Using History and Accomplishments to Plan for the Future:
A Summary of 15 Years in Agricultural Safety and Health and
Action Steps for Future Directions

PROJECT GOAL:  To publish a document, and its underlying technical articles, on agricultural safety and health that will summarize recent past activities, describe progress, identify gaps and needs, and anticipate changes and the future for the public record and serve as a resource in national policy discussions.

The proposal calls for a three-year project beginning in April 1, 2000 and ending on March 31, 2003.  The Agricultural Safety and Health – Network (ASH-NET) offers to serve as the coordinating body to pull together the technical expertise and funding needed for the project.  The principal investigator for the proposed project is the ASH-NET Executive Director, and discussions are currently being held to place project monies within the University of Illinois system.  The current estimates for yearly project budgets are: Year 1 = $44,200,Year 2 = $96,800, and Year 3 = $71,400.  Thus, the total project budget is $212,400.  ASH-NET is committing $10,000. toward the funding needed.  The project is divided into three primary overlapping phases: 1) a conference, 2) a consensus process, and 3) a document.

Conference-Primary First Year Activity

The Agricultural Safety and Health Conference: Using Past and Present to Map Future Actions held in Baltimore, MD on March 2-3, 2001 attracted 165 registered participants.  These participants included 26 practicing farmers.  These farmers represented eight states from across the US and were approximately 50% female.  The participants also included 25 practicing or former Latino farmworkers.  These farmworkers represented seven states, the three major migrant streams and were approximately 50% female.   Other participants included federal and state agency personnel, university researchers and programming personnel, agricultural industry representatives, and health professionals of all levels. Simultaneous English to Spanish verbal translation was provided for the Spanish-speaking participants as needed.  In addition, a Spanish language version of the program was provided.

            Over the one and one-half day conference, seven presentations were made in general sessions (4 male, 3 female, 3 farmworker).  In addition, 34 presentations were made in the concurrent sessions (35 % female, 4 by farmworker representatives).  All but one of the authors originally agreeing to present at the conference did so.  These presentations were grouped under the nine arbitrary general topics of:

            Eleven agricultural organizations were invited to participate in a Farmer/Producer Organization Panel Session during the closing general session.  Each organization received multiple contacts through Fed Ex, phone calls, and e-mails.  Of those invited, five responded favorably.  Two of those responding favorably declined due to previous engagements, and a third withdrew on Friday, March 2 due to illness.  The two organizations participating in the Farmer/Producer Panel session were Women Involved in Farm Economics and The National Black Farmer’s Association.

While not on the conference program, the farmworker participants ask for time to address the gathering with a general response to specific items brought forward during the concurrent sessions.  Time was given for this response during the closing general session of the conference.

            The opening and closing general sessions of the conference were video and audio taped, and all concurrent sessions of the conference were audio taped.  These tapes, in addition to all papers prepared for the conference as well as any of the presentation files provided by presenting authors, are currently posted on the conference web site http://www.agsafetyandhealthnet/conf.htm, and accessed by clicking on Electronic Proceedings.

An overall conference evaluation instrument was included in the conference registration packet and collected at the end of the conference.  Individual concurrent session evaluations were distributed and collected following each concurrent session.  Data from these instruments will be combined with opinion data previously collected from paper authors and planning committee participants to provide a status report of opinions on the conference.  The vast majority of the overall conference evaluations were complimentary of the focus of the conference, the inclusion of farmers and farmworkers, the conference sessions being kept on time, the inclusion of breaks following each session, and the hotel accommodations. 

            The majority of individual session evaluations were complimentary of the diversity of views, the practical knowledge represented by speakers, the focus of the speakers on the specifics of content and practical application of research findings, and the receptiveness to questions and points of clarification.  Specific criticisms of individual sessions related mostly to lack of supplementary visual aids, or the fact that visual aids used were not readable. 

Preliminary Finding from the Baltimore Conference

            The most important preliminary finding from the conference comes from the farmers and farmworkers participating.  These two groups indicated the conference provided much that was useful.  They indicated that the presentations provided a new appreciation for the hazards present in the agricultural environment and that some of the presentations were over their heads with regards to content and detail.  The farmworkers were appreciative and complimentary of the Spanish language program and the simultaneous translation. 

These participants agreed that it would take time to digest the information received.  And, there would need to be regular contact maintained between them and the project.  This is needed for them to make the best use of the presentation content and to contribute to the following consensus development process.  Importantly, they felt a need for contact that was aimed at providing a resource for questions and content related to agricultural safety and health issues to assist in, their words, “bringing them and keeping them up to speed” on the general agricultural safety and health arena.

 Consensus Work-Groups – Primary Second Year Activity

Summary of Initial Consensus Development Meeting on March 3-4, 2001

The consensus-building phase, the primary second-year activity, began immediately following the end of the conference.  Approximately 100 people stayed for the opening work-group session at 3:00 PM Saturday.  This session included a short summary of information on the three-year project, covered the agenda for this initial work-group meeting, and provided a look at how this activity fit into the needs of the overall project.

Of the group participating in the opening work-group session, 59 individuals stayed for the individual work-group activities from 8:00 – 11:00 AM and the follow-up general session from 11:00 – 12:00 Noon.  The crowd thinned out Saturday evening and early Sunday morning due to a much-publicized impending snowstorm for the east coast.  However, all those departing due to the storm asked to remain involved in the process.  Participants in the small groups included 15 farmers.  These farmers were voluntarily spread among the five work-groups held to allow for farmer interaction with safety and health professionals.  In addition, 16 farmworkers stayed and met as a single group.  This was done at their request.  The farmworkers felt meeting as a single group would be less threatening and also the activity would be more efficient if conducted in Spanish without translation being needed.

The responses elicited from the on-site work-group participants will serve as the point of departure for teleconferences over the next year.  The work-group participants will be guided by a facilitator to maintain contact, lead work-group teleconferences, and supply summaries of previous activities.  These activities are needed in order to reach consensus on Key Questions.  The Key Questions were:

1)      What are the current gaps, needs, and/or oversights in current activities related to agricultural safety and health.

 2)    What are your suggestions on how to address the current gaps, needs, and/or oversights in activities related to
       agricultural safety and health.

3)     What do you see as the barriers to implementing your suggestions for addressing the current gaps, needs, and/or oversights in activities related to agricultural safety and health.     

Findings from Initial Consensus Development Meeting

            The most important findings from the initial consensus development meeting fall into four areas.  The first is that participants from all backgrounds felt apprehension of being able to finalized responses to the Key Questions meaningfully over the phone.  Nearly all suggested the need for another face-to-face meeting in order to do so.  Farmers and farmworkers indicated strongly that this would be needed to summarize the teleconference activities and to finalize responses.

            The second important finding was that farmers and farmworkers thought a formal compilation of information from conference White Papers would aid them in their contributions to the work-groups.  Itemization and summarization of paper content addressing the criteria asked for would be useful in providing them with the perspectives of academicians and practitioners.  These perspectives would be valuable in continuing to form their own opinions, particularly in those areas that they do not have direct contact. The third was a lack of understanding concerning the relationship of the responses to the Key Questions and any future action steps that might be forthcoming.  Work-group participants indicated that finalizing the responses to Key Questions was nebulous, they had grave misgivings concerning the transformation of those responses into future action recommendations.  The general feeling was that this topic deserved being added to the agenda of a face-to-face meeting.

             The fourth important finding arose mainly from the professionals in the work-groups.  While many factions were represented in the process, some mechanism was needed to secure active input from the NIOSH Ag. Research Centers.  The general suggestion arose that once the consensus building process had reached a point near finalization, the ag. centers should be contacted and presentations made.  As these centers have received considerable funding, not allowing an opportunity for input on the status report and the Key Questions would leave the document lacking.

Summary of Work-Group Teleconferences and Follow-up Face-to-Face Meeting

            Following the Initial Consensus meeting held after the Baltimore conference, a series of teleconferences were held by the work-groups to add to and refine the work begun at the initial meeting.  The work-groups remained as constituted during the initial meeting, i.e., five work-groups made up of a combination of farmers and others, a sixth work-group made up of farmworkers which also included professionals working in that arena.  Again, the farmworkers requested a separate work-group for ease of discussions, held in Spanish, and to preclude any perceived power issues. 

A total of 12 facilitated teleconferences were held by the six work-groups over the late summer and fall of 2001 with an average participation of 6 participants per call.  Additional contacts with work-group participants were made using U.S mail, electronic mail, and phone calls.  Individual members of work-groups that were unable to attend specific teleconferences were provided multiple opportunities to contribute.  All work-group participants were supplied with up-dated responses/discussions lists from all other work-groups.  In general the teleconferences followed the procedure:

1) During the first teleconference, participants asked to make additions to the lists of Gaps/Suggestions/Barriers.  These were sent to Chip to combine individual responses with those of all other work groups. 

2) In the second teleconference, participants asked to review the revised sections and mark items that we think are unnecessary or we disagree with.  Again, these were sent to Chip to combine with the other groups.  A separate listing was made of all items about which there were questions, comments, or disagreements.  These items were then sent out to all work-groups for further discussion or clarification by those bringing them forward.

3) In the third teleconference, participants asked to take a final look at the revised list and the separate list of items in question for clarification and further discussion.  The items remaining in question or about which there is disagreement will make up the primary portion of the agenda at the face-to-face meeting in St. Louis, MO.

The face-to-face meeting in St. Louis was held on February, 27, 2002.  All participants in the work-groups were invited to this meeting.  A total of 30 people attended the meeting, 11 farmworkers, 10 farmers, and 9 “others,” all of whom attended the Baltimore conference.  As with the conference, on-site verbal English to Spanish and Spanish to English translations were provided along with Spanish translation of all text items.

        Findings from the Teleconferences and Face-to-Face Meeting

The initial consensus meeting following the conference and the teleconferences provided the base of information use at the St. Louis meeting.   The time was devoted to a final review of responses to Questions 1, 2, & 3 above, with the majority of discussion centering on those items about which there were questions or in disagreement.  A summary of important items of discussion were:

1.      Focus of document:  Include as many items as possible while concentrating on those items that we think we can have an impact. 

2.      The face-to-face and teleconference meetings produced 13 pages of specific participant thoughts on the Gaps and Needs, Suggestions to address the Gaps and Needs, and Barriers related to current agricultural safety and health issues.  The thoughts were organized for review under the nine arbitrary topics used for presentations at the conference.

The majority of the Gaps and Needs are found within the Hired Workers and Human Health categories. 

The majority of Suggestions to Address the Gaps and Needs are found under the Farm Populations, Hired Workers, Community Strategies, and Public Policy categories. 

The majority of the Barriers are found under the Farm Populations, Hired Workers, Community Strategies, and Public Policy categories.

All items contained in the summary listing will be included in the draft document as they can be within the primary consideration under #1. 

The items listed below merited special mention as they were among the items with questions or disagreement and about which some accommodation was reached.

3.      Emphasize that there are many specific agricultural safety and health concerns that overlap between farmers and migrant/seasonal farmworkers but that there are also specific items that are unique to migrant/seasonal farmworkers and those need to be noted.

4.      Form committee including Chip and farmworker and Advisory Committee representatives to develop mutually acceptable farmer/farmworker identification scheme to include in recommendations.

5.      Inclusion of piece written by Aspacio Alcantara on disadvantages of being an undocumented farmworker as central statement of their plight. 

6.      Provide a prominent location, perhaps in a prologue, to state concerns related to the current H2A guest worker visa program. 

7.      Provide a prominent location for a recognition of the “power” issues, with a short explanation and how these affect both the living and working environment of migrant/seasonal farmworkers.

8.      Inclusion of a piece written by a family farm operator describing their perception of difficulties they face.

9.      Recognition that many part-time and seasonal workers on farms accept certain inherent working conditions and responsibilities within the work place because these are the same ones that apply to the farmer/owner/employer. 

10.  Emphasize the need for better awareness among and training of health professionals on common migrant/seasonal farmworker health issues. 

11.  Provide a short explanation of migrant/seasonal farmworker perspectives related to reporting requirements of pesticide exposure incidents.

12.  Be specific in Health Professionals section the need for more and better education of farmers, migrant/seasonal farmworkers, and their families, as well as rural residence to potential exposures to pesticides in their residences as well as their work sites.

13.  DISAGREEMENT ITEM:  The issue of universal health benefits for ALL workers was discussed.  Farmworkers and their representatives favored such, while farmers contended that this was not a benefit routinely provided for any part-time employee or even many full-time employees.

14.  Related to #13 was the potential inclusion within the document of the consensus of concern toward health care costs in general.

An additional work-group, consisting of designated board members from the National Institute for Farm Safety (NIFS) and the North American Agromedicine Consortium, has been formed to discuss common issues of concern related to interaction and cross-training of individuals serving in safety specialist/extension/engineer capacities and those serving in the health and medical professions.  There is longstanding collaboration between individuals within the two groups but identification of specific common concerns, identification of potential outcomes, and recommendations toward those concerns is deemed useful.  While there were some pertinent items identified in the other work-groups, a specific work-group on the topic could not only generate potential items for use in the upcoming document but also could contribute to further interaction between the two organizations and their members.

Document Contents

The complete document format and composition is not yet decided.  Consensus was reached that the format would follow: 1) Ag. at Risk: A Report to the Nation in identifying specific agencies/organizations to implement the recommended action and 2) recent documents     from the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety.  The document will contain in some fashion:

      a)      Introduction
b)      Executive Summary/Prologue
c)      Significance
d)      Summary of Past Activities/Events/Legislation
e)      Current Status of Ag. Safety and Health
f)        Methods of Current Project
g)      Recommended Goals (the fewer the better)
h)      Recommended Actions (more specificity)
i)        Specific Strategies to Achieve Actions
j)        Summary
k)      Glossary
l)        Appendices – as needed

Next Step

            The next primary activity is to use the work-group activities and products as a guide in formulating specific items to be included in the document.  These include primarily draft renderings of portions of items b, c, g, h, and i above.