Farm Workers and Pesticide Exposure

[Guest guest]

Great discussion through Digest Numbers 882 and 883.

Thanks to for the good news there's an effort under way for a

nationalized incident reporting system. I once did a brief review of

available information on pesticide exposures in a state mentioned in the

discussion. It took me weeks. I learned there was a concern over

sub-clinical effects (related to 's comment on " long-term exposures "

but otherwise an issue not raised in the discussion), alongside the concern

for " acute poisoning. " Overall I was disappointed that there wasn't the

kind of information there is now, as suggested by in the examples

she provides, which supplements. Nor were there warnings on how " to

read " the information that's made available. Thanks, for your

instructive commentary.

Did readers catch that was reporting a prevalence rate (5.5 per

1,000) as well as an incidence rate (18.2 per 100,000). The two together

provide a comprehensive epidemiological picture on disease occurrence more

than one or the other alone. Prevalence is the " current rate " at a

particular point in time, and incidence is the rate of " new cases " at a

particular point in time (this year; end of the year as of December 31;

decade concluding 1999; etc).

Louise Mehler's contribution is one of those rare instances where " a

source " self-identifies on something that has come to be, or at least for a

portion of what ensues. In this instance, Louise provides thoughts on

Chris' " impressively thorough " summary and adds a further caution on

possible mortality inflation.

I like the title, " The anatomy and evolution of a bogus factoid. "

Your first paragraph rivets attention on material you intend to deliver.

Going through that material item after item demonstrates that any and many

groups may use information on faith and trust. The caution you push on

internet use is greatly needed: Yes, the internet and other data sources

should be subject to question. I would welcome you as a guest speaker in

the classroom. Your computer acumen and ability to synthesize should gain

you invitations as a guest speaker for university classes (if not more).

Once in the classroom, I would have you share with students how you get so

much from one-two hours of computer work. I cannot turn around that much

information in that short a time, and I've rarely had your luck in getting

responses so quickly.

provides another angle on pesticide exposure. Higher percentages in

the California survey he cites reported over-exposure than those who

reported being " sickened " and those who sought treatment. What is reported

(as one discussant suggested) appears to be tip-of-the-iceburg.

Interestingly, several internet sources listed used the term

" suffer, " followed by either the generalized " poisoning " or more precise

" acute poisoning, " whereas a few used alternate terms like " sickened, "

" injured, " etc. Has the one-time concern for sub-clinical build-up been

conflated within the word choices for describing the consequences of

pesticide exposure? There has been some interesting research from the

Middle South (Arcury and Quandt) and other areas of the country outlining

possible parameters of field pesticide exposure beyond the worker to family

members.

I'm glad to see offer her contribution on " risk perception, " since

perceived risk encapsulates the discussion. I heard speak a few years

ago; she does good fieldwork.

We speak together and offer our ideas at the same time. Six individual

contributions to Digest Numbers 882 and 883 don't show much support for the

idea of list-serve members as " this crowd. " Nice job and thanks to Chris

for starting this off. I enjoyed the reading exchange.

V Bletzer

Medical Anthropologist