health consequences of industrialized agriculture for farmers in the United States, The

Human Organization, Fall 1998 by Thu, Kendall M

Conventional measures of economic productivity and efficiency in U.S. agriculture typically calculate the cost and amount of inputs relative to the price received and level of outputs - for example, livestock feed cost per unit of animal, seed costs per acre, or bushels produced per acre. But the types of inputs included are highly selective, and typically include such costs as land, machinery, seed, feed, veterinary supplies, insurance, and fertilizers. Standard models of agricultural efficiency and productivity do not include the inordinate health toll of industrial agriculture on the health of farmers, farm workers, and their families. A 1996 report issued by Blue Cross/ Blue Shield of Nebraska (Wirka 1996) indicated that farmer health and injury problems result in significantly higher health insurance claims and costs compared with the general population. However, such costs are not incorporated into standard economic models of agricultural efficiency and productivity.

Research and Intervention Responses

Prior to 1988, agricultural health problems in the U.S. received little attention. The USDA provided a total of one million dollars divided among all the land grant institutions throughout the country to educate farmers through Cooperative Extension programs. Agribusinesses such as the Kellogg Foundation and Pioneer Hi-Bred International also provided seed money to keep agricultural health issues alive. In 1988, a significant change occurred as a result of a public policy conference convened by the National Coalition of Agricultural Safety and Health (N-CASH). A series of policy recommendations emerged and were relayed to the U.S. Congress via a report entitled "Agriculture at Risk: A Report to the Nation." At the behest of N-CASH and the pivotal work of Marilyn Adams, an Iowa farmer who lost her son in a farm accident and founded the private grassroots group Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa drafted federal legislation and Congress approved the creation and funding of a National Agricultural Health and Safety initiative. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) was designated the lead agency to carry out the mandate. A number of regional research and outreach centers and projects emerged around the country. And in 1991 the Surgeon General convened a conference in Iowa affirming the national importance of agricultural health issues.

Farmer health and safety research and intervention programming is dominated by two spheres of researchers and outreach workers: 1) health care professionals, including physicians, epidemiologists, nurses, and public health specialists, and 2) educators and engineers from land grant institutions. There is virtually no research or programs considering the contribution of political, economic, and social factors in farmer health problems, and there is a glaring lack of critical attention to the underlying role of industrial agriculture. Very little has been written to indicate the possibility that these rampant agricultural health problems are symptomatic of a flawed paradigm of food production. The result is that most research and intervention programming assumes the existence of industrial agriculture, leaving research and intervention to address and treat its symptoms. For example, a pervasive assumption among health and land grant institution researchers and outreach workers is that health and safety problems among farmers, farm workers, and their families can be solved by education.