The National Assessment

of the

Worker Protection Program

Stakeholder Workshop #1 

Workshop Report

Austin, Texas

June 6-7, 2000
-2-

Executive Summary

Introduction

On June 6-7, 2000, theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA) convened the “National

Assessment of the Worker Protection Program - Workshop #1” in Austin, Texas. The Austin

meeting represented the official launch of the Agency’s national assessment of the WPS program,

beginning a multi-phase process that will take place over the next 18 to 24 months to conduct a

comprehensive review of EPA’s worker protection program, including implementation and

enforcement. The national assessment will help the Agency determine whether the WPS program is

adequately meeting its intended goals of addressing the risks to agricultural workers.

Background on the Worker Protection Standard

The revised Worker Protection Standard (WPS) regulation was issued by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August 1992, and became fully effective on January 1,

1995. The WPS was put in place to reduce the occupational risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries

among agricultural workers and pesticide handlers on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The

rule provides protections to over three and a half million people who work with pesticides at over

560,000 workplaces. The WPS contains requirements for:

ò Pesticide safety training;

ò Notification of pesticide applications;

ò Use of personal protective equipment;

ò Restricted entry intervals following pesticide applications;

ò Decontamination supplies; and

ò Emergency medical assistance.

The WPS represented a significant strengthening of the occupational protections for

agricultural workers and involvedsubstantial changesinagricultural practice for employersto comply

with the new requirements. The WPS also required the Office of Pesticide Programs to undertake

one of its most extensive regulatory implementation efforts ever. EPA has been engaged in its WPS

implementation effort for five years during which time EPA’s state regulatory partners and other

stakeholders have identified numerous concerns with implementation of the regulation. A recent

series of reports and recommendations from the Government Accounting Office (GAO), the

Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC), and various worker advocacy groups

have identified other areas of concern with the WPS program as well. All of these factors have led

to the launching of this national assessment of the worker protection program.

The National Assessment of the WPS Program
-3-

EPA is initiating its national assessment of the WPS program to assess the effectiveness of

its WPS implementation and enforcement efforts, and address the GAO, CHPAC, and other

stakeholder recommendations on EPA’s regulatory efforts to protect the health of agricultural

workers and children working in agricultural areas. The goals of the national assessment are to: 

ò Generate a consortium of interests committed to the WPS program and the

assessment;

ò Identify key stakeholder concerns/issues with the WPS program that need to be

addressed;

ò Assess the current program status and determine program needs and priorities;

ò Develop a comprehensive set of recommendations for WPS program

enhancements and possible regulatory changes that EPA should consider;

ò Develop mechanisms to foster partnerships that can effect positive change in the

program and make the program work effectively; and

ò Develop the infrastructure for a continuing forum that will address future WPS

issues.

The national assessment will initially focus on the following key areas of EPA’s worker

protection program: 

ò Effectiveness of EPA’s WPS implementation and enforcement efforts;

ò EPA’s oversight of state programs and the effectiveness and consistency of state

implementation and enforcement of the WPS; 

ò Outreach and communications with the affected regulatory community and

stakeholders; 

ò Scope, quality and delivery of worker and handler training programs; 

ò Special needs/concerns of children and pregnant women as agricultural workers;

and 

ò Strategies for educating health care workers and the medical community.

The Austin Stakeholder Meeting - June 6-7, 2000

The Austin meeting was the first of three national stakeholder meetings being held to invite

stakeholder participation in the national assessment. EPA feels it is critical to engage a broad array

of WPS stakeholders in the assessment effort. The Austin meeting began the important process of

building a coalition of interested stakeholders that are willing to participate in the assessment effort,

and remain active in resolving WPS program issues and effecting positive change in the operation of

the program. The primary objectives of the Austin meeting were to:

ò Articulate the Agency’s objectives for the national assessment and outline the

nature of the stakeholder participation being sought;
-4-

ò Provide an opportunity for public input on the structure, design and operation of

the national assessment;

ò Give stakeholders an opportunity to identifyWPS issues/concernsthey thinkEPA

should consider in its national assessment of the WPS program; and 

ò Have stakeholders identify key focal areas/priorities for the assessment.

The first half day of the two-day Austin meeting consisted of general presentations and panel

discussions to provide participants with background information on the WPS program, and also to

provide an opportunity for a discussion of the goals and desired outcomes of the meeting as well as

the overall assessment process. The remaining one and a half days took place in four small group

break-out sessionsthat focused on identifying stakeholder concerns and gathering their input on four

main discussion topic areas: 

ò WPS Outreach, Communications and Training Issues;

ò WPS Enforcement Issues;

ò Rethinking/Improving the WPS; and

ò The Proposed Structure and Process for the National WPS Assessment.

Summary of Meeting Outcomes

The Agency received extensive comments from stakeholders during the break-out sessions,

resulting in the identification of many specific concerns with the WPS program and its

implementation. Stakeholders also provided input on the national assessment process and made

numerous recommendations for WPS program improvements. The last part of the Austin meeting

was dedicated to summarizing the concerns and issuesraised by the variousstakeholdersin the breakout sessions and discussing the themes that emerged from the meeting. This process resulted in the

identification of the following broad theme areas and underlying issues that willserve as focal points

for the assessment process as it moves forward:

ò Training Issues: funding and resource distribution, program and materials

evaluation, handler training, training content, training quality and consistency,

training materials, train-the-trainer networks, alternative training systems, retraining, and training record-keeping requirements;

ò Enforcement Issues: funding, EPA oversight of state programs, quality and

consistency of state WPS inspections, defining WPS inspection criteria, national

reporting, WPS penalty policy, incident reporting and tracking, and

community/advocacy group involvement;

ò Complaint and Retaliation Issues: improving the complaint process, educating

workers on WPS and the complaint process, and resolving retaliation problems;
-5-

ò Communications Issues: general WPS outreach with stakeholders, hazard

communication information for workers, language and cultural barriers, and

outreach and coordination with health care providers;

ò Children’s Health Issues: adequacy of the WPS restricted entry intervals for

protecting children under 12 years of age,special provisions needed for protecting

children, and appropriateness of children working in agriculture; and

ò Other Issues: decontamination, engineering controls, WPS risk assessments,

inter-agency coordination, funding, and the national assessment process.

[NOTE: the full Austin Meeting Report provides a more complete record of the specific

concerns and recommendations that were identified by stakeholders during the small group

break-out sessions and general meeting discussions.]

Next Steps

The Austin meeting represents a significant milestone in initiating the national assessment and

setting a course for the process, but it is important to note that the WPS assessment is an ongoing

process. EPA is seeking the involvement of stakeholders who wish to participate in the next steps

of the national assessment process but were unable to attend the Austin meeting. Next steps include:

ò Creation of WPS Assessment Work Group and Working Committees

As part of the national assessment, EPA intends to form a “WPS Assessment Work

Group.” This workgroup will help provide direction to the assessment process, the

different assessment working committees, and the overall WPS program. The

workgroup will be comprised of representatives from EPA, Departments of

Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services,state regulators, state extension

service safety educators, farm worker advocacy groups, farm workerservice/training

associations, agricultural employer associations,farmworker clinicians networks, and

other interested stakeholders.

One of the cornerstones of the proposed assessment process is the formation of a

number ofsmall working committeesthat will more thoroughly focus on and address

the broad themes areas and underlying issues identified in Austin. The assessment

working committees will be made up of representatives from the WPS stakeholders

who have volunteered to be active participants in the assessment process. 

2. Additional Stakeholder Meetings
-6-

The Austin meeting was only the first of three stakeholder meetings that are being

held to invite stakeholder participation in the national assessment effort. The Agency

is planning two additionalstakeholder meetingsthat will invite continued input on the

WPS program and the national WPS assessment process. The two remaining

stakeholder meetings are being planned for different regions of the country to assure

that different regional perspectives are adequately represented in the assessment

process. 

The next stakeholder meeting will be held in Sacramento, California, in December

2000, and a third stakeholder meeting will be held in Orlando, Florida in the Spring

of 2001. EPA will be disseminating additional information about the arrangements

for the next stakeholder meetings as soon as it becomes available.

For More Information

For more information about the status of the national assessment process, plans for future

stakeholder meetings, or how to become involved in the variousworkgroups being formed, interested

parties are encouraged to visit the Certification and Worker Protection Branch’s web page

(www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety) or call the Branch office directly at 703-305-7666.
-7-

Part I: Introduction

1. The Austin Meeting

On June 6-7, 2000, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened the “National

Assessment of the Worker Protection Program - Workshop #1”in Austin, Texas. The Austin

meeting represented the official launch of the Agency’s national assessment of the WPS program,

beginning a multi-phase process that will take place over the next 18 to 24 months to conduct a

comprehensive review of EPA’s worker protection program, including implementation and

enforcement. The assessment will help the Agency determine whether the program is adequately

meeting its intended goals of addressing the risks to agricultural workers.

The Austin meeting was the forum for EPA to publicly articulate its vision for the national

WPS assessment and receive feedback on the proposed effort. The meeting also invited stakeholder

participation in the assessment process. EPA feels it is critical to engage a broad array of WPS

stakeholders in the assessment process, and the Austin meeting began the important work of

generating a consortium of interested stakeholders committed to participation in the effort.

The Austin meeting generated much-needed input from stakeholders on the proposed

structure and operation of the national assessment, and the key WPS program concerns/issues they

felt EPA should focus on in its assessment of the program. EPA wishes to thank all the attendees of

the Austin meeting for their participation in the initial stakeholder meeting and for their valuable

contribution to the beginning of the assessment effort. EPA looks forward to continued stakeholder

participation in the effort as the assessment process moves forward.

2. The Meeting Report

This report provides meeting participants and interested parties with a summary of the

outcomes of the Austin meeting and a description of EPA’s effort to initiate and conduct its national

assessment of the WPS program. The report is intended as a working/communications document to

raise awareness about the national assessment, spark interest and discussion, and solicit wider

stakeholder participation in the national assessment effort. Part I of the report provides the

introduction and contains five four sections:

ò The Austin Meeting: an introduction to the Austin meeting and its purpose;

ò The Meeting Report: an overview of the workshop report;
-8-

ò Background on the WPS: a brief history and overview of the WPS program;

ò Rationale for the National WPS Assessment: a discussion of the rationale for

the national assessment of the WPS program; and 

ò Goals of the National WPS Assessment: an explanation of the goals and

objectives of the national assessment. 

Part II of the report contains the summary write-up of the outcomes of the Austin meeting

and contains three sections:

ò Summary of Meeting and Outcomes: a brief overview of the Austin meeting

and a summary of the substantive outcomes;

ò Summary of Stakeholder Input: a thorough record of the stakeholder input

from the Austin meeting regarding concerns/issues with the WPS program; and

ò Next Steps: a description of the next steps in the national assessment process.

An executive summary of the report is provided at the beginning of the report for those

individuals who would like to know more about the results of the Austin meeting and national

assessment effort, but may not be interested in reading the complete report containing the record of

the stakeholder comments.

3. Background on the WPS

The revised Worker Protection Standard (WPS) regulation was issued by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 21, 1992, but the rule did not become fully

effective until January 1, 1995, due to a Congressional delay of the original implementation dates.

The WPS was put in place to reduce the occupational risk of pesticide poisonings and injuries among

agricultural workers and pesticide handlers on farms, forests, nurseries and greenhouses. The rule

provides protectionsto over three and a halfmillion people who work with pesticides at over 560,000

workplaces. The WPS contains requirements for:

ò Pesticide safety training;

ò Notification of pesticide applications;

ò Use of personal protective equipment;

ò Restricted entry intervals following pesticide applications;

ò Decontamination supplies; and

ò Emergency medical assistance.
-9-

The WPS represented a significant strengthening of the occupational protections for

agriculturalworkers and involvedsubstantial changesin agricultural practice for employersto comply

with the new requirements. Implementing a standard as complex and comprehensive as the WPS

required the Office of Pesticide Programs to undertake one of its most extensive regulatory

implementation efforts ever. EPA had to conduct extensive outreach and communications with the

affected regulatory community to help assure compliance with the WPS regulation. 

The Agency has been engaged in its WPS implementation effort for five years now and has

made significant progress in implementing the WPS program. During the past five years of

implementation EPA has made several minor rule amendments and issued a number of WPS

exceptions to address problems that were identified with the rule. EPA has also developed an

extensive set ofinterpretive guidance enforcement policiesforthe WPSto address enforcementissues

that have arisen. 

For more information about the WPS or EPA’s worker protection program, interested parties

should visit the Certification and Worker Protection Branch’s Web page on the Office of Pesticide

Programs’ Web site on the Internet at www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety. The Web site contains links

for obtaining fact sheets and other WPS documents, as well as up-to-date information about the

status of the national assessment effort.

4. Rationale for the National WPS Assessment

Several factors have convinced the Agency to initiate its national assessment of the worker

protection program at this time. During the past five years EPA, worker advocacy groups, EPA’s

state regulatory partners, and other stakeholders in the program have identified a variety of problems

associated with implementation of the WPS regulation. Stakeholders have made numerous

recommendations to the Agency regarding WPS program enhancements and/or regulatory changes

they see as necessary for the program to operate effectively. It is important that the Agency respond

to these concerns in a way that buildsstakeholder confidence inEPA’s commitment to implementing

the worker protection program.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) recently issued a report on its study of EPA’s

worker protection program. The GAO report, entitled “Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure

the Safety of Farmworkers and theirChildren,” contains a number ofrecommendationstheGAO feels

are important for EPA to act upon to address concerns with the worker protection program. The

Children’s Health Protection AdvisoryCommittee (CHPAC) also identified areas of concern with the

WPS program. The Agency responded to GAO and CHPAC regarding their recommendations and

EPA agreed to assess its regulatory efforts to protect the health of agricultural workers and children

working in agricultural areas to assure their respective concerns are addressed. 
-10-

In orderto successfully implement the WPS, the Agency also had to develop new partnerships

to achieve its mission given the magnitude and diversity of the audience potentially affected by this

regulation. The implementation effort included the development of numerous outreach materials for

general program communications as well as educational materials and training resourcesfor workers

and handler training. EPA developed an extensive network of cooperative relationshipsthat enabled

the Agency to make significant outreach/education accomplishments within a relatively constrained

resource base. Such cooperative efforts yielded important training partnerships with the Cooperative

Extension Service (CES), educational institutions, worker advocacy groups, and other stakeholders.

EPA feels it is important to evaluate which outreach methods/materials and partnership strategies

have been most effective so that future resources are directed appropriately. 

The Agency recognizes that a regulatory implementation effort of this magnitude requires

periodic evaluation to gauge the success of the program in meeting its goals. Before EPA considers

any significant program and/orregulatory changes, proceeds with newWPS initiatives, or acts on any

of the various recommendations coming from GAO and/or other stakeholders, the Agency believes

it isimportant to assessthe currentstatus of the WPS program to determine where improvements can

be made so the program can evolve and continue to meet itsintended goals of protecting agricultural

workers. All of these factors have led to the launching of the national assessment.

5. Goals of the National WPS Assessment

The Agency is initiating its national assessment of the WPS program to assess the

effectiveness of its WPS implementation and enforcement efforts, and help the Agency determine

whether the program is adequately meeting its intended goals of addressing the risks to agricultural

workers. The national assessment will include consideration of the GAO, CHPAC, and other

stakeholder recommendations to determine an appropriate course of action for responding to the

various program concerns/issues that have been brought to EPA’s attention. The goals of the

national assessment are to: 

ò Generate a consortium of interests committed to the WPS program and the

assessment; 

ò Identify key stakeholder concerns/issues with the WPS program that need to be

addressed;

ò Assess the current program status and determine program needs and priorities;

ò Develop a comprehensive set of recommendations for WPS program

enhancements and possible regulatory changes that EPA should consider;

ò Develop mechanisms to foster the partnerships that can effect positive change in

the program and that will be essential to making the program work effectively;

and 

ò Develop the infrastructure for a continuing forum that will address future WPS

issues.
-11-

The national assessment will initially focus on the following key areas of EPA’s worker

protection program: 

ò Effectiveness of EPA’s WPS implementation and enforcement efforts;

ò EPA’s oversight of state programs and the effectiveness and consistency of state

implementation and enforcement of the WPS; 

ò Outreach and communications with the affected regulatory community and

stakeholders; 

ò Scope, quality and delivery of worker and handler training programs; 

ò Special needs/concerns of children and pregnant women as agricultural workers;

and 

ò Strategies for educating health care workers and the medical community.

The above list does not preclude another area of the WPS program from being included in the

national assessment. EPA intends to solicit extensive stakeholder input to assure that all WPS

concerns are identified and addressed during the assessment process. EPA wants to assure that all

stakeholder perspectives are represented in the assessment process.
-12-

Part II: The Austin Meeting

1. Summary of Meeting and Outcomes

The Austin meeting was the first of three stakeholder meetings being held to invite

stakeholder participation in the national assessment. The two remaining stakeholder meetings are

being planned for different regions of the country to assure that different regional perspectives are

adequately represented in the assessment process (more information on these meetings is provided

at the end of this report under “Next Steps”). 

EPA feels it is critical to engage a broad array of WPS stakeholders in the national

assessment. The Austin meeting began the important process of building coalition of interested

stakeholders that are willing to participate in the assessment effort and remain active in resolving

WPS program issues and effecting positive change in the operation of the program. The primary

objectives of the Austin meeting were to:

ò Articulate the Agency’s objectives for the national assessment and outline the

nature of the stakeholder participation being sought;

ò Provide an opportunity for public input on the structure, design and operation of

the national assessment;

ò Give stakeholders an opportunity to identifyWPS issues/concernsthey thinkEPA

should consider in its national assessment of the WPS program; and 

ò Have stakeholders identify key focal areas/priorities for the assessment.

The first half day of the two-day Austin meeting consisted of general presentations and panel

discussions to provide participants with background information on the WPS program and provide

an opportunity for a discussion of the goals and desired outcomes of the meeting as well as the

overall assessment process. The remaining one and a half days took place in four small group breakout sessions that focused on identifying stakeholder concerns and gathering their input on four main

discussion topic areas: 

ò WPS Outreach, Communications and Training Issues;

ò WPS Enforcement Issues;

ò Rethinking/Improving the WPS; and

ò The Proposed Structure and Process for the National WPS Assessment.
-13-

The Agency received extensive comments from stakeholders during the break-out sessions,

resulting in the identification of many specific concerns with the WPS program and its

implementation. Stakeholders also provided input on the national assessment process and made

numerous recommendations for WPS program improvements. The last part of the Austin meeting

was dedicated to summarizing the concerns and issuesraised by the variousstakeholdersin the breakout sessions and discussing the themes that emerged from the meeting. This process resulted in the

identification of the following broad theme areas and underlying issues that willserve asfocal points

for the assessment process as it moves forward:

ò Training Issues: funding and resource distribution, program and materials

evaluation, handler training, training content, training quality and consistency,

training materials, train-the-trainer networks, alternative training systems, retraining, and training record-keeping requirements;

ò Enforcement Issues: funding, EPA oversight of state programs, quality and

consistency of state WPS inspections, defining WPS inspection criteria, national

reporting, WPS penalty policy, incident reporting and tracking, and

community/advocacy group involvement;

ò Complaint and Retaliation Issues: improving the complaint process, educating

workers on WPS and the complaint process, and resolving retaliation problems;

ò Communications Issues: general WPS outreach with stakeholders, hazard

communication information for workers, language and cultural barriers, and

outreach and coordination with health care providers;

ò Children’s Health Issues: adequacy of the WPS restricted entry intervals for

protecting children under 12 years of age,special provisions needed for protecting

children, and appropriateness of children working in agriculture; and

ò Other Issues: decontamination, engineering controls, WPS risk assessments,

inter-agency coordination, funding, and the national assessment process.

The above themes represent those broad areas of the WPS program that were consistently

identified as areas of concern. Stakeholders agreed that EPA should focus on these areas in its

national assessment of the worker protection program. These themes also represent the key focal

areasthat EPA will likely form assessment working committees around. It should be noted that other

issues may be identified as the assessment process moves forward, and issues may be grouped

differently depending on the number of assessment working committees formed.
-14-

2. Summary of Stakeholder Input

The following section of the report attempts to capture all the salient points raised by

stakeholders in Austin. EPA has strived to capture the basic context of the various stakeholder

discussions. Where appropriate, similar comments, concerns and recommendations have been

combined or abbreviated. It is important to note that inclusion of a particular comment or

recommendation in this report does not necessarily reflect stakeholder consensus on the item. It is

also important to note that inclusion of a particular comment/recommendation in thisreport does not

reflect EPA endorsement of an item. The Agency will consider all comments received from the

stakeholder meetings and respond appropriately as the assessment process moves forward.

The stakeholder input is organized according to broad themes noted in the previous section.

Several issues were identified and discussed at the Austin meeting that did not constitute major

themes on their own, butstakeholdersfelt they should be addressed in the national assessment. These

issues have been grouped together under item number VI, “Other Issues.”

I. Training Issues 

Stakeholdersidentified a wide array of concernsregarding training issues. There was general

consensus that training issues should be one of the primary areas for focus in the assessment. The

stakeholder comments on training issues have been organized according to the following key subtopic areas under training:

ò Funding and Resource Distribution;

ò Program/Materials Evaluation;

ò Handler Training;

ò Training Content;

ò Training Quality and Consistency;

ò Training Materials;

ò Train-the-Trainer Networks;

ò Alternative Training Systems;

ò Re-Training; and

ò Training Record-keeping Requirements.
-15-

Funding and Resource Distribution:

Many stakeholders expressed the need for more funding for training programs and training

networks because adequate resources for the program are not being sustained. Most people felt the

WPS program is severely under-funded and felt EPA and the states can not be successful in

accomplishing the mission of the program without additional funding. Participants also expressed

concern with the distribution of training resources. People felt there is a wide disparity in the

distribution of resources such that some regions of the country suffer from inadequate resources

causing weaker state WPS programs. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should explore alternative ways to supplement funding for the WPS

program such as additional fees on pesticide registrations, a pesticide

manufacturers’ tax, or use of penalties; and

ò EPA should address resource distribution problems and allocate resources

more efficiently and equitably.

Program/Materials Evaluation:

There was general consensus that there needs to be greater effort devoted to evaluation of

the training programs, training content and materials, train-the-trainer networks, and the overall

training requirement to see what is working and what is not. People expressed the need for better

evaluation tools and measures for the WPS program. Stakeholders felt that if EPA conducted

meaningful evaluations it would provide the types of data needed for better measures of success for

the WPS program. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should evaluate the training requirement based on evidence of change

in behavior rather than counting the number of people trained;

ò EPA should hold more focus groups with workers to determine whether

training is adequately addressing workers’ needs; 

ò EPA should work on collecting data that would enable EPA to determine

whether the training being provided is changing behavior and resulting in

risk reduction; and

ò EPA should conduct program evaluations that will produce the data and
-16-

measures needed to substantiate that worker training is resulting in risk

reduction (through fewer incidents and fewer reported injuries). This could

help growers reduce costs (through lower insurance & health care), which

would improve acceptance of the training requirements by employers and

improve compliance.

Handler Training:

Most of the input received on training issues was specific to the worker training aspects of

the training requirements, but there were several comments which pertained to handler training.

Many participants felt that having both worker and handler training requirements under the WPS

creates confusion. It was noted that many employers don’t understand which training should be given

to their employees because WPS worker and handler definitions are not widely recognized and

employers don’t understand the distinction between worker and handler tasks. Worker advocates

noted that workers are often asked to do handling tasks even though they have not been given handler

training, and this results in workers who are not appropriately trained to perform handler tasks or

how to protect themselves when performing handler duties. 

People generally agreed that handler training should be separated out from the WPS and dealt

with exclusively undertheCertification andTraining (C&T) and Pesticide Applicator Training (PAT)

programs which are operated by EPA and the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) through the

states. Participants cited the following reasons for making such changes to the WPS and C&T/PAT

programs:

ò People felt most employers are not capable of delivering proper handler training

given the higher levels of skills and knowledge needed by handlers, the greater

complexity of the training materials, and the more advanced learning objectives

for handler training;

ò Participants felt that the C&T/PAT program is better equipped to deliver handler

training and meet handler training needs;

ò It was pointed out that the WPS creates a different regulatory standard for

pesticide handlers in agriculture versus pesticide handlers in non-agricultural

settings in terms of training requirements, and participants thought this

inconsistency creates confusion and should be remedied; 

ò Many people thought that if the WPS only covered workers it would eliminate

some of the regulatory confusion over the proper training for workers versus

handlers; and
-17-

ò CES representatives noted that theC&T/PAT program has already absorbedmost

of the burden for handler training, and moving handler training would be

consistent with the Certification and Training Assessment Group (CTAG)

recommendations for the C&T program (it was noted that taking on the

responsibility for training all pesticide handlers would overwhelm the system

unless more resources were appropriated for the program).

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPAshouldconduct outreachregarding the distinction between worker and

handler duties and the corresponding training required for each group;

ò EPA should take the regulatory steps to separate out the handler training

provisions from the WPS and harmonize the WPS program requirements

with C&T requirements to eliminate the overlap in the programs and

operate handler training programs more efficiently. 

Training Content:

Several comments supported EPA revising the WPS requirements for the content of the

worker training. Many people thought the current worker training is inadequate and too simplistic,

and they felt the training should be more comprehensive. Worker advocates felt EPA should take

stepsto ensure the training content adequately addresses worker needs/concerns. Participants voiced

the following concerns regarding the content of worker training:

ò The current training does not adequately address the routes of exposure and does

not go far enough in providing workers or handlers with complete information on

the hazards and health risks of pesticides;

ò The current training does not provide enough emphasis on the serious health risks

from pesticides. Training should “scare” workers about the risk from pesticides

to prompt them to pay more attention to training;

ò Training should not be too alarmist because it is not scientifically supported, it is

misleading, and it results in frivolous lawsuits and false worker compensation

claims;

ò The current training does not provide chemical specific information to workers

and does not provide information on the pesticides they may encounter in their

workplace (it was noted that if employers had to disclose information about the

toxicity of the products they use it may encourage farmers to switch to less toxic
-18-

pesticides and lower risk alternatives);

ò Workers need better information on how to prevent and mitigate pesticide

exposures;

ò The current training does not adequately cover the use of personal protective

equipment (PPE) and the importance of PPE in protecting workers from

exposure; and

ò The current worker training does not include adequate information about worker

rights, how to file complaints, and how to protect against retaliation.

Some people felt that training content should differ depending on the region of the country

and the different sectors of agriculture encountered. They felt training content should be geared to

the specific pesticides and use patterns associated with different agriculturalsectors. Others felt that

the migrant nature of workers would make it difficult to know which sectors workers may have been

trained in and whether previous training was adequate for their new locale.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should revise the WPS requirements for the content of the worker

training to address the concerns raised by stakeholders;

ò EPA should survey workers to ensure that training content adequately

addresses worker needs/concerns; and 

ò EPA should develop the appropriate content for worker training through

the assessment workgroup process.

Training Quality and Consistency:

Many people expressed concerns with the variability in the quality of training across the

country. Several comments pertained to the need for greater incentives to promote better acceptance

of training and better compliance with the training requirement. People felt that having financial

incentives for both the employer (lower insurance rates, fewer fines) and the workers (pay for time

in training) would improve the quality and acceptance of training and promote compliance with the

training requirement. Worker advocates felt strongly that workers should be paid for the time they

are in the pesticide safety training. They noted that this would improve worker interest in the training

and it reflects a commitment on the part of the growers that training is an important part of the job.

Some participants felt the WPS should be changed to require testing for comprehension. It
-19-

was noted that hazard training under OSHA requires determination of comprehension. Others felt

that testing would be too burdensome and such a requirement would be a logistical nightmare for

employers and too difficult for states to enforce. Many comments focused on the simple need for

EPA to realize that “one size does not fit all,” and it was pointed out that EPA needs to be flexible

and support a variety of training options. Many comments focused on ways to improve the

quality/consistency of worker training programs. Participants made the following points concerning

training quality and consistency:

ò Training needs to engage workers in the training, and training should be done in

small groups that facilitate interactive training;

ò Peer education should be emphasized to give workers a chance to interact and

share personal experiences during the training (it was noted that workers will be

more likely to take training seriously ifother workers were involved in the training

and provided first-hand accounts of incidentsthat other workers could relate to);

ò Trainers must have credibility for workers to accept the training, and

employers/trainers need to demonstrate a concern and understanding of worker

issues for workers to respect the information that is provided (if workers sense

that employers “are doing this because they have to,” it diminishesthe value of the

training to the workers);

ò Workers must feel the government is committed to enforcing the laws or workers

will not feel the training is worthwhile ifthey don’tsee there are consequencesfor

non-compliance and workers will ignore training principles if workers perceive

they won’t be protected from retaliation (e.g., they will go into a field under an

REI even though they have been trained not to do so because they fear they will

lose their job otherwise);

ò Growers aren't qualified to do training and they are using training materials that

are ineffective and do not promote interactive training (participants noted that

employers are the primary trainers of workers but often employers and growers

are not qualified to be trainers);

ò Training at the field is not working even though thisis where many employers and

labor contractors have to provide training because of logistical problems. Such

field site training is generally not interactive and promotes an environment where

workers just want to get done with the training so they can get to work and start

making wages (it was noted that paying workers for time in training would help

alleviate this problem); 
-20-

ò Training is more effective when it is done at labor camps and other sites that put

workers at ease and promote more interactive training environments; 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA needs to provide employers with better options for getting their

workerstrained in a way that delivers high quality training and can be done

as needed so farm operations are not disrupted;

ò EPA should develop and showcase better training models;

ò EPA should use California’s training program as a model for EPA to

develop a national program;

ò EPA should fund more pilot training programs and work with advocacy

groups to develop a better network of trainers and training programs; 

ò EPA and states should work with trainers that have built trust at the

community level to form a training network that is better accepted by the

farm worker community;

ò EPA should build more community based training networks and try using

different levels of government to accomplish the training;

ò EPA should recognize the Farmworker Labor Organizing Committee

(FLOC)training program as a nationally approvedtraining program(it was

noted that FLOC would be willing to use their extensive network to train

workers if EPA would grant recognition to their program);

ò The current WPS provisions which permit certified applicators to be

trainers should be eliminated; 

ò EPA should set national standards on what passes for acceptable worker

training to improve the consistency and quality of training programs;

ò EPA should work with insurers to consider risk reduction savings for

growers that provide quality worker training based on the change in

behavior and lower occupational risks that result from such programs; and

ò EPA should recognize that training is a dynamic process and curriculum

needs to be continually revisited/revised; and training programs need to
-21-

evolve as workers’ knowledge improves and training needs change. 

Training Materials: 

Many comments asserted that current training materials are not adequate and there is a need

to develop new training materials. Many people commended EPA for the effort and resources that

have been devoted to getting initialtrainingmaterials developed, but many people felt that the current

curriculum is ineffective and needs to be updated. People felt that most existing training materials

do not promote interactive training and it was noted that plugging in a training video as a training

program isinadequate. Participants also felt that most training materials in existence lack appropriate

learning objectives, and there is a lack of materials that are specifically oriented to the farm worker

community. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should develop training materials and programs that encourage

interactive training;

ò EPA should do more direct grants to states and advocacy groups to develop

new training materials;

ò EPA should assure that training materials are age appropriate (i.e., if

children are out there and working they need to be trained with proper

materials, and those may need to be different than adulttraining materials),

culturally sensitive, and developed using a framework that farm workers

understand;

ò Training materials should be developed in the appropriate language of the

targeted farm worker community and translations should be reviewed in

focus groups with actual workers to assure that materials are effective;

ò EPA should assure that training materials have clear learning objectives

that are appropriate for the farm worker community;

ò EPA should maintain an up-to-date catalog of existing training materials

and develop a distribution system to enable everyone to have access to these

materials; and

ò There should be a centralized training materials resource center established

so people know who and where to call for training materials, and this center

should be given appropriate resources to be sustained.
-22-

Train-the-Trainer Networks:

Stakeholders generally agreed there is a need for better train-the-trainer programs. People

felt that a strong train-the-trainer network is essential to improving the overall quality of training

being provided. Some participants commented that the approval process for train-the-trainer

programs is too inconsistent from state to state, and some felt there has been a bias toward not

approving community-based or advocate-based train-the-trainer networks.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should to develop a national train-the-trainer network;

ò EPA should showcase model train-the-trainer programsthat are already in

place and working effectivley; 

ò EPA should provide more support for community-based and/or advocatebased train-the-trainer networks;

ò EPA should develop a national train-the-trainer program approval process

that does not leave it up to each state to have to recognize and/or approve

multi-state train-the-trainer programs;

ò EPA should establish clear national criteria for states to follow for approval

of state train-the-trainer programs, and EPA should work with states to

assure there is consistency at the state level in approving state train-thetrainer programs; and

ò EPA’s criteria for approving train-the-trainer programs should require

information on teaching methods specific for farm workers, information on

teaching methodsfor adultlearners, information on how to resolveproblems

with language and cultural barriers, minimum standards for content of

training programs,provisionsforperiodic independent oversight oftraining

programs, and defined recertification times for trainers.

Alternative Training Systems: 

Several commentsfocused on the need to develop alternative training systems. Many people

felt EPA should take better advantage of existing resources that are not being fully utilized such as

AmeriCorps, 4H, and “grass-roots” organizations that train workers or have train-the-trainer

networks. It was noted that worker advocate organizations and unions such as FLOC are well

positioned to do training. Most people agreed that these types of programs are more likely to reach
-23-

farm workers where they live, and these programs generally provide more interactive training that is

higher quality and better accepted by the farm worker community.

Some people felt theCES/Land Grant University systemcould play a greater role in providing

training and noted that EPA should work with these entitiesto establish an agriculture curriculumthat

could be accessed online. Others felt that this type of system would not be an appropriate medium

for training workers and it would be of little use to most growers. Some participants noted that such

a system could prove useful for train-the-trainer networks. Many people felt USDA should assume

a greater role in the worker training effort since farm labor is so integral to the nations’ agricultural

economy. It was noted that worker training could be integrated with other USDA programs like food

stamps, FNEP, and other USDA community outreach programs. Comments also suggested linking

WPS training with other agency programs and initiatives such as Health Education Centers, Migrant

Head Start, and day care programs.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should expand funding for development of alternative training systems

and provide more support for existing community-based and/or advocatebased training programs.

Re-Training: 

Many participants felt that farm workers should receive training more than once every five

years. There was no consensus on how often re-training should occur, but most people generally

agreed that training every five years is insufficient. Some felt training should be conducted annually

and other disagreed. It was pointed out that if training was more comprehensive and effective, annual

re-training would not be as necessary. Some comments favored periodic comprehensive training

(e.g., every three to five years) combined with a requirement for shorter pesticide and site specific

training/notification that would be given to workers when they arrive at each work location. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should change the re-training interval for worker training to a period

less than five years; and

ò EPA should use the assessment workgroup process to determine the

appropriate re-training interval for worker training. 

Training Record-keeping Requirements: 

There was general consensus among stakeholdersthat there should be a requirementforsome

form of documentation or written record ofWPS training for workers and handlers. Many regulators

felt the training requirements are very difficult to enforce without corresponding record-keeping
-24-

requirements. It was noted that one state legal counsel was unwilling to pursue cases involving

violations of the training requirement when the WPS doesn’t require record-keeping for training

verification. Many people commented that there needs to be a better national training verification

system.

Several people commented that it is the grace period for worker training that really

complicates enforcement because it permits workers to be employed on an establishment without

receiving training (or needing verification of previous training). People felt the grace period in the

current regulations creates a different standard of protection for workers versus handlers and it

trivializes the risks to workers and diminishes the importance of the worker training from both an

employer and worker perspective. It was suggested that if all workers had to be trained before

working on an establishment, and employers had to maintain records documenting that training

occurred or that workers possessed a valid training verification card, it would be very easy to enforce

the worker training requirements. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should require employers to keep records to document training of

workers; 

ò EPA should develop a functional training verification system that is

operated at the national level in conjunction with a national train-thetrainer program; and

ò EPA should eliminate the grace period in the worker training provisions and

require all workers to be trained before they enter treated areas or perform

hand labor tasks just like the corresponding handler training provision

requires handlers to be trained before they handle pesticides. 
-25-

II. Enforcement Issues

Stakeholders identified a wide array of concerns regarding enforcement issues. There was

general consensus that there are significant concerns with WPS enforcement, and stakeholders felt

enforcement issues should be one of the primary areas for focus in the assessment. Stakeholder

comments on enforcement issues have been organized according to the following key sub-topic areas

under enforcement:

ò Funding;

ò EPA Oversight of State Programs;

ò Quality and Consistency of State WPS Inspections;

ò Defining WPS Inspection Criteria;

ò National Reporting;

ò WPS Penalty Policy; 

ò Incident Reporting and Tracking; and

ò Community/Advocacy Group Involvement.

Funding:

Many stakeholders expressed the need for more funding for state inspectors and increased

compliance monitoring. Many participants felt that current enforcement efforts are inadequate,

noting that more resources are needed to increase field presence. Most participants generally agreed

that effective compliance monitoring and enforcement is key to successful implementation of the

program, but most people also felt that EPA and the states can not be successful in accomplishing the

mission of the program at the current funding level. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should seek appropriation of additional funding for a coordinated

incident reporting program and for outreach to health care providers;

ò EPA should work on developing jointly funded projects with the

Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services Federal to leverage

more funds for the program; and 

ò EPA should explore alternative ways to supplement funding for the WPS

program such as additional fees on pesticide registrations, a pesticide

manufacturers’ tax, or use of penalties.
-26-

EPA Oversight of State Programs:

Many stakeholders expressed concern that EPA is not assuring proper oversight of state

programs, and it was felt that there is a need for greater EPA oversight presence in the field.

Participants questioned the nature of EPA’s oversight role and the nature of the EPA/State

relationship. People were unclear how the oversight process works, and what the Agency’s specific

authorities are with respect to oversight. People agreed that EPA needs to make its oversight of state

programs a more transparent process.

Several commentsfocused on the concerns with having State Departments of Agriculture as

the State Lead Agency (SLA) and the agency responsible for WPS enforcement. Many people felt

this situation created a built in conflict of interest creating a circumstance akin to “the fox guarding

the hen house.” People felt the Departments of Agriculture are not as likely to be aggressive in their

WPS enforcement approach because of their state role as advocates for agriculture and pressures

from the grower community that influence Agriculture Commissioners and the direction that some

Departments take on compliance activities. Other comments pointed out that there is a system of

checks and balances built into the system and that states could lose enforcement primacy if EPA

determines they are not enforcing the regulations adequately. It was noted that EPA does not

determine which department is the SLA in a state. This decision is up to the governor in each state

and EPA has no control over that decision. It was pointed out that several states have other

departments or agencies as the SLA for pesticides. Participants generally agreed that EPA needed

to improve its oversight of state programs in order to remedy the above problems and

misconceptions.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should make the oversight process more transparent so stakeholders

can understand the nature of the EPA/state interface;

ò EPA should build better oversight capacity, maintain a stronger oversight

role, and take actionsto addressstate non-performance with respecttoWPS

implementation and enforcement;

ò EPA should clearly define performance standards for states and establish

clear policy for failure to meet standards;

ò EPA should establish an oversight committee that will review the states’

implementation of the WPS. The committee should have farm worker

representation,the authority to review state programs and case files, and the

ability to make recommendations to EPA on possible actions needed to

address state problems;
-27-

ò EPA should require each state to set up some form of multi-agency case

review board to ensure implementation oftheWPS is notinfluenced by state

politics;

ò EPA should conduct annual public WPS oversight meetings in each state to

allow public review of the states’ WPS implementation. The meetings

should include appropriate EPA and SLA staff, and allstakeholders groups

should be invited to participate in the meetings;

ò EPA should conduct periodic stakeholder meetings (like this one in Austin)

to bring oversight issues to EPA’s attention;

ò EPAshouldconduct unannounced oversight/monitoring of state inspections;

and

ò EPA should get more Headquarters and Regional Office staff into the fields

to work with states on WPS inspectionsso EPA can see the WPS compliance

problems that SLAs encounter.

Quality and Consistency of State WPS Inspections: 

Many commentsfocused on the quality of state WPS inspections and the lack of consistency

in state inspections. Some participants felt that most WPS inspections are poor quality and do not

detect violations. Several people felt the lack of inspection criteria and poor EPA oversight are

partially responsible for the lack of consistency in WPS inspections across the country. 

Several people expressed concern that there are no national criteria or standards in place for

determiningwhat constitutes a “quality” or “comprehensive”WPSinspection. Some states noted that

comprehensive WPS inspections are very resource intensive and can take days to complete so they

do not always conduct a comprehensive point-by-point investigation during a routine use inspection.

Several participants commented that states are not conducting enough unannounced “routine”

inspections and many comments voiced support for more comprehensive routine (unannounced)

inspections because these types of investigations are needed to assure effective compliance. It was

pointed out that more money is needed for inspectors and enforcement training if people want to

increase the number and quality of inspections.

A number ofstakeholders felt that states are not conducting enough interviews with workers

during WPS inspections, and they felt inspection quality was tied to the ability of inspectors to

conduct effective interviews of workers. Participants identified the following concerns regarding

worker interviews and inspection quality and consistency:
-28-

ò Inspectors usually only talk to growers during inspections and do not interview

workers, and therefore inspections are biased;

ò Language barriers can make it difficult to interview workers and it is often hard

to locate workers for interviews;

ò It is a challenge locating workers that are willing to talk to inspectors because

workers are often reluctant to be interviewed;

ò Workers often move on before an inspector can conduct an inspection so this

impedes the chances of doing a thorough follow-up investigation on a complaint

when workers are no longer available;

ò States need to improve their response time on complaints so they can talk with

migrant farm workers before they move on, and inspectors need to act fast when

they get a complaint, provide rapid follow through on investigations, and keep

workers or workers’ representatives abreast of the case status in the event more

information is needed;

ò Inspectors should conduct interviews away from the work site at places such as

worker camps or other locations where workers will not fear retaliation from the

employer and will be more willing to talk openly with inspectors;

ò Interviewing workers off-site is often difficult because of work hours and other

logistical considerations, but such practices result in better information from

workers and a better investigation so states should be more flexible in their

approach to investigating WPS cases;

ò Inspectors must be able to communicate with workers in their language in order

for an interview to yield accurate information;

ò There is a need for more bilingual inspectors and the use of interpreters and other

resources (e.g., AT&T language lines, translator software, etc.) to improve

communications with workers and the quality of interviews;

There was general consensus among participantsthat better enforcement training was needed

across the board on all aspects of conducting WPS inspections and use investigations in general. It

was noted that some inspectors were unaware of the WPS Interpretive Guidance Workgroup (IGW)

policiesthat have been developed, and people agreed there should be more outreach to communicate

IGW policiesto field inspectors. Many participants commented that there are a number of problems

with the rule that cause an inaccurate perception of the quality and consistency of state inspections
-29-

and state WPS enforcement programs. People felt some WPS provisions are unenforceable and other

provisions are virtually impossible to comply with. Stakeholders identified the following problems

with the WPS:

ò The grace period in the worker training provisions combined with the lack of

record-keeping make the training requirement for workers very difficult to

enforce;

ò The WPS lacks the documentation requirements that enable enforcement. The

WPS does not have the appropriate record-keeping requirements under the

training provisions to allow inspectors to adequately document violations that

have allegedly occurred;

ò Complainants have unrealistic expectations for enforcement action given the

problems with the lack of substantiating evidence, workers that don’t want to be

interviewed, and the unenforceable nature of certain provision;

ò Complainants have an inaccurate perception of state enforcement because they

don’t understand evidentiary procedures and they expect states to take

enforcement action based on their testimony alone;

ò The training requirements, oral notification requirements, and retaliation

provisions need to be evaluated during the assessment process because of the

problems with documenting alleged violations in these areas;

ò The WPS results in too many cases where the only evidence that can be collected

is “he said, she said” affidavits which makes enforcement action difficult;

ò The information exchange provisions and the requirement for information about

pesticide applications underthe central posting provisions are difficultfor growers

to understand and keep up with or comply with; and 

ò People can not expect 100% compliance with the WPS because it is too difficult

to understand and there are some provisions that are virtually impossible to

comply with.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should consider rule changes to address the problems identified with

unenforceable provisions and provisions that are resulting in significant

compliance problems because ofthe impractical nature ofthe requirements;
-30-

ò EPA should place more emphasis on conducting interviews with workers

during WPS inspections, and EPA should make worker interviews a

requirement for comprehensive WPS use investigations;

ò EPA should provide more training opportunities for inspectors overall, and

EPA should provide specific training for inspectors on how to conduct

worker interviews (e.g., location, timing, building trust, addressing cultural

and language barriers, etc.); 

ò EPA should provide specific training for inspectors on the WPS/IGW

enforcement policies to improve the consistency in state inspections;

ò EPA should reactivate the IGW process to address new WPS enforcement

policy issues that have arisen and to revisit some previous policies that are

a concern to states and/or stakeholders;

ò EPAshoulddevelopbetter guidance for enforcementprograms and establish

protocols for inspections and investigation practices that address proper

response times, sampling, how to obtain medical records and other

supporting documentation, responding to complaints, and interviewing

workers; and 

ò EPA should establish formal agreements with states that set forth the

number of “comprehensive” WPS inspections that must be conducted and

which meet minimum standards established in accepted national criteria. 

Defining WPS Inspection Criteria:

There were many comments concerning WPS inspection criteria and the need for a national

definition or minimumstandard to addressinspection quality and consistency problems and oversight

issues. Participants felt that setting inspection standards is an important precursor for inspection

consistency and it would facilitate collection of standardized data, uniform national reporting and

better compliance trend analysis. People felt that a national checklist would help standardize

inspections. It was noted that the WPS is too complex for inspectors to remember all the

requirementsthat need to be reviewed during an inspection, and a national inspection checklist would

be an essential tool for conducting thorough inspections that meet minimum standards.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should develop national guidance that promotes standardized

compliance monitoring throughout the states;
-31-

ò There should be national inspection criteria that sets a minimum standard

for WPS inspections and clearly defines what constitutes a comprehensive

WPS inspection;

ò EPA should develop minimum standards for WPS inspections through the

assessment workgroup process so that stakeholders can have input;

ò EPA needs to develop a national inspection checklist that lists all the items

required to be covered by inspectors during a comprehensive WPS use

inspection; and

ò EPAshould define inspection standardsthat addressprotocolsfor sampling,

obtaining medical records and other supporting documentation, and

conducting interviews with workers. 

National Reporting:

The main focus of comments concerning national reporting was the need for consistency,

transparency and better guidance. Many people questioned how EPA is tracking state WPS

implementation and enforcement. People felt there is a wide disparity in state inspection numbers and

enforcement quality and consistency. People felt EPA does not track state enforcement

accomplishments close enough to adequately assess state enforcement programs, determine where

problems exist, or gauge overall national program implementation success. 

There were several comments noting that EPA’s reports do not reflect the total picture of

WPS implementation resulting in an inaccurate perception of the WPS program by the general public.

It was noted that many people have misconceptions about the level of state WPS activity because

states only report a fraction of their overall WPS activities to EPA because they are not required to

report all state activities under the EPA Cooperative Agreement reporting process. It was pointed

out that EPA has not provided any guidance to states on reporting and this results in different

reporting from each state. It was also noted that the WPS is only one component of a comprehensive

use inspection and many states/inspectors cover WPS during inspections but they don’t treat it as a

separate reporting item.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should produce an annual national report on the status of WPS

implementation and enforcement for stakeholders and the public to review;

ò EPA should establish clear reporting guidelines to promote universal

understanding of what information EPA wants states to report;
-32-

ò EPA should define WPS inspection criteria and develop consensus on what

constitutes a comprehensive WPS inspection as an important first step to

having meaningful national reporting that would be consistent in content

and format from state to state;

ò EPA should revise the current EPA “5700" reporting form because it does

not yield any meaningful information except numbers of inspections, and

those numbers are of little value since there is no accepted definition of a

WPS inspection;

ò EPA should be collecting information on the total number of WPS

inspections conducted in each state and the corresponding number of

violations recorded during those inspections along with the final

enforcement actions and/or penalties assessed for the violations;

ò EPA should collect information on the total number of WPS complaints

recorded in each state and the results of the state response to the complaints

(i.e., whether there was a follow-up inspection, what violations were

detected, what penalties were assessed, etc.); and

ò EPA should collect information on the nature of violations (i.e., failure to

train workers, no decontamination sites, restricted entry interval violations,

posting violations, improper PPE, etc.) so EPA can determine which parts

of the rule are having the most violations and then direct future outreach

efforts and target compliance monitoring activity accordingly.

WPS Penalty Policy:

Several people expressed frustration with the lack of penalties being assessed by states, the

variability in enforcement actions from state to state, and the overall failure of weak enforcement

programs to be a real deterrent to WPS violations. Some people felt there needs to be a greater cost

to employers for not complying with the WPS requirements, and they felt EPA and states needed to

raise finesto deter WPS violations. Some people felt the WPS should contain penalty provisions that

hold employersresponsible for all health care costsifworkers were injured from pesticides on the job,

and this would make employers more likely to take the WPS and worker safety seriously. It was

noted thatsome states have very stringent penalty policies which are muchmore severe than EPA and

it would be difficult to adopt one national penalty policy that all states could agree to.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA/states should provide greater transparency to the public on how
-33-

penalties are assessed;

ò EPA/statesshould be able to demonstrate a clear rationale for any reduction

of WPS penalties or any departure from penalty policy;

ò EPA/states should develop more innovative penalty policy that encourages

supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) that result in penalties being

used to fund worker training programs or similar things where the workers

see some kind of direct benefit from enforcement actions;

ò EPA should revise it’s penalty policy to increase penalties for WPS

violations;

ò EPA should review state penalty policies to promote national consistency in

penalty policy and to make sure state penalties are appropriate for the

violations;

ò EPA should not allow states to maintain primacy unless their penalty policy is

deemed adequate; and 

ò EPA should review state WPS cases during the assessment to assure that states

are adhering to their penalty policies.

Incident Reporting and Tracking:

There were many comments received on the issues of incident reporting/tracking and WPS

coordination with the medical/health care community. The majority of comments focused on

problems with physician recognition of pesticide illnesses, the lack of incident reporting and

interagency coordination related to responding to pesticide incidents, and the need for a national

pesticide incident reporting and tracking program. 

Many people felt there is a need for a national health incident reporting and tracking system

that requires mandatory physician reporting of pesticide related injuries/illnesses to EPA or the

appropriate state agency, and which also entails incident follow-up and possible investigation. Most

people felt that moststates are not coordinating enforcement with health incident reporting and it was

noted that there is very little effort nationally to investigate the possible connection between health

effects and pesticide incidents. It was noted that several states have various forms of mandatory

incident reporting programs, but there is wide variability among states regarding health incident

reporting and coordination between enforcement programs and the medical community.

Stakeholders identified the following concerns regarding incident reporting and tracking
-34-

programs:

ò Incident reporting programs are costly to operate, and EPA would need millions

in additional appropriations to fund an effective national incident reporting and

tracking program;

ò State health and labor departments need to be engaged with SLAs and EPA to

work on this effort because there are so many cross-jurisdictional issuesthat need

to considered;

ò There is already a network of migrant health centers and services in most states

that could provide a foundation of cooperatorsfor an incident reporting program,

but they aren’t connected and don’t communicate;

ò The National Strategy for Health Care Providersis a good start toward improving

the coordination with the medical community, but there is much more work that

is still needed in this area;

ò Strategies such as this are usually handled better at the local level;

ò There are many logistical issues involved with coordinating the cross-agency

agreements that are needed for an incident reporting program and it is often

difficult establishing the links needed to make such programs work;

ò State variability in responsible agencies, governing legislation, andmedicalrecord

disclosure laws, etc., makes the process of establishing a national incident

reporting and tracking system very difficult;

ò There is a general ignorance of pesticide exposure symptoms in the medical

community and thisimpedes proper diagnosis and reporting of pesticide incidents;

ò Health care providers fail to report incidents because of the bureaucracy

associated with reporting programs, and other mechanisms of reporting need to

be considered since reporting by physicians (not just of pesticide exposure) is

notoriously poor;

ò Most health care practitioners are already overwhelmed with patient loads,

insurance paperwork, and other more significant problems, and incidentreporting

is a real low priority for these people;

ò The medical community just doesn’t see the purported numbers of pesticide

illnesses in farm workers alleged by advocate organizations. Medical problems
-35-

like hepatitis, diabetes, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and other

conditions represent a much larger share of the health problems that health care

providers encounter with farm workers, and pesticide exposures are not as big a

problem as some would want EPA to believe;

ò Many state health departments cannot release the name of an individual involved

in a pesticide incident unless he or she is willing to release their information and

this complicates enforcement follow-up on reported incidents;

ò Confirming pesticide poisonings means additional tests which are costly and most

farm workers are unwilling to pay for the tests, but states have a hard time acting

on a case unless there is a “confirmed” pesticide poisoning; and 

ò It is very difficult to investigate cases where the farm workers do not want to be

identified and health care workers want to be kept anonymous as it presents

evidentiary problems.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should develop a coordinated national incident reporting and tracking

program, and the Agency should seek appropriation of additional funds to

implement such a program;

ò EPA should leverage resources from other agencies to support the incident

reporting and tracking effort;

ò EPA should work more closely with the Department of Health to facilitate

incident tracking and reporting and overall coordination with the medical

community;

ò EPA should work with the appropriate state agencies to resolve the

confidentiality issues with release of medical records;

ò EPA should put more effort into the National Strategy for Health Care

Providers;

ò EPA should provide more outreach to the medical community on

recognition and management of pesticide illnesses;

ò EPA should place greater emphasis on educating the medical community on

the health problems farm workers face as a result of occupational exposure
-36-

to pesticides so that it is standard practice for a doctor to ask proper

questions regarding field work and possible pesticide exposure when

diagnosing farm workers;

ò EPA should facilitate coordination and communication between all the

stakeholders that have a stake in incident tracking and reporting to take

advantage of existing infrastructure; and

ò EPA should develop a grant program to fund projectsthat work on building

local capacity atthe community levelthat willsupport incident tracking and

reporting programs.

Community/Advocacy Group Involvement: 

A number of commentsfocused on the need to explore other alternativesfor improving WPS

enforcement through involvement of communities and advocacy groups. Worker advocates wanted

EPA to give advocacy groups the authority to enforce the WPS since they would assure stricter

enforcement. It was pointed out that such enforcement authority could not be granted by EPA

because of strict regulatory policy governing delegation of pesticide enforcement authority.

Advocacy groups would have to coordinate with the SLA and the governor in each state if they

wanted to have any legally recognized authority or role in WPS enforcement. 

Many people felt that community/advocacy group networks could play a valid role in WPS

enforcement as an extra set of “eyes and ears” in the field. Several people felt such networks could

help SLAs identify WPS violators, and they could also be used to help inspectors gain better access

to workers. It was pointed out that such networks could be especially useful in rural areas to

facilitate inspector communications with workers and worker cooperation with inspectors. It was

noted that such networks could be used to educate farm workers on how to recognize and report

WPS violations and how to know what information would be needed for investigating alleged

violations. Some felt these networks could also assist farm workers with filing official WPS

complaints with SLAs, and they could help SLAs by being a resource for gathering information

needed to pursue a complaint. Some people envisioned the community networks having more of a

mediation role. It was suggested that community networks could facilitate meetings and/or

communication between inspectors, growers, and farm workersto improve mutual trust and enhance

dialogue between the different parties. It was noted that such an effort would improve everyone’s

understanding of WPS requirements and farm worker issues, and it would build an atmosphere of

trust that would promote WPS compliance. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should work more diligently to establish networks with

community/advocacy groups and other WPS stakeholders that could assist
-37-

EPA with certain aspects of WPS enforcement.

III. Complaint and Retaliation Issues

Because of the number of comments received at the Austin meeting on complaint and

retaliation issues, the topic was identified as one of the major theme areas to focus on in the WPS

assessment. Accordingly, the summary discussion of the comments on complaint and retaliation

issues has been broken out here to reflect the level of attention this subject received at the Austin

meeting and to denote the priority of the topic as a WPS assessment issue. Stakeholder comments

focused on three main areas under complaint and retaliation issues:

ò Improving the Complaint Process;

ò Educating Workers on WPS and the Complaint Process; and 

ò Resolving Retaliation Problems.

Improving the Complaint Process: 

Stakeholders expressed general concern with the process for filing pesticide complaints with

SLAs to report WPS violations. Worker advocates felt it needed to be easier for workers to file

complaints and that more needed to be done to prevent and respond to retaliation aimed against

workers for filing complaints and reporting WPS violations. Advocacy groups felt privacy issues are

one of the biggest problems with the complaint process in most states.

Several people pointed out that the farm worker labor pool is made up of many illegal

immigrants and these workers are afraid to file complaints because they are in the country illegally

and want to remain anonymous for fear of deportation. Some people felt that creating a complaint

process to protect illegal aliens was a conflict of interest for the government. Others noted that it is

impossible to distinguish whether failure to file complaints is due to fear of retaliation or fear of

detection because of illegalstatus, and they felt the complaint process should be fixed to protect legal

workers who fear retaliation regardless of the fact that it also may protect illegal immigrants. Several

people noted that both documented and un-documented workers are protected by WPS provisions

since the regulation implies protection for any worker that is compensated by an employer for labor.

Most people agreed that legalstatus should not even be considered a factor in the decision regarding

how and whyto protect complainants’ privacy. Participants identified the following specific concerns

with the complaint process:

ò There should be a mechanism for filing anonymous complaints because it is

important for workers’ identities to be protected in enforcement investigation of

complaints to prevent retaliation;

ò State “open records” laws prevent many states from being able to keep farm

worker identities confidential once a case has been concluded (it was noted that
-38-

often a farm worker must identify himself and sign a complaint or affidavit or the

enforcement action the state can take is limited);

ò States are not taking the appropriate steps to preserve worker confidentiality

during the complaint process (it was noted that inspectors should try to interview

complainants away from employers and after hours to try to protect privacy and

prevent retaliation against workers);

ò The threat of retaliation keeps workers from filing valid complaints because they

know their identities will not be protected and they feel there is no substantial

recourse for addressing retaliation;

ò The lack of enforcement of the WPS, and particularly the retaliation provisions,

has thwarted workers form believing in the complaint process;

ò Retaliation problems are integrally linked to problems with the complaint process

and the two issues must be addressed together in order to successfully resolve the

problems;

ò State regulatory business hours prohibit workers from being able to file

complaints since they are working in the fields during those hours; and

ò The timeliness of complaint response by states is too slow (it was noted that

alleged health effects and human exposure incidents need to be documentedwithin

48 hours or often it is too late to get confirmed diagnosis of the poisoning).

A number of people voiced supportfor a legislative proposal to add a “private right of action”

clause to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA ), the statute that governs

Federal pesticide regulation. They felt there should be a legal framework that allows citizens to file

their own lawsuitsfor enforcement of the WPS. Proponents of this idea noted that having such legal

recourse would result inmore effective enforcement actions,serve as a greater deterrent to violations

because employers will quickly realize the costly potential of a lawsuit for noncompliance, and it

would help addressthe problem of insufficientresourcesfor enforcing the WPS. EPA officials noted

that the Agency has no authority to create such a regulatory provision and thistype ofstatute change

would have to come from Congress.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should develop a more a responsive complaint process that addresses

the unique needs of the farm worker community;
-39-

ò EPA should require statesto have a complaint prioritization system in place

to assure that complaints involving critical health effects cases are given

priority in terms of response time;

ò EPA should develop training and guidance for state inspectors on how to

work better with farm workers on complaint issues;

ò EPA/states should take all available stepsto preserve worker confidentiality

during the complaint processin order to protectworker privacy and prevent

retaliation against workers (i.e., inspectors should try to interview

complainants away from employers and after hours);

ò EPA should establish a national “hot-line” for workers to call to file

complaints. The phone hot-line system should have toll-free access, be

operated at hoursthat are conducive to workers calling, and have operators

on hand to meet the diverse language needs of the worker population; and

ò EPA should require statesto designate a farm worker advocate/ombudsman

in each SLA office to provide better service and response to the farm worker

community. 

Educating Workers on WPS and the Complaint Process:

Many people expressed the need for workers to receive training on their WPS

rights/protections and on how to file a complaint if they feel an employer has violated the WPS.

Some advocacy groups indicated they are providing workers with this type of information in their

training programs but this does not reach the majority of workers. Several people commented that

“fact sheet” style brochures/outreach materials would be a good way to provide workers with this

information. People thought brochures such as these could be disseminated by trainers and/or

inspectors during worker training sessions, during inspections, or during visits to labor camps when

conducting interviews with workers. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should assure that workers are getting information on how to initiate

complaints (contact info for state agency, toll-free number, etc.), how to

report retaliation, the importance of filing complaints in a timely manner so

states are able to conduct an effective investigation, and what information

workers need to provide to inspectors so a state can adequately investigate

a complaint;
-40-

ò EPA should develop a set of fact sheets for workersthat cover varioustopics

such as WPS rights and protections for workers, how to file a complaint,

how workers can assist in the complaint process, and how to seek medical

assistance;

ò EPA should revise the WPS provisions concerning content requirementsfor

worker training programsto incorporate the above topics into the required

WPS training so that this material is standard content for all WPS worker

training; and

ò EPA should provide more support for advocacy-based training which

addresses these issues more completely and gives better training with more

usable information to workers.

Resolving Retaliation Problems: 

Most people agreed that retaliation is a significant problemarea and participantsfelt thisissue

should be addressed in the national assessment. People noted that retaliation can come in several

forms. Workers may not be fired outright, but instead they won’t be hired the next time they come

around for work on an establishment. It was pointed out that this form of retaliation is just as

detrimental to workers. Stakeholders voiced the following concerns on the retaliation issue:

ò The current WPS retaliation provisions are ineffective because there are no teeth

in the rule to enforce the provision;

ò It is extremely difficult for states to document retaliation which makes

enforcement of the retaliation provisions virtually impossible;

ò Many retaliation cases come down to “he said, she said” arguments where there

are differing stories from the individuals involved but there is no other evidence

to substantiate the alleged complaint;

ò Many workers feel they are not protected from retaliation so they will not sign a

complaint or sign a document to release medical information, and this creates a

perpetuating problem that can only be fixed with strong enforcement against

retaliation violations;

ò Open record laws and similarstate legislation that requires states to fully disclose

the contents of enforcement cases makes it difficult to protect worker identities

if the state needs their affidavit or medical records for evidence for an

enforcement action;
-41-

ò Landlord/tenant laws could be used as a model for developing stronger WPS

retaliation provisions(it was noted that theCalifornia “tenant presumption of guilt

law” allows a state to make a presumption of guilt that the landlord retaliated

against the tenant if a tenant is evicted within 6 months of lodging a complaint

against the landlord);

ò There are glitches with the application of landlord/tenant laws to the WPS and

agriculture as it is perfectly normal for employers to release workers from

employment at various times during the season due to the temporary nature of

seasonal labor (it was pointed out that the very nature of the work means

employees are going to be let go when work is done and growers often hire

workers for a short time and then release them);

ò Employers would automatically be “set-up” if there was a presumption of

guilt/retaliation provision in WPS that mirrored landlord/tenant laws;

ò The Migrant Seasonal Labor Act (MSLA) has retaliation provisions that may be

more applicable to the WPS;

ò It isimportantfor worker advocacy groupsto notify authorities quicklywhen they

learn of retaliation or there will be little chance for enforcement action; and 

ò Inspectors could help minimize retaliation by being more cognizant of retaliation

issues when they respond to complaints and conduct interviews with employers

and/or workers.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPAshouldadopt a “presumption of guilt/retaliation” provision in theWPS

that provides for a legal determination of a violation of the retaliation

provisions if a worker is fired within a defined time period after filing a

complaint;

ò EPA should not try to apply “tenant presumption of guilt law” to the WPS

as the situation in agriculture is too dissimilar;

ò EPA should refer to the MSLA for guidance on how to approach retaliation

issues under the WPS;

ò Inspectorsshould be trained on how to minimize the potentialfor retaliation
-42-

to workers, and EPA/statesshould work with farm worker advocacy groups

to develop such training so it covers the appropriate points; and

ò Itshould be mandatory for worker advocacy groups to be represented on all

state agricultural boards so retaliation issues and other farm worker

concerns are taken into consideration.

IV. Communications Issues

Because of the complexity of the WPS and the diverse makeup of the affected/regulated

community, there was general consensus among stakeholders that communications are an extremely

important component of the WPS program and essential to effective implementation. Stakeholder

comments clearlysupported focusing on the broad spectrum of communications-related issues during

the WPS assessment, and stakeholders identified critical communicationsissuesthey thought should

be addressed. The major communications issues identified are:

ò General WPS Outreach With Stakeholders;

ò Hazard Communication Information for Workers;

ò Language and Cultural Barriers; and 

ò Outreach and Coordination With Health Care Providers.

General WPS Outreach With Stakeholders:

Stakeholders felt there are still a large number of people affected by the WPS that do not

understand the WPS or their roles and responsibilities under the regulation. Participants felt there

is still a need for basic WPS outreach in many parts of the country. Many people commented that

existing outreach materials(such asthe “How to Comply” manual) are outdated or obsolete. Several

people commented that they did not know what WPS outreach materials are available or how to

obtain them.

A number of comments focused on the need for outreach on EPA’s process for establishing

restricted entry intervals(REIs). Many people did not agree with EPAs science behind REIs and they

felt REIs are unrealistic. It was also noted that the “generic approach” for WPS labeling has slowly

given way to product specific WPS labeling, and there have been significant label changes that are

being implemented as a result of EPA’s reregistration program. Stakeholders noted that these

changes have not been communicated to those who really need the information such as CES, state

regulatory agencies, and the user community.

Participants identified specific outreach needs for the different segments of the WPS

stakeholder community. The primary stakeholder groups and their corresponding outreach needs are

identified below. 
-43-

ò Regulators/Inspectors

It was noted that states often experience a high turnover in inspectors and

regulatory staff, resulting in loss of WPS expertise in some cases, and a

continual need for WPS outreach, education, and training for state staff.

States cited the need for better communications regarding EPA enforcement

policies that were developed under the Interpretive Guidance Workgroup

(IGW), and they also pointed out the need for better communications on rule

amendments, exceptions and other WPS changes that have been put in place

since original publication of the rule. Several people felt EPA needed to

develop new inspector training materials and pocket guides. 

ò Employers/Labor Contractors 

Many commentssupported directing outreach effortsto labor contractors and

crew leaders. People felt that labor contractors and crew leaders are often

unaware of their responsibilities for training and notification, yet they play a

critical role in communications between employers and workers as they are

the ones who bring workers on to a farm and direct their activities.

Stakeholders felt that outreach materials should be developed specifically for

labor contractors and crew leaders to inform them about their roles and

responsibilities under the WPS.

Many people felt that some growers still lacked the fundamental knowledge

of the WPS needed to fully comply with their responsibilities under the rule,

and they thought EPA should expand its effort to raise basic public awareness

of the WPS. Some people felt EPA should focus on the “problem-areas” of

the rule that consistently cause confusion and/or are frequentlymisunderstood

by employers as well as state regulators/inspectors. People thought EPA

should look at developing outreach materialsto address these problem areas.

The following WPS provisions were specifically cited by stakeholders as

problem areas of the rule that create confusion and/or are poorly understood:

Ç Worker and handler task definitions (i.e., determining what protections

and training must be provided for employees depending on tasks

performed);

Ç Personal protective equipment (PPE) responsibilities;

Ç Central posting and notification requirements;

Ç Employer information exchange; and 

Ç Greenhouse and nursery treated area definitions and entry restrictions.
-44-

ò Workers/Handlers 

Many people cited the need for more effective outreach to workers and

recommended that more effort should be directed to outreach at labor camps.

Worker advocacy groups noted that outreach through venues such as health

clinics and churches are good, but they felt the vast majority of workers are

single men who are not connected with these entities. Stakeholders

recommended that EPA work closely with worker advocacy groups and other

stakeholders to develop outreach materials for workers that had the right

messages and addressed the full spectrum of worker needs such as their

rights/protections under the WPS and how to file complaints.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should devote more resources for general WPS outreach, evaluate the

utility and applicability of existing outreach materials, and produce new or

revised materials where appropriate. People felt that EPA should involve

stakeholders in the development process for outreach materials so that

stakeholder needs would be more likely to be met;

ò EPA should maintain a better catalog of the available outreach materials

and improve public accessto thisinformation (it was noted that EPA should

use its web site to facilitate public access to such information);

ò EPA should make the process for how REIs are established more

transparent;

ò EPA should conduct outreach in connectionwithWPS labeling to make sure

the affected/regulated community is aware of WPS label changes that are

being implemented as a result of reregistration;

ò EPA should develop distinct outreach strategies for the different segments

of the WPS stakeholder community to address the unique needs and

problems of variousstakeholder groups(e.g., regulators, inspectors, trainers,

educators, employers, labor contractors, workers, handlers, etc.); and

ò EPA should use the assessment workgroup process to assist with

identification of significant problem areas under communications, and

stakeholders should be involved in the development of any new outreach

materials so the materials are more likely to meet the needs of the intended

audience.
-45-

Hazard Communication Information for Workers: 

Advocacy groups felt strongly that workers are not getting adequate information about the

workplace hazardsthey are being exposed to. Many comments focused on problems with the central

posting and notification provisions of the rule. Most stakeholders felt that the current central posting

and notification requirements are not effectively meeting the intended goal of providing workers with

information about applications and treated areas. Participants identified the following problems with

the central posting and notification requirements:

ò Central posting areas are not accessible to workers where they work;

ò Central posting areas should be accessible to workers 24 hours a day;

ò EPA needs a clearer definition/interpretation of what accessible means;

ò Central posting information is not kept updated;

ò Central posting information requirements are too cumbersome to maintain;

ò Workers do not use central posting information (waste of resources);

ò Instead of one central posting there should be multiple sites;

ò Central posting information is impractical for large corporate farms;

ò The central posting term is confused with “posting” of warning signs so there

needs to be outreach to address this source of misunderstanding;

ò Notification requirements are confusing, especially for greenhouses/nurseries;

ò Oral notification is not happening, so signs should always be required;

ò Workers don’t understand the oral notification;

ò Workers need written information on treated areas;

ò Signs work when used, but fields are not being posted appropriately;

ò All treated fields should be posted with warning signs;

ò There is confusion on who is responsible for notification;

ò Growers shift their notification responsibilities to others (custom applicators,

labor contractor, crew leaders, etc.) and it doesn’t end up happening;

Many commentsfocused on the need for a comprehensive hazard communication rule. It was

noted that the current requirements make it too difficult for workers to obtain information about

treated areas and pesticide specific information, and workers get too confused having to go to

multiple sites and training for all the information they need. Although most participants agreed that

EPA needed to develop a bettersystem for communicating hazard information to workers, there was

no clear consensus on the best way to make it happen.

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should work on finalizing the hazard communication rule that was

proposed in 1992;
-46-

ò EPA should consolidate worker training and hazard

communication/notification requirements so that workers would have a

“one-stop shopping” type of training that would provide allthe training and

information workers needed;

ò EPA should assure that the new hazard communication rule addresses the

problems with the current system identified on the previous page; and

ò EPA should consider the following points when developing the new hazard

communication requirements:

Ç EPA should establish a very clear definition of hazard

communication; 

Ç The rule should be enforceable and have proper documentation

requirements;

Ç Workersshould have accessto the pesticide labelsfor products used;

Ç Pesticide labels should provide better information on risks to

workers;

Ç Use crop sheets for providing workers with pesticide specific

information;

Ç Make sure cropsheets contain the information workers need (include

stakeholders in process of developing content requirements);

Ç Realize that crop sheets have many drawbacks: they are costly to

develop, must be updated regularly, must be in multiple languages

to be effective, and it is a problem maintaining inventory;

Ç Involve stakeholders in rule development; and 

Ç Make sure proposals are field tested and evaluated up front to see

what works best in the real world.

Language and Cultural Barriers:

A number of comments focused on the inherent language and cultural barriers that must be

overcome for successful WPS implementation. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should develop training for inspectors on how to overcome cultural and

language barriers so they can interact more effectively with non-English

speaking growers and workers;
-47-

ò EPA should provide more options to inspectors for resolving language

barriers;

ò EPA should develop WPS outreach materials for growers in multiple

languages;

ò EPA should use stakeholder involvement and focus groups in development

of materials so that translations are accurate and deliver the desired

message; and 

ò EPA should make sure workers are getting training in a language/manner

they understand.

Outreach and Coordination With Health Care Providers:

Many comments supported the need for more outreach and better coordination with health

care providers on WPS matters. Most coordination issues are captured in the incident reporting and

tracking discussion under enforcement issues, but participants also made several recommendations

specific to outreach and communication needs. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should conduct more outreach/training for the medical community on

recognition and management of pesticide poisonings/illnesses;

ò EPA should integrate the National Strategy for Health CareProviders effort

with the WPS program efforts and use the assessment process to develop a

consolidated approach; 

ò EPA should develop and distribute guidance on the types of diagnostic tests

and other documentation needed to substantiate pesticide poisonings; and

ò EPA should provide clearer interpretative guidance for the medical

community on the definition of emergency medical assistance and EPA’s

expectations under this provision.

V. Children’s Health Issues

Participants agreed that the WPS assessment needs to address the issues raised by the

Government Accounting Office (GAO) and Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee

(CHPAC) regarding EPA’sregulatory effortsto protect the health of children working in agriculture.
-48-

Although there was no clear consensus on how to resolve the various children’s health issues,

stakeholders did identify the key issues that EPA needs to address during the WPS assessment:

ò The adequacy of the WPS REIs for protecting children under 12 years of age;

ò The need for EPA to consider the unique pesticide exposure conditionsthat farm

worker children encounter when conducting its risk assessments;

ò The need for additional WPS provisions to adequately protect pregnant women

and children; and

ò The appropriateness of children working in agriculture and strategies for

addressing the problem.

Many comments focused on the appropriateness of children being involved with agricultural

labor and strategies to reduce or eliminate this practice. Many participants felt that the WPS is not

the appropriate regulatory mechanism for addressing occupational health risksfor children, and they

thought OSHA should change its labor laws to prevent children under the age of sixteen from

working in agriculture because of the hazardous nature of the work. 

Most people agreed that EPA should focus on strategies for getting children out of the field,

but they pointed out there are a number of obstacles to overcome first. Worker advocacy groups

noted many migrant workers have no choice but to bring children with them to the fields since they

don’t have daycare options and they need the extra money that comes from their labor contribution.

It was pointed out that getting children out of the fields won’t completely resolve the problems

anyway because labor camps and worker daycare facilities are often in the orchards and fields, and

children are exposed to higher levels of pesticide residues in those settings. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò EPA should assure the WPS assessment addresses the issues raised by the

Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Children’s Health Protection

Advisory Committee (CHPAC) regarding EPA’s regulatory efforts to

protect the health of children working in agriculture; 
-49-

ò EPA should assure that worker training emphatically stresses the

importance of keeping children out of fields because of potential health risks

and possible developmental effects;

ò EPA should work with worker advocacy groups to send a strong message to

workers to keep children out of fields;

ò EPA should take stepsto addressthe other sources of pesticide exposure that

farm worker children encounter (such as residues from drift, farm worker

clothing, and residing in labor camps where residues may be higher); 

ò EPA should encourage advocacy groups to focus more of their resources on

organizing and providing day care servicesfor migrantsso thatfarm worker

children do not have to accompany workersin the fields (it was pointed out

that if advocacy groups are truly concerned about reducing risks to farm

worker children from pesticides they should provide more services which

help to address the problem); and

ò EPA should impose label restrictions that prohibit children from working

in fields for those products that pose the greatest potential health risks to

children.

VI. Other Issues

There were a number of other issues raised and/or discussed at the Austin meeting that did

not constitute major themes on their own and were not related to the five primary themes identified,

but stakeholders felt the issues should be addressed in the assessment. These other issues are

captured below:

Decontamination:

It was pointed out that there is a value and need for workplace shower and laundry facilities

for workers given the risk to children and other family members from take-home pesticide exposure

and the lack of accessto those facilitiesfor many farm workers at their homes. It was noted that EPA

should consider how to assure such facilities are provided for farm workers to reduce personal and

take-home pesticide exposures.
-50-

Engineering Controls:

Anumber of commentsfocused on the need for greater emphasis on engineering controlssuch

as enclosed cabs, closed systems and PPE, and the need for stronger regulatory requirements for

engineering controls under certain conditions. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:

ò Expand requirements for enclosed cabs for certain types of high-risk

pesticide applications;

ò Require closed mixing/loading systems for all category I and II pesticides;

ò Provide greater compliance incentives for adopting engineering controls (i.e.,

require cholinesterasemonitoring for certain high toxicity pesticides if closed

systems and enclosed cabs aren’t used); and 

ò Promote research on PPE alternatives.

WPS Risk Assessment:

Several comments focused on the need for EPA to make its occupational risk assessment

decisions more transparent. A number of people felt EPA’s occupational risk assessment

methodologies were inappropriate and they thought EPA should get greater consensus/agreement

from the scientific community on their decisions. Some participants felt that EPA’s “transfer

coefficients” are often unrealistic or based on outdated harvest techniques, and they wanted EPA to

reveal more information about its data and assumptions. Several people felt there was a lesser

regulatory standard of protection under FIFRA for occupational health risks versus dietary risks and

these people thought EPA should apply the same regulatory standards for all its risk assessments. 

Inter-Agency Coordination:

Participants commented repeatedly on the need for greater awareness and national attention

to farm worker issues, and there was general consensus that resolving all the concerns will require

a multi-agency approach. 

Stakeholders made the following recommendations:
-51-

ò EPA should take the lead in coordinating an inter-agency workgroup with

the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human

Services to work with stakeholders on improving farm worker health and

working conditions.

Funding:

Stakeholders reiterated that EPA is not providing adequate resources for the WPS program.

It was noted thatstatessupply the lionsshare of the funding to support WPS program implementation

even though the WPS is supposedly a Federal program. People felt that EPA’s funding formula is

outdated, and there was disagreement over whether EPA even supplies enough funding to be

establishing a minimum number of WPS inspections for each state. People felt that EPA should

appropriate more funds for the WPS program and resources should be allocated based on better

criteria such as the number of WPS covered facilities, the number of workers, the types of labor, the

types of agriculture, the number of handlers and/or certified applicators, and the number of pesticide

producing establishments making WPS labeled products.

The National Assessment Process:

Stakeholders voiced generalsupport for EPA’s proposal for the national assessment process.

Most participants felt that EPA was assuring adequate stakeholder representation in the assessment

process, but it was noted that EPA should take steps to secure greater grower participation in future

stakeholder meetings and the overall assessment process. Some participants felt that there were more

worker advocacy groupsrepresented in Austin and there needsto better balance in the future. It was

noted that it is especially important for the assessment workgroups to have an even make-up.

Stakeholders encouraged EPA to move forward with workgroup formation as soon as possible. It

was noted that face-to-face meetings would be ideal for initial workgroup meetings, but if funding

prohibited that arrangements then the assessment workgroups should operate by conference calls. It

was pointed out that historical memory is critical to this assessment process, and EPA should try to

assure that people with historical knowledge take part in the assessment. 

3. Next Steps

The Austin meeting represents a significant milestone in initiating the national assessment and

setting a course for the process, but it is important to note that the WPS assessment is an ongoing

process. EPA is seeking the involvement of stakeholders who wish to participate in the next steps

of the national assessment process but were unable to attend the Austin meeting. Next steps include:

ò Creation of WPS Assessment Work Group and Working Committees
-52-

As part of the national assessment, EPA intends to form a “WPS Assessment Work

Group.” This workgroup will help provide direction to the assessment process, the

different assessment working committees, and the overall WPS program. The

workgroup will be comprised of representatives from EPA, Departments of

Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services,state regulators, state extension

service safety educators, farm worker advocacy groups, farm workerservice/training

associations, agricultural employer associations,farmworker cliniciansnetworks, and

other interested stakeholders.

One of the cornerstones of the proposed assessment process is the formation of a

number of smaller working committees that will more thoroughly focus on and

address the broad themes areas and underlying issues identified in Austin. The

assessment working committees will be made up of representatives from the WPS

stakeholders who have volunteered to be active participants in the assessment

process. 

2. Additional Stakeholder Meetings

The Austin meeting was only the first of three stakeholder meetings that are being

held to invite stakeholder participation in the national assessment effort. The Agency

is planning two additionalstakeholder meetingsthat will invite continued input on the

WPS program and the national WPS assessment process. The two remaining

stakeholder meetings are being planned for different regions of the country to assure

that different regional perspectives are adequately represented in the assessment

process. 

The next stakeholder meeting will be held in Sacramento, California, in December

2000, and a third stakeholder meeting will be held in Orlando, Florida in the Spring

of 2001. EPA will be disseminating additional information about the arrangements

for the next stakeholder meetings as soon as it becomes available.

For More Information

For more information about the status of the national assessment process, plans for future

stakeholder meetings, or how to become involved in the various workgroups beingformed,interested

parties are encouraged to visit the Certification and Worker Protection Branch’s web page

(www.epa.gov/pesticides/safety) or call the Branch office directly at 703-305-7666.