Preventing Pesticide Illness Due to Drift By Targeting Investigation and Outreach at Workplaces Encircled By Agricultural Fields

BACKGROUND:  For the last few years CDPH has investigated select cases of occupational pesticide illness caused by agricultural drift onto adjacent non-farm workplaces. Using Google maps, we noted that a number of these incidents occurred at workplaces that were surrounded by agricultural fields. In 2013 we geocoded these drift cases to identify areas in California that may be at higher risk for drift onto non-farm worksites. In 2014, in one of these areas, we conducted an in-depth investigation of a drift incident where workers became ill at a worksite surrounded by fields. We conducted this investigation to discover the extent and cause of the exposures, and to determine what measures and responses could have prevented and/or mitigated the illnesses.

METHODS:   CDPH evaluated reports of occupational pesticide illnesses to assess the frequency and nature of adverse health effects due to pesticide drift onto non-farm worksites. CDPH also investigated a drift incident by conducting a site visit and interviewing workers, managers, and other key informants involved with the incident.

RESULTS:  Of 5017 occupational pesticide illness reports received by CDPH from 1998-2014, 3305 were classified as cases using the NIOSH Case Classification System. Of these 3305 cases, 536 (16%) were exposed to pesticide that had drifted away from the application site. Of these 536 drift cases, 73 (14%) occurred when pesticides were applied on a farm and then drifted to a non-farm worksite. Common adverse health effects reported by these 73 cases include headache (52%), respiratory irritation (42%), eye irritation (41%), nausea (34%), and dyspnea (19%). Data about severity, occupations, and industries will be presented as well. Our site investigation suggests that several factors contributed to the pesticide illness incident, including failure of the applicator to control drift, but also a lack of emergency procedures for dealing with pesticide drift incidents.

CONCLUSIONS: Advance planning for a pesticide drift emergency could help prevent and/or mitigate exposures. CDPH’s recommendations touch on drift prevention but also focus on the planning and response an employer can implement to prepare for drift. Similar locations that are encircled by farm fields, or that have experienced previous drift incidents, may benefit from implementing these recommendations. At-risk locations can be found by combining Google maps with pesticide use data and can be targeted for outreach. Educational materials will be developed based on our findings and will be evaluated with the assistance of the workplace we investigated.