then 

be used to create recommendations for dissemination to farm communities. Little 

work has been done through the AFF Program to assess workers in forestry or fishing for evidence of neurological disease. Revisiting vibration-induced neurological 

disease may be appropriate.

Reproductive Health

Modest AFF Program funding has been devoted to studying reproductive 

outcomes in farm families. No firm conclusions have been drawn from the work, 

and no recommendations have been formulated by NIOSH. The committee is not 

aware of any NIOSH-funded work in this field in forestry and fishing.

Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions

Osteoarthritis of weight-bearing joints is an important problem in farmers. 

Scientific work on it has been done mostly in Europe. There is no NIOSH-funded 

work in this field in forestry or fishing.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss

The epidemiology of hearing loss and strategies for hearing conservation are 

important topics for the AFF sector. NIOSH has a separate Hearing Loss Program, 

which underwent program review in 2006 (IOM and NRC, 2006). Within the AFF 

Program, there has been a relatively small but steady stream of projects characterizing hearing loss and use of personal protective devices, mostly conducted through 

the Ag Centers. Research outputs—which include published reports, scientific 

manuscripts, training materials, and dissemination of these products—address 

hearing conservation, hearing loss as a risk factor for injury, comparisons of selfreported hearing to audiometric testing, prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss, 

and task-based and animal-based exposure assessment. While the majority of activ-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 105 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

ity has been in agriculture, a few studies have looked at noise in forest harvesting 

and aboard catcher-processor fishing vessels.

Dermatological Disorders

Dermatological disorders are known to be an important problem in production agriculture. Less is known about their impact on the health of workers in 

forestry and fishing. The AFF Program does not appear to have generated major 

outputs in this field.

Traumatic Injury

The epidemiology of traumatic injury and death on farms and in the Alaska 

fishery has received a great deal of emphasis in the AFF Program. Much less information was available about this topic with reference to forestry. Important contributions to the understanding of the problem have been made by intramural and 

extramural NIOSH investigators, particular those working in the fishing industry 

in Alaska. In that arena, the research has led to the development of solutions for the 

problem and to a large reduction in death rates. Finding a way to reduce injury and 

death from trauma on farms has proved more difficult except for injury to children 

and tractor rollovers, in which considerable progress has been made. Much work 

remains to be done to extend the fishery work to other regions; to devise effective 

ways of reducing injuries in all farm populations, including farm workers; and to 

address the large problem of traumatic injury in forestry workers.

Poisonings

Poisoning from exposure to high concentrations of toxicants remains an important problem in AFF workers, primarily related to exposure to pesticides. NIOSH has 

funded extensive work in agricultural pesticide poisoning, including epidemiology, 

identifying clinically relevant biomarkers, and training workers to avoid causative 

pesticide exposure. Some of the work has been done in effective interagency collaborative relationships, particularly through the AHS. NIOSH has also helped to raise 

awareness of the problem of carbon monoxide poisoning in production agriculture 

through the publication of a NIOSH Alert on the topic. There has also been an effort 

to educate fishermen about it. NIOSH’s response to emerging problems regarding poisonings in the AFF sector has not always been rapid. For example, several 

years elapsed between the deaths of two farmers from unintentional injection of 

tilmicosin, a veterinary antibiotic, and the publication of a NIOSH Update report 

containing recommendations to prevent poisoning with it.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

106 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Infectious Diseases

The output of the NIOSH AFF Program with respect to infectious diseases has 

been modest. NIOSH did sponsor one conference on agroterrorism. There may 

have been unexplored potential to partner with the Department of Homeland 

Security in additional work on the topic. The growing concern about avian influenza and the extensive planning already in progress for dealing with it in a possible 

pandemic may provide NIOSH with additional opportunities for collaboration.

Gene-Environment Interaction

NIOSH funded early investigations in gene-environment interactions as they 

pertain to work in production agriculture. In doing so, it demonstrated its ability to take advantage of opportunities created by an increase in knowledge about 

agricultural exposures gained through the AFF Program and new technologies in 

genetics. The next challenge is to conduct scientifically important studies on geneenvironment interactions with larger populations of AFF workers. Doing so would 

require collecting data from multiple sites and demonstrating a level of cooperation 

and coordination that has not been evident in some of the other research funded 

through the AFF Program.

Psychological Effects

The effects of psychological stressors on the AFF workforce have not been extensively explored with NIOSH AFF Program resources. It is known that farmers 

have a high rate of suicide, and a link to pesticide exposure has been proposed. The 

AFF Program has the potential to explore the effect of occupational exposures and 

psychological stressors on health outcomes in the AFF workforce.

Workplace Violence

NIOSH has made recommendations in an effort to reduce the impact of workplace violence. Workplace violence occurs occasionally among hired farm laborers, 

but there is very little evidence in literature regarding prevalence and reports are 

anecdotal. In the California Agricultural Worker Health Survey, only 0.7 percent of 

male workers reported ever having been a victim of workplace violence (Brammeier 

et al., in press; Villarejo and McCurdy, in press). Data similarly shows that there were 

no reported cases of workplace violence for fishermen from 2001-2007 nor does it 

occur enough to be included as a question in the U.S. Coast Guard’s accident investigation forms or databases (Lieutenant Commander Vasquez, U.S. Coast Guard 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 107 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Office, personal communication, November 1, 

2007). The AFF sector is not currently viewed as one in which workplace violence 

is a large concern.

Sleep Deprivation

There is a growing understanding of the health effects of sleep deprivation, 

from trauma (Stallones et al., 2006) to obesity. It is known that workers in specific 

industries in which long hours and shift work are common, including healthcare, 

are at increased risk for adverse health outcomes directly associated with sleep deprivation. NIOSH has not extensively addressed the issue in the AFF sector, even 

though accounts of long workdays and workweeks are noted in employee activity 

logs and are legion in the sector.

Aging

The AFF workforce is aging; a disproportionate number of the workers actively 

employed in this sector are in their 50s or older. Aging contributes to the risk of 

poor outcomes because of work exposures in a variety of ways, from increased risk 

of traumatic injury to higher morbidity from sleep disorders. Age-related health 

risks in AFF workers and possible solutions are topics that merit more attention.

Children and Adolescents

Infants and toddlers are not workers, but may be brought into work environments and may also incur exposures at home, particularly if living in housing adjacent to areas of aerial spraying. They are also vulnerable to inadvertent exposures 

to chemicals stored and utilized in the agricultural workplace. Small children incur 

differential exposures due to their physiology, metabolism, and diet (NRC, 1993). 

Their increased respiratory rates relative to adults have implications for respiratory exposures, and oral behaviors of the young increase their risk of ingestion 

of any hazardous materials in their environment. Concerns have been raised that 

these findings have applicability to agricultural work settings that include children. 

Children as young as preschoolers may work with crops or animals, and the issues 

of differential risk may apply to these children. Risk due to a child operating adultsized machinery or with large animals may outweigh exposure risks.

Adolescents are also considered vulnerable to occupational exposures. A National Research Council report (1998a) noted the lack of definitive research on the 

difference between adolescent and adult immune and other systems that would lead 

to increased vulnerabilities in adolescents, and subsequently suggested that research 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

108 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

be conducted on exposures to substances associated with latent diseases (such as 

cancer, hearing loss, repetitive motion injuries, and back injury) at a time of rapid 

growth and cell turnover, and also on endocrine disruptors at a time of puberty.

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

The intermediate outcomes span unique staff and laboratory capability for AFF 

worksite exposure assessment, explicit worksite interventions and fruitful partnerships with AFF stakeholders, professional and clinical training at academic health 

centers, and symposia and other professional career-development opportunities. 

Prevention or mitigation of exposure is reflected in a hierarchy that begins with 

AFF worksite exposure assessment, moves to testable interventions, continues with 

stakeholder partnerships if interventions are effective, and culminates in training of 

and clinical awareness in rural practitioners, agricultural extension leadership and 

staff, local public health nurses, agricultural engineers, and voluntary agriculture 

and forestry association staff and general membership. NIOSH public affairs staff 

repeatedly rejected advice from Ag Center scientists encouraging intramural staff 

to produce materials that farmers could relate to and understand.

AFF worksite exposure assessment needs to involve unique biomechanics, basic 

science, and epidemiological assessment. NIOSH and the extramurally funded Ag 

Centers have developed and deployed biomechanics and basic science capability. 

Substantial activity has also occurred in design of rural epidemiological surveillance, sometimes without NIOSH assistance or support but still able to elucidate 

the epidemiology of disease states and injury of disabling conditions of interest in 

agriculture and forestry populations.

NIOSH funding has been invested in AFF worksite interventions, such as design of a Certified Safe Farms initiative, tractor ROPS public policy development, 

rural cancer control intervention development, ergonomic tool design, development of respiratory and hearing personal protective equipment, organic dust reduction in AFF worksites through animal housing engineering, injury prevention 

through redesign of worksite facilities and methods of work, design of safe play 

areas for children in agricultural worksites, design of helicopter logging injury 

countermeasures, and use of enhanced deck safety technologies for fishermen. 

Those initiatives have generally been scientifically robust and clinically relevant and 

have reflected input of AFF stakeholders whose perspective governed identification 

and priority-setting of interventions and the actual deployment process. Feedback 

from AFF stakeholders as varied as the National Institute for Farm Safety and the 

U.S. Coast Guard about the utility of the interventions has generally been favorable. Other AFF stakeholders—including agricultural engineers, rural clinicians, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 109 e v i e w o f H e a l t h E f f e c t s R e s e a r c h

public health and clinical nurses, extension safety personnel, and voluntary and 

professional organization staff—have professed encouragement of the efforts and 

suggested more rapid deployment and greater penetration in AFF worksites.

Of particular interest to the committee were instances in which engineering 

standards, regulations, and other guidelines were developed and deployed across 

time in all three AFF sectors. The most robust activity occurred in the fishing 

sector, and activity was somewhat more limited in the logging sector, but in both 

instances the NIOSH intramural program led the way. Most AFF resources allocated by Congress were directed toward the agricultural sector; however, this 

sector has been the most timid in these matters. Clearly, agricultural worksites are 

complex, and liability concerns of agricultural technology developers and machinery manufacturers are ever present and the failure to unify the communities of 

science and agriculture, forestry, and fishing for the common good has hindered 

new initiatives and the flow of information and technology at institutional, local, 

state, and national levels.

END OUTCOMES

In general, trends in morbidity and mortality related to AFF exposures have 

been difficult to quantify. However, mortality due to cancer and trauma has been 

more readily quantified than other outcomes, even though it has not always been 

possible to identify clear-cut associations between AFF exposures and cancer death. 

Trends in other disease end points resulting from occupational exposures remain 

elusive, including neurological, reproductive, musculoskeletal, dermatological, infectious, psychological, and physiological (sleep-deprivation) outcomes.

Trends in mortality and morbidity resulting from worksite injury have been 

documented in the Alaska commercial fishing industry and the West Virginia logging industry. Evidence provided by NIOSH confirmed that interventions designed 

and field-tested by the AFF Program have reduced mortality and morbidity there. 

The challenge is to amplify that impact by expanding the interventions into other 

geographic regions in those sectors.

Trends in morbidity and mortality resulting from respiratory diseases have recently been described in NIOSH documents (2000b, 2007c). The documents do not 

contain data from all states (including a group of states that produce the majority 

of agricultural and forestry products), but the data indicate that rates of respiratory 

illness and injury in agricultural workers did not change appreciably from 1995 to 

2001. Given the data limitations, the analyses do not offer a comprehensive review 

of outcomes in the AFF workforce.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

110 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Mortality resulting from cancer is generally lower in AFF populations than in 

the overall American population (Hanrahan et al., 1996). That may be due in part 

to greater use of preventive measures and clinical screening in some AFF worker 

populations than in other working populations. It could also be due to the protective effect of some AFF exposures—a phenomenon that deserves further exploration (NIOSH, 2007c). The higher incidence of primary intracranial glioma among 

male farmers compared to the general population led to the design and implementation of a case-control study conducted jointly by NIOSH and two extramurally 

funded Ag Centers (Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health in Iowa and the 

National Farm Medicine Center in Wisconsin). Results of the effort are emerging. 

In general, cancer mortality in American males has declined (American Cancer 

Society, 2007), so any decline attributed to occupational exposure needs to exceed 

historically observed declines.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

111

7

Review of Intervention Research

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Program (AFF Program) has devoted significant 

resources toward developing and evaluating interventions focusing on the agriculture, fishing, and forestry industries. Review of the program indicates that intervention research-related projects span several of the AFF Program defined goals 

including those focusing on Priority Populations at Risk (Goal 2), Health Effects 

of Agricultural Agent Exposures (Goal 3), and Hazard-Control Systems (Goal 4). 

Given the fundamental importance of intervention research and the noted overlap 

of activities, the committee decided that it would be appropriate to consider intervention research as a whole, and to collectively evaluate these activities.

STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 2: Priority Populations at Risk—Reduce injuries and fatalities among 

subgroups of the working population determined to be at high risk or underserved 

by traditional occupational health approaches.

Goal 3: Health Effects of Agricultural Agent Exposures—Determine the 

chronic effects of agricultural exposures/health outcomes from toxic exposures 

and develop appropriate interventions to reduce the incidence of disease.

Goal 4: Hazard-Control Systems—Reduce injuries and illnesses resulting 

from work-related exposures by developing, demonstrating, and making available 

control systems that eliminate, guard against, or warn of the hazard.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

112 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The intervention-research aspects of the AFF Program’s goals align well with 

high-priority research subjects identified in the National Occupational Research 

Agenda (NORA), including control technology and personal protective equipment 

and intervention effectiveness in the category of research tools and approaches. 

The research goals are general and do not include specific measurable objectives 

or stated strategies for accomplishing the goals. NIOSH relies largely on NORA 

and the peer-review process to ensure the relevance of funded intramural and extramural projects. However, the process lacks formal mechanisms for coordinating 

research efforts in a scientific community that includes NIOSH scientists and engineers and extramural investigators in the NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease 

and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers) and other research 

institutions and centers. The current NORA-2 process for establishing the goals 

and objectives of the AFF Program needs to ensure relevance. The current strategic 

goals of the AFF sector defined under NORA-2 are in development. In addition, 

the process through which the NORA sector councils are being developed needs 

to ensure that emerging problems are identified through interaction and communication with stakeholders. It seems likely that the establishment of an AFF sector 

in NORA will ensure that the research programs align with priorities established 

through the NORA-2 development process.

LOGIC SUBMODEL

Information received from the NIOSH AFF Program (NIOSH, 2006a) related to inputs, activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and end outcomes in 

intervention research is summarized in the intervention research logic submodel 

(Figure 7-1).

INPUTS

Funding for intervention research has been provided through cooperative 

agreements, extramural grants, and internal funding of specific projects.

ACTIVITIES

The major subprograms related to intervention research are listed in Table 7-1 

with approximate dates and funding levels. The Ag Centers are listed as a whole, 

because detailed project information was not available by individual center. The 

activities are consistent with intervention research, which is an element of several 

AFF Program goals, including those related to high-priority populations, chemical 

exposure, hazard control, and outreach.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

113

FIGURE 7-1 Intervention research logic submodel.AgDARE = Agricultural Disability Awareness and Risk Education, ASABE = American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, FACE = Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation , NAGCAT = North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks, PPE = personal protective equipment, ROPS = rollover protective structure.

Inputs Activities Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes 

Planning Inputs: 1. Surveillance data 2. Stakeholder needs 3. Partner aims 4. Symposia and conferences 5. Program evaluations 6. Program goals Production Inputs: 1. Budget 2. Staff 3. Facilities 4. Management structure 5. Extramural entities 6. Partners 

1. Community Partners for 

Healthy Farming Intervention Research

2. Childhood Agricultural Injury 

Prevention (National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety)

3. Ergonomic Interventions for 

Youth Working in Agriculture 

4. Occupational Injury Prevention 

in Alaska 

5. Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

a Logger Safety Training Program 

6. Deck Safety for Commercial 

Fishing Vessels 

7. Environmental Tractor Cab 

System Integrity 

8. Emerging Ag Problems - 

Effectiveness of Hand Washing in Reducing Exposure to Pesticides

9. Cancer Control Demonstration 

Projects for Farming Populations

10. New Technology to Increase 

ROPS Use on Tractors 

11. Development of Automatic 

ROPS

12. Development of Automatic 

ROPS Overturn Sensor 

13. Commercialization of a CostEffective ROPS (CROPS) 

Design

14. Anthropometry of Agriculture 

Populations

15. Agricultural Safety Promotion 

System 

16. Ag Centers 

1. Tractor-related injury 

x >30 peer-reviewed publications 

x ROPS Notebook 

x ROPS design and testing 

x ROPS social marketing 

x Multimedia training materials 

2. Fishing injury 

x Marine-safety training manual 

x >10 peer-reviewed publications 

x Nine NIOSH publications 

x Deck-safety video 

x Abstracts, posters, brochures 

3. Logging injury 

x Nine peer-reviewed publications 

x Six NIOSH publications 

x ~28 logging FACE reports 

x Seven conference papers 

4. Musculoskeletal injury 

x ~14 peer-reviewed publications 

x Training and education materials 

5. Pesticide exposure 

x 11 peer-reviewed publications 

1. Training and education outputs 

x Simple Solutions: Ergonomics for 

Farm Workers 

x Healthy Farmers/Healthy Profits 

x ROPS Tractor Safety 

x Deck Safety for Crab Fishermen 

x AgDARE

x Timber Medic Certification 

x Spanish Language Safety Play and 

Curriculum 

2. Standards/Guidelines 

x ASABE-X599, Standardized 

Deployment Performance of an Automatic Telescoping ROPS 

x PPE Sales Tax Exemption 

x NAGCAT 

x Washington State Cholinesterase 

Monitoring Rule 

x Logging standard 29 CFR 

1910.266 

3. Control technology and concepts 

x Picking tubs and work platforms 

x Emergency stop system for 

winches in commercial fishing 

x ROPS designs / retrofits 

x Overturn sensors 

4. New PPE developed 

x Improved personal flotation device 

5. Unique staff/laboratory capability 

x ROPS design and testing facilities 

1. Number of youths injured on farms 

has decreased from 37,800 in 1998 to 27,600 in 2004 

2. Number of farm work-related 

youth injuries decreased by 51% from 16,695 to 8,130 

3.Work-related injury rate for farmhousehold youth decreased from 

14.1 to 9.1 injuries per 1,000 

4.Rate of childhood agricultural 

injuries reduced from 1.7 injuries per 100 farms in 1998 to 1.4 per 100 farms in 2001 

5. Occupational injury and illness rate 

in logging industry decreased from 19.5 cases per 100 full-time workers to 6.4 cases per 100 fulltime workers in 2003 

6. Since 1990, there has been a 74% 

decline in annual deaths of Alaska’s commercial fishermen 

7. Survival rate for commercial 

fishermen involved in vessel sinkings and capsizings increased from 73% in 1991 to 96% in 2004 

8.ROPS designs for over 90% of 70 

most popular pre-ROPS tractors have been developed 

Ɣ Time needed to build relationships with partners and constituents Ɣ Lack of resources and interest in funding surveillance Ɣ Adverse effects of economic downturn 

Ɣ Current political climate Ɣ Seasonality of industries, weather, climate change Ɣ Uncertainty regarding immigration issues 

Ɣ Farms becoming larger with less reliance on child labor Ɣ Funding periods limit ability to evaluate long-term effects of intervention 

Ɣ Poor national and political understanding of scope and cost of occupational disease and public health 

External Factors 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

114 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Relevance to Most Serious Outcomes

The intervention research activities generally focus on the most serious outcomes. According to the Worker Health Chartbook, the five leading sources of occupational fatalities in AFF in 1992-2001 were farm tractors (2,165), trucks (795), 

fishing boats (434), ground (403), and trees and logs (357) (evidence package 

Table 2-3, NIOSH, 2004). A large portion of AFF Program activities was devoted 

to intervention research designed to address the most serious outcomes.

TABLE 7-1 Programs with Intervention Research Activities

Program or Project

NIOSH 

Division Dates

Funding 

($)

Community Partners for Healthy Farming Intervention Research DSHEFS 1996-2007 6,550,341

Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention, National Children’s Center 

for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (NCCRAHS)

DSR 1996-2010 1,107,379

Occupational Injury Prevention in Alaska—Commercial Fishing, 

Helicopter Logging

AFS 1990-2010 3,388,092

Ergonomic Interventions for Youth Working in Agriculture DART 2000-2006 370,104

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Logger Safety Training Program DSR 2000-2004 205,403

Deck Safety for Commercial Fishing Vessels AFS 2004-2006 198,424

Environmental Tractor Cab System Integrity DRDS 2001-2005 778,570

Emerging Agricultural Problems—Effectiveness of Hand Washing in 

Reducing Agricultural Worker Exposure to Pesticides

DSHEFS 1996-2004 1,078,076

Cancer Control Demonstration Projects for Farming Populations DSHEFS 1990-1997 >46,304

New Technology to Increase ROPS Use on Tractors DSR 2000-2006 1,222,948

Development of Automatic ROPS DSR 1992-1999 392,545

Development of Automatic ROPS Overturn Sensor DSR 1994-1999 484,492

Commercialization of a Cost-Effective ROPS (CROPS) Design DSR 2003-2004 122,825

Anthropometry of Agriculture Populations DSR 1996-2003 718,369

Agricultural Safety Promotion System DSR 1995-1997 1,000,000

Ag Centers OEP 1997-2006 74,885,568

NOTE: AFS = Alaska Field Station, DART = Division of Applied Research and Technology, DRDS = Division of 

Respiratory Disease Studies, DSHEFS = Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, DSR = 

Division of Safety Research, OEP = Office of Extramural Programs.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 115 e v i e w o f I n t e r v e n t i o n R e s e a r c h

Tractor Fatalities

In the case of tractor fatalities, primary research emphasis has been on the 

development and evaluation of rollover protection structures (ROPS). Intramural 

projects focusing on ROPS were conducted by personnel in the Division of Safety 

Research, including New Technology to Increase ROPS Use on Tractors, Development of Automatic ROPS, Development of Automatic ROPS Overturn Sensor, 

and Commercialization of a Cost-Effective ROPS (CROPS) Design. Cooperative 

agreement research focusing on tractor interventions was conducted through the 

Community Partners for Healthy Farming Intervention Research, which supported such projects as the Kentucky ROPS programs (I and II) and Electronic 

Tractor and Machinery Safety Training Material for Youth. The Ag Centers also 

contributed resources to the development of interventions to prevent tractor and 

equipment injuries; projects included ROPS Design and Testing for Agricultural 

Vehicles (High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Safety and Health), 

Cost-Effectiveness of Promoting Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) and Seat 

Belts on Family Farm Tractors (Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and 

Injury Prevention), Tractor Safety Program (The Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health), an Audiovisual Approach to Train WV Farmers 

on Prevention Effectiveness of ROPS in Reducing Traumatic Injury (Great Lakes 

Center for Agricultural Safety and Health), Tractor Risk Abatement and Control 

(TRAC-SAFE) (Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health), and Youth, Tractors, 

and Policy (National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and 

Safety). In addition, a National Agricultural Tractor Initiative involving a collaboration of all the Ag Centers and the National Children’s Center began in 2005; its 

goals are to establish incentives to retire older tractors or retrofit them with ROPS, 

increase the use and maintenance of preventive and protective technologies, mount 

a social marketing campaign aimed at safer tractor use, and build private-sector 

and legislative support.

Fishing Vessel Fatalities

Intervention research related to fishing vessel fatalities has been the focus of 

several intramural and extramural projects, including Commercial Fishing Safety 

Training in Alaska: 1993-2006, Injury Prevention in the Commercial Fishing Industry (at the Alaska Field Station, AFS), Deck Safety for Commercial Fishing Vessels 

(AFS), and Occupational Injury Prevention in Alaska (AFS).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

116 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Logging Fatalities

The AFF Program has adopted a multipronged approach to control injuries 

in logging, consisting of support for development of an Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) standard for the logging industry, coordination 

of an Alaskan intervention program to address injuries associated with helicopter 

operations, conduct of investigations of selected logging fatalities with the Fatality 

Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) program, and assessment of mechanical logging methods as a means of reducing injuries.

Relevance to Most Frequent Outcomes

The 2004 Worker Health Chartbook indicates that the number of nonfatal agricultural injuries has been increasing; they totaled 104,400 in 2001. On the basis 

of data gathered from 1993 to 1995, the leading sources of injury were machinery 

and livestock, with roughly equal numbers attributed to each (about 99,000). The 

largest number of injuries occurred in cattle, hog, or sheep operations, followed 

by cash-crop and dairy farms. The Chartbook also presents nonfatal injury data 

from the 11 NIOSH surveillance and research areas. Results show that relative to 

other industries, the AFF sector had relatively high rates in the surveillance categories of fatal injuries, nonfatal injuries (particularly amputations, back injuries, 

bruises and contusions, cuts and lacerations, fractures, and strains, sprains, and 

tears), poisoning (with pesticides), respiratory disease (especially hypersensitivity 

pneumonitis), and dermatitis. It is noted that surveillance data on many of these 

categories are quite sparse.

The AFF Program has supported numerous intervention research activities 

directed toward the most common outcomes. The projects reflect diverse targeted 

outcomes that in general are relevant to the most common outcomes identified in 

the Worker Health Chartbook or through surveillance activities conducted as part 

of other Ag Center activities.

Relevance to Needs of Special Populations

Gender is often included in examinations of risk factors for injury and illness, 

but no evidence was found to suggest that it was being specifically considered 

in the intervention research projects examined. Vulnerable working populations 

were often the focus of AFF Program intervention projects, including the extensive emphasis on childhood agricultural injury prevention, migrant and minority 

populations, loggers, and fishermen.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 117 e v i e w o f I n t e r v e n t i o n R e s e a r c h

Partnerships in Research Activities

The AFF Program partners extensively with numerous organizations at the 

national and local levels in conducting intervention research. There are numerous examples of diversity in partnerships in terms of the size of the organizations involved and the nature and scope of the projects. A detailed list of federal 

agency partnerships established for high-priority populations at risk is found in 

Table 7-2.

On the basis of the extensive partnerships described, it is clear that this aspect 

of the AFF Program is one of its strengths and that it probably results in numerous 

synergies that increase overall effectiveness.

TABLE 7-2 Federal Agencies Partnering with the NIOSH AFF Program on High-Priority 

Populations at Risk

CHILDHOOD AGRICULTURAL INJURY PREVENTION

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Community and Migrant Health Centers

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal Child Health Bureau

Indian Health Service

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

USDA, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

U.S. Department of Education, National FFA Adviser

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), OSHA

DOL, Employment Standards Administration

DOL, Employment and Training Administration

MINORITY-POPULATION PROGRAMS

DOL, OSHA

Food and Drug Administration

HRSA

Navajo Chapter Houses

National Cancer Institute

USDA-NASS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

FISHING SAFETY RESEARCH

Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA)

Harvard School of Public Health

North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association

U.S. Coast Guard

SOURCE: NIOSH, 2006a.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

118 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Appropriateness of Resource Allocations

It is difficult to find a coherent theme in some of the projects that have been 

funded over the period examined. Historically, some Ag Centers seem to have taken 

on a large number of varied projects that do not necessarily represent a subject of 

focus. The most recent request for applications for Ag Centers is structured in such 

a way as to ensure that center programs have a focus or theme, that intervention 

projects are fully developed, and that process and outcome measures are included. 

Furthermore, the requirement that at least 20 percent of Ag Center direct costs be 

devoted to prevention and intervention research ensures a substantial commitment 

to this kind of research in the future.

Planned Program of Transfer Activities

There is not a single, coherent, AFF Program-wide plan for intervention research 

transfer. Plans for transfer activities may be included in individual projects, and in 

some cases the projects themselves may focus entirely on transfer activities, but there 

is no unified strategy for transfer of AFF Program intervention research.

OUTPUTS

The major outputs from intervention research activities are publications, reports, conferences, databases, engineering designs, guidelines, recommendations, 

education and training materials, scientific manuscripts, and product dissemination. Intervention research outputs addressed a variety of outcomes, including such 

high-priority subjects as tractor-related, fishing, and logging fatalities. In addition, 

many outputs were developed to reduce injury and illness related to tractors and 

equipment, livestock, musculoskeletal disorders, and pesticide exposure.

High-Priority Subjects

Tractor-Related Injury Intervention Research

This research has produced numerous outputs aimed at reducing tractorrelated fatalities through the Community Partners for Healthy Farming Intervention. It supported the Kentucky ROPS project, which produced a notebook 

“toolkit” for promoting ROPS-equipped tractors (Ehlers and Palermo, 2005). The 

project led to more than 10 peer-reviewed publications and electronic and paper 

versions of training materials in different languages. Several Ag Centers have also 

focused intervention research efforts in tractor-related injury.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 119 e v i e w o f I n t e r v e n t i o n R e s e a r c h

Fishing Vessel Fatalities

Intervention research outputs related to reducing fishing fatalities were produced primarily through the AFS (Injury Prevention in the Commercial Fishing 

Industry, Deck Safety for Commercial Fishing Vessels, and Occupational Injury 

Prevention in Alaska—Commercial Fishing), Ag Centers (Skin Disorders in Commercial Fishermen and Understudied/Under-Represented Populations—Vietnamese Shrimpers), and an extramural project (Commercial Fishing Safety Training in 

Alaska: 1993-2006). Outputs included abstracts, posters, brochures, patents, peerreviewed publications, a 450-page marine safety training manual, and multilingual 

DVD and videotaped training materials.

Logging Fatalities

Intervention-research outputs directed at reducing fatalities in logging included peer-reviewed publications; NIOSH publications, including FACE reports; 

criteria for a recommended standard; and conference papers and presentations.

Musculoskeletal Disorders and Ergonomics

Many intervention-research outputs focusing on ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) have resulted from the AFF Program, including the 

following:

1. Community Partners for Healthy Farming Intervention Research:

• Ergonomic Interventions in Wine Grape and Tree Fruit Production

• Healthy Farmers-Healthy Profits—direct-market vegetable producers

 • Healthy Farmers-Healthy Profits—tame berry producers in six upper 

Midwest states

2. Ergonomic Interventions for Youth Working in Agriculture

3. Agricultural Safety Promotion System: effectiveness of ergonomic interventions in nursery operations

4. Western Center for Agricultural Safety and Health:

• Improving Health and Safety of Field Workers by Redesigning Tools

 • Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders in Hand Harvest of Vegetable 

Crops

 • Evaluation of the Ergonomics of an Alternative System for Harvesting 

Pears

 • Efficacy of Weight Transfer Devices in Reducing Low Back Pain in Stoop 

Labor
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

120 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

5. Southern Coastal Agromedicine Center: Ergonomic Interventions in the 

Agriculture Industry

6. The Northeast Center for Agricultural Health: Musculoskeletal/Ergonomic 

Program

7. Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center: musculoskeletal 

disorders

In addition, a conference focused on stooped and squatting postures in the 

workplace was jointly sponsored by the University of California Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, the University of California Agricultural 

Ergonomics Research Center, NIOSH, the California State Compensation Insurance Fund, and the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (Stooped and Squatting 

Postures in the Workplace, Oakland, CA, July 29-30, 2004).

Pesticide Exposure

Intervention research outputs related to pesticide exposure were produced by 

such projects as Interventions To Reduce Pesticide Exposures Among Agricultural 

Workers and Their Families (Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health 

Center) and Emerging Agricultural Problems—Effectiveness of Hand Washing in 

Reducing Agricultural Worker Exposure to Pesticides (Division of Surveillance, 

Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies).

Generation and Dissemination of New Knowledge

Considered as a whole, the AFF Program has generated considerable amounts 

of new technology and knowledge related to interventions, although the quantity 

and quality of the outputs are highly variable.

Numerous peer-reviewed publications have been produced, and many have 

been presented in flagship journals and widely cited. The diverse nature of the 

journals suggests that outputs reach a wide and varied audience and that investigators are choosing publications believed to be best aligned with the content of and 

relevant stakeholders for the projects described.

Relevance of Outputs to Both Sexes, Vulnerable 

Populations, and Health Disparities

Intervention research outputs included publications that were relevant to both 

sexes, vulnerable populations (children, fishermen, loggers, and orchard workers), 

and health disparities (skin cancer).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 121 e v i e w o f I n t e r v e n t i o n R e s e a r c h

Relevance of Outputs to Small Businesses

Outputs are relevant to small businesses. It is well recognized that two of the 

most important challenges in developing interventions for agriculture, forestry, 

and fishing is that most operations are small and that effective regulation and 

comprehensive surveillance programs do not exist. Most of the outputs produced 

are relevant to or specifically produced for small operators.

Readability, Simplicity, and Design of Outputs

Intervention research outputs intended to be delivered to AFF workers have 

generally been designed with the end user in mind. Materials examined were appropriately readable and user-friendly.

The North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks (NAGCAT) 

was developed to guide parents in assigning farm jobs to children 7-16 years old. 

The guidelines are targeted for use by parents, agricultural safety specialists, educators, youth groups, health professionals, farm organizations, public health professionals, and the mass media. The guideline booklets are user-friendly with respect 

to readability, simplicity, and design.

Materials developed for migrant and minority-group orchard workers have 

been included in the National Agriculture Safety Database, such as educational and 

informational resources organized by topic, language, and format (for example, 

fact sheet, news releases, and script). Whether this is the most effective manner to 

reach these workers is not clear.

These examples make up only a small portion of the intervention research outputs produced, but they demonstrate an awareness of the need to prepare materials 

in a user-friendly manner that is appropriate for the intended audience with some 

exceptions such as the migrant workers who do not use computers as a source of 

information and may have low English or Spanish literacy.

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

AFF Program intervention research activities have resulted in numerous training and education outputs that are being used in the workplace or in school or 

apprentice programs. They have also led to the development of standards, regulations, public policy, and voluntary guidelines that have been transferred to or created by the workplace in response to NIOSH outputs. Furthermore, new control 

technology, personal protective equipment, and administrative control concepts 

that are feasible for use have been adopted in the workplace to reduce risk factors. 

Although objective data are difficult to obtain, results generally indicate that stakeholders find value in AFF Program intervention research products, as indicated by 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

122 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

document requests, Web hits, conference attendance, and anecdotal reports and 

feedback. Evidence suggests that program activities have resulted in many research 

partnerships with stakeholders that have led to changes in the workplace and that 

interventions that protect both sexes and vulnerable workers and that address the 

needs of small businesses have been developed.

Standards, Regulations, Public Policy, and Voluntary Guidelines

The AFF Program has produced several examples of standards, regulations, 

public policy, and voluntary guidelines related to intervention research. Those 

outputs include revised or proposed standards related to ROPS for tractors, legislation providing rebates for ROPS retrofits, sales tax exemptions for purchase 

of personal protective equipment, guidelines for children’s agricultural tasks, and 

support for development of a statewide cholinesterase-monitoring program and 

a federal logging standard.

New Personal Protective Equipment Developed

The AFF Program has developed a prototype improved personal flotation 

device that has thin, flexible patches that become illuminated once the personal 

flotation device or jacket is submerged and allow quick location and recovery of 

victims.

Unique Staff and Laboratory Capability

The High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety and 

the NIOSH Pittsburgh Laboratory for designing and testing engineering control 

strategies for tractors and other agricultural equipment house unique capabilities 

among the Ag Centers and other institute and agency resources.

END OUTCOMES

Demonstrating the impact of intervention research is challenging and complex 

given the considerable time often required for a measurable impact on population 

illness and injury rates to occur. Furthermore, most diseases and injuries have 

multiple causes, and the adequacy of surveillance varies with changes in access to 

healthcare and economic disincentives to report. For those reasons it is difficult to 

attribute end outcomes directly to specific intervention research projects. However, 

there are some encouraging trends in injury and illness data that are consistent with 

a favorable impact. For example, since the release of NAGCAT in 1999, the work-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 123 e v i e w o f I n t e r v e n t i o n R e s e a r c h

related injury rate in farm household youth decreased from 14.1 to 9.1 injuries per 

1,000 working household youth from 1998 to 2004.

After the release of a proposed OSHA logging standard in 1989, the national 

occupational injury and illness rate in the logging industry decreased from 19.5 

to 6.4 cases per 100 full-time workers in 2003. NIOSH also played a lead role in 

developing the Alaska Working Group’s July 1993 recommendations to prevent 

helicopter logging crashes. Since that time, there has been only one helicopter logging crash in Alaska (it occurred in 1996).

Although it is recognized that the work-related fatality rate in commercial 

fishing in Alaska remains unacceptably high, historical data show that fatalities 

are decreasing. NIOSH reports that since 1990 there has been a 74 percent decline 

in annual deaths in Alaska’s commercial fishermen. Extensive collaboration with 

U.S. Coast Guard and numerous other partners in Alaska to implement new safety 

requirements probably contributed substantially to the 96 percent survival rate 

of commercial fishermen involved in vessel sinkings and capsizings in 2004; the 

survival rate was only 73 percent in 1991.

NIOSH also reports that a pilot eye injury prevention project funded by the 

AFF Program in Florida helped to reduce eye injuries (by 75 percent) in 500 

workers from 2003 to now. The project also found that the rate of acceptance of 

safety glasses increased to 65-75 percent from 5 percent before intervention.

Those end outcomes are only a sample of the outcomes attributed to AFF 

Program intervention research.

EXTERNAL FACTORS

Programs engaged in intervention research have described various external 

factors relevant to the AFF sector. These external factors include: the seasonality 

of work tasks which often provides only short windows of time for data collection; multiple years that are needed to demonstrate effective intervention results; 

weather variations that influence activities across years; and workers that are willing 

to take risks and lack awareness of the preventability of illnesses and injuries. Other 

variables include: rapid changes in the work practices under study; time needed 

to build relationships with partners and constituents; market conditions; current 

political climate and uncertainty regarding immigration issues; and a poor national 

and political understanding of the scope of and costs related to occupational disease 

and public health.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

124

8

Review of Outreach Activities: 

Knowledge Diffusion and Technology Transfer

STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal 5: Outreach—Reduce injuries and illnesses by informing and educating 

employers and employees in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AFF) about occupational safety and health hazards and control systems.

In the evidence package (NIOSH, 2006a), the AFF Program provides examples 

of activities, outputs, intermediate outcomes, and impacts that reflect the results 

of the translation of knowledge and its transfer to diverse audiences and the 

implementation of recommendations. Some of the examples involve important 

interventions to support the adoption of safety innovations and included evaluations of their success and their impacts. The knowledge diffusion and technology 

transfer occurred through legislation, improved technology, protective equipment 

and clothing, and effective communication and education programming.

LOGIC SUBMODEL

Goal 5 incorporates a logic model directly associated with the “supply chain 

of knowledge”. The concept of a supply chain of knowledge is related to the inputs 

needed for the development of knowledge, the transfer and communication of 

knowledge, as well as the surveillance and evaluation of and feedback about the 

impacts of these delivery mechanisms such as websites, conferences, and training 

programs. In the concept of a supply chain, links at each stage need to be strong 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 125 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

and connected to move the results of surveillance, research, and intervention to 

the appropriate target populations at risk, whether employees or employers. The 

logic submodel (Figure 8-1) identifies inputs, activities, outputs, and intermediate 

and end outcomes.

INPUTS

On the basis of the materials in the evidence package, the committee concluded 

that about 17 percent of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) budget was devoted to Goal 5 over the period 1997-2006. That translates 

to about $800,000 per year for the intramural programs and $2.1 million per year 

for the extramural programs. The work involved about six full-time equivalents 

(FTEs) at NIOSH per year. The committee was unable to break out the funding or 

FTEs associated with Goal 5 at the NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and 

Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers) but summarizes here the 

activities, outputs, and outcomes from the evidence package.

Planning inputs included the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA, 

2000), the National Coalition on Occupational Safety and Health (NCASH) report, 

and congressional directives. Many of the conferences, workshops, and symposia 

cited in Chapter 10 may also have helped to set priorities for this goal and other 

AFF efforts, but they are not so referenced. The logic model starts with the identification of the problems, knowledge gaps, and documentation of areas of severe 

or significant mortality, morbidity, and injuries. NIOSH identifies them in the 

opening chapters of the evidence package, but the evidence package often does not 

connect the materials to the goal of knowledge diffusion and technology transfer.

The second input required is a planning and priority-setting process communicated to NIOSH through the NORA process or from stakeholders. This process 

is currently underway.

The third stage is the application of priorities to intramural or extramural research through requests for proposals and principal-investigator initiatives. 

Surveillance projects and research conducted at this stage are expected to provide 

results for dissemination and improved processes, equipment, personal protective 

gear, and behavioral changes. The mechanisms for improvement include identifiable actions and proposed solutions, but these still need implementation through 

engineering, behavioral, or regulatory actions. The engineering solutions require 

diffusion of knowledge and implementation at the level of the manufacturer or 

employer and occasionally the worker. Behavioral changes require a mechanism 

for knowledge diffusion and attitude, motivational, and behavioral changes in 

practices associated with the workplace. Regulatory changes require a process to 

pass laws, write regulations or rules associated with the workplace, and have them 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

126

FIGURE 8-1 Knowledge diffusion and technology transfer logic submodel.FACE = Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation, FTE = full-time equivalent, NAGCAT = North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks, ROPS = rollover protective structure.

 Inputs Activities Outputs Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes

Planning inputs: 1.NORA workshops with 

stakeholder input 

2.Strategic plans and 

priorities 

3.Annual action plans 

x None Described x Needed: identify 

populations at risk q forestry q fishingq agriculture

Production Inputs: 1. Budget

x Intramural, $0.80 m/yr 

(est.)

x Extramural, $ 2.1m/yr 

(est.)

x Overall, est. 17% of 

NIOSH budgets for 1997-2006

x Ag Centers (unable to 

breakout or estimate amount for this goal) 

2. Intramural staff 

x 6 FTE/yr (est.) 

3. Infrastructure 

x (not described) 

1. Intramural 

x Surveillance x Research x Intervention x Evaluation 

2. Extramural 

x Surveillance x Research x Intervention x Evaluation 

3. Dissemination 4. Training and education 5. Education and Research 

Centers

1. Intramural 

x Web sites x Brochuresx FACE reports 

2. Extramural 

x NAGCAT (evaluations) x Training programs x Ag Center programs 

3. Both 

x National Ag Safety 

Database

x Publicationsx Conferences, workshops x Engineering solutions, 

patents 

x Evaluation feedback

1. KAP Changes 

x Changes in Knowledge x Changes in Attitudesx Changes in Practices 

2. Technological changes 

x Adoption of new technology, 

ROPS, tubs, ladders 

3. Personal protective devices 4. Legislation or regulations 

x medfly control in Florida x logging practices x fishing vessel safety, Alaska x residential use of pesticides x monitoring cholinesterase in 

Washington and California 

x prohibiting tractor driving on 

highways by children under 16, Wisconsin 

5. Research to practice of 

research to other alternatives 

1. Reduction in pesticide 

poisonings

2. Reduction in fatal injuries 

in farm youth 

3. Reduction in logging 

accidents, helicopter crashes 

4. Decline in fishing deaths 

and accidents 

5. Reduction in eye injuries 

among migrant farm workers through use of safety glasses 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 127 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

implemented by employers and employees. Where those mechanisms for improvement have been undertaken, the logic model calls for evaluation of the impact 

and feedback to NIOSH staff to determine whether the changes have filled the 

knowledge gaps and reduced mortality, morbidity, or injuries associated with the 

workplace and the populations at risk.

An excellent example from the evidence package is the safety inspection and 

training associated with the fisheries program, in which the application of all three 

mechanisms to the fisheries industry led to a substantial reduction in boating 

accidents and loss of fishermen. Another excellent example of such a logic model is 

exhibited in the Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health (PNASH) Center 

report (Figure 8-2), which incorporates all the elements of inputs from diverse 

FIGURE 8-2 The PNASH Center partnership model.

SOURCE: Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a. 8-2.eps
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

128 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

stakeholders, feedback mechanisms, and evaluation. In this case, the research team 

from Washington State University, Oregon Health Science University, and Idaho 

State University collaborate with NIOSH and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), and other NIOSH Ag Centers as they listen to the needs of the partners including other health and safety workers (H&S) and the diverse agricultural 

community to identify the needs and share results of research.

ACTIVITIES

The activities that contribute to Goal 5 are summarized extensively in Chapters 7-10. This section summarizes the activities of the Ag Centers that are related 

specifically to knowledge diffusion and technology transfer.

Although the committee did not receive materials describing the NIOSH Education and Research Centers (ERCs), a review of their Web sites showed at least 

some research and educational activity devoted to agricultural issues by the ERCs 

at the University of California, Davis, University of Iowa, University of Texas, and 

University of South Florida. The others may have been active in the general training of practitioners in health and occupational safety.

In the evidence package, NIOSH reviewed the following major interventions:

• Agricultural health and agricultural safety promotion systems (1990-

1993)

• Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities (1990-1996)

• Community Partners for Healthy Farming Intervention Research (1996-

2003)

• Diffusion of safety innovations (1997-2005)

• Safe Communities coalitions (1998-2000)

• Certified Safe Farm (1998-present)

• Other outreach programs

Those programs are discussed in the evidence package, and it is not necessary to 

describe them here except to note that they are all completed. The documentation 

demonstrates numerous efforts from 1990-2005 to extend the results of research 

into the respective communities. No new programs were proposed.

OUTPUTS

The outputs listed constitute a mixture of publications, abstracts, CD-ROMs, 

booklets, pamphlets and fact sheets, training curricula, books, Web sites, and 

presentations, but internal NIOSH staff are not differentiated from external AFF 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 129 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

Program participants. Over 18 conferences, workshops, and symposia have been 

held since 1991 to address childhood agricultural injury, minority-group populations, logging, and safety in the fishing industry.

The outputs from Goal 5 also include extensive partnerships with other organizations to communicate and transfer knowledge to employers and employees.

Although researchers have long recognized the lack of correspondence between 

knowledge, on the one hand, and attitudes and behaviors related to safety and 

health practices in farm populations, on the other (Murphy, 1992; Elkind, 1993; 

Freeman et al., 2003), a great deal of NIOSH staff effort has gone into providing 

educational materials. There are many other products of the NIOSH research activities and uses as evidenced in Box 8-1, Research to Practice.

The evidence package provides examples of program efforts over the last 15 

years and, most recently, new intervention research associated with the rollover 

protective structure (ROPS) program in 23 states. Other examples cited include 

the reduction in dairy injuries, the youth safety training program, the reduction 

in green tobacco sickness, and the use of appropriate eyewear in Illinois and 

Michigan.

AFF Program staff collected case reports of rollovers to use in developing realistic stories. These were used to develop a ROPS notebook for farmers and to assess 

its effectiveness. The involvement of NIOSH AFF staff is not clearly described.

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

The National Agriculture Safety Database (NASD) Web site was created at 

the request of NIOSH agricultural extension agreement participants to provide 

a national information resource for the purposes of dissemination, leveraging 

resources, and avoiding duplication of efforts. “It is widely recognized and heavily 

used by the diverse community involved in agriculture (farmers, agribusinesses, 

universities, and government agencies).” The Web site receives over 500,000 hits per 

month from 75,000 unique users. It contains over 3,000 publications and links to 

other organizations. However, only 34 states are listed as contributing to the NASD. 

That is odd inasmuch as all the Ag Centers are contributing, and they cover all the 

states. In fact, although recent reports from Washington state had been submitted 

by the PNASH Center, Washington is not listed among the states for which one 

can get information. Recent examples of new materials include the ATV Safety 

Packet from the Children’s Safety Network, submitted in 2006. The NASD may 

need better funding or a mechanism to incorporate all the states into the database 

via the Ag Centers.

The National Ag Safety Disc, a PC-based CD-ROM that contains a compendium of educational and information resources, was released in 1994 and after 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

130 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

BOX 8-1

Research to Practice (r2p)

In the recent Evaluation of the Agricultural Safety Centers (2006), NIOSH staff worked 

with the Agricultural Centers Evaluation team to define categories of “research to practice” 

(r2p) to illustrate various methods of moving results of projects into use by others. Research 

to practice was defined as research findings or products that are accepted and used by target 

audiences. The eight categories that were represented were research to intervention and 

education, research to research, research to field use, research to evaluation, research to academe, research to policy, research to surveillance, and research to technical assistance.

An interesting result of this study was the distribution of r2p activities. First, 71 percent, 

or 94 of 133 projects, evaluated were in the r2p realm, and the 94 were classified in the 

eight r2p categories:

% Research to Practice

57 R to intervention and education

13 R to research

10 R to field use

6 R to evaluation

4 R to teaching 

4 R to policy

3 R to surveillance

2 R to technical assistance

99 Total 

One might interpret the classification scheme broadly and combine all categories except 

research to research; all the other categories involve research to some form of practice. 

Uses in the field, for evaluation, for policy purposes, in the classroom, and for technical 

assistance are all related to practice in different contexts. If we omit research to research, 

86-87 percent of research went to practice in some form, and 13 percent was used as an 

input for further research.

That approach, however, was not used in the evidence documents that were provided. 

This may be a useful categorization; but no one seems to have asked the question of why 

NIOSH came up with this set of categories and what NIOSH is doing with it. Is it meaningful 

in some administrative way? Does it help understand the flow of knowledge from research 

through other indirect routes to final use in education and intervention?

SOURCE: Buchan and Holmquist-Johnson, 2007.

beta testing was scheduled to be released in final form in 1995 (Jones et al., 1995). 

This project is not mentioned in the materials provided by NIOSH. The database 

described above may be the expanded phase of this dissemination activity.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 131 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

END OUTCOMES

The following are specific examples of outcomes that NIOSH identified as a 

result of its programs:

• A reduction, as a result of surveillance and research activities, in acute 

pesticide poisoning from 13.1 to 8.9 cases per 100,000.

• A reduction in youth injuries, in terms of both actual numbers and rates.

• Reductions in logging accidents and helicopter crashes.

• A substantial decline, as a result of safety training and inspections, in fishery accidents and deaths.

• A reduction in eye injuries in migrant and seasonal farm workers through 

the use of safety glasses.

Cited examples that result from the development of legislation include the 

management of pesticides at both the federal and state level, specifically in California, and Wisconsin legislation prohibiting driving of a tractor on a highway 

by people under 16 years old unless they have successfully completed a tractor 

certification course. An interesting evaluation analysis, however, showed that the 

Wisconsin law did not affect injury rates.

The transfer of knowledge into regulations is seen in Mediterranean fruit fly 

(medfly) control in Florida, logging practices in the Northwest, and vessel safety in 

Alaska. Other regulations are related to the residential use of pesticides, the monitoring of cholinesterase in California, and rules associated with the application of 

and new standards for ROPS.

The transfer of knowledge through improved technology is shown by the new 

ROPS technology and seatbelts on tractors, the winch shutoff on fishing boats, and 

monitoring sensors.

Examples of improvements by engineering include machine guards on hay balers and the ergonomic apple bag; by administrative intervention, the requirement 

that fishermen wear personal flotation devices; and by protective equipment and 

clothing, the use of safety glasses.

Examples of effective communication in education include day camps and 

safety programs for young people, the report on leading causes of death in logging, 

and the social marketing efforts in California.

Those examples are cited in the Executive Summary of the evidence package 

and further elaborated on in the various sections of the evidence package (NIOSH, 

2006a). The examples reflect the effort to identify impacts of all programs but most 

specifically Goal 5 and the outreach, education, and communication programs.

The evidence document concludes with a statement that NIOSH was unable 

to link intermediate outcomes causally with occupational injury, illness, fatality, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

132 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

or hazard exposure data; nevertheless, these many examples provide ample documentation of intermediate and end outcomes.

REVIEW OF THE NIOSH CENTERS FOR AGRICULTURAL DISEASE AND 

INJURY RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND PREVENTION (AG CENTERS)

The programs of the NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers) were reviewed from the perspective 

of the diffusion of knowledge and the incorporation of research results in outreach 

programs.

Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety

The Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (http://agcenter.ucdavis.

edu) serves California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona. The Western Center demonstrated substantial research and extension partnerships with state agencies in 

pesticide exposure and illnesses and incorporated a major r2p effort. As part of 

the r2p program, the center used social marketing approaches, increased electronic 

communication, and supplied some funding for the AgSafe conference to provide 

education, train the trainers, and educate agriculture workers. There is no evidence 

of an evaluation of the impact and outcomes of the effort, but several long-term 

evaluation studies are proposed or under way.

Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center

The Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (PNASH, http://

depts.washington.edu/pnash/) works with employers, workers, health professionals, 

and government agencies to identify hazards and implement solutions that will 

prevent or reduce workplace injuries and illnesses in northwestern farming, forestry, and fishing. The center operates in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. 

Through its Advisory Board and using a priority-setting process in which stakeholders provided input, it initiated forums for outreach and extension to workers, 

employers, and health professionals. The focus was on pesticide exposure and the 

use of technology, intervention measures, and training to reduce exposure. The 

research program also addressed ergonomics and injuries in vineyards, orchards, 

packing sheds, and forests—specifically, traumatic injuries, musculoskeletal disorders, noise, and vibration exposure. Special populations at risk were hired farm 

workers, family workers, and family members; a goal was to prevent pesticides from 

being carried home in vehicles and on clothes. The center has also undertaken a 

capacity-building effort in the Hispanic communities, with agricultural employers, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 133 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

and with health professionals. An important study of protective clothing and its 

performance resulted in changes in use patterns and reduced exposure of workers 

to pesticides and in the design of effective protective clothing. A demonstrated effective training technique is the fluorescent-tracer technique to identify exposure. 

The center used diverse communication methods to reach specific audiences: Hispanic children, parents, and farm workers (page 537 of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 

2006a).

Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education

The Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention and Education (SW Center, http://swcenter.uthct.edu) is at the University of Texas Health 

Center at Tyler, Texas (UTHCT), and funds projects in three core categories: 

research, intervention and prevention, and outreach and education. Project directors are based in various institutions in the five states served by the SW Center: 

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. In partnership with 

clinics, the SW Center tried to build capacity and prevent animal-caused injuries. 

It focused on cattle handling among tribal members, as well as the general farm 

population. Special populations included farm women, children, and the Navajo. 

It also looked at injuries of Vietnamese shrimpers. The diffusion process focused 

on social marketing techniques.

Midwest Center for Agricultural Disease and Injury 

Research, Education, and Prevention

The Midwest Center for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, 

and Prevention (http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/nfmc/projects/) is housed in the 

National Farm Medicine Center at Marshfield Clinic, in Wisconsin. The center 

has conducted research on back pain, fatality risks from livestock manure storage 

facilities, safety guidelines for children’s agricultural tasks, women’s reproductive 

health, and agricultural zoonoses and various evaluation studies. It serves a region 

that includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. NIOSH 

funding for the Midwest Center ended in 2002, and information about the center 

was not provided in the evidence package.

Great Lakes Center for Agricultural Safety and Health

The Great Lakes Center for Agricultural Safety and Health (http://www.

ag.ohio-state.edu/~agsafety/) serves Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The center is based at Ohio State Uni-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

134 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

versity. It focuses on ergonomics, pesticide exposure and health effects assessment, 

acute unintentional injury, virtual-reality simulation of hazardous agricultural jobs, 

and agricultural safety and health education and outreach. Although it is only 5 years 

old, the center focused heavily on ROPS, protection from sun and heat, and grain 

engulfment. It has provided some training, a ROPS video, fact sheets, hazard alerts, 

and grain-bin safety standards but little r2p programming. An interesting research 

project, related to the New York Study described in the next section, is evaluating 

the use of hazard audits for insurance companies; there are no results yet.

Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health

The Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health (NEC, http://

www.nycamh.com) is at the New York Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health 

(NYCAMH) in Fly Creek, NY. NEC serves a 13-state region from Maine to Virginia. 

The center focused on tractor accidents and injuries to migrants and children, with 

Advisory Board input in selecting high-priority issues. The focus was primarily on 

musculoskeletal injuries, hearing loss, and other ergonomic injuries. The center 

provided considerable outreach and knowledge transfer, including the newly developed ergonomic apple bag for migrant workers, the ROPS program, and extensive 

safety training and health screening. But about 52 percent of tractors on the farms 

that produce the top five New York commodities have no ROPS.

The committee noted Goal 5 of NEC: “Carefully evaluate all education and 

prevention projects.” However, evaluation seems to focus on the use of materials 

rather than outcomes in reduction in injuries and mortality (page 391 of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a).

Although most evaluation studies focus on use of materials rather than outcomes, one exception is the North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural 

Tasks (NAGCAT) interventions study. In this project, the valuation compared 

intervention versus control farms and demonstrated a significantly longer time 

to occurrence of injuries after the intervention was provided (pages 407-501 in 

NIOSH, 2006a). Another discovery is that only about half the recorded injuries 

were in NAGCAT-covered categories; this result was explained by the fact that about 

half the accidents involving children occurred on farms but not during work, and 

it has resulted in NAGCAT reports on safe play areas on farms.

A second successful program is the Agricultural Hazard Assessment and Training program, in which insurance claims declined from 90 to 50; losses in costs were 

also reduced over the 4 years of intervention on the 50 farms in the NY Study. The 

severity of injuries was also lower than on the control farms. The insurance company now uses risk assessment instruments in three other states (pages 410-501 

in NIOSH, 2006a).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 135 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

Southern Coastal Agromedicine Center

The Southern Coastal Agromedicine Center (http://www.ncagromedicine.org/ 

scac.htm) is at the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute and serves Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virginia, and the Virgin Islands. The institute, based at East Carolina University, is a 

collaborative institute of that university, North Carolina Agriculture and Technical 

State University, and North Carolina State University. The center’s high priorities 

are ergonomic research, vehicle safety, heat-related disorders and dehydration, 

and skin disorders of fishermen. The center looked at selected agricultural injury 

surveillance activities among African-American farmers and ranchers and among 

agricultural workers with work permits, arthropod allergens in large-scale swine 

production, and development of farm safety teams composed of high school students. It put in place a timber-medic training program to assist emergency medical 

technicians working with injuries in the forests and on Christmas-tree farms. It 

also established a network with healthcare providers to address issues associated 

with safety and the use of pesticides by migrant workers and greenhouse workers 

and with farm vehicle safety. Little evaluative research has been completed on the 

outcomes with respect to health and mortality.

Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention

The Southeast Center for Agricultural Health and Injury Prevention (http://

www.mc.uky.edu/scahi/) serves Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Virginia. The center focused on ROPS, family and child health on 

beef-cattle farms, and youth education. It concentrates on underserved populations 

of women, children, migrants, and older farmers. Its projects for dissemination 

and diffusion include the Agricultural Disability Awareness and Risk Education 

(AgDARE), the Kentucky ROPS project, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, and the Kentucky 

Women in Agriculture Conference. The ROPS project was the most comprehensive, 

with pre-intervention and post-intervention evaluation. No evaluation of health 

or injury outcomes was provided except for the ROPS project, which demonstrated both cost effectiveness of dissemination and intervention and the value of 

community-university partnerships in such efforts.

Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health

The Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health (http://www.public-health.

uiowa.edu/GPCAH/) is at the University of Iowa’s Institute for Rural and Environmental Health in Iowa City, Iowa, and serves Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

136 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Focused on exposure to agricultural chemicals and health, it conducts basic research, houses major surveillance efforts, and collaborates with Farm Safety 4 Just 

Kids. Its studies were primarily on toxicant inhalants and respiratory problems 

associated with swine. Center staff conducted multiple interventions, including 

a 700-farm family and community partnership for a health training (Keokuk 

County) program that was a successful intensive educational training and support 

model. Evaluation has shown that agricultural health and safety training correlated 

with a reduction in fatalities. (The authors, however, are cautious about claiming 

credit.) The AgriSafe Network provided ongoing agricultural occupational safety 

and health education for health professionals. Great Plains Center reports are 

clearly presented using the logic model.

High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety

The High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety 

(HICAHS, http://www.hicahs.colostate.edu) serves the residents of Colorado, the 

High Plains, and the Rocky Mountain Region. It is on the Colorado State University 

campus in Fort Collins and is a multidisciplinary organization with input from 

such fields as engineering, industrial hygiene, education, toxicology, social work, 

epidemiology, environmental health, and agricultural sciences. HICAHS conducted 

outreach (training and education) primarily through Cooperative Extension and in 

partnership with public health professionals in the schools. It undertook hazardevaluation site visits and surveys and extensive outreach to the migrant community. 

The model it used was a regional multistate effort in coordination with extension 

specialists at universities. It used a participatory learning model for technology 

transfer and knowledge diffusion. It seems to have neglected the American Indian 

population. Its focus is on exposure to pesticides, lung diseases, and engineering 

controls, education, and training in regional projects. Considerable evaluation of 

projects is an integral part of center work.

Rather than relying only on cooperative extension for r2p, the program established new partnerships with agricultural associations, equipment and service 

companies, insurance carriers, dairy owners, community health clinics, and other 

organizations, such as Easter Seals. That broadened the range of distribution and 

contacts. As a result of the broad-based participatory approach, the center provided 

many “customized” training programs. This approach allows greater input on research needs from end users, provides more effective documentation, and affords 

greater attention to regional needs of agricultural partners that have direct access 

to end users (farmers, ranchers, farm facilities, and migrant and seasonal workers) 

(page 99 of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 137 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

Evaluation of the ROPS design for pre-ROPS tractors (page 109 of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a) indicated that all stages of activity—including design, 

testing, and selling commercially—were accomplished for Ford and selected other 

small tractors. Commercial tests before sales are still under way for John Deere and 

Allis Chalmers models.

National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety

The National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety 

(http://research.marshfieldclinic.org/children/)—located at the National Farm Medicine Center in Marshfield, Wisconsin—strives to enhance the health and safety of 

all children exposed to hazards associated with agricultural work and rural environments. The center is a model for inputs and priority identification and funding. 

It developed a newsletter, the NAGCAT, networks of advocates, and workshops, 

and it incorporated a small grant model to move research results to educational 

programs and practices. An important element in the National Children’s Center 

program is evaluation of dissemination processes.

Deep-South Center for Agricultural Disease and 

Injury Research, Education, and Prevention

The Deep-South Center for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention—located at the University of South Florida in Tampa—served 

the target populations of Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. The Deep-South Center focused research on safety and health problems of special agricultural populations in the region including minority, migrant, and low-income farmers and farm 

workers. Its activities included the design of educational and health promotion 

interventions for farmers and farm workers; archive of educational and disease 

prevention/health promotion materials designed for use by agricultural safety and 

health specialists, clinicians, and health educators; design of models for use of rural 

public health and clinical nurses when engaged in problem identification and delivery of interventions; and design of aids to assist in hand-arm movement during 

planting, weeding, or harvesting. Funding for the center ended in 2001.

Assessment of Comparative Strengths and 

Weaknesses of the NIOSH Ag Centers

NEC provided a thoughtful assessment of the diverse approaches to knowledge diffusion and transfer (page 160 of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a). First, 

enforcement is difficult to accomplish. Second, engineering may be a preferred 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

138 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

approach, and the best example is ROPS in which the universal application and use 

of the technology have not occurred, and tractor deaths occur at a greater rate than 

one might expect if the technology were fully adopted. With respect to education, 

one study reviewed 25 farm safety intervention education programs and found 

some changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, but “none showed sustained 

decrease in injuries or illnesses.” However, “multi-faceted programs appear most 

successful” (DeRoo and Rautiainen, 2000).

Research on intervention over 20 years has found that no one theory or method 

is likely to create an effective, sustainable, and transferable program. Therefore, in 

the Great Plains Center, the Certified Safe Farm (CSF) model incorporated several 

theories and principles of intervention and health promotion from past research 

and experience (page 161 of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a). The CSF project 

included intervention and control farms and a triad of services: clinical services, 

education, and on-farm safety reviews. Demonstrable outcomes included increased 

use of personal protective equipment and reductions in respiratory problems, 

injury costs, and insurance claims.

Another example of research with multiple interventions and evaluation of 

outcomes is the National Childhood Agricultural Injury Initiative. Although many 

alternative explanations may be offered for the results, there were clear declines in 

the number of injuries in children (from 32,800 to 22,600 from 1998 to 2001) and 

their rate from 1.7 to 1.4 per 100 farms in the same period. A similar drop in deaths 

and death rates occurred during the periods 1978-1983 and 1990-1993 (page 211 

of Appendix 2-10 in NIOSH, 2006a).

As part of r2p, many of the Ag Centers used social marketing, increased electronic communication, and networking to provide education, train the trainers, 

and communicate with agricultural workers. They used diverse communication 

methods specific to audiences—Hispanic children, parents, farm workers. A major success story is the Keokuk County project, in which Center staff conducted 

multiple interventions including a 700-farm family and community partnership 

for a health training (Keokuk County) program. This was a successful intensive 

educational training and support model. Evaluation studies have shown that agricultural health and safety training was correlated with a reduction in fatalities. 

(The authors, however, are cautious about claiming credit.)

HICAHS conducted outreach (training and education) primarily through 

Cooperative Extension and in partnership with public health in K-12 schools. 

HICAHS researchers undertook hazard-evaluation site visits and surveys, and 

extensive outreach to the migrant community. The model it used was a regional 

multi-state effort in coordination with extension specialists at the universities. It 

used a participatory learning model for its technology transfer and knowledge 

diffusion efforts.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

K 139 n o w l e d g e D i f f u s i o n a n d T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e r

EVALUATION

The AFF Program created a separate goal for its educational, knowledge diffusion, and technology transfer activities, which has created a separation of research 

from the dissemination functions. These dissemination activities would be integrated in all of the research priorities. In discussing the ideal AFF research program 

in Chapter 2, the committee recognized the needed role of research in knowledge 

diffusion and technology transfer to reach the at-risk populations. However, the 

separate goal continues to compartmentalize this outreach interaction as distinct 

from the processes used to inform the research questions, methods, and analyses. 

In part, this is a reflection of the logic model that guides the review. The concept 

of broader deliberation and decisionmaking among researchers and populationsat-risk from the inception of research ideas to their diffusion to the vulnerable 

populations is not explored in depth.

Although there are substantial efforts to reach working populations, most 

NIOSH materials were provided through Web sites or written materials. This 

reflects a lack of understanding of the worker populations in agriculture. Some 

researchers have addressed the need to modify messages for farming populations 

(Grieshop et al., 1995; Cole, 2000, 2002; Morgan et al., 2002). The changing profile 

of the working populations involved in agriculture, forestry, and fishing needs to 

be taken into account in the development of programs designed to reach workers. 

Immigrant workers clearly have different cultural views of safety and disease that 

need to be assessed if culturally relevant information is to be provided. Farmers, 

ranchers, fishermen, and loggers similarly have specialized cultural contexts related 

to perceptions of risk and safety practices that influence adoption of new practices 

(Morgan et al., 2002; Freeman et al., 2003; Helmkamp et al., 2004; Effland, 2005). 

Incorporating representatives of target populations into the priority-setting process and actual dissemination processes would increase the likelihood of successful 

outreach and impacts.

Much of the legislation that addresses worker health and safety is not applicable 

to farmers and ranchers, and many of the relevant regulations are not enforced 

(Murphy, 1992; Cole, 2002). Therefore, the effectiveness of legislation in reaching 

AFF working populations is questionable, yet legislation remains an important tool 

in the diffusion and implementation of new knowledge and technologies.

Most education programs ignore the role of well-established habits in maintaining behavior and preventing the adoption of new behaviors (Murphy, 1992; 

Cole, 2002; Freeman et al., 2003). Failing to take habits and culture into account 

limits the ability of programs to modify behavior so as to increase safety and improve health. As noted above, multifaceted programs appear most successful and 

provide a rationale for using social marketing techniques.

The recommendations in Chapter 12 will address these issues, especially the 

need for an integrated model of NIOSH research and diffusion programs.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

140

9

Other Programmatic Elements 

Identified by the Committee

In following the components of the committee’s ideal Agriculture, Forestry, and 

Fishing (AFF) Program, the committee identified other elements that the program 

has been involved in and provides here a review of engagement with stakeholder 

constituents, health services research and training, public policy and regulatory 

advice, and program evaluation initiatives.

STAKEHOLDERS

The AFF Program seeks to engage stakeholders in its work, and the challenges 

in engaging such a large and diverse workforce are obviously great. Other National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) programs also have an array 

of stakeholders, but AFF stakeholders—the program’s ultimate beneficiaries—are 

an extraordinarily diverse constituency. Most of the 2 million-plus AFF businesses 

are small and are operated by self-employed persons assisted by family members, 

including children. Increasing numbers are immigrants from Mexico and Southeast 

Asia who produce specialty crops on small-scale farms. Self-employed workers 

who provide the majority of the labor in their operation seek to earn their families’ livelihoods in outdoor environments, sometimes enduring hardships that few 

U.S.-born workers would tolerate.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 141 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

AFF Workers

The AFF workforce consists of those earning their livelihood in the AFF sector 

and is diverse in race, ethnicity, language, culture, class, and social norms. The bulk 

of the workforce is made up of hired workers, and many are employed only on a 

seasonal basis. Large portions of AFF hired and contract workers are low-literacy, 

non-English speaking immigrants, many of whom are not authorized to work in the 

United States: in fisheries, increasing numbers are of West African or East Asian origin; in agriculture, the vast majority are from Mexico or Central America. Language 

barriers are becoming greater as more and more hired and contract workers speak 

languages lesser known in the United States, such as Triqui, Mixtec, Zapotec, Maya, 

Purépecha, and Quechua; at least a dozen languages are spoken daily on U.S. farms, 

and most do not have a written form. Efforts to engage these populations must 

overcome barriers of language, culture, race, ethnicity, and class.

Underlying the challenges of engaging AFF workers is the deep-seated division 

between those who seek immediate practical solutions to their problems and those 

in the research community who prefer to engage in contemplation or laboratory 

experimentation. The historical foundation of that divide in our society has been 

well described by Hofstadter in Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963). Compounding the barrier is the low level of scientific literacy among workers that the 

AFF Program seeks to engage. One might say that the reverse is also true: that the 

schism between the intellectuals and the workforce is perpetuated by a failure of 

the intellectuals to communicate effectively on workers’ terms, taking into account 

different work circumstances and cultural attitudes. Finding common ground or 

even a meeting space comfortable for all parties may be difficult.

The following pages describe four instances in which efforts to overcome 

barriers­ were successful to the benefit of all parties. The examples illustrate approaches, not recipes, that AFF projects could adopt or adapt.

Engaging Hired Farm Laborers

In 1988, the Ford Foundation challenged the California Institute for Rural 

Studies (CIRS) to undertake research in the subject of farm labor and rural poverty 

in California. The challenge included a requirement that academics, laborers, and 

community leaders meet and develop a collaborative agenda. A meeting place had 

to be found in which all parties would be comfortable. The bias of the CIRS staff 

in selecting a meeting space was that a university or college setting would probably 

be inappropriate because relatively few farm laborers had ever attended college or 

felt comfortable among highly articulate experts. In the end, a modest motel with 

suitable meeting rooms near downtown Fresno was selected. That choice was made 

because Fresno is in the center of the San Joaquin Valley, the most productive agri-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

142 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

cultural region in the United States, employing over 200,000 farm laborers during 

spring and summer. Fresno is a community that many farm laborers visit and in 

which they were likely to feel comfortable. Some academics were uncomfortable 

with the choice because it meant leaving the familiar confines of their campuses, 

such as Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and San Diego. However, when the reason for the 

choice was carefully explained, nearly all 60 faculty members invited to participate 

expressed appreciation for the thought that had gone into the selection process. For 

the 60-odd farm labor representatives or rural community leaders, who included 

industry representatives, the choice of Fresno made sense from the beginning.

Next, the conference discussion process involved carefully choosing eight academics to prepare research papers on specific topics: housing, voting rights, labor 

relations, the California farm labor market, measuring rural poverty, indigenous 

migrants, the changing structure of agriculture, and pesticide policy.

At the conference, the presentation of papers was structured so that a panel of 

three would comment on each paper—typically an academic, a farm labor representative or rural community leader, and an industry representative. Papers were 

provided to panel members at least a week in advance of the conference. Time was 

allotted for comments or questions to any of the panelists. A panel facilitator and 

note-taker kept the entire process running smoothly, and simultaneous translation 

into Spanish and English was made available to all who needed such assistance.

Among the outcomes of the conference were eight conference proceedings 

papers, with synopses of panelists’ or conference participants’ comments, and the 

formation of a project advisory committee to provide general guidance to the CIRS 

staff in its work. All the labor and community participants found the format to be 

welcoming and to have enhanced participation.

Engaging Hired Forestry Services Workers

The second example involved the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service, which in California had found that its staff was relatively uninformed about Hispanic immigrant workers, many of whom were showing up as 

contract laborers for planting or other work on federal land. In 1995, CIRS was 

contacted by a representative of the Forest Service who asked whether it might be 

possible to set up a workshop to enable staff members to learn more about the 

newest components of the forest labor force.

In the view of CIRS staff, it was essential that Forest Service personnel encounter Spanish-speaking immigrant workers directly, not just hear a description 

of them in English. CIRS staff arranged for a busload of about 50 Forest Service 

employees to visit a public farm labor camp near Stockton. The meeting was held 

in the evening, after the workday, after the workers had a chance to change from 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 143 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

work clothes into more comfortable attire, and after everyone had a chance to get 

an evening meal. A local Spanish-English interpreter was recruited, and four current farm laborers volunteered to participate in a panel presentation for the Forest 

Service employees. The gathering was held outdoors under a rooftop mat with 

benches arranged in a semicircle facing the panel of workers. Several dozen other 

farm laborers and family members also attended, mostly out of curiosity.

The panel presentation was enlightening. The four workers described their 

home villages, how they came to the United States to find work, how many years they 

had been coming to the United States to work in the fields, how much they earned, 

how much money they sent back home each week to support their families, and 

what they thought about while doing heavy manual labor in the baking hot fields 

of the San Joaquin Valley. One worker said that he wanted to learn more about the 

potential impacts of the newly approved North American Free Trade Agreement on 

employment in his region of Mexico.

Forest Service employees asked many eye-opening questions. One worker 

described how he had been coming to the Stockton area for over 45 years, doing 

the same kind of work year after year, and how his grandson had just graduated 

from California State University, Stanislaus, with an honors degree in computer 

sciences. He said he was proud that his labor had helped to make it possible for 

his grandson to realize his dream. After he spoke, there were several moments 

of silence among all participants in the evening’s event and then a crescendo of 

respectful applause.

Engaging Northern High Plains Growers

The third example involved growers on the northern high plains. In 1998, organic growers in central North Dakota requested a meeting with scientists of the 

National Farm Medicine Center (NFMC) so that they could explore concerns about 

personal health and about potential contamination of their organic farm products 

resulting from the use of pesticides on adjacent acreage that had been purchased or 

rented by potato growers of the Red River Valley in the North. The organic growers 

could smell the pesticides used by potato growers and wondered about exposure 

of themselves or their households. The use of the products is not permitted on 

organic acreage, and the organic growers were concerned that pesticide drift would 

contaminate growing crops, the soil in which the crops are grown, or worse, the 

hands, feet, face, and other body parts of people working on organic acreage.

North Dakota is administratively in federal HHS Region IV, so NFMC contacted the High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety 

(HICAHS) at Colorado State University, Fort Collins; the two centers worked 

together to structure a 2-year study of the issue. Once institutional review board 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

144 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

approval was secured, scientists of both centers requested face-to-face meetings 

in the separate household living rooms of organic growers and potato growers so 

that basic study outlines could be reviewed and both communities might experience buy-in. Each group was wary of the other (and the local county agricultural 

extension agent warned explicitly against any form of study), so engaging both on 

their individual turf was the first step in a long process of gaining mutual credibility. The participatory research provided greater buy-in to the proposed study 

and its potential findings (McCauley et al., 2001; Quandt et al., 2001; O’Fallon and 

Dearry, 2002).

Scientists of both agricultural centers listened intently on site to group descriptions of agricultural operations and tasks performed by workers; wore the requisite 

plastic booties while on the “walk-abouts”; walked farmsteads and fields; had coffee 

and home-baked delicacies in farm kitchens, living rooms, and local restaurants; 

and ended several rounds of meetings by noting the availability of a federal partner 

who had the field-collection instruments and advanced laboratory capability that a 

study of this type demanded. Neither protagonist was enthusiastic about inviting a 

federal partner, but both reluctantly agreed to permit NIOSH to enter the proposed 

study as a partner and to accompany NFMC and HICAHS scientists when study 

procedures were launched. Private resources from NFMC were used to fund the 

study, inasmuch as both agricultural groups were suspicious of any form of federal 

funding involvement.

Numerous meetings and less formal interactions with both groups of growers 

ensued on their premises, always in the local community. At no time was it expected 

that either group would travel to Marshfield, Wisconsin, or Fort Collins, Colorado; 

rather, scientists and technicians from the agencies went to the study areas. And no 

one from either agricultural group travelled to Cincinnati, Ohio, or Morgantown, 

West Virginia, to engage scientists at NIOSH directly.

The study was launched with perimeter air sampling around organic crop 

acreage, the farmsteads of organic growers, and selected “control” areas elsewhere. 

As data collection proceeded, technical staff were invited to provide study updates 

and transmit educational information about the study, pesticide products used 

on potato crops and their potential human health effects, types and hydrological 

characteristics of soil overlying aquifers in central North Dakota, and the use of 

personal protective equipment. NFMC scientists and technical staff invested additional effort to educate potato growers about preventing nontarget exposure, 

applying pesticide with “best management practices”, and planning for the future 

use of integrated pest management strategies.

In less than a year, NIOSH staff members were viewed as legitimate participants on the study team and were included in all activities when on site. Initial 

study results were presented to both agricultural groups in fall 1999 (Gunderson 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 145 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

et al., 1999). The settings for these disclosures were the living room of an organic 

grower, a local meeting room for potato growers, and a local hunting lodge for 

study staff of all three agencies. Study results were surprising to both groups of 

growers (Gunderson et al., in review), but both indicated that they were impressed 

by the fairness with which they were treated; by the tenacity of both technicians and 

scientists in attempting to learn what happens in production agriculture settings, 

why it happens, and who is potentially affected; and by the lack of arrogance and 

“pretty urban talk” on the part of staff and scientists.

Engaging Alaska Commercial Fishermen

The fourth example, from commercial fishing, can be found in the work 

leading to the publication and distribution of the booklet Deck Safety for Crab 

Fishermen (Jensen Maritime Consultants, 2002), a publication that is in its third 

printing since its release in 2002. The NIOSH Alaska Field Station had determined 

that crab fishing in Alaska was an extremely high-risk industry. By reviewing the 

injury data available, NIOSH researchers found that most injuries aboard crab 

vessels were associated with the pot launcher, the bait chopper, and slips and falls. 

The researchers then sought out and interviewed a group of crab fishermen for 

ideas on safety improvements.

Once the NIOSH team had formulated a list of safety improvement suggestions, it vetted them by surveying 89 crab fishermen associated with 75 boats of 

different types and sizes in Dutch Harbor, Alaska. By getting their boots wet and 

actively seeking to engage the stakeholders in the targeted industry, NIOSH vastly 

improved the validity of its proposed interventions. By also having contacted about 

36 percent of the crab-fishing fleet, NIOSH laid the foundation for buy-in by a 

very individualistic population. The product that it developed generated so much 

interest that some of the stakeholders published the booklet themselves instead of 

waiting for NIOSH’s long internal review process.

A consistent and often-repeated theme throughout the committee’s 

information-gathering meetings was that NIOSH serves its stakeholders best when 

it follows a “boots on the ground, get dirty” approach to research and reaches out to 

its constituents. NIOSH has enjoyed its greatest successes through nimble, targeted, 

and adaptive efforts that are conducted in a timely manner.

Non-Workers as Stakeholders

Another category of stakeholders consists of those who interact with and 

serve AFF worker populations. These stakeholders provide support services and 

include equipment manufacturers, various government agencies (USDA, the Na-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

146 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

tional Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences, state departments of agriculture, the Cooperative 

Extension Service, and state and local health agencies), veterinarians, agricultural 

engineers, and state and local agencies that provide essential services, such as 

healthcare providers and forest firefighters. But engaging those additional stakeholders would supplement, not substitute for or in any sense replace, the engagement of directly affected workers. The committee here distinguishes between the 

working population directly engaged in AFF production and people engaged in 

support activities, including research.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, NIOSH needs to consider five types of directly 

affected stakeholders in each of the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sectors: selfemployed workers, unpaid family workers, direct-hire workers, contract-hire workers, and workers employed by larger-scale businesses. Other persons may be at risk 

owing to their living on or adjacent to worksites because AFF workplaces are, by 

their relationship to natural resources, extensive as opposed to localized. The additional persons may include children, spouses, or other relatives of AFF workers. 

The National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety has 

been effective in reaching out to and engaging all five categories of workers, albeit 

with considerably greater success among some categories than others. The fishing 

program in Alaska has been particularly effective in directly involving various categories of workers in addressing occupational safety in a localized fishery industry; 

however, some categories of workers may have been underrepresented.

Organizations representing self-employed and unpaid family workers in agriculture are relatively highly developed, especially nowadays with the proliferation 

of commodity-based groups; there is relatively effective involvement of some of 

these groups in the AFF Program, as was clear at the Seattle National Occupational 

Research Agenda (NORA) session in January 2006. Despite those successes, both 

hired and contract workers have been underrepresented throughout the brief 

history of the AFF Program. The fault is by no means to be placed only on the 

program, as there are substantial barriers to engaging hired and contract workers, 

including language and cultural gaps. Compounding the problem is the relative 

absence of involvement of most hired and contract workers in any organization 

that directly represents workers. Labor unions represent only a very small fraction 

of hired and contract farm workers—no more than 30,000 of a national hired 

workforce estimated to be of 1.3-2.25 million workers (Villarejo and Baron, 1999). 

The record of labor unions in the AFF sector is spotty: some have had a strong 

commitment to making the workplace safer, but others have demonstrated little 

interest in this issue. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 

Organizations’ Department of Occupational Safety and Health has recognized 

that “NIOSH is valuable in that it can address new, unregulated hazards such as 

ergonomic problems” (Factor and Uehlein, 1990).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 147 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

Nonprofit advocacy groups and government-funded service agencies have 

occupied the front lines in seeking to represent hired and contract workers. Although some efforts have been helpful, few of the spokespeople who speak on 

behalf of hired and contract workers have any direct experience as AFF workers 

themselves or, in some cases, only slight direct contact with these workers. Direct 

worker involvement as stakeholders is essential if their views are to be adequately 

represented. Stipends need to be considered to compensate workers for time off 

of work and travel expenses.

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH AND TRAINING

Health services research is defined as the multidisciplinary field of scientific investigation that studies how social factors, financing systems, organizational structural 

processes, health technologies, and personal behaviors affect access to healthcare, the 

quality and cost of healthcare, and ultimately health and well-being. The research 

domains of this field are individuals, families, organizations, institutions, communities, and populations. Health services research examines how people obtain access 

to healthcare, how much healthcare costs, and what happens to patients as a result 

of this care. The goals of health services research are to identify the most effective 

ways to organize, manage, finance, and deliver high-quality care and improve patient 

safety (Academy Health, 2000). This research has been conducted to study a variety 

of healthcare aspects, including those pertaining directly to occupational health. 

Health services research has not been conducted in as much detail in agricultural, 

forestry, and fishing workers as in other occupational groups.

The term training refers to the education of professionals in specific topics 

directly related to safety and health. It may target people working as or training 

to become nurses (including advanced practice nurses), physicians, physician’s 

assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, mental health counselors, 

emergency medicine technicians, lay health workers, safety professionals, engineers, and industrial hygienists. At times, the training has been specific to clinical 

problems that are directly relevant to AFF workforce safety and health issues and 

has been conducted with a public health approach; however, at other times, it has 

been a general approach to occupational safety and health without emphasis on 

problems seen in AFF workers. There has been a consistent approach to educating 

healthcare professionals about AFF occupational issues.

Strategic Goals and Objectives

The briefing information provided by NIOSH did not contain goals pertaining 

directly to health services research and training. However, NIOSH funds several 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

148 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

extramural projects that revolve around health services research or training and 

numerous extramural projects of which health services research or training is an 

important part. From 1990-2006, NIOSH funded up to 16 Education and Research 

Centers (ERCs) across the United States. Many ERCs offer education and training 

for medical providers, safety professionals, and others who work with agricultural 

health and safety issues. NIOSH describes the emphasis as follows: “The core areas 

of programming are industrial hygiene, occupational health nursing, occupational 

medicine, and occupational safety. Programs are developed to meet the educational 

needs of these groups as well as other professionals working in the field of occupational safety and health” (ERC, 2007). In addition, NIOSH has funded at least 

one program to train lay health advisers, also called promotoras. The ERCs provide 

training programs in agriculture, forestry, and fishing.

Inputs

The main inputs to health services research, education, and training have 

been NIOSH funds distributed to the agricultural research centers (ARCs) and 

the ERCs, although the committee is aware that NIOSH clinicians and scientists 

have provided faculty expertise to the centers. University-affiliated centers have 

also been major contributors to the programs that have been developed with 

faculty and staff outside the centers as well as those hired with ERC funds. The 

documentation provided by NIOSH is unclear on the role of the private sector. 

For example, the Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital—affiliated with the New York 

Center for Agricultural Medicine and Health—has been instrumental in launching 

studies of respiratory, auditory, and musculoskeletal problems faced by farmers; 

the study results have been used in the design of new outreach capacity and in 

clinical training. The Marshfield Clinic of Wisconsin fielded similar outreach and 

training activity. NIOSH documentation, however, does not mention such efforts. 

Collaborations with and contributions from other local and regional community 

medical facilities are likely to have been critical for the success of such initiatives. 

Documentation of them was difficult to find in the materials provided by NIOSH 

for use by the committee.

Activities

Most of the health services research and training activities were reported for 

the agricultural sector; very few could be found for forestry and fishing. A number 

of the health services research and training programs in agriculture are specifically 

designed to offer health or safety training directly to farmers or farm workers in 

addition to educating medical or safety professionals. That dual approach to education is desirable for the entire sector.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 149 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

Agriculture

The NIOSH-funded ERCs at selected academic institutions (some of which 

also have Ag Centers) have funded projects related to production agriculture, including training in industrial hygiene, occupational health nursing, occupational 

medicine, and occupational safety. For example, the ERC at the University of Iowa 

has funded postdoctoral fellows who engage in training in a wide variety of topics. It is less clear whether there is a formal relationship between the NIOSH Ag 

Centers and the ERCs or whether collaborations evolved through opportunity. It 

is also not clear how much emphasis is placed on agricultural health in each ERC 

program. However, the committee has observed that numerous professionals have 

been encouraged to explore occupational health issues—explorations that probably 

would not have taken place without the presence of ERC initiatives. Quantifying 

the training might be useful to measure the adequacy of preparation for practice 

and as a means of determining whether NIOSH funds are well spent. Examples of 

health services training in agriculture are summarized below.

Promotores de Salud From 1999 to 2003, AFF Program researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago developed and evaluated an intervention to reduce 

the number and severity of eye injuries in Latino farm workers through collaboration with peer health advisers (promotores de salud) in Illinois and Michigan. The 

promotores de salud were trained in eye injury and first aid by AFF Program staff. 

Contacts with workers focused on distributing protective eyewear and on training in the importance of wearing appropriate eyewear. Data were collected on the 

effectiveness of the intervention and showed that use of appropriate protective 

eyewear by Hispanic farm workers can be increased by training lay health advisers 

to select and custom-fit protective eyewear acceptable to workers and by providing 

the eyewear for distribution by the promotores (Migrant Health Promotion, 2005). 

The research group established an eye health and safety Web site in collaboration 

with the Rural Women’s Health Project to disseminate information about eye injury 

prevention and the project nationally.

Certified Safe Farms The Certified Safe Farms program (funded largely by 

NIOSH) has been active at the University of Iowa for about 12 years. Collaborating 

academic institutions have included the University of Nebraska Medical Center. 

The project is designed to determine whether farm safety inspections and resulting 

changes in safety practices, with health screening of farmers, will reduce injuries 

and costs of farm families’ healthcare. Participants receive occupational health 

screenings, health and wellness education, on-farm safety reviews, and incentives 

for adopting safer farming processes. Willing farmers work with a nurse trained in 

farm safety and health and a person trained in inspecting farms for safety hazards. 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

150 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Variations of the health screening and farm inspection process have been developed 

for different forms of production agriculture in the Midwest. Self-reported data 

pertaining to the costs of occupational injury and illness paid by participants and 

their insurers were collected.

Healthcare Provider Training Several universities that have medical schools—

such as the University of Illinois, the University of Iowa, and the University of 

Minnesota—have received funding from NIOSH to design and implement occupational health training programs for physicians, nurses, and other healthcare 

providers and persons who do not have a healthcare background in agricultural 

health. The programs are well established and use AFF Program resources to extend 

work to neighboring states. Although the programs have responded to the obvious need for training, the committee notes that the programs would benefit from 

greater physician input in course content and clinical approach.

Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities (OHNAC) From 

1990 through 1996, the AFF Program funded 31 public health nurses in rural communities in 10 states (California, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, New 

York, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Ohio) to conduct case-based, and sometimes rate-based, surveillance. In 1995, the program funded continued surveillance 

under the banner of Community Partners for Healthy Farming Surveillance. States 

that were funded under the original OHNAC project and later funded by Community Partners for Healthy Farming Surveillance usually retained OHNAC in the 

titles of their programs. The surveillance projects addressed multiple agricultural 

subsectors. For simplicity, both surveillance projects will usually be referred to 

hereinafter as OHNAC.

Northwest Community Health Worker Network Extramural AFF Program researchers engaged the Hispanic farmworker community through two communitybased participatory research projects in Washington and Idaho. Together with the 

Washington Association of Community and Migrant Health Centers, researchers 

established the Northwest Community Health Worker Network and listserv, and 

they provided professional education to clinicians and trained community health 

workers in prevention and diagnosis of and treatment for pesticide poisoning.

Take-home Pesticide Exposure Study The primary purpose of the take-home 

pesticide exposure study conducted by the University of Washington was to describe the sources of pesticide contamination in farm homes and investigate the 

relationship between clinically documented contamination and pesticide exposure 

of family members in the home. A combination of environmental and biological 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 151 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

sampling was used. Questionnaires and on-site observation were used to determine 

practices and behaviors that may contribute to exposure and thereby to provide 

content for future professional education venues.

Forestry

Before formal implementation of the AFF Program in 1990 but concurrently 

with congressional adoption of appropriations legislation establishing the program 

in NIOSH, NIOSH provided National Traumatic Occupational Fatality Surveillance System data to support development of an Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) forestry standard. It also gave OSHA recommendations 

about including multiple safe felling techniques, making changes in the snakebite 

section of the standard, improving work-area organization and communication, 

using rollover protective structures (ROPS) and falling-object protective structures (FOPS), and prohibiting some unsafe harvesting techniques. In 1994, OSHA 

adopted the final standard, which incorporated most of the recommendations 

made by NIOSH; the recommendations spanned several of the research domains 

of the health services research arena.

Fishing

NIOSH conducted an early assessment of the decline in commercial fishing 

deaths on the Alaskan shelf after implementation of the Fishing Vessel Safety Act 

in 1991. It found that although deaths had decreased, vessel sinkings had not. In 

addition, NIOSH identified the fishery in which each fatal event had occurred. The 

crab fishery in the Bering Sea was shown as the most hazardous fishery in Alaska 

and the problem was the loss of fishing vessels, which meant loss of life. In 1997, 

NIOSH convened other partners at the second national Fishing Industry Safety 

and Health (FISH II) Workshop in Seattle to develop practical recommendations 

that would prevent vessels from sinking. It resulted in the Preseason Dockside 

Inspection Program, implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard beginning in 1999. 

That program appears to be highly effective in reducing deaths, thereby probably 

reducing the use of clinical care, but at this time it is limited to the Gulf of Alaska 

and the Bering Sea.

Outputs

The AFF Program has produced numerous projects related to health services 

that would probably not have existed without the program. The OHNAC program, 

initially funded by NIOSH in 1991-1996, has generated noteworthy findings and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

152 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

publications, which are all the more remarkable because NIOSH did not formulate epidemiologically derived guidance for nurses “in the field” that might have 

resulted in more precise targeting of efforts to the highest-risk agricultural worksite 

exposures in the 10 funded states. Outputs of the OHNAC program included peerreviewed publications targeting clinicians and others, which form the backbone 

of formal instructional materials (including clinical texts); continuing education 

updates; self-study courses; simulations; and seminar content.

Overall, the output of the AFF Program has been substantial in health services 

research and training, although less than output of other kinds, such as information aimed directly at workers. At times, a lack of planning and organization has 

hampered progress. It is not always clear how conducting health services research 

and training fits with the other missions of the NIOSH AFF Program.

Other Outcomes

There is evidence that some NIOSH-funded health services research projects 

may be influencing industries tangentially related to the AFF sector and to the topic 

of occupational safety and health. Those industries span a continuum from liability 

insurance carriers to equipment manufacturers—such as those producing tractors 

or fishing vessel cable winching devices—to health and safety product vendors. 

The influence of NIOSH can be detected in the marketplace: from the presence 

of safety-enhanced end-user products to the belief by the insurance industry that 

use of these products reduces occupational injury and illness. The reductions may 

occur because of the effect on worker social factors, sector development of financing incentives, changes in organizational work-setting procedures and supervision, 

introduction of new and improved technologies for prevention of ill effects or 

their timely clinical detection, or adjustments in how basic medical care is deployed. And the projects have enhanced the professional development of classically 

trained agricultural engineers, industrial hygienists, safety professionals, industrial 

nurses, and so on whose career trajectories evolved from full-time employment in 

sector-related industry to university-based Ag Centers, occupational health clinics, 

and other private venues, such as the National Safety Council. Examples of these 

outcomes include the following:

• The Certified Safe Farms project has received funding from the health 

insurance industry in Iowa. This may be an important first step in reaching the 

ultimate goal of making preventive health services available to farmers.

• In 1997, extramural AFF Program staff at the University of Iowa sponsored 

consensus-building activity, including a capstone conference to develop an approach to implementing a nation-wide tractor-related injury and death prevention 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 153 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

program. That initiative has spawned other activity in several communities—the 

farming, engineering, clinical, and occupational health research communities; 

federal agencies; and state legislatures. These communities have addressed tractorrelated issues through the use of ROPS on tractors through public incentives; 

improving lighting and marking to reduce injuries and deaths due to collisions 

between tractors and motor vehicles on public roadways; enhancing the training of basic and advanced emergency medical technicians in clinically efficacious 

methods of victim extraction and scene stabilization; exploration of emergency 

machine-stopping mechanisms; and promulgation of designs for safe play areas 

for children and adolescents near or in agricultural work zones.

PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATORY ADVICE

At its formation, OSHA was designated to be the federal agency with primary 

responsibility for regulation and enforcement of workplace safety. NIOSH was 

created as an independent, scientific research organization to inform the public, 

including governmental agencies, about occupational health and safety, and to play 

an advisory role in recommending ways to reduce risk of injury or illness in the 

workplace. However, NIOSH has regulatory authority for respirator certification in 

agricultural environments for confined spaces and for dust and pesticide exposure 

(42 CFR Part 84). Those are the only direct regulatory roles of NIOSH.

The Crucial Role of NIOSH

The committee finds that the AFF Program has played a central role in improving public oversight of occupational safety for the AFF workforce at both the 

federal and state levels. The committee also finds that the NIOSH Ag Centers, owing 

to their specific regional focus, have made important contributions to informing 

public policy discourse.

The AFF Program has provided both research findings and advice for a number 

of substantial modifications of workplace safety regulation. It has also initiated 

several important partnerships to develop improvements in occupational safety. 

The two most notable partnerships have been with the Alaska commercial fishing 

industry, where NIOSH engaged the industry workforce directly, and with the 

Childhood Agricultural Safety Network, where a brilliant example of coalition 

building was successfully undertaken and realized over a period of years.

The AFF Program has conducted 16 investigations as part of the agency-wide 

Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) program. Those efforts were 

not regulatory, but they identified deaths of young workers who were assigned tasks 

prohibited by hazardous order regulations and incidents in which non-English 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

154 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

speaking workers were not provided with appropriate training. Such scientific, 

non-regulatory studies contribute knowledge that underpins regulatory advice.

Less visible but important have been the efforts of some of the separately 

funded regional NIOSH Ag Centers. For example, Pacific Northwest Agricultural 

Safety and Health (PNASH) Center research efforts have led to invitations to center 

faculty to participate in national policymaking discourse. The Western Center for 

Agricultural Health and Safety has engaged county health departments in Merced 

and Fresno Counties, California, regarding current research initiatives of interest. 

Several researchers presented policy briefings at the California state capitol to a 

large audience of legislative staff and advocacy groups (Villarejo and Schenker, 

2005). Other centers similarly have engaged local and regional agencies and private 

organizations and trade groups in policy discussions.

NIOSH core staff continuously engaged federal agencies in policy discourse. 

For example, NIOSH staff met with USDA Forest Service representatives concerning issues ranging from the use of insect repellents by Forest Service staff to cleanup 

policies regarding the use of safe cleaning agents. Also notable are the multiple research contributions that inform proposed new hazardous orders for child workers 

in agriculture and ergonomics standards to address repetitive-stress disorders.

Barriers to Effective Use of NIOSH Policy and Regulatory Expertise

Although NIOSH is uniquely positioned to provide independent, scientifically 

founded information and advice to inform public policy and regulatory discourse, 

several barriers may severely limit its contributions. First, as the NIOSH evidence 

package notes, the AFF workforce is to a great degree unregulated. The various statutory exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act, noted in Appendix F, severely limit the purview of NIOSH research 

activities; OSHA, for example, excludes all farms with 10 or fewer employees.

Second, and perhaps decisive in the current regulatory regime, there is a strong 

preference in some agencies for allowing market forces to shape the workplace environment. That preference is reflected in the sharp decline in federal occupational 

safety regulatory activity in recent years.

Third, Congress itself has been an important barrier even to the consideration 

of regulatory change. As the NIOSH AFF evidence package points out, “the program has provided information to support new OSHA standards related to logging, 

field sanitation, air contaminants (remanded in 1992), and ergonomics (repealed 

in 2002) (Luginbuhl, 1997). Moreover, the program sought out other opportunities 

for supporting federal regulations including the Coast Guard’s implementation of 

the Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Act of 1988, EPA’s promulgation and enforcement of the pesticide Worker Protection Standard, and Department of Labor revi-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 155 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

sions to child labor hazardous orders. But there has been little regulatory activity 

in agriculture safety and health.”

Legislative actions have eliminated or repealed regulations that could significantly reduce and prevent workplace injuries and illnesses in the workplace. The 

committee finds that congressional interventions, such as its repeal of the ergonomics standard adopted by OSHA (OMB Watch, 2001), appear to have been based 

on controversial political considerations and to have ignored compelling scientific 

assessments and evidence of probable adverse long-term safety and health effects 

on the labor force. By ignoring the best scientific advice (NRC, 1998b, 1999; NRC 

and IOM, 2001), such ill-advised maneuvers have resulted in missed opportunities 

to reduce important occupational musculoskeletal risk factors. Despite the fact that 

musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses are the leading cause of work limitations 

(Liberty Mutual, 2006), it may take years to resurrect the ergonomics standard. To 

further complicate matters, the repealed OSHA ergonomics standard had already 

excluded agriculture.

Fourth, some scientists publish research findings but fail to follow through 

with the same urgency to seek needed improvements that their research suggested. 

Moreover, research scientists may lack the necessary communication skills to engage affected communities effectively.

It is useful in this context to consider how private sector and state agency 

partnerships can undertake activities that are not subject to federal constraints. 

Private foundations, non-government organizations, industry trade groups, and 

others can join state agencies in undertaking initiatives to address workplace safety 

and health in the AFF sector, and there are numerous examples of the support of 

research activities by the private sector.

PROGRAM EVALUATION INITIATIVES

NIOSH established an Operational Logic Model with the mission “To provide 

national and world leadership to prevent work-related illness and injuries.” As part 

of this model, the goal of the AFF Program is prevention through effective research, 

transfer, and evaluation. Evaluation has been defined as systematic investigation 

of the merit, worth, or significance of the object (CDC, 1999b). This section of 

the report comments on the AFF Program’s evaluation initiatives as presented in 

the evidence package (NIOSH, 2006a) and other evaluation activities discovered 

during the program review.

Program evaluation is extremely important for determining whether NIOSH 

activity has had a favorable impact on safety and health. To maximize the impact, 

the evaluation needs to include an analysis of the quality of the research or program. The evidence package includes a variety of evaluation activities. The research 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

156 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

conducted by the Alaska Field Station provides a good example of continuous program evaluation consistent with the NIOSH logic model: research on commercial 

fishing safety is well defined and was designed by using surveillance data, which 

can also be used to track the outcomes of the project. Those data were also used 

to make changes in project activities to improve safety. The end outcome of the 

program is a reduction in deaths associated with fishing activities in Alaska. The 

Agricultural Center Evaluation Project is also a good example of a NIOSH evaluation initiative. The report published in January 2007 provided recommendations 

to NIOSH. The one overarching recommendation was to continue to support this 

collaborative evaluation effort.

There does not appear to be a similar strategy or conceptual framework for 

evaluation of most AFF activities. The briefing document made it difficult to sort 

the information into appropriate sections in any coherent way. For example, surveillance discussions were scattered throughout the document, making it difficult 

to determine what was considered surveillance, hazard assessment, and so on.

Most important, it seems that no infrastructure has been developed in NIOSH 

for consistently capturing the activities of AFF projects that can be used for efficient, effective evaluation. The briefing book contains NIOSH’s best effort to go 

back and find needed information, but much of the information that must reside 

somewhere at NIOSH is not included; for example, the original requests for applications (RFAs) for the programs launched in 1990 are not in the packet although 

the later RFAs calling for Ag Center applications are.

The NIOSH Operational Logic Model described in the evidence package indicates that evaluation would occur during most of the steps of the model (Figure 1-3 

on page 28 of NIOSH, 2006a). Although the evidence package does report outputs, 

intermediate outputs, and outcomes in many cases, there is little information on 

evaluating the effectiveness of the reported items. The one exception, as mentioned 

earlier, is the Alaska commercial-fishing project, which seems to provide evidence 

of effective evaluation.

NIOSH staff readily admitted the difficulty of measuring outcomes. This is 

demonstrated in the evidence package by NIOSH stating that “in many instances 

it is difficult to effectively trace the contribution of NIOSH to the end outcomes. 

Many groups contribute to reducing occupational injuries and illnesses and to 

creating safer places to work. Still, NIOSH is strongly committed to developing objective measures of its real-world performance. If the best measures of performance 

relate to motivating and enabling others to work safer, this in no way diminishes 

the importance of the accomplishment (NIOSH, 2006a).” Under “End Outcomes,” 

the evidence package notes that “evidence of reductions in occupational hazard 

exposures, illnesses, and/or injuries as a result of the AFF Program research is 

elusive at best” (page 101 in NIOSH, 2006a).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

O 157 t h e r P r o g r a m m a t i c E l e m e n t s I d e n t i f i e d b y t h e C o m m i t t e e

Many similar comments appear throughout the evidence package. One could 

and logically would surmise that many projects have had a favorable impact on 

improving the safety and health of the AFF workforce. However, the evidence 

package, while providing significant evidence regarding programs in place, did 

not document an evaluation process that could provide evidence of the overall 

effectiveness of the AFF Program.

There is some evidence that program evaluations are conducted, but validation 

of program effectiveness in reducing injuries and illnesses is not robust and needs 

substantial improvement. A process for quantifying end outcomes and their impact 

on reductions in injuries and illnesses and the evaluation of programs from a qualitative perspective needs to be established for all AFF projects. The process would be 

linked to surveillance and designed to provide feedback that can be used to change 

program priorities or activities if the present course of action is not having a substantial impact. NIOSH would use a standard best-practices approach. An evaluation model such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Framework 

for Program Evaluation in Public Health” would be adopted and used consistently 

to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate all projects and programs. 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

158

10

Program Scoring and Rationale

The committee was charged with evaluating the relevance and impact of the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (AFF Program) on an integer scale of 1-5. 

Following the guidelines and questions provided in the Framework Document 

(Appendix A), the committee used its expert judgment to rate the relevance and 

impact of the overall research program by summarizing its assessment of the major 

subprograms before arriving at overall scores for relevance and impact.

The Framework Document does not prescribe a method for arriving at an overall quantitative score on the basis of qualitative evaluations of separate subprogram 

areas; it allows individual evaluation committees to tailor the scoring process. The 

present committee considered many ways of determining a single score to convey 

the relevance and impact of the program in its entirety. It originally considered 

assigning numeric scores to each of the three sectors but decided, because the AFF 

Program devoted most of its efforts to agricultural safety and health, that individual 

scores for forestry and fishing safety and health would be difficult to interpret. 

The committee decided to reach a single score that included consideration of the 

successes of the forestry and fishing safety and health subprograms in spite of the 

much smaller amount of funds and personnel committed to them. The assessment 

of those subprograms was based primarily on input received from experts on safety 

and health in the forestry and fishing sectors, as well as its review of the documentation on the subprograms and the NIOSH Centers for Agricultural Disease and 

Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 159 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

The committee also considered external factors outlined in Chapter 3 in scoring for program relevance and program impact.

ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING 

RESEARCH PROGRAM RELEVANCE AND IMPACT

Score for Relevance

On the basis of information provided by NIOSH and others and its own experience and expertise, the committee assessed the degree to which the AFF Program 

has led and carried out research most relevant to improvements in workplace 

protection in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The committee converted that assessment into a score of 4 for relevance, based on a 5-point scale described in the 

Framework Document (Box 10-1).

The committee arrived at this score for the program as a whole after considerable deliberation. As one would expect for any research program as diverse as the 

AFF Program, the research carried out in some subprograms was more relevant 

than in others, as shown in the detailed evaluations presented in Chapters 4-9. In 

addition, the rating scale for relevance provided in Box 10-1 required the committee to consider more than one characteristic of relevance (e.g., priority of research, 

level of engagement in transfer activities), and the committee’s evaluation of these 

different characteristics did not always fit neatly into a single score. For example, 

BOX 10-1

Scale for Rating Program Relevance

5 = Research is in highest-priority subject areas and highly relevant to improvements in 

workplace protection; research results in, and NIOSH is engaged in, transfer activities 

at a significant level (highest rating).

4 = Research is in high-priority subject area and adequately connected to improvements 

in workplace protection; research results in, and NIOSH is engaged in, transfer 

activities.

3 = Research focuses on lesser priorities and is loosely or only indirectly connected to 

workplace protection; NIOSH is not significantly involved in transfer activities.

2 = Research program is not well integrated or well focused on priorities and is not clearly 

connected to workplace protection and inadequately connected to transfer activities.

1 = Research in the research program is an ad hoc collection of projects, is not integrated 

into a program, and is not likely to improve workplace safety or health.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

160 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

according to the Framework scale, a score of 4 should be assigned if the research 

is in high-priority subject areas and is adequately connected to improvements in 

workplace protection, and the program is engaged in transfer activities. The committee concluded that some, but not all, research in the AFF Program has been in 

high-priority subject areas, and that the program has somewhat been engaged in 

transfer activities, but not always the most appropriate. In contrast, assigning a 

score of 3 would indicate that the research focuses on lesser priorities and is not 

significantly involved in transfer activities, and this also was not entirely accurate 

for the AFF Program. Had the committee been given the option of providing 

non-integer scores, the score for program relevance most likely would have been 

between 3 and 4.

To arrive at a single integer score for relevance, the committee examined separately the two main components of the relevance score: the priority of research 

and the level of engagement in transfer activities. For the former, the committee 

concluded that although not all research activities of the AFF Program fulfilled all 

the qualifications of a 4, it more often than not met the standard for engaging in highpriority research. In assessing the program’s level of engagement in transfer activities, the committee focused on the applicability of transfer activities and concluded 

that the AFF Program was engaged in transfer activities and at least some transfer 

activities took place in appropriate areas. The committee therefore concluded that 

a score of 4 for relevance was more appropriate for the program overall.

Score for Impact

On the basis of the Framework Document’s scoring criteria for program impact (Box 10-2), the committee assigned the AFF Program a score of 3 out of a 

possible high score of 5.

DISCUSSION OF RATINGS FOR RELEVANCE AND IMPACT

As it thought about the relevance and impact of the AFF Program, the committee was influenced by general aspects of the program that contributed to its 

successes, some of which are described below. Further discussion of the conclusions that led to the committee’s scores for relevance and impact, respectively, are 

described in subsequent sections of this chapter.

Breadth of the Program

Resources have been inadequate for the AFF Program to carry out its congressional mandate in the area of agriculture, let alone in the additional areas of 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 161 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

BOX 10-2

Scale for Rating Program Impact

5 = Research program has made a major contribution to worker health and safety on the 

basis of end outcomes or well-accepted intermediate outcomes.

4 = Research program has made a moderate contribution on the basis of end outcomes 

or well-accepted intermediate outcomes; research program generated important new 

knowledge and is engaged in transfer activities, but well-accepted intermediate outcomes or end outcomes have not been documented.

3 = Research program activities or outputs are going on and are likely to produce improvements in worker health and safety (with explanation of why not rated higher).

2 = Research program activities or outputs are going on and may result in new knowledge 

or technology, but only limited application is expected.

1 = Research activities and outputs are NOT likely to have any application.

NA = Impact cannot be assessed; program not mature enough.

forestry and fishing. In contrast with other NIOSH programs that focus research 

on narrow sectors and well-defined problems, the AFF Program has the task of addressing manifold issues that affect the occupational safety and health of nearly all 

natural resource workers on land and sea. That task touches on more than a million 

businesses, a huge array of products, and multiple workplace exposure. NIOSH 

non-sector based programs address extremely narrow topics and can focus good 

science on well-defined problems, whereas the AFF Program is expected to spread 

its resources to address broad issues, so it is difficult to conduct research on all of 

them. In agriculture, the AFF Program responded in a reasonably effective manner 

to the extreme diversity that characterizes agricultural production in the United 

States. The extensive sectoral, technical, and geographic diversity of the agricultural 

industry left NIOSH with no alternative but to focus on key subjects.

Focused Research Areas

Despite those enormous challenges, the AFF Program has proved that it is able 

to conduct sound research on focused areas when given the opportunity. That is 

the case with the Alaska commercial fishing program (see Box 10-3), which is an 

exemplary research program with concentrated research topics, clear goals, and 

adequate resources. Several factors contributed to the success of the well-executed 

program: research that was focused and targeted, use of clear and consistent sur-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

162 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

BOX 10-3

An Exemplary AFF Program:

Commercial Fishing Injuries and Fatalities, NIOSH Alaska Field Station

While the committee evaluated several projects in the AFF Program and found many of them lacking 

relative to how a research program ought to conduct research, the work by the NIOSH Alaska Field Station 

on commercial fishing safety has proven to be effective, and the station has executed its research according 

to how an ideal program would operate.

NIOSH established the Alaska research field station in 1991 to address the high occupational fatality 

rate in Alaskan commercial fishermen. Members of the field station quickly identified the excessively high 

fatality rate in Alaskan commercial fishing of 200 per 100,000 per year for the 2-year period 1991-1992 

(NIOSH, 2002). An epidemiologist was brought on to collect data on commercial fishing fatalities in Alaska 

and used the Alaska Occupational Injury Surveillance System database to focus on industries, workers, 

causes, and risk factors for injuries for priority setting and prevention research.

Members of the field station recognized that they did not have a good understanding of the commercial 

fishing industry. Therefore, in October 1992, NIOSH sponsored the first National Fishing Industry Safety 

and Health Workshop to

• Introduce members of the NIOSH Alaska research field station to the fishing industry.

• Identify players involved in commercial fishing safety.

• Learn about the fishing industry.

• Learn about existing regulations.

• Figure out how NIOSH could fit in and make a difference.

The meeting laid the foundation for how researchers would approach industry challenges, gave 

researchers insight into differences among the various industry segments, and illuminated the need for 

varied and flexible approaches to problems centering around people in the industry. Researchers developed 

peer relationships with industry stakeholders, and information was easily exchanged between the two; U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) has numerous copies of all publications written by the Alaska Field Station and refers 

to them often. NIOSH has been a resource for the USCG Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee. By walking the docks, talking to fishermen, and holding forums in numerous locations in 

Alaska with fishermen from various fisheries, the Alaska Field Station staff were able to outline four main 

categories of concern and set priorities for efforts according to magnitude of risk. In 1997, NIOSH published 

a bulletin indicating that the Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988 had contributed to 

reducing deaths in the industry in Alaska, but the root issues that put people at risk persisted at the same 

level. It went on to recommend 11 focused improvements.

The second National Fishing Industry Safety and Health Workshop, held in 1997, drew international 

interest. Through forums and subcommittees, meeting participants outlined four main subjects of focus: 

vessel sinkings, man overboard, deck injuries, and diving deaths.

Vessel Sinkings—As a result of NIOSH Alaska Field Station research on fishing vessel sinkings, USCG in 

Seattle and Alaska initiated a standard practice of preseason boardings to conduct safety checks and advise 

vessel operators of issues that need to be addressed before departure. That activity led to the development 

of a voluntary commercial fishing vessel safety inspection and certification program that has now become 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 163 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

a requirement for any vessels carrying a National Marine Fisheries Service observer onboard. Another 

advance has been the recent USCG development of an alternative compliance safety agreement for a class 

of vessels operating in Alaska. NIOSH has had little direct involvement in the latest developments, but it 

appears that NIOSH efforts provided the necessary catalyst.

Man Overboard—Although time and resources have not allowed the Alaska Field Station to focus much 

effort on man overboard injuries and deaths, a National Occupational Research Agenda project is under 

way to gather the various devices, ideas, and practices used in man overboard prevention and recovery. 

The project will evaluate the effectiveness of the prevention and recovery methods, identify barriers to 

nation-wide implementation, and look at ways to improve.

Deck Injuries—After crab fishing was identified as the largest contributor to occupational injuries and deaths 

in Alaska, members of the field station sought out fishermen to discuss the issues. Their discussions and 

open-minded face-to-face approaches resulted in the publication of Deck Safety for Crab Fishermen, a 37-

page practical guide to techniques and modifications to improve safety on crab vessels.

Additional forums and cooperative efforts with the NIOSH Spokane Research Laboratory identified 

entanglement as an issue for fishermen. That resulted in the development and successful testing of a unique 

emergency stop arrangement for capstan winches commonly used in purse seining. NIOSH took the capstan 

winch emergency stop to the Pacific Marine Expo and other events to share the invention with fishermen 

and has partnered with manufacturers to spread the use of the emergency stop on fishing vessels.

Watertight integrity and vessel stability are major causes of vessel losses and deaths, as demonstrated 

by the Arctic Rose sinking in 2001 that resulted in the loss of 15 lives—the largest loss of life in U.S. 

commercial fishing history. An engineering innovation now being tested is a fiber optics-based system 

for monitoring watertight hatches on fishing vessels to ensure watertight integrity. The system enables a 

captain to ascertain at a glance whether the important hatches are secured. Watertight hatches were not 

considered a viable option until recently because of the demanding vessel environment.

Diving Deaths—The 1997 Alaska Diving Safety Workshop (at which a member of the Alaska Field Station 

presented), sponsored by the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA) and Alaska Sea Grant, 

led to new diving regulations in Alaska and led NIOSH-supported AMSEA to develop an educational video 

about dive-harvest safety that introduces dive tenders to vessel safety, basic dive operations, and dive 

emergencies.

By highlighting those four issues, NIOSH confirmed USCG’s belief that fishing safety was important, 

and the research data prompted action and showed USCG how to set priorities among its efforts.

Rather than measuring success by the number, volume, and weight of peer-reviewed articles and 

publications, the Alaska research field group has used practical methods to generate impact. Staff at the 

field station have used commercial fishing trade journals and newsletters, such as those of the North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association (NPFVOA) and AMSEA, to provide the latest safety information to 

commercial fishermen.

The research and outreach work in commercial fishing safety has had a great impact not only on local 

fisheries but on national and even international fisheries. This work and other publications have generated 

worldwide interest and resulted in NIOSH-sponsored international conferences on fishing industry safety 

and health: the first International Fishing Industry Safety and Health (IFISH) conference was held in Woods 

continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

164 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Hole, Massachusetts, in 2000; IFISH II was held in Sitka, Alaska, in 2003; and IFISH III was 

held in Mahabalipuram, India, in 2006. Those conferences have generated proceedings that 

are used around the world to help spur further conversations, research, and regulations on 

commercial fishing safety.

The NIOSH Alaska Field Station was able to show progress in many elements of commercial fishing through assorted cooperative efforts with USCG, NPFVOA, AMSEA, industry 

stakeholders, and other partners. Since the inception of the Alaska Field Station, there has 

been a 51 percent decline in the annual death rate in Alaskan commercial fishermen, active 

interagency cooperation is occurring, and, perhaps most important, NIOSH has achieved 

buy-in and respect from the commercial fishermen themselves.

The research methods and practices of the NIOSH Alaska Field Station are exemplary: 

they are focused, priorities have been set, they are timely, and they include stakeholder 

feedback. Through hands-on approaches to problem solving, determined efforts to gather 

and improve death and injury surveillance data, and a willingness to take the extra effort to 

assign high priority to face-to-face communication, the station has had incredible impacts 

on fishing safety. The main weaknesses of the program are attributed to external factors.

The committee applauds the work done by this small group of researchers. The Alaska 

Field Station has proved itself to be an effective program that has been relevant to the needs 

of commercial fishermen and has demonstrated that the outputs and intermediate outcomes 

of its effort have had a considerable impact in reducing injuries and deaths.

SOURCES: NIOSH, 1997a, 2002, 2006a; Chris Woodley and Michael Rosecrans, USCG, 

personal communication, August 31, 2007; Jennifer Lincoln, NIOSH, personal communication, August 31, 2007.

BOX 10-3

Continued

veillance methods, involvement of key stakeholders, and motivated core staff to 

ensure project continuity.

Examples of Cutting-Edge Research

Work on agricultural risks to respiratory health conducted by AFF Program 

staff in collaboration with other researchers has included cutting-edge research 

that has moved the field forward. Successes include significant contributions to the 

development of laboratory methods in studying respiratory risks, development of 

field methods for collecting dust samples, and etiological knowledge of hazards.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 165 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

Hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), or white finger syndrome, is a common problem among forestry workers. NIOSH studies demonstrated the strength 

of association between the use of chain saws and HAVS (NIOSH, 1997b), leading 

scientists and engineers in manufacturing companies to develop anti-vibration 

devices that could be mounted in chain saw engines to reduce vibration transference from engine to handle. NIOSH researchers also studied the problem on a 

global scale and saw a decreased prevalence of HAVS symptoms in Finnish and 

Japanese forestry workers following the introduction of light-weight, low-vibration 

chain saws (Futatsuka and Uneno, 1985a, 1985b; Koskimies et al., 1992; NIOSH, 

1997b).

Contributions of Extramural Research

Information related to hazards encountered by AFF workers is of critical importance to efforts designed to protect those workers. With the support of AFF Program funding, the Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance (FFHHS) projects 

continue to expand the knowledge base about health and hazards associated with 

agriculture. Based on information from these projects, AFF Program staff systematically developed and widely disseminated training materials for conducting safety 

“walk-throughs.” The Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities 

(OHNAC) program, another extramural program, developed important training 

for nurses in rural areas and provided many alerts to agricultural workers. A number of the Education and Research Centers (ERCs) continue to provide training in 

agricultural safety and health for occupational safety and health professionals.

Contributions of NIOSH Ag Centers

The NIOSH Ag Centers are an invaluable component of the AFF Program and 

have contributed to its successes. The Ag Centers serve as a national resource for 

addressing agricultural safety and health problems through research, education, 

prevention, and intervention. The regional nature of the centers allows research 

to be focused, targeted, and relevant to U.S. worker populations. The centers are 

based in university settings, enabling researchers to draw on university resources. 

Overall, the Ag Centers have methodically carried out and encompassed the necessary components of an occupational safety and health research program: surveillance, research in various subject areas, partnerships and collaborations with state 

and local stakeholders, and information dissemination. Nearly one-third of the 

research conducted by the AFF Program was conducted through the Ag Centers, 

and the centers have strategically addressed issues that affect various populations. 

Examples of these components include the following:
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

166 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Involving Stakeholders

The Ag Centers use community-based approaches to identify issues deserving etiological or other exploratory research. These centers have established both 

community-based program advisory structures and technical working groups to 

enhance research, educational, and outreach efforts. Not surprisingly, some advisory structures have performed better than others.

By using community-based methods designed to engage workers, several Ag 

Centers have developed some successful programs to address occupational safety 

and health concerns of hired farm workers. For example, the Western Center for 

Agricultural Health and Safety (WCAHS), in collaboration with the California 

Institute for Rural Studies, held a conference in 1990 that included hired farm 

workers, farm labor advocates, and community-based medical providers (Villarejo, 

1990). The success of this conference signaled the active and serious interest of 

university researchers in engaging workers and their representatives.

Outreach

Early in the development of its outreach activities, the WCAHS partnered with 

the Statewide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program staff of the University 

of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources to initiate a project 

to train workers in safe work practices in settings where restricted chemicals are 

used. The two-stage “Train the Trainers” program focused on bilingual (SpanishEnglish) training for supervisors, farmers, crew leaders, labor contractors, and other 

human resource specialists in the California agricultural workforce (O’ConnorMarer, 2000). Each participant who successfully completes this program becomes 

a certified pesticide safety trainer, meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) guidelines. In turn, newly certified trainers provide training for hired farm 

laborers. Key to the process is the trainer-worker relationship in which individuals may raise questions or otherwise bring workplace safety issues to the fore. The 

most recent findings of the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) indicate 

that 86 percent of California’s hired crop farm workers interviewed in 2003-2004 

said they had received pesticide safety training from their current employer, up 

8 percentage points from the 78 percent who similarly reported receiving such 

training in 1999-2000 (Aguirre International, 2005). There are no comparable 

data available for earlier years. The “Train the Trainers” model for pesticide safety 

training has been widely adopted elsewhere (Buhler et al., 2002), and the concept 

is encouraged by the EPA (EPA, 2007).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 167 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

Influencing Policy

In California, current state law requires labor contractors to participate annually in continuing education intended to improve their personnel practices, and 

safety is a key component of the curriculum. That policy developed from the findings of a survey of the employment practices of California’s farm labor contractors 

during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when many farm operators turned to labor 

contractors for their short-term labor needs. The WCAHS and the California Department of Employment Development supported the research, which included 

interviews of more than 180 farm labor contractors (California EDD, 1992) that 

eventually led the Agricultural Personnel Management Program (APMP) of UC 

Cooperative Extension and the California Institute for Rural Studies to initiate 

training workshops to address their needs.

The establishment of reliable standards and more accurate techniques for infield measurement of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) depression in the blood serum 

of workers was a factor in encouraging the State of Washington to provisionally 

require analogous measurement of AChE depression among hired farm workers in 

that state. That decision was based in large part on the WCAHS research (Wilson, 

1996). Measurement of this biomarker is in workers who may have been exposed 

to organophosphate pesticides and is required under California pesticide regulations, but techniques for in-field measurements had previously yielded statistically 

unstable results in many cases, so the improvements to the tests made results more 

reliable and credible.

Role of Occupational Safety and Health Journals

Scientists and practitioners need mechanisms for communicating, and support 

from the AFF Program for two journals that address agricultural safety and health 

have provided just that. The Journal of Agromedicine and the Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health serve as a central clearinghouse for the publication and dissemination of research findings. Clearly these journals serve the community in a 

fundamentally critical way and facilitate the work of scientists and practitioners.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT RELEVANCE

The committee assigned the AFF Program a score of 4 for relevance because 

it found that research has been in high-priority and priority subject areas, and 

research has resulted in some successful transfer activities. The following section 

elaborates on this finding.

The AFF Program has engaged in some high-priority research areas and has 

done an adequate job of addressing major problems. Several relevant, effective, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

168 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

and important research and intervention pieces have resulted from the program. 

As previously mentioned, the work on Alaska commercial fishing has focused 

on highly important issues and has had an impact. The Childhood Agricultural 

Injury Prevention Initiative is extremely relevant, and some evaluations of the 

North American Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks have shown reduced 

injuries when the guidelines were applied. The National Agricultural Tractor Safety 

Initiative is another example of a focused research effort that has been extremely 

relevant. Research on musculoskeletal disorders that assessed simple and direct 

solutions for agricultural worker populations is an important issue that was addressed and that had a direct impact on workers. The research conducted on injuries and respiratory diseases is notable, though efforts were somewhat disjointed 

at times. The AFF Program’s current collaboration with other federal agencies 

on the Agricultural Health Study is a crucial endeavor that addresses the effects 

of environmental, occupational, dietary, and genetic factors on the health of the 

agricultural population.

Although the AFF Program has been engaged in some high-priority research, it 

has not balanced its research efforts to reflect areas that merit the highest priority. 

Forestry work remains one of the deadliest occupations in the United States, but 

the AFF Program has yet to demonstrate substantial effort in this area outside of 

Alaska and the southeastern United States. The committee is concerned that the 

AFF Program is not in tune with modern agricultural and forestry practices, lacks 

the ability to review efforts and know when to move on to other emerging issues, 

and consequently NIOSH does not have an accurate grasp of issues most pressing 

to agriculture and forestry workers. As seen in information provided to the committee, the AFF Program has struggled to conduct surveillance to identify subjects 

that warrant the highest priority for attention and has not been able to accurately 

define the populations that it serves. It has also struggled to effectively engage 

stakeholders to identify current issues and to disseminate its research findings to 

practice. Those are important matters that affect the kinds of research conducted; 

leaving them unaddressed will severely hinder the AFF Program’s ability to conduct 

research relevant to worker safety and health.

The AFF Program is engaged in transfer activities, but it has not been entirely 

successful in developing integrated approaches to disseminating research findings so as 

to yield additional reductions in injuries and illnesses in the AFF sectors. The AFF Program does not appear to be as heavily involved in translational research activities 

as it needs to be. Where it is involved, it does not always appear to know how and 

to take credit for that involvement. The outreach approaches that do exist tended 

to have been developed in other industrial settings and have not been appropriate 

or effective in reaching most target AFF populations; industrial settings differ dramatically from AFF worksites and workforce, and different approaches are needed 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 169 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

to reach worker populations in the AFF sectors. Many examples of such models 

have been used by the Ag Centers and are described in Chapter 8. As previously 

mentioned, some projects have been successful in outreach because they first and 

foremost successfully engaged stakeholders and target populations and understood 

how to translate research results into workplace practices.

The AFF Program has been ill equipped, even among university-based and 

clinical researchers, to address cultural and language barriers. Bench scientists cannot be expected to become instant experts in unfamiliar cultures, foreign languages, 

and rural lifestyles and practices. Several first-rate scientists have courageously and 

frankly admitted their lack of expertise and experience in community outreach 

and have asked for assistance in public conferences that involved the AFF Program 

(Frank et al., 2004).

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT IMPACT

The committee concluded that AFF Program activities or outputs are likely to 

produce improvements in worker health and safety, and gave the AFF Program an 

impact score of 3. That score was merited by the fact that the program has made 

some contributions to worker safety and health, as seen in the success of projects 

that have affected children, commercial fishermen, and tractor operators. But 

the committee had a difficult time establishing a clear record of positive impacts 

because the AFF Program itself has not given much priority to documenting the 

impact of its efforts. In some instances, the committee was aware of impacts that 

could be attributed to the AFF Program for which the program itself did not take 

credit. In other cases, however, it is clear that the contributions of the program 

have not been accepted by stakeholders nor has the research program engaged 

sufficiently in transfer activities. The committee concluded that the impact of the 

AFF Program’s research has been hampered by a lack of leadership, stakeholder 

buy-in, and effective dissemination of knowledge and practices. The following 

section elaborates on these findings.

The committee finds that the NIOSH AFF Program has made important contributions that are likely to produce improvements in worker safety and health. The outputs 

of the AFF Program include a wealth of information that is still considered current 

and important by the scientific community. However, the information has not 

been organized in a manner that is understandable by or helpful to others and has 

not been accessible to its own researchers; the AFF Program holds great potential 

for impacting workers if it is able to organize information in an accessible, understandable, and helpful format. Research has informed public policy and regulatory 

initiatives at the federal level and in several states. It is vital that independent, 

scientifically based research continue to inform policy and regulatory discourse. 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

170 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Many in the AFF industries are well aware that safety and health are woven into 

the fabric of successful businesses. As illustrated by the tragic loss of life associated 

with the recent sinkings of fishing vessels off New Bedford, important gaps still 

allow extremely dangerous conditions to continue.

NIOSH has a unique role as the only federal agency capable of convening all 

players dedicated to preventing workplace injury and disease, and it has deployed 

itself credibly on this task and funded other partners to function in consensusbuilding roles. NIOSH-sponsored symposia and workshops have had a great impact 

on the work of many occupational safety and health professionals and probably 

on the lives of AFF workers, but it is difficult to measure the direct impact of these 

indispensable capacity-building activities on worker safety and health.

The AFF Program has made important contributions to occupational health 

services and training endeavors across the nation. The committee members themselves have benefited from NIOSH-sponsored meetings and symposia, which have 

sparked the interest of occupational safety and health practitioners and provided 

others with valuable avenues for professional growth that would otherwise not have 

been available. It remains vital that NIOSH continue such support because it has 

singular influence in convening clinicians, scientists, and training institutions; conducting clinical research that produces occupational training insight; prescribing 

appropriate content for occupational training; and providing scientific and clinical evidence that informs practice standards. But there is room for improvement. 

For example, there is a need for physicians to become more involved in preparing 

training materials and to enroll in training courses. In light of the growing numbers 

of schools of public health, there is a need to prepare appropriate education and 

training curriculum materials for health professionals.

The AFF Program evidence package and supplemental materials lacked substantial data demonstrating changes in the annual number of occupational fatalities or disabling injuries in hired farm workers and several other populations. The lack of data 

may be attributed in part to the failure to conduct surveillance comprehensively 

and to poor data management and collection; it may also be attributed to external 

factors as previously discussed in Chapter 3. There was also a lack of evidence of 

concerted efforts to address hazards, safety, and health in forestry workers and in 

fishermen outside of Alaska.

Worker populations have not been adequately defined or tracked, therefore 

injuries and illnesses and changes in these populations have not been documented. 

The AFF Program’s unfamiliarity with standard sources of data on hired farmworker employment, including the long-established U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) quarterly Farm Labor, is an indication of its inability to obtain accurate 

denominator data for its separate populations. The program has not used statelevel data and data from other sources, such as workers’ compensation insurance 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 171 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

coverage, that contain a rich body of information on hired farmworker morbidity 

and mortality that would be valuable in informing discussions of changes in rates 

of occupational injury or illness (Villarejo, 1998).

KEY PROGRAM LIMITATIONS

Although on the whole the AFF Program demonstrated success in addressing 

some relevant issues and showed that it had impacted some populations, the committee identified limitations that affected the program’s progress and effectiveness. 

The committee observed several issues that affected both the AFF Program’s ability 

to conduct research on issues relevant to AFF workers and its ability to conduct 

research that would have an impact on worker safety and health.

Leadership and Strategic Planning

The overarching concern about the AFF Program is the lack of a single cohesive 

vision to drive the research agenda. The lack of consistent leadership, long-term 

strategic planning, and periodic review of that course has led to a piecemeal approach to the research program, and the program appears disjointed more often 

than not. However, the patchwork approach has produced some successful efforts 

because of the efforts of talented and dedicated researchers. The committee understands that the AFF Program is currently undergoing changes in leadership and is 

seeking guidance from its National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) AFF 

Sector Council. Current reports to the committee on these efforts show great promise, and the committee notes that effective leadership and stakeholder involvement 

will be essential in focusing the strategic plans of the AFF Program.

Surveillance

The AFF Program appears to have had considerable difficulty in applying the 

principles of and engaging in surveillance. Constraints to successfully implementing comprehensive surveillance may be due to external factors and funding. Basic 

demographic and health effects surveillance of each human population at risk of 

worksite exposure is essential because without it no effective targeting of other 

programmatic elements can occur, nor can one know when an intervention has 

been effective and move on to address other priorities. Surveillance needs to be 

broad-based in its population targets inasmuch as the sector is diverse in settings 

and employment practices and places that put populations at risk, such as children, 

spouses, and the elderly. Given the diversity of the target populations involved in 

the AFF sector, the focus on selected hazard surveillance (e.g., pesticides, rollover 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

172 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

protective structure [ROPS]) may have been the most efficient approach available, 

however creative partnering with other organizations, on items such as the NAWS 

survey might have provided additional information to guide program development. There are numerous examples beyond surveillance where NIOSH might 

reasonably let responsibility for an aspect of worker health and safety rest with 

another agency, but it was difficult to find that such a decision was arrived at after 

intentional consideration and decisionmaking.

In the 1990s, the AFF Program attempted to conduct surveillance through the 

FFHHS program and the OHNAC program. In addition, the AFF Program funded 

the National Farm Medicine Center in Wisconsin and the Great Plains Center 

for Agricultural Health in Iowa to conduct surveillance in two rural surveillance 

catchment areas. More recently, a second phase of the Regional Rural Injury Study 

has been funded.

The AFF Program needs to develop its surveillance program by using surveillance results in partnership with other organizations. Examples of some of these 

include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for 

Injury Prevention and Control, the National Center for Health Statistics (CDC), the 

National Animal Health Monitoring System (USDA), NIOSH Ag Centers, the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety, agricultural 

safety specialists at 1862 land-grant institutions, equipment manufacturers, and 

such informal groups as agricultural, fishing, and forestry workers and employer 

focus groups. NIOSH program directors and managers have not fully used CDC’s 

surveillance findings for intervention targeting and development. Injury surveillance in the fishing industry appears to have been undertaken more expertly, at least 

for commercial systems of the far North, and health surveillance beyond hazard 

surveillance in the forestry industry is in programmatic infancy. Further, the use 

of hazard surveillance systems for nonfatal injuries and illnesses holds promise for 

being a more cost-effective model for identifying emerging issues. In addition, the 

use of sentinel monitoring of occupational illnesses and injuries, first proposed in 

1983 (Rutstein et al., 1983) by NIOSH staff has not been actively pursued and may 

also be cost-effective.

Stakeholders

On the basis of the information provided by the AFF Program, remarks provided by stakeholders, and comments submitted by the public, the committee understands that the AFF Program has not fully engaged its stakeholders. It has had 

some remarkable partnerships to reach stakeholders, such as those with the commercial fishing industry in Alaska, but it has struggled to engage other stakeholders. 

The program has met the most success when it has understood stakeholder needs 

by asking for direct feedback from farm workers, loggers, and fishermen. It has also 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

P 173 r o g r a m S c o r i n g a n d R a t i o n a l e

garnered the most credibility when researchers have demonstrated that they are 

sensitive to stakeholder needs, which vary greatly among the three sectors.

A recurrent important impediment to NIOSH-sponsored programs has been 

lack of credibility among stakeholders. NIOSH has demonstrated that it can forge 

helpful linkages with segments of economic sectors, as in the mining and construction industries. However, such linkages to directly engage workers are not apparent between the AFF Program and two of its three target worker populations: in 

agriculture and forestry. Without a strong buy-in from its targeted populations, 

the program may appear to be out of touch with its stakeholders and unresponsive 

to the realities of the workplace environment, and its work may therefore not be 

credible among farm workers, loggers, and fishermen.

Stakeholders have also at times confused NIOSH with the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA); most workers are more familiar with OSHA’s 

role in the workplace than with NIOSH’s research. That has led to reluctance to 

work with NIOSH, in that some stakeholders are hesitant to work with a regulatory agency.

In its recent NORA initiative, the AFF Program has formed a NORA AFF 

Sector Council. Self-employed and unpaid family workers are represented on this 

council, but it includes no current hired laborers in AFF or direct representatives 

of hired laborers who were elected in a direct and democratic process by current 

AFF workers.

Populations at Risk

The AFF Program targeted specific populations that it deemed at higher risk 

than others but omitted certain other populations and fell short in defining the 

entire population of AFF workers at risk of injury and illness. There has yet to be a 

program-wide endeavor to characterize the numbers and types of workers involved 

in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. Some populations, such as hired farm workers, 

have also been poorly defined or miscategorized, and others, such as ranchers, have 

been largely unaddressed.

AFF Program leadership has a less than satisfactory record in addressing hired 

farm workers and did not respond to priority issues previously identified for this 

subpopulation. In May 1995, NIOSH convened a national task force of experts to 

identify priorities for surveillance and research on occupational safety and health 

of hired farm workers. The task force met, but the effort was stalled, and its work 

was put on hold. Three years later, Dr. Sherry Baron contacted a member of the task 

force to request that the California Institute for Rural Studies prepare the report, 

and the task force reached consensus without delay. Shortly after submitting their 

report to NIOSH for review in November 1998, task force members were informed 

that the report was issued (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hfw-index.html). For what 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

174 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

NIOSH refers to as priority populations for the period 1997-2006, the cumulative 

adjusted budget devoted to child safety was slightly more than $14 million, for 

fishing safety $2.4 million, for logging safety $0.2 million, and for “migrant and 

minority” populations an estimated $2.1 million (NIOSH Response to Question #5, 

2007, see Appendix C). NIOSH has yet to allocate substantial resources that are 

consistent with the task force’s recommendations for hired farm workers.

NIOSH has not accurately identified the hired farm workforce and continues 

to refer to this population as migrant and seasonal farm workers. Federal definitions of this population for the purpose of providing funds for education, health 

services, and legal services limits the eligible population to crop workers, but also 

includes food-processing workers. Furthermore, NIOSH has stated that “farm 

workers provide a good example of a population of non-English speaking, lowliteracy immigrant workers who migrate between a series of temporary jobs” (Fine, 

1996). That definition of the hired labor force is obsolete and unhelpful: although 

many hired farm workers are non-English speakers, some do speak English; 42 

percent of hired farm workers migrate to find work, but most do not migrate 

(U.S. DOL, 2005); and many hired farm workers are immigrants, but quite a few 

are not. Moreover, large numbers of hired farm laborers work in livestock production, excluded from the current “migrant and seasonal” definitions. The basis of 

the inaccurate characterization of the hired workforce is federal legislation that 

funds services to address needs of “migrant and seasonal” workers, and cannot be 

attributed to NIOSH alone.

CONCLUSION

The AFF Program has conducted decent work but many opportunities for improvement remain, including the setting of priorities with stakeholder input and a 

focus on research of utmost importance to and impact on AFF worker safety and 

health. The new challenge is to create a cohesive program that establishes strategic 

goals with the input of stakeholders so that researchers will understand the issues 

facing AFF workers, conduct surveillance of all subpopulations of AFF workers, 

and create a research-to-practice stream of information that will have an impact 

on the stakeholder communities. Successful implementation of the research-topractice component of the AFF Program will need to include participatory involvement at the ground level to provide data to answer stakeholder questions, identify 

how stakeholders access information, and create a continuous discussion with 

stakeholders. Given the programmatic gaps and challenges, the committee offers 

suggestions and more formal recommendations in Chapters 11 and 12 to build on 

the efforts of the AFF Program to date and to improve the entire system of NIOSH 

research and knowledge transfer activities.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

175

1 1

New and Emerging Research in Agricultural, 

Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health

The committee to review the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (AFF Program) was charged with assessing the program’s targeting of new research in occupational safety and health most relevant to future improvements in workplace 

protection. The committee was also asked to identify emerging issues important 

for NIOSH and the program. In keeping with the guidance of the Framework 

Document, this chapter provides the committee’s suggestions based on expertise 

of individual members rather than as a product of a formal process to explore and 

synthesize recommendations that could be developed through a comprehensive 

review of the field.

IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AND EMERGING RESEARCH BY THE 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

Process for Identifying New and Emerging Research

The AFF Program identifies new and emerging research through planning inputs consisting of surveillance data, stakeholder needs, partner aims, information 

exchanged in symposia and conferences, and program evaluations.

Surveillance data and trends from the following sources are reviewed: Bureau of Labor and Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, Traumatic 

Injury Surveillance of Farmers, Occupational Injury Surveillance of Production 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

176 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Agriculture, Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities, Community Partners for Healthy Farming, Analysis of Surveillance Data for Agricultural 

Injuries, Cancer Control Demonstration Projects for Farming Populations, Birth 

Defects and Parental Occupational Exposures, Agricultural Health Study, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention Birth Defects Registry, Fatality Assessment and 

Control Evaluation (FACE), State-Based Fatality Surveillance Using FACE Model, 

Childhood Agricultural Injury Surveillance, National Agricultural Workers Survey, 

National Health Interview Survey, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, 

Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance, Sentinel Event Notification System 

for Occupational Risk, Keokuk County Rural Health Study, Farmer Health Study, 

and the Work-Related Lung Disease Surveillance Report.

The NIOSH AFF Program identifies the following stakeholders and partners: 

farmers, hired farm workers, children as workers or bystanders, unpaid workers, 

forestry services workers, and fishermen. Stakeholders also include organizations, 

such as the Grange, United Farm Workers of America, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, 

and the National Institute for Farm Safety. Private-sector stakeholders include 

equipment manufacturers, insurance companies, commodity groups, and workers’ 

compensation organizations. Federal entities include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) extension agents, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

Advisory groups have included the NIOSH Agricultural Steering Committee and the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors. In addition, several program 

evaluations have been conducted, including a Progress Review Workshop (1992), 

a Project Facts Evaluability Assessment (1992), and an Extramural Committee 

Review of the Extramural Cooperative Agreement Programs (1995).

As a result of the aforementioned methods used to identify new and emerging 

research, the AFF Program has listed the following new technologies and potential 

emerging issues as potentially relevant for new research:

• Automatic steering, autopilot, and computer-operated equipment

• Biological manufacturing

• Biosensors

• Biotechnology

• Changing farmer demographics

• DNA sensing chips and nanolasers

• Exposure to genetically modified organisms

• Exposure to high-pressure hydraulic systems

• Fatigue

• High-speed equipment

• Irradiation of food
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 177 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

• Land application of sludge

• Managing safety in on-farm valued-added processing operations

• Power-transmission lines and communication towers (electric and magnetic fields and radiofrequency)

• Remotely controlled tractors and machinery

• Site-specific management

• Using global positioning systems to monitor worker activities

• Zoonotic-disease outbreaks

Assessment of the Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research 

Program’s Effectiveness in Targeting New Research

Given the trends in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, the worksites of tomorrow 

clearly will be different from the worksites of today. The changes, both predicted 

and unpredicted, will fuel the need for surveillance of such human factors as 

worksite organization and management; climate, technology, and policy change 

and of economics. On the basis of information provided by NIOSH, the committee 

concludes that the AFF Program has not developed a consistent process for identifying new research issues and developing a way to address emerging issues. The 

success of a public health research program is marked by its ability to recognize 

and address the needs of a targeted population. Because the AFF Program on the 

whole has struggled to conduct surveillance to understand the current needs of its 

worker populations, it is unable to forecast future needs.

In light of the fact that the program lacks an established procedure for assessing emerging issues in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, the committee further 

concludes that the AFF Program has fallen behind in understanding current practices and how these practices can create new hazards for workers. The program 

has instead focused resources on issues that have already been partly resolved by 

changes in work practices and environments. Thus, the AFF Program has not kept 

up with emerging issues and has lost the capability to gain useful knowledge and 

to respond with appropriate new technologies.

A few projects, however, have more successfully identified emerging issues 

and conducted research to address them. The fishing projects in Alaska and the 

farm-resident child-injury initiatives, for example, have consistently carried out 

sound research practices to affect fishermen and children, respectively, and have 

been able to identify new and emerging issues for these populations. Key factors 

in their success include the continuity of funding and staff. Long-term funding 

(3-5 years) enables researchers to carry out adequate surveillance, research, and 

outreach and to identify relevant issues on the horizon. Training and retention of 

key staff members are also vital for the successful execution of research from project 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

178 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

initiation to completion and for researchers to recognize such issues as changes in 

workplace practices.

The list of new technologies and potential emerging issues identified by NIOSH 

above appears to be a smorgasbord of unexplained significance; rather than reflecting a process by which the AFF Program can systematically identify and set priorities among new and emerging issues, the list appears to be simply a compilation of 

concerns and technologies. Regardless of how the list was assembled, the committee concurs that such issues as automated equipment, value-added processing on 

farms, changing farmer demographics, and zoonoses are emerging research issues 

and technologies that would benefit from NIOSH investigation.

NEW RESEARCH IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMITTEE

In evaluating the AFF Program’s research, the committee identified several 

kinds of research missing in health effects, health services, intervention, and regulatory policies. Some research issues that have not been investigated are of great 

relevance to improvement of AFF worker safety and health and could substantially 

affect safety and health with help from NIOSH.

Health Effects Research

Health effects research is complex, and future efforts need to be directed toward more extensive collaboration among all scientists working in AFF, in both 

intramural and extramural settings. Collaboration in multicenter studies of key 

clinical problems would increase the power of studies to answer important scientific questions. Future efforts might take investigators in new directions, such as 

studying the health effects of shift work and other causes of sleep deprivation on 

the AFF workforce, or studying the risk of cancer among fishermen (Spitzer et al., 

1975; Gallagher et al., 1985; Andersen et al., 1999).

The AFF Program has traditionally relied on engineering controls to eliminate 

or alleviate work environment hazards. In the new era of genetic and non-genetic 

marker technologies, the AFF Program needs to consider using these new preventive technologies for environmental and occupational disease prevention and control. At least one study has been funded on the emerging issue of gene-environment 

interactions; additional research needs to be conducted on preclinical identification 

of health hazards through biomarker technologies and include discussions on ethical concerns surrounding this issue.

New projects, which might be larger than those often funded by NIOSH, need 

to have adequate infrastructure to allow them to operate smoothly. The Agricultural 

Health Study—an important prospective cohort study of nearly 90,000 farmers and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 179 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

their wives to explore the potential causes of cancer and other diseases—is a good 

example of extensive collaboration among NIOSH, the National Cancer Institute, 

the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, EPA, and various universities and institutes (National Cancer Institute, 2007). Clinician scientists would need 

to collaborate with laboratory-based scientists and epidemiologists to facilitate 

translation of knowledge into a form that can be communicated directly to AFF 

workers and those who provide health and safety services to them. Representatives 

of AFF communities need to play a large role in that dissemination process. Successful knowledge translation and dissemination will require that ways be found 

to overcome barriers of geography, economics, language, culture, and politics. A 

rigorous evaluation plan needs to be in place for all efforts of this nature.

The focus of health effects research may need to change as the AFF Program 

evolves. It may be wise to review priorities and accomplishments before the AFF 

Program enters its next phase, with input from NIOSH intramural and extramural 

researchers, scientists who are studying AFF issues through other funding streams, 

AFF workers, and medical and safety professionals who serve the AFF sector. Scientific information obtained through the efforts of all scientists working in AFF needs 

to be considered as future directions are determined. AFF workers from all levels 

of the workplace hierarchy need to be at the table when priorities and approaches 

to problems are considered.

Health Services Research and Training

NIOSH can identify useful structures that might function in advising the Education and Research Centers (ERCs) and the Centers for Agricultural Disease and 

Injury Research, Education, and Prevention (Ag Centers) so that training materials 

developed for occupational venues are clinically accurate, reflect current practice 

standards, integrate contemporary scientific and clinical findings, and are formally 

vetted before they are released for general use under the aegis of NIOSH.

Clinical science relative to occupational exposure assessment and intervention 

is advancing rapidly, including tools to identify workers with specific combinations 

of genetic variants and environmental stressors that put them at higher than normal 

risks of disease. NIOSH will need a mechanism to quickly feed such science into 

training curricula. AFF safety and health professionals need appropriate translation 

of the findings because they deal directly with AFF workers. Such discovery leads to 

specifically targeted therapies and intervention techniques for disease prevention 

and control—the very reason for conducting health services research and training. 

Telehealth is an emerging application used to expand access to healthcare services 

and training, especially for practitioners in rural communities: it serves as a means 

of providing AFF worker populations with access to medical specialist consultations 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

180 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

and as a way of providing continuing education to a variety of health practitioners 

on AFF topics.

The committee is impressed by efforts in the U.S. Public Health Service to 

explore factors that affect health outcomes. Much of the endeavor involves urban 

and suburban populations, and the committee encourages NIOSH to investigate 

with sister agencies on opportunities to conduct, endorse, or fund health outcomes 

research in rural AFF populations. Those populations have been only lightly studied despite the fact that their occupational pursuits and rural residence and work 

locations predispose them to some kinds of exposure and affect their access to 

healthcare. Such work might build on successful activities in urban settings.

NIOSH can explore ways to enhance attention to AFF issues in university-based 

clinical research training. Because NIOSH has excellent linkage through its ERCs, 

the potential to affect clinical curricula is enormous. Such linkage might capture 

nontrivial issues of rural geography, spatial isolation, lack of access to high-speed 

Internet infrastructures, cultural features, indigenous languages, and rural work 

patterns that are markedly different from those with which most urban-based 

clinical researchers have contact.

A continuing supply of physicians knowledgeable in the AFF arena and in other 

areas of occupational and environmental health is needed, as are incentives that 

would include occupational and environment health training and continuing education in medical school curricula. NIOSH can develop standardized assessment 

tools for extramural occupational health training activity so that there will be a 

mechanism to corral data on program relevance, quality, and execution. Recognizing that academic communities, volunteer organizations, and workers often have 

strong desires to implement interventions to prevent occupational injuries and 

illnesses and that they may lack resources to evaluate programs to guide the best 

use of their resources, the committee believes that a coordinated approach to training program evaluation has merit. Development of such tools would contribute 

information on knowledge and skill gaps, clinical and other professional relevance, 

needs for training and other professional experience, the ability of instructors and 

others to convey key messages, and incentives that might propel future collaborative activity in occupational training venues.

Intervention Research

The AFF Program needs a more systematic and unified approach to evaluating 

and disseminating intervention research. It has taken a unified approach with the 

National Agricultural Tractor Safety Initiative, albeit a decade or so late, and needs 

to take a similar approach to intervention research in general. Although there are 

regional differences among the activities undertaken by AFF workers, the many 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 181 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

similarities make it likely that a successful intervention developed in one Ag Center, such as a redesigned apple-picking basket in the Northeast Ag Center, would 

be useful in another center’s work. The AFF Program needs a formal nationally 

coordinated mechanism for targeting intervention research to the highest-priority 

populations and highest-priority health effects so that the program can develop, 

pilot test, and evaluate appropriate interventions in an Ag Center and then expand 

interventions that have the greatest potential for success on a national scale. If an 

intervention has proved effective on a large scale, it needs to be aggressively disseminated to stakeholders through all available channels (such as trade and labor 

associations, publications, presentations, and extension agents), not merely posted 

on the National Agriculture Safety Database in the hope that employers and workers will visit the NIOSH Web site to search for solutions. The North American 

Guidelines for Children’s Agricultural Tasks seem to be a good model for this kind 

of systematic development and rollout of an intervention, but the issues and most 

effective approaches may differ from children and adult AFF workers.

Regulatory Policies

Impact of Ending Statutory and Labor Exemptions for Agriculture

New research could be conducted on the safety impact of ending the longstanding statutory exemptions for agriculture under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. As demonstrated by the remarkable 

success of Pacific and Northwest agriculture, in which all but a few of those exemptions have been superseded by state laws, there is a serious question of whether 

American agriculture would be harmed by abolishing the federal exemptions. 

NIOSH is uniquely positioned to compare state-level workplace regulations and 

safety outcomes with the corresponding performance of each state’s farming sector. The much more limited exemptions for small forestry and fishing operations 

can also be examined.

New research could be conducted on the effect of ending child labor exemptions for agriculture. The General Accounting Office (GAO; now the Government 

Accountability Office) reports that there are compelling reasons to question regulations that exempt hired and unpaid family child workers in agriculture while 

children in all other industries are protected (GAO, 1998). Rather than continue 

its piecemeal approach of seeking corrections to various specific hazardous orders 

that apply to child workers, the AFF Program can focus on new research to examine 

the effects of eliminating statutory exemptions for hired and unpaid family child 

workers in agriculture. Research shows that nearly one-fourth of child farm injuries 

were among immediate family members, and at least one-third of these injured 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

182 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

children were performing tasks prohibited by hazardous work orders in hired 

child workers of the same age (Marlenga et al., 2007). Furthermore, 76 percent of 

workers less than 16 years old who died in connection with their work were working 

in a family business and were thus exempt from child labor laws. The committee 

recommends that the AFF Program continue research on how ending the “family 

farm exemption” would affect the labor market and other family farm workers. A 

related question is how raising the age restriction from 16 to 18 years for hazardous 

agricultural work would affect safety and health. As the GAO review points out, 

there are compelling reasons to question why children ages 16 and 17 are permitted 

to perform hazardous tasks in agriculture but would be forbidden to perform the 

same tasks in any other industry (GAO, 1998). The committee recommends that 

the AFF Program continue to support research to inform this question.

Impact of State Policies on Agriculture, Forestry, 

and Fishing Worker Safety and Health

New research is needed to study the effect of state policies on workplace 

safety and health. State policy initiatives, such as increases in minimum wage, are 

becoming more important because some state policies on occupational safety and 

health (such as those in California) are more stringent than federal regulations. 

An annually updated online reference source describing federal and state employment standards for the entire AFF workforce would be helpful. In 1988, a remarkably complete review of federal and state employment standards was published 

(Craddock, 1988); updating this document would be a good place for the AFF 

Program to start. It would become a valuable resource for employers, employees, 

and AFF safety and health professionals. It appears that no document of that kind 

has ever addressed the fishing and forestry industries.

High-quality surveillance and public policy assessment are clearly related, as 

was shown through a recent review of the enforcement and education activities 

of California’s Cal/OSHA Program. California law states that employees must be 

insured under workers’ compensation (by law, only employees earning less than 

$100 in any calendar quarter are exempt from this requirement); this system has 

been in place for more than 75 years. The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating 

Bureau of California (WCIRB), the actuarial agency that reviews all paid claims, 

issues annual summaries of paid claims by frequency and severity. It produces a 

comprehensive record of the most serious injuries and deaths by job type and by 

the important factors involved in each claim, and its reports are extremely useful 

for surveillance purposes (Villarejo, 1998).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 183 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

The WCIRB issued an analysis of all noncumulative workplace injuries and 

illnesses over a 3-year period for which an indemnity payment was made.1 The 

analysis was multivariate and included independent variables, such as age of the 

worker, lack of work authorization (in the case of immigrant workers), duration 

of employment, and sex. The most significant finding was that only one factor was 

statistically shown to be associated with a reduction in overall noncumulative indemnity paid claims: Cal/OSHA enforcement and education (WCIRB, 2002). That 

finding suggests that the state’s policy of enforcement and education has benefited 

both employers and workers.

EMERGING RESEARCH AND ISSUES 

IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMITTEE

The committee emerged from the review process with its own view of future 

AFF worksite challenges and opportunities for injury and disease prevention and 

promotion of healthy worker behavior. For NIOSH to continue safeguarding 

workers in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, the AFF Program needs to consider 

emerging research that the committee has identified as priority areas. The committee formulated these research issues and categorized them as high-, medium-, 

and low-priority to reflect their potential magnitude in AFF work environments 

while simultaneously recognizing the scarcity of NIOSH resources and the need to 

conduct research in focused areas. It is understood that the AFF Program needs to 

forge links with industry sectors capable of yielding key information and that these 

cross-cutting issues require bold program management with streamlined procedures and processes to aid cross-division research and interdisciplinary projects.

High-Priority Research

The committee identified several issues and research categories as having highpriority: changes in the demographic characteristics of the workforce, changes in 

the fishing industry, emerging forestry issues, blurring boundaries for food harvesting and food processing, food safety and food security, and the transformation 

and industrialization of agriculture. The committee hopes that the AFF Program 

will consider those crucial issues in the immediate future as it moves its research 

agenda forward.

1 Indemnity payments are required for death or permanent disability, whether major or minor. In 

the event of a temporary disability, an indemnity payment for lost wages is required if the worker is 

hospitalized or is unable to work for more than 3 days.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

184 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Changes in Demographic Characteristics of the Workforce

It is important to monitor changes in the population at risk so that appropriate interventions can be targeted to reduce hazards, injuries, and illnesses related 

to work. The AFF working population has been undergoing substantial changes 

over the last several decades. For example, hired workers are increasingly involved 

in agricultural operations, such as dairy farming or row cropping, for which they 

may not be trained. The percentage of workers in agriculture who are hired rather 

than being owners or operators has increased dramatically in recent years, and the 

same may also be true for fishing. Hired workers may be recent immigrants, H-2A 

workers, or seasonal workers who come from other countries. Those changes underscore the need to develop surveillance systems that include hired workers to a 

much greater extent than has been the case.

Continuous review of the working population is needed to adapt research and 

interventions to other emerging characteristics of the aging workforce. The aging 

AFF workforce is a considerable issue (Robert Rummer, USDA Forest Service, 

presentation to committee, March 28, 2007; Jerry Dzugan, AMSEA, presentation 

to committee, March 29, 2007). For example, the average age of farm owners in 

the United States has increased over the last several decades (USDA, 2002); as these 

people continue to work through what would commonly be considered retirement 

age, the health and safety hazards of work will create new problems that need to 

be addressed. The percentage of farm operators who are female has also increased 

in recent years, and the risks to females associated with farm work have not been 

addressed to any great extent in the NIOSH AFF Program.

Changes in the Fishing Industry

After years of effort on the part of NIOSH’s Alaska Field Station, USCG, the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association (AMSEA), the North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association 

(NPFVOA), and industry and fisheries management, the commercial fishing death 

toll in Alaska has begun a downward trend (NIOSH, 2002). In 2006, however, 

commercial fishing still ranked as the most dangerous occupation in the United 

States, with a mortality of 141.7 per 100,000 fishermen (BLS, 2007a). The USCG 

report Analysis of Fishing Vessel Casualties (2006) showed that it was more dangerous to be a commercial fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico than in Alaska. NIOSH 

has been slow to expand its successes in Alaska to the commercial fishing centers 

in the lower 48 states, and it needs to begin to do so quickly in regions where the 

model could be transferable. In-shore fishery—consisting in New England mainly 

of lobstermen and shell fisherman; in the Chesapeake Bay, watermen involved in 

crabbing and oysters; and in the Gulf, shrimp fishermen—is substantially different 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 185 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

from offshore Alaska fishing. Offshore fishing in the Northeast is facing extinction 

due to depletion of the Gorges bank fishery, and these businesses tend to be noncorporate. These other fishing regions lack a support structure, such as AMSEA 

and NPFVOA, to provide training and outreach.

Another important source of risk in fishing is environmental degradation. As 

fish become scarcer and as fisheries close, margins for fishermen grow tighter and 

the cost of safety is weighed against the ability to operate the vessels. Overfishing 

can lead to rapid changes in technologies, spatial shifts in fishing, new management initiatives, and so forth that have the potential to impact fishing safety (Dolan 

et al., 2005).

With the ever-increasing demand for seafood outpacing the natural supply, 

there has been huge growth in aquaculture in the United States and around the 

world. Resources need to be dedicated to investigating safety and health issues 

emerging from aquaculture. Populations with little or no previous exposure to 

aquaculture are joining the industry and learning as they go. What hazards exist 

that they are unaware of? What challenges do they face in the exponential growth 

of a new industry?

Emerging Forestry Issues

The fatality rate in forestry workers is unacceptably high. According to presentations and public comments provided to the committee, some loggers are easily 

acquiring and using antiquated tools to harvest trees. Some loggers do not have 

formal training with logging equipment or electric tools, and many are unfamiliar 

with safety practices. The problem is compounded by the aging of the logging 

workforce, and older workers may face different and greater risks of injury and 

death than younger ones.

The U.S. forestry industry is undergoing substantial change due to mechanization, changing worksite labor organization, and increased use of contract labor 

for specified tasks. The increased use of mechanization is a challenge because it 

may increase some forms of worker exposure while decreasing others (Grevsten 

and Sjorgren, 1996; Attebrant et al., 1997; Axelsson, 1998; Neitzel and Yost, 2002). 

Resource degradation in forestry can limit the ability to use mechanical harvesters 

or potentially increase their risk by pushing harvesting onto steep slopes, degraded 

sites, or on other unstable terra firma. At the same time, mechanization may introduce ergonomic issues that have yet to be encountered (Gellerstedt, 1997; Oliver 

et al., 2000). Evolving workplace organization structures and the use of contract 

labor could exacerbate exposures, given management’s desire to complete tasks 

quickly under environmental- and weather-related pressure and some workers’ 

preference to work long hours at piece work rates (International Labour Organiza-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

186 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

tion, 2000). The AFF Program needs to address these emerging developments in 

forestry services with targeted surveillance and research so that workers can avoid 

or mitigate such exposures.

Blurring Boundaries for Food Harvesting and Food Processing

With continuing changes in available technologies and economic pressures to 

increase profits by providing value-added products, many farms are increasing the 

amount of food processing performed on site. Post-harvest food processing generally entails cooling, cleaning, sorting, and packing. The primary goals of moving 

food processing closer to the fields and to the sea are to control undesirable chemical changes in the product, minimize physical damage, and obtain better control of 

pathogens through sanitation procedures. As these processes become more closely 

integrated with traditional harvesting activities, workers may be exposed to new 

hazards with which they are not familiar. There is a potential for increased worker 

exposure to risks and hazards when preventing food contamination and when 

maintaining ready access to sanitary facilities, drinking water, and food during the 

workday. Potential hazards include exposure to chemicals used as pesticides, or to 

control or enhance ripening or retard spoilage (such as argon, carbon dioxide, and 

carbon monoxide), or as sanitizers (such as hypochlorite solutions and ozone). 

Increased risk of repetitive motion injuries may result from new tasks associated 

with processing and packaging produce, such as twisting motions required to core 

lettuce. Additional surveillance and research activities may be required to fully 

characterize the magnitude and nature of these new hazards, and to develop appropriate intervention strategies.

Food Safety and Food Security

Hazardous food agents or contaminants can cause illness among people directly involved in food production. The list of hazardous agents is long and includes 

microbial and parasitic agents, multi-drug resistant bacteria, and antibiotic and 

pesticide residues. Other controversial issues, such as genetically modified foods 

that could contain allergens or toxins not found in conventionally produced foods, 

are also receiving attention from consumer and producer groups. Consumer preferences for ready-to-eat foods, changes in demographics and climate, and access to 

global markets have changed the incidence of food safety risks. In addition, there 

is a risk of intentional and unintentional food contamination due to agroterrorism or lack of oversight of food quality control. Those are all major concerns for 

public and private institutions.

Studies that integrate all the players and steps in the food chain—from farmers, 

ranchers, hired workers, forestry service workers, and fishermen to transport and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 187 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

processing and packing industries to consumers—are needed to understand the 

risks of acute and chronic illnesses and how to prevent, monitor, and control 

them.

Industrialization of Agriculture

Several developments are converging in production agriculture that create new 

needs for robust programs in surveillance and health effects. For example, dairy and 

meat production capacity is increasingly concentrated in confinement operations, 

which results in larger aggregates of livestock at single farm sites. The environmental and ecological issues associated with concentrated animal feed operations 

have been subject to intense public scrutiny (NRC, 2003), but the health effects 

on employees and others associated with these worksites have been less intensively 

analyzed. Safety interventions need to also be studied for those working around 

large numbers of animals. In addition, large concentrated operations employ large 

numbers of workers and necessitate management and oversight functions far in excess of those of more conventional operations. Workforce issues affecting the injury 

and disease experience in such operations deserve attention, and NIOSH has the 

experience in other industrial sectors needed to plan and conduct such work. The 

committee encourages NIOSH to begin such analyses without delay and recommends that NIOSH provide encouragement and targeted funding for Ag Centers 

that may be in the best position to mount such efforts with dispatch.

Medium-Priority Research

Medium-priority issues and research subjects that are potentially critical in 

the near future were identified: the development of biofuels and their impact on 

workers and the environment, conditions of farm labor housing and its impact on 

public health, the rising demand for specialty agriculture, the integration of human 

and animal health, and the need to review equipment safety issues.

Biofuels

Biofuels have come to national attention in the last few years as a promising 

source of renewable energy. By developing technologies to convert corn, soybeans, 

plant residues, and other biomass materials into fuels, chemicals, and power, the 

United States could tap into cleaner and cheaper alternatives to petroleum (The 

White House, 2006). Biofuels have the potential to transform the energy sector 

and with it the industries associated with biofuels. Agriculture and forestry could 

face the greatest revolution since their industrialization at the outset of the 20th 

century.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

188 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The transition to a biofuels-based economy will alter the use of land, the types 

of crops planted, and the use of pesticides and machinery. With corn production 

concentrated in the Midwest, forestry biomass in the South and West, sugar production in the South and Midwest, and grass-based biomass on the High Plains, 

there could be a shift toward working in rural America and later a substantial increase in resource use. Those changes would be accompanied by the potential for 

additional safety and health issues that need to be considered by NIOSH:

• How will crop production technologies, seasonal work cycles, and distribution and transportation of raw materials and products? For example, if ethanol 

plants are built in rural communities, large concentrations of trucks will be transporting grain, other bulk byproducts, and ethanol to and from plants on two-lane 

roads. How will that affect the safety of rural residents? Could increased traffic in 

rural areas lead to an increase in collisions?

• How will new dedicated energy crop production systems affect worker 

safety?

• Will reduction in fossil fuel use by agricultural producers change exposures 

to farm equipment-related morbidity and injuries?

Farm-Labor Housing

The central importance of housing conditions for health status has been well 

understood in the public health community for more than a century. The first effort 

to address the living conditions specifically of hired farm laborers was California’s 

1915 Labor Camp Act, a response to horrific labor camp conditions that led to the 

Wheatland Hop Riot of 1913. There have been serious improvements in housing 

conditions of many migrant farm laborers, but virtually all recent health survey 

research have demonstrated that a large share of this workforce is still experiencing unwarranted risks to health that are associated with their housing conditions. 

Pesticides carried into a residence on work clothes, lack of refrigeration for food 

storage, absence of sanitary facilities, and extreme overcrowding have all been 

linked to adverse health outcomes in farm laborers. Forestry services workers and 

fishermen may also face similar housing issues. The issue is complex: socioeconomic status, housing conditions, risky behavior, workplace exposure, and immigrant worker acculturation may all be linked in unknown ways to observed health 

outcomes. The challenge to public health investigators to untangle those factors is 

daunting, and the committee recommends that NIOSH pursue such effort without 

further delay.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 189 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

Specialty Agriculture

Production agriculture has rapidly shifted to accommodate the demands fostered by the globalization of the nation’s food economy. Demand has increased for 

organic products (USDA, 2007) and for exotic plants and animals (Blisard et al., 

2002). Vast stretches of cereal grain and row-crop production are now interspersed 

by acreage devoted to raising ornamentals, shrubs, and other nursery products; 

vegetables (including indoor hydroponic vegetables) and fruits; and specialty livestock (such as free range hens, milking goats, and North American bison). Those 

enterprises may entail activities and management practices noticeably different 

from the more conventional forms of American agriculture and may organize and 

pursue work tasks differently from other sectors and lead to different exposures of 

workers (David Runsten, Community Alliance with Family Farms, presentation to 

committee, March 28, 2007). NIOSH is encouraged to monitor, through USDA’s 

National Agricultural Statistics Service surveillance, the emergence and development of those forms of production agriculture.

Integration of Human and Animal Health

Emerging and re-emerging pathogens include parasites and zoonotic agents 

that in recent decades have been associated with changes in the demographics of the 

workforce, in herd health practices, and in the practice of medicine and veterinary 

medicine in connection with the use of the same antimicrobial agents in humans 

and animals or the use in animals of antimicrobial agents that could be harmful 

to humans. For example, the accidental injection of Micotil (tilmicosin), a bovine 

antibiotic approved for use to prevent shipping fever in cattle), can cause death 

in humans when injected into the bloodstream. That is one example of human 

error causing an unforeseeable consequence to health. There needs to be a forum 

in which animal scientists, veterinarians, food safety experts, and social scientists 

come together to examine the complexity and hazard of animal handling and 

herd health issues in humans. The panel’s expertise needs to include bioethics so 

that the humane treatment of animals and concurrent protection of human life 

are addressed. Another example of the need for an integrative approach to animal 

husbandry, production, and human health is the rising prevalence of neurocysticercosis, which was originally eradicated in the United States in the early 1900s. 

Neurocysticercosis is a parasitic infection that affects humans and pigs and was 

endemic only in Latin America, Asia, and Africa until the 1980s. The current increase in its incidence is related to the recent migration of hired labor from Latin 

American countries (Wallin and Kurtzke, 2004; DeGiorgio et al., 2005). Many 

neurocysticercosis patients may harbor the adult tapeworm Taenia solium in the 

intestines and could infect other humans and pigs. The complexity of the disease 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

190 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

goes beyond neurological consequences to range from seizures to permanent brain 

damage and ultimately death; sociocultural issues associated with food consumption and personal hygiene also have to be considered.

Outreach activities need to be developed in conjunction with programs to 

respond promptly to the needs of producers and consumers. Priority needs to be 

given to these outreach activities, considering the large number of people exposed 

to and affected by the hazards of animal handling. Furthermore, safety standards 

would be evaluated and updated as needed. The activities would include continuing 

critical analysis to determine whether target populations have been reached and 

their needs addressed. The integration of the cooperative extension service system, 

colleges of veterinary medicine and animal sciences, and the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences is fundamental for the development of a much 

needed holistic approach to decipher and solve these complex problems.

Review of Equipment-Safety Issues

Advances in tools, equipment, and machinery are occurring rapidly. Cowboys 

are now riding motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) instead of horses, fishermen are using such advanced fibers as Spectra and Dyneema instead of wire rope, 

and former tobacco farmers are pulling fish out of ponds or trying their hand at 

organic food production. All those changes come about in an effort by AFF employers and workers to improve efficiency and perhaps make their jobs easier, but 

often they are embarking on a path with unknown risks. Many riders of ATVs are 

not trained to drive these fast-moving vehicles, and most do not wear protective 

helmets. Spectra and Dyneema appear amazingly strong but cannot be endorsed 

as reliable fishing tools, because of the lack of inspection standards. Farm equipment is being adapted for uses that were never foreseen by its manufacturers. In 

one photograph shown to the committee, a group of workers were shown lying face 

down on a platform attached to a tractor so that they could weed without bending 

over. The effort was probably intended to improve ergonomics and reduce back 

pain, but it could come at the cost of unforeseen consequences. The AFF Program 

needs to be constantly active in looking at emerging trends in AFF and take a more 

active role in foreseeing and addressing possible hazards from new and existing 

machinery.

Low-Priority Research

The committee identified four wide-reaching issues and research subjects that 

are candidates for long-term study: the impact of nutrient enrichment of food and 

genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on worker safety and health, transporta-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 191 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

tion injuries, the impact of global warming on growing and harvesting practices 

and worker conditions, and the use of labor-management committees.

Nutrient Enrichment of Food and Genetically Modified Organisms

Micronutrient enhancement to reduce nutritional deficiencies in human populations globally is under study (Schreiner, 2005; Welch and Graham, 2005). These 

activities and the increasing use of GMOs to produce genetically modified crops 

may have an impact on aspects of agricultural safety and the health of workers 

involved in the production of these crops. From 1996 to 2005, the total surface 

area of land cultivated with GMOs increased from 4.2 million acres to 222 million 

acres, of which 55 percent was in the United States. Controversies surrounding 

genetically modified foods focus on consumer health and safety but not the health 

and safety of the farm workers.

Transportation Injuries

Hispanic farm workers have been reported to have 20 percent higher workrelated mortality than non-Hispanic white farm workers. In Colorado, skull fractures and fatal intracranial head injuries have been reported to be more frequent 

in farmers and farm workers than in the general population; the risk in Hispanic 

farmers is 1.79 times greater than the risk in non-Hispanic farmers, and the risk 

in Hispanic farm workers is 2.50 times greater than the risk in non-Hispanic farm 

workers (Stallones and Sweitzer, 2000). Head injuries have been reported to be the 

leading cause of work injury-related death in farm workers in Texas (May-Lambert 

et al., 1998). Motor-vehicle collisions are the leading cause of head injury, but it 

has rarely been considered an issue related to the health and safety of migrant and 

seasonal farm workers.

The mobility of the population in question, which follows crops, exposes 

them to motor-vehicle injuries as part of their normal work environment. There 

is adequate evidence that Hispanic populations in Colorado have higher rates of 

fatal motor-vehicle collisions (relative risk [RR], 1.7), seatbelt nonuse (RR, 1.8), 

alcohol intoxication (RR, 2.7), speeding and invalid licensure (RR, 2.6) than nonHispanic whites involved in fatal motor-vehicle collisions (Harper et al., 2000). In 

the United States, farm workers reportedly have higher than expected death rates 

related to motor vehicles (Colt et al., 2001). A study of Hispanic farm workers in 

California reported low use of seatbelts and car seats (Stiles and Grieshop, 1999). 

In Colorado, 53 percent of Hispanics reported not always wearing their seatbelts 

compared with 37 percent of all survey respondents (CDPHE, 2002). Driving while 

drowsy has been reported to cause 100,000 collisions a year and to result in 71,000 

injuries and 1,550 deaths (NHTSA, 2002).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

192 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration conducted a 

study to identify issues in and strategies for highway safety in American Hispanic 

communities (Martinez and Veloz, 1996). The problem most often mentioned by 

Hispanic focus group participants and agency and organization representatives 

was drinking and driving, followed by low seatbelt use (Martinez and Veloz, 1996). 

Seven major challenges in addressing prevention in that population were identified: language; cultural differences within the Hispanic communities; low income 

coupled with low expectations for the future and limited resources for organizations to provide services to everyone in need; heavy use of alcohol combined with 

a lack of knowledge of the effects of alcohol on driving and confusion regarding 

alcohol laws; recent immigrants’ lack of knowledge of American laws, inability to 

read signs and lack of valid drivers’ licenses; Hispanic immigrants’ lack of orientation to health maintenance and failure to accept safety readily as an issue; and 

absence of traffic-safety data on specific racial and ethnic groups (Martinez and 

Veloz, 1996).

Increased concern about health and safety among agricultural workers who 

commute from field to field and farm to farm during peak agricultural seasons 

has not increased the number of programs targeted at preventing specific types of 

injuries that are closely associated with the mode of travel of these workers and 

their families (Grieshop et al., 1998). The safety of motor vehicles used to transport migrant and seasonal agricultural workers is regulated by the Department 

of Labor under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (29 

USC §1801 et seq.), and these vehicles must comply with federal and state safety 

regulations. However, regulations promulgated under the act must consider “the 

extent to which a proposed standard would cause an undue burden on agricultural employers, agricultural associations, or farm labor contractors.” The act also 

precludes the transportation of a worker on a tractor, combine, harvester, picker, 

or similar machinery or equipment while the worker is engaged in planting, cultivating, or harvesting agricultural commodities or caring for livestock or poultry. 

Regulations require the safe transport of migrant and seasonal farm workers, but 

it is not clear that they are being applied or what barriers impede the application 

of regulations that would improve safe transport.

Global Warming

Human-induced climate change, its potential impacts upon AFF working 

populations, and options for potentially effective interventions to preserve health 

status has received increasingly more attention in the last few years (Kilbourne, 

1992; IPCC, 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report forecasts an average global temperature increase of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius, 

suggesting that warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC, 2007).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

N 193 e w a n d E m e r g i n g R e s e a r c h

Global climate change presently captures the attention of scientists the world 

over; however, its impact upon working agricultural populations is difficult to predict. For workers in AFF worksites, those effects may span a continuum from impact on wardrobes and safety gear to unexpected exposure to mold, fungi, insects, 

and ultraviolet radiation. Given that many AFF production sites are outdoors and 

unprotected, the warming of Earth’s surface causes some concern, which in some 

areas may lead to increased problems with heat stress. Resistance to the use of safety 

protection in hot or humid environments is widespread among AFF populations, 

and this poses a challenge to adoption of protective barriers in affected settings. 

Such warming may contribute to a greater incidence of dermatological, infectious, 

inflammatory, and respiratory forms of human disease (Kilbourne, 1992). AFF 

worker exposures in warmer climates have been only lightly documented, and the 

committee recommends that NIOSH convene a panel of internationally recognized 

experts to identify the most important human exposures so that disease surveillance can be efficiently targeted. Finally, the committee recommends NIOSH monitor the spread of diseases typically associated only with tropical and subtropical 

environments, because the southern states will ultimately experience subtropical 

heat and humidity in large portions of the calendar year.

The agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries will also be affected. As the 

demand for seafood increases in the United States, the aquaculture industry will 

continue to grow. Those unfamiliar with raising seafood products will face unforeseen hazards associated with an increasingly warm planet, from microorganisms 

to plant infestations. Forests are being affected by beetles that survive in higher 

temperatures. Climate change may cause animals, plants, insects, and their associated disease vectors to flourish in areas that were previously inhospitable for 

habitation, and the impact on worker safety and health is unknown; infestations 

found only in Florida today may thrive in Virginia if global warming continues. 

How will workers be informed about the handling of invasive species and how can 

they be protected from exposure to foreign pathogens?

Joint Labor-Management Committees

A potentially valuable but underdeveloped method for improving worker 

safety is the formation of joint management-worker safety committees. Workers 

often have direct experience and knowledge about the risks associated with their 

jobs that could be invaluable to correcting problems where feasible. Such collaborations are common in some other sections of industry than in the AFF sector. 

Evaluation of the few existing AFF agreements could inform future directions of 

workplace safety programs. At the same time, worker advocates caution that workers in non-union settings may feel too vulnerable to make safety recommendations, 

a comment that needs to also inform research on this topic.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

194 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Joint management-worker safety committees may be construed as an unfair 

labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), especially if the 

worker members of a safety committee are selected in a company-wide secret 

ballot. However, hired agricultural workers, as previously described, are exempt 

from NLRA jurisdiction, so this would be of concern only to forestry and fishing 

firms. Moreover, the opinion of a knowledgeable labor attorney, provided on an 

informal basis and not constituting either legal advice or a legal opinion, indicates 

that such an election would not normally be considered an unfair labor practice 

under the NLRA (Joel Levinson, personal communication, May 11, 2007). It would 

be important to explore this concern further among both management and labor 

attorneys.

CONCLUSION

An essential and challenging aspect of NIOSH’s stated mission “to provide national and world leadership to prevent work-related illnesses and injuries” includes 

the identification of emerging issues and new concerns for worker populations in 

agriculture, forestry, and fishing. The AFF Program should be at the forefront of 

efforts to review and define needs in agriculture, forestry, and fishing and should 

promote opportunities to pursue innovative ways of responding to these needs. 

The committee notes that the AFF Program has struggled in carrying out that task, 

and it has provided suggestions for approaching and undertaking such activities. 

However, the committee concedes that the task is important and warrants more 

extensive expert input and evaluation than the committee could provide in the 

context of its review. It hopes that the AFF Program will continue to engage its 

stakeholders and its advisory council for feedback and guidance.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

195

12

Recommendations for Program Improvement

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (AFF Program) is the sole federal 

research program dedicated to enhancing the safety and health of workers in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. As such, the AFF Program should be the definitive 

leader and source of expertise in occupational safety and health in agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing. From its evaluation of the relevance and impact of the program (Chapter 10) and its assessment of new and emerging research (Chapter 11), 

the Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research 

Program identified several potential opportunities to improve the relevance of the 

program’s work and strengthen its impact on reducing injuries and illness in the 

AFF sectors. This chapter presents the committee’s recommendations for program 

improvement.

As the committee reviewed materials provided by the AFF Program, gathered 

information from key stakeholders, and reviewed comments from the public, several barriers to the effectiveness of the program were apparent. The committee’s 

recommendations are aimed at improving the program as a whole.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

196 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish Strategic Goals for Improvement in Administration and Evaluation

Recommendation 1: The AFF Program should establish strategic goals for 

the overall program and for separate subpopulations to provide a basis 

for improving program leadership, administrative oversight, and program 

evaluation.

AFF Program strategic goals should flow from the original enabling legislation, with the obvious expansion of the program to include strategic goals for 

forestry and fishing. The committee has highlighted the need for basic surveillance; 

worker health status assessment; design, field testing, and evaluation of efficacious 

interventions; provision of critical oversight mechanisms for professional education; and research to track key drivers that affect AFF worksites. Such goals must 

include capacity for NIOSH administration, inclusion of extramural centers, and 

a mechanism for external advice.

1.a: The AFF Program lacks a concerted effort and should focus its administrative efforts on improving program leadership, administrative oversight, 

and program documentation.

Improve Program Leadership

NIOSH is capable of deploying leadership across the AFF sectors. As mentioned 

in the ideal research program (Chapter 2), the committee recommends that a single 

person be charged with directing the entire program and overseeing, evaluating, 

and communicating its plans. However, content experts would be in charge of each 

arm of the program: a separate leader for agriculture, for forestry, and for fishing. 

Accordingly, the AFF Program should cultivate a proactive leadership approach that 

demonstrates inclusiveness and keen awareness of changes that take place across 

agriculture, forestry, and fishing.

Improve Administrative Oversight

NIOSH should specifically re-examine its internal coordination mechanisms, 

and implement simpler and more expedient means to ensure that all intramural 

program elements are functioning in a manner consistent with epidemiological 

insight and best management practices. The committee has serious reservations 

about the extraordinarily complex matrix system currently developed for program 

coordination, and instead recommends a relatively flat organization chart where 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 197 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

the person in charge of each arm would have a fair amount of responsibility and 

latitude to make appropriate decisions. The management matrix or organization 

structure should be flexible so that the AFF research teams can recognize and react quickly to changes in the AFF industries, the economy, new technologies, and 

relevant results of research in other programs, and managed in such a way that 

AFF research teams are encouraged to be proactive in anticipating and mitigating 

emerging risks and hazards.

Improve Program Documentation

NIOSH should move expeditiously to create a plan for open sharing of scientific information and best practices from past, present, and future intramural 

and extramural projects. To achieve that goal, the existing electronic centralized 

archival repository should be enhanced and be made more user-friendly. To facilitate the creation and maintenance of the archival repository, every project should 

be required to have an electronic submission form that permits information to be 

automatically uploaded into the repository within 90 days after project completion. 

Additional outputs include publications resulting from the research. The centralized repository should be easily accessible to researchers and to the general public. 

Search tools should be developed by NIOSH and made available to researchers. 

An incentive to do that will be to have publications and project reports listed 

with popular search engines so that they can be found and cited in the literature. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/NIOSH will have oversight and 

responsibility for the maintenance of this database.

The National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) is a unique and valuable 

resource, but it is used by only 34 states. All states are represented by the NIOSH 

Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education, and Prevention 

(Ag Centers), and every state should be connected to the NASD. Information should 

be regularly evaluated and added to the database. The NASD could become the 

networking center for conferences, data, safety information, and research results.

1.b: The AFF Program should develop a comprehensive program evaluation mechanism to assess and set priorities among its research and transfer 

activities. It is important that effective evaluation be conducted as indicated in 

the logic model (Figure A-1). That cannot be accomplished in the absence of 

specific strategic goals against which progress can be measured. All aspects of the 

programs—including activities, outputs, and outcomes—should be systematically 

evaluated for relevance and impact. Assessment of program impact and feedback 

into the priority-setting process is essential because it leads to the identification 

of best practices. An evaluation process, such as the CDC Framework for Program 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

198 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Evaluation in Public Health, should be adopted and consistently applied to all 

NIOSH programs.

Develop a Cohesive Program

Recommendation 2: The AFF Program should provide national leadership 

and coordination of research and transfer activities in agricultural, forestry, 

and fishing safety and health.

NIOSH has a unique role as a federal agency that directly funds occupational 

safety and health research through its intramural and extramural programs. As 

such, it is able to shape national priorities, strategies for action, and evaluation of 

health and safety programs in AFF. NIOSH is in a position to influence the direction and priorities of the regional and topical Ag Centers that it funds, and to lead 

and coordinate the work of related non-Ag Center projects. Those efforts need to 

be based on national goals and strategic planning, as mentioned in the previous 

recommendation, and should result in a coordinated effort aimed at developing and maintaining systems for comprehensive data collection, archiving, and 

sharing, and for research in and surveillance and evaluation of transfer activities. 

Exercising such national leadership would provide coherence and linkage among 

the diverse organizations engaged in intramural and extramural research and 

external partners. The national tractor initiative should not be the only project in 

which activities and strategies are nationally coordinated. Other agencies—such 

as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, and 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—achieve such coherence by linking 

databases and structuring the request for application (RFA) and request for proposal (RFP) processes.

To follow this recommendation, NIOSH should create a national coordinating council that includes key stakeholders and the directors of the Ag Centers. 

The council would oversee strategic research goals (for example, in health effects, 

intervention, and health services research) and provide direction for occupational 

safety and health training so that the most pressing clinical needs are addressed. 

Coordination requires a process for maintaining continuous communication with 

all stakeholders; annual regional and national workshops and conferences are 

examples of an appropriate mechanism for strengthening leadership and coordination. The AFF Program should continue to convene symposia to explore contemporary AFF worksite and environmental exposures, because it has an essential 

role in the training of health services professionals. Discussion of basic methods 

already in use in the field is slow to reach health and safety practitioners in rural 

areas, and the meetings would help to educate rural practitioners. Practitioners’ 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 199 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

insights about real-world clinical problems that affect rural populations would be 

invaluable to investigators.

The Ag Centers are superbly positioned to assist the AFF Program with coordinating national and regional initiatives, as they are strategically placed at universityaffiliated or located at not-for-profit medical centers and are placed to reflect 

agricultural programmatic and regional differences (NIOSH, 2000a). To reflect the 

comprehensive charge of the AFF Program, the Ag Centers should consider undertaking additional responsibility in forestry and fishing, where regional issues apply, 

to obviate the creation of separate infrastructures to serve the needs of workers in 

forestry and fishing. Alternatively, providing R01 and R21 awards to non-Ag Center 

researchers might be a cost-effective way to further research objectives in forestry 

and fishing. Should the former be considered, the Ag Centers should in name also 

echo the array of issues covered and be referred to as AFF Centers.

Implement a Comprehensive Surveillance System

Recommendation 3: The AFF Program should implement a comprehensive 

surveillance system.

Surveillance is critical for developing and evaluating intervention programs and 

provides information needed to guide in-depth research areas. Current surveillance 

systems that cover occupational health, hazard, and injury are not comprehensive 

in that they do not cover the AFF workforce. The surveillance activities described in 

the NIOSH AFF evidence package reflect a piecemeal approach to surveillance and 

fail to address such critical issues as the population at risk and the incorporation 

of disease surveillance that includes more than respiratory disease, hazard surveillance that includes exposures other than to pesticides, and injury surveillance that 

includes a national focus on fatal and nonfatal injuries in all AFF workers.

Basic demographic and health effects surveillance of each population at risk 

of exposure in connection with worksite activity is essential; without it, no effective targeting of other programmatic elements can occur. Surveillance must be 

broad-based with respect to population targets because the sector is diverse in 

settings and employment practices and places some specific populations—such 

as children, female spouses, and the elderly—at risk. For various reasons, NIOSH 

has had considerable difficulty engaging in surveillance, although attempts were 

made for agriculture in the 1990s through the Farm Family Health and Hazard 

Surveillance program and the Occupational Health Nurses in Agricultural Communities initiative. Additionally, it also funded the National Farm Medicine Center in Wisconsin and the Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health in Iowa to 

conduct limited surveillance. More recently, NIOSH has funded USDA’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) to 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

200 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

conduct targeted surveillance of youthful workers, adult owners and operators, 

and agricultural employees. The committee received numerous written comments 

from the public that specifically mentioned the primary need for a comprehensive 

surveillance system.

The AFF workforce continues to change rapidly in the following ways: a decline 

in self-employed and unpaid family workers; an increase in regular or year-round 

hired farm workers from 712,715 in 1974 to 927,708 in 2002 (U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1977; USDA, 2002a); an increase in reliance on contract labor and 

farm-management firms; and marked shifts in demographics among hired and contract workers, such as Africans in the fishing industry in Alaska, Mayan-speaking 

Guatemaltecos in New York state dairies, and indigenous immigrants throughout 

the nation. The committee strongly urges NIOSH to update and broaden its understanding of hired workers to include—without regard to immigration status or 

ethnicity—all hired AFF laborers, such as confined livestock, fishing vessel, fish 

farm, and forestry fire abatement workers. New approaches to surveillance may be 

necessary to explore and could include more orientation toward regional surveillance and more involvement with local and state health departments. Expanding 

on existing expertise with the state-based Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) programs to incorporate disease surveillance provides an avenue to 

become more comprehensive in the surveillance approach.

Additionally, there is little evidence that AFF Program staff have considered 

workplace injury and illness in H-2A workers. That is an important topic in the 

context of the policy debate regarding immigration reform and the Agricultural 

Jobs congressional proposal advocated by both AFF employers and workers’ unions. 

Involving other federal, state, and local agencies in the discussion of expanded 

surveillance, which includes temporary workers, would begin to address this gap.

NIOSH must demonstrate greater willingness to use results of surveillance by 

its partners, including the CDC Injury Center, the regional Ag Centers, the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety, agricultural 

safety specialists in the nation’s land-grant institutions, equipment manufacturers, 

and other organizations representing agriculture, fishing, or forestry workers and 

employers groups. NIOSH should evaluate opportunities to use National Agricultural Statistics Services, the National Animal Health Monitoring System, and other 

existing programs for surveillance purposes.

The committee has concluded that NIOSH should:

1. Conduct research on the potential use of both ongoing and non-routine 

surveillance systems to identify priority topics for future research or intervention. 

A focus on hazard surveillance, sentinel health and injury events, and occupational 

illness outbreak investigations similar to the FACE investigations may be more 

cost-effective than the current piecemeal approach.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 201 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

2. Convene a panel of surveillance experts from state health departments, 

FACE program experts, universities, the State and Territorial Injury Prevention 

Directors Association, workers’ compensation insurance experts, labor organizations representing all AFF sectors including temporary workers, and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists to develop new approaches to AFF 

surveillance.

3. Implement pilot surveillance systems based on the new approaches proposed by the convened experts.

4. Develop an evaluation plan to assess the quality of the pilot surveillance 

systems.

Identify and Track AFF Populations at Risk

Recommendation 4: The NIOSH AFF Program should clearly identify and 

track its target populations.

Because of the scope and diversity of workplace activities in AFF, it is impossible to conduct effective research covering this broad range of hazards and risks. 

Therefore, the committee underscores the necessity of the initial needs assessment 

stage of at-risk population exposure rates and hazardous work conditions.

4.a: A clear definition of worker populations “at risk” is needed. It is not 

apparent from materials and responses provided to the committee how the AFF 

Program has defined those populations. The term special populations at risk is not 

suitable for identifying a person or group of people working in AFF activities. 

A revised definition should reflect persons at risk for occupational injuries and 

illnesses in AFF enterprises and those visiting AFF worksites (see Chapter 2 and 

Appendix E).

NIOSH’s use of child labor as a way of defining exposure of children is inadequate because the current definition used in NIOSH-supported programs includes 

myriad activities and situations that do not accurately represent “labor”. The primary focus of NIOSH research is attention to hazards faced by workers that are directly associated with the tasks they perform. Agricultural work is considered (with 

exemptions) hazardous to children under 18 years old by the International Labour 

Organization and DOL. Therefore, the AFF Program should primarily focus on 

risks faced by children under age 18, whether they are unpaid family workers or 

hired workers. Visiting a farm or playing in a safe area at a farm does not constitute 

labor, although it entails risk given that a farm is a work environment. In addition, 

various age groups, including persons over age 18, have been targeted for different 

studies, and this further complicates NIOSH’s apparent definition of child labor.

The definitions of minority populations—which include children, the Navajo, 

and Hispanics and Latinos—are combined with occupation type, and this compli-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

202 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

cates the definition of labor and adds confusion to the goal of unambiguous surveillance and to the socio-cultural implications associated with minority populations 

that face AFF exposures. The definition of migrant and seasonal workers, which has 

historically only included crop workers and thereby ignored the serious occupational hazards faced by livestock and other workers, should be in accordance with 

USDA definitions of hired and contract labor and should be clearly differentiated 

from self-employed workers and family workers (see Appendix F for methods of 

identifying workforce populations).

4.b: The AFF Program should conduct comparative studies across agriculture, forestry, and fishing to set priorities better and to respond to dynamic 

workforce and workplace conditions. The AFF Program’s research, prevention, 

and outreach efforts have been specific to settings, with few comparative studies 

across the different AFF sectors. It is not clear how priorities are decided on or 

determined; the studies had different objectives, used different definitions for essentially similar populations, used various numerators and denominators, and used 

non-comparable classification schemes to characterize exposure.

In the last 2 decades, the AFF workforce has changed with the influx of nonEnglish speaking workers, the aging of the workforce, industrialization of the three 

sectors, and diversification of food, fiber, and fuel production. The committee 

believes that there is a need for NIOSH to monitor the workforce better to track 

changes and determine needs for research, prevention, and outreach.

Conduct Research on Knowledge Diffusion Processes

Recommendation 5: NIOSH should conduct research on the science of 

knowledge diffusion to identify effective methods for AFF research-topractice programs.

Knowledge diffusion and its impacts on target populations warrant in-depth 

research. In the AFF sector, the workforce is inaccessible through standard methods because of the diversity in the population with respect to culture, geography, 

language, and work subculture and because it is dispersed throughout industries 

involving farms, boats and ships, and the forest without an easy access point to 

provide educational materials or equipment training. To reach those populations, 

new methods should be developed to address language and cultural barriers. The 

role of cultural context—for example, in child labor policy on farms—needs to be 

incorporated into knowledge diffusion programs. That is also relevant for adult 

AFF workers. The use of theory-based research in educational programs designed 

to increase safety and health behaviors holds promise for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge diffusion (Cole, 2002; Morgan et al., 2002).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 203 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

5.a: The AFF Program should incorporate broader social science expertise 

into the research diffusion process. Knowledge translation, communication of 

research findings, and interventions developed by the AFF Program require special 

attention. There has been some success when the topic of health has been introduced as a means of changing behaviors (Perry et al., 1999; Rydholm and Kirkhorn, 

2005); however, serious gaps remain in health literacy, knowledge translation, and 

communication with affected populations and the public at large. This is an especially difficult problem in production agriculture in light of the diversity in the 

populations at risk. Professionals in disciplines such as cultural anthropology and 

rhetoric would be consulted to assist AFF Program scientists and national program 

staff to develop outreach materials; it is not realistic to expect working populations 

to follow recent developments through websites and printed reports. The use of 

traditional forms of communication needs to be re-evaluated by NIOSH staff, 

inasmuch as an increasing number of workers are from other countries and may 

not be literate in either English or Spanish. The utility of hazard-related pictures 

or narrative stories where language barriers exist needs to be researched further for 

use with AFF workers. Academe is especially well suited to explore such strategies 

and communicate new findings.

5.b: The AFF Program should explore communication tools capable of 

reaching the AFF workforce. The AFF workforce comprises a wide array of ethnic groups, many of whose people speak only their native language, not English. 

Moreover, low literacy is common in the AFF workforce. Further complicating the 

communication difficulty is the strong preference in many cultures for face-to-face 

discourse. Thus, a communication problem can arise in conveying facts and ideas 

from scientists who regularly rely on the Internet or other forms of modern communication to populations that rely on more personal interactions. NIOSH should 

endeavor to engage practitioners who have long experience in communication with 

the AFF workforce. The objective would be to develop a more realistic method of 

engaging in policy and regulatory discussion with these highly diverse groups.

As early as 1990, studies were being conducted on the best modes of communication for farming populations (Thu et al., 1990). Farmers recognized the 

hazardous nature of their work and reported a desire to have access to occupational 

safety and health services and a willingness to pay for services (Thu et al., 1990). 

They reported that they most commonly turn to farm magazines, Cooperative 

Extension, medical centers, and veterinarians for information (Thu et al., 1990), 

but these do not appear to be the modes of communication being used widely by 

NIOSH staff. The AFF Program should ask its partners to publish summary reports 

of relevant findings in suitable trade publications. For example, National Fisherman

and The Packer are widely respected sources of information among practitioners 

in the fishing and fruit and vegetable industries, respectively. Newsletters directed 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

204 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

to healthcare workers are another important venue for dissemination of research 

findings and intervention initiatives.

Successful projects have used clinical services, education, and on-farm safety 

reviews; social marketing, electronic communication, and networking to provide 

education, train the trainers, and communicate with agricultural workers; and 

diverse audience-specific methods for communication with Hispanic children, 

parents, and farm workers.

Improve Stakeholder Engagement and Partnerships

The path on which NIOSH embarked when given its congressional mandate in 

1990 is so important that only first-class principles for engaging stakeholders will 

do; anything less will make a travesty of congressional appropriation of resources. 

In recent years, NIOSH has embraced stakeholders in a number of occupational 

safety and health initiatives, as evidenced by the successful National Occupational 

Research Agenda (NORA) and NORA II initiatives. The participatory approach 

between NIOSH and stakeholders involves both parties early in the decisionmaking 

process and leads to more successful outcomes for employers and employees.

Recommendation 6: The AFF Program should establish a new model to 

involve stakeholders throughout the research process, and should also establish an effective multipartite stakeholder mechanism that includes atrisk workers and other organizations to focus on occupational safety and 

health.

6.a: The AFF Program should develop a new model for targeting all key 

stakeholders as full participants in its research program design and execution. 

The most-effective research projects have proactively involved workers through 

various stages of the research process. As mentioned in the ideal research program 

(Chapter 2), research must be participatory and community- or work populationbased so that there is buy-in from the AFF community and stakeholder involvement 

should not be limited to the beginning and end stages. A participatory research 

model would involve different target populations from the prioritization of candidate projects to the inception, design, conduct, analysis, publication, and outreach 

of experiments and their conclusions.

6.b: The AFF Program should establish a coordinating council that would 

serve as a public advisory committee and would assume lead responsibility for 

informing public discourse on occupational safety and health issues. As mentioned in recommendation 2, this group would be critical in advising and coordinating the AFF Program’s efforts. The evaluation committee strongly believes that 

a public advisory committee should be representative of all workers in agriculture, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 205 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

forestry, and fishing. The AFF Program should use this council to establish an effective mechanism for input into policy and programs that includes representation of 

principal stakeholders, including AFF producers, workers, and their representatives; 

labor and farm management contracting agencies; the private sector, including 

AFF corporations and AFF service and supply industries; those delivering health 

and safety programming; researchers; and appropriate government policy­makers. 

Most Ag Centers already have regional advisory structures whose members include farmers, ranchers, and other commodity growers, thereby insuring access 

to stakeholders. By establishing a meaningful national advisory group that truly 

represents the needs and concerns of all worker groups, AFF Program research 

and interventions will more fully meet their objectives. The committee commends 

recent NIOSH efforts to establish advisory mechanisms for the agricultural and 

fishing sectors. Such efforts need to be broadened to cover all of AFF in a more 

representative manner.

6.c: The AFF Program should continue to partner with appropriate federal 

and state agencies and establish additional interagency partnerships to increase 

the capacity for carrying out research and transfer activities. Federal and state 

governments are secondary stakeholders that if fully engaged could profoundly 

amplify NIOSH’s efforts; such federal agencies as the USDA, the National Institutes 

of Health (NIH), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are natural allies to engage in such partnerships. The committee commends NIOSH for 

its partnerships with EPA and NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences (NIEHS), which continue to bolster work in organophosphates and other 

pesticide exposures. The AFF Program could expand its interagency partnerships 

to include federal agencies that handle food and animal issues, such as the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Food Safety and Inspection Service. The 

USDA Forest Service should serve as a partner in providing information and collaboration on forestry research, a field lacking sufficient expertise in the nascent 

forestry component of the AFF Program. AFF Program staff could work more 

closely with DOL to devise methods for more accurately capturing employment 

data on agriculture, forestry, and fishing. For transportation injuries, the AFF 

Program would be well served with interagency collaborations and non-profit 

partnerships, such as with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National 

Safety Council, respectively.

Given the regional nature of the 10 NIOSH Ag Centers, state agencies serve as 

vital resources and potential partners. Some Ag Centers have successfully worked 

with cooperative extension services, state occupational safety and health agencies, 

state environmental protection agencies, and state departments of agriculture and 

should continue to engage in these valuable partnerships.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

206 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

NIOSH should be commended for its collaboration with the National Cancer 

Institute, NIEHS, and EPA on the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective study 

of 90,000 people that has the potential to elucidate relationships between farm 

exposures and various chronic and other health outcomes. The committee recommends that NIOSH increase involvement in this joint initiative relative to cancer 

(and other diseases) because it could resolve questions about glioma etiology; 

explore the role of exposure to selected airborne toxins, such as cattle urine and 

metabolites of long-term manure storage; identify potential contributions to human disease of volatile organic chemicals, such as benzene and toluene, that are 

ubiquitous in agricultural, forestry, and fishing environments; identify other nonfarm employment exposures as potential occupational confounders; and develop 

and promulgate guidelines for organizing cancer prevention and control projects 

in AFF populations.

Even though the program has invested little in reproductive health research, 

NIOSH should also be applauded for its involvement with the CDC state birth 

defects registries, which make it possible to identify testable hypotheses and explore 

potential relationships between AFF occupational exposures and detectable birth 

defects. Other federal initiatives warranting NIOSH attention include the Genes, 

Environment, and Health Initiative (http://genesandenvironment.nih.gov) sponsored by NIH, which will develop new tools for measuring environmental exposures 

that affect health, and the National Children’s Study (http://nationalchildrensstudy.

gov) sponsored by NIH, CDC, EPA, and the Department of Education, which will 

explore the effects of occupational exposures on children and other matters.

6.d: The AFF Program should establish public-private partnerships to work 

more closely with equipment, facility, and pesticide manufacturers in design and 

development processes. Sound engineering methods and products should always 

be preferred for intervention so that the risk of hazard exposure can be minimized 

or eliminated and the human element of “good work practices” does not have to be 

depended on. Stakeholders should be included at all levels of intervention research, 

from the manufacturer to the user of AFF equipment, facilities, and pesticides. 

A participatory approach needs to be cultivated with equipment manufacturers, 

facility designers, and pesticide manufacturers. A German automobile manufacturer once said in a television commercial about safety that “some things are too 

important not to share,” referring to the patented crumple zone body design that 

it shared with other car makers and which are now standard in automobiles. The 

goal of bringing NIOSH into the equation of occupational safety and health is to 

establish the spirit of sharing by prevention through design.

NIOSH should be encouraged to partner with non-profit organizations, such 

as the National Safety Council, and to leverage support from one or more private 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 207 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

foundations to provide supplemental resources. For example, the W.K. Kellogg 

Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the California Endowment already have program experience and relevance in the broad arena of agricultural and extractive industry policy, and they may be in a position to offer 

advice and exploratory evidence. The Farm Foundation recently sponsored an 

ad hoc committee of stakeholders to provide a forum for industry, academe, and 

advocacy groups to explore common themes in agricultural safety and health. A 

similar initiative is needed to address safety and health issues in forestry.

Implement Integrative and Interdisciplinary Approaches

Recommendation 7: The AFF Program should implement integrative and 

interdisciplinary approaches in its research practices.

It is apparent that the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sectors are different 

and have different subcultures. The AFF Program’s best work has been done when 

researchers have left their offices and “gotten their boots dirty” in fields, forests, 

and fishing docks. During the committee’s meeting with invited stakeholders, panel 

members from industry and academe continued to stress the success achieved when 

NIOSH researchers went to worksites, met their customers, and took a hands-on 

approach to their work. In order for this type of interdisciplinary activity to be successful, individuals experienced in participatory research need to be involved (such 

as anthropologists and sociologists). Furthermore, once the research was complete, 

the most effective researchers returned to the field and conducted outreach to help 

put ideas into practice.

7.a: Researchers that receive funding from the AFF Program should visit 

worksites regularly so that they can acquire understanding of the workplace 

environment and thus develop and integrate culturally appropriate and sensitive 

approaches. NIOSH program managers and staff should make it a habit to get into 

the field regularly to test their hypotheses with workers and should be adaptable 

to changing needs and demands. Once a study is complete, measurements taken, 

and implementation and interventions formulated, NIOSH managers and staff 

should revisit worksites so that they become advocates for recommended changes 

and improvements lest the quest for change stagnate.

AFF grant guidelines issued by NIOSH should incorporate “field time” in proposed research. The incorporation of field time can be accomplished in a number 

of ways, including (1) prospective documentation, in research proposals submitted 

for NIOSH support, of plans, endorsed over support letter signatures, to engage 

stakeholders; (2) written evidence in final project reports of compliance with established principles of community-based participatory research; and (3) documentary 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

208 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

evidence of field time in scientific articles, clinical notes, insertions in Morbidity 

and Mortality Weekly Report, NIOSH Alerts, and other documents.

7.b: The AFF Program should increase the use of interdisciplinary teams 

to address the environmental, social, cultural, and psychological complexities 

of issues that face AFF workers. Industrial processes of agriculture, forestry, and 

fisheries are undertaken in environmental settings that often contribute to the high 

risk associated with the occupations involved, including weather conditions, steep 

slopes, and high seas that affect the machinery and equipment involved. In agriculture, the immediate proximity of the worksite to residences means that spouses and 

children are potentially affected—for example, by pesticide drift contamination, 

children’s injuries that take place during play, and respiratory, zoonotic, and other 

diseases—even when family members are not directly involved in farming activities. Similarly, proposed solutions to AFF health and safety problems—whether 

engineering, regulatory, or educational solutions or the use of personal protective 

equipment—often require an understanding of the social, cultural, political, and 

psychological context of the causes and consequences of injuries or illnesses.

The interdisciplinary teams should include sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, economists, and human factors specialists to help 

researchers understand the social processes that contribute to injury and illness, 

the social processes that contribute to the successful transfer of solutions, and the 

analysis and evaluation of what works in AFF worksites. Some examples are the 

impact of private-sector organizational solutions, such as the use of insurance 

companies for farm compliance with best practices, and social marketing strategies 

to overcome resistance to change. The application of such innovative solutions in 

other AFF contexts has the potential to increase the impact beyond the examples 

cited. Furthermore, a successful approach would include qualitative research training experts on review panels to evaluate this type of research.

Enhance Awareness of National Policy

Recommendation 8: The AFF Program staff should develop greater awareness of national policy activities because they can have a substantial impact 

on AFF worker populations and risk factors.

National policy decisions affect how farming, logging, and fishing can be conducted; consequently, they affect conditions in which AFF workers will be at risk 

of occupational injury or disease. The policies include changes in the allowed catch 

from fisheries and limits on logging in the nation’s vast national forests that result 

from decisions regarding endangered habitats. NIOSH personnel that are wellinformed of current national policies that affect agriculture, forestry, and fishing 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 209 e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r P r o g r a m I m p r o v e m e n t

are more capable of responding to the changing needs of affected worker populations. AFF Program staff should be continually informed about labor law affecting 

the AFF workforce, such as child labor. The “Farm Bill”, emerging immigration 

policies, and trade policies are especially relevant for AFF Program staff.

The Farm Bill

The expected 2008 reauthorization of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act, colloquially known as the Farm Bill, will contribute to shaping the economic 

climate in which agricultural businesses make production decisions. Federal farm 

support programs dictate the types of commodities that receive federal payments 

and thus shape the landscape of plantings, and these shifts in crop plantings can 

alter the farm labor market. Strong interest in biofuels production has already altered cropping patterns in broad swaths of the Midwest and High Plains. That will 

probably result in changes in the design and use of and the demand for agricultural 

equipment and in the development of a rural trucking industry, and thereby change 

worker exposures.

Immigration Policies

Of immediate concern is Congress’s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Immigrants make up a large fraction of hired AFF workers. The Department of Homeland Security recently promulgated new regulations requiring 

employers to dismiss employees who are unable to prove their legal status; such 

dismissals would be based on “no-match” findings of name and Social Security 

number in federal records. Enforcement of the regulation has been stayed by court 

order under litigation brought by a number of labor organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union. Farm employers now face the difficult challenge of proving that their hired workers are eligible to work in the United States or recruiting 

persons who are eligible. Many farm employers will probably turn to the existing 

H-2A visa program for recruiting and hiring contract laborers from Mexico, Central America, and Asia. Under current rules, H-2A visa holders will not be permitted 

to have family members accompany them while working in the United States, and 

employers will be required to provide housing and transportation costs.

Immigration patterns can also affect worker health. A relatively small proportion of immigrant workers may carry diseases that are endemic in their regions 

of origin (Asia, Africa, Central and South America, and other places), such as 

tuberculosis and parasitic diseases, and thereby pose a potential health threat to 

other workers and possibly to the public at large. Other issues have an even greater 

impact, such as language barriers, ethnically driven social constructs, and policy 

shifts at the federal level.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

210 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The industry-backed “Agricultural Jobs” proposal, supported by the United 

Farm Workers of America and other advocates, will be introduced as a separate, 

stand-alone legislative proposal. The outcome of the legislation, which is uncertain 

at this writing, will largely determine who will be hired to work on American farms 

in the future. The proposed language specifically addresses housing needs of immigrant contract workers, and this aspect has implications for where workers will 

reside—in on-farm housing subject to federal regulation or, with vouchers, in any 

type of housing, including informal dwellings not subject to inspection by health 

authorities. Workers who live in on-farm housing can be subject to harassment and 

coercion to work unpaid overtime; but at the same time the preferred options of 

affordable private market, non-profit, and government-sponsored program housing is shrinking. In addition, most housing provided by non-profit organizations or 

public agencies is family housing, and is unavailable to groups of unaccompanied 

men.

Trade Policies

Trade issues are of paramount importance to the AFF sector because of AFF 

commodity import and export. Trade agreements potentially can function as economic drivers for change, which could influence production capacity in the AFF 

sector and influence exposure of domestic workers and those outside the United 

States. The impact is already being felt in the sugar cane and sugar beet industries of 

the Deep South and far North, respectively; other impacts are seen in commodities 

as diverse as cotton and tuna. In the agricultural sector, another development adds 

complexity to the trade issue: genetically engineered organisms. Whole agricultural 

enterprises, such as rice and cotton production, have experienced savage swings in 

demand as countries have responded to reports of genetic shift in non-target crops, 

which have resulted in dramatic shifts in worker employment and exposure.

SUMMARY

The AFF Program plays a positive and crucial role in providing information and tools to promote a safer and healthier work environment in agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing. The committee hopes that its recommendations will help 

refocus and redirect program efforts, thereby enhancing the program’s impact on 

the safety and health of all populations at occupational risk in agriculture, forestry, 

and fishing.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

211

Glossary

Activities efforts and work of the program, staff, grantees, and contractors (for 

example, surveillance, health effects research, intervention research, health services 

research, information dissemination, training, and technical assistance).

Agricultural engineering the development of engineering science and technology in the context of agricultural production and processing and for the management of natural resources.

End outcomes improvements in safety and health in the workplace. Defined by 

measures of health and safety and of impact on processes and programs (for example, changes related to health, including decreases in injuries, illnesses, or deaths and 

decreases in exposures due to research in a specific program or subprogram).

Epidemiology the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations.

Ergonomics the application of scientific information concerning humans to the 

design of objects, systems, and environment for human use.

Exposure assessment an evaluation of the potential exposures to humans and 

the environment from the production, distribution, use, disposal, and recycle of a 

chemical substance.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

212 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

External factors actions or forces beyond NIOSH’s control (for example, by 

industry, labor, regulators, and other entities) with important bearing on the incorporation in the workplace of NIOSH’s outputs to enhance safety and health.

Extramural research research supported by funds from NIOSH to researchers and organizations outside NIOSH through a grant, contract, or cooperative 

agreement.

Health effects research research that investigates physical, chemical, and biologic 

hazards (injuries and exposures, illness, and death).

Hired farm worker persons that are paid to perform duties on a farm.

Farmworker adjective used to describe a noun, such as “farmworker health” or 

“farmworker families.”

Farm worker any person (self-employed, unpaid, or paid) that performs tasks 

on a farm.

Industrial hygiene the science of anticipating, recognizing, evaluating, and controlling workplace conditions that may cause workers’ injury or illness.

Intermediate outcomes related to the research program’s association with behaviors and changes at individual, group, and organization levels in the workplace. An 

assessment of the worth of NIOSH research and its products by outside stakeholders (for example, production of standards or regulations based in whole or in part 

on NIOSH research; attendance in training and education programs sponsored by 

other organizations; use of publications, technologies, methods, or recommendations by workers, industry, and occupational safety and health professionals in the 

field; and citations of NIOSH research by industry and academic scientists).

Intervention research includes studies in which researchers arrange (or follow) 

a systematic change in conditions to determine the effects on a physical capacity, 

skill, or performance.

Intramural research research within NIOSH.

Knowledge diffusion the adaptation of knowledge in a broad range of scientific 

and engineering research and development.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

G 213 l o s s a r y

Outputs a direct product of a NIOSH research program that is logically related 

to the achievement of desirable and intended outcomes (for example, publications 

in peer-reviewed journals, recommendations, reports, Web site content, workshops 

and presentations, databases, educational materials, scales and methods, new technologies, patents, and technical assistance).

Planning inputs stakeholder input, surveillance, and intervention data, and risk 

assessments (for example, input from Federal Advisory Committee Act panels or 

the National Occupational Research Agenda research partners, intramural surveillance information, or health hazard evaluations).

Populations at risk people that have proximity to the activities of agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing and to the potential dangers involved in those activities.

Production inputs intramural and extramural funding, staffing, management 

structure, and physical facilities.

Stakeholder individual or party that has an interest in and may be affected by 

the NIOSH AFF Program.

Technology transfer the process of developing practical applications for the 

results of scientific research.

Surveillance the observation and recording of injuries, illnesses, and deaths.

Zoonoses, zoonotic diseases diseases caused by infectious agents that can be 

transmitted between (or are shared by) animals and humans.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

214

Academy Health. 2000. What is health services research? Health Services Research in Progress. 

Available online at http://www.academyhealth.org/hsrproj/definitionofhsr.htm [accessed April 

14, 2007].

Aguirre International. 2005. The California Farm Labor Force: Overview and Trends from the National Agricultural Workers Survey. Burlingame, CA: Aguirre International. June. 

Ambruster, W.J. 1991. Intervention—Safe Behaviors among Adults and Children. In: Papers and 

Proceedings of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health. Cincinnati, 

OH: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. May 1991. Pp. 

462-465.

American Cancer Society. 2007. Cancer facts and figures, 2007. Available online at http://www.cancer.

org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf [accessed September 4, 2007].

Andersen, A., L. Barlow, A. Engeland, K. Kjaerheim, E. Lynge, and E. Pukkala. 1999. Work-related can 1999. Work-related cancer in the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health 25:1-116. 

Anon, A. 1944. “D” day on the farm. Farm Safety Review. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council. P. 15.

Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH). 1988. Proposed National Strategies for the Prevention of Leading Work-Related Diseases and Injuries—Parts I & II. Washington, DC: Association 

of Schools of Public Health and NIOSH.

Attebrant, M., J. Winkel, S.E. Mathiassen, and A. Kjellberg. 1997. Shoulder-arm muscle load and 1997. Shoulder-arm muscle load and

performance during control operation in forestry machines. Applied Ergonomics 28(2):85-97.

Avery Machine Corporation. 1912. Avery Steam Traction Engine. Sandusky, OH: Avery Machine 

Corporation. 9 pp.

Axelsson, S.A. 1998. The mechanization of logging operations in Sweden and its effect on occupational 

safety and health. Journal of Forest Engineering 9(2):25-30.

Billikopf, G.E. 1985. Response to incentive pay among vineyard workers. California Agriculture

39(7/8):13-14.

References
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 215 e f e r e n c e s

Blair, A. 1988. Herbicides and Cancer: A Discussion of Methodological Issues. Iowa City, IA: The 

National Conference for Agricultural Occupational and Environmental Health: Policy Strategies 

for the Future—Invitational Working Group. September 18-21. 11 pp.

Blisard, N., B.-H. Lin, J. Cromartie, and N. Ballenger. 2002. America’s changing appetite: Food 

consumption and spending to 2020. In Food Review: Consumer-driven Agriculture, Vol. 25, No. 

1, R.M. Morrison, ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 1990. Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in the U.S. by Industry. 

Bulletin # 2366. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

BLS. 2001a. Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/cps [accessed October 4, 2007].

BLS. 2001b. Report on the American workforce: Chapter 3: Economic change and structures of 

classification. Available online at www.bls.gov/opub/rtaw/pdf/chapter3.pdf [accessed October 4, 

2007].

BLS. 2007a. National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Available online at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf [accessed September 1, 

2007].

BLS. 2007b. Labor Force Data Derived from the Current Population Survey. BLS Handbook of Methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

BLS. 2008. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 Edition: Forest, Conservation, and Logging 

Workers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Available online 

at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos178.htm [accessed January 24, 2008].

Bowler, M., R.E. Ilg, S. Miller, E. Robison, and A. Polivka. 2003. Revisions to the Current Population 

Survey Effective January 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Brammeier, M., J. Chow, M. Samuel, J. Miller, and G. Bolan. In press. California Agricultural Workers 

Health Survey. Sexual Behaviors and Reproductive Health Report. Journal of Rural Health (to be 

published; accepted for publication October 2007).

Bresnitz, E.A., H. Frumkin, M. Hodgson, C. Needleman, D. Neumark, and H. Rubenstein. 1990. Occupational Disease and Injury in Pennsylvania—A Report to the Pennsylvania Department of 

Health. Harrisburg, PA: The Medical College of Pennsylvania. June. 294 pp.

Buchan, V., and H. Holmquist-Johnson. 2007. NIOSH Agricultural Center Initiative Evaluation 

Project FY2006, Contract # 212-2004-09852. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.

Buhler W., R. McRacken, M. Weaver, B. Brennan, and R.G. Bellinger. 2002. The Southern Region Pesticide Safety Education Center: A regional approach to training-the-trainer. Journal of Pesticide 

Safety Education 4:22-36.

Burkart, J.A., D.F. Egleston, and R.G. Voss. 1978. The Rural Health Study: A Comparison of Hospital 

Experience between Farmers and Nonfarmers in a Rural Area of Minnesota—1976-1977. Cincinnati, OH: Report prepared for the U. S. Public Health Service—Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention: NIOSH (Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations & Field Studies). July. 

94 pp.

Burke, J. 1968. The lonesome plowman. Farm Safety Review March/April:14.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2007. Employee housing: Program 

history. Available online at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/eh/ehhstory.htm [accessed October 23, 

2007].

California EDD (Employment Development Department). 1992. Farm Labor Contractors in California, California Agricultural Studies, Report No. 92-2. Sacramento, CA: Labor Market Information Division. 114 pp.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

216 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1999a. Surveillance for acute pesticide-related illness during the Medfly eradication program—Florida, 1998. MMWR 48(44):1015-1018, 1027.

CDC. 1999b. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR 48(No. RR-11). Available 

online at http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework.htm. [accessed November 7, 2007].

CDC. 2004. Brief report: Illness associated with drift of chloropicrin soil fumigant into a residential 

area—Kern County, California, 2003. MMWR 53(32):740-742.

CDC. 2007. Avian influenza: Current H5N1 situation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Updated June 15. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/outbreaks/current.htm. [accessed December 4, 2007].

CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment). 2002. Behavioral Risk Factor 

Statistics. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/hisfact.html. [accessed October 23, 2007].

CIRS (California Institute for Rural Studies). 2006. Napa Farmworker Housing Assessment. Available online at http://www.cirsinc.org/docs/Napa_Farmworker_Housing_Assessment.pdf. [accessed 

October 23, 2007].

Cohen, M.L., M.B. Moll, P.W. Maley, and H.I. Linn. 1989.Statistical Description of Agricultural 

Injuries in the U.S. In J.A. Dosman and D.W. Cockroft, eds., Principles of Health and Safety in 

Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. 5 pp.

Cole, H.P. 2000. Knowledge is not enough. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 6(4):245-247.

Cole, H.P. 2002. Cognitive-behavioral approaches to farm community safety education: A conceptual 

analysis. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 8(2):145-159.

Colt, J.S., L. Stallones, L.L. Cameron, M. Dosmeci, and S.H. Zahm. 2001. Proportionate mortality among U.S. migrant and seasonal farmworkers in twenty-four states. American Journal of 

Industrial Medicine 40:604-611.

Craddock, B.R. 1988. Federal and State Employment Standards and U.S. Farm Labor: A Reference 

Guide to Labor Protective Laws and Their Applicability in the Agricultural Workplace. Austin, 

TX: Motivation Education and Training Inc. 857 pp.

DeGiorgio, C.M., F. Sorvillo, S.P. Escueta, M.T. Wallin, and J.F. Kurtzke. 2005. Neurocysticercosis in 

the United States: Review of an important emerging infection. Neurology 64(8):1486.

DeRoo, L.A., R.H. Rautiainen. 2000. A systematic review of farm safety interventions. American 

Journal of Preventive Medicine 18(4):51-62.

DHS (U.S. Department of Homeland Security). 2005. CFR 46 Part 28—Requirements For Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels. Available online at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_

05/46cfr28_05.html [accessed September 7, 2007].

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor). 1984. Child Labor Requirements in Agriculture Under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act. Child Labor Bulletin No. 102. Washington, DC: DOL.

DOL. 2004. Child Labor Requirements in Agricultural Occupations under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act. Publication WH-1295. Child Labor Bulletin 102. Washington, DC: DOL.

DOL. 2005. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers (NAWS) Survey 2001-2002: A 

Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers. Research Report No. 9. 

Washington, DC: DOL.

DOL. 2007a. Agricultural Employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Fact Sheet 12. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

DOL. 2007b. Compliance Assistance—Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Labor. Available online at http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/ [accessed January 

24, 2008].

Dolan, H., A. Holly, M. Taylor, B. Neis, J. Eyles, R. Ommer, D. C. Schneider, and W. Montevecchi. 2005. 

Restructuring and health in Canadian coastal communities: A social-ecological framework of 

restructuring and health. Eco-Health 2:1-14.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 217 e f e r e n c e s

Donham, D., D. Osterberg, M. Myers, and C. Lehtola. 1998. Final Report: Tractor Risk Abatement and 

Control—The Policy Conference. Iowa City: The University of Iowa. 39 pp. 

Donham, K.J., and J. F. Storm. 1988. Agriculture at risk: A report to the nation. Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health 8(1):9-35. 

Dosman, J.A. and D.W. Cockcroft. 1989. Principles of Health and Safety in Agriculture—A Report 

of the International Symposium on Health and Safety in Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press, Inc.

Duffy, M. 2004. Trends in iowa farm ownership. Ag Decision Maker News. Available online at http://

www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/duffy/DuffyOct04.htm. [accessed October 4, 2007].

Effland, A.B. 2005. Agrarianism and child labor policy for agriculture. Agricultural History 

79(3):281-297.

Ehlers, J., and T. Palermo. 2005. Community partners for healthy farming intervention research. 

Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 11(2):193-203.

Eken, W.R. 1991. Sustainable Agriculture and Safety. Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural 

Safety and Health. April 30-May 3.

Elkind, P.D. 1993. Correspondence between knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in farm health and 

safety practices. Journal of Safety Research 24:171-179.

Engberg, L. 1993. Women and agricultural work. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews

8(4):869-882.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Pesticides: Health and Safety. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workers/training.htm [accessed November 6, 2007].

ERC (Education and Research Centers for Occupational Safety and Health). 2007. Providing occupational safety and health education. Available online at http://niosh-erc.org [accessed September 

6, 2007].

Factor, D., and J. Uehlein. 1990. Organizing for safe work in a safe world. Labor Research Review

(2):1-13.

Farm Safety Review. 1954. 4-H Tractor Clubs Build Safe Drivers. November/December. P. 8.

Fine, L.J. 1996. Foreword. In New Directions in the Surveillance of Hired Farm Worker Health and 

Occupational Safety. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hfw-index.html#foreword. [accessed August 24, 2007].

Frank, A., R. McKnight, S.R. Kirkhorn, and P. Gunderson. 2004. Issues of agricultural safety and 

health. Annual Reviews of Public Health 25:225-245.

Freeman, S.A., C.V. Schwab, and T. Pollard. 2003. Assessment of Iowa farmers’ perceptions about 

auger safety. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 9(10):61-74.

Futatsuka, M., and T. Uneno. 1985a. A follow-up study of vibration-induced white finger due to chain 

saw operation. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health 12(4):304-306.

Futatsuka, M., and T. Uneno. 1985b. Vibration exposure and vibration induced white finger due to 

chain saw operation. Journal of Occupational Medicine 27:257-264.

Gabbard, S., E. Kissam, and P.L. Martin. 1993. The Impact of Migrant Travel Patterns on the Undercount of Hispanic Farm Workers. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.

Gallagher, R.P., W.J. Threlfall, P.R. Band, and J.J. Spinelli. 1985. Cancer mortality experience of woodworkers, loggers, fishermen, farmers, and miners in British Columbia. Journal of the National 

Cancer Institute Monographs 69:163-167.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 1998. Child Labor in Agriculture: Changes Needed 

to Better Prepare Health and Educational Opportunities. GAO/HEHS-98-193. Washington, DC: 

U.S Government Accountability Office.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

218 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

GAO. 2007. High Risk Series—An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Available online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07310.pdf. [Accessed August 

24, 2007].

Garland, J.J. 2007. A Primer on the Forestry Workplace. Presentation to the Committee to Review 

the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program. Irvine, CA: Beckman Center 

of the National Academies, March 28.

Gellerstedt, S. 1997. Mechanized cleaning of young forest- The strain on the operator. International 

Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 20:137-143.

Gerberich, S.G., R.W. Gibson, P.D. Gunderson, J. Melton III, L.R. French, C.M. Renier, A. Erdman, J.A. 

True, W.P. Carr, and J. Elkington. 1991. Olmsted Agricultural Trauma Study (OATS): A Population-Based Study of Farmwork and Non-Farmwork Related Injuries among Farm Household 

Residents. American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. November.

Gerberich, S.G., R.W. Gibson, P.D. Gunderson, L.R. French, J. Melton III, A. Erdman, P. Smith, J.A. 

True, W.P. Carr, J. Elkington, C.M. Renier, and L.R. Andreassen. 1990. The Olmstead Agricultural 

Trauma Study (OATS): A Population-Based Effort—A Report to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Regional Rural Injury Center.

Goldencamp, M., K.J. Hendricks, and J.R. Myers. 2004. Farm fatalities to youth 1995-2000: A comparison by age groups. Journal of Safety Research 35(2):151-157.

Goldenhar, L.M., and P.A. Schulte. 1994. Intervention research in occupational-health and safety. 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 36(7):763-775.

Goldenhar, L.M., A.D. LaMontagne, T. Katz, C. Heaney, and P. Landsbergis. 2001. The intervention 

research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the National Occupational 

Research Agenda Intervention Effectiveness Research Team. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 43(7):616-622.

Grevsten, S., and B. Sjorgren. 1996. Symptoms and sickleave among forestry machine operators working with pronated hands. Applied Ergonomics 27(4):277-280.

Grieshop, J.I., M. Grajales-Hall, and L. Ortiz. 1998. Media campaigns promote driver safety for farm 

workers. California Agriculture 52(1):11-15.

Grieshop, J.I., M.C. Stiles, and I.V. Domingo. 1995. Drawing on experience: Mexican-origin workers’ 

evaluation of farm safety illustrations. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 1(2):117-133.

Gunderson, P.D. 1989. Findings for Agricultural Engineers from the Olmsted Agricultural Trauma 

Study. Paper presented at the American Society for Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Annual Meeting, 1989. St. Louis, MO: American Society for Agricultural Engineers. December. 11 pp.

Gunderson, P.D. 1990. Suicides among Farmers: Implication for Public Health Interventions. Paper 

presented at the South Dakota Rural Health Conference of 1990. Pierre, SD: South Dakota 

Department of Public Health. May. 9 pp.

Gunderson, P.D., D. Donner, R. Nashold, L. Salkowicz, S. Speery, and B. Wittman. 1993. The Decision to Die—The Epidemiology of Suicides among Farm Residents or Workers in Five North 

Central States, 1980-1988. American Journal of Preventive Medicine—Special Supplement: Firearm 

Injuries: A Public Health Approach 9:26-32.

Gunderson, P.D., G. Kullman, K. Barnard, R. Buchan, and N. Young. 1999. Preliminary Report to 

Tappen Growers—Analysis of Human Exposure to Agrochemicals. Unpublished report given 

to organic and conventional potato growers on October 15, 1999. Tappen, ND.

Gunderson, P.D., J. Daymond, S. Gerberich, D. Donner, L. Graf, M. Kinde, R. Nashold, and J. Wilson. 

1987. An Analysis of Suicides among Those Who Resided on Farms in Five North Central States, 

1980-1985. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Center for Health 

Statistics. March. 62 pp.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 219 e f e r e n c e s

Gunderson, P.D., N. Young, A. Greenlee, G. Kullman, J. Williams, K. Barnard, and R. Buchan. In review. Community-based Participatory Research in an Agricultural Setting: Report of a Project 

Outcome and Implications for Future Studies. 

Hall, F.L. 1943. Safety tips for the Women’s Land Army. Farm Safety Review. Chicago, IL: National 

Safety Council, Agricultural Division. September-October. P. 13. 

Halperin, W., E. Baker, and R. Monson. 1992. Public Health Surveillance. New York: Van Nostrand 

and Reinhold Press.

Hanrahan, L.P., H.A. Anderson, L.K. Haskins, J. Olson, K. Lappe, and D. Reding. 1996. Wisconsin farmer 

cancer mortality, 1981 to 1990: Selected malignancies. Journal of Rural Health 12:273-277.

Hard, D.L., J.R. Myers, and S.G. Gerberich. 2002. Traumatic injuries in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 8:51-65.

Harper, J.S., W.M. Marine, C.J. Garrett, D. Lezotte, and S.R. Lowenstein. 2000. Motor vehicle crash 

fatalities: A comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medicine 36(6):589-596.

Helmkamp, J.C., J.L. Bell, W.J. Lundstrom, J. Ramprasad, and A. Haque. 2004. Assessing safety 

awareness and knowledge and behavior change among West Virginia loggers. Injury Prevention

10:233-238.

Hofstadter, R. 1963. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Knopf.

Holmgren, P., and T. Thuresson. 1998. Satellite Remote Sensing for Forestry Planning—A Review. 

Scandinavian Journal of Forestry Research 13:90-110.

Hoppe, R.A., and D.E. Banker. 2006. Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: 2005 Family Farm Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. http://www.uscg.

mil/hq/g-m/moa/docs/fvstudy9404.pdf [accessed September 1, 2007].

Hunt, S. 2006. An international perspective on biofuels and cellulosic ethanol. In: Summary Proceedings: Third Annual World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioprocessing. Toronto, 

ON. July 11-14.

International Labour Organization. 2000. Approaches to Labour Inspection in Forestry—Problems 

and Solutions. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Available online at http://www.ilo.

org/public/english/dialogue/sector/papers/forestry/wp155.pdf [accessed December 6, 2007].

IOM and NRC (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council). 2006. Hearing Loss Research at 

NIOSH. Committee to Review the NIOSH Hearing Loss Research Program. Rpt. No. 1, Reviews 

of Research Programs of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press.

IPCC Working Group II. 2007. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, 

Adaptation and Vulnerability. New York, NY: United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. February 2. Available online at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf [accessed 

October 17, 2007].

Jefferson, T. 1785. Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Jay. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia # 2882. 

Available online at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/foley/ [accessed October 12, 

2007]. 

Jensen Maritime Consultants. 2002. Deck safety for crab fishermen. Available online at http://www.

jensenmaritime.com/images/stories/crabdeck.pdf [accessed October 24, 2007].

Jones, P., J. Nelson, and H. Pirozzoli. 1995. The National Ag Safety Disc: A database of agricultural 

health, safety, and injury prevention educational materials. Journal of Agricultural Safety and 

Health 1(1):7-15.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

220 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Jordan, N., Boody, G., Broussard, W., Glover, J.D., Keeney, D., McCown, B.H., Mcisaac, G., Muller, 

M., Murray, H., Neal, J., Pansing, C., Turner, R.W., Warner, K., and D. Wyse. 2007. Sustainable 

development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316:1570-1571.

Jourdane, M. 2004. The Struggle for the Health and Legal Protection of Farm Workers: El Cortito. 

Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press. 172 pp.

Kennedy, S. 1995. National Occupational Safety and Health Program in Agriculture: Report of an 

external committee to review the extramural cooperative agreement programs. January. Washington, DC: NIOSH.

Kilbourne, E.M. 1992. Illness Due to Thermal Extremes. Pp. 491-501 in Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 13th editon, J.M. Last and R.B. Wallace, eds. Norwalk, CN: Appleton & Lange. 

1257 pp.

Koskimies, K., I. Pyykko, J. Starck, and R. Inaba. 1992. Vibration syndrome among Finnish forest 

workers between 1972 and 1990. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental 

Health 64(4):251-256.

Larson, J.M., J.L. Findeis, H. Swaminathan, and Q. Wang. 2002. A comparison of data sources for 

hired farm labour research: the NAWS and the CPS. In: The Dynamics of Hired Farm Labour: 

Constraints and Community Responses: J. L. Findeis, A.M. Vandeman, J.M. Larson, J.L. Runyon, 

eds. New York: CABI Publishing. Pp. 243-257.

Lee, B., S. Gallagher, B. Marlenga, and D. Hard, eds.. 2002. Childhood agricultural injury prevention: Progress report and updated national action plan from the 2001 summit. Marshfield, WI: 

Marshfield Clinic. Available online at http://research.marshfieldclinic.org/children/images/910-

060%20Summit%20Report.pdf [accessed January 9, 2008].

Lee, B.L., and P.D. Gunderson. 1992. Childhood agricultural injury prevention: Issues and interventions from multiple perspectives. Proceedings from the Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention Symposium, April 1-3, 1992. Marshfield, WI: National Farm Medicine Center. November.

Levine, L. 2007. Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy. CRS Report for Congress: Order 

Code RL30395. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available online at http://www.

nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30395.pdf [accessed December 11, 2007].

Lexau, D., L. Kingsbury, B. Lenz, C. Nelson, and S. Voehl. 1993. Building coalitions: A community-wide 

approach for promoting farm health and safety. AAOHN Journal 41(9):440-449.

Liberty Mutual. 2006. Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index: American Workplace Changes, but 

Top Reasons for Injuries Don’t. Available online at http://www.libertymutual.com/. [accessed 

November 6, 2007].

Luginbuhl, R.C. 1997. Occupational safety and health regulations in agriculture. Pp. 469-482 in Safety 

and Health in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, R.L. Langley, R.L. McLymore, W.J. Meggs, and 

G.T. Roberson, eds. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes.

Marlenga, B., R.L. Berg, J.G. Linneman, R.J. Brison, and W. Pickett. Changing child labor laws for 

agriculture: Impact on injury. American Journal of Public Health 97:276-282.

Martinez, R., and R.A. Veloz. 1996. A challenge in injury prevention-the Hispanic population. Academic Emergency Medicine 3(3):194-197.

Marx, J.R., M.J. Kryda, R.C. Roberts, M.W. Treuhaft, M.A. Jones, and D.A. Emanuel. 1985. Sequential 

Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Organic Dust Toxic Syndrome (formerly pulmonary mycotoxicosis). 

Report to the Second International Conference on Health and Safety in Agriculture. Saskatoon, 

CA: The University of Saskatoon. 1 page.

May-Lambert S., S. Richardson, and K. Hermann. 1998. Fatal work injuries involving farmworkers, 

1991-1995. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health Special Issue (1):47-55.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 221 e f e r e n c e s

McCauley, L.A., M. Beltran, J. Phillips, M. Lasarev, and D. Sticker. 2001. The Oregon migrant farmworker community: An evolving model for participatory research. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(3):449-455.

McCoy, C., A. Carruth, and D. Reed. 2001. Women in agriculture: Risks for occupational injury within 

the context of gendered role. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 8(1):37-50.

McGinnis, J.M. 1991. Disseminating safety and health information through education. Pp. 22-27 in 

Papers and Proceedings of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health. 

Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH. May. 

Meyers, J.R. 1988. National Surveillance of Occupational Fatalities in Agriculture. Iowa City, IA: The 

National Conference for Agricultural Occupational and Environmental Health: Policy Strategies 

for the Future—Invitational Working Group, September 18-21. 17 pp.

Midwest Center for Agricultural Research, Education, and Disease and Injury Prevention. 2002. 

North American Agriculture in the 21st Century: Implications for Protecting the Health and 

Safety of Persons Exposed to Agricultural Hazards. Marshfield, WI: The National Farm Medicine 

Center—Report of the Advisory Board to the Midwest Center for Agricultural Research, Education, and Disease and Injury Prevention. August.

Mines, R. 1998. Comparing the Characteristics of Farmworkers in the NAWS and the CPS: A Special Report for the Economic Council of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Labor.

Mines, R. 2005. The Need for Targeted Surveys of Farmworkers: A Comparison of the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) and the California Agricultural Worker Health Survey 

(CAWHS). Davis, CA: California Institute for Rural Studies.

Morgan, S.E., H.P. Cole, T. Struttmann, and L. Piercy. 2002. Stories or statistics? Farmers’ attitudes 

toward messages in an agricultural safety campaign. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health

8(2):225-239.

Murphy, D.J. 1992. Safety and Health for Production Agriculture. ASAE Textbook No 5. St. Joseph, 

MI: ASAE.

Murphy, D.J. 2003. Looking Beneath the Surface of Agricultural Safety and Health. St. Joseph, MI: 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 112 pp.

Myers, J.R., and D.E. Fosbroke. 1994. Logging fatalities in the U.S. by region, cause of death, and other 

factors—1980 through 1988. Journal of Safety Research 25(2):97-105. 

NASD (National Agriculture Safety Database). 2002. Epidemiology of Farm-Related Injuries: Bibliography with Abstracts. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/menu/state/federal_niosh_

abstracts.html. [accessed on September 6, 2007].

National 4-H Club News. 1958. Ex-Air Force technician sparks an Arkansas county tractor club. Pp. 

11-12.

NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 2007. Detail of Full-Time Equivalent 

Employment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Available online at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/congress/justification/2008cj/

fte.cfm [accessed October 22, 2007].

National Mental Health Association. 1988. Report of the National Action Commission on the Mental 

Health of Rural Americans. Alexandria, VA: National Mental Health Association. 36 pp.

NCASH (National Coalition for Agricultural Safety and Health). 1988. Education Initiatives. Pp. 34-35 

in Agriculture at Risk: A Report to the Nation—Agricultural Occupational and Environmental 

Health: Policy Strategies for the Future, J.A. Merchant, B.C. Kross, K.J. Donham, and D.S. Pratt, 

eds. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa. Available online at http://www.public-health.uiowa.

edu/AgAtRisk/. [accessed October 22, 2007]
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

222 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

NCCAIP (National Committee for Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention). 1996. Children and 

Agriculture: Opportunities for Safety and Health. Marshfield, WI: Marshfield Clinic. Available online at http://www.marshfieldclinic.org/nfmc/pp./default.aspx?page=nfmc_reports_action_plan.

NCI (National Cancer Institute). 2006. National Cancer Institute: 2006 Fact Book. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Available online 

at http://obf.cancer.gov/financial/attachments/06Factbk.pdf [accessed October 22, 2007].

NCI. 2007. Agricultural Health Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Institutes of Health. Available online at http://aghealth.nci.nih.gov/index.html

[accessed October 12, 2007].

Neitzel R. and Yost M. 2002. Task-based assessment of occupational vibration and noise exposures 

in Forestry Workers. American International Health Alliance 617-627.

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2002. Wake Up and Get Some Sleep. 

Washington, DC: NHTSA.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1992a. Papers and Proceedings of 

the Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and Health. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, NIOSH.

NIOSH. 1992b. 1992 Project Facts: The National Program for Occupational Safety and Health 

in Agriculture. Available online at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_

storage_01/0000019b/80/13/1f/69.pdf [accessed November 9, 2007].

NIOSH. 1997a. Commercial Fishing Fatalities in Alaska: Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies. Current Intelligence Bulletin #58. NIOSH Publication No.97-163. Available online at http://www.

cdc.gov/niosh/97163_58.html [accessed September 4, 2007].

NIOSH. 1997b. Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors: A Critical Review of Epidemiologic 

Evidence for Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders of the Neck, Upper Extremity, and Low 

Back. NIOSH Publication No. 97-141. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/

ergotxt5c.html [accessed November 6, 2007].

NIOSH. 2000a. RFA OH-01-004: Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education 

and Prevention. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH. November. 

18 pp.

NIOSH. 2000b. Work-related Lung Disease Surveillance Report. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

2003-111. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2000c. RFA OH-03-002, Centers for Agricultural Disease and Injury Research, Education 

and Prevention. Morgantown, WV: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH. November. 17 pp.

NIOSH. 2002. Commercial Fishing. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-115/

pdfs/2002115f.pdf [accessed September 1, 2007].

NIOSH. 2005a. Injury and Asthma among Youth Less Than 20 Years of Age on Minority Farm Operations in the United States, 2000. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006-109. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH. October. 

NIOSH. 2005b. Dangers of Entanglement During Lobstering. August. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 2005-137. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH. August. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

docs/wp-solutions/2005-137/#Harv [accessed December 12, 2007].

NIOSH. 2006a. NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health Program—Report to the 

National Academies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 223 e f e r e n c e s

NIOSH. 2006b. Childhood Agricultural Injury Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007a. NIOSH Agricultural Centers. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/agctrhom.

html [accessed August 28, 2007].

NIOSH. 2007b. NIOSH Program Synopsis: Applying Safety Research and Design to the U.S. Fishing 

Industry FY 2007-2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007c. Respiratory Disease in Agricultural Workers: Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. 

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2007-106. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH. February.

NIOSH. 2007d. Surveillance at NIOSH. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/s­urveillance

[accessed April 25, 2007].

Noll, B.C. 1994. OSHA and the Alaskan fishing industry. Publication No. 94-109:87-91. Proceedings 

of the National Fishing Industry Safety and Health Workshop. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press.

NRC. 1998a. Protecting Youth at Work: Health, Safety, and Development of Working Children and 

Adolescents in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC. 1998b. Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders: a Review of the Evidence. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press.

NRC. 1999. Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders: Report, Workshop Summary, and Workshop 

Papers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC and IOM (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine). 2001. Musculoskeletal 

Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities. Panel on Musculoskeletal 

Disorders and the Workplace. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC and IOM. 2007. Mining Safety and Health Research at NIOSH. Committee to Review the 

NIOSH Mining Safety and Health Research Program. Rpt. No. 2, Reviews of Research Programs 

of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press.

NSC (National Safety Council). 1953. FFA out to stop farm accidents. P. 33 in Transactions—National 

Safety Congress. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council.

NSC. 1954. Farm Safety Review. March-April. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council. P. 12.

O’Fallon, L.R. and A. Dearry. 2002. Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance 

environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(2):155-159.

O’Connor-Marer, P.J., D. Clarke, J. Weber, and M. Zavala. 2000. Pesticide Illnesses and Injuries: A 

Trainer’s Manual for Health Professionals and Agricultural Employers. IPM Education Program, 

University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Division of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources.

Oden, D. 2005. Selling safety: The farm safety movement’s emergence and evolution from 1940-1975.

Agricultural History 79(4):412-438.

Oliver, M., J. Rickards, and E. Biden. 2000. Off-road machine controls: investigating the risk of carpal 

tunnel syndrome. Ergonomics 43(11):1887-1903

OMB Watch. 2001. Congress votes to repeal ergonomics standard. March 7. Available online at http://

www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/199/1/68 [accessed November 6, 2007].
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

224 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1974. OSHA in agriculture: Machinery 

guarding hearing. Implement and Tractor 84:56-58.

Parker, C.H. 1915. The California casual and his revolt. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 

November:110-126.

Pearce, N., and J.S. Reif. 1988. Epidemiologic Studies of Cancer in Agricultural Workers: A Review. 

Iowa City, IA: The National Conference for Agricultural Occupational and Environmental 

Health: Policy Strategies for the Future—Invitational Working Group. September 18-21. 35 

pp.

Perry, M.J., A.M. Marbella, and P.M. Layde. 1999. Association of pesticide safety beliefs and intentions with behaviors among farm pesticide applicators. American Journal of Health Promotion

14(1):18-21.

Peterson, D.J., S. Resetar, J. Brower, and R. Diver. 1999. Forest Monitoring and Remote Sensing: A 

Survey of Accomplishments and Opportunities for the Future. A report prepared for the White 

House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Washington, DC: RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute. July. 90 pp.

Plambeck, H. 1983. Iowa Farm Safety in the 20th Century: A History of Contributions by Rural Safety 

Volunteers. Ames, IA: Iowa Farm Safety Council.

Powell, D.S., J.L. Faulkner, D.R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D.Q. MacCleery. 1993. Forest Resources of the 

United States, 1992. General Technical Report RM-234. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Resource Station.

Quandt, S.A., T.A. Arcury, and A.I. Pell. 2001. Something for everyone? A community and academic 

partnership to address farmworker pesticide exposure in North Carolina. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 109(3):435-441. 

Rasmussen, W.D. 1989. Taking the University to the People: Seventy-Five Years of Cooperative Extension. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. 

Robson, L.S., H.S. Shannon, L.M. Goldenhar, and A.R. Hale. 2001. Guide to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Work Injuries: How to Show Whether a Safety Intervention 

Really Works. DHHS Publication No. 2001-119. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

Rodricks, J.V., and N. Rachman. 1988. Some Issues in Risk Assessment for Agricultural Chemicals. Iowa City: IA: The National Conference for Agricultural Occupational and Environmental Health: Policy Strategies for the Future—Invitational Working Group, September 18-21. 

15 pp.

Roman, P. 1987. Workplace employee assistance programs and Injuries. In: MMWR—Special Section: 1987 Conference on Injury in America. 102(6):622-623. Atlanta, GA: Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

November-December.

Rosenstock, L. 1996. The future of intervention research at NIOSH. American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 29(4):295-297.

Runyan, J.L. 2000. A profile of hired farmworkers. Report No. AER-790. Annual Averages. Washington, Washington,

DC: U.S. Deparment of Agriculture.

Rutstein, D., R. Mullan, T. Frazier, W. Halperin, J. Melius, and J. Sestito. 1983. Sentinel health events Sentinel health events 

(occupational): a basis for physician recognition and public health surveillance. American Journal 

of Public Health 73:1054-1062. 

Rydholm, L., and S.R. Kirkhorn. 2005. A study of the impact and efficacy of health fairs for farmers. 

Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 11(4):441-448.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 225 e f e r e n c e s

Scarth, R.D., L. Stallones, C. Zwerling, and L.F. Burmeister. 2000. The prevalence of depressive 

symptoms and risk factors among Iowa and Colorado farmers. American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 37:382-389.

Schreiner, M. 2005. Vegetable crop management strategies to increase the quantity of phytochemicals. 

European Journal Nutrition 44:85-94.

Schwartz, J.S., and S.J. Cohen. 1990. Changing physician behavior. Pp. 45-53 in Primary Care Research: 1990. Changing physician behavior. Pp. 45-53 in Primary Care Research:

An Agenda for the 90’s. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Public 

Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

Scranton, C.J. 1952. Safety and the mechanical corn picker. Agricultural Engineering (March 

1952):140-142.

Spitzer, W.O., Hill, G.B., Chambers, L.W., Helliwell, B.E., and Murphy, H.B. 1975. The occupation of 

fishing as a risk factor in cancer of the lip. New England Journal of Medicine 293(9):419-424.

Stallones, L. 1988. Surveillance of Fatal and Nonfatal Farm Injuries in Kentucky. Iowa City, IA: The 

National Conference for Agricultural Occupational and Environmental Health: Policy Strategies 

for the Future—Invitational Working Group, September 18-21. 21 pp. 

Stallones, L. 2004. Agricultural work. In Encyclopedia of Women’s Health, S. Loue, ed. New York: 

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Stallones, L., and C. Beseler. 2003. Farm work practices and farm injuries in Colorado. Injury Prevention 9:241-244.

Stallones, L., and K. Sweizer. 2000. Fatal head injuries among Hispanic farmworkers and farmers in 

Colorado, 1983-1992. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 5(2):201-205.

Stallones, L., C. Beseler, and P. Chen. 2006. Sleep patterns and risk of injury among adolescent farm 

residents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30(4):300-304.

Stang, A. 1952. OSHACRATS: Mr. Businessman, the buck stops with you. American Opinion (December 

1952):1-13. 

Stiles, M.C., and J.I. Grieshop. 1999. Impacts of culture on driver knowledge and safety device use 

among Hispanic farm workers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 3:235-241.

Stofferhan, C.W. 2006. Industrialized Farming and Its Relationship to Community Well-Being: 

An Update of a 2000 Report by Linda Lobao. Bismarck, ND: State Attorney General. September. Available online at http://www.und.nodak.edu/org/ndrural/Lobao%20&%20Stofferahn.pdf

[accessed December 11, 2007].

Svanström, L., G. Bjärås, and A. Åberg. 1989. Safety: A Universal Concern and A Responsibility for 

All—First World Conference on Accident and Injury Prevention. An Abstract Guide. Sundbyber, 

Sweden: Karolinska Institute.

The White House. 2006. State of the Union: The Advanced Energy Initiative. Available online at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-6.html [accessed July 30, 2007].

Thu, K., K.J. Donham, D. Yoder, and L. Ogilvie. 1990. The farm family perception of occupational 

health: A multistate survey of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, and ideas. American Journal 

of Industrial Medicine 18:427-431.

U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers. 1992. Report of the Commission on Agricultural Workers. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers.

U.S. Congress. 1970. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Public Law 91-596. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. 1985. Food Security Act of 1985. Public Law 99-198. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

226 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

U.S. Congress. 1990a. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991. Public Law 101-517. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

and Printing Office.

U.S. Congress. 1990b. Senate Appropriation Language—Fiscal Year 1990. Farm Safety and Health—

Surveillance, Research, & Intervention. Washington, DC: U. S. Senate. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1977. 1974 Census of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture. Volume I, 

Part 51. United States. Summary and State Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 

U.S. House of Representatives. 2007. Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation: Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety. April 25. 

Available online at http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2007/04/t20070425c.html [accessed September 

7, 2007].

USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 2001. Federal Requirements for Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels. 

Washington, DC: Coast Guard Headquarters, Commercial Fishing Safety (G-MOC-3) Division. 

Available online at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/cfvs/fedreq.pdf [accessed March 12, 2008].

USCG. 2006. Analysis of Fishing Vessel Casualties: A Review of Lost Fishing Vessels and Crew Fatalities, 1994-2004. January. Available online at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mda/docs/fustudy9404.

pdf.

USCG. 2007. Commercial Fishing Vessel Count by State/Jurisdiction and Federally-Documented by the 

U.S. Coast Guard. Available online at http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/­contentDetailView.

do?BV_&contentType=EDITORIAL&contentId=92220 [accessed November 8, 2007].

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1942. The Prevention of Accidents on Farms and in Homes. 

Washington, DC: USDA, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Pp. 1-55. 

USDA. 1987. Census of Agriculture, United States, Summary and State Data. Washington, DC: 

USDA.

USDA. 2002. Farm Structure: Questions and Answers. Table 1: Farm operators by age and civilian 

labor force by selected age categories, 1910-97. USDA, Economic Research Service. July 16. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmStructure/Data/farmsopsbyage.htm [accessed 

November 5, 2007].

USDA. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture, United States, Summary and State Data. Washington, DC: 

USDA.

Villarejo D., and S. Baron. 1999. Occupational safety and health of U.S. hired farmworkers. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, Special Populations14(3):613-35.

Villarejo, D. 1990. Social and Economic Concerns, Invited Paper, June 6-7, 1990, Conference on Health 

Concerns of Living and Working in Agricultural California, School of Public Health, University 

of California, Berkeley and Cooperative Extension Service, University of California, Davis.

Villarejo, D. 1998. Occupational injury rates among hired farmworkers. Journal of Agricultural Safety 

and Health (1):39-46.

Villarejo, D., and M. Schenker. 2005. Policies to Improve the Health and Well-Being of California’s 

Hired Farm Workers. Report presented at Policy Research Seminar, California Program on 

Access to Care and Western Center for Agriculture Safety and Health, Sacramento, CA. November 17.

Villarejo, D., and S.A. McCurdy. In press. The California Agricultural Workers Health Survey. Journal 

of Agricultural Safety and Health, Special Issue, April 2008.

Villarejo, D., D. Lighthall, D. Williams III, A. Souter, R. Mines, B. Bade, S. Samuels, and S.A. McCurdy. 

2001. Access to Health Care for California’s Hired Farm Workers: A Baseline Report. Berkeley, 

CA: University of California.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

R 227 e f e r e n c e s

Von Essen, S. 1996. The farm family: Challenges for lifelong stewardship. In: Lifelong Stewardship: 

Health in a Changing Rural Environment. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. December. 2 pp.

Wallaces’ Farmer. 1952. Don’t Lose an Arm. October 18. 

Wallin, M.T., and J.F. Kurtzke. 2004. Neurocysticercosis in the United States: Review of an important 

emerging infection. Neurology 63:1559-1564.

Welch, R.M. and R.D. Graham. 2005. Agriculture: The real nexus for enhancing bioavailable micronutrients in food crops. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 18:299-307.

Wickard, C.R. 1943. Safety in Wartime Farming: Farm Safety Review. July-August. Chicago, IL: National Safety Council. P. 5. 

Wiener, R.M., J. Chabut, T.R. Taylor, J.C. Thrush, E.M. Mills, M. Shapiro, and H. Doss. 1989. Farm 

Injury Surveillance in Michigan: The 1987 Sanilac-Tuscola Project. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Public Health and Michigan State University. 112 pp.

Wilson, B.W. 1996. Factors in standardizing automated cholinesterase assays. Journal of Toxicology 

and Environmental Health 48(2):187-196.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB). 2002. California Indemnity 

Claim Frequency Analysis. San Francisco, CA: WCIRB.

Xiang, H., L. Stallones, Y. Chiu, and A. Epperson. 1997. Non-fatal injuries and risk factors among 

female farm residents. Journal of Agromedicine 5:21-33.

Zey, J.N.M., G.M. Piacitelli, W.G. Jones, and J.L. Clere. 1985. NIOSH Non-Textile Cotton Industry 

Study: An Industrial Hygiene Overview. Report to The Second International Conference on 

Health and Safety in Agriculture. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: The University of Saskatoon. 1 page.

Zwerling, C., L.H. Daltroy, L.J. Fine, J.J. Johnston, J. Melius, and B.A. Silverstein. 1997. Design and 

conduct of occupational injury intervention studies: A review of evaluation strategies. American 

Journal of Industrial Medicine 32(2):164-179.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

Appendixes
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

231

A

Framework for the Review of Research 

Programs of the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health*

This is a document prepared by the National Academies’ Committee for the 

Review of NIOSH Research Programs,1 also referred to as the Framework Committee. This document is not a formal report of the National Academies—rather, 

it is a framework proposed for use by a number of National Academies committees 

that will be reviewing research in various research programs and health-outcomes 

programs. This version will be posted on the website of the National Academies 

and NIOSH for review. It is a working document that will be subject to change 

by the Framework Committee aimed at improving its relevance on the basis of 

responses received from evaluation committee members, NIOSH, stakeholders, 

and the general public before and during the course of the assessments conducted 

by independent evaluation committees of up to 15 research programs and healthoutcomes programs.

*Version of 12/19/05.

1 Members of the National Academies’ Committee for the Review of NIOSH Research Programs 

include: David Wegman (Chair; University of Massachusetts Lowell School of Health and Environment), William Bunn, III (International Truck and Engine Corporation), Carlos Camargo (Harvard 

Medical School), Susan Cozzens (Georgia Institute of Technology), Letitia Davis (Massachusetts Department of Public Health), James Dearing (Kaiser Permanente), Fred Mettler, Jr. (University of New 

Mexico School of Medicine), Franklin Mirer (Hunter School of Health Sciences), Jacqueline Nowell 

(United Food and Commercial Workers International Union), Raja Ramani (Pennsylvania State 

University), Jorma Rantanen (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health), Rosemary Sokas (University 

of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health), Richard Tucker (Tucker and Tucker Consultants, Inc. 

and University of Texas at Austin), and James Zuiches (North Carolina State University).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

232 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

All public comments submitted to the Committee for the Review of NIOSH 

Research Programs will be included in the Public Access File for this study as provided in the National Academies Terms of Use (www.nationalacademies.org/legal/

terms.html). Please keep in mind that if you directly disclose personal information 

in your written comments, this information may be collected and used by others.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 233 pp e n d i x A

CONTENTS

Acronyms used in this document

I. Overview of Charge

 I.A. NIOSH Strategic Goals and Operational Plan

 I.B. Information from Other Evaluations

 I.C. Evaluation Committees

 I.D. Evaluation Committees’ Information Needs

II. Summary of Evaluation Process

 II.A. The Evaluation Flow Chart (Figure 2)

 II.B. Steps in Program Evaluation

 II.C. Assessing Relevance

 II.D. Assessing Impact

III. Evaluation of NIOSH Research Programs—the Process

 III.A. Analysis of External Factors Relevant to the NIOSH Program

 III.A.1. Overview

 III.A.2. Considerations for Discussion

 III.B. Evaluating NIOSH Research Programs (Addressing

 Charges 1 and 2)

 III.B.1. Identifying Period of Time to be Evaluated

 III.B.2. Identification of Major Challenges (Circle in Figure 2)

 III.B.3. Analysis of NIOSH Program Strategic Goals and

 Objectives (Box A in Figure 2)

 III.B.4. Review of Inputs (Box B in Figure 2)

 III.B.5. Review of Activities (Box C in Figure 2)

 III.B.6. Review of Outputs (Box D in Figure 2)

 III.B.7. Review of Intermediate Outcomes (Box E in Figure 2)

 III.B.8. Review of End Outcomes (Box F in Figure 2)

 III.B.9. Review of Other Outcomes

 III.B.10. Summary Evaluation Ratings and Rationale

 III.C. Identifying Significant Emerging Research

 (addressing Charge 3)

IV. Evaluation Committee Report Template

V. Framework Committee Final Report

Figure 1 The NIOSH operational plan presented as a logic model

Figure 2 Flow chart for the evaluation of the NIOSH research program
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

234 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Table 1 NORA High-Priority Research Areas by Category

Table 2 Examples of NIOSH Program Research and Transfer Activities

Table 3 Examples of a Variety of Scientific Information Outputs

Table 4 Evaluation Committee Worksheet to Assess Research Programs

 and Subprograms
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 235 pp e n d i x A

ACRONYMS

ABLES Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance

ACOEM American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

AOEC Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics

BLS Bureau of labor Statistics

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

EC Evaluation Committee

FACE Fatality Assessment Control and Evaluation

FC Framework Committee

HHE Health Hazard Evaluations

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration

NEISS National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NORA National Occupational Research Agenda

NORA1 National Occupational Research Agenda 1996-2005

NORA2 National Occupational Research Agenda 2005-forward

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHAct Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

OSH Review Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Commission

PART Performance Assessment Rating Tool

PEL Permissible Exposure Limits

SENSOR Sentinel Event Notification System of Occupational Risks

TMT Tools, Methods, or Technologies
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

236 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

In September 2004, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) contracted with the National Academies to conduct a review of NIOSH 

research programs. The goal of this multiphase effort is to assist NIOSH in increasing the impact of its research efforts in reducing workplace illnesses and injuries 

and improving occupational safety and health. The National Academies agreed to 

conduct this review and assigned the task to the Division on Earth and Life Studies 

and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Academies appointed a committee of 14 members, including 

persons with expertise in occupational medicine and health, industrial health and 

safety, industrial hygiene, epidemiology, civil and mining engineering, sociology, 

program evaluation, communication, and toxicology; representatives of industry 

and of the workforce; and a scientist experienced in international occupationalhealth issues. The Committee on the Review of NIOSH Research Programs, referred to as the Framework Committee (FC), held meetings during 2005 on May 

5-6 and July 7-8 in Washington, DC, and on August 15-16 in Woods Hole and 

Falmouth, MA.

This document is not a report of the National Academies; rather, it presents 

the evaluation framework developed by the FC to serve as a guideline and structure 

for NIOSH program reviews by Evaluation Committees (ECs) to be appointed 

by various divisions and boards of the National Academies. The ECs will use this 

framework in reviewing as many as 15 NIOSH research programs during a 5-year 

period. This is a working document. It is shared with NIOSH and the public. The 

framework and criteria may be modified by the FC on the basis of responses it 

receives from the ECs and other sources. It is incumbent upon the ECs to consult 

with the FC if portions of the evaluation framework presented here are inappropriate for the specific program under review.

I. OVERVIEW OF CHARGE

At the first meeting of the FC, Lewis Wade, NIOSH senior science advisor, 

emphasized that the reviews should focus on evaluating NIOSH’s research programs impact and relevance to health and safety in the workplace. In developing 

a framework, the FC was asked to address the following:

1. Evaluation committee assessment of progress in reducing workplace 

illnesses and injuries facilitated by occupational safety and health 

research through (a) an analysis of relevant data about workplace 

illnesses and injuries for the program activity, and (b) an evaluation 

of the effect that NIOSH research has had in reducing illnesses and 

injuries. The evaluation committees will rate the performance of each 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 237 pp e n d i x A

program for impact of the program in the workplace. Impact may be 

assessed directly or, as necessary, using intermediate outcomes to estimate impact. Qualitative narrative evaluations may also be appropriate 

under certain circumstances.

2. Evaluation committee assessment of progress in targeting new research 

to the areas of occupational safety and health most relevant to future 

improvements in workplace protection.

3. Evaluation committee identification of significant emerging research 

areas which appear especially important in terms of their relevance to 

the mission of NIOSH.

Those three charges constitute the scope of work of the individually appointed, 

independent ECs formed by the National Academies.

I.A. NIOSH Strategic Goals and Operational Plan

As a prelude to understanding the NIOSH strategic goals and operational plan, 

NIOSH research efforts should be understood in the context of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act (OSHAct) under which it was created. The OSHAct identifies workplace safety and health to be a national priority and gives employers the 

responsibility for controlling hazards and preventing workplace injury and illness. 

The act creates an organizational framework for doing this, with complementary 

roles and responsibilities assigned to employers and employees, OSHA, the States, 

the OSH Review Commission, and NIOSH. As one component of a national 

strategy the act recognizes NIOSH’s roles and responsibilities to be supportive and 

indirect—NIOSH’s research, training programs, criteria and recommendations are 

all intended to be used to inform and assist those actually responsible for hazard 

control (OSHAct Section 2b and Sections 20 and 22).

Section 2b of the OSHAct describes thirteen interdependent means of accomplishing the national goal, one of which is “by providing for research . . . and by 

developing innovative methods . . . for dealing with occupational safety and health 

problems.” Sections 20 and 22 give the responsibility for this research to NIOSH. 

In addition, NIOSH is given related responsibilities including: the development 

of criteria to guide prevention of work-related injury or illness, development of 

regulations reporting on the employee exposures to harmful agents, the establishment of medical examinations programs or tests to determine illness incidence and 

susceptibility, publication of a list of all known toxic substances, the assessment 

of potentially toxic effects or risk associated with workplace exposures in specific 

settings, the conduct of education programs for relevant professionals to carry out 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

238 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

the OSHAct purposes, and assisting the Secretary of Labor regarding education 

programs for employees and employers in hazard recognition and control.

The NIOSH mission is “to provide national and world leadership to prevent 

work-related illness, injury, disability, and death by gathering information, conducting scientific research, and translating the knowledge gained into products 

and services”. To fulfill its mission, NIOSH has established the following strategic 

goals:2

• Goal 1: Conduct research to reduce work-related illnesses and 

injuries.

♦ Track work-related hazards, exposures, illnesses, and injuries for 

prevention.

♦ Generate new knowledge through intramural and extramural research programs.

♦ Develop innovative solutions for difficult-to-solve problems in 

high-risk industrial sectors.

• Goal 2: Promote safe and healthy workplaces through interventions, 

recommendations, and capacity-building.

♦ Enhance the relevance and utility of recommendations and 

guidance.

♦ Transfer research findings, technologies, and information into 

practice.

♦ Build capacity to address traditional and emerging hazards.

• Goal 3: Enhance global workplace safety and health through international collaborations.

♦ Take a leadership role in developing a global network of occupational health centers.

♦ Investigate alternative approaches to workplace illness and injury 

reduction and provide technical assistance to put solutions in 

place.

♦ Build global professional capacity to address workplace hazards 

through training, information sharing, and research experience.

In 1994, NIOSH embarked on a national partnership effort to identify research 

priorities to guide occupational health and safety research for the next decade. 

The National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) identified 21 high-priority 

research areas (see Table 1). NORA was intended not only for NIOSH but for the 

entire occupational health community. Approaching the 10-year anniversary of 

2 See also http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/strategic/.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 239 pp e n d i x A

NORA, NIOSH is working with its partners to update the research agenda. In the 

second decade of NORA, an approach based on industry sectors will be pursued. 

NIOSH and its partners will form sector research councils that will work to establish sector-specific research goals and objectives. Emphasis will be placed on 

moving research to practice in workplaces through sector-based partnerships.

Figure 1 is the NIOSH operational plan presented as a logic model3 of the path 

from inputs to outcomes for each NIOSH research program. The FC adapted the 

model to develop its framework. NIOSH will provide similar logic models relevant 

to each research program evaluated by an EC.

I.B. Information from Other Evaluations

The FC is aware that several NIOSH programs have already been subjected to 

evaluation by internal and external bodies. Those evaluations range from overall 

assessments of NIOSH, such as the recent 2005 Performance Assessment Rating 

3 Developed by NIOSH with the assistance of the RAND Corporation.

TABLE 1 NORA High-Priority Research Areas by Category

Category Priority Research Area

Disease and injury Allergic and irritant dermatitis

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Fertility and pregnancy abnormalities

Hearing loss

Infectious diseases

Low-back disorders

Musculoskeletal disorders of upper extremities

Trauma

Work environment and workforce Emerging technologies

Indoor environment

Mixed exposures

Organization of work

Special populations at risk

Research tools and approaches Cancer research methods

Control technology and personal protective equipment

Exposure-assessment methods

Health-services research

Intervention-effectiveness research

Risk-assessment methods

Social and economic consequences of workplace

illness and injury

Surveillance research methods
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html 240

FIGURE 1 The NIOSH operational plan presented as a logic model

A-1.eps

External Factors:

Economic and social

conditions and regulatory

environment

Improvements 

in safety and 

health in

workplaces

Inputs Activities

Customer Activities and Outputs

Intermediate customers Outputs Final customers

(transformation) (implementation)

Outcomes

Prevention through effective research, transfer, and evaluation

Outputs

Mission:To Provide National and World Leadership to Prevent Work-Related Illness and Injuries

Production 

inputs:

budget, staff, 

facilities, 

managerial, 

infrastructure

Research*:

Surveillance, 

epidemiological and 

behavioral studies, 

intervention studies, 

laboratory and field 

studies, 

exposure 

measurements and

risk assessment, 

control studies and

development, 

PPE studies and 

development

*Intramural and 

extramural, including 

domestic and 

international efforts, 

such as work

conducted at ERCs, 

ARCs and WHO

Global Network of

Collaborating Centers

Transfer:

-translation of 

research into 

practice, products 

and technologies;

-information 

dissemination;

-capacity building 

through technical 

assistance 

(HHE’s), training 

and education

Intra- and 

interagency 

entities, state, 

local and 

international 

entitites, NGOs

(e.g., standard 

setting bodies

and labor, trade,

and professional 

associations), 

technology

 developers and 

mfrs, OSH 

science 

community, SH 

practitioners

Employees, 

employers, 

industry,

educators, 

regulators

Pilot and/or 

market ready

technologies,

training and

education 

programs,

guidance, 

regulations, 

standards, 

media 

releases

Transfer

Planning 

inputs:

customer/ 

stakeholder inputs, 

surveillance and 

intervention 

effectiveness data,

earmarks, 

risk assessments

-Recommendations,

reports, publications, 

workshops, databases, 

conferences;

-training and education 

materials and 

demonstration programs, 

trained professionals;

-tools and methods, best 

practices, developmental 

technologies, licenses, 

patents
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 241 pp e n d i x A

Tool (PART) review,4 to evaluation of research program elements such as any external scientific program reviews. The ECs should review all available prior reviews. 

Although it is important to consider all prior reviews in the present evaluation to 

aid in understanding the evolution of the programs and program elements, the 

ECs’ evaluations of NIOSH’s programs are independent of the prior reviews and 

evaluations.

I.C. Evaluation Committees

Individual ECs will be formed through a process consistent with the rules of 

the National Academies for the formation of balanced committees. The committees will be composed of persons with expertise appropriate to evaluating specific 

NIOSH research programs and may include representatives of stakeholder groups 

(such as labor unions and industry) and experts in technology transfer and program evaluation. The committees will conduct appropriate information-gathering 

sessions to obtain information from the sponsor (a NIOSH research program), 

stakeholders affected directly by the NIOSH research, and relevant independent 

parties. Each EC will consist of about 10 members, will meet about three times, 

and will prepare a report. The National Academies will deliver the report to NIOSH 

within 9 months after the individual EC is formed. EC reports will be subjected to 

the National Academies report-review process.

I.D. Evaluation Committees’ Information Needs

The ECs are expected to conduct information-gathering as appropriate on

• Background and resources of the program:

♦ History of program, including results of previous reviews.

♦ Program funding, by year, for the current year and the last 10 

years.

♦ Program funding, by objective or subprogram.

♦ Extramural-grant awarding, cooperative agreement and contracting process, solicitation of research ideas, and advisory activities.

• Program goals and objectives.

• Internal NIOSH processes and research:

♦ Intramural surveillance, research, and transfer activities.

♦ Process to solicit and approve intramural research proposals.

4 PART focuses on assessing program-level performance and is one of the measures of success for 

the Budget and Performance Integration initiative of the president’s management agenda (see CDC 

Occupational Safety and Health at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pma/hhs.pdf).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

242 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

• NIOSH-funded extramural research:

♦ Requests for proposals, cooperative agreements and research contracts distributed.

♦ Awardee products, including close-out reports, surveillance, research, and transfer activities, peer-reviewed publications, and 

patents.

• Products and technology transfer:

♦ Data related to program publications, conferences, recommendations, patents, and so on.

♦ Past and planned mechanisms for transferring outputs to 

outcomes.

♦ Interventions, recommendations, and information-dissemination 

and technology-transfer activities designed to get research findings 

used to improve occupational safety and health.

♦ Outcomes of research, alerts, standard-setting, investigations, and 

consultations; for example—documented reductions in risk after 

program-supported interventions, employer and industry behavior changes made in response to research outputs, and worker 

behavior changes in response to research outputs.

• Impact on worker safety and health—data necessary to evaluate program impact on health outcomes (work-related injuries and illnesses) 

and exposures.

• The most severe or most frequent adverse health and safety outcomes 

or exposures in the research program and the most accessible improvements with respect to health and safety.

• Interactions within NIOSH and with other stakeholders:

♦ The role of program research staff in NIOSH policy-setting, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine 

Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) standard-setting, 

and voluntary standard-setting and other government policy 

functions.

♦ Other institutions and research programs with overlapping or 

similar portfolios and an explanation of the relationship between 

the NIOSH work and staff and those of other institutions.

♦ Stakeholder perspectives (OSHA, MSHA, union and workforce, 

industry, and so on.)

♦ Key partnerships with employers, labor, other government organizations, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and

♦ International involvement and perspective.

• Systems to identify emerging problems and emerging research, including plans.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 243 pp e n d i x A

II. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION PROCESS

The ECs are charged with assessing the relevance, quality, and impact of 

NIOSH research programs. In conducting their evaluations, the ECs should ascertain whether NIOSH is doing the right things (relevance) and doing them 

right (quality) and whether these things are improving health and safety in the 

workplace (impact).

II.A. The Evaluation Flow Chart (Figure 2)

To address its charges, the FC has developed a flow chart (Figure 2) that breaks 

the NIOSH logic model into discrete, sequential program components to be characterized or assessed by the ECs. The components to be assessed are as follows:

• Major program-area challenges.

• Strategic goals and objectives.

• Inputs (such as budget, staff, facilities, the institute’s research management, the NIOSH Board of Scientific Counselors, the NORA process, 

and NORA work groups).

• Activities (efforts by NIOSH staff, contractors, and grantees, such as 

hazard and health-outcome surveillance, exposure-measurement research, health-effects research, intervention research, health services, 

other research, and technology-transfer activities).

• Outputs (the products of NIOSH activities, such as publications, reports, conferences, databases, tools, methods, guidelines, recommendations, education and training, and patents).

• Intermediate outcomes (responses by NIOSH stakeholders to NIOSH 

products, such as public or private policy change, training and education in the form of workshop or seminar attendance, self-reported use 

or repackaging of NIOSH data by intermediary stakeholders, adoption of technologies developed by NIOSH, implemented guidelines, 

licenses, and reduction of workplace hazardous exposures and other 

risk factors).

• End outcomes (such as reduction of work-related injuries or illnesses, 

or hazardous exposures in the workplace).

Drawing on the program logic model, the flow chart, and EC members’ expertise, the ECs will delineate important determinants of a NIOSH research program’s 

agenda and the consequences of the NIOSH research activity. Determinants are 

conceptualized as inputs and external factors. Examples of external factors are 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html 244

FIGURE 2 Flow chart for the evaluation of the NIOSH research program

A-2.eps E

Review and

Assessment of

Intermediate

Outcomes

Public policy impact, 

training/education,

self-reported use and/or

repackaging by stakeholders,

implemented guidelines

Major Program

Area Challenges 

Determined by EC

Independent assessment

by EC members to

compare with NIOSH

program area goals

F

Review and 

Assessment of

End Outcomes

Reduced injuries, 

illnesses, risk factors 

in the workplace

C

Review and

Assessment

of Activities

Surveillance,

health effect research, 

intervention research, 

technology transfer

activities, health services

and other research

External Factors External Factors

External Factors

A

Analysis of

Strategic Goals and 

Objectives Driving 

Current Program

Assessment of NIOSH 

process to select

program goals,

evaluation of goals

selected by NIOSH,

comparison with EC

assessment of challenges

B

Review and

Assessment

of Inputs

Planning: surveillance and 

intervention data; 

stakeholder inputs

Production: intra- and 

extramural funding,

staffing, physical facilities, 

management structure

D

Review and

Assessment

of Outputs

Publications, reports,

databases, tools,

methods, guidelines,

recommendations,

licences and patents
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 245 pp e n d i x A

the research activities of industry and other federal agencies and the political and 

regulatory environment, which can affect all components of the research program 

(Figure 2). For purposes of this review, the results of inputs and external factors are 

the program research activities, outputs, and associated transfer activities that may 

result in intermediate outcomes and possibly eventual end outcomes.

The FC has used the NIOSH logic model to develop the flow chart to define 

the scope and steps of an EC evaluation. The FC’s vision of how a program evaluation should occur is incorporated in a summary manner in the flow chart and 

discussed extensively in later sections. For example, the FC identified two types 

of outcomes: (a) intermediate outcomes, which represent implementations (what 

external stakeholders, such as employers, do in reaction to the products of NIOSH 

work, including new regulations, widely accepted guidelines, introduction of control technologies in the workplace, changes in employer or worker behaviors, and 

changes in diagnostic practices of health-care providers), and (b) end outcomes, 

which are improvements (reductions in work-related injuries, illnesses, and hazardous exposures). For the purpose of evaluation, the FC does not differentiate 

between NIOSH’s “intermediate customer” and “final customer” activities (Figure 

1); instead it combines them into a single category (Box E, Review and Assessment 

of Intermediate Outcomes, Figure 2). Training and development programs were appropriately defined as outputs by NIOSH in the logic model, but the FC finds more 

value in focusing on response to such offerings as intermediate outcomes (Box E) 

in the flow chart. The number of workers exposed to training activities represents 

a type of implementation of NIOSH outputs in the workplace. In evaluating each 

program or major subprogram, the EC must collect, analyze, and evaluate information on items described in each of the boxes of Figure 2. Further details on the 

evaluation are described in Section III of this document.

II.B. Steps in Program Evaluation

The FC has concluded that useful evaluation requires: (a) a disciplined focus on 

a small number of questions or hypotheses typically related to program goals, performance criteria, and performance standards; (b) a rigorous method for answering 

the questions or testing the hypotheses; and (c) a credible procedure for developing 

qualitative and quantitative assessments. The evaluation process developed by the 

FC is summarized here and described in detail in Section III of this document.

1. Gather appropriate information from NIOSH and other sources.

2. Determine timeframe that the evaluation will cover (see III.B.1).

3. Identify program-area major challenges and objectives (see III.B.2). 

All NIOSH research programs, whether based on health outcomes or 

sectors, are designed to be responsive to the safety and health problems 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

246 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

in today’s or tomorrow’s workplace. In the NIOSH vision, mission, 

values, and goals, each research program should have its own objectives. The ECs will provide an independent assessment of the major 

program challenges and determine whether they are consistent with 

the research program’s stated goals and objectives.

4. Identify subprograms and major projects in the research program. It is 

important for each EC to determine how necessary it is to disaggregate 

a program to achieve a manageable and meaningful evaluation of its 

components and the total program. Each research program may need 

to be broken down into several recognizable subprograms or major 

projects if an effective evaluation is to be organized. It may be advantageous for an EC to disaggregate a program into subprograms that 

NIOSH identifies.

5. Evaluate the program and subprogram components sequentially as 

discussed in Section III, using the flow chart (Figure 2) as a guide (Sections III.B.3 through III.B.8). This will involve qualitatively assessing 

each phase of a research program by using the questions and guidance 

provided by the FC and professional judgment.

6. Evaluate the research program’s potential outcomes not yet appreciated 

(Section III.B.9).

7. Evaluate and score the program outcomes and important subprogram 

outcomes specifically for contributions to improvements in workplace 

safety and health. A worksheet is provided with specific items for consideration (Section III.B.10).

8. Evaluate and score the overall program for impact (Section III.B.10). 

Final program ratings will consist of a numerical score and discussion 

of its rationale.

9. Evaluate and score the overall program for relevance (Section III.B.10). 

Final program ratings will consist of a numerical score and discussion 

of its rationale.

10. Identify significant emerging research areas (Section III.C). On the 

basis of the expert judgment of EC members and information gathered 

from stakeholders (such as, labor, industry, academe, and government agencies) and from appropriate NIOSH sentinel-event fieldinvestigation activities, the EC will respond to Charge 3 by identifying 

and describing emerging research that appears especially important in 

its relevance to the mission of NIOSH. The EC will assess the extent 

to which NIOSH’s program is responsive to today’s and tomorrow’s 

needs and determine whether there are any gaps in response.

11. Prepare report by using the template provided in Section IV as a 

guide.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 247 pp e n d i x A

II.C. Assessing Relevance

FC members identified numerous possible factors to consider in assessing the 

relevance of NIOSH research programs, such as:

• The severity, frequency, or both of the health and safety outcomes 

addressed and the number of people at risk (magnitude) for these 

outcomes.

• The extent to which NIOSH research programs have identified and 

addressed gender issues and the concerns related to vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are defined as groups of workers who 

have (1) biological, social, or economic characteristics that place them 

at increased risk of developing work-related conditions and/or (2) 

inadequate data collected about them. Vulnerable populations include 

disadvantaged minorities, disabled individuals, low-wage workers, and 

non-English speakers for whom language or other barriers present 

health or safety risks.

• The extent to which NIOSH research programs have addressed the 

health and safety needs of small businesses.

• The “life stage” of the problems being addressed. As the health effects 

are understood, emphasis should shift to intervention research, and 

from efficacy to effectiveness to research on the process of dissemination of tested interventions. Gaps in the spectrum of prevention need 

to be addressed; for example, research on exposure assessment may be 

necessary before the next intervention steps can be taken.

• The structure, in addition to the content, of the research program. 

A relevant research program is more than a set of unrelated research 

projects; it is an integrated program involving an interrelated set of 

surveillance, research, and transfer activities.

• Appropriate consideration by NIOSH of stakeholder inputs.

II.D. Assessing Impact

Causal attribution is a major aspect of program evaluation. It is necessary for 

the ECs to assess, to the extent possible, NIOSH’s contribution to end outcomes. 

Data on reductions in work-related injuries, illnesses, and hazardous exposures 

will be available for some programs. In some cases, they may be quantifiable. It is 

possible, however, to evaluate the impact of a NIOSH research program whether 

the outcomes are intermediate outcomes or end outcomes. Intermediate outcomes 

may be used as proxies for end outcomes in assessing impact if there is no direct 

evidence of improvements in health and safety as long as the ECs qualify their find-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

248 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

ings. The ECs will describe the realized or potential benefits of NIOSH’s programs. 

Examples of realized intermediate outcomes include: new regulations, widely accepted guidelines, work practices, and procedures, all of which may contribute 

measurably to enhancing health and safety at the work place.

The contribution of a NIOSH program to technology now in use or being 

implemented is another important part of impact assessment. NIOSH’s contribution can be assessed as major or important, moderate, likely, limited, or none. If 

technology development is in progress or has been abandoned, for whatever reason, 

the benefits are only potential or consist of knowledge gain.

III. EVALUATION OF NIOSH RESEARCH PROGRAMS—THE PROCESS

III.A. Analysis of External Factors Relevant to the NIOSH Research Program

As depicted in the logic model (Figure 1), the end outcome of reduced injuries, illnesses, or exposures is effected through stakeholder activities and outputs. 

All those involve the use of NIOSH outputs by stakeholders in industry, labor, 

other government agencies, and so on. It is evident that actions beyond NIOSH’s 

control—by industry, labor, and other entities—have important bearings on the 

incorporation in the workplace of NIOSH’s outputs to enhance health and safety. 

The implementation of research findings may depend on existing or future policy 

considerations.

III.A.1. Overview

External factors may be considered as forces beyond the control of NIOSH that 

may affect the evolution of the program. External factors dominate the evolution of 

the path from NIOSH inputs to occupational health and safety outcomes (Figure 

1). External factors can also be considered inputs to the evaluation of each aspect 

(planning, implementation, transfer, and others) of NIOSH research programs 

(Figure 2).

Identification of external factors by the ECs is essential to providing a context 

for NIOSH program evaluation. External factors may best be assessed through 

the expert judgment of EC members regarding the knowledge base, the research 

program, and implementation of interventions as these relate to the needs in the 

occupational health or safety area targeted by the research program. The ECs, 

however, may choose additional approaches to assess external factors.

The FC recommends the ECs ask NIOSH to identify and describe external 

factors early in the evaluation sequence. Factors external to NIOSH might have 

been responsible for achieving some outcomes, and they might also have presented 

formidable obstacles. The ECs must address both possibilities.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 249 pp e n d i x A

III.A.2. Considerations for Discussion

Some external factors may involve constraints on research activity related to 

target populations, methodological issues, and resource availability. For example, 

evaluators might examine whether

• Projects addressing a critical health need are technologically feasible. 

A workforce with appropriate size and duration, magnitude, and distribution of exposure for measuring a health effect may not exist. For 

example, no population of workers has been exposed for 30 years to 

formaldehyde at the current OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL), 

so the related cancer mortality can not yet be directly assessed.

• Research is inhibited because NIOSH investigators are unable to access 

an adequate study population. Under current policy, NIOSH must either obtain an invitation by management to study a workplace or seek 

a judicial order to provide authority to enter a worksite. (Cooperation 

under court order may well be insufficient for effective research.)

• Research is inhibited because the work environment, materials, and 

historical records cannot be accessed even with management and 

workforce cooperation.

• Adequate or established methods do not exist for assessing the 

environment.

• Records needed for historical-exposure reconstruction cannot be accessed or do not exist.

• Intervention research is inhibited because an appropriate employer 

partner cannot be identified to institute the intervention.

• The NIOSH contribution to a certain area of research is reduced because other institutions are working in the same area.

• NIOSH resources are inadequate to tackle the key questions.

Evaluation of the impact of NIOSH research outputs on outcomes may require 

consideration of external factors that might have impeded or aided implementation, measurement, and so on. For example, evaluators might consider whether

• Regulatory end points are unachievable because of obstacles to regulation or differing priorities of the regulatory agencies. For example, 

recommendations for improved respiratory protection programs for 

health-care workers might not be implemented because of enforcement policies or lack of acceptance by the administration of healthcare institutions.

• A feasible control for a known risk factor or exposure is not im-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

250 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

plemented because the costs of implementation are too high or the 

economic incentives under current circumstances do not favor such 

actions.

• Improvements in end points are unobservable because baseline and 

ongoing surveillance data are not available. For example, the current 

incidence of occupational noise-induced hearing loss is not known 

although surveillance for a significant threshold shift is feasible. 

(NIOSH conducts surveillance of work-related illnesses, injuries, and 

hazards, but comprehensive surveillance is not possible with existing 

resources.)

• Reductions in adverse effects of chronic exposure cannot be measured. 

For example, 90% of identified work-related mortality is from diseases, 

such as cancer, that arise only after decades of latency from first exposure; therefore, effects of reducing exposure to a carcinogen cannot be 

observed in the timeframe of most interventions.

• A regulation is promulgated that requires a technology that was developed but not widely used.

III.B. Evaluating NIOSH Research Programs 

(Addressing Charges 1 and 2)

III.B.1. Identifying Period of Time to Be Evaluated

Through study of materials presented by the NIOSH research program and 

other sources, an EC will become familiar with the history of the research program being evaluated and its major subprograms, program goals and objectives, 

resources, and other pertinent information.

It is useful for the ECs to consider three general timeframes in conducting 

their reviews:

• 1970-1995, the period from the founding of NIOSH to the initiation 

of the NORA process (pre-NORA period).

• 1996-2005 (NORA 1 period).

• Current period and forward (NORA 2 period).

It will be important for the ECs to get a general sense of the history of the 

NIOSH research program and its impact, but their efforts should be focused on 

the impact and relevance of NIOSH programs from 1996 on. It is recognized that 

many of the intermediate and end outcomes since 1996 are the consequence of 

research outputs accomplished earlier. Both the relevance of the research program 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 251 pp e n d i x A

targets of NORA 1 and the proposed NORA 2 objectives for the next decade should 

be considered.

NIOSH is in the midst of a substantial restructuring of the NORA agenda, and 

expert judgment about relevance and prospective impact of current research programs will be most useful to the agency. The timeframes provided here are only for 

general guidance; the exact dates of the period to focus on in reviewing programs 

will depend on the specific research program under review.

III.B.2. Identification of Major Challenges 

(Circle in Figure 2)

Early in its assessment process, an EC should independently identify the major 

challenges for its research program. These would be the matters the EC believes 

should have priority in the research program being evaluated. In arriving at a list of 

challenges, the EC should rely on surveillance findings, including NIOSH investigations of sentinel events (through health-hazard or fatality-assessment programs), 

and its own expert judgment. Those should be supplemented with determinations 

or recommendations by appropriate advisory sources regardless of whether these 

sources have contributed to NIOSH program deliberations. This process will allow the EC to compare its assessment of challenges to be addressed by NIOSH 

with NIOSH program goals, and to evaluate the congruence between the two as a 

measure of relevance (Charge 2).

III.B.3. Analysis of Research Program Strategic Goals and Objectives 

(Box A in Figure 2)

The research program goals and objectives should be evaluated, with a focus 

on how each research program’s goals are related to NIOSH’s agency-wide strategic 

goals and to the major current challenges and emerging problems identified in the 

step above. Differences may exist between the importance or relevance of an issue 

and the influence NIOSH-funded research might have in addressing the issue. The 

EC should recognize that NIOSH research priorities may be strategic rather than 

based on the assessment of the state of knowledge.

Some aspects of the NIOSH research program’s strategic goals and objectives 

would have been already subjected to evaluation by internal or external bodies. Research program relevant evaluations that should be requested include the NIOSH 

annual program review by the Leadership Team; the NORA research program 

proposal pre-award external review, NORA post-award program external review, 

and external scientific program review.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

252 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee

1. Are the strategic goals and objectives of the program well defined and 

clearly described?

2. In the last decade, how well were program goals and objectives aligned 

with NORA 1 priorities?

3. How do the current strategic goals and objectives of the program relate 

to the current NIOSH strategy, including NORA 2?

4. Are the research program goals, objectives, and strategies relevant to 

the major challenges in the research program and likely to address 

emerging problems in the research program (as determined by the 

EC)?

a. Did past program goals and objectives (research and dissemination/transfer activities) focus on the most relevant problems and 

anticipate the emerging problems in the research program?

b. Are the current program goals and objectives targeted to the most 

relevant problems and likely to address emerging problems in the 

research program?

5. How does the program identify emerging research areas?

a. What information is reviewed by NIOSH?

b. What advisory or stakeholder groups are asked to identify emerging areas?

c. What new research areas have been identified in the program?

d. Were important areas overlooked?

Assessment

The EC will provide a qualitative assessment discussing the relevance of the 

area’s goals, objectives, and strategies as related to the research program’s major 

challenges and emerging problems.

III.B.4. Review of Inputs (Box B in Figure 2)

Inputs are categorized as planning or production inputs in the NIOSH logic 

model. Planning inputs include stakeholder inputs, surveillance and intervention 

data, and risk assessments. Production inputs include intramural and extramural 

funding, staffing, management structure, and physical facilities.

Inputs for program evaluation include existing intramural and extramural 

information and, potentially, surveys or case studies that might have been developed specifically to assess progress in reducing workplace illnesses and injuries 

and to provide information relevant to targeting research appropriately to future 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 253 pp e n d i x A

needs. The ECs should request the relevant planning and production inputs from 

NIOSH.

Planning Inputs

Planning inputs can be qualitative or quantitative. Sources of qualitative inputs 

include

• Federal Advisory Committee Act panels (Board of Scientific Counselors, Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National 

Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, and so on).

• NORA research partners, initial NORA stakeholder meetings, later 

NORA Team efforts (especially strategic research plans), and the NORA 

Liaison Committee and federal liaison committee recommendations.

• Other federal research agendas, industry, labor, academe, professional 

associations, industry associations, and Council of State and Territorial 

Epidemiologists.

• OSHA and MSHA strategic plans.

Attention should be given to how comprehensive the inputs have been and to 

what extent gaps have been identified or considered.

Sources of quantitative inputs include

• Intramural surveillance information, such as descriptive data on exposures and outcomes (appropriate data may be available from a number 

of NIOSH divisions and laboratories).

• Health Hazard Evaluations (HHEs).

• Reports from the Fatality Assessment Control and Evaluation (FACE) 

program.

• Extramural health-outcome and exposure-assessment data from (1) 

OSHA and MSHA (inspection data) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Defense, and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(fatality, injury, and illness surveillance data); (2) state government 

partners, including NIOSH-funded state surveillance programs, such 

as Sentinel Event Notification System of Occupational Risks (SENSOR), Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES), and 

state-based FACE; and (3) non-government organizations, such as the 

Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC) and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

254 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 

(ACOEM).

• Appropriate data from NIOSH-funded, investigator-initiated extramural research.

Production Inputs

For each research program under review, NIOSH should specify an identifiable 

portion of the NIOSH intramural budget, staff, facilities, and management that 

has been allocated by divisions and offices that play a major role in the research 

program. Production inputs should be described primarily in terms of intramural 

research projects and staff, relevant extramural projects (particularly cooperative 

agreements and contracts), and HHEs and related staff. Consideration should also 

be given to budget inputs for program evaluation and to leveraged funds provided 

by partners, such as National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency joint requests for applications or program announcements and OSHA, 

MSHA, and Department of Defense contracts with NIOSH to conduct work.

Assessment of those inputs should include consideration of (1) the degree to 

which allocation of funding and personnel has been reasonably consistent with the 

resources needed to conduct the research and (2) the extent to which funding for 

the relevant intramural research program activity has been limited by lack of discretionary spending beyond salaries (travel, supplies, external laboratory services, and 

so on). The assessments, therefore, should consider the adequacy of the qualitative 

and quantitative planning inputs and the use and adequacy of production inputs, 

particularly (1) and (2) above.

Questions as a Guide for the Evaluation Committee

1. Were the planning, production, and other input data adequate?

2. How well were the major planning, production, and other program 

inputs used to promote the major activities?

3. Were the sources of inputs and the amount and quality of inputs 

adequate?

4. Was input obtained from stakeholders representing vulnerable working populations and small businesses?

5. Were production inputs (intramural and extramural funding, staffing, 

management, and physical infrastructure resources) consistent with 

goals and objectives of the program?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 255 pp e n d i x A

Assessment

The EC will provide a qualitative assessment that discusses the quality, adequacy, and use of inputs.

III.B.5. Review of Activities 

(Box C in Figure 2)

Activities are defined as the efforts and work of the program, its staff, and its 

grantees and contractors. For purposes of the present evaluation, activities of the 

NIOSH program under review should be divided into research and transfer activities. Research activities may be further categorized as surveillance, health-effects 

research, intervention research, health-services research, and other research (see 

sample classification of research activities in Table 2). Transfer activities include 

information dissemination, training, technical assistance, and education designed 

to translate research outputs into content and formats designed for application in 

the workplace to produce improvements in occupational safety and health. Depending on the scope of the program under review, activities may also be grouped 

by research program objectives or subprograms.

Conventional occupational-health research focuses appropriately on health 

effects and technology. A focus on socioeconomic and policy research and on 

surveillance and diffusion research is also needed to effect change because not all 

relevant intermediate outcomes occur in the workplace. There are important outcomes farther out on the causal chain that NIOSH can affect and thereby influence 

health and safety in the workplace. Some examples of types of research that might 

also prove important in addressing NIOSH’s mission are

• Socioeconomic research on cost shifting between worker compensation and private insurance.

• Surveillance research to assess the degree of significant and systematic 

underreporting of select injuries and illnesses on OSHA logs.

• Research on methods to build health and safety capacity in community health centers that serve low-income and/or minority-group 

workers, and to improve recognition and treatment of work-related 

conditions.

• Transfer research to change health and safety knowledge in teenagers 

while they are in high school to improve the likelihood of reduced 

injuries when they enter the workforce.

• Community-based participatory research on differences between recently arrived immigrants and US-born workers regarding perceptions 

of acceptable health and safety risks to target programs to meet the 

workforce training needs of immigrant workers.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

256 A P P E N D I XAA

g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH 149

TABLE 2 Examples of NIOSH Program Research and Transfer Activities

Surveillance

(including hazard and health surveillance and evaluation of surveillance systems)

Health-effects research

Epidemiologic research

Toxicologic research

Laboratory-based physical and safety risk factor research

Development of clinical screening methods and tools

Exposure-assessment research

Intervention research

Control technology

Engineering controls and alternatives

Administrative controls

Personal protective equipment

Work organization research

Community-based participatory research

Policy research (such as alternative approaches to targeting inspections)

Diffusion and dissemination research

Training effectiveness

Information-dissemination effectiveness

Diffusion of technology

Health-services and other research

Acc

Wo

ess to occupational health care

Infrastructure research—delivery of occupational-health services, including international health

and safety

Socioeconomic consequences of work-related injuries and illnesses

rker compensation

Technology-transfer and other transfer activities

Tr

Information dissemination

aining programs

The ECs should review the list of research and transfer activities (projects) for

the research program under review that have been completed, are in progress, or

have been planned. Surveillance activities should be included in this review. An EC

should request that the NIOSH program under review provide a list of activities,

grouping the projects into research activities as in Table 2, and specify whether

they are intramural or extramural. For extramural projects, the key organizations

and principal investigators’ names should be requested, as should whether the

projects were in response to a request for proposal or a request for application. For

The ECs should review the list of research and transfer activities (projects) for 

the research program under review that have been completed, are in progress, or 

have been planned. Surveillance activities should be included in this review. An EC 

should request that the NIOSH program under review provide a list of activities, 

grouping the projects into research activities as in Table 2, and specify whether they 

are intramural or extramural. For extramural projects, the key organizations and 

principal investigators’ names should be requested, as should whether the projects 

were in response to a request for proposal or a request for application. For an in-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 257 pp e n d i x A

tramural project, the EC should ask NIOSH to provide a list of key collaborators 

(other government agency, academe, industry, and/or union partners).

The ECs should evaluate each of the research activities outlined in Table 2 to 

the extent that each forms an important element of the program research. In the 

case of a sector research program (for example, mining, construction) in which 

health-effects research is not being reviewed, the ECs should determine what research inputs are being used by the program to develop its targets and then assess 

the value of the inputs.

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee in Assessing Research Activities

1. What are the major subprograms or groupings of activities within the 

program?

2. Were the activities consistent with program goals and objectives?

3. Were the research activities relevant to the major challenges in the 

research program?

a. Did they address the most serious outcomes?

b. Did they address the most common outcomes?

c. Did they address the needs of both genders, vulnerable working 

populations, and small businesses?

4. Were the research activities appropriately responsive to the input of 

stakeholders?

5. To what extent were partners involved in the research activities?

6. Are the resource allocations appropriate, and appropriate at this time, 

for the research activities?

7. To what extent did peer reviews (internal, external, and precourse or 

midcourse) affect the activities?

8. Is there adequate monitoring of quality assurance procedures to ensure 

credible research data, analyses, and conclusions?

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee in Assessing Transfer Activities

1. Is there a coherent planned program of transfer activities?

2. Are the program’s information dissemination, training, education, 

technical assistance, or publications successful in reaching the workplace or relevant stakeholders in other settings? How widespread is the 

response?

3. To what extent did the program build research and education capacity 

(internal or external)?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

258 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Assessment

For this part of the assessment, the EC will provide a qualitative assessment 

discussing relevance and quality. This evaluation must include consideration of 

the external factors identified in Section III.A that constrain choices of research 

projects. The EC will consider the appropriateness of resource allocations with 

respect to issues’ importance and the extent to which the issue is being addressed. 

A highly relevant and high-quality program would be comprehensive, address 

high-priority needs, produce high-quality results, be highly collaborative, and be 

of value to stakeholders. Programs may be progressively less relevant or of lower 

quality as those key elements are not up to the mark or are missing. The discussion 

should cover those aspects in sufficient detail to arrive at a qualitative assessment 

of the activities. Assessment of the transfer activities must include considerations 

of program planning, coherence, quality, and impact.

III.B.6. Review of Outputs 

(Box D in Figure 2)

As shown in Figure 1, research inputs and activities lead to outputs. An output 

is a direct product of a NIOSH research program that is logically related to the 

achievement of desirable and intended outcomes. Outputs are created for researchers, practitioners, intermediaries, and end-users, such as consumers. Outputs can be 

in the form of publications in peer-reviewed journals, recommendations, reports, 

Web-site content, workshops and presentations, databases, educational materials, 

scales and methods, new technologies, patents, technical assistance, and so on. 

Outputs of NIOSH’s extramurally funded activities should also be considered. 

Examples of major outputs are provided in Table 3.

Depending on the intended audience, outputs may be tailored to communicate 

information most effectively to increase the likelihood of comprehension, knowledge, attitude formation, and behavioral intent. The extent of use of formative 

evaluation data (data gathered prior to communication for the purpose of improving the likelihood of the intended effects) or intended user feedback in the design 

of the output can be considered an indicator of output quality.

In addition to outputs themselves, many related indicators of the production, 

reference to, and utility of outputs can be conceptualized and made operational. 

Examples include the extent of collaboration with other organizations in the 

determination of research agendas, the conduct of research, the dissemination of 

research results, and interorganizational involvement in the production of outputs. 

Coauthorship is a measure of the centrality of NIOSH researchers in the broader 

research community.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 259 pp e n d i x A

TABLE 3 Examples of a Variety of Scientific Information Outputs

Peer-reviewed publications by NIOSH staff

Total number of original research articles by NIOSH staff

Total number of review articles by NIOSH staff (including best-practice articles)

Complete citation for each written publication

Complete copies of the “top five” articles

Collaboration with other public- or private-sector researchers

Publications in the field of interest with other support by investigators also funded by NIOSH (for

example, ergonomic studies with other support by an investigator funded by NIOSH to do

ergonomics work, in which case NIOSH should get some credit for seeding interest or drawing

people into the field)

Peer-reviewed publications by external researchers funded by NIOSH

Total number of NIOSH-funded original research articles by external researchers

Total number of NIOSH-funded review articles by external researchers (including best-practices

articles)

Complete citation for each written report

Complete copies of the “top five” articles

Collaboration with other government or academic researchers

NIOSH reports in the research program

Total number of written reports

Complete citation for each written report

Complete copies of the “top five” reports

Sponsored conferences and workshops

Total number of sponsored conferences

Total number of sponsored workshops

For each sponsored conference or workshop, describe:

Title, date, and location

Partial vs complete sponsorship (if partial, who were cosponsors?)

Approximate number of attendees and composition of participants

Primary “products” of the event (such as publication of conference proceedings)

NIOSH’s assessment of value or impact

Databases

Total number of major databases created by NIOSH staff

Total number of major databases created by external researchers funded by NIOSH grants,

For each database:

Title, objective (in one to four sentences), and start and stop dates

Partial vs complete sponsorship (if partial, who were cosponsors?)

Study or surveillance-system design, study population, and sample size

Primary “products” of the database (such as number of peer-reviewed articles and reports)

Complete copies of the “top two” publications and/or findings, to date, from each database

continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

260 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Recommendations

Total number of major recommendations

For each:

Complete citation (article, report, or conference where recommendation was made)

Summary in one to four sentences

Percentage of target audience that has adopted recommendation 1, 5, and 10 years later

Up to three examples of implementation in the field

Identifications of “top five” recommendations to date

Tools, methods, or technologies (TMT)

Total number of major TMT (includes training and education materials)

For each:

Title and objective of TMT (in one to four sentences)

Complete citation (if applicable)

Percentage of target audience that has used TMT 1, 5, and 10 years later

Up to three examples of implementation in the field

Identification of “top five” TMT to date

Patents

Total number of patents

For each:

Title and objective patent (in one to four sentences)

Complete citation

Percentage of target audience that has used product 1, 5, and 10 years later

Up to three examples of implementation in the field

Identification of “top five” patents to date

Miscellaneous

Any other important program outputs

TABLE 3 Continued

The EC should ask NIOSH to provide information on all relevant outputs for 

the specific program for the chosen time period.

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee

1. What are the major outputs of the research program?

2. Did the research program produce outputs that addressed the highpriority areas?

3. To what extent did the program generate important new knowledge 

or technology?

4. Are there peer-reviewed publications that are widely cited and considered to report “breakthrough” results?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 261 pp e n d i x A

5. Were outputs relevant to both genders, vulnerable populations and 

health disparities?

6. Were outputs relevant to health and safety problems of small 

businesses?

7. Are products user-friendly in terms of readability, simplicity, and 

design?

8. To what extent did the program help to build the internal or extramural institutional knowledge base?

9. Did the research produce effective cross-agency, cross-institute, or 

internal-external collaborations?

Assessment

For this part of the assessment, the EC should provide a qualitative assessment 

discussing relevance, quality, and usefulness. A highly ranked program will be one 

with outputs that address needs in high-priority areas, contain new knowledge or 

technology that is effectively communicated, contribute to capacity-building both 

inside and outside NIOSH, and are relevant to the pertinent populations. The 

discussion should cover those aspects in sufficient detail to support the qualitative 

assessment of the outputs.

III.B.7. Review of Intermediate Outcomes

(Box E in Figure 2)

Intermediate outcomes, for the purposes of this evaluation, are related to the 

program’s association with behaviors and changes at individual, group, and organizational levels in the workplace. An intermediate outcome reflects an assessment 

of worth by stakeholders outside NIOSH (such as managers in industrial firms) 

about NIOSH research or its products.

Intermediate outcomes include the production of standards, or regulations 

based in whole or in part on NIOSH research (products adopted as public policy or 

as policy or guidelines by private organizations or industry); attendance at training 

and education programs sponsored by other organizations; use of publications by 

workers, industry, and occupational safety and health professionals in the field; and 

citations of NIOSH research by industrial and academic scientists.

More difficult-to-collect intermediate outcomes that may be valid indicators 

of quality or utility include self-report measures by users and relevant nonusers of 

NIOSH outputs. These indicators include the extent to which key intermediaries 

find value in NIOSH databases for the repackaging of health and safety information, the extent to which NIOSH recommendations are in place and attended to 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

262 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

in workplaces, and employee or employer knowledge of and adherence to NIOSH 

recommended practices.

A research program might be evaluated in terms of whether it is recognized as 

a national center of excellence, is one of the larger and best research programs in 

the country, is recognized only in terms of particular staff or a particular laboratory, duplicates other, larger facilities, or is not unique or has little capability or 

capacity.

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee

1. Has the program resulted in stakeholder training or education activities that are being used in the workplace or in school or apprentice 

programs? If so, what is the response to what is being done, and how 

widespread is the response?

2. Has the program resulted in standards, regulations, public policy, or 

voluntary guidelines that have been transferred to or created by the 

workplace in response to NIOSH outputs?

3. Has the program resulted in new control technology or administrative 

control concepts that are feasible for use or have been adopted in the 

workplace to reduce risk factors?

4. Has the program resulted in new personal protective equipment that 

is feasible for use or has been adopted in the workplace to reduce risk 

factors or exposures?

5. Has the program contributed to changes in health care practices 

to improve recognition and management of occupational health 

conditions?

6. Has the program resulted in research partnerships with stakeholders 

leading to changes in the workplace?

7. To what extent did the program’s stakeholders find value in NIOSH’s 

products (as shown by document requests, web hits, conference attendance, and so on)?

8. Has the program resulted in changes in employer or worker practices 

associated with the reduction of risk factors?

9. Does the program or a subprogram provide unique staff or laboratory 

capability that is a necessary national resource? If so, is it adequate or 

does it need to be enhanced or reduced?

10. Has the program resulted in interventions that protect both genders, 

vulnerable workers or address the needs of small businesses?

11. To what extent did the program contribute to increased capacity at 

worksites to identify or respond to threats to safety and health?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 263 pp e n d i x A

Assessment

Only a qualitative assessment of product development, usefulness, and impact 

is required at this point in the EC report. Some thought should be given to the 

relative value of intermediate outcomes, and the FC recommends applying the wellaccepted hierarchy-of-controls model. The discussion could include comments on 

how widely products have been used or programs implemented. The qualitative 

discussion should be specific as to the various products developed by the program 

and the extent of their use by specific entities (industry, labor, government, and 

so on) for specific purposes. Whether the products have resulted in changes in 

the workplace or in the reduction of risk factors should be discussed. The recognition accorded to the program or the facilities by its peers (such as recognition 

as a “center of excellence” by national and international communities) should be 

considered in the assessment. A program to be highly ranked should have a high 

level of performance in most of the relevant questions in this section. Whether the 

impact was caused by NIOSH alone or in combination with external agents should 

also be considered in the evaluation. An aspect of the evaluation can be whether 

the impact would have probably occurred without NIOSH’s efforts.

III.B.8. Review of End Outcomes

(Box F in Figure 2)

End outcomes are defined by measures of health and safety and of impact on 

process and programs. The FC recognizes that a major challenge in assessing the 

causal relationship between NIOSH research and specific occupational health and 

safety outcomes is that NIOSH does not have direct responsibility or authority for 

implementing its research findings in the workplace. Furthermore, the benefits of 

NIOSH research program outputs can be realized, potential, or limited to knowledge gain. For example, negative studies contribute to the knowledge base and the 

generation of important new knowledge is a recognized form of outcome, in the 

absence of measurable impacts.

Outcome impact depends on there being a “receptor” for research results, 

including regulatory agencies, consensus and professional organizations, and employers. The ECs should consider questions related to the various stages that lead 

to outputs, such as

1. Did NIOSH research identify a gap in protection or a means of reduction of risk?

2. Did NIOSH convey that information to potential users in a usable 

form?

3. Was the research applied?

4. Did the results work?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

264 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

End outcomes, for purposes of this evaluation, are changes related to health, 

including decreases in injuries, illnesses, deaths, and decreases in exposures or risk 

factors resulting from the research in the specific program or subprogram. Quantitative data are preferable to qualitative, but qualitative analysis may be necessary.

Sources of quantitative data include

• Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on fatal occupational injuries 

(Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries) and nonfatal injuries and illnesses (Annual Survey of Occupational Injury and Illnesses).

• NIOSH intramural surveillance systems, such as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), the coal worker x-ray 

surveillance program, and agricultural worker surveys conducted by 

NIOSH in collaboration with the US Department of Agriculture.

• State-based surveillance systems, such as the NIOSH-funded ABLES, 

and the SENSOR programs (for asthma, pesticides, silicosis, noiseinduced hearing loss, dermatitis, and burns).

• Selected state workers-compensation programs.

• OSHA, which collects exposure data, in the Integrated Management 

Information System.

The FC is unaware of surveillance mechanisms for many occupationally related chronic illnesses such as cancers arising from long exposure to chemicals and 

other stressors. For many outcomes, incidence and prevalence are best evaluated 

by investigator-initiated research.

The strengths and weaknesses of the various sources of outcome data should 

be recognized by the ECs. Quantitative accident, injury, illness, and employment 

data and databases are subject to error and bias and should be used by the ECs 

for drawing inferences only after critical evaluation and examination of whatever 

corroborating data are available. For example, it is widely recognized that occupational illnesses are poorly documented in the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries 

and Illnesses, which captures only incident cases among active workers. Most illnesses that may have a relationship to work are not exclusively so related, and it is 

difficult for health practitioners to diagnose work-relatedness; few are adequately 

trained to make this assessment. Many of these illnesses have long latency and do 

not appear until years after people have left the employment in question. Surveillance programs may systematically undercount some categories of workers, such 

as contingent workers. Challenges posed by inadequate or inaccurate measurement 

systems should not drive programs out of difficult areas of study, and the ECs 

will need to be aware of such a possibility. In particular, contingent and informal 

working arrangements that place workers at greatest risk are also those on which 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 265 pp e n d i x A

surveillance information is almost totally lacking, so novel methods for measuring 

impact may be required.

In addition to measures of illness and injury, levels of exposure to chemical 

and physical agents and to safety and ergonomic hazards can be useful. Exposure 

or probability of exposure can serve as an appropriate proxy for disease or injury 

when a well-described occupational exposure-health association exists. In such 

instances, decreased exposure can be accepted as evidence that the end outcome 

of reduced illness has been achieved. That is particularly necessary in cases (such 

as exposure to asbestos) in which latency between exposure and disease outcome 

(lung cancer) makes effective evaluation of the relevant end outcome infeasible.

As an example of how exposure levels can serve as a proxy, the number of sites 

that exceed an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) or an American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit value is a quantitative 

measure of improvement of occupational health awareness and reduction of risk. 

In addition to exposure level, the number of people exposed and the distribution 

of exposure levels are important. Those data are available from multiple databases 

and studies of exposure. Apart from air monitoring, such measures of exposure 

as biohazard controls, reduction in requirements for use of personal protective 

equipment, and reduction of ergonomic risks are important.

Clearly, the commitment of industry, labor, and government to health and 

safety are critical external factors. Several measures of this commitment can be 

useful for the EC: monetary commitment of the groups, attitude, staffing, and 

surveys of relative level of importance. To the extent that the resources allocated 

to safety and health are limiting factors, the ECs should explicitly assess NIOSH 

performance in the context of constraints.

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee

1. What are the amounts and qualities of end-outcomes data (such as 

injuries, illness, exposure and productivity affected by health)?

2. What is the temporal trend in those data?

3. Is there objective evidence of improvements in occupational safety or 

health?

4. To what degree has the NIOSH program or subprogram been responsible for improvements in occupational safety or health?

5. If there is no time trend in the data, how do findings compare with data 

from other comparable US groups or the corresponding populations 

in other countries?

6. Is there evidence that external factors have affected outcome measures?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

266 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

7. Has the program been responsible for outcomes outside the United 

States that have not been described in another category?

Assessment

For this part of the assessment, the EC should provide a qualitative assessment 

discussing the evidence of reductions in injuries and illnesses or their appropriate 

proxies (impacts).

III.B.9. Review of Other Outcomes

There may be health and safety impacts not yet appreciated, and other beneficial social, economic, and environmental outputs, including potential NIOSH impacts outside the United States. Many NIOSH study results and training programs 

may be judged to be important, or there may be evidence of implementation of 

NIOSH recommendations, outside the United States.

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee

1. Is the program likely to produce a favorable change that has not yet 

occurred or not been appreciated?

2. Has the program been responsible for other social, economic, security, 

or environmental outcomes?

3. Has the program’s work had an impact on occupational health and 

safety in other countries?

Assessment

Evaluation by the EC may consist of a discussion of other outcomes, including positive changes that have not yet occurred; other social, economic, security, 

or environmental outcomes; and the impact that NIOSH has had on international 

occupational safety and health. It might also consider the incorporation of international research results into the NIOSH program of knowledge transfer for 

industry sectors.

III.B.10. Summary Evaluation Ratings and Rationale

An EC should use its expert judgment to rate the relevance and impact of the 

research program and its important subprograms by first summarizing its assessments of the subprograms and overall program according to the several items listed 

in Table 4. Table 4 is only a worksheet intended as an aid to the EC in its evalua-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 267 160pp e n d i x A H E A R I N G L O S S R E S E A R C H A T N I O S H

TABLE 4 Evaluation Committee Worksheet to Assess Research Programs and

Subprograms

Please respond to each with “major or important,” “moderate,” “likely,” “limited,” or “none.”

Background Context for Program Impact

1.1 Evidence of reduction of risk factors in the workplace (intermediate outcome) and evidence that external

factors affected reduction

1.2 Evidence of reduction in workplace exposure, illness, or injuries (end outcome) and evidence that

external factors affected reduction

Subprogram

Activity

Addressing Charge 1 Category Program 1 ... ... n

1.3 Contributions of NIOSH research Research

and transfer activities to changes

in work-related practices Transfer

1.4 Contributions of NIOSH research Research

and transfer activities to

reductions in workplace exposure, Transfer

illness, or injuries

1.5 Evidence of external factors Research

preventing application of NIOSH

research results Transfer

1.6 Contribution of NIOSH research Research

to enhancement of capacity in

government or other research Transfer

institutions

1.7 Contributions of NIOSH research Research

to productivity, security, or

environmental quality (beneficial Transfer

side effects)

Addressing Charge 2

2.1 Relevance of current and recently Research

completed research and transfer

activities to future improvements Transfer

in workplace safety and health

2.2 Progress in targeting research to Research

areas of study most relevant to

future improvements in Transfer

occupational safety and health
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

268 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

tion. Its purpose is to encourage the EC to summarize its work in one place and 

to concentrate on the subprograms and the items that will contribute to the final 

impact and relevance scores.

To set the context for this step in the evaluation of the impact of the research 

program in preparation to respond to charge 1, the EC will first need to consider 

the available evidence of changes in work-related risks and adverse effects and 

external factors related to the changes. That information should be organized as a 

prose response to items 1.1 and 1.2 in Table 4.

Next, the EC should review the responses to the questions in Sections III.B.6 

through III.B.8 and systematically rate the impact of the research program and 

its subprograms by responding to items 1.3-1.7 in Table 4. To complete the table, 

the EC response should use one of the following five terms: “major or important,” 

“moderate,” “likely,” “limited,” or “none” (since 1995). The EC should evaluate 

separately the impact of the research and the impact of transfer activities. High 

ratings on items 1.3-1.7 require the committee’s judgment that the program has 

contributed to outcomes. For example, outcomes have occurred earlier than they 

would have or are better than they would have been in the absence of the research 

program, or outcomes would have occurred in the absence of external factors beyond NIOSH’s control or ability to plan around.

The EC should then assess the relevance of the research program and subprograms in preparation for addressing charge 2. The EC should review the responses 

to the questions in Sections III.B.2 through III.B.5 and rate the relevance of the 

research program and its subprograms by responding to items 2.1 and 2.2 in Table 

4. The same five terms should be used (“major or important,” “moderate,” “likely,” 

“limited,” or “none”) to evaluate separately the relevance of the research and the 

relevance of the transfer activities. Transfer activities occur in two contexts: (1) 

NIOSH efforts to translate intellectual products into practice and (2) efforts by 

stakeholders to take advantage of NIOSH products.

Final Program Ratings

To provide the final assessment of the research program for charge 1 (impact) 

and charge 2 (relevance), the ECs will use their expert judgment, their responses 

to the questions in Table 4, and any other appropriate information to arrive at one 

overall rating for the impact of the research program and one for its relevance to 

the improvement of occupational safety and health. In light of substantial differences among the types of research programs that will be reviewed and the challenge to arrive at a summative evaluation of both impact and relevance, however, 

the FC chose not to attempt to construct a single algorithm to produce the two 

final ratings.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 269 pp e n d i x A

Having completed Table 4, the EC should undertake its final assessment of 

the impact and relevance of the program. Final program ratings will consist of 

the numerical scores and prose descriptions of why the scores were given. As explained below, the ECs will summarize their responses to charges 1 and 2 by rating 

the relevance and impact of the NIOSH research program on five-point scales in 

which 1 is the lowest and 5 the highest rating. The FC has made an effort to establish mutually exclusive rating categories in the five-point rating scale; when the 

basis of a rating fits more than one category, the highest applicable score should 

be assigned. ECs will need to consider the impact and relevance of both NIOSH 

completed research and research in progress. In general, the assessment of impact 

will consider research completed, and the assessment of relevance will include 

research in progress related to likely future improvements. When assessing the 

relevance of the program, the EC should keep in mind how well the program has 

considered the frequency and severity of the problems being addressed, whether 

appropriate attention has been directed to both genders, vulnerable populations 

or hard-to-reach workplaces, and whether the different needs of large and small 

businesses have been accounted for.

The FC has some concern that the impact scoring system proposed below 

might be considered a promotion of the conventional occupational-health research paradigm that focuses on health-effect and technology research and not 

give much emphasis to socioeconomic and policy research and to surveillance and 

diffusion research (as opposed to activities) needed to effect change. Clearly, not 

all intermediate outcomes occur in the workplace. There are important outcomes 

much farther out on the causal chain that NIOSH can affect, and not all these can 

be defined as well-accepted intermediate outcomes. NIOSH, for example, has an 

important role to play in generating knowledge that may contribute to changing 

norms in the insurance industry, in health-care practice, in public-health practice, 

and in the community at large. The ECs may find that some of these issues need 

to be addressed and considered as important to influence the external factors that 

limit application of more traditional research findings. Given the rapidly changing 

nature of work and the workforce and some of the intractable problems in manufacturing, mining, and some other fields, the ECs are encouraged to think beyond 

the traditional paradigm.

Rating of Impact

5 = Research program has made a major contribution to worker health 

and safety on the basis of end outcomes or well-accepted intermediate 

outcomes.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

270 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

4 = Research program has made a moderate contribution on the basis of end 

outcomes or well-accepted intermediate outcomes; research program 

generated important new knowledge and is engaged in transfer activities, but well-accepted intermediate outcomes or end outcomes have not 

been documented.

3 = Research program activities or outputs are going on and are likely to 

produce improvements in worker health and safety (with explanation 

of why not rated higher).

2 = Research program activities or outputs are going on and may result in new 

knowledge or technology, but only limited application is expected.

1 = Research activities and outputs are NOT likely to have any application.

NA = Impact cannot be assessed; program not mature enough.

Rating of Relevance

5 = Research is in highest-priority subject areas and highly relevant to improvements in workplace protection; research results in, and NIOSH is 

engaged in, transfer activities at a significant level (highest rating).

4 = Research is in high-priority subject area and adequately connected to 

improvements in workplace protection; research results in, and NIOSH 

is engaged in, transfer activities.

3 = Research focuses on lesser priorities and is loosely or only indirectly 

connected to workplace protection; NIOSH is not significantly involved 

in transfer activities.

2 = Research program is not well integrated or well focused on priorities 

and is not clearly connected to workplace protection and inadequately 

connected to transfer activities.

1 = Research in the research program is an ad hoc collection of projects, is 

not integrated into a program, and is not likely to improve workplace 

safety or health.

III.C. Identifying Significant Emerging Research (Addressing Charge 3)

Among the most challenging aspects of conducting research for the purpose of 

prevention of injury and illness is identifying new or emerging needs or trends and 

formulating an active research response that appropriately uses scarce resources in 

anticipation of those needs. Each EC should review the procedures that NIOSH has 

in place to identify needed research relevant to the NIOSH mission.

Each EC should review the success that NIOSH has had in identifying and 

addressing research to emerging issues. The review should include examination 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 271 pp e n d i x A

of leading indicators from appropriate federal agency sources, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of 

Defense, and the Department of Commerce. Those indicators should track new 

technologies, products, and processes and disease or injury trends.

One source of inputs deserving particular attention is the NIOSH HHE reports. NIOSH’s HHE program is a separate legislatively mandated program that 

offers a potential mechanism to identify emerging research needs that could be 

incorporated as an input in each of the programs evaluated. The ECs should consider whether appropriate consideration has been given to findings from the HHE 

investigations as they are related to the research program under review.

Some additional indicators might include NIOSH and the NIOSH-funded 

FACE, the AOEC reports, the US Chemical Safety Board investigations, SENSOR 

and other state-based surveillance programs, and others. In addition, appropriate 

federal advisory committees and other stakeholder groups should be consulted to 

provide qualitative information.

The EC members should use their expert judgment both to evaluate what 

NIOSH has identified as emerging research targets (charge 2) and to respond to 

charge 3 by providing recommendations to NIOSH for additional research that 

NIOSH has not yet identified. An EC’s response to charge 3 will consist primarily 

of recommendations for research in subjects that the EC considers important and 

of the committee’s rationale.

Questions to Guide the Evaluation Committee

1. What information does NIOSH review to identify emerging research 

needs?

a. What is the process for review?

b. How often does the process take place?

c. How are NIOSH staff scientists and NIOSH leadership engaged?

d. What is the process for moving from ideas to formal planning and 

resource allocation?

2. How are stakeholders involved?

a. What advisory or stakeholder groups are asked to identify emerging research targets?

b. How often are such groups consulted, and how are suggestions 

followed up?

3. What new research targets have been identified for future development 

in the program under evaluation?

a. How were they identified?
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

272 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

b. Were there lessons learned that could help to identify other emerging issues?

c. Does the EC agree with the issues identified and selected as significant and with the NIOSH response, or were important issues 

overlooked?

d. Is there evidence of unwise expenditure of resources on unimportant issues?

IV. EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPORT TEMPLATE

The following outline flows from the FC’s review of the generalized logic model 

prepared by NIOSH, the request for information from NIOSH programs, and the 

assessment model described earlier in this report.

I. Introduction:

This section should be a brief descriptive summary of the history of the 

program (and subprograms) being evaluated, with respect to pre-NORA, 

NORA 1, and current and future plans of the research program presented 

by NIOSH. It presents the context for the research on safety and health; 

goals, objectives, and resources; groupings of subprograms; and any other 

significant or pertinent information. (A list of the NIOSH materials reviewed should be provided in an appendix to the EC report.)

II. Evaluation of programs and subprograms (charges 1 and 2):

A. Evaluation summary (includes a brief summary of the evaluation with respect to impact and relevance, scores for impact and 

relevance, and summary statements addressing charges 1 and 

2).

B. Strategic goals and objectives: Describes assessment of the subprograms and overall program for relevance.

C. Review of inputs: Describes adequacy of inputs to achieve 

goals.

D. Review of activities: Describes assessment of the relevance and 

quality of the activities.

E. Review of research program outputs: Describes assessment 

of relevance, quality, and potential usefulness of the research 

program.

F. Review of intermediate outcomes and causal impact: Describes 

assessment of the intermediate outcomes and the causal attribu-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 273 pp e n d i x A

tion to NIOSH; includes the likely impacts and recent outcomes 

in the assessment.

G. Review of end outcomes: Describes the end outcomes related 

to health and safety and provides an assessment of the type and 

degree of causal attribution to NIOSH.

H. Review of other outcomes: Discusses other health and safety 

impacts that have not yet occurred; other beneficial social, economic, and environmental outcomes; and international dimensions and outcomes.

I. Summary of ratings and rationale (see Table 4).

III. Identification of needed research (charge 2):

The EC should assess the progress that the NIOSH program has made 

in targeting new research in the fields of occupational safety and health. 

There should be a discussion of the assessment process and results.

IV. Emerging research areas (charge 3):

The EC should assess whether the NIOSH program has identified significant emerging research areas that appear especially important in terms 

of their relevance to the mission of NIOSH. The EC should respond to 

NIOSH’s perspective and add its own recommendations.

V. Recommendations for program improvement:

On the basis of the review and evaluation of the program, the EC may 

provide recommendations for improving the relevance of the NIOSH 

research program to health and safety conditions in the workplace and 

the impact of the research program on health and safety in the workplace 

as related to the research program under review.

Appendix A: List of the NIOSH and related materials collected in the process 

of the evaluation

V. FRAMEWORK COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT

At the conclusion of all individual program reviews, the FC will prepare a final 

report summarizing the findings of all the evaluating committees and providing 

NIOSH with an overall evaluation. All program ratings will be summarized and 

might be plotted graphically or with a Web chart.

The following is a proposed outline of the FC’s final report:
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

274 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

I. Summary of national needs identified by the research programs 

reviewed.

A. On the basis of the best available evidence, place those needs in 

the context of the overall estimated potential work-related disease 

and injury burden.

B. Discuss the choices made and alternatives that might be the focus 

of current or future attention.

C. Comment on programs not selected by NIOSH for evaluation by 

the National Academies.

II. Assessment of how well the program goals.

A. Were matched to the research program needs.

B. Were adjusted to new information and inputs as the field of interest changed or program results became available.

III. Assessment of NIOSH overall performance in the research programs 

reviewed.

A. Distribution of available inputs.

B. Activities and outputs.

C. Intermediate outcomes.

D. Summary assessment of significant differences among the 

programs.

E. International impact.

F. Leveraging of the NIOSH research activity with respect to other 

public and private research programs.

G. Assessment of relative importance of external factors in permitting 

or preventing intermediate or end outcomes; attention paid to 

accounting for and planning within the constraints of external factors (not simply assigning lack of progress to external factors).

IV. Overall assessment of NIOSH impact on progress in reducing occupational injury and illness.

A. Breakthrough knowledge.

B. International impact.

C. Addressing disparities.

D. Targeting residual risks and intractable risks.

E. Coordinating NIOSH research activity with respect to other public 

and private research programs.

F. Impact on occupational safety and health.

V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

275

B

Committee Methods for Gathering Information

This appendix details the methods used by the National Research Council 

Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research 

Program to gather information to carry out its work. The methods were reviewing written information from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, inviting comments from stakeholders, and hearing presentations at two 

information-gathering meetings.

WRITTEN INFORMATION FROM NIOSH

The NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program (AFF Program) provided a roughly 500-page notebook of information to the committee 

in advance of the committee’s first meeting. The notebook, referred to by NIOSH 

and the committee as the evidence package, contained information on the history 

of the AFF Program; the program’s resources, goals, and objectives; intramural 

research activities; extramural research funded by NIOSH; program products and 

technology transfer; and relevant NIOSH-wide processes and activities. The AFF 

Program and others in NIOSH provided extensive additional information to the 

committee in response to questions that arose during the evaluation process. All 

interactions and follow-up with NIOSH were carried out through staff. A list of 

materials provided to the committee by NIOSH is found in Appendix C. In addition 

to written materials provided by NIOSH, the committee had independent access 

to other NIOSH papers and conference materials.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

276 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

The committee was directed by the Framework Document to consider stakeholder input in assessing the impact and relevance of the NIOSH AFF Program. 

Issues of interest included whether stakeholder input was taken into consideration 

in shaping the program and stakeholders’ views on the program’s research activities and products.

The Framework Document did not specify the means of eliciting input from 

stakeholders. The committee determined that conducting a systematic survey was 

not feasible within the constraints of the project. As an alternative, the committee 

invited stakeholders to provide comments relevant to its evaluation of the impact 

and relevance of the NIOSH AFF Program. The objective was to assemble comments from a diverse group of organizations and individuals. Individual invitations 

to comment were sent to about 200 people and organizations. The invitation was 

also posted on a publicly available Web site.

Identification of Stakeholders

The committee identified possible stakeholders in the NIOSH AFF Program 

through several means. The intramural research program provided a list of its 

stakeholders, who included collaborators and partners. Working independently 

and drawing on suggestions from committee members and staff, the committee 

identified as possible stakeholders individuals and organizations with an interest 

in equipment safety, child and youth safety in agriculture, occupational chemical 

exposures, farmworker safety and health, logger safety and health, fishing vessel 

safety, and labor issues. The group included researchers in academe and private 

organizations, professional societies, organizations representing labor and industry, 

and others that deal directly with AFF safety and health or were considered likely 

to be aware of safety and health issues. Stakeholders were identified in the various sectors associated with AFF: academe, government, non-profit interests, and 

labor. The committee also identified potential stakeholders among minority-group 

professional organizations and small business associations. The list of stakeholders included representatives of federal and state agencies and of researchers and 

organizations in other countries.

Letters to Stakeholders

The invitation to comment on the NIOSH AFF Program was issued in a letter 

from committee Chair Paul Gunderson (see Box B-1). The committee staff sent the 

letter by e-mail in early April 2007 to each of the identified stakeholders. Committee 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 277 pp e n d i x B

BOX B-1

Letter Inviting Comment on the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 

Research Program

Dear Colleague:

As the Chair of the National Academies Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, 

and Fishing (AFF) Research Program, I invite your input to our committee’s work. The committee’s 

charge is to evaluate the impact and relevance of NIOSH’s work in reducing workplace injury and illness 

and identify future directions NIOSH might take. The Committee to Review the NIOSH AFF Program 

is seeking input and advice from a variety of individuals and organizations that we believe are likely 

to have an interest in agriculture, forestry, and fishing safety and health and associated research. You 

have been identified as a potential source for such inputs and advice.

The committee’s charge is to examine the following issues for the NIOSH AFF Research 

Program:

1. Progress in reducing workplace illness and injuries through occupational safety and health 

research, assessed on the basis of an analysis of relevant data about workplace illnesses and injuries 

and an evaluation of the effect that NIOSH research has had in reducing illness and injuries.

2. Progress in targeting new research to the areas of occupational safety and health most relevant 

to future improvements in workplace protection.

3. Significant emerging research areas that appear especially important in terms of their relevance 

to the mission of NIOSH.

The committee will evaluate the AFF Safety and Health Research Program using an assessment 

framework developed by the NRC/IOM Committee to Review the NIOSH Research Programs. The 

evaluation will consider what the NIOSH program is producing as well as whether the program can 

reasonably be credited with changes in workplace practices, or whether such changes are the result 

of other factors unrelated to NIOSH. For cases where impact is difficult to measure directly, the committee reviewing the AFF Safety and Health Research Program may use information on intermediate 

outcomes to evaluate performance.

The NIOSH AFF Safety and Health Program provided the NRC evaluation committee with information on its work in five goal areas:

(1) Hazard Surveillance—reduce hazards, illnesses, and injuries in the AFF workforce by conducting population-based and hazard surveillance;

(2) Priority Populations at Risk—reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among subgroups of 

the working population determined to be at high risk or underserved by traditional occupational health 

approaches;

(3) Chemical Exposures—determine the chronic effects of agricultural exposures/health outcomes 

from toxic exposures and develop appropriate interventions to reduce the incidence of disease;

(4) Hazard Control Systems—reduce injuries and illnesses in AFF Program-related industries by 

developing and demonstrating control systems and making them available; and

continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

278 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

(5) Outreach—reduce injuries and illnesses by informing and educating employers and employees 

about occupational safety and health hazards and control systems.

We would be very grateful for your comments on any or all of these areas. It would be valuable 

for the committee to know whether you are familiar with NIOSH activities and products related to 

agriculture, forestry, and fishing safety and health and what kind of experience you may have had 

working with the agency or its products. The committee would be particularly interested in comments 

you may have on the relevance and impact of NIOSH’s work in agriculture, forestry, and fishing safety 

and health over the past 10 years in any of the five areas of research it has defined.

In addition, we would value your views on two other matters included in the committee’s charge. 

First, what have you seen as the major research needs and challenges over the past 10 years in agriculture, forestry, and fishing safety and health? Second, what do you see as significant emerging 

research needs or opportunities concerning agriculture, forestry, and fishing safety and health?

The committee will review the comments it receives at its remaining meeting, which will be held 

on May 30-31, 2007. We encourage you to submit your comments in time for consideration at the 

May meeting. You are welcome to comment as an interested individual or from the perspective of your 

organization. In addition, please feel free to share this letter with other individuals or organizations 

with an interest in the AFF safety and health research program.

Please provide your comments through our National Academies staff, using any of a variety of 

routes: e-mail, mail, fax, telephone, or through our web-based comment form, where providing name 

and affiliation is optional. However, note that any written comments submitted to the committee 

(whether by mail, e-mail, fax, or the project’s comment form) will be included in the study’s public 

access file.

If you have any questions about contacting the committee or providing materials for the committee’s consideration, I encourage you to speak with our study director Peggy Tsai. Contact details 

are provided at the end of this letter.

Thank you very much for any assistance you can provide to our study committee as we conduct 

our review of the NIOSH AFF Safety and Health Research Program.

Sincerely,

Paul Gunderson, Ph.D.

Chair, Committee to Review the NIOSH Agriculture,

Forestry, and Fishing Research Program

Submitting Comments to the Study Committee

Mail:

Peggy Tsai

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

500 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

BOX B-1

Continued
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 279 pp e n d i x B

members did not contact any stakeholders directly. The letter was also made available publicly from early April through early June 2007 in a posting on a National 

Academies Web site. In addition, a NIOSH Web page noted the opportunity for 

NIOSH stakeholders to provide input to the review and provided a link to the National Academies site. Interested stakeholders were asked to send their comments to 

the study staff via postal mail, e-mail, or the project Web site. Responses could be 

submitted anonymously through the Web site. The committee invited stakeholder 

comments on several points: familiarity with NIOSH activities and products related 

to AFF, experience in working with NIOSH, the relevance and impact of NIOSH’s 

work over the last decade in reducing occupational injuries and fatalities, and the 

major research challenges over the last decade and significant emerging research 

needs in AFF safety and health.

By June 2006, 64 responses had been received. Stakeholder comments are 

available to the public through the National Academies Public Access file and were 

provided to NIOSH in their original form.

Overall, the NIOSH stakeholders who responded provided favorable comments. The committee recognizes that the responses to the request for comments 

are not necessarily representative of all NIOSH stakeholders. However, the comments provided to the committee gave helpful insights into respondents’ perspectives on the NIOSH AFF Program and informed the committee’s understanding 

of the program’s relationship with some of its stakeholders.

Comments on Emerging Research Needs or Opportunities

To assist the committee in reviewing stakeholder input, the staff compiled 

the comments on emerging research needs or opportunities. The compilation is 

presented in Box B-2; some comments are captured in abbreviated form, and others are presented nearly verbatim. No attempt was made to evaluate the merits of 

individual stakeholder suggestions or to set priorities within or between the broad 

research categories used by the staff to group the comments. The presentation of 

suggestions in Box B-2 does not represent an endorsement by the committee.

Respondents

The following responded to the committee’s invitation for comments on the 

NIOSH AFF Program:

Brian Aldrich

Cornell University

Steven Banks

Farmer
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

280 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

BOX B-2

Emerging Research in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health 

Suggested by Stakeholders

Social Attitudes

Gain better understanding of the social factors on farms that affect safety practices.

Children’s Safety

With changes in the global marketplace, it is important to understand the changing role of children as 

sources of labor on farms and society’s tolerance of putting children at undue risk.

Hearing Impairment and Loss

Assess the prevalence of hearing loss in workers in agriculture (and in rural areas in general). Effectiveness of hearing-loss prevention programs must be assessed and established before widespread 

implementation.

Additional research is needed to explore the association between hearing impairment and traumatic occupational injury in agriculture.

Healthcare

Affordable healthcare should be available to farmers and rural workers. Healthcare availability and affordability may be factors in the demise of family farms.

Surveillance

Implement a comprehensive surveillance program on a national scale to monitor occupational disease, 

injury, and death. Resources can then be focused better to address and prevent disease, injury, and 

death.

A more comprehensive surveillance system is needed. Less emphasis should be placed on writing papers 

and reports, and more on implementing surveillance in the workforce and working face to face with 

organizations and workers.

James Bittner

Singer Farms

Donald S. Bloswick

University of Utah

Roy Buchan

Colorado State University

Bob Callender

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation

Paul Clemente

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation

Henry P. Cole

University of Kentucky
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 281 pp e n d i x B

Ergonomics

Design of equipment and tools.

Educational Collaboration

More involvement with the universities that offer agriculture degrees is needed. In the last 4 or 5 years, that 

appears to have fallen drastically. Web sites for the University of Texas center are all but useless.

High-school agricultural science teachers need an intensive laboratory safety workshop and certification. 

NIOSH is perhaps the best-positioned entity to assist in this endeavor by providing funding to conduct 

week-long safety certification workshops.

Immigrant and Migrant Workers

Immigrants do more of the low-quality at-risk work than non-immigrants. Communication should be made 

available in their own languages so that their exposure to risk can be reduced.

There should be less emphasis on migrant labor. There needs to be much more emphasis on sustaining 

the work of older producers and laborers.

Applied Research

Pulmonary disease, ergonomic issues, noise exposure, and traumatic injury associated with farm machinery 

will be important research topics. Applied field research is necessary to address the problems of occupational safety. There are so many unknowns that regional and local research may be needed.

Translational methods that are participatory should be developed and demonstrated.

Prevention and Treatment

Gain better understanding of risk and protective factors for stress-related illness on the farm.

Miscellaneous

Implement safety standards in areas that are being placed into land trusts.

Emerging subjects include zoonotic infectious diseases, special populations, and the psychosocial impact 

of diminishing natural resources on AFF workers.

Mary Lou Wranesh Cook

SUNY Institute of Technology

George Cook

University of Vermont

Jim T. Criswell

Oklahoma State University

George Daniels

Farm Employers Labor Service

Helene Dembrowski

Dembrowski Orchards, Inc.

Mike DeSpain

Tribal EPA

Eileen Douglas

Unknown

Daniel Dructor

America Loggers Council
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

282 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Linda Fetzer

Pennsylvania State University

Kimberly Fleming

Cornell Cooperative Extension

Ralph Gaiss

Northeast Equipment Dealers 

Association

Judith Gillan

The New England Small Farm Institute

Kevin Hackett

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension 

Service Program

Dan Hair

Workers’ Compensation Fund

George F Henning

Pennsylvania Agromedicine

Ron Jester

University of Delaware

Katherine H. Kirkland

Association of Occupational and 

Environmental Clinics (AOEC)

Richard Klossner

Farmer

Jeffrey Levin

Southwest Center for Agricultural 

Health, Injury Prevention, and 

Education

John May

NYCAMH/Northeast Center

Karen Mountain

Migrant Clinicians Network

Cynthia Mulbury

Northern Orchard Co., Inc

Melvin L. Myers

University of Kentucky

Emory University

Anne Nolan

Hudson River HealthCare Inc.

Mike Olin

Farmer

Sharon Pahlman

Cooperative Extension, University of 

Maryland

Dwayne Pavelock

Sam Houston State University

William Pickett

Queen’s University

Mark Purschwitz

Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation

Deborah Reed

University of Kentucky

Marie Reed

Texas Department of State Health 

Services

Heidi Roeber Rice

HealthPartners Occupational and 

Environmental Medicine
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 283 pp e n d i x B

Dan Roth

Finger Lakes Coalition of Farmworker 

Agencies

Charles V. Schwab

Iowa State University

Charles Siepel

New Mexico State University, 

Cooperative Extension Service

Jim Steinke

Farm Equipment Safety Source

James Tollett

Southern Arkansas University

Robin Tutor

East Coast Migrant Head Start Project

Doug Ullrich

Sam Houston State University

Peter Wallingford

Wallingford’s Fruit House

Louise Waterman

Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food 

and Markets

John R. Wheat

The University of Alabama

Catharine Young

The New York State Senate

Tom Zangrillo

Scattered Acres Farm

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

The committee held three face-to-face meetings during the course of its study. 

The first two included open sessions for information gathering. The agendas for the 

open sessions appear below. The third meeting was closed. After the third meeting, the committee held a subcommittee meeting and several e-mail exchanges to 

finalize its report.

Meeting I

January 19, 2007

Keck Center of the National Academies

500 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Friday, January 19, 2007

10:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Paul Gunderson, PhD

Committee Chair
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

284 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

10:05 a.m. NIOSH Overview

Lewis V. Wade, PhD

NIOSH Senior Scientific Advisor

10:30 a.m. NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research Program 

Overview

George Conway, MD, MPH

Director, NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Program

11:00 a.m. Surveillance (Chapter 3)

John P. Sestito, JD, MS

NIOSH Surveillance Program Coordinator

11:30 a.m. Children Working in Agriculture (Chapter 4.1)

Dawn N. Castillo, MPH

Chief, Surveillance and Field Investigations Branch

NIOSH Division of Safety Research

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. National Children’s Center Rural and Agricultural Health and 

Safety Program

Barbara C. Lee, RN, PhD

Director, National Farm Medicine Center, National Children’s 

Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety, Marshfield 

Clinic

1:30 p.m. Commercial Fishing Safety (Chapter 4.4)

Jennifer M. Lincoln, PhD

Commercial Fishing Research Program Officer

Assistant Program Manager, NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and 

Fishing

2:00 p.m. Chemical Exposures and Health Effects (Chapter 5)

Teresa M. Schnorr, PhD, MS

Director, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field 

Studies

2:30 p.m. Break

2:45 p.m. Tractor Safety (Chapter 6)

John R. Myers, MSF

Health Statistician, NIOSH Division of Safety Research

3:15 p.m. Health Communications/Outreach (Chapter 7)

Larry Chapman, PhD

Department of Biological Systems Engineering

University of Wisconsin–Madison
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 285 pp e n d i x B

3:45 p.m. Public Comment

(Individuals should sign up ahead of time at the registration table 

to provide comment)

4:15 p.m. Wrap-up of Open Session

Paul Gunderson, Committee Chair

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

Meeting II

March 28-29, 2007

Beckman Center of the National Academies

100 Academy Drive

Irvine, CA

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions

Description of study charge and goals for the meeting

Paul Gunderson, Committee Chair

9:10 a.m. Panel on the NIOSH Ag Centers

• Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center

Richard A. Fenske, Director

• Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety

Marc B. Schenker, Director

• High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and 

Safety

Stephen J. Reynolds, Director

• Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, 

and Education

Jeffrey L. Levin, Director

11:10 a.m. Break

11:25 a.m. Forestry Landscape

John J. Garland, Professor Emeritus of Forest Engineering

Oregon State University

12:00 p.m. Fishing Landscape

Michael M. Rosecrans, Chief of Fishing Vessel Safety, U.S. Coast 

Guard

12:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Agricultural Health Study

Michael Alavanja (via teleconference), NIH Senior Investigator Michael Alavanja (via teleconference), NIH Senior Investigator
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

286 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

2:00 p.m. Regulatory Perspective—Cal/OSHA

William Krycia, Regional Manager, Department of Industrial 

Relations

2:30 p.m. Pesticide Safety—California Environmental Protection Agency

Charles M. Andrews, Chief of Worker Health and Safety Branch, 

Department of Pesticide Regulation

3:00 p.m. Break

3:20 p.m. Producer Communities

• Organics

David Runsten, Executive Director, Community Alliance with 

Family Farms

• Dairy

Ray Souza, President, Western United Dairymen

• Crops and Growers

George Daniels, Executive Vice President, Farm Employers Labor 

Service

4:50 p.m. Wrap-up for the day

5:00 p.m. Adjourn

Thursday, March 29, 2007

8:30 a.m. LaborPanel *

• California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.

Ilene Jacobs, Director, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.

Michael Marsh, Director, Agricultural Worker Health Project, 

California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.

• International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Mike Johnston (via teleconference), Campaign Coordinator, 

Strategic Research and Campaigns Department

9:30 a.m. Break

9:45 a.m. The Future of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing

• Vision of forestry for the future

Robert B. Rummer (via teleconference), USDA Forest Service, 

Project Leader of Forest Operations and Engineering Research

• Vision of agriculture for the future

Brad Rein, USDA National Program Leader

• Vision of fishing for the future

Jerry Dzugan, Director of Alaska Marine Safety Education 

Association
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 287 pp e n d i x B

11:15 a.m. Public Comment

(Individuals should sign up ahead of time at the registration table 

to provide comment)

11:40 a.m. Wrap-up of Open Session

Paul Gunderson, Committee Chair

*Representatives of the United Farm Workers of America, United Food and Commercial Workers, Farm Labor Organizing Committee, and Frente Indigena De 

Organizaciones were invited to speak to the committee but declined.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The committee extends its gratitude to the NIOSH staff. The AFF Program staff 

faced the substantial task of assembling the initial set of materials that were provided to the committee for this study. They also assembled a considerable amount 

of material in response to the committee’s requests for additional information. The 

committee extends particular thanks to the NIOSH staff who gave presentations or 

responded to questions from the committee at its meetings, including Lewis Wade, 

George Conway, John Sestito, Dawn Castillo, Barbara Lee, Jennifer Lincoln, Teresa 

Schnorr, John Myers, Larry Chapman, Richard Fenske, Marc Schenker, Stephen 

Reynolds, and Jeffrey Levin.

The committee also thanks the many members of the agriculture, forestry, and 

fishing communities outside NIOSH who contributed to the study by providing 

comments on the NIOSH AFF Program, making presentations at the committee’s 

meetings, or providing additional information in response to committee requests. In 

addition to those listed earlier in this appendix, the committee acknowledges David 

Wegman of the National Academies Committee for the Review of NIOSH Research 

Programs, Michael Alavanja, Charles Andrews, George Daniels, Jerry Dzugan, John 

Garland, Ilene Jacobs, Mike Johnston, William Krycia, Michael Marsh, Brad Rein, 

Michael Rosecrans, Robert Rummer, David Runsten, and Ray Souza.

The committee recognizes especially the assistance of George Conway. Dr. 

Conway served as the committee’s point of contact for the NIOSH AFF Program 

and was tireless and gracious in his efforts to respond to the committee’s many 

information requests and questions. The committee is also grateful for the assistance of Raymond Sinclair, who ably and patiently acted as a liaison between the 

committee and NIOSH as a whole.

The committee appreciates the support of Andrew Pope, director of the Institute of Medicine Board on Health Sciences Policy, Greg Symmes, deputy executive of the Division of Earth and Life Studies, and Evan Douple and Sammantha 

Magsino, who serve as staff to the Committee for the Review of NIOSH Research 

Programs.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

288

C

Information Provided by the 

NIOSH AFF Program

Some of these documents are available online at the following NIOSH website: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nas/agforfish/. All of the materials are available for review 

at the National Academies through the study’s public access file.

Ayes, P., and J. Liu. 1997. Report of Overturn Sensor and Tractor Rollover. Fort Collins: Colorado 

State University.

Buchan, V., and H. Holmquist-Johnson. 2007. NIOSH Agricultural Center Initiative Evaluation 

Project—FY2006. Contract # 212-2004-09852. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.

Burau, K., E. Shipp, S. Cooper, R. Frankowski, S. McKinnon, and K. Walker. 2006. Response accuracy 

of hazard identification in migrant farmworkers. Journal of Agromedicine 11:17-26.

Busbee, D. 2006. Reporter Gene Systems to Detect Endocrine Disruptive Chemicals: Final Progress Report. Tyler, TX: Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education.

Carruth, A.K. 2006. Louisiana Healthy Farm Families Initiative: Final Progress Report. Hammond, 

LA: Southeastern Louisiana University, School of Nursing.

Carruth, A.K, and C. Logan. 2002. Depressive symptoms in farm women: Effects of health status and farming lifestyle characteristics, behaviors, and beliefs. Journal of Community Health

27:213-228.

Carruth, A.K., S. Browning, D. Reed, L. Skarke, and L. Sealey. 2006. The impact of farm lifestyle and 

health characteristics: Cervical cancer screening among southern farmwomen. Nursing Research

55:121-127.

Carruth, A.K., L. Skarke, B. Moffett, and C. Prestholdt. 2001. Women in agriculture: Risk and injury 

experiences on family farms. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association 56:15-18.

Cooper, C., S.P. Cooper, D. Del Junco, E. Shipp, R. Whitworth, and S.R. Cooper. 2006. Web-based 

data collection: Detailed methods of a questionnaire and data gathering tool. Epidemiologic 

Perspectives and Innovations 3:1.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 289 pp e n d i x C

Cooper, S. 2006. A Study of Work Injuries in Farmworker Children: Final Progress Report. Tyler, TX: 

Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education.

Cooper, S., E. Heitman, E. Fox, B. Quill, P. Knudson, S. Zahm, N. McNaughton, and R. Ryder. 2004. 

Ethical issues in conducting migrant farmworker studies. Journal of Immigrant Health 6:29-39.

Cooper, S., K. Burau, R. Frankowski, E. Shipp, D. Del Junco, R. Whitworth, A. Sweeney, N.McNaughton, 

N. Weller, and C. Hanis. 2006. A Cohort Study of Injuries in Migrant Farm Worker Families in 

South Texas. Annals of Epidemiology 16:313-320.

Cooper, S.P., S.R. Cooper, S. Felknor, V. Santana, F. Fischer, E. Shipp, and M. Vela Acosta. 2005. 

Nontraditional Work Factors in Farmworker Adolescent Populations: Implications for Health 

Research and Interventions. Public Health Reports 120:622-629.

Cooper, S.P., N. Weller, E. Fox, S.R. Cooper, and E. Shipp. 2005. Comparative description of migrant 

farmworkers versus other students attending South Texas schools: Demographic, academic, and 

health characteristics. Texas Medicine August:58-62.

Doyle, E., R. Rager, D. Bates, and C. Cooper. 2006. Using community-based participatory research 

to assess health needs among migrant and seasonal farmworkers. American Journal of Health 

Education 37:279-288.

Driscoll, R., B. Donovan Reh, E.J. Esswein, and D.A. Mattorano. 1998. Health Hazard Evaluation 

Report 93-1035-2686. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.

Fenske, R. 2007. ERC Student Tables. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Fenske, R. 2007. PNASH Student Education. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Frank, L.A. 2006. Surveillance of Ag-Related Chemical Exposures: Final Progress Report. Tyler, TX: 

Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education.

Gilmore, K. 2006. Stakeholder Services: Final Progress Report. Tyler, TX: Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education.

Greer, K.A., M. Pine, and D.L. Busbee. 2005. Development of an in vitro model of excess intracellular 

reactive oxygen species. AGE: Journal of the American Aging Association 27:97-105.

Hall, B. 2006. Preventing Agricultural Injuries in the Arkansas Delta: Final Progress Report. Helena, 

AR: University of Arkansas for Medical Science Delta Health Education Center.

Helitzer, D. 2006. Preventing Agricultural Work Injuries on the Navajo Nation. Albuquerque, NM: 

University of New Mexico Family and Community Medicine.

High Plains Intermountain Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (HICAHS). 2006. Center Overview and Project Histories. Fort Collins, CO: HICAHS.

HICAHS. 2007. Inventory of Materials Forwarded to Dr. Roy Fleming for NAS Review. Fort Collins, 

CO: HICAHS.

Hodge, B.D., S. Ackerman, C. Evans, T. Erb, and M.L.W. Cook. 2002. An occupational health nursing program: Relevance to nurses in nonoccupational practice settings. AAOHN Journal

50:257-261.

Hokanson R., S. Miller, M. Hennessey, M. Flesher, W. Hanneman, and D. Busbee. 2004. Disruption 

of estrogen-regulated gene expression by dioxin: Downregulation of a gene associated with the 

onset of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (type 2 diabetes). Human and Experimental 

Toxicology 23:555-564.

Huhnke, R.L. 2004. Surveying Elementary Students to Determine Knowledge Gained from Viewing 

the Video Livestock Safety for Kids. Presentation at ASAE/CSAE Meeting, August 1-4.

Jenkins, P.L., S.G. Stack, G.B. Earle-Richardson, S.M. Scofield, and J.J. May. 2007. Screening Events to 

Reduce Farmers’ Hazardous Exposure. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 13(1). 8 pp.

Jones, C., and J. Bleeker. 2005. A comparison of ATV-related behaviors, exposures, and injuries between farm youth and nonfarm youth. Journal of Rural Health 21:70-73.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

290 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Levin, J.K., K. Gilmore, J.T. Nalbone, and S. Shepherd. 2005. Agroterrorism workshop: Engaging 

community preparedness. Journal of Agromedicine 10:7-15.

Levin, J.L., ed. 2006. Cultivation: The Newsletter for the Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, 

Injury Prevention and Education. Summer 2006.

Levin, J.L. 2006. Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education Final 

Progress Report. CDC/NIOSH Cooperative Agreement U50 OH 7541-05 (September 30, 2001-

September 29, 2006). Tyler, TX: Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, 

and Education.

Levin, J.L. 2006. Development of Culturally Sensitive Safety Training for Vietnamese Shrimpers in 

U.S. Coast Guard District 8 (Port of Galveston): Final Progress Report. Tyler, TX: Southwest 

Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education.

Levin, J.L., K. Gilmore, S. Shepherd, and J.T. Nalbone. 2006. Stakeholder Input and Cultural Considerations in Addressing Behavioural Factors in a Unique Agricultural Work Population (Commercial Shrimpers). Poster presentation at the NORA Symposium in Washington, DC. April 

18-20, 2006.

Logan, C., S. Pryor, and A. Carruth. 2006. Methodological aspects of a computer-assisted telephone 

interview (CATI) survey of health and safety risks of farm women and children. Pelican News

March/April/May:14-16.

Mankame, T., R. Hokanson, R. Chowdhary, and D. Busbee. 2004. Altered gene expression in human 

cells induced by the agricultural chemical Enable. Toxicology and Industrial Health 20:1-14.

Mankame, T., R. Hokanson, R. Fudge, R. Chowdhary, and D. Busbee. 2006. Alteration of gene expression in human cells treated with the agricultural chemical diazinon: Possible interaction in fetal 

development. Human and Experimental Toxicology 25:225-233.

Mankame, T., R. Hokanson, R. Fudge, R. Chowdhary, and D. Busbee. 2006. Altered gene expression 

in human cells treated with the insecticide diazinon: Correlation with decreased DNA excision 

repair capacity. Human and Experimental Toxicology 25:57-65.

Migrant Clinicians Network. 2007. Streamline, the Migrant Health News Source. Austin, TX: Migrant 

Clinicians Network (MCN).

NIOSH. 1996. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 1997. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 1998. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 1998. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 1999. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 1999. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2000. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2000. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2001. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2001. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2002. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2002. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2003. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2003. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2004. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2004. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2004. Worker Health Chartbook. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004-146. Cincinnati, 

OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2005. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 291 pp e n d i x C

NIOSH. 2005. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2006. Agriculture Center Evaluators (ACE) Recommended Data Fields. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2006. Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2006. Child Agriculture Comprehensive Report List (Excel file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2006. NIOSH Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health Program. Report for 

National Academies Review (Initial Evidence Package). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Author Cross-Reference for AFF Bibliography. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Bibliography for AFF Program. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Bibliography of NIOSH-funded Commercial Fishing Health and Safety Projects. 

Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Bibliography of NIOSH-funded Forestry Health and Safety Projects. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Bibliography of NIOSH-funded Logging Health and Safety Projects. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Brief Responses from Ag Center Directors to Committee Inquiry about Health Services 

Research and Health Services Training at Centers. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Charge to the NORA Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Sector Council. Cincinnati, 

OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. FY2007 Project Planning Guidance. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. NORA Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Sector Council Meeting Notes. February 22. 

Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. NORA Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Sector Council Membership. Cincinnati, 

OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Questions #1-3. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Questions #1-3–NIOSH Program Synopsis: Applying Safety 

Research and Design to the U.S. Fishing Industry FY 2007-2010. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #4. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Questions #5 and 6. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #8. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #8–Training Courses at Research Centers (Excel 

file). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–Determinants of Variation in State Logging 

Fatality Rates. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–Health Hazard Evaluations. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–The Maine Agricultural Safety and Health Program (MASHP). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–PNASH Noise and Vibration Exposure. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–Southern Coastal Agromedicine Center Timber 

Medic Certification. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation 

(FACE) Project. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–Occupational Injury Prevention in Alaska. 

Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

292 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #9–Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Logger Safety 

Training Program. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #10. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #10–List of Publications by Year. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #11. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #12. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Question #12–Additional Statistics. Cincinnati, OH: 

NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Response to Committee Questions #13 and 14. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Responses to December 6, 2006, letter from the National Academies’ Evaluation 

Committee for the NIOSH Respiratory Disease Research Program. February 15. Cincinnati, 

OH: NIOSH.

NIOSH. 2007. Program Portfolio Governance Structure. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH.

NYCAMPH/NEC (Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health). 2007. List and 

Sample of other NYCAMH/NEC Products. Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center for Agricultural 

and Occupational Health.

NYCAMPH/NEC. 2007. List of Center Papers from 1990–2007. Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center 

for Agricultural and Occupational Health.

NYCAMPH/NEC. 2007. List of Representative Center Abstracts. Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center 

for Agricultural and Occupational Health.

NYCAMPH/NEC. 2007. NYCAMH Program Progress Report 1988-1989. Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health.

NYCAMPH/NEC. 2007. NYCAMH Program Progress Report 1995-1996. Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health.

NYCAMPH/NEC. 2007. Response to Committee Inquiry about Health Services Research and Health 

Services Training at Centers. Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health.

NYCAMPH/NEC. 2007. Statistics on Web Hits for Migrant Clinicians Occupational Health Manual. 

Cooperstown, NY: Northeast Center for Agricultural and Occupational Health.

Pine, M., M. Schroeder, K. Greer, R. Hokanson, and D. Busbee. 2004. Generation and partial characterization of a transformed cetacean cell line. Aquatic Toxicology 67:195-2002.

Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center (PNASH). 2006. Health Services Research 

Projects. Seattle, WA: Pacific Northwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center.

Pryor, S., A. Carruth, G. LaCour. 2005. Occupational risky business: Injury prevention behaviors of 

farm women and children. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 28:17-31.

Ryder, E.R., and S. Partida. 2006. Occupational Education for Migrant Farmworkers. Buda, TX: National Center for Farmworker Health.

Shipp, E., S. Cooper, K. Burau, and J. Bolin. 2005. Pesticide safety training and access to field sanitation among migrant farmworker mothers from Starr County, Texas. Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health 11:51-60.

Shipp, E., S. Cooper, D. Del Junco, Z.G. Delclos, K. Burau, and S. Tortolero. 2006. Severe back pain 

among farmworker high school students from Starr County, Texas: Baseline results. Annals of 

Epidemiology 17:132-141.

Skarke, L. 2006. Texas Panhandle Coalitions for Agricultural Safety and Health: Final Progress Report. 

Canyon, TX: West Texas A&M University.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 293 pp e n d i x C

Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education (SWC). 2006. Access 

review database for standardized reporting by centers with narrative summary of centers (database and summaries). Tyler, TX: Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, 

and Education.

Srivastava, W., and D. Busbee. 2002. Replicative enzymes and ageing: Importance of DNA polymerase 

alpha function to the events of cellular ageing. Aging Research Reviews 1:443-463.

Srivastava, W., and D. Busbee. 2003. Replicative enzymes, DNA polymerase alpha, and in vitro ageing. 

Experimental Gerontology 38:1285-1297.

Vela Acosta, M. 2006. First Bilingual Occupational Health Curriculum for Farmworkers in Texas. 

Brownsville, TX: University of Texas Health Science Center School of Public Health.

Vela Acosta, M. 2006. Occupational health and safety education for Hispanic workers at the border. 

Health Education and Behavior 33:425-432.

Wafer, M., and A. Carruth. 2003. “Locks for life”: A gun lock distribution community health intervention program. Journal of Emergency Nursing 29:349-351.

Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety (WCAHS). 2005. Organizational Chart. Davis, CA: 

Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2006. Education and Outreach. Davis, CA: Western Center for Agricultural Health and 

Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. Agricultural Center Program Areas (Excel file). Davis, CA: Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. Agricultural Center Program Areas, Version 2 (Excel file). Davis, CA: Western Center 

for Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. Cross Reference List for Agricultural Accounts (Excel file). Davis, CA: Western Center 

for Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. History of the ACE-NIOSH Center. Davis, CA: Western Center for Agricultural 

Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. Major Accomplishments 1990-1996 (Prevention). Davis, CA: Western Center for 

Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. Major Accomplishments 1990-1996 (Research). Davis, CA: Western Center for Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. WCAHS Health Services Research Related Projects. Davis, CA: Western Center for 

Agricultural Health and Safety.

WCAHS. 2007. WCAHS Logic Model. Davis, CA: Western Center for Agricultural Health and 

Safety.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

294

D

Biographic Sketches of Committee Members

Paul D. Gunderson (Chair) is the former director of the National Farm Medicine 

Center (1992-1996) and former director of the Marshfield Medical Research and 

Education Foundation (1993-2000), both in Marshfield, Wisconsin. In those capacities, he conducted numerous research initiatives exploring the health effects 

of agricultural exposures, convened scientific meetings and seminars, chaired scientific review mechanisms that rated applications for federal funding, and testified 

before Congress about the need for a national agenda on agricultural health and 

safety. Dr. Gunderson has a deep appreciation of farming and its associated hazards 

and is an expert on farmer suicide. His career exploring the health impact of human 

activity in agricultural work settings began in 1976 with research on the respiratory effect of working in poultry barns and continued until his initial retirement 

in 2000. He serves as director of the Dakota Center for Technology-Optimized 

Agriculture in Devils Lake, North Dakota. Dr. Gunderson served as an adjunct 

professor in public health administration with the University of Minnesota School 

of Public Health and an adjunct professor in the Health Services Management and 

Administration Program of St. Mary’s University, Winona, Minnesota. He received 

the 2006 Stueland Scholar Award from the National Farm Medicine Center at 

the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation for his contributions to research in 

agricultural worker health. He has published more than 90 papers on agricultural 

safety and health in scientific journals and chaired scientific review panels for the 

National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

He began his career as a high-school teacher of English and industrial arts in the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 295 pp e n d i x D

United States and in Papua New Guinea. He is also pastor of the Drake, Martin, 

and Harvey United Methodist parishes in Harvey, North Dakota. Dr. Gunderson 

received his PhD in education from the University of Minnesota, his MA in industrial technology from Ball State University, and his BS in English from Moorhead 

State College, Minnesota.

Maria T. Correa is an associate professor of epidemiology and public health in the 

College of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University. Her expertise is 

in agricultural health with emphasis on zoonotic diseases, agromedicine, Hispanic 

and Latino farmworker issues, program development and evaluation, and international public health. Her current research and outreach activities focus on the 

risk of transmission of foreign-animal diseases at the farm level, foreign-animal 

diseases, bioterrorism and agroterrorism agents, zoonotic diseases, and biosecurity. 

Dr. Correa conducts surveys to assess the prevalence of zoonotic diseases and the 

risk of zoonotic-disease transmission and uses epidemiologic and anthropologic 

information to understand illness and health. She also conducts evaluations of a 

target group’s knowledge of disease transmission and prevention and identifies 

factors (such as use of alternative medicine, sociocultural understanding of disease, 

immigration status, and isolation of the community) that limit the group’s access 

to Western medicine or public-health information. Dr. Correa is a member of the 

board of directors of the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. She is a member 

of the American College of Epidemiology, the North Carolina Veterinary Medical 

Association, and the Phi Zeta Veterinary Honorary Society. Dr. Correa received her 

Practicante de Veterinaria (degree in veterinary sciences) from the State University 

of Uruguay and her MSc and PhD in epidemiology from Cornell University.

R. Alan Davis is the safety and compliance manager at American Seafoods Company, one of the largest commercial fishing companies in the country. He develops, directs, and provides safety, health, and emergency training for nearly 1,000 

multicultural employees at American Seafoods; investigates injuries and accidents 

and identifies their causes; and conducts in-port and at-sea vessel safety inspections, including machine guarding, work practices, life safety, medical provisions, 

and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance. He 

previously was a loss-control specialist at the University of Washington, where he 

worked with national experts on prevention of back injuries, repetitive-motion 

injuries, workplace violence, and chemical exposures. Mr. Davis was a safety and 

security specialist at Tyson Seafood Group, where he developed and provided safety 

and emergency training for more than 700 employees, investigated injuries and 

accidents, and supervised the creation of an injury- and illness-reporting database. 

He has served as a member of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

296 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Health National Occupation Research Agenda mining, fishing, and forestry peerreview panel and has participated in numerous International Fishing Industry 

Safety and Health conferences. He has also served in various American Society 

of Safety Engineer (ASSE) chapters and is a past president of the Puget Sound 

Chapter. With nearly 8 years of experience with commercial fishing companies, 

he was recently appointed to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Commercial Fishing Industry 

Vessel Safety Advisory Committee and has been nominated for a position on the 

Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. He began his 

career in safety as a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician while 

in high school. Mr. Davis is a Certified Safety Professional and received his BS in 

occupational safety and health from North Carolina A&T State University.

James A. Dosman is the director of the Institute of Agricultural Rural and Environmental Health at the University of Saskatchewan, the only institution in Canada 

that provides research, education, and health promotion to agricultural and rural 

populations. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of 

Canada and a professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. His expertise includes respiratory diseases, occupational diseases, and 

agricultural medicine. Dr. Dosman has chaired or co-chaired five international 

symposia on health issues related to agriculture and rural populations. He is a 

founding chair of the Canadian Coalition for Agriculture Safety and Rural Health 

(1992), founding co-chair of the Canadian Rural Health Research Society (2002), 

a past member of the Governing Council of the Medical Research Council of 

Canada (1995-2000), and a past president of the Canadian Thoracic Society. He 

helped to establish such initiatives as the first annual Agriculture Health and Safety 

Conference, the Canadian Agricultural Injury Surveillance Program, the Canadian 

Agriculture Safety Program, and the Agricultural Health and Safety Network, which 

provides educational services, respiratory health and hearing screening programs, 

courses in emergency preparedness, and other educational opportunities to the 

rural population. He is a current grantee of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in fields related to occupational and environmental exposures and a member 

of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. He is an associate member of the 

Western College of Veterinary Medicine and of the Department of Community 

Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan. Dr. Dosman received 

his MD, MA, and BA from the University of Saskatchewan.

William A. Groves is an associate professor of industrial health and safety and 

chair of the graduate program in industrial health and safety in the Department of 

Energy and Geo-Environmental Engineering of Pennsylvania State University. He 

is a Certified Industrial Hygienist and a Certified Safety Professional. His research 

interests are in the development of sensors and instrumentation for measurement 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 297 pp e n d i x D

of organic vapors, exposure assessment methods and strategies, biologic monitoring, and personal protective equipment. He developed a sampling system for 

measuring respirator protection from ammonia in livestock production facilities. 

He is a member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Gas and 

Vapor Detection Systems Committee and a member of the Pennsylvania State 

University Outreach and Graduate Education Committee. He has been a reviewer 

for the AIHA Journal, The Analyst, and the Royal Society of Chemistry. From 1997 

to 1999, Dr. Groves was an assistant professor in the Department of Preventive 

Medicine and Environmental Health and co-director of the industrial-hygiene core 

of the Great Plains Center for Agricultural Health, both at the University of Iowa. 

Dr. Groves was an industrial hygienist and engineering loss-control representative 

with Aetna Life and Casualty from 1986 to 1990 and an industrial hygienist at 

Newport News Shipbuilding from 1990 to 1991. Dr. Groves received his PhD and 

MPH in industrial health from the University of Michigan and his BS in chemical 

engineering from Case Western Reserve University.

Ronald L. McAllister is manager of support and facilities at Case New Holland 

(CNH) America LLC, a large manufacturer of agricultural equipment. He is responsible for the prototype shop, which builds agricultural equipment for the 

New Holland and Case IH brands as part of the engineering product-development 

process, along with drafting, tool design, and facilities at CNH in New Holland, 

Pennsylvania. His specialty is the design and improvement of equipment related 

to forage harvesting and round balers. For more than 35 years, Mr. McAllister has 

been directly involved with safety-related aspects of product development. He was 

a member of the CNH product-safety review committee for 12 years and chaired it 

for 4 years. During that time, he participated in more than 100 product-safety reviews and provided recommendations for safety improvements in products before 

production. He was also involved in the development of industry-wide standards. 

Mr. McAllister guided academic and industry leaders in the revision of American 

Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) S279, Lighting and Marking of Agricultural Equipment on Highways, and he led support of extensive research 

conducted at Ohio State University that helped to define the specifications for the 

revision of that standard. He holds five U.S. patents. In 2006, he was awarded the 

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies Engineering Safety Award 

by ASABE for his dedication and outstanding leadership and accomplishments in 

agricultural safety engineering. Mr. McAllister holds a BS in agricultural engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

James D. McGlothlin is an associate professor of industrial hygiene and ergonomics and director of the Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences Graduate 

Program at Purdue University. Dr. McGlothlin is a Certified Professional Ergono-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

298 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

mist and is retired from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH). He studies the relationships between ergonomics, epidemiology, and 

industrial hygiene to reduce risk and evaluate and control physical, chemical, and 

biologic hazards in the occupational environment. He develops and administers 

ergonomic programs to prevent musculoskeletal injuries, promote health, and 

improve productivity and quality in the workplace. Most recently, he has worked 

on methods to integrate real-time sampling methods with videography to develop 

more accurate worker risk-assessment profiles and to develop more cost-effective 

controls. His research also looks to develop systems to detect and identify airborne 

infectious agents, such as the H5N1 virus, the agent of avian influenza. At NIOSH, 

Dr. McGlothlin served as a senior researcher in ergonomics at the Engineering 

Control Technology Branch (1997-1998), an occupational and environmental 

safety and health specialist (1991-1996), an industrial hygienist (1985-1991), and 

chief of the Division of Safety Research (1984-1985). Dr. McGlothlin received his 

PhD in industrial health with a specialty in ergonomics from the University of 

Michigan-Ann Arbor. He holds an MPH in epidemiology, an MS in environmental 

and industrial health, and a BA in industrial psychology from the University of 

Hawaii.

Susan H. Pollack is an assistant professor in the University of Kentucky College 

of Medicine Department of Pediatrics and in the College of Public Health Department of Preventive Medicine and is board-certified in pediatrics and preventive and occupational medicine. She directs the Pediatric and Adolescent Injury 

Prevention Program at the Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center. Dr. 

Pollack is interested in all aspects of injury epidemiology and prevention in children and adolescents and teaches health professionals and the public about injury 

epidemiology and prevention. She has had funding, publications, and a national 

role in the issue of occupational injuries among working teens. She is the principal investigator in the Injury Free Coalition for Kids of Lexington at Kentucky 

Children’s Hospital, one of more than 40 such sites across the country originally 

funded through a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant, and has been serving as 

the Kentucky State SAFE KIDS Coordinator. She works closely with the Kentucky 

State Department for Public Health, supporting rural county health departments 

in child-health and injury-prevention issues. Her other interests include childfatality review, emergency medical services for children, health and safety in child 

care and among incarcerated adolescents, and whitewater river safety. She has 

served in a number of injury leadership positions for the American Academy of 

Pediatrics, including serving as a member of the National Committee on Violence, 

Injury and Poison Prevention. Dr. Pollack received her MD from Eastern Virginia 

Medical School, her MS in physiology from Georgetown University, and her AB in 

environmental biology and sociology from Smith College.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 299 pp e n d i x D

Lorann Stallones is a professor of epidemiology in the Colorado State University 

Department of Psychology. She is also the director of the Colorado Injury Control Research Center and an adjunct professor in the Department of Preventive 

Medicine and Biometrics of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. 

Her research is in injuries in farmers; adolescent farm work, fatigue, and injuries; 

the relationship between pesticides and mental health (depressive symptoms and 

neurobehavioral symptoms); pesticides and safety practices on farms; and pesticide 

exposures of migrant and seasonal farm workers. She has also studied the relationships between congenital anomalies, birth weight, and pesticide exposures; head 

injuries and cancer in Hispanic farm workers; and musculoskeletal injuries, suicide, 

and respiratory symptoms in farmers. Dr. Stallones is on the editorial board of the 

Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health. She was a member of the Epidemiology 

Committee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute predoctoral fellowship panel 

(1996, 1998, and 1999) and chair of the committee (2000 and 2001). She was on the 

2003 National Academy of Sciences Vietnam Education Fellowship Review Panel. 

She has served on numerous grant-review panels for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control and was a regular member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee 

(1991-1995) and the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section (2003-2007). 

She has reviewed grants for the British Columbia Health Research Foundation, 

Health Canada, and the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation. She 

was secretary-treasurer of the Society for Epidemiologic Research (1990-1993). 

She was president of the National Association of Injury Control Research Centers 

(1998-1999). She served on the Board of Directors for the American College of 

Epidemiology (2003-2006) and was recently elected to serve as secretary (2006-

2011). Dr. Stallones received her PhD in epidemiology and her MPH in community 

health from the University of Texas School of Public Health and her BA in cultural 

anthropology from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Don Villarejo is a cofounder and retired as executive director of the California 

Institute for Rural Studies, which he served for 22 years. He has been working to 

improve the health and well-being of California’s hired farm workers and to expand 

healthcare for the working poor. His research interests include pest management, 

farm-labor contractors and safety in the fields, farm-labor housing, reclamation 

policy in the western states, and new methods for surveying farmworker populations. In addition to his speaking engagements at agricultural health and safety 

seminars and conferences, Dr. Villarejo conducts training for attorneys and field 

staff members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. He received the 2005 

Advocate of Social Justice Award from the Ecological Farming Association for 

his long-term contributions to the well-being of the people who work in food 

production and agriculture. He also received a Board of Directors Award from the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

300 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Mexican-American Concilio of Yolo County in California. Dr. Villarejo received 

his PhD, MS, and BS in physics from the University of Chicago.

Susanna G. Von Essen is a professor of internal medicine in the Pulmonary, Critical 

Care, Sleep and Allergy Section of the College of Medicine and a faculty member of 

the Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health Sciences Department of 

the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health. Dr. Von Essen 

works as a pulmonary and critical-care physician, does research on agricultural 

health, and teaches on such topics as rural health and occupational pulmonary 

disorders. Her current research interests include gene-environment interactions 

associated with exposures to organic dust in production agriculture. She served on 

the Institute of Medicine committee that prepared the report Damp Indoor Spaces 

and Health and currently serves as a member of the Agricultural Health Study Advisory Panel. Dr. Von Essen received her MD from the Washington University School 

of Medicine, her MPH from the University of Michigan, and her undergraduate 

degree in zoology and German from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

James J. Zuiches is the vice chancellor for extension, engagement, and economic 

development at North Carolina State University. Dr. Zuiches leads and coordinates far-reaching programs in those fields at the university. His efforts include 

activities of the Cooperative Extension Service, the Industrial Extension Service, 

the Small Business and Technology Development Center, noncredit operations of 

the McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Education, the Economic 

Development Partnership, and the H. Hugh Shelton Initiative for Leadership Development. His research specialties include demography, rural sociology, and research 

administration. He was a professor in community and rural sociology and project 

leader for the National Coalition for Rural Entrepreneurship at Washington State 

University, where he also served as dean of the College of Agriculture and Home 

Economics for 8 years and director of Cooperative Extension and the Agricultural 

Research Center for 4 years. Dr. Zuiches served at Cornell University, Michigan 

State University, the National Science Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. He has more than 70 publications, including journal papers, book chapters, 

bulletins, and editorials. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, serves on the National Research Council Committee on the 

Review of NIOSH Research Programs, and has served as a member of the Board 

on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Dr. Zuiches received his PhD and MS in 

sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and his BA in philosophy and 

sociology from the University of Portland, in Oregon.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

301

E

Methods for Identifying the Agriculture, 

Forestry, and Fishing Workforce Population

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT 

AND WORKFORCE POPULATION

Efforts to measures the size of a population at occupational risk are often based 

on a determination of “employment” in the economic sector of interest. It is usually assumed that that term refers to the number of people who are self-employed 

or are employed by others. It is implicit that those people do not change their 

employment status throughout all or most of the calendar year. Thus, measures of 

employment are sometimes thought of as more or less equivalent to determinations 

of the number of people actually working.

However, the agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AFF) sector is unusual in three 

respects. First, many workers are employed for only a portion of the year. Second, 

there is a high rate of turnover of hired and contract workers; a great many workers 

are known either to enter or to leave the AFF sector workforce in the course of a 

year. Fully 16 percent of the nation’s hired crop-farm workers in 2001-2002 were 

determined to have been immigrant “newcomers”, that is, foreign-born persons 

who had been working in the United States for less than a year when interviewed 

by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).1 Presumably, the newcomers replaced 

people who had left crop-farm employment. Third, the AFF labor force includes 

1 United States Department of Labor. Office of Assistant Secretary for Policy. Office of Programmatic Policy, Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2001-02. A Demographic 

and Employment Profile of United States Farm Workers, Research Report No. 9, March 2005, p. 8.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

302 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

children and the elderly, many of whom would classify themselves as retired but 

work actively on the farm during planting and harvesting. Many children and older 

adults do not receive money and do not appear on farm records.

Confounding the difficulty is that the AFF labor force is known to be much 

larger than the corresponding level of employment; that is, at various times of the 

year, a great many in the AFF hired and contract labor force are unemployed and 

unable to find work. Finally, a large proportion of AFF workers are foreign-born, 

and a sizable “reserve labor pool” is in the countries of origin, including workers 

who may have temporarily returned to their homes.

For those reasons, it is useful to distinguish measures of “population” from 

determinations of “employment”. Population refers to the number of people; employment refers to their working status. Employment is often measured in terms 

of full-time equivalent (FTE) workers on the basis of temporal averages, usually 

derived from 12 monthly reports. Thus, two people who find half-time jobs in the 

AFF sector for a full year will be counted as a single FTE worker in measures of 

employment.

Even for self-employed workers, the distinction is important. To illustrate, the 

Census of Agriculture asks farm operators to report the number of days on which 

they were employed off-farm. In the 2002 Census of Agriculture, more farm operators reported having worked at least some days off-farm than reported no off-farm 

work. The majority of those who said that they worked off-farm at all said that 

they did so for 200 or more days per year;2 these farm operators might be counted 

twice in measures of employment, as would be the case for workers in any industry 

who “moonlight”, holding two jobs at the same time.

HARNESSING THE QUARTERLY AGRICULTURAL 

LABOR SURVEY FOR AFF SURVEILLANCE

The Quarterly Agricultural Labor Survey (QALS) is the only national survey 

of the agriculture workforce, conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and reported in the periodical Farm Labor. The QALS has recently been 

called the Farm Labor Survey (FLS). The survey is limited to farm employment. 

Initiated in 1910 and conducted with only a few interruptions nearly every year 

since then, the FLS is an employer survey that obtains reports of employment 

and other characteristics, such as wage rates paid and hours worked. A nationally 

representative sample of farm operators and agricultural service firms (mainly 

farm labor contractors) is contacted to determine the number of their hired farm 

2 United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of 

Agriculture. Summary and State Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 51, June 2004. Table 

55. Summary by Size of Farm: 2002, p. 69.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 303 pp e n d i x E

laborers during the week that includes the 12th day of the first month in each of 

the four calendar quarters (January, April, July, and October). Data on hired farm 

workers from other sources, such as the Census of Agriculture and the Census 

of the Population decennial population surveys, do not provide seasonal data on 

employed workers.

The data provided by the FLS are not available from any other source. It 

provides the only national data on farm labor employment and wage rates and 

also provides regional and seasonal data. It is the analogue for agriculture of the 

monthly Current Employment Statistics (CES) payroll survey of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS), which is watched closely by policymakers and business economists. Agriculture is deliberately excluded from the CES survey. Unlike the CES, 

the FLS is based on reports for only 4 months, one in each calendar quarter.

The FLS is unique in that it seeks to survey a sample of all farm employers, no 

matter how small their payroll or number of employees. Other BLS data—such as 

the Census of Employment and Wages (CEW), which is based on quarterly unemployment insurance reports—are incomplete for agriculture because most small 

farms are excluded from the sample frame. (That is because many states specifically 

exclude small farm employers from unemployment-insurance [UI] coverage.) Nor 

is the FLS subject to the so-called small farm exemption that precludes the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health from surveying farms that have fewer 

than 11 employees.

All types of farms are included in the FLS, both crop and livestock producers. 

Data are reported for the United States as a whole and for each of the 18 USDA 

crop regions, including separate reports for each of California, Florida, and Hawaii, 

which constitute crop regions in their own right.

The FLS relies on employer reports of their payroll, so all hired workers, irrespective of age, are represented. Reports compiled by BLS usually report employment only of persons who are at least 16 years old.

The FLS sample frame comprises a comprehensive list of farms maintained 

by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and an area frame (a 

random sample of parcels of farmland). The latter aspect is peculiar to the QALS: 

no other employment survey uses this method.

It is important that the FLS survey includes all types of employers of hired farm 

workers, such as crew leaders and labor contractors, who have been deliberately excluded from Economic Census coverage. The Census Bureau abandoned its Census 

of Agricultural Services, which had included farm labor contractors, after a failed 

effort in 1978. Agricultural service employers were first added to the FLS in 1987.

For many years, the FLS included determinations of the numbers of selfemployed farm workers and unpaid family workers. However, it ended that com-
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

304 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

ponent of the survey in 2002 owing to budgetary constraints (Mark Aitken, USDA, 

private communication, February 19, 2007).

The FLS asks employers to provide information about wage rates and the 

numbers of field workers and livestock workers. The FLS provides annual average 

wage data on directly hired farm workers in each of the 50 states.

The data generated by the FLS are clearly limited to employment in each of 4 

months of the year. No effort is made to determine how many people are employed 

year-round. However, respondents are asked to report the number of persons 

whom they expect to employ for 150 days or more and the number expected to be 

employed for less than 150 days.

Because the excellent sampling frame used for the survey (list and area frame) 

was developed for use by other NASS surveys, the FLS does not incur special sampling costs. In fact, it is an efficient data-gathering tool. Information is collected by 

telephone and processed with other survey data gathered by NASS; thus, statisticians and other resources are already shared.

The FLS provides excellent information on a regional and large-state basis that 

can be combined with data from other sources, such as the Agricultural Census, to 

estimate the numbers of farm workers in smaller geographic areas, such as counties. 

The FLS also can be combined with DOL’s National Agricultural Workers Survey 

(NAWS) to make fine-grained estimates of the demographics of farm workers by 

region and large state. Those estimates can even be made by season. The age, sex, 

place of origin, migration patterns, housing patterns, education levels, and use of 

social services can be estimated by combining the NAWS and the FLS.

Furthermore, the FLS is used to support various other government programs. 

The NAWS itself uses FLS data to implement its sample and weight its results. 

The NAWS, FLS, and Agricultural Census are being used in various configurations, but always with a big role for the FLS, to allocate resources for the National 

Farmworker Jobs Program, the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Program, the 

Legal Services Corporation migrant program, and the Migrant Health Program. 

Other agencies, such as the 1992 Commission on Agricultural Workers and the 

Congressional Budget Office, have used the FLS, usually in conjunction with other 

data sources, to describe the farmworker population. The H2A agricultural guest 

worker program uses the wage data from the FLS to set its adverse-effect wage rate 

for the visiting workers. Moreover, estimates from those data sources are used by 

farmworker programs and by state policymakers to design, implement, and obtain 

resources for their activities.

Recently, the Congressional Research Service relied on the FLS to determine 

that there was, as of 2006, no national shortage of hired farm laborers. Citing the 

annual FLS reports for the period 1990-2006, the official report to Congress demonstrated that hired farmworker employment varied only slightly throughout the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 305 pp e n d i x E

17-year period (Levine, 2007). Table E-1 presents the latest findings of the FLS, 

covering all 4 sampling weeks of 2006. It is possible that some individual workers 

may be double-counted because they performed jobs for two or more employers 

during a sampling week, but effect is probably small, especially because a majority 

of the reported employment is accounted for by persons working directly for farm 

operators for 150 days or more (sometimes described as regular or permanent 

employees).

NATIONAL CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING

The most comprehensive effort to enumerate the U.S. population and its 

characteristics is the decennial Census of Population and Housing (commonly referred to as the Census). The Census is important in its own right but also because 

additional surveys—such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the American 

Community Survey (ACS), and the Hired Farm Work Force Report—have relied 

on its sample frame. The Census 2000 Special Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) Tabulation also relied entirely on an analysis of Census data and provided 

detailed occupation and education data.

As further described below, the Census data and surveys based on its sample 

frame are probably accurate with respect to self-employed workers in the AFF sector and for most regular or year-round workers in this sector. However, it is well 

established that the Census does not accurately enumerate a great many hired and 

contract farm laborers, as was officially delineated by its senior administrator in 

1994.3 Scholarship has also demonstrated that deficiency (Gabbard et al., 1993).

3 Letter from Everett M. Ehrlich, Administrator, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, October 24, 1994.

TABLE E-1 Directly Hired Farm Workers and Agricultural Service Workers in the 

United States, 2006

Week

Workers, 150 

Days or More

Workers, Less 

Than 150 Days

Agricultural 

Service Workers

Total, All Hired 

Farm Workers

Jan. 8-14, 2006 512,000 102,000 180,000 794,000

Apr. 9-15, 2006 581,000 139,000 241,000 961,000

Jul. 9-15, 2006 630,000 246,000 320,000 1,196,000

Oct. 8-14, 2006 592,000 205,000 280,000 1,077,000

SOURCE: USDA, Farm Labor.

See http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1063.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

306 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The Census relies primarily on a mail-return short form requested of all American households and a long form from a random sample of about one-sixth of them. 

For literate English-speakers who reside in a dwelling with a physical address, the 

response rate is quite high. In contrast, for non-literate, low-income, non-English 

speaking immigrants, who may be undocumented or reside in informal dwellings 

that lack physical addresses, the response rate is low. The Census undercount is a 

continuing problem to which considerable effort and resources have been allocated 

in an effort to account for those missed by the mail-return forms.

As a result of those considerations, government programs that serve hired farm 

laborers no longer rely on Census figures to estimate the size of this component 

of the AFF workforce. As a consequence, the use of Census data to measure the 

number of American hired farm laborers by government surveys, such as the CPS 

and the ACS, that rely on the Census sample frame have also become suspect with 

respect to their ability to enumerate hired farm laborers.

In the decennial Census, employment status information is collected for the 

workweek before the reference date of April 1. The information is reported on 

the “long form”, gathered from a roughly one-sixth sample of all households, or 

about 18 million of the 105 million households. The specific question determining 

employment status in the 2000 Census read as follows:

LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark 

the “Yes” box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without 

pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on active 

duty in the Armed Forces.4

Note the careful wording regarding possible unpaid work on a family farm. Inclusion of that phrase makes it possible for the Census to seek to enumerate unpaid 

family workers in the AFF sector.

However, the inquiry regarding industry of employment refers to either the 

current job or, if there is no current employment, the most recent job held, even if 

it was as far back as 1996. The question regarding industry status read as follows:

Describe clearly this person’s chief job activity or business last week. If this 

person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person had 

the most hours. If this person had no job or business last week, give the 

information for his/her last job or business since 1995.5

Similarly, the inquiry regarding occupation status refers to the respondent’s industry 

status, clearly, albeit implicitly, referring to the most recent job since 1995.

4 United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2000, Form 

D-2, Question 21, p. 6.

5 Ibid. Question 27, p. 7.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 307 pp e n d i x E

Thus, the data on industry status and occupation status refer to the full population whereas the data on employment status refer only to persons employed during 

the 1-week period prior to April 1.

The data on the nation’s employed workforce are summarized in Tables P49, 

P50, and P51 of Summary File 3 (SF 3), in which cross-tabs by sex are reported 

for all employed persons at least 16 years old by industry, occupation, and class 

of worker, respectively. A brief overview of the data on the AFF workforce derived 

from Table P51 is reported in Table E-2 above.

In addition, the Census reports include summary data on the size of the rural 

population and the size of the farm resident population. Finally, the Census long 

form has an intriguing inquiry regarding the sale of agricultural products. Specifically, for residents of a single-family dwelling or mobile home, respondents were 

asked to report “the actual sales of all agricultural products from this property” 

in 1999.6

OCCUPATIONAL CENSUS REPORT

The Census Bureau also prepares a Special Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) Tabulation on behalf of the federal EEO Commission, colloquially known 

as the “Occupational Census” report. It is subject to the same limitations as the 

Census in seeking to enumerate AFF workers, but with respect to English-speaking 

persons who are long-term residents of a dwelling that has a physical address the 

findings are likely to be reasonably accurate. However, because of the Census undercount, it is likely that the Occupational Census does not accurately reflect the 

full population of hired farm laborers.

6 Ibid. Question 44(c), p. 9.

TABLE E-2 Classes of Workers: Civilian Population 16 Years Old and Older 

Employed in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting (AFFH)

Class of Worker, AFFH Sector Total Workers, Male and Female

Self-employed in own business 836,417

Employees of private for-profit business 938,663

Unpaid family workers 75,938

Government workers 63,848

Private not-for-profit wage and salary workers 14,817

Total, all types of workers (above) 1,929,683

SOURCE: Census 2000, SF 3, Table P51.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

308 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Table E-3 presents the EEO Occupational 1990 and 2000 tabulations for AFF 

occupational categories. It is important to note that the findings regarding hired 

farm laborers likely reflect a substantial undercount. Moreover, self-employed family workers are not represented in the table, because they do not correspond to an 

officially recognized occupation.

CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY

The CPS is a monthly survey of about 60,000 randomly selected occupied 

American households in 754 primary sampling units (out of the nation’s roughly 

3,000 counties, or groups of contiguous counties). Its main purpose is to determine changes in population, demographic characteristics, and economic status, 

especially employment and unemployment. In keeping with standard practices of 

the BLS, the reference week is the one that includes the 12th day of the month.

The BLS adopted the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

in 2002, bringing its industry and occupation categories into conformity with those 

of all other federal agencies, including NIOSH (Bowler et al., 2003). One important 

change resulted from adoption of the NAICS: forestry, fishing, and hunting had 

been classified in the much broader “services” sector, separately from agriculture, 

but are now included with agriculture to form the new AFF sector.

TABLE E-3 Census Special Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulations, 

United States, 1990 and 2000

Occupation 1990 2000

Farmers and ranchers 829,919 587,015

Farm, ranch, and other agricultural managers 257,446 201,980

First-line supervisors of farm, fishing, and forestry workers 55,503 57,440

Hired farm workers 797,405 806,075

Fishing and hunting workers 58,493 51,100

Forestry and conservation workers 20,431 18,980

Logging workers 115,524 105,675

Total, all types of occupations (above) 2,134,721 1,828,265

NOTE: Redefinition of some occupational categories in 2000 required combining some 1990 figures 

to correspond to the new definitions. Moreover, “Hired farm workers” were termed “Farm workers” 

in 1990 and “Miscellaneous agricultural workers, including animal breeders” in 2000.

SOURCE: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/eeoindex/eeoindex.html.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 309 pp e n d i x E

As previously indicated, the Census sample frame, the Master Address File 

(MAF), updated with additional physical addresses, is used for the CPS. However, 

unlike the decennial Census, the CPS has no procedure for updating the MAF regarding informal dwelling locations that lack physical addresses. A cross-sectional 

statewide survey of hired farm laborers in California found that a substantial 

portion reside in informal dwellings that lack physical addresses (such as shacks, 

garages, and illegal trailers) and would probably be missed by the CPS (Villarejo 

and McCurdy, 2008).

About 70 percent of the CPS is conducted by telephone, using local residents 

of the areas to be covered. But community-based survey research indicates that 

one-fifth of dwellings occupied by hired farm laborers in California lacked landline telephone service (Villarejo et al., 2001); this may lead to bias in findings with 

respect to hired farm laborers in a telephone survey.

Another bias in telephone surveys of hired farm laborers is the reluctance of 

some workers to be interviewed by strangers asking personal questions. A recent 

analysis compared findings in California obtained from a statewide, populationbased telephone survey of all adults with findings of a statewide cross-sectional 

household survey of hired farm laborers in which biliterate, bicultural staff conducted in-person interviews (Mines, 2005); the former survey appeared to be 

successful in reaching English-speaking, home-owning farm workers but failed to 

adequately include non-English speaking farm laborers who were renters.

The CPS employment-status findings are limited to people at least 16 years 

old (BLS, 2007b). Farm employment includes some workers under 16 years old 

and is legally permissible for persons as young as 12 years old and, in exceptional 

circumstances, even younger (DOL, 2004). Hence, the AFF workforce will be undercounted by an unknown amount in the CPS.

Employment and unemployment findings from the CPS are closely monitored 

by government officials and economists and are even cited by Wall Street analysts 

who regard them as indicators of the health of the American economy. It is generally agreed that the CPS findings are very accurate with respect to people who speak 

English and do not migrate to find work. But scholarship has demonstrated that 

the CPS does not accurately represent foreign-born, non-English speaking farm 

laborers (Mines, 1998; Larson et al., 2002). In that regard, the CPS suffers from the 

same deficiencies as the Census.

The annual March supplement to the CPS seeks to determine detailed demographic and other characteristics of the American population. Farm labor scholars 

have pointed out that March is not the best month in which to survey hired farm 

laborers working in the United States, and that the March supplement is likely to 

yield findings on ethnicity, race, and foreign-born status of hired farm laborers 

that differ substantially from those of the full population. However, it is likely that 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

310 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

the CPS accurately reports the employment status of other segments of the AFF 

workforce, especially self-employed workers and unpaid family workers. Thus, with 

the caveat that directly hired and contract workers are not properly enumerated 

in the CPS, the other segments of the AFF workforce are likely to be accurately 

determined.

In comparing the findings of the CPS with those of the FLS, it has been demonstrated that the FLS systematically reported hired farmworker employment about 

30 percent higher than the CPS during the period 1984-1997 (Mines, 1998). The 

employer reports in the FLS are probably more accurate with respect to this segment of the AFF workforce than the partial sample obtained by the CPS.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service provides updated information for the period after 1997 and confirms the earlier findings (Levine, 2007). 

As indicated in Table E-4, the FLS reports from employers regarding their hired 

farm workers are 29-55 percent larger than the findings from the CPS, as analyzed 

by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). Note that the ERS analysis includes 

hired farm workers at least 15 years old whereas findings published by the CPS are 

for workers at least 16 years old.

The committee has identified other survey efforts that could be considered for 

specific, limited, single-purpose use when conducting surveillance of AFF sectors, 

including the Hired Farm Work Force report, the Current Employment Statistics, 

and the Census of Employment and Wages. The 5-year Census of Agriculture is 

considered separately below.

TABLE E-4 Hired Farmworker Employment, 1998-2006, Annual Average 

Economic Research Service (ERS) Analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) 

(at least 15 years old) versus Farm Labor Survey (all ages)

Year Hired Farm Workers, ERS (CPS) Hired Farm Workers, QALS

1998 875 1,126

1999 840 1,162

2000 878 1,133

2001 745 1,125

2002 793 1,111

2003 777 1,072

2004 712 1,102

2005 730 1,062

2006 748 1,007

SOURCE: Levine, 2007, Table 1, p. CRS-10.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 311 pp e n d i x E

THE HIRED FARM WORK FORCE

The USDA ERS summary, The Hired Farm Work Force, sought to provide periodic reports on the demographic and economic status of the nation’s hired farm 

laborers, but was discontinued after 1987 and replaced by the NAWS. The 2000 

ERS report, Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 1998 Annual Averages, has indicated that 

those analyses have important limitations, associated mainly with the difficulty of 

enumerating Hispanic farm laborers (Runyan, 2000). The data for these reports 

were derived from the CPS and regarded by scholars with the same degree of skepticism as the CPS (Larson, 2002).

AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

The ACS is the most recent initiative of the Census Bureau. It is a monthly 

survey of 100,000 randomly selected households designed to replace the “long 

form” of the Census. A major portion of the sample is rotated each month, and this 

enhances the statistical power of the findings by accumulating data for a sequence 

of several months.

ACS uses the Census sample frame. Like those of the CPS, its sampling methods 

and survey methods lead to underreporting of hired farm laborers. However, the 

cumulative sample over many months yields findings that are more statistically 

stable than some findings of the CPS.

CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

The CES is a monthly survey of 160,000 businesses and government agencies, 

representing 400,000 worksites and seeks payroll and employment information 

for the week that includes the 12th day of the month. It is sometimes referred to 

as the payroll report of employment. All agricultural workers and self-employed 

workers are excluded. Therefore, the CES is not helpful for the purposes of the 

NIOSH AFF program.

CENSUS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

The BLS also compiles the CEW, which is based on the quarterly reports of 

monthly employment and quarterly total wages required of employers subject to 

unemployment insurance requirements. As in the case of other BLS employment 

data, monthly employment refers only to persons on the payroll during the pay 

period that includes the 12th day of the month.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

312 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

The main problem in relying on CEW data for the AFF sector is that many farm 

employers are exempt from UI requirements. That follows from the fact that each 

state sets its own criteria for UI coverage. Many states, such as California and New 

York, have “universal” coverage, typically requiring every private-sector employer 

that pays at least $100 in wages or salaries in a calendar quarter to pay UI taxes. 

But many states specifically exempt farm employers that have quarterly payrolls 

below a specified threshold, typically $50,000. Thus, in effect, an unknown portion 

of the AFF hired farm labor workforce is not reported, because some employers are 

exempt from payment of UI taxes. Those workers are also ineligible for qualification to receive UI benefits.

CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE

The committee has specifically reviewed the use of the Census of Agriculture 

(CoA) as a sector-surveillance tool. It is part of the 5-year Economic Census and 

is based on responses to a mail-return census form that NASS sends to its master 

mail list of farm operators. The findings are regarded as the most comprehensive 

body of systematic data on farmers and the farm sector. Most important, nearly 

all findings are reported at the county, state, and national levels.

Farm operators report such factors as the number of days worked off farm, 

whether they consider their principal occupation to be “farmer”, and whether they 

reside on farm. Age, sex, and other demographic features of farm operators are 

also reported.

Data are reported on hired-labor and contract-labor expenses, the number 

of directly hired workers, the number of persons employed for 150 days or more, 

and those employed for less than 150 days, at each geographic level. Cross-tabs of 

these data items are also available for each NAICS category of farms and for other 

standard measures of farm operators.

A given worker may find employment with two or more farm operators in the 

course of a single year, so the CoA’s “number of workers” is more properly regarded 

as the number of farm jobs, not workers. Clearly, farm employment and the hired 

worker population cannot be determined from these data items (Gabbard et al., 

1993).

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS SURVEY

The NAWS is a national cross-sectional survey of hired crop-farm workers; 

livestock workers are excluded. The survey is employer-based, and farm employers, whether farm operators or labor contractors, of all payroll sizes are included 

in the sample frame. In-person interviews, normally conducted away from the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 313 pp e n d i x E

worksite, with workers who agree to cooperate, are administered by professional 

staff members (bilingual, biliterate, and mostly bicultural). Three seasonal cycles 

of interviews are conducted in each federal fiscal year (FY) to provide persons who 

are employed in only part of each calendar year an opportunity to participate. 

The most recently published report of the NAWS is based on findings from 6,472 

interviews conducted during FY 2001 and FY 2002 (DOL, 2005).

The NAWS was not intended or designed to enumerate workers or to provide 

quantitative reports of total hired crop-worker employment. Begun in 1988 by 

DOL, it was a response to the congressional mandate of the Immigration Reform 

and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). The specific purpose of the NAWS under the 

IRCA mandate was to determine whether persons who were newly authorized for 

employment in the United States under the seasonal agricultural worker (SAW) visa 

program continued in farm work after their immigration status had been adjusted. 

If it were determined that persons holding SAW visas were leaving seasonal crop 

work and being replaced by unauthorized workers before federal FY 1992, a shortage of legally eligible workers would be officially declared, and a new replenishment 

agricultural worker (RAW) visa program would automatically be triggered. During 

the first 3 years of NAWS surveys, it was determined that the “exit rate” of SAW-visa 

holders from crop agriculture was negative, that is, more SAWs entered than left 

agricultural crop work in the United States each year. As a consequence, the RAW 

visa program was allowed to “sunset” because it was not needed.

The NAWS is an unusual survey in that it seeks to obtain detailed work and 

family histories; information on workplace compliance with labor regulations; 

current income, workplace and job conditions, and immigration status; and other 

hard-to-obtain information. Such information has been regularly gathered from 

NAWS participants in every federal fiscal year since the October 1988 start date. 

Owing to budgetary and policy considerations, the number of interviews conducted each year has varied considerably.

When combined with data from other sources, such as the Census of Agriculture or the FLS, the NAWS has been effectively used to provide otherwise hardto-estimate numbers, such as estimates of the number of persons who qualify 

for participation in federal programs intended to serve migrant farm laborers. In 

addition, the NAWS conforms its sampling procedure to the same 18 USDA crop 

regions as form the basis of the FLS (and in fact uses FLS data to assist in determining the proportion of interviews required in each crop region). As a result, data are 

available for a few individual states, such as California, that are themselves distinct 

crop regions.

The NIOSH AFF Program entered into an interagency agreement with DOL 

to add an occupational safety and health supplement to the NAWS for federal FY 

1999 (three NAWS interview cycles, starting in October 1998 and concluding in 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

314 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

September 1999) supported by NIOSH funding. The interviews included inquiries 

specifically designed to probe the occupational safety and health status of hired 

farm laborers, and some of the queries were permanently added to the NAWS after 

the end of NIOSH supplementary support.

A NIOSH report on the findings of the occupational health supplement, by 

Andrea Steege and Sherry Baron, has been completed and has undergone extensive 

outside review. At this writing, the report is moving through the NIOSH internal 

approval process.7

EMPLOYMENT DATA ON INDIVIDUAL STATES

A number of important farm states, such as California and Washington, have 

universal UI requirements for virtually all private-sector workers. Thus, comprehensive employment data are regularly published or otherwise made available on 

workers in the major industry sectors, often at both the state and regional levels 

and sometimes also at the county level. Employment data are compiled for the 

pay period that includes the 12th day of each month of each calendar quarter with 

corresponding payroll summaries. For example, California publishes a monthly 

Agricultural Bulletin and an annual supplement providing annual average employment data for all the major NAICS categories related to farm employment (CA 

EDD, 2007). The findings are based on a random cross-sectional sample of firms 

that file quarterly reports to meet their UI obligations. Findings for the state as a 

whole and each of the state’s six crop regions are reported.

The California findings can be compared with the findings for that state as 

determined by federal surveys, such as the FLS. Such a comparison can yield useful 

information on the effectiveness of coverage of federal and state surveys. Table E-5 

shows one such comparison; it compares a special compilation of all individual 

quarterly reports submitted by farm employers (universal reporting), Agricultural 

Bulletin survey data, and FLS survey data on California employment by farm labor 

contractors. Because quarterly tax reports of employment and payroll by employers 

determines their UI tax obligations, whereas the FLS and the Agricultural Bulletin

are based on self-reports of total employment, both surveys are likely to understate 

a substantial portion of farm-labor contractor employment in California.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE REPORTS

More than a dozen states require workers’ compensation insurance coverage for 

nearly all private-sector employees. Some states, such as Washington, require the 

7 Sherry Baron, private communication, March 6, 2007.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 315 pp e n d i x E

TABLE E-5 Hired Farmworker Employment, Farm Labor Contractors, 

California, 2000: Comparison of Farm Labor Survey, Agricultural Bulletin Surveys, 

and ES202 Reports

Month and Week Farm Labor (FLS)

Agricultural 

Bulletin (CA-EDD)

Universal Reports from 

All Employers

January 9-15 75,000 69,700 96,017

April 9-15 85,000 86,600 134,475

July 9-15 99,000 150,300 177,409

October 8-14 86,000 109,100 135,949

coverage through the public sector, in this case the Department of Labor and Industries. Other states, such as California, permit coverage through private insurance 

providers or through a public agency, the State Compensation Insurance Fund.

Actuarial reports are annual reports that summarize claim frequencies by 

occupational risk category. There are 14 nationally recognized risk categories 

related to agriculture, and claim records of exposure of all workers in each risk 

category (based on payroll totals) and numerous other details are regularly produced to enable insurance providers to base premium rates on claim frequency 

and experience.

Paid workers’ compensation claims have been reviewed and analyzed to obtain 

reasonably accurate estimates of employment and estimates of the cumulative 

prevalence of injury and illness in hired farm laborers in California and other states 

(Villarejo, 1997). The actuarial agency responsible for rate-setting in California has 

used its own analysis of the surveillance data available from the records of paid 

claims to determine which factors are important in reducing workplace injuries 

and illnesses (WCIRB, 2002).

To illustrate the potential usefulness of those data for surveillance purposes, 

Table E-6 presents the 10-year summary of hired farm-laborer paid claims under 

workers’ compensation insurance in California. It is not known whether all eligible persons filed such claims, but it is very likely that the most serious incidents, 

fatalities and permanent disabilities, resulted in payment under workers’ compensation. The data in Table E-6 refer to all paid claims in the 14 classification codes 

that refer to on-farm work, both crop and livestock. The term “Claim Frequency 

Report (Level 5)” refers to summary information on paid claims through the fifth 

year following the policy year. It is necessary to carefully consider the number and 

actual costs associated with paid claims through a long period after the year in 

which the incident took place because some claims are initially challenged by the 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

316 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

employer or the insurer (“open claims”) whereas others may involve lengthy, multiyear rehabilitation or medical treatment. Under California law, an occupational 

injury or illness that requires hospitalization or leads to loss of more than 3 days 

of work results in an indemnity payment in lieu of lost wages; if the number of 

lost workdays is lower, no indemnity is paid. Table D-6 does not show the actuarial analysis of the most serious incidents (those amounting to a loss of $5,000 as 

measured by combined medical and indemnity costs), which includes the nature 

of an injury, the nature of an accident, the body part injured, and other variables. 

The latter data could inform occupational safety research.

Surveillance of AFF workers would be best accomplished by thinking first in 

terms of all workers in each AFF sector. From there, it makes sense to consider 

surveillance of all five categories of workers—self-employed workers, unpaid family 

workers, directly hired laborers, contract laborers, other employees of large-scale 

firms—in each of the three AFF subsectors. Datasets on workers’ compensation 

are reasonably reliable for surveillance of fatalities and serious injuries or illnesses 

among hired workers but less reliable for minor cases.

TABLE E-6 Paid Claims Under Workers’ Compensation Insurance, Hired Farm 

Workers, California, 1990-1999, Claim Frequency Report (Level 5)

Type of Claim Number of Claims

Fatalities 455

Major permanent disability 12,932

Minor permanent disability 31,958

Temporary disability 68,357

Medical only/no indemnity payment to claimant 185,029

Total 298,731

SOURCE: Classification Experience Reports, 1990-1999 (Level 5), Workers’ Compensation Insurance 

Rating Bureau of California, San Francisco, California.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

317

F

Policies and Regulations Affecting the 

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Workforce

“The Congress hereby finds that the existence, in industries engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living 

for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers . . .”

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC 201 et seq.)

PUBLIC POLICY AND REGULATORY ADVICE

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is uniquely 

positioned to offer independent, scientifically founded assessments of the effectiveness of public policy with respect to risk factors in workplace injury or illness. The 

agriculture, forestry, and fishing (AFF) sector presents a distinctly difficult set of 

circumstances for making such determinations. This appendix describes the legal 

framework within which NIOSH research informs policy discourse in law and regulation, then reviews and evaluates NIOSH contributions to policy and regulation, 

and finally offers suggestions for new policy-oriented research initiatives.

The AFF sector differs markedly from most other industry sectors in which 

fixed-worksite “brick and mortar” facilities are the norm. First, because the AFF sector is based on production from natural resources, there are millions of individual 

worksites to consider: crop and livestock fields scattered throughout the nation, 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

318 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

vast forests, and seemingly endless open waters. Second, most of the more than 1 

million businesses engaged in this sector are small, family-operated enterprises, a 

great many of which are part-time businesses or active only on a seasonal basis. 

Third, only businesses directly engaged in or producing commodities for interstate 

commerce have traditionally been subject to federal regulation owing to significant 

constitutional questions regarding federal jurisdiction. Finally, many, if not a majority, of the estimated several million people working as hired laborers in the AFF 

sector today are immigrants who are not authorized for employment in the United 

States, and this greatly complicates surveillance and arguably weakens a regulatory 

system based on self-reported complaints. Although the current number of hired 

farm workers is not accurately known, as of 1992 it was authoritatively estimated 

to be 2.5 million (U.S. Commission on Agricultural Workers, 1992).

It is important to note that federal policy regarding workplace safety and health 

in most industry sectors, including AFF, was relatively limited until enactment of 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 651-678). That statute 

mandated establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), a regulatory agency, and NIOSH, an independent research agency. The 

law explicitly directed NIOSH to conduct research, directly or through grants or 

contracts, related to occupational safety and health. It was expected that NIOSH, 

among its principal activities, would provide independent research to inform 

OSHA’s regulatory decisionmaking.

Later, Congress intervened to weaken the original law, exempting “small farms” 

from OSHA and NIOSH jurisdiction. Specifically, the annual farming appropriations rider states that “none of the funds appropriated under this paragraph [OSHA 

funds] shall be obligated or expended to prescribe, issue, administer, or enforce 

any standard, rule, or order under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

which is applicable to any person who is engaged in a farming operation which does 

not maintain a temporary labor camp and employs ten or fewer employees.”

The pattern of explicitly exempting large portions of AFF industries from 

federal laws that govern all other industries has a long history. The National Labor 

Relations Act of 1935 (29 USC 151-169), which affirms the right of most U.S. 

workers to engage in concerted action on their own behalf through organizations 

of their choosing, does not apply to any person employed as a hired farm laborer.

Federal governance of workplace conditions was first delineated by the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA, 29 USC 201-219), which addresses such important occupational safety issues as child labor, wages and hours of work, and 

appropriate ages for operating hazardous machinery.1 In general, “all employees 

of a farm are covered under the FLSA on an enterprise basis if the annual gross 

1 See 29 CFR Parts 500-870; http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title_29/Chapter_V.htm.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 319 pp e n d i x F

volume of sales made or business done by the enterprise that owns the farm is not 

less than $500,000 . . . and the enterprise employs workers engaged in commerce, 

or the production of goods for commerce” (DOL, 2004).

Roughly one-fourth of U.S. farms (27 percent) directly hire farm laborers, but 

only one-ninth (11 percent) of farms with hired-labor expenses (60,646 of 554,434 

farms) had cash receipts from the sale of agricultural commodities amounting to 

$500,000 or more in 2002 (USDA, 2004). An additional but unknown number of 

farm operators rely on indirectly hired farm laborers, described as contract labor, 

usually through a labor-market intermediary, such as a farm labor contractor. 

Thus, at least 89 percent of farms with hired or contract laborers are exempted 

from FLSA regulation by the farm-sales size limitation. However, farms subject to 

federal regulation account for over two-thirds (71 percent) of all direct-hire farmlabor payroll. It is not known what fraction of all hired and contract laborers are 

employed on farms that are exempted.

Much of the basis of exempting smaller-scale farming businesses from FLSA 

and OSHA regulation was originally motivated by an interest among policy­makers 

not to unduly burden farms that were, at least in 1938, the major source of American food production. But the dominance of American agriculture by small farms 

has long since passed. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, if all farms are 

ranked in descending order by size of cash receipts from sales of agricultural commodities, the largest 6.7 percent of all American farms accounted for 75 percent 

of all farm sales. The 1987 Census of Agriculture reported that the largest 13.3 

percent of all farms accounted for 75 percent of farm sales. Thus, size concentration in American agriculture has roughly doubled in just 15 years. Clearly, small 

farms have become less and less important.

STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS OF CHILD LABOR 

FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

Despite the clear delineation of which farms are subject to federal regulation, 

there are numerous additional statutory exemptions of various categories of hired 

farm workers from the protections of the FLSA (DOL, 2007a). Exemptions from 

the FLSA for agricultural workers include allowing children 14 and 15 years old to 

be employed for unlimited periods outside local school hours. Similarly, “minors 

who are at least 16 years of age may perform any farm job, including agricultural 

occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor, at any time, including 

during school hours” (DOL, 2007a).

Minors under 14 years old may also work in agriculture under any of the following statutory exemptions from the child labor provisions of the FLSA:
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

320 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

• Minors 12 and 13 years old may work outside school hours with written 

parental consent or on farms where parents are employed.

• Minors under 12 years old may work outside school hours with written 

parental consent on farms not subject to the minimum wage.

• Local minors 10 and 11 years old may work outside school hours under 

prescribed conditions to hand-harvest crops with short harvesting seasons for 

not more than 8 weeks from June 1 to October 15 on approval by the Secretary 

of Labor of an employer’s application for a waiver from the child labor provisions 

for employment of such children.

As described in a special report on child labor in agriculture prepared by the 

General Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) in 

response to a specific request from Congress (GAO, 1998),

a 13-year-old may not, under federal law, be employed to perform clerical 

work in an office but may be employed to pick strawberries in a field. A 

16-year-old may not operate a power saw or a forklift in a warehouse but 

may operate either on a farm. . . . Under current law, a 14-year-old hired 

to work in a retail establishment may work only between the hours of 7 

a.m. and 7 p.m. (9 p.m. in the summer) and may not work more than 18 

hours in a school week or 3 hours in a school day; the same child may work 

an unlimited number of hours picking grapes as long as he or she is not 

working during school hours.

The GAO report concludes, “children may work in agriculture in circumstances 

that would be illegal in other industries.”

Some may be under the mistaken impression that those statutory exemptions 

apply only to children of farmers or ranchers. It was undoubtedly the case in 1938 

when the FLSA was enacted that the exemptions were intended mostly to benefit 

family-operated farms, but small-scale family farms are no longer the major factor in agricultural production, as was the case 70 years ago. In fact, most children 

who work in agriculture today are hired laborers. The GAO report finds that an 

estimated 155,000 15- to 17-year-olds worked in agriculture in 1997, and 116,000 

of these were hired farm laborers; only 39,000 were self-employed and unpaid 

family workers (GAO, 1998).

EXEMPTIONS OF HIRED FARM LABOR FROM 

OVERTIME AND MINIMUM-WAGE RULES

Under the FLSA, employers are generally required to compensate workers at no 

less than 1.5 times the regular pay rate for any employment in any workweek after 
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 321 pp e n d i x F

40 hours. But the entitlement to receive overtime compensation does not apply to 

any worker employed in farming or to employees engaged in the transportation or 

preparation for transportation of fruits and vegetables from the farm to the place 

of first processing or first marketing within the same state. Also exempted from 

the overtime regulation are irrigators (often, irrigators in many western states are 

obliged by their employers to keep a round-the-clock watch during the period when 

water is delivered from a ditch or canal to a particular farm property).2

The FLSA also established a federal minimum wage rate. But only farm operators who used 500 worker-days or more of agricultural labor during any calendar 

quarter of the preceding calendar year are subject to the federal minimum wage 

provision unless their employees are otherwise explicitly excluded by statute.

Examples of additional hired workers statutorily excluded from federal minimum wage protection include

• Local hand-harvest workers who are paid a piece rate and who worked 

fewer than 13 weeks in agriculture during the preceding calendar year.

• Members of the employer’s immediate family.

• Migrant hand-harvest workers 16 years old and younger who are employed 

on the same farm as their parents, or persons standing in place of their parents, 

and who receive the same piece rates as employees more than 16 years old working 

on the same farm.

• Workers engaged mainly in the range production of livestock.

Finally, the so-called “youth minimum wage” allows payment of a subminimum wage of $4.25 to any worker under 20 years old during his or her first 

consecutive 90 calendar days of employment with an employer (at this writing, 

the federal minimum wage is $5.85) (DOL, 2007b). That provision applies to all 

industry sectors, but agriculture is the only sector that allows very young children 

to be employed at all.

SUPERSEDING OF FEDERAL LAWS BY STATE WORKPLACE LAWS

California was arguably the first state to enact law addressing unhealthful 

conditions among AFF workers. In 1915, in response to public outcry over horrific labor-camp conditions at a northern California farm and a violent confrontation between several thousand workers and sheriffs at the camp, known as the 

Wheatland Hop Riot of 1913, the California legislature enacted the Labor Camp 

2 FLSA, Sec. 13(b)(12).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

322 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

Act, setting minimum sanitary standards that farmers and others must meet when 

housing their employees.

It is important that when a state law governing workplace conditions differs 

from a federal law, the law that provides more protection or a higher standard applies. Thus, contrary to the OSHA small-farm exemption, California law does not 

exempt farms with 10 or fewer workers from occupational safety regulation by 

the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (known as Cal/OSHA). 

Similarly, young child workers in the state are required to present prospective 

employers with currently valid work permits, signed by both local school authorities and a parent, to be eligible for employment. And California’s state minimum 

wage, $7.50 per hour at this writing and scheduled to increase to $8.00 per hour 

on January 1, 2008, is applicable to all hired workers, including those employed 

on farms.

In contrast, California law regarding overtime pay in agriculture, although 

stricter than the federal provision excluding farm laborers, specifies compensation 

at 1.5 times the regular pay rate only on the seventh day after six consecutive 10-

hour days of work. Virtually all other workers in California qualify for overtime 

pay after 8 hours of work on any day.

A comprehensive summary of federal and state laws governing hired farm 

workers was published in 1988 (Craddock, 1988). A number of new laws and 

regulations affecting farm labor workplaces in recent years make portions of that 

review outdated. There is no comparable review of law and regulation governing 

the forestry and fishing industries.

OTHER FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING WORKPLACE CONDITIONS 

IN THE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING SECTOR

A number of other federal laws that govern workplace conditions authorize 

additional agencies to maintain compliance oversight of some AFF worksites. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under the federal Worker Protection 

Standard, is responsible for ensuring safe workplace conditions when dangerous 

pesticides are mixed, loaded, or applied. The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 

Worker Protection Act (MSAWPA) authorizes the Department of Labor (DOL) 

to promote and enforce regulations covering a variety of workplace conditions, 

including transportation to and from work that is provided by farm employers 

or their agents, farm labor housing provided by farm employers or their agents, 

registration of farm labor contractors and their agents, and notice to workers of 

their rights and responsibilities under U.S. law.3

3 Cf. 29 CFR Parts 500-501.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 323 pp e n d i x F

There may be some misunderstanding among NIOSH staff on this point inasmuch as the evidence package presented to the present committee states that the 

MSAWPA “provides that employment-related protection for migrant and seasonal 

agricultural workers is administered and enforced by the DOL Employment Standards Administration.” In fact, the Wage and Hour Division of DOL’s Employment 

Standards Administration has responsibility for enforcement of the FLSA provisions pertaining to agriculture for all hired farm workers (except those exempted by 

statute), not just those deemed “migrant and seasonal” under the MSAWPA.

The committee noted some additional possible misunderstandings regarding 

hired workers in the AFF sector. In discussions of child workers, AFF program descriptions consistently refer to children and adolescents under the age of 20 years 

with respect to both farm residents and youths performing work on farms. But 

child labor refers exclusively to children, legally known as “minors”, that is, persons 

under 18 years old.

Another possible misunderstanding concerns enforcement of occupational 

safety regulations. The evidence package states, “OSHA lacks authority for most 

of the agricultural workforce since much of that workforce is self-employed or 

consists of unpaid family labor, and OSHA is restricted from inspecting farms that 

employ fewer than 11 workers at those worksites.”4 But FLSA statutory exemptions 

govern child labor on all farms, not only those on small farms. In some important farm states, such as California, OSHA has delegated regulatory authority to a 

state agency, in this case Cal/OSHA, which under state law authorizes inspections 

on all farms that employ hired workers, not only those employing more than 10 

workers.

A more serious misunderstanding concerns the statement in the evidence package regarding the FLSA: “The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act applies to migrants 

and local residents regardless of farm size or the number of person-days of farm 

labor used on that farm. However, these standards do not apply to youth working 

on family farming operations.”5 Neither statement is true as written.

The AFF evidence package inappropriately makes the general statement that 

“regulating at the State level has been ineffective.”6 That is not true in California, 

Washington, and possibly other states. In fact, some would argue that state regulation in California and Washington is far more effective than federal regulation in 

states where only federal OSHA law applies.

Finally, a sweeping statement is made about the availability of data from 

workers’ compensation insurance programs that is simply misleading: “Most 

farmers, ranchers, fishermen and agricultural workers are not covered by workers’ 

4 NIOSH Evidence Package, p. 34.

5 NIOSH Evidence Package, p. 67.

6 Ibid, p. 68.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

324 A g r i c u l t u r e , F o r e s t r y , a n d F i s h i n g R e s e a r c h a t NIOSH

compensation insurance programs or are not required to report injuries or illnesses 

to OSHA. Thus, little data are available to estimate the economic losses associated 

with workplace injuries and illnesses.”7 The situation is actually more nuanced than 

those statements in the evidence package suggest. California workers’ compensation insurance data have been widely and successfully used for all the purposes 

mentioned (Villarejo, 1997).

FISHING AND FORESTRY-INDUSTRY WORKERS

Fishermen are subject to both OSHA and FLSA laws, with some statutory exemptions noted below. The entire industry is also subject to regulation under the 

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Act of 1988 (CFIVSA, 46 USC Chapter 

45), the first federal safety law to address the numerous occupational hazards in 

that industry.8 The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has responsibility for enforcement of 

the CFIVSA but only to the extent that regulations have been promulgated. USCG 

has published an excellent summary of the regulations with a comprehensive list 

of citations to the applicable CFR standards (U.S. Coast Guard, 2001). Maritimesafety regulation governs dockside vessels and land-based fishermen, such as longshoremen and shipyard workers.9

OSHA has jurisdiction over fishing vessels within state territorial waters where 

USCG has not issued regulations. The general industry standards of the OSHA act 

apply to commercial fishing vessels.10 In addition, OSHA jurisdiction applies to 

all vessels involved in longshoring operations, whether vessel to shore or vessel to 

vessel. But USCG is the lead federal agency on the water: its regulations preempt 

OSHA’s.

The list of agencies with authority over one or another aspect of commercial 

fishing activities is long. Some fishing vessels also process their catch onboard 

while at sea, and this triggers regulation under the authority of the Food and Drug 

Administration. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency governs the relationship between commercial fishing activities and their impact on the environment. 

A knowledgeable safety professional, responsible for a large commercial fishing 

operation, informed the committee that he could recall having representatives of 

four agencies onboard a 120-ft fishing vessel at one time.

Because OSHA and USCG have distinct responsibilities for vessel safety under 

different federal laws, separate shipboard inspections by each agency may allow 

some unsafe practices to be unintentionally overlooked. For example, during a 

7 Ibid, p. 68.

8 Cf. 46 CFR Part 28.

9 Cf. 29 CFR Parts 1915-1919.

10Cf. 29 CFR Part 1910.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 325 pp e n d i x F

compliance visit on a vessel, OSHA inspectors do not determine whether life rafts 

conform to CFIVSA regulations, which are subject to USCG authority, but will 

examine such issues as matters of fall-protection safety.

A complex set of occupational safety standards apply to the fishing industry, 

reflecting in part, the large variance in types of commercial fishing vessels. Regulations regarding specific types of lifesaving and other equipment, training, and 

workplace protective standards are determined by a vessel’s size or the number of 

onboard personnel. Thus, shorter vessels or those carrying few workers are not 

held to the same standard as larger vessels with more workers.

Commercial fishing boat and diving operations with 10 or fewer employees 

have been exempted from OSHA safety inspections, as in agriculture, by an annual appropriations rider in Congress (Noll, 1994). Also statutorily exempt from 

the FLSA minimum wage requirement is “any employee employed in the catching, 

taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish, 

crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, 

or in the first processing, canning or packing such marine products at sea as an 

incident to, or in conjunction with, such fishing operations, including the going 

to and returning from work and loading and unloading when performed by any 

such employee . . . ”11

Forestry industry workers are subject to the OSHA act12 and the FLSA. But 

forestry and logging workers employed by a firm with eight or fewer employees are 

exempt by statute from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA.13 States with 

major logging industries also have substantial regulatory and oversight responsibilities, as approved under agreement with OSHA. A number of states—for example, 

Idaho, Oregon, and Washington—have developed their own safety standards for 

forestry and logging workers. In fact, Oregon’s logging code was established well 

before enactment of the OSHA act in 1970.

An unusual aspect of forest work is the contracting of some activities by 

private-sector employers and the USDA Forest Service to labor contractors. The 

employer of record in such a circumstance is often a very small business with small 

assets, if any. The vastness of forest activities makes it difficult to regulate or provide 

timely oversight of them. Many of the tasks performed by the workers are identical with agricultural tasks: planting, thinning, and weeding. MSAWPA regulation 

therefore applies to contract forest workers.

11FLSA, Sec. 13(a)(5).

12Cf. 29 CFR Part 1910.266.

13FLSA, Sec. 13(b)(28).
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

326

G

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

W. REG GOMES, Chair, University of California (Emeritus), Oakland

ROGER N. BEACHY, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, Missouri

H.H. CHENG, University of Minnesota (Emeritus), St. Paul

DANIEL M. DOOLEY, University of California, Oakland

JOAN H. EISEMANN, North Carolina State University, Raleigh

KIRK C. KLASING, University of California, Davis

VICTOR L. LECHTENBERG, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

ROBERT PAARLBERG, Wellesley College, Watertown, Massachusetts

BOBBY PHILLS, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee

KEITH PITTS, Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Fair Oaks, California

HAL SALWASSER, Oregon State University, Corvallis

PEDRO A. SANCHEZ, The Earth Institute at Columbia University, Palisades, 

New York

NORMAN R. SCOTT, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

Staff

ROBIN SCHOEN, Director

KAREN L. IMHOF, Administrative Assistant

AUSTIN J. LEWIS, Program Officer

EVONNE TANG, Senior Program Officer

PEGGY TSAI, Associate Program Officer
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html

A 327 pp e n d i x G

CAMILLA YANDOC ABLES, Associate Program Officer

JANET MULLIGAN, Research Associate

RUTH S. ARIETI, Senior Program Assistant

MARGOT RHYU, Program Assistant
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Research at NIOSH 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12088.html