California Farmers Face
More Threats to Lung Health

Farmers in California suffer much higher rates of respiratory disease than the general population, mostly due to all the dust. That's what researchers at the University of California, Davis, have found so far in a long-term study of nearly 2,000 California farmers.

"There is a myth out there that farming is a clean, healthy lifestyle," said Marc Schenker, MD, director of the UC Agricultural Health and Safety Center at Davis and principal investigator on the Farmer Health Study. "The fact is, farming is far more hazardous when it comes to respiratory health."

While other studies have found that pesticides are responsible for respiratory problems among field workers, this study looked at farm owners and operators. It was launched in 1993 to determine the health of California farmers and the hazards they face in their work. It is supported by the UC Agricultural Health and Safety Center and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, as well as the American Lung Association of California through a Research Training grant to Cathy L. Saiki, an epidemiologist working on the project.

Researchers have been tracking the health of 1,947 farmers, who were randomly selected to participate in an initial phone interview that asked about work practices and specific health outcomes. In 1995, researchers interviewed nearly 800 of those farmers and then visited them out in the field to conduct respiratory tests.

The study asked about the use of protective equipment when working around hazards such as dust, pesticides, sun, noise or tractors. Overall, there was a low use of protective equipment.

Farmers were most likely to use protection from pesticide exposure. All farmers who used pesticides used some form of protective equipment, and nearly 80 percent indicated protection was used more than half the time. However, for sun, dust and noise exposure, less than a third of the farmers used adequate protection. In addition, the use of adequate protection for one type of exposure did not guarantee the use of protection for a different type of exposure.

"It looks like a lot of exposure can be reduced and disease prevented," Dr. Schenker said. "That's ultimately what we're trying to accomplish."