1

AES BIOFLUX Advances in Environmental Sciences - International Journal of the Bioflux Society

A Study on Pesticide Effects to the Rice Farmers and to the Environment in Kolambugan and

Maigo, Lanao del Norte Ferlyn Villaroya Logronio

1 Department of Biological Sciences, Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of

Technology, Iligan City, Philippines, fvlogronio@gmail.com

Abstract. This article discusses the pesticide effects to the rice farmers’ health and to their environment

in the Municipalities of Kolambugan and Maigo in the Province of Lanao del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines.

Data were collected from randomly selected 100 rice farmers through one-on-one interviews between December 2013 and January 2014 using a semi-structured questionnaire to elicit demographic

information, various aspects of farming life, types and extent of pesticides use, exposure means and

manifestations of pesticide poisoning among the farmers. Reports showed that farmers were experiencing manifestations of pesticide poisoning which includes excessive sweating, skin allergies,

severe dry throat, dizziness and headache. There were also serious nail problem reported by the respondents. Moreover, environmental effects were felt during the use of pesticides which includes air

contamination, water contamination and occurence of dead small insects and animals in the farm.

Key Words: Rice farmers, rice production, impact of pesticides.

Introduction. Rice remains the staple food of Filipinos, despite rising per capita income

that had led to a more diversified diet in neighboring Asian countries. An average of one

hundred nineteen kilograms (119kg) of rice had been consumed by a Filipino within the

year 2009 - 2010. And four point thirty-five (4.35) million hectares of land area had been devoted to rice production in the Philippines (rappler.com 2012). The Philippine

population had rapidly grown from 60.7 million in 1990 to 76.3 million in 2000; 88.7

million in 2007; and 90.4 million in 2008. On the other hand, total rice production was

only 16.24 million tons (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics data) as compared to the needed volume of 18.5 million tons of rice in 2007. There is a shortfall of more than 2

million tons of rice, and this has to be imported from a thin world market (only 6-7

percent of world rice produced are traded in the world market) (Regalado 2010). Moreover, population in rice growing countries were increasing at a faster rate than food

production in the 1950s and 1960s. Because of these trends, several authorities predicted large-scale food shortages in Asia resulting in famines and social upheavals, by

the 1970s (Khush & Toenniessen 1991). Thus, giving birth to the green revolution, the

technological response to a world-wide food shortage (Fitzgerald & Parai 1996). When

the Green Revolution package was introduced to the Philippines, it promised to increase production of rice crops (Parveen & Nakagoshi 2001) to meet the growing needs of the

growing population. This "green revolution" was accompanied by an expanded use of

chemical inputs (Dolan 1991) and had doubled rice production (Maclean et al 2002).

Agriculture productivity in the country started to increase as a consequence of improved agricultural structure, especially irrigation, a massive increase in the application of

chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and the introduction of a new crop varieties known as

high-yield varieties (R. Tirado and D. Bedoya, 2008). A fundamental contributor to the

Green Revolution has been the development and application of pesticides for the control

2

of a wide variety of insectivorous and herbaceous pests that would otherwise diminish the

quantity and quality of food produce (FAO 1996). On the other hand, the usage of these pesticides had detrimental effects. It had been

devastating to humankind. The biggest impacts among human populations have been on

the farmers who face the occupational hazards of working with, and often living in close

proximity to, these toxic agents. (Kedia and Palis, 2008). In a subsequent report of the

World Health Organization issued between 1990 and 2002, estimated that from one to five million cases of pesticide poisoning occur among agricultural workers resulting in an

approximately 20,000 fatalities. Fourteen percent (14%) of all occupational injuries are

due to exposure to pesticides and other agrochemical constituents, and 10% of these

injuries - around 17,000 per year - are fatal. However, the reality of pesticide-related illness could actually be far worse, as no large-scale epidemiological studies have been

conducted anywhere in the world. The chemicals in pesticides may injure humans in a

variety of ways. Each chemical has a different effect and causes different symptoms.

Some are toxic to the liver, kidneys, and nervous system. Some affect the blood. Others may injure the lungs or the brain. Symptoms of pesticide poisoning range from

headache, nausea, and dizziness to convulsions, vomiting, and unconsciousness

(University of Minnesota Extension 2011).

Moreover, the use of pesticides also had an adverse drawbacks on the environment

(Tejada et al 1995). Pesticides as a biologically active substance intended to be effective against certain groups or organisms (Tarazona & Dohmen 2008). Once applied, many

pesticides are mobile in the environment. This movement can be beneficial if the

pesticide is carried to a specific target area, like a plant's root zone, or if it helps to

ensure that degradation occurs at the proper time and place. Sometimes, however, nontarget insects, plants and other organisms come into contact with the pesticide. This

can result in reduced control of the target pest and injury to non-target plants and

animals (Joern & Lohman 1994). It also kills organisms, wildlife, birds, fish, bees,

beneficial insects, and pest’s natural enemies (Panganiban 2005). On the other hand, widespread application of pesticides leads to drifting and contamination of land and

waterways. It causes also the contamination of groundwater which is a subject of

national importance because groundwater is used for drinking water by about 50 percent

of the Nation's population. This especially concerns people living in the agricultural areas

where pesticides are most often used, as about 95 percent of that population relies upon groundwater for drinking water (Perlman 2014). In addition to the harmful effect of

pesticide use is related to air pollution. According to the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants, 9 of the 12 most dangerous and persistent organic

chemicals are pesticides that move long distances, taken up the food chain and accumulate everywhere.

Most documented studies related to pesticide exposure have included small groups of

farmers in a selected few countries and have been primarily based on self-reports or

extrapolation from vital statistics. This is likely due to the challenges associated with clearly establishing the casual links of the chronic health symptoms with prolonged

pesticides exposure and the pesticides effects to the environment. These studies have,

however, consistently reported the negative impacts of pesticides use. The primary goal

of this paper are: (1) To know the common pesticides being used by the farmers;

(2) To ascertain pesticide exposure risks associated with a particular farming

population, Filipino rice farmers in 2 municipalities of Lanao del Norte, namely,

the Municipalities of Kolambugan and Maigo;

(3) To name the manifestation of pesticide poisoning experienced by the farmers; (4) To identify the most common environmental problems evident in the area.

Material and Method. The Province of Lanao del Norte, in the Island of Mindanao,

Philippines, consistently ranks second in Region 10 in terms of total Provincial Palay Production. In 2007, its production increased by 6.8% from 134,751 metric tons in 2006

to 143,905 metric tons. It was accompanied by the increase in the total area harvested

by 4.3% or 1,619 hectares and the average yield per hectare at 3.7 metric tons/hectare

3

(PIO Lanao del Norte, 2013). The Municipalities of Kolambugan and Maigo in the Province

of Lanao del Norte was selected as the study site as both municipalities were among the eleven rice producing municipalities in the province. Kolambugan and Maigo has the

geographical coordinates of 8.1167° N, 123.9000° E and 8.1500° N, 123.9667° E,

respectively. The Municipalities of Kolambugan and Maigo are accessibly located along

the Panguil Bay area facing Ozamiz City in the Province of Misamis Occidental, 47 kilometers west of the capital town of Tubod. Both are centrally located northwest of the

Province. The Municipality of Kolambugan is bounded by the Panguil Bay on the North,

Municipality of Tangcal and Magsaysay on the South; the Municipality of Maigo on the

East; the Municipality of Tubod on the West. On the other hand, the Municipality of Maigo is bounded by the Panguil Bay on the north, Municipality of Munai; Municipality of

Kauswagan on the East; and the Municipality of Kolambugan on the west. (Figure 1).

A field work was done during December 2013 to January 2014 in the Municipalities of

Kolambugan and Maigo. A random sampling of 100 farmers in the municipalities were purposely selected. Study participants were men and women who had been actively

involved in farming and pesticide application for at least one year. This study also

included rice farmer and farm workers as well as those who manages farmland. A semi-

structured questionnaire was used. A quantitative and qualitative questions were used to

collect data on demographics, pesticides being used, frequency of application, pesticide exposure, container disposal, and self-reported illnesses. The original English

questionnaire was translated into the local dialect. Courtesy calls were done to barangay

captains prior to the conduct of the study. List of farmers were also provided by the

respective barangay chairmen for reference. The interviews were done on one-on-one discussion with the respondents in their respective houses or in the farm where they

work. Interviews were also done at solar dryer areas where many farmers gathered to

wait for the rice they dried.

The data were then tabulated and were analysed using the available online tool that automatically computes a statistical mean value found at www.mathisfun.com and other

quantitative data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analysed using the formulas that

were already included in MS Office.

Figure 1. Geographical Location of the two study municipalities, marked with yellow stars.

Inset on the lower right-hand portion is the map of the Philippines with an arrow pointing to Mindanao. Inset on the upper left-hand portion is the map of Mindanao with an arrow pointing Lana del Norte.

4

Results and Discussion. Among the 100 farmers included in this study, there were 72% or 72 males and 28% or 28 female. The respondents were composed of sixty-nine

male sprayers, eleven female sprayers, and the remaining population (20%) were

involved in other farm works like in the land preparation, ploughing, weeding, planting

and harvesting. Female participation in the rice production was noted in the area. This may be the cause where available labour sources increasingly scarce such as in the rural-

urban migration of male agricultural labour (Huvio 1998) additional reasons for the

involvement includes as replacement for their husbands’ absence due to illnesses, sole

responsibility to the family (single parenthood) and to help their husband in the work. Majority of this study population (43% or n=43) belonged to 41-50 age group, followed

by 51-60 (29%, n=29), both age group belonging to 31 - 40 and 61 - 70 had 10% or ten

respondents respectively and below 20 - 30 and above 70 age bracket had 4% or 4

respondents each (Table 1). It was observed that the age bracket of 41-50 was the most prevalent age in this study because during this age bracket men were said to be most

productive since they have a stronger work ethics compared to younger men (Blauth et

al 2011). This age bracket of the respondents further attested the findings in a study that

much of the youth today shun farming as a profession or business undertaking because

of its perceived hardships, and many farming families were part of the Philippines’ poor sector (Cariño 2013). Moreover, educational attainment showed that most of the

respondents or 43% had high school education. Followed by 40% or 40 farmers who

attended and finished elementary education. 13% or 13 farmers were at college level,

3% or 3 farmers had vocational trainings and 2% or 2 participants had not attended school (Table 1). It was prominent that most of the farmers got high school and

elementary levels and did not pursue college education. It was further observed that

people with college and vocational background choose to work on different field rather

than farming. Others on this educational attainment just tend to manage the farm and do not do actual field works. Respondents with high educational attainment had higher

awareness on the effects of pesticides exposure thus hiring people to do the spraying of

the chemicals to their farms. The average household size of the respondents ranged from

1 to 16 family members. Majority (91%) of these farmers were renting or tenanting the

rice field that they were working on. Table 1

Study Population Demographics (N=100)

Frequency (n) Percent (%)

Gender

Male 72 72.0 Female 28 28.0

Age group

<20 - 30

31-40 41-50

51-60

61-70

>70 Education

No schooling

Elementary

High school

College Vocational Course

Land ownership

Own

Rent

4

10 43

29

10

4

2

39

43

13 3

9

91

4.0

10.0 43.0

29.0

10.0

4.0

2.0

39.0

43.0

13 3.0

9.0

91.0

Ninety-eight percent of the farmers in this study used agrochemical pesticides in their respective rice fields to control weeds, insect infestation and diseases. While 2

5

respondents practice organic farming methods. When those who used substances as

pesticides were asked what chemicals they applied in their farms, the participating farmers provided a rather extensive list of brand names, often with similar or the same

chemical base, yielding 37 agrochemicals, in which 26 were insecticides (24 were found

at the Registered List of Pesticides in the Philippines and 2 were named by the farmers

but not found in the list of pesticides nor at any web search engine), 5 were herbicides, 3 were molluscicides, 1 was rodenticides and 2 were fungicides (Table 2).

Table 2

Types of Pesticides Used Annually by Active Ingredient as reported among rice farmers

Pesticide Type and Active

Ingredient

Product Name EPA

Toxicity

Category^

Frequency

of the

Farmers

Herbicides

2, 4-D Amine

Butachlor + 2, 4-D IBE 2, 4-D Amine

Butachlor

Glyphosate IPA

Shelter 2, 4-D Amine

Rogue Hedonal Liq. SL 400

Machete

Round up 48% SL

II

III II

IV

IV

13

36 15

5

2

Insecticides

Fipronil Cypermethrin

Chlorothalonil + Cypermethrin

Chlorpyrifest BPMC

Cypermethrin Cypermethrin

Cartap hydrochloride

Beta cypermethrin

Cypermethrin Cypermethrin

Deltamethrin

Lambdacyhalothrin

MIPC

Lambdacyhalothrin Lambdacyhalothrin

Methomyl

Malathion

Dinotefuran Cartap hydrochloride

Diazinon

Chlorpyrifos

Fenithrothion Endosulfan

Etofenprox

Molluscicide

Niclosamide Metaldehyde

Metaldehyde

Rodenticides

Zinc Phospide

Fungicide Difenoconazole + Propiconazole

Benomyl

Ascend 50 SC Attack 5R

Blink EC

Brodan 31.5 EC

Bull’s Eye Bushwack

Cartap ES

Chix 2.5 EC

Cymbush 5 EC Cypermethrin 5 EC

Decis-R

Descarte 2.5 EC

Hytox 50 WP

Jolina 2.5 EC Karate 2.5 EC

Lannate 40 SP

Malathion

Oshin 20 Sg Padan 50 SP

Parafest D 400 EC

Paraulod 300 EC

Sumithion 50 EC Thiodan EC

Trebon Excel 10 EC

Bayluscide 250 EC Porsnail 45 WP

Snailkill 6%P

Zinc Phospide 80 DP

Armure 300 EC

Protekur 50 WP

III IV

II

II

IV IV

III

III

IV IV

IV

II

III

II II

II

IV

IV III

II

II

II II

IV

IV IV

IV

II

III

IV

1 1

3

7

15 4

21

2

2 10

9

4

2

4 27

1

37

1 4

5

1

2 3

1

1 2

6

13

1

1

^II = moderately hazardous chemicals; III=Slighty toxic and slightly irritating; IV= Practically non-toxic and

not an irritant (EPA Toxicity Categories) Note. Respondents were allowed to give multiple responses.

6

The pesticides mentioned by the farmers contained hazardous chemicals as listed

and classified by the EPA which can be potentially harmful to the environment and to human health. Among the identified 37 pesticides, 37.8% or 14 are classified under Tox

Category II or moderately hazardous chemicals and another 14 products were classified

under Tox Category IV or practically non-toxic and not an irritant. In addition, 7

pesticides (18.9%) belonged to Category III or slightly toxic and slightly irritating. It was noted that pesticides under Toxicity Category II was still being widely used and common

among farmers in spite the fact that they were moderately toxic and caused moderate

irritations. Collective reasons of the farmers for using such chemicals were for their low

prices which can be afforded by poor farmers. It was also reported that those common chemicals under Tox Category II were effective in killing the common pest in the rice

fields. So regardless of their effects to the farmers and to the environment they were

commonly used because of their low prices and for their efficacy.

Moreover, 34.91 percent (n=37) personally decided on the brand of the chemicals they were going to use. This was based on their previous experiences with a certain

brand which they perceived to be effective and worked better in their area. Thirty-five or

33.02% of the respondents followed the advices of agriculture technicians that would

come to their locale either from the local government or from local pesticide

manufacturers promoting their products. Furthermore, the remaining respondents either imitated the brands used with their neighbours which were perceived to be effective or

sought advices from the local storekeepers on the effective and most saleable pesticide

on hand. Most of the pesticides were bought from the nearby cities of Ozamis and Iligan.

Other farmers got their pesticides from local agri-vet store in the neighbouring municipalities of Maigo, Tubod and Lala, all of Lanao del Norte which would lessen their

cost of transportation. Reportedly, 53% of the farmers kept on changing the brand of the

chemicals that they were using, most common reason for the action was that chemical

brands would be dependent on the kind of the pest that attacked on a specific area. Another reason for changing the brand of the pesticides used was to avoid the immunity

defence of the insect to a certain chemical, they said that if they kept on using the same

chemicals the pest will develop tolerance to these medicines thus reducing its

effectiveness. Another common reason for changing the brands of chemicals was due to

the recommendation of the agriculture technologists that came to their area and promoted their new products or gave them incentives like free sample to use or apply.

And another reason would also be dependent on the available cash of the farmers, if they

had much money they would buy the expensive medicines and vice-versa. Furthermore,

90% of the respondents did not buy chemicals without proper labels. Most of the respondents said that they were doubtful especially in using chemicals which were not

labelled that is why they were precautious. They said that pesticides were already

harmful so they would not venture on none-labelled one. Moreover, on an accredited

agricultural supplies store in the area, all of the pesticides that they were selling had proper labelling and had the recommended pesticides to be used by farmers. Meanwhile,

a population of 3% was able to acquire none-labelled pesticides from transient peddlers

who were offering the pesticides in low prices without the labels and they seemingly said

that it was ineffective. On the other hand, the remaining 2% of the study population that did not use agro-

chemical pesticides on their farms were practising organic farming. Their common pest

control was the application of organic pesticides made from fermented herbs such as

garlic, hot pepper, ginger, lemon grass, “panyawan”, and other materials present in the

locality. The fermented juice of this mixture was then applied to the farm and said to reduce the occurrence of black bugs and any other insect that would infest on the rice

and eventually affecting productivity. Moreover, there were seminars and trainings

regarding natural farming system and other farming techniques that would prevent the

farmers from using chemical pesticides thus, reducing the farmers’ exposure to toxic chemicals but it was sad to note that these trainings and seminars were unsuccessful.

Majority of the farmers in the study area were not practicing what they learned from

those activities. They said that the use of organic farming and any other natural farming

system would give lesser yield to the farmers thus eventually resulting to hunger.

7

Moreover, there were less opportunities and venues that taught the farmers

regarding the proper use of agro-chemical pesticides in the area. Lack of appropriate information concerning the safe handling of agrochemicals and their possible health and

environmental impacts contributed to the participating farmers’ chronic pesticide

exposure and causing related illnesses (Kedia & Palis 2008). Sixty four percent of the

respondents who applied pesticides in this study did not have appropriate information or trainings about the proper handling and proper precautions in using pesticides. They only

got information on pesticide use from other farmers, prior experiences, and information

that was being passed from their parents. The remaining thirty-six percent of the study

sample got trainings from agricultural technician promoting their products or from the Municipal Agriculture’s Office. Nonetheless, those trainings and information were not

applied by the farmers.

Based on the information gathered in this study, the period of farmer’s exposure in

the field ranged from one year to sixty-six years with the statistical mean of 25.144 years. Farmers were working at a mean of 4.81 hours a day at an average of 6.47 days

in a week. Most of the pesticide exposure for the rice farmers in this study came from the

multiple applications in each cropping period with the average of 9.5, from mishandling of

agrochemicals and from a lifetime environmental exposure through working and

inhabiting areas barraged with pesticides. Farm workers were exposed to pesticides directly and indirectly. People can be

exposed to pesticides in three ways: Inhaling pesticides, absorbing pesticides and getting

pesticides in the mouth or digestive tract or oral exposure (Amoguis, et. al., 2010).

Moreover, farmworkers were exposed to pesticides in a variety of ways. Workers who perform hand labour tasks in treated areas risk exposure from direct spray or contact

with pesticide residues on the crop or soil. Workers who mix, load, or apply pesticides

can be exposed to pesticides due to spills, splashes, and defective, missing or inadequate

protective equipment (Farmworker Justice 2013). In this study farmers who do the actual spraying were exposed to the pesticides during the mixing process or while pouring into

sprayers. When preparing of agrochemicals for an application, 90% of the respondents

diluted directly the concentrated liquids or powders in the sprayer chances of directly

inhaling the chemicals were high since most of the respondents, or 82% did not use any

eye protection, mask and gloves for shield. Unavailability of those protection gear was one of the main reasons why they did not use any, other reasons included as perceived

by the farmers that these gear were uncomfortable. Additional sources of dermal

exposure risk were simple and ineffective use of ordinary pants (89=n), long-sleeve

shirts (88=n), caps (86=n), and improvised masks (73=n) which were meant to strip off unhealthy pesticide exposure. According to Kedia and Palis (2008) in their article that

these local means of protection served to create a greater risk because they were porous

and soaked with pesticides by the end of an application, keeping doses of toxins close

against the skin. Most of the farmers were also bare-footed in applying pesticide, since as they said it was very uncomfortable to wear shoes when spraying or even when working

on the farm. This further exposed the skin through constant contact with newly sprayed

grounds and plants, leaving sores and cuts on feet and ankle exposed to toxins. Among

the 100 farmers interviewed, only one farmer was using a complete protective gear which included an over-all vest which was water proof, a helmet and a boots. This

protective gear was reportedly owned by the respondent’s cousin from another

municipality and will only be borrowed if the respondent will be applying pesticide in his

farm. When being asked why he did not buy his own gear he said it was very expensive

and his cousin only got it from a foreign donor. It was also noted that one female respondent practiced a habit of putting in mineral oil to herself before doing farm works

especially when applying pesticides. She said that this would prevent the direct

absorption of the chemicals into her body, thus reducing the risk of pesticide poisoning.

But on the other hand in a study conducted it was stated that the use of mineral oil in the skin would increase the risk skin cancer (International Agency for Research on Cancer

2011), this misconception of the farmer would eventually lead to another serious

problem.

8

Accordingly, there were three respondents who willingly admitted that they smoke

during the application of pesticides. They said that smoking cigarette would lessen the tiredness they were feeling in doing the work. Unknowingly, farmers who smoke during

application of pesticides were exposed to risk of having Lymphohaematopoitic cancers

(Kokouva 2011). Furthermore, 14% (n=14) of the respondents blew the nozzle of the

sprayer when it was clogged. They said that it would be easier to remove the object blocking the nozzle if they blow it using their mouth. Both practices of smoking and

blowing of the nozzle would put the farmers at risk of directly inhaling and ingesting the

chemicals, which they were unmindful of. Another noted malpractice in the application of

pesticides was the spraying of the farmers even if there were a strong winds. Agricultural

chemicals applied under unfavorable weather conditions from poorly adjusted or poorly operated equipment can drift away from the target. Crops and pastures can be damaged

from the spray drift of herbicides while people, stock and water supplies can be affected

by insecticide drift. The resulting pollution, crop damage and the potential health

hazards are things that are no longer environmentally acceptable. Additionally, pesticide that drifts away from the target reduces the efficiency of the product on the target and

spray failures are a waste of money and effort (IRRI 2009).

In addition, 83 respondents said that they took a bath after spraying and 90%

changed their working clothes after the application. This clearly showed the attitudes of the Filipino to be very mindful in terms of cleanliness. The remaining 8 respondents did

not immediately take a bath after the pesticide application because they said that they

will still work on another farm. Also, 60% of the farmers would re-enter the previously

sprayed field after a day or less to check the efficacy of the medicines they applied,

exposing them to additional risk of breathing the fine pesticides mist left on the field (Keida & Palis 2008). It was also observed in the conduct of this study that there were no

markers placed to warn the people that they were applying pesticides, thus extending the

exposure to the passers-by and other farm workers.

Even when not working in the fields, farmworker families, especially children, were also at risk of elevated pesticide exposure (Farmworker Justice 2013). Pesticides were

stored in houses of the farmers, though most of the respondents (90%) created a

separate storage area for the chemicals away from food supplies and from the reach of

the children. Moreover, 51% of the farmer respondent cleaned their empty pesticide container on canals within the rice field in which water would directly flow to the nearby

sea. Twenty-six percent (26%) washed them on the waters of the field itself and 14%

brought their empty containers at home and washed it on their water faucet which would

further extend the exposure to their family members. Majority of the farmers (73%)

buried their empty pesticide container on deep holes within the rice field or at their respective homes, others would directly throw it anywhere while others sell the empty

pesticides containers. Contaminated applicator clothing and dirt brought into the home

may also be a source of pesticide exposure indoors (Alavanja et al). Moreover, workers

bring pesticides into their homes in the form of residues on their tools, clothes, shoes, and skin. They inadvertently expose their children through a hug if they cannot shower

after work (Farmworker Justice 2013). The farmers run high risks of poisoning when

handling pesticides (Bartlett & Bijlmakers 2003).

This study was able to ascertain those risk that the respondents were manifesting while applying chemicals in their respective fields. The signs and symptoms noted from

this study was similar to the past studies that were being conducted regarding the health

effects of pesticide exposure to the rice farmers. There were reported common acute

health problems like fatigue, dizziness, burning sensation in the eyes/face, itching/skin irritation, chest symptoms and body pain. There were also reported chronic health-

related symptoms which were categorized as neurological, dermal, systemic, respiratory,

ophthalmic, gastro/renal and cardiovascular. Diseases and health issues like Alzheimer’s

Disease, asthma, birth and fetal defects, brain cancer, breast cancer, leukemia,

lymphoma, prostate cancer, soft tissue sarcoma and other cancers, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and reproductive health

effects had also been linked to pesticide exposure. (Kedia & Palis 2008; Amoguis et al

2010; Owens et al 2010; Rola 1994; Mohd Fuad et al 2012; Abu Mourad 2005). Table 3

9

showed the most prevalent signs and symptoms that were experienced by the farmers in

Kolambugan and Maigo Lanao del Norte.

Table 3

Signs and Symptoms that were experienced by the farmers while spraying pesticides

Signs and Symptoms Frequency

Severe dry throat

Excessive sweating

Dizziness

Headache Difficulty in Breathing

Skin Allergies

Salivation

Coughing Vomiting

Diarrheal

Fatigue

48

73

33

27 11

61

2

21 1

2

3

Note. Farmers were allowed to have multiple answers.

Depending upon the toxicity of the compound, dosage and exposure time, the

adverse effects of pesticides poisoning ranges from headaches, vomiting, skin irritation, respiratory problems to other neurological disorders (Jors et al., 2006). Most cases of

pesticide-related illness and poisoning were not reported because victims do not

generally consult with a biomedical doctor or hospital or because their illnesses were not

accurately diagnosed as related to pesticide exposure (Kedia & Palis 2008). In this study, for example, it was observed that those respondents who were on the lower age bracket

(>20-40 age group) did not perceived these signs and symptoms to be the effects of

pesticide poisoning, so they continue to do their work disregarding the indications they

were feeling. On the other hand, in the older age bracket professed that those were the effects of exposures to pesticides but did not have the enough financial capabilities for

medication. In addition, in the Philippines, for, example, the number of poisonings was

likely underestimated because most cases did not reach the hospital, health officers may

not always correctly diagnose pesticide poisoning (Maramba 1995; Mendoza 1995).

Furthermore, most of the farmers reported that they experienced fatigue and body pains after a daylong application of pesticides in their respective farms. They said that most

likely it was a result of the heavy weight sprayer carried on their back. Common remedy

done by the farmers, at the end of the day, would be a back massage using essential oil.

But, unknowingly, these muscle weakness and fatigue were early symptoms of organophosphate poisoning from pesticides (Schulze 1997). In addition, respondents also

experienced burning sensation on their back especially if the sprayer was full and some of

the chemicals will spill directly at the skin of the farmer. The burning sensation was

preceded by severe itching of the exposed skin. Common remedy done by the farmers would be the removal of the contaminated clothing and washing the skin with detergent

soap and running water. This chemical burns on the skin was a general symptoms that

might indicate a severe pesticide poisoning according to the Canadian Centre for

Occupational Health and Safety (2010) that of not given proper medical attention would

cause greater problem. And lastly there were also reported nail problems common in the farmers (Figure 2). Exposure to paraquat concentrates may cause blackening of the nails

and abnormal nail growth (Schulze 1997). The effects of pesticide exposure did not limit

only on those manifested signs and symptoms. During the interviews that were

conducted for this study, it was found out that there was an incidence of death that was allegedly linked to pesticide. The said farmer was severely sick of a respiratory ailment

that led to his death. That farmer was said to be a chain smoker and even smoked when

applying pesticides. Moreover, there were also reports of farmers that were severely

diagnose with chronic diseases like respiratory ailments, paralysis, Parkinson’s disease and many others.

10

Figure 2. Toe nail of a female respondent, a common nail appearance among the farmers.

Moreover, pesticides that were used to control weed, insect, and other pests on

rice farms can also be detrimental to our environment. Thus, the effects of pesticide

application did not limit only to health impacts. The environment was also affected in its

continuous use. In this study when the respondents were asked if they experienced contaminated air during the application of pesticides, 91% of the respondents said that

the air is contaminated. It was manifested by the smell of medicines mixed with the air.

Smell of the pesticides applied will reach the nearby school (in cases of Segapod Rice

Field and Kulasihan Rice field), as well as the houses near the rice field. The close proximity of agricultural fields to residential areas results in aerial drift of pesticides into

farmworkers’ homes, schools, and playgrounds. Pesticides in agriculture and urban

settings have the potential to contaminate our air, affecting human, animal and plant

health (NPIC 2011). People living near the rice fields reported signs and symptoms of pesticide poisoning which includes dizziness, difficulty in breathing and headache. There

had been no actions had been made to address this problem. Furthermore, there were

also respondents (4%) that said that application of pesticides had contaminated the

water in the study area. It was manifested by the taste and smell of the water flowing

from the water pump located within the vicinity of the rice field which was used for drinking by the farmers. Pesticides enter surface and ground water primarily

as runoff from crops and are most prevalent in agricultural areas (Pedersen 1997). The

health and environmental consequences of pesticide use are staggering, especially in

Third World countries where there are less stringent regulatory controls and less effective implementation of whatever laws there are to protect public health and the environment.

The use of synthetic pesticides and other chemicals results in contamination and

adulteration of food, degradation and pollution of soil, water and air, and increased

morbidity and mortality for the exposed population (Quijano 2003). In addition to the adverse environmental impacts brought about by pesticides application in the rice

production, 82% of the respondents said that they observed dead dragonflies, butterflies,

bees, lady bugs, frogs and small fishes within the rice paddy. These mentioned insects

were classified as beneficial organisms that played important role as pollinating agents (Fishel 2005). Furthermore, it showed that pesticide was usually capable of harming all

forms of life other than the targeted pest species. On account of this behaviour then,

they can best be described as biocides (Zacharia 2011).

11

Conclusions. In the two municipalities of Lanao del Norte, namely, Kolambugan and

Maigo, rice farming provides not only food for the farmer’s family but as well as food for the entire community. But coupled with the progressive rice production in the area is the

reliance of the farmers on agrochemicals. Unknowingly these agrochemicals had negative

effects on the human health not only to the farmers but as well as to their families,

people around their community and people consuming the products. Moreover, these agrochemicals also had negative effects on the environment, thus affecting the

biodiversity.

As to date there were less initiative from the Local Government Unit to advocate

against the use of pesticides in spite its known adverse effects to the farmer as well as to the people consuming their produce. Even more pressing is the fact that the exposure of

the farmers to pesticides was primarily due to a lack of information combined with

misguided local farming practices and was, therefore, avoidable. It is therefore

recommended that pesticide usage and application should be given higher priority especially in the areas of Kolambugan and Maigo, Lanao del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines

to reduce its effects.

Acknowledgements. The Researcher would like to acknowledge the Department of

Science and Technology – Accelerated Science and Technology Human Resource Development Program for the funding of the research.

References.

Abu Mourad, t., 2005. „Adverse Impact of Insecticides on the Health of Palestinian Farmworkers in the Gaza trip: A hematologic Biomaker Study. International

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11: 144-149

Alavanja, M., Blair, A., Sandler, D., Hoppin, J., Thomas, K., Pesticide Residues in the

Homes of Farm Families. Agricultural Health Study. file:///C:/Users/Windows8.1/Downloads/EDC364.pdf

Amoguis, D.M., Bontilao, S.M., Galarido, C., Lumamba, J.A., Paelmo, J.N., Rosal, R.M.

2010. Experiences in Pesticides Use among Farm Workers and Its Effect to their

Health. Nursing Research Journal, Vol. 2. P. 127-139.

Bartlett, A. and Bijlmakers, H., 2003 Did You Take Your Poison Today? IPM DANIDA Project. http://thailand.ipm-info.org/documents/Your_poison_today_

(English).pdf

Bercero, Digno II M. et. al. The High Price of Rice: Health Risk Assessment of Rice

Farmers in Lanao del Norte. A Scientific Paper 2011. Blauth, Cris, Jack Mc Daniel, et. al. Age – Based Stereotypes: Silent Killer of

Collaboration and Productivity. World Headquarters. 2011

www.achieveglobal.com

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, 2010. Pesticides – Health Effects.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/pesticides/health_effects.html

Cariño, C., 2013 Aging Filipino farmers to affect food security. The Manila Times.

http://manilatimes.net/aging-filipino-farmers-to-affect-food-security/12166/ Contec, Inc.. EPA Toxicity Categories.

http://www.sporicidin.com/media/literature/spo003_epa%20toxicity%20catego

ries.pdf

Cornell University Cooperative Extension. Module 9: Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning.

Pesticide Safety Education Program (PSEP) http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/Tutorials/core-tutorial/module09/index.aspx

Dolan, R., 1991. Rice and the Green Revolution. Philippines: A Country Study.

Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress.

http://countrystudies.us/philippines/ FAO, 1996. Control of Water Pollution from Agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage

Paper Version 55. ISSN 0254-5284

12

Farmworker Justice, 2013 Exposed and Ignored How pesticides are endangering our

nation’s farmworkers. http://kresge.org/sites/default/files/Exposed-and-ignored-Farmworker-Justice-KF.pdf

Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority - Department of Agriculture. List of Registered

Agricultural Pesticide Products. 2007

Fishel, F., 2005. Pesticide Effects on Nontarget Organism. Pesticide Information Office, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences, University of Florida. P1-85.

Fitzgerald-Moore, P. And Parai, B.J., 1996. The Green Revolution.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~pfitzger/green.pdf GREENPEACE, 2008. Agrochemical Use in the Philipipines and Its Consequences to the

Environment. http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/gpsea_agrochemical-use-

in-the-philip.pdf

http://clarentistechnologies.com/storage/EPA-Toxicity-Categories-081607ver.pdf http://www.rappler.com/rich-media/13748-infographic-how-much-rice-do-filipinos-

consume

Huvio, T., 1998 Women’s Role in Rice Farming. SD dimensions.

http://www.fao.org/sd/wpdirect/wpan0027.htm

International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2011 Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs. Volumes 1 -102 pp. 3, 19

International Rice Research Institute, 2009 Conducting Spray Operations. Crop

Health. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/ipm/conducting-spray-

operations.html Joern B. And Lohman, B. 1994. Pesticides and the Environment. Cooperative

Extension Service Purdue University West Lafayette, IN.

Jors, E., Morant, R.E., Aguilar, G.C. Huici, L.F., Baelum, J. and Konradsen, F., 2006.

Occupational Pesticides Intoxications among farmers in Bolivia A Cross-Sectional Study. Environ. Health. Global Sci., 5., 10.

Kamel, Jane A. Hoppin. Association of Pesticide Exposure with Neurologic Dysfunction

and Disease. Environ Health Prospect 2004: 112(9)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/481984_3

Khush, G., and Toenniessen, G., 1991. Rice Biotechnology. International Rice Institute. ISBN 0 85198 712 (CABI).

Kokouva, M., Bitsolas, N., Hadjigeorgiou, G.M., Rachiotis, G., Papadoulis, N.,

Hadjichristodoulou, C., 2011 Pesticide exposure and lymphohaematopoietic

cancers: A case-control study in an agricultural region (Larissa, Thessaly, Greece). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2F1471-2458-11-5

Maclean, J.L., Dawe, D.C., Hardy, B., Hettel, G.P., 2002. Rice almanac (Third Edition).

Philippines, IRRI, WARDA, CIAT and FAO.

Maramba, N.P. 1995. Philippine Report on Health and the Use of Pesticides. Paper presented in the World Health Organization Western Pacific Working Group on

Health and the Use of Pesticides. Manila, Philippines. December 5-8, 1995

Mendoza, E.S., 1995. Health and the Use of Pesticides in the Philippines. Paper

presented in the World Health Organization Western Pacific Working Group on Health and the Use of Pesticides. Manila, Philippines. December 5-8, 1995

Mohd Fuad, M.J., Junaidi, A.B., Habibah, A. Hamzah, J. Toriman, M.E., Lyndon, N., Er,

A.C., Selvadurai, S., Azima, A.M., 2012. The Impact of Pesticides on Paddy

Farmers and Ecosystem. Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 6(1): 65-

70 http://www.academia.edu/1981622/The_Impact_Of_Pesticides_On_Paddy_Far

mers_And_Ecosystem

National Pesticide Information Center, 2011. Air and Pesticides. Pesticides and the

Environment. http://npic.orst.edu/envir/air.html Owens, K., Feidman, J., Kepner, J., 2010. Wide Range of Diseases Linked to

Pesticides. Pesticides and You, Vol. 30, No. 2, p 13-21

Panganiban, L.R., 2005, Pesticides: Impact on Human Health and Environment”

EurepGAP in Asia, the Sub-Regional Workshop of the Trade and Development

13

(UNCTAD), Manila, Philippines.

http://r0.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/meetings/eurepgap/Dr%20Lynn%20Panganiban%20PPT.pdf

Parveen, S. And Nakagoshi, N., 2001. An Analysis of Pesticide Use for Rice Pest

Management in Bangladesh. Journal of International Development and

Cooperation, Vol. 8, No. 1. Pp 107-126 Pedersen, T.L., 1997. Pesticides Residues in Drinking Water. ExtoxNet FAQS.

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/pest.htm

Perlman, H., 2014. Pesticides in Groundwater. The USGS Water Science School.

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/pesticidesgw.html PIO, Lanao del Norte. (2013). http://lanaodelnorte.gov.ph/Profile/economy.html

Quijano, R., 2003. Health and Environmental Hazards of Pesticides. HEAL TOXICS.

http://www.healtoxics.org/pesticides/key_elem.htm

RAPPLER.COM, 2012. INFOGRAPHIC: How much rice do Filipino consume? RICH-MEDIA. http://www.rappler.com/rich-media/13748-infographic-how-much-rice-

do-filipinos-consume

Regalado, A., 2010. The Philippines Rice Crisis. Harveting Hunger.

http://philrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Harvesting-hunger.pdf

Reyes Tirado and David Bedoya. Agrochemical Use in the Philippines and its Consequences to the Environment

Rola, A., 1994. Impact of Pesticides on Farmers Health: Review of Evidence from the

Philippines. Philipp. J. Crop Sci. 19 (2) 61-71

Satish K. Kedia and Florencia G. Palis. Health Effects of Pesticide Exposure among Filipino Rice Farmers. 2008

Schulze, L., 1997. Signs and Symptoms of Pesticide Poisoning. The National

Pediculosis Association, Inc. http://www.headlice.org/faq/treatments/signs-

symptoms.htm Tarazona, J., Dohmen, G.P., 2008. Ecotoxicology of Rice Pesticides. Pesticide Risk

Assessment in Rice Paddies: Theory and Practice. Pp69-71.

Tejada A. W., Varca L. M., Calumpang S. M. F., Ocampo P. P., Medina M. J. B., Bajet

C. M., et al (1995). Assessment of the environmental impact of pesticides in

paddy rice production. In: P.L. Pingali and P.A. Roger (eds). Impact of pesticides on farmer health and the rice environment. (p 167) Massachusetts:

Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA.

University of Minnesota Extension, 2011. Private Pesticide Applicator Safety Education

Manual 19th Edition. http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/pesticide-safety/ppat_manual/Intro.pdf

WHO. 2009 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and

Guidelines to Classification.

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_2009.pdf?ua=1 www.mathisfun.com

Zacharia, J.T., 2011. Ecological Effects of Pesticides, Pesticides in the Modern World –

Risks and Benefits, ISBN: 978-953-307-458-0.

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/21176.pdf

Ferlyn Villaroya Logronio, Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Mathematics, Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology, Andres Bonifacio Avenue, Iligan City 9200,

Philippines, fvlogronio@gmail.com