doi:10.3763/ijas.2009.

0431

Health and environmental impacts of pesticide use practices:

a case study of farmers in Ekiti State, Nigeria
Oluwafemi Oluwole1,2 and Robert A. Cheke1,*
1
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich at Medway, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime,
Kent ME4 4TB, UK; and 2Present address: c/o Adekunle Odola, U.I. PO Box 22203, University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

Commonly used pesticides and handling practices which might expose farmers and their environment to
chemical hazards were investigated in the Irepodun/Ifelodun local government area of Ekiti State,
Nigeria. Direct field observations and answers to a structured questionnaire from a random sample of
150 farming households showed that commonly used pesticides comprised herbicides (48.3 per
cent), fungicides (28.2 per cent) and insecticides (23.5 per cent). Of these, 86.7 per cent are classified
as ‘highly’ hazardous by the World Health Organization (WHO) and have been banned or restricted in
many developed countries. Nearly all of the farmers (94.7 per cent) had received no formal training in
safe pesticide use and mixed different products. Farmers suffered from discomforts ranging from eye
irritation (91.3 per cent), skin problems (87.3 per cent), nausea (86.0 per cent), headache (83.3 per
cent) and vomiting (58.0 per cent). More than half of the pesticide applicators (61.3 per cent) sprayed
pesticides near water bodies. Only a few farmers reported decreasing trends in numbers of beneficial
insects (27.3 per cent) and other animals (29.3 per cent). The results showed that the awareness of
farmers and authorities needs to be raised regarding the use of protective equipment and correct
procedures when handling pesticides and, also, that there should be stricter enforcement of existing
pesticide regulation and monitoring policies to minimize the threats that the farmers’ current practices
pose to their health and to the environment.

Keywords: agriculture, environment, health, Nigeria, pesticides, safety

Introduction people have suffered severe acute pesticide poison-

Crop damage from pest infestations often results in
serious consequences, warranting the need to use pes-
ticides. However despite their benefits, pesticides
pose potential hazards to human health and the
environment when inappropriately handled (WHO,
1990; Kishi, 2005). Despite increasing concern
about overuse and misuse of pesticides in developing
countries (Tijani, 2006a), where over 3 million
*Corresponding author. Email: r.a.cheke@greenwich.ac.uk
ings (WHO, 1992; Larson, 2003), few studies have
been conducted on the subject to assess its sustain-
ability. Misuse and abuse of pesticides lead to both
direct and indirect environmental effects. The indir-
ect effects include negative impacts on human
health, degradation of the environment, loss of biodi-
versity and irreversible changes to ecosystems (Ajayi,
2000; Gürler et al., 2006; Jänsch et al., 2006), yet
pesticides have been distributed throughout the
world so that they occur everywhere (Carson,
1962; Kamrin, 1997; Balaram, 2003). In humans,
pesticides can be absorbed through the skin and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163

# 2009 Earthscan. ISSN: 1473-5903 (print), 1747-762X (online). www.earthscanjournals.com
154 O. OLUWOLE AND R.A. CHEKE
lungs and ingested in drinking water with adverse
consequences such as headaches, dizziness, convul-
sions, epilepsy, stroke, respiratory disorders, leukae-
mia, stomach and intestinal upset, spasm, heart
attacks, cancer, brain and liver tumours, and death
(Alavanja et al., 2004; Yousaf et al., 2004; Tijani,
2006a; Shou-zhen, 2007; Kedia & Palis, 2008).
In Nigeria, pesticides have proven to be indispen-
sable tools in combating damage from pests and
ensuring sustainable food production with
improved yield and greater availability of food all
year round. For example, without the use of pesti-
cides in rice and cocoa production, about 45 per
cent of total production would be lost to pests and
diseases (Tijani, 2006b).
However, increasing intensification of agricul-
tural production in Nigeria has led to increased
health and environmental concerns and the pro-
ductivity-enhancing effects of pesticides have been
overvalued, as studies rarely take into consideration
their effects on the environment and on farmers’
health (Osibanjo, 2001; Konya, 2005; Adeniran
et al., 2006). Poorly regulated and unsafe use of
pesticides coupled with the absence of adequate
education has led to increasing pesticide impact
on public health and, in particular, on the health
of farm workers (Tijani, 2006a). At the same
time, the indiscriminate use of toxic substances
has become a matter of national concern in
Nigeria following revelations about high levels of
DDT in the environment and human breast milk
(Osibanjo, 2002).
In Nigeria, as in many other developing
countries, the largest proportions of chemical pesti-
cides are used by resource-poor rural farmers.
Methods for safe storage, handling and application
of pesticides are not widely used in most developing
countries (Pingali & Rola, 1993; Crissman et al.,
1994; Sibanda et al., 2000; Tettey, 2001; Addo
et al., 2002; Dinham, 2003), particularly in Africa
(Williamson et al., 2008), and we found that this
was also the case among rural farmers in Ekiti
State, Nigeria, as reported below, and warrants
urgent attention. It is likely that pesticide use and
pesticide-induced side effects will continue to
increase in Nigeria where environmental legislation
is either non-existent or ineffective (Osibanjo,
2001) and such use is thus unsustainable.
This study was an attempt to identify the health
and environmental hazards posed by pesticide use
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
practices in the Irepodun/Ifelodun Local Govern-
ment Area of Ekiti State, Nigeria. To achieve this,
it was necessary to do the following:
† Assess the different types of chemical pesticides
commonly used by the farmers;
† Assess the farmers’ perceptions of pesticide safety
labels, pesticide handling and field spraying prac-
tices which might expose them to chemical
hazards;
† Assess the impacts of pesticides on farmers’
health as reported by symptoms of illness;
† Assess the farmers’ perceptions of possible
changes in biodiversity as a result of pesticide
application by the farmers.
The study was conducted in a forest zone noted for its
production of rice, cocoa, fruits and vegetables so it is
not necessarily representative of the country as a
whole since different practices may pertain in
savanna or upland zones. Nevertheless, and in the
absence of evidence confirming that pesticide use
practices are any better elsewhere in the country,
our results provide useful information about pesticide
practices of farmers and other users of pesticides and
their resulting consequences, for consideration by the
Nigerian government and policy makers. Means to
ameliorate the health hazards faced by farmers due
to misuse and abuse of pesticides are needed. It is
also important for farmers in Nigeria to learn the
need to practise sustainable agriculture in a way
that does not affect them and their environment.
Materials and methods
The study was conducted in Ekiti State in southwes-
tern Nigeria, which is the largest rice-producing state
in the country. Ekiti State is located 78250 –88200 N,
58000 –68000 E in the rainforest belt of southwestern
Nigeria (EKSG, 1997; Kayode, 1999, 2000) and lies
south of Kwara and Kogi States, east of Osun State
and bounded by Ondo State in the east and south
(EKSG, 1997). Interviews with the farmers were
carried out in the Yoruba-speaking agricultural com-
munity of the Irepodun/Ifelodun Local Government
Area because of the prominent position it occupies
in the production of rice and because it is where cash
crops (cocoa, kola nut), horticultural crops (veg-
etables, fruits) and cowpea are mostly cultivated
 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES
using farm inputs, particularly pesticides. The study
area was selected based on crops grown and heavy
pesticide usage. Rice is one of the crops that requires
application of pesticides, especially at the seedling
stage to control weeds for improved yields. Cocoa
plants require frequent application of pesticides to
prevent pest infestations and fungal infections.
Farmers in Irepodun/Ifelodun grow these crops in
large quantities; thus, the introduction and increasing
use of pesticides in the study area is linked to the
farmers’ efforts to increase crop production and yields.
The study used questionnaire interviews with
farmers who used pesticides as one of their major
farm inputs. The Local Government Area consists
of 10 communities: Afao Ekiti, Are Ekiti, Awo
Ekiti, Esure Ekiti, Eyio Ekiti, Igbemo Ekiti, Igede
Ekiti, Iropora Ekiti, Iworoko Ekiti and Iyin Ekiti.
However, the communities where 150 farmers
were selected at random for the study were Igede
Ekiti, Igbemo Ekiti, Iyin Ekiti and Eyio Ekiti. The
success of the survey relied on the willingness of
the farmers to participate in the study, facilitated
by pre-survey meetings with group leaders of the
Farmer’s Cooperative Union in each community.
A structured questionnaire was designed to
collect information on commonly used pesticides
and practices, risk perception, attitudes to pesticide
labels, precautions, the farmer’s source of infor-
mation about pesticides, and signs and symptoms
of illness related to pesticide exposure. Data were
collected through a field survey by face-to-face
interviews with farmers conducted at dusk when
the farmers had finished the day’s tasks. The ques-
tionnaire was designed in English but the interviews
were conducted in the local language, Yoruba.
The interview questionnaire was designed under
the following headings:
(1) General system and practices: this was used to
obtain information on farmers’ biodata such
as sex, age, household size, level of education,
marital status and location of farm.
(2) Pesticide use and practices: this section was used
to obtain data about the types of pesticides used,
attitudes to pesticide labels, applicators and
sources of pesticides commonly used by the
farmers, protective materials, pesticide use prac-
tices (e.g. mixture and quantities, application
methods and disposal of empty pesticide con-
tainers) and pesticide storage methods.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
155
(3) Human and environmental impacts: this
section was used to obtain information about
the effects of pesticide exposure, e.g. the symp-
toms of illness commonly encountered during
or after pesticide spraying operations and chan-
ging trends in biodiversity, e.g. changes in
weeds, birds and insects (whether increasing,
decreasing or constant). For the human health
effects, only acute symptoms that appeared
within 48 hours of pesticide sprays were
considered. Long-term and chronic health
impairments were not considered due to meth-
odological difficulties.
Each community surveyed in the study area was
divided into four ‘quarters’ (a quarter is an adminis-
trative unit within each community, governed by a
chief) except Eyio Ekiti which was divided into
three quarters, because it has a lower population
compared to Igbemo, Igede and Iyin Ekiti. In all,
farmers in 15 quarters were surveyed. A random
sample of 10 households per quarter was taken,
providing a sample of 150 farmer households by
identifying 50 households in each quarter whose
major occupation was predominantly agriculture
and who were known to have used pesticides con-
tinuously for more than a decade and who were
still using them. This was achieved through the
permission of the community leader in each
community and the 50 farmer households for each
quarter were identified with the help of the leader
of the Farmers’ Cooperative Union in each commu-
nity. Second, the 50 identified households were
numbered on 50 pieces of paper from which 10
numbers were randomly drawn to represent the
10 households to be interviewed. Similar methods
have been used elsewhere to select villages and
households for study, e.g. by Ajayi (2005).
To avoid bias in the type of questions that were
asked, the questionnaire was designed to avoid
leading questions. For example, to find out if the
farmers store pesticides in a safe place before and
after application, the question, ‘Where do you store
your pesticides?’ was asked. In the same way,
on-farm exposure to pesticides was identified by
asking the farmers ‘how do you apply your
pesticides?’ and the method(s) mentioned by the
farmers were recorded. Each interview took about
15–25 minutes to complete and all were conducted
during March 2008.
156 O. OLUWOLE AND R.A. CHEKE
Results and discussion
Household characteristics, education
and literacy
The majority (93.3 per cent) of the farmers inter-
viewed were male. The mean and modal ages for
farmers were 55 and 63 years, respectively. Male-
headed households made up 83.3 per cent of the
total respondents. Of the 150 farmers interviewed,
only 26 per cent were able to read and write and
were likely to understand instructions on pesticide
containers’ labels, whereas 12.7 per cent had
received no formal education (Figure 1). The
majority of the farmers who were either illiterate
or with only primary school education depended
on explanations from other farmers and/or pesti-
cide suppliers. Only 27.3 per cent of the farmers
claimed that they always read labels on pesticide
containers while the remainder said that they
never read labels before and after buying pesticides.
Types of pesticides commonly used
by farmers
Of different pesticide formulation types used by
farmers in the area, most were herbicides (48.3
per cent), especially Paraquat, commonly used
by 98.7 per cent of the farmers (Table 1), because
weeds were the most serious threat to crop pro-
duction. Herbicides were followed in rank of
importance by fungicides (28.2 per cent) and insec-
ticides (23.5 per cent).
Lindane and monocrotophos, which were used
by 34 and 117 farmer respondents, respectively,
belong to a group of pesticides popularly known
as the ‘dirty dozen’ (PAN, 1993; 2009). These
Figure 1 Education level of the heads of the households surveyed in the study area
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
pesticides have been banned, severely restricted or
deregistered in some countries because of their
known hazardous effects on humans and the
environment. Also, 131 farmer respondents used
Ridomil plus (Mancozeb). This pesticide has no
known WHO hazard classification class but it has
been reported to cause cancer and disrupt the endo-
crine system by the US Environmental Protection
Agency and the World Wildlife Fund respectively
(PAN, 2009). Therefore, it is declared ‘not for
sale’ but to be distributed by agricultural agencies
only. However, the pesticide was freely available
in the open markets for the farmers to purchase.
This confirms that the pesticides regulation policy
in the state is poorly implemented, as reported for
Nigeria as a whole by Osibanjo (2001).
Availability and sources of pesticides
Farmers normally purchased pesticides in small
quantities in local shops which were within easy
reach of their homes. Of the 150 farmers inter-
viewed, only 16.7 per cent obtained instructions
from agricultural extension agents in the area;
46 per cent depended on their long-term personal
experience and 19 per cent consulted other
farmers. However, such knowledge may be dis-
torted if it is received from people other than experi-
enced extension agents (Tijani, 2006a). The
primary sources of pesticides were local commodity
shops, followed by private farmers’ shops, with
agricultural suppliers playing a minor role
(Figure 2). The reason for this was that pesticides
in the local shops were cheaper, readily available
(as the pesticides were sold in the farming commu-
nities) and with no limitations to their usage by
 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES 157

Table 1 Pesticides commonly used by the farmers; numbers and percentages (in parentheses) of farmers reporting use of
each category

Trade name Common name WHO Pesticide No. of farmers (%)

class* type

2,4-D amine 2,4-D II Herbicide 40 (26.7)

Apron star Metalaxy þ Difenoconazole þ III Insecticide 71 (47.3)

Thiamethoxam

AtraForce Atrazine III Herbicide 97 (64.7)

Copper Pentahydrate II Fungicide 136 (90.7)

sulphate

Gammalin 20 Lindane II Insecticide 34 (22.7)

Gramoxone Paraquat II Herbicide 148 (98.7)

Nuvacron Monocrotophos Ib Insecticide 117 (78.0)

Primextra Metolachlor Ib Herbicide 130 (86.7)

Ridomil plus Mancozeb þ Metalaxyl NK Fungicide 131 (87.3)

Roundup Glyphosate U Herbicide 42 (28.0)

*Ib ¼ highly hazardous; II ¼ moderately hazardous; III ¼ slightly hazardous; U ¼ unlikely to present acute hazard in
normal use; NK ¼ not known (WHO, 2004; PAN, 2009).

the farmers. All the farmers interviewed considered Pesticide handling practices: preparing
price and efficacy of the pesticides first before and applying pesticide formulations
buying them. Also, 88 per cent considered avail-
In all cases, farmers prepared pesticides in their
ability and 72.7 per cent took neighbours’
fields before application. However, 79.3 per cent
recommendations into account. Farmers’ consider-
of the farmers interviewed used their domestic
ation of prices and the efficacy of pesticides as
buckets or containers to prepare pesticides before
reported in this study was also confirmed by
pouring them into the spraying tanks for appli-
Williamson et al. (2008) as a regular practice
cation. Of the 150 households interviewed,
among farmers in developing countries.

Figure 2 Farmers’ major suppliers of pesticides in the study area

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163

158 O. OLUWOLE AND R.A. CHEKE

90.7 per cent reported that the fathers in the house-
holds applied the pesticides, indicating that women
were more involved in other farming duties such as
weeding, harvesting and planting and, as a result,
could be prone to various other forms of pesticide
exposure (Mancini et al., 2005). Children were
also involved in these activities and might also
assist in fetching water to prepare pesticide sol-
utions or help in purchasing pesticides from local
shops. This form of division of labour could
expose the whole community to pesticide hazards.
Pesticide handling practices: protective
equipment and precautions against
exposure
Handling of concentrated pesticide and application
of diluted formulations require that the applicators
use appropriate personal protection equipment. A
majority (90 per cent) of the farmer respondents
admitted that they did not take any personal protec-
tive measures while handling pesticides. Farmers
cited economic reasons, inconveniences involved,
lack of available protective equipment and lack of
information as major reasons for not using protec-
tive equipment. A total of 135 respondents
applied pesticides themselves, of whom 120 (88.9
per cent) did not use any form of protective equip-
ment except their normal clothes and only 15
(11.1 per cent) wore spraying boots when mixing
or applying pesticides. Normal clothes used by the
farmers were made of either cotton, synthetic
fabric or wool and could not always be effective
in protecting them against pesticide exposure
during spraying. Such materials may absorb pesti-
cide solutions during spraying operations, thereby
bringing the chemical solution closer to the applica-
tors and increasing their vulnerability to pesticide
exposure (Ajayi & Akinnifesi, 2007).
It is always necessary for pesticide applicators to
recognize the consequence of spraying against the
wind (under windy conditions) and to take ade-
quate precautionary measures, but few of the
farmers (18 per cent) observed the wind direction
when spraying chemical pesticides. One of the
reasons reported for this was that such an instruc-
tion was not on the label and was not thought
to be necessary. In an attempt to reduce quantities
of pesticides used, farmers who observed wind
direction always sprayed when the wind speed
was high because they believed that high wind
speed would help to spread the chemical solution
to wider areas of the field. However, this
practice has been reported to increase the risk of
exposure of applicators to pesticides (Ajayi &
Akinnifesi, 2007).
Pesticide cocktails
Many farmers misused chemicals by making cock-
tails of different kinds of pesticides before spraying
(Table 2). Pesticide instruction labels do not usually
cover mixtures of three or more active ingredients
and do not give information on their compatibility
(Ngowi et al., 2007). Unfortunately, nearly all of
the farmers interviewed (94.7 per cent) mixed two
or more pesticides before application, arguing that
mixtures increased the efficacy of the pesticide sol-
ution and so ensured effective control of the target
pest. They also believed that mixing different pesti-
cides saved time because they could apply more
than one pesticide in a single spraying operation.

Table 2 Pesticides routinely mixed by farmers in the study area; numbers and percentages (in parentheses) of farmers
reporting use of each combination

Pesticide combination Types of pesticides No. of farmers (%)

Atrazine þ Gramoxone Two herbicides 38 (25.3)

Atrazine þ Primextra Two herbicides 34 (22.7)

Copper sulphate þ Ridomil þ lime Two fungicides þ one insecticide 130 (86.7)

Gramoxone þ Primextra Two herbicides 104 (69.3)

Roundup þ Primextra Two herbicides 9 (6.0)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163

 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES
However, there were no specific instructions either
on the pesticide labels or from extension agents
regarding these mixtures for this purpose.
Storage of pesticides
The farmers stored chemical pesticides for agricul-
tural use within their homes and rooms and did
not have special locations for storing them. A
majority (98 per cent) of the farmers kept pesticides
either in their bedrooms, their sitting rooms or
in stores together with food, some because they
feared that the chemicals would be stolen if they
were kept elsewhere.
The periods of pesticide storage reported varied
from a few months to more than a year, in cases
where the pesticides were not used up during a
season and were kept for the following season.
Storing pesticides in places other than stores desig-
nated for this purpose exposes users and non-users,
especially children, to hazards (Tijani, 2006a).
Stored pesticides may expire or become obsolete
and no longer suitable for use. Of the farmers inter-
viewed, 80 per cent indicated that they always
mixed expired pesticides with new ones and contin-
ued to use them, stating that newer, less toxic, pes-
ticide chemical formulations were often more
expensive than older, more toxic, products.
Pesticide container disposal
The majority of the pesticides used by the farmers
were packaged in bags and plastic containers, which
should be properly disposed of after use. Regrettably,
most farmers washed and rinsed plastic pesticide
Figure 3 Pesticide container disposal methods in the study area
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
159
containers and re-used them for storing water and
food. The storing of foods in pesticide containers,
which retain traces of the pesticides even after
washing, poses serious health hazards to farmers
and their families (Dinham, 1993; Tijani, 2006a). If
they did not use the containers for food or water
storage, some disposed of them by selling or burying
them but a majority (90.7 per cent) left the containers
in the field after use (Figure 3), thereby posing serious
risks to nearby streams, animal food and child health
(Ajayi & Akinnifesi, 2007).
Health impairment: farmers’ reports of
symptoms of pesticide poisoning
Medical examinations of a sample of farmers was
beyond the scope of this study, which relied solely
on self-assessed/reported health effects of pesticides
by asking the farmers if they experienced any
health weakness (discomfort) in their day-to-day
handling of chemical pesticides. A majority (91.3
per cent) responded that they or someone in their
family had suffered from pesticide-related health
symptoms during or after application of pesticides.
This is usually the situation in most developing
countries where farmers sometimes report ill health
and cases of hospitalization following pesticide
application (Wilson & Tisdell, 2001; Atreya, 2005;
Rao et al., 2005; Williamson et al., 2008). The inter-
viewed farmers reported multiple health effects such
as nausea, headache, vomiting, eye irritation and
skin problems, with farmers reporting a minimum
of two and a maximum of five symptoms of illness
(Figure 4). Most (94.7 per cent) of the farmers experi-
enced these symptoms during preparation/mixing
160 O. OLUWOLE AND R.A. CHEKE
Figure 4 Health impairments resulting from pesticide use by farmers in the study area
and during application/spraying of the pesticides, yet
88.9 per cent openly admitted that they did not take
any protective measures when handling pesticides.
The farmers considered these symptoms as
common phenomena and had attributed them to
fatigue and tiredness after working in the field;
however, upon asking them whether they believed
that pesticides could be dangerous to their health
and the environment, all the respondents believed
this to be true. This indicated that the farmers were
well aware of possible health effects of pesticides,
but their actions implied that they did not adjust
their practices accordingly. This is also a common
practice among farmers in Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana
and Senegal (Williamson et al., 2008).
Continuous exposure to pesticides can lead to an
array of health effects, depending on the pesticide’s
toxicity and the dose absorbed by the body (Adams,
1995; Coble et al., 2005; Ritter & Arbuckle, 2007).
Thus, the farmers could have been suffering from
chronic diseases associated with pesticide exposure
of which they were unaware, such as cancer, brain dis-
orders or depression, hormone and reproductive
system disruption. However, a detailed medical
examination of a sample of farmers to ascertain
such health effects was beyond the scope of this study.
Pesticides and biodiversity in the
study area
Pesticides are harmful to fish, water bodies and
animals (Ajayi & Akinnifesi, 2007). Ninety-two
of the farmers interviewed (61.3 per cent) sprayed
pesticides near water bodies. Also, they always
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
used water from them to mix pesticides in the field
and wash spraying tanks after spraying operations.
This practice may increase the vulnerability of
the farmers to pesticide poisoning (because the
farmers sometimes depended on these waters for
their drinking water supplies), as well as affecting
the quality of the water and having negative
impacts on aquatic organisms such as snails and
frogs. Only 19.3 per cent of the respondents
reported changes in the aquatic life in the study
area following pesticide application. Roundup
(Glyphosate) is used by 28 per cent of the farmer
respondents: at 3.7 mg a.i./l, this pesticide can
exterminate populations of many frog species and
other aquatic organisms (Relyea, 2005). However,
with 46 per cent of the respondents depending on
their long-term personal experience rather than
paying attention to the concentration rate on pesti-
cide labels, continuous use of this pesticide in the
study area in an unsafe manner is likely to pose a
greater threat to these organisms.
The study further revealed that beneficial insects,
birds and other animals may be decreasing in the
study area. Upon asking the farmers whether they
had noticed any immediate changes in the number
of insects and animals in the area over the last two
years following pesticide application, 27.3 and
29.3 per cent of the farmers reported that they had
noticed a decrease in the numbers of beneficial
insects and of other animals, respectively (Figure 5),
supported by statements about unusual decreases
in the number of mammals and birds around
their farms. These declines may be attributable to
accidental contacts by the animals with pesticides
 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES
Figure 5 Changes in biodiversity as reported by farmers in the study area
misused by the farmers (Pain et al., 2004). Also, the
farmers reported infrequent visits to their cowpea
farms by honeybees and a scarcity of honeycombs,
which used to be abundant in the area. This could
have been as a result of the use of a neurotoxic insec-
ticide (Monocrotophos) and copper sulphate (Pen-
tahydrate) on their farms which have been
documented to be highly toxic to birds and bees;
also the use of Thiamethoxam is known to alter
bees’ foraging behaviour (USNLM, 1995; Guez,
2001; PAN, 2009).
Summary and conclusions
The study provided information about the cat-
egories of pesticide used, trends in pesticide uses,
health symptoms and environmental effects of
pesticide use practised by the farming community
of Ekiti State, Nigeria. Results from a survey of
150 farmers revealed much misuse and abuse of
pesticides, which may have contributed to their
health problems and contaminated their environ-
ment. Farmers reported suffering from discomforts
ranging from skin irritation, headache, vomiting,
eye irritation and nausea after using pesticides.
This is attributed to the low level of education of
users coupled with a lack of formal training in
pesticide use and poor extension services. Some of
the pesticides used by the farmers are classified
as ‘highly’ or ‘moderately’ hazardous by WHO
and have been banned, severely restricted or dereg-
istered in the European Union and in Nigeria
(PANN, 2007; OCA, 2008; PAN, 2009).
However, farmers in the study area are still using
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
161
these pesticides due to a failure of the Nigerian pes-
ticide regulatory authority to monitor and enforce
national legislation.
Efforts to train farmers in the appropriate use of
pesticides are needed. However, this alone cannot
guarantee proper protection of farmers from
health hazards because bad practices that expose
farmers to inherent dangers of pesticides are
not attributable to lack of information alone,
but also to other factors such as costs and accessibil-
ity of protective materials (Ajayi & Akinnifesi,
2007). The following mitigating measures are
recommended:
† Farmers need regular training to encourage
appropriate practices for safe use and handling
of chemicals and pesticides by educating them
about the risks involved in the misuse and
abuse of these poisonous materials. In addition,
training in integrated pest management (IPM)
methods, which could reduce the quantity of
pesticides used and hence reduce potential
exposures, is recommended.
† Local suppliers are the major distributors of pes-
ticides to the farmers. However, they lack train-
ing on usage and storage of pesticides at the
shop level, information on pesticide safe hand-
ling practices and correct advice to farmers.
Regulatory and adequate monitoring policies
that can provide adequate extension and advi-
sory services to pesticide distributors on the
range of pesticide products available and their
uses and handling are recommended. This may
improve the quality of pesticide and customer
162 O. OLUWOLE AND R.A. CHEKE
services that are available to the farmers in the
community.
† Government should intensify efforts aimed at
registering and controlling distribution of pesti-
cides and banning hazardous ones. This could be
achieved through stricter enforcement of existing
regulation and monitoring policies. Also, govern-
ment should make newer, less toxic chemical pes-
ticides more readily available to the farmers in
ready-to-use packages. Finally, pesticide manu-
facturers should be instructed and compelled to
exhibit pesticide instructions and warning labels
in the language commonly understood by the
farmers and other end users, and also to package
products in containers that are not attractive for
subsequent re-use according to the International
Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides.
Acknowledgements
Oluwafemi Oluwole is grateful to the Association
of Commonwealth Universities for a shared scho-
larship scheme grant that allowed him to conduct
this study as part of an MSc programme at the
University of Greenwich. Adekunle Odola of the
University of Ibadan is thanked for assistance with
the questionnaire surveys and Colin D. Tingle for
advice on their design.
References
Adams, R.W. (1995) Handbook for Pesticide
Applicators and Dispensers, 5th edn. Victoria, BC:
Environment.
Addo, S., Birkinshaw, L.A. and Hodges, R.J. (2002) Ten
years after the arrival of Larger Grain Borer (Proste-
phanus truncatus): farmers’ responses and adoption
of IPM strategies. International Journal of Pest Man-
agement 48, 315–325.
Adeniran, O.Y., Fafunso, M.A., Adeyemi, O., Lawal,
A.O., Ologundudu, A. and Omonkhua, A.A. (2006)
Biochemical effects of pesticides on serum and urinolo-
gical system of rats. Journal of Applied Sciences 6,
668– 672.
Ajayi, O.C. (2000) Pesticide use practices, productivity
and farmers’ health: the case of cotton– rice systems
in Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa. Pesticide Policy
Project, No. 3. Hannover.
Ajayi, O.C. (2005) User costs, biological capital and
the productivity of pesticides in Sub-Saharan Africa.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 3,
154– 166.
Ajayi, O.C. and Akinnifesi, F.K. (2007) Farmers’ under-
standing of pesticide safety labels and field spraying
practices; a case study of cotton farmers in northern
Côte d’Ivoire. Scientific Research and Essays 2,
204– 210.
Alavanja, M.C.R., Hoppin, J.A. and Kamel, F. (2004)
Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: cancer
and neurotoxicity. Annual Review of Public Health
25, 155 –197.
Atreya, K. (2005) Health costs of pesticide use in a veg-
etable growing area, central mid-hills, Nepal. Himala-
yan Journal of Sciences 3 (5), 81–84.
Balaram, P. (2003) Pesticides in the environment. Current
Science 85, 561 –562.
Carson, R.L. (1962) Silent Spring. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Coble, J., Arbuckle, T., Lee, W., Alavanja, M. and
Dosemeci, M. (2005) The validation of a pesticide
exposure algorithm using biological monitoring
results. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Hygiene 2, 194–201.
Crissman, C.C., Cole, D.C. and Carpio, F. (1994) Pesti-
cide use and farm workers’ health in Ecuadorian
potato production. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 76, 593–597.
Dinham, B. (1993) Pesticide Hazard: A Global Health
and Environmental Audit. London: Zed Books.
Dinham, B. (2003) Growing vegetables in developing
countries for local urban populations and export
market: problems confronting small-scale producers.
Pest Management Science 59, 572–582.
EKSG (Ekiti State Government) (1997) First Anniversary
Celebration of Ekiti State. Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria: Govern-
ment Press.
Guez, D. (2001) Contrasting effects of Imidacloprid on
habituation in 7 and 8 days-old honeybees. Neurobiol-
ogy of Learning and Memory 76, 183–191.
Gürler, A.Z., Erdal, G. and Erdal, H. (2006) The effects
of agricultural development on ecosystem and the
sustainability of development. Journal of Agronomy
5, 293– 298.
Jänsch, S., Frampton, G.K., Römbke, J., Van den Brink,
P.J. and Scott-Fordsmand, J.J. (2006) Effects of pesti-
cides on soil invertebrates in model ecosystem and
field studies: a review and comparison with laboratory
toxicity data. Environmental Toxicology and Chem-
istry 25, 2490– 2501.
Kamrin, M.A. (1997) Pesticide Profiles: Toxicity,
Environmental Impact and Fate. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Kayode, J. (1999) Phytosociological investigation of
Compositae weeds in abandoned farmlands in Ekiti
State, Nigeria. Compositae Newsletter 34, 62–68.
Kayode, J. (2000) Population dynamics of Euphorbia het-
erophylla (L.) after slash and burn agriculture in South-
western Nigeria. Journal of Biological and Physical
Sciences 1, 30–33.
 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PESTICIDE USE PRACTICES
Kedia, S.K. and Palis, F.G. (2008) Health effects of pesti-
cide exposure among Filipino rice farmers. The Applied
Anthropologist 28, 40–59.
Kishi, M. (2005) The health impacts of pesticides: what
do we know? In: Pretty, J. (ed.) The Pesticide Detox:
Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture (pp.
23– 38). London: Earthscan.
Konya, R.S. (2005) The effects of environmental assaults
on human physiology (1). Nigerian Journal of Physio-
logical Sciences 20, 2–7.
Larson, B. (2003) Hygiene and health in developing
countries: defining priorities through cost –benefit
assessments. International Journal of Environment
Health Research 13, 37–46.
Mancini, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., Jiggins, J.L.S.,
Ambatipudi, A.C. and Murphy, H. (2005) Acute
pesticide poisoning among female and male cotton
growers in India. International Journal of Occu-
pational and Environmental Health 11, 221– 232.
Ngowi, A.V.F., Mbise, T.J., Ijani, A.S.M., London, L.
and Ajayi, O.C. (2007) Smallholder vegetable farmers
in Northern Tanzania: pesticides use practices, percep-
tions, cost and health effects. Crop Protection 26,
1617 –1624.
OCA (Organic Consumers Association) (2008) Thirty
agrochemicals banned in Nigeria after deaths. Van-
guard Nigeria, May 14. On WWW at http://www.
organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12416.cfm.
Osibanjo, O. (2001) Regionally based assessment of
persistent toxic substances. Report of first Regional
Meeting, Ibadan, Nigeria, University of Ibadan,
24– 26 July. Sponsored by United Nations Environ-
ment Programme.
Osibanjo, O. (2002) Organochlorine in Nigeria and
Africa. In: Fieldler, H. (ed.) The Handbook of Environ-
mental Chemistry, Vol. 3. Persistent Organic Pollutants
(pp. 321– 354). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Pain, D.J., Gaigi, R., Cunningham, A.A., Jones, A. and
Prakesh, V. (2004) Mortality of globally threatened
sarus cranes (Grus antigon) from monocrotophos poi-
soning in India. Science of the Total Environment
326, 55–61.
PAN (Pesticide Action Network) (1993) Demise of the
Dirty Dozen. San Francisco, CA: PAN.
PAN (Pesticide Action Network) (2009) The List of Lists.
PAN briefing paper showing a catalogue of lists of pes-
ticides identifying those associated with particularly
harmful or environmental impacts, 3rd edn.
PANN (Pesticide Action Network Nigeria) (2007) Stra-
tegic Assessment of the Status of POPs Pesticides
Trading in South Western Nigeria. African Stockpile
Programme, October.
Pingali, P.L. and Rola, A.C. (1993) Pesticides, rice pro-
ductivity and health impacts in the Philippines. In:
Fateh, P. (ed.) Agricultural Policy and Sustainability:
Case Studies from India, Chile, the Philippines and
the United States (pp. 47–62). Washington, DC:
World Resources Institute.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7(3) 2009, PAGES 153–163
163
Rao, C.H.S., Venkateswarlu, V., Surender, T., Eddleston,
M. and Buckley, N.A. (2005) Pesticide poisoning in
South India – opportunities for prevention and
improved medical management. Tropical Medicine
and International Health 10, 581– 588.
Relyea, R.A. (2005) The lethal impacts of Roundup and
predatory stress on six species of North American Tad-
poles. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 48, 351– 357.
Ritter, L. and Arbuckle, E. (2007) Can exposure charac-
terization explain concurrence or discordance
between toxicology and epidemiology? Toxicological
Sciences 97 (2), 241– 252.
Shou-zhen, X. (2007) Health effects of pesticides: a
review of epidemiologic research from the perspective
of developing nations. American Journal of Medicine
12, 269 –279.
Sibanda, T., Dobson, H.M., Cooper, J.F., Manyanga-
rirwa, W. and Chiimba, W. (2000) Pest management
challenges for smallholder vegetable farmers in
Zimbabwe. Crop Protection 19, 807 –815.
Tettey, V. (2001) Assessment of the use of pesticides by
cabbage growers in the Ga District of Ghana. Unpub-
lished BSc thesis. Department of Home Science, Univer-
sity of Ghana, Legon.
Tijani, A.A. (2006a) Pesticide use and safety issues: the
case of cocoa farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal
of Human Ecology 19, 183 –190.
Tijani, A.A. (2006b) Economic benefits of fungicide use
among cocoa farmers in Osun and Ondo States of
Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences 12, 63–70.
USNLM (US National Library of Medicine) (1995)
Hazardous Substance Databank (pp. 10–19).
Bethesda, MD: USNLM.
Williamson, S., Ball, A. and Pretty, J. (2008) Trends
in pesticide use and drivers for safer pest manage-
ment in four African countries. Crop Protection 27,
1327 –1334.
Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. (2001) Why farmers
continue to use pesticides despite environmental,
health and sustainability costs. Ecological Economics
39, 449 –462.
WHO (1990) Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used
in Agriculture. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
WHO (1992) The WHO Classification of pesticides by
hazard and guidelines to classification, 1992–93.
Unpublished report no. WHO/PCS/92.14. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
WHO (2004) WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification
2004. Corrigenda published by 12 April 2005
incorporated. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
Yousaf, R., Cheema, M.A. and Anwar, S. (2004) Effects
of pesticide application on health of rural women
involved in cotton picking. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology 1, 220 –221.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.