Chemical exposure among NZ farmers.

The objectives were to describe chemical use among farmers; to develop an exposure intensity score for three chemicals of interest: organophosphates (OPs), glyphosate (GP), and phenoxy herbicides (PHs). This was a cross-sectional study of a stratified random sample of farmers. Demographic, health and chemical use information were collected via questionnaire and an exposure level score developed. Within a sample of 586 farmers, 16 - 54% applied one or more of the chemicals. A high proportion of pastoral farmers used all the chemical types with 65% applying GP, 29% OPs and 19% PHs. Mean exposure scores were higher among women OP users, younger PH users, and arable farmers using PHs. This pesticide exposure score based on self-reported work practices among farmers can give an estimate of comparative annual exposure level. It can be used in analytical epidemiological studies and allows the identification of priority areas for intervention.

Obtaining health information from farmers: interviews versus postal questionnaires in a New Zealand case study.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of interviewer-led and postal surveys in gathering adequate health data for occupational health programmes among farmers. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies of farmers from southern New Zealand were conducted. Farms were randomly selected from the public land valuation roll and all farmers and farm workers invited to participate in the farmers' health study. First, 477 farms were invited to participate in an interviewer administered questionnaire and health check; and second, a further 432 farms were selected and invited to participate in a self-administered postal survey. Both groups completed the same questionnaire. RESULTS: The response for the interviewer-led and postal surveys was 65.4 % and 51.6 % respectively. The 2 groups differed demographically, with fewer young farm workers in the postal survey, but were similar in all areas of health information collected, except that men in the interviewer-led survey were significantly more likely to have a psychological disturbance than men in the postal survey (chi ( 2 ) =5.06, df=1, p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the interviewer-led survey having a higher response rate, the postal survey produced similar health data, which is adequate for planning occupational health programmes for farmers. Extra effort should be made to recruit younger farm workers in future research.

Noise exposure and hearing loss in agriculture: a survey of farmers and farm workers in the Southland region of New Zealand.

Farmers are known to be exposed to intermittent intense noise from a variety of sources, but long-term exposure and the resulting risk of hearing loss have not been well characterized. We studied a cross-sectional random sample of farms on which agricultural workers completed an audiometric test and questionnaire, and performed noise dosimetry on a subsample. Sixty-five percent of farms and a total of 586 workers participated. Noise on the subsample of 60 farms lay in a range between 84.8 to 86.8 dB(A) and hearing losses were consistent with this level of exposure. Age, driving tractors without cabs, and working with metal were important risk factors. Reported compliance with hearing protection was higher than that actually observed. The majority of farmers have a moderate risk of hearing loss, but a significant minority is at high risk. Elimination and isolation of noise sources are the control methods of choice, and if residual hearing protection is required, compliance must be improved.