Pesticides and Public Health: A Field-Level Analysis in Southwestern Part of Bangladesh

Pesticides and Public Health: A Field-Level Analysis in Southwestern Part of Bangladesh

T. N. Sonia Azad

Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, Gopalgonj University of Science and Technology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.10060050

Received: 26 May 2025; Accepted: 31 May 2025; Published: 05 July 2025

ABSTRACT

Agriculture employs a significant proportion of Bangladesh’s population, with pesticide application serving as a standard practice for pest control and yield enhancement. However, persistent concerns exist regarding the human health and environmental sustainability impacts of excessive and improper pesticide use.

This study evaluates the health consequences of pesticide exposure among farmers, utilizing data from 120 respondents across southwestern part (Khulna, Bagerhat, Satkhira and Jashore districts) of Bangladesh. Findings indicate that most farmers operate within challenging socioeconomic circumstances. Critically, pesticide users incur more than double the healthcare expenditures compared to non-users, with “mixed users”—those applying multiple pesticide types—experiencing disproportionately severe health outcomes.

The analysis reveals a robust positive association between pesticide exposure and adverse health effects, which subsequently drives a significant increase in workdays lost among users. To mitigate these health impacts, the study strongly advocates implementing preventive measures during application, including consistent use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and strict adherence to usage guidelines.

Further large-scale research into the health costs associated with mixed pesticide exposure is recommended to strengthen the evidence base and inform targeted policy reforms.

Keywords: Pesticide Exposure, Insecticide Exposure, Mixed Pesticide Users, Protective Behaviors, Farmer Health, Agricultural Health Costs

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Agriculture remains the primary livelihood for a significant proportion of our nation’s population, with pesticides widely employed to enhance crop productivity (Bourguet et al., 2016; Pimentel, 2005). Recognized as the most efficient method for pest control (Abdou and Atta, 2018), over 500 distinct active pesticide compounds are currently utilized in global agricultural production (Douglas et al., 2018). While pesticides demonstrably increase yields, their application poses severe negative consequences for environmental integrity and human health (Mahmood et al., 2016; Bourguet et al., 2016; Pimentel, 2005; Atreya, 2005, 2007).

Health impacts manifest acutely (e.g., headaches, dizziness, eye/skin irritation, muscular twitching) and chronically (e.g., compromised reproductive capacity, cancer) (Atreya, 2007). Global annual pesticide usage exceeds 3 billion kilograms, representing an expenditure of approximately $40 billion. Despite boosting yields, pesticides concurrently account for the destruction of an estimated 37% of potential crop production (Pimentel, 2005). Furthermore, over 2.2 million individuals in developing nations face elevated health risks due to pesticide exposure (Hicks, 2013).

Pesticides—primarily insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides—target organisms detrimental to crops (Sharma and Singhvi, 2017; Atreya, 2007; Daniels et al., 1997; Sharma et al., 2012). Organochlorine insecticides are notably among the most toxic. Chronic exposure is linked to severe health outcomes, including liver damage, tumor development, and neurological impairment (Devi, 2007, 2009; Sharma et al., 2012). Paradoxically, studies like Yasin et al. (2002) in the Gaza Strip reveal that even farmers cognizant of pesticide hazards often fail to adopt adequate protective measures. Pesticide application is also influenced by economic factors: it sometimes substitutes for fertilizer, with usage positively correlated with fertilizer prices, agricultural credit access, and land ownership (Rahman, 2003). In Sub-Saharan Africa, the correlation extends beyond increased production to significantly heightened human health costs (Sheahan et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2015).

Children of exposed agricultural workers are particularly vulnerable; parental exposure is identified as a major etiological factor for childhood cancer in the United States (Daniels et al., 1997). In response to these documented harms, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was developed as a systemic approach to reduce farm reliance on pesticides, thereby enhancing food safety, protecting water resources, and safeguarding the environment (Kovach et al., 1992; Jha and Regmi, 2009).

Pest-induced crop damage is substantial—costing India an estimated ₹6,000 crore annually. However, indiscriminate pesticide application proves counterproductive, damaging crops and posing severe health threats (Oliveira et al., 2014; Atreya, 2007; Rahman, 2003; Rajendran, 2003). This pattern is evident in Thailand, where extensive pesticide uses leads to significant farmer health issues (Tawatsin et al., 2015). Excessive application compromises crop quality, as chemical residues persist within the produce, ultimately impacting consumers. Pesticides also disperse beyond target areas, contaminating air, soil, and water bodies; their breakdown dynamics depend on soil properties, temperature, application intensity, and chemical composition. Alarmingly, pesticide residues are routinely detected in Indian soft drinks, bottled water, and critically, in both human breast milk and cow’s milk (Rajendran, 2003; Mahmood et al., 2016).

Rationale of the Study

The benefits and drawbacks of pesticide utilization remain a subject of ongoing global discourse. While pesticides fulfill a critical function in assisting agricultural producers to manage both crop and vector-borne pests (Bourguet et al., 2016; Rahman, 2003), their application is concurrently linked to significant acute and chronic health hazards for farmers, stemming from both direct and indirect exposure pathways (Atreya, 2007; Afrin et al., 2017).

Excessive pesticide application not only detrimentally impacts crop quality but also poses indirect risks to human health and broader developmental outcomes (Rajendran, 2003; Afrin et al., 2017; Devi, 2007, 2009). Notably, global data from 2015 indicate that 52.4% of pesticide users exceeded recommended application thresholds (Stehle & Schulz, 2015), highlighting the imperative to establish scientifically determined optimal application levels (Afrin et al., 2017).

In specific regions, such as Kerala’s rice-growing areas, pesticide deployment is frequently characterized by unscientific practices across all stages—including selection, handling, and application—primarily attributable to limited farmer awareness or knowledge (Devi, 2007; Sharma et al., 2012; Afrin et al., 2017). Beyond the direct health implications for applicators, chemical exposure from pesticides engenders significant environmental consequences, which subsequently impinge upon long-term human health (Sharma et al., 2012).

Furthermore, research by Venkatesh et al. (2012) demonstrates that pesticide use diminishes farmer well-being, manifesting as reduced agricultural productivity, elevated medical expenditures, and diminished wages. When accounting for the long-term implications of severe illnesses, including cancer, the actual health costs associated with pesticide exposure in the United States may potentially exceed prior estimates by a factor of ten (Bourguet et al., 2016).

Given escalating concerns surrounding these multifaceted issues, enhancing public awareness regarding the adverse consequences of pesticide exposure has become increasingly urgent. Within this context, the present study aims to investigate the tangible health impacts resulting from mixed pesticide exposure.

Objective of the Study

To evaluate the impact of pesticide, use on farmers’ health

Research Question of the Study

In order to reach the objective of the research, the following research questions are

1. What strategies do farmers adopt when applying pesticides in their fields?
2. What factors influence farmers’ decisions to take protective or avertive measures during pesticide application?
3. In what ways does pesticide use affect the health and well-being of farmers?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Pest and Pesticide

Pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, play a vital role in modern agriculture by controlling pests and boosting crop yields (Choudhary et al., 2018). However, their widespread use poses significant risks to human health and the environment, particularly for farmers who are directly exposed (Rajendran, 2003; Afrin et al., 2017).

Use of Pesticides

While pesticides enhance agricultural productivity (Wilson & Tisdell, 2001), their misuse often outweighs the benefits through health hazards and environmental degradation (Atreya, 2007; Sharma et al., 2012). Countries like China, India, Brazil, and Bangladesh report excessive or unsafe use due to subsidies, lack of training, or poor regulation (Pedlowski et al., 2012; Miah et al., 2014).

Tools to Estimate Health Impact

Researchers use various methods to evaluate pesticide-related health impacts, including economic analysis, dose-response models, and Cost of Illness (COI). Tools like Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) and econometric models (logit, tobit) are also applied (Kovach et al., 1992; Atreya, 2007; Rahman, 2012).

Negative Health Effects

Farmers experience both acute symptoms (eye irritation, dizziness, skin problems) and chronic issues (neurological disorders, cancer, reproductive harm) from prolonged exposure (Devi, 2009; Mamane et al., 2015).

Impact on Crops and Environment

Excessive pesticide use can reduce crop quality and lead to residue accumulation (Sharma et al., 2012). Environmental damages, including soil and water contamination, pollinator loss, and biodiversity decline, cost billions annually (Pimentel, 2005; Mahboob et al., 2015).

Impact on Children

Children are particularly vulnerable, with studies linking prenatal exposure to leukemia and brain tumors (Daniels et al., 1997; Hyseni, 2018).

Causes of Harmful Exposure

Unsafe handling, lack of protective gear, illiteracy, poverty, and limited health access increase farmers’ vulnerability to pesticide-related illnesses (Devi, 2009; Oesterlund et al., 2014).

Protective Measures and Alternatives

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) offers a safer, cost-effective alternative, reducing pesticide dependency while ensuring crop health and environmental sustainability (Afrin et al., 2017).

Cost of Pesticide Use

Pesticide use entails regulatory, health, environmental, and defensive costs. In the U.S., total annual regulatory costs may reach \$22 billion (Bourguet & Guillemaud, 2016).

Most of the people of the south-west region of Bangladesh are mostly dependent on agricultural activities. Among the selected regions, Satkhira is the least urbanized districts whereas Khulna has the highest concentration of urban population (BBS, 2011). Approximately 23 million people live in the south-west region of the country. The average family size is 6 and the male-female ratio is 1:0.94 here (Haider, et al., 2011). Population growth rate in this region is 2.1 percent per year and approximately 37 percent of the population is economically active among them 77percent are male (Kabir and webb, 2009).

Research Design

This study adopts a descriptive research design. Data analysis involves hypothesis testing, Chi-square tests, regression analysis, t-tests, and other econometric models. Findings are presented through tables, graphs, and charts for clear visualization.

Data Sources

Primary Data

The study primarily relies on primary data collected directly from farmers through a structured questionnaire.

Secondary Data

Secondary data has been gathered from various sources, including books, journals, articles, reports, unpublished theses, organizational records, and newspapers.

Sampling Framework, Sample Size, and Technique

The study population comprises all farmers engaged in agriculture, particularly those who apply pesticides. The sampling frame was obtained from union council records. A sample of 120 farmers was selected using simple systematic sampling facilitated by computer software. The sampling technique employed is simple random sampling to ensure unbiased representation.

Analysis and Concluding Remarks

Socio-economic and Demographic Profile

Age Structure of the Respondents

Age serves as a proxy for experience and judgment – both critical factors in this study. Respondents span diverse age groups, though predominantly middle-aged farmers who entered the profession intergenerationally. The age distribution of participants is detailed in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Age Structure of the Respondent

Source: Author’s own compilation based on field survey, 2024

Table 4.1 indicates that the majority of respondents are middle-aged, falling within the 35-44 age bracket. This aligns with the study’s use of age as a proxy for experience, reflecting that these farmers typically entered their inherited occupation at a younger age. Conversely, younger and older individuals constitute a significantly smaller proportion of the farming population in the study area. Consequently, middle-aged farmers represent nearly half of all respondents and dominate the agricultural sector locally.

Household Characteristics

The sampled farmers exhibit diverse characteristics. A majority possess limited formal education, hindering informed decision-making regarding pesticide use. Most originate from farming families, with early-life involvement in agriculture resulting in extensive experience for many. Despite this expertise, respondents commonly report acute health issues immediately following pesticide application. Key demographic characteristics and mitigation strategies adopted by farmers are detailed in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Household Profile

Source: Author’s compilation based on field survey, 2024

Decision-making capacity is closely linked to educational attainment. Within the study sample, nearly half (50%) of respondents are illiterate. Only 1.67% attained secondary education or higher, while a minimal proportion possess primary-level schooling.

The farming cohort is predominantly male (>80%), though female participation—direct or indirect—is significant. Marital status shows near-universal prevalence (100% married), with married individuals more actively involved in pesticide application than their unmarried counterparts. Reflecting national demographics, the majority identify as Muslim; the remainder are Hindu, with no other religious groups represented.

Land ownership is limited, with only 38.33% holding cultivable plots. Average rice yields (Amon and Boro varieties) reach approximately 25 maunds per bigha. Notably, 28.33% of farmers apply pesticide mixtures. These “mixed-users” experience significantly higher workday losses (WDL), averaging 3.74 lost days per season (from a baseline of 44.87 working days).

While two-thirds (66.67%) adopt preventive measures—implementing 3.73 actions on average at a seasonal cost of BDT 340.72 acute pesticide-related symptoms affect 60% of farmers. Affected individuals report between 3 to 13 distinct symptoms on average. Total seasonal health costs per farmer (encompassing direct medical expenses, indirect costs, transport, and supplementary food) average BDT 3,071.42.

Summary Statistics

Sampling within the study area intentionally captured diverse occupational groups and socioeconomic strata among farmers. This variation in demographic characteristics serves as a key indicator of underlying household welfare levels. Findings reveal widespread financial vulnerability: low earnings predominate, leaving most farmers unable to generate savings for future needs.

Table 4.3: Summary Statistics

Source: Author’s compilation based on field survey, 2024

Family composition varies significantly: 69.17% of households comprise 3-5 members, 28.33% have 6-8 members, and <1% exceed 8 members. Both nuclear (64%) and joint (36%) family structures coexist.

Economically, most respondents face severe constraints. Approximately 50% report monthly incomes between BDT 12,000-17,000, while only a minority reach BDT 22,000-25,000. Many fall below the minimum wage, resulting in widespread financial precarity. Savings capacity is critically low—half of farmers save nothing, and those who do save retain minimal amounts.

Pesticide exposure duration is substantial: over 50% of applicators face 10-70 minutes of contact per application. Notably, a high-exposure subgroup (7.2%) incurs disproportionately elevated health costs.

Pesticide Using Strategies of the Farmers

Farmers utilizing pesticides for crop protection commonly adopt preventive measures to mitigate associated health risks. Within the study area, 96% of farmers employ such protective behaviors. However, the frequency and consistency of these mitigation strategies vary significantly across individuals.

Figure 4.4: Pesticide Using Strategies of the Farmers

Source: Author’s compilation based on field survey, 2024

Adoption rates of specific protective measures vary significantly between farmers. To analyze perceptions toward mitigation behaviors, respondents were presented with a defined set of actions using a 5-point Likert scale.

As illustrated in Figure 4.2:

Widespread adoption is observed for basic clothing:

• 60% always wear long-sleeved shirts
• 70% consistently use long pants

Critical barriers show severe underutilization:

• 50% never use gloves
• <50% never use masks
• 50% never use caps

Handkerchief use is limited: <40% always employ them

Persistent non-adoption: Gloves and caps are consistently used by only a minimal fraction of farmers, confirming these as the least adopted protective measures.

Pesticide Using Status of the Farmers

While pesticide application is routine among most farmers in the study area, significant heterogeneity exists in their exposure histories. The year of cultivation initiation and first pesticide use vary considerably across respondents, revealing distinct adoption timelines—from early adopters to more recent users.

Figure 4.5: Pesticide Using Status of the Farmers

Source: Author’s compilation based on field survey, 2024

Figure 4.4 categorizes farmers by pesticide adoption history relative to the base year (2021):

• Early Starters: >14 years of use
• Late-Early Starters: >10 years of use
• Mid-Starters: >5 years of use
• Late Starters: <5 years of use

Analysis reveals explosive growth in initial pesticide adoption during 2009-2014. Mid-Starters represent the largest cohort (30%), while Early and Late Starters are comparatively few. Late-Early Starters constitute over 15% of respondents.

Pesticide Using Trend

Pesticide application demonstrates a clear upward trajectory in the study area, with farmers progressively intensifying usage over time. User adoption peaked in 2019, though growth patterns reveal significant temporal heterogeneity.

Figure 4.3: Pesticide Using Trend

Source: Author’s compilation based on field survey, 2024

Pesticide adoption in the study area commenced approximately 22 years ago on average, exhibiting non-linear temporal dynamics. Initial uptake was limited to early adopters during the innovation phase. As depicted in Figure 4.5:

• Pre-2000 stagnation: Minimal growth dominated by natural pesticides
• Post-chemical innovation: Rapid transition to synthetic alternatives
• 2005-2015 acceleration: Exponential user increase (trend line slope >2.5× previous period)

This S-curve adoption pattern reflects delayed market penetration followed by explosive growth after critical technological availability.

Farmers’ Hygienic Measures towards Pesticide Use

Despite limited formal education constraining awareness of proper pesticide protocols, farmers in the study area have developed empirically informed safety practices through accumulated experience. Field observations confirm near-universal adoption (96%) of preventative measures during application, supplemented by critical post-spray protocols. Table 4.4 details significant variations in:

• Pesticide residue disposal methods
• Post-application hygiene compliance
• Safety behavior frequency stratification

Table 4.4: Farmers’ Hygienic Measures towards Pesticide Use

Source: Author’s compilation based on field survey, 2024

Farmers in the study area demonstrate partial adoption of safety protocols during pesticide application. While hygiene awareness is evident—over 50% abstain from drinking, none consume food during spraying, >70% change clothing, and >50% shower post-application—critical equipment safeguards are neglected. Only 8% inspect or repair sprayers pre-use, revealing significant procedural gaps.

Environmental considerations show moderate engagement: approximately 50% account for wind direction and temperature, preferentially spraying during cooler afternoon hours.

Residue disposal practices highlight a prioritization imbalance:

• 25% discard residues unsafely (open dumping/water bodies)
• 50% employ containment methods (burial/incineration)

This pattern indicates stronger emphasis on personal health protection than ecological stewardship.

Health Cost of Pesticide Use

Determinants of Aversive Action

Farmers in the study area employ diverse protective measures to mitigate pesticide exposure risks during application. While literature identifies multiple behavioral determinants, this study isolates key drivers of avertive action adoption.

Analysis of avertive expenditures (BDT per farmer/season) reveals significant predictors (Table 5.2). Education demonstrates a positive and statistically significant association with investment levels, indicating that formal schooling increases farmers’ health-protective spending.

Determinants of Falling Sick

This study employs a comparative design—analyzing both pesticide users and non-users—to quantify the true health burden of pesticide exposure. Regression analysis identifies frequent illness among farmers as significantly associated with specific risk factors, with pesticide users demonstrating substantially higher morbidity probability.

Key determinants of farmers’ health-protective behaviors (avertive actions), acute symptom incidence, and associated costs are examined through three primary metrics:

• Avertive expenditure (preventive investment)
• Illness costs (treatment expenses)
• Lost workdays (productivity loss)

These collectively constitute the seasonal health burden of pesticide exposure.

Notably, farmers with formal agricultural training and higher education levels show greater likelihood of adopting protective measures, translating to higher avertive spending. Paradoxically, increased avertive expenditure correlates inversely with consistent safety protocol adherence. Crucially, pesticide users incur >2× the total health costs of non-users, with significantly elevated avertive (β=0.41, p<0.01) and illness expenditures (β=0.38, p<0.01).

FINDINGS

Farmers’ Pesticide Utilization Patterns and Protective Behaviors

The study reveals commercially driven pesticide practices: 83.33% farm commercially, with 43.33% applying pesticides frequently. Land ownership is limited (38.33%), indicating significant lease-based cultivation.

Safety Practices Show Selective Adoption:

• High compliance: 87.5% abstain from drinking during spraying; 73.33% change contaminated clothing
• Critical gaps: Only 36.67% safely bury residues; 24.17% dispose unsafely (open dumping/water bodies)

Pesticide usage dominates (81.67% users), with avertive measures focusing on basic protection:

• Long pants (70.83%)
• Long-sleeved shirts (63.31%)
• Handkerchiefs as improvised masks/wipes

Key Risk Exposures:

• Mixed pesticide users incur highest illness costs
• Exposure duration strongly predicts illness risk (p<0.01)
• Paradoxical finding: Increased avertive spending correlates with reduced safety compliance (r = -0.42)

Health Burden Analysis (n=120):

• Symptom prevalence: Muscular pruritus (78%), asthenia (65%), hyperhidrosis (61%), cephalalgia (59%)
• Medical avoidance: 80% self-medicate despite symptoms
• Cost disparity: Users’ health costs (avertive + illness) exceed non-users’ by >100%

Evidence-Based Policy Framework

1. Regulatory Intervention

• Mandate Integrated Pest Management (IPM) certification for mixed-pesticide applicators
• Subsidize EPA-certified respirators and nitrile gloves

2. Behavioral Change Infrastructure

Scale up mobile training units demonstrating:

• Sprayer maintenance protocols
• Biodegradable residue containment techniques

Implement “Safe Spray” vouchers covering 80% of protective gear costs

3. Healthcare System Integration

• Establish agricultural health clinics in high-usage districts
• Introduce pesticide toxicity screening in primary care

4. Economic Incentives

• Tax credits for farmers demonstrating full safety compliance
• Crop insurance premium reductions for IPM adopters

Implementation note: Prioritize leased-land farmers (61.67%) through landowner partnership programs, given their disproportionate risk exposure and limited infrastructure control.

CONCLUSION

Agriculture constitutes the primary livelihood for rural Bangladeshi communities, where intensive pesticide application is employed to safeguard crops and enhance yields. However, excessive use compromises crop integrity, environmental sustainability, and inflicts severe acute and chronic health burdens on farmers. This study quantifies the short-term health economics of pesticide exposure, revealing that direct medical costs, avertive expenditures, and productivity losses from work absenteeism collectively impose significant economic burdens—particularly among high-exposure farmers and mixed-pesticide users.

Our analysis demonstrates:

• Health costs for pesticide users exceed non-users’ expenses by >100%
• Mixed-pesticide applicators incur the highest illness-related expenditures
• Suboptimal adoption of protective measures exacerbates risks

The findings underscore the critical importance of rigorous adherence to safety protocols—including proper protective equipment usage and residue management—to mitigate acute health impacts. Evidence-based interventions targeting behavioral change and regulatory enforcement are urgently needed to reduce agrarian vulnerability.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study’s focus on southwestern Bangladesh establishes a critical baseline for pesticide-related health economics in agrarian communities, though findings indicate substantial regional heterogeneity in exposure patterns. To address identified knowledge gaps, future research should:

• Expand comparative analyses across Bangladesh’s diverse agroecological zones,
• Quantify chronic disease burdens among mixed-pesticide users through longitudinal cohorts (n>500),
• Evaluate cost-benefit ratios of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems versus conventional practices,
• Measure scalability of behavioral interventions targeting safety protocol compliance.

Such evidence will accelerate the transition toward One Health-aligned farming systems that simultaneously optimize crop protection, farmer welfare, and environmental sustainability.

REFERENCE

1. Abdou, K.A.H. and Atta, H.M.B. (2018). Epidemiology of Pesticides in Developing Countries, Advance Clinical Toxicology,3(1), pp. 1-15
2. Abong’o, D., Wandiga, S., Jumba, I., Madadi, V. and Kylin, H. (2014). Impacts of Pesticides on Human Health and Environment in the River Nyando Catchment, Kenya, International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and Sciences, 2(3), pp. 1-14.
3. Afrin, S., Haider, M.Z. and Islam, M.S. (2017). Optimal Use of Pesticide for Paddy Production in the South-West Region of Bangladesh, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(4), pp. 433-457.
4. Ajayi, O.O. (2000). Pesticide Use Practices, Productivity and Farmers’ Health: The Case of Cotton-Rice Systems in Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa, Pesticide Policy Project Publication Series, Special Issue No. 3, University of Hannover, Germany.
5. Antle, J.M. and Pingali, P.L. (1994). Pesticides, Productivity and Farmer Health: A Philipine Case Study, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(3), pp. 418-430.
6. Antle, J.M., Cole, D.C. and Crissman, C.C. (1998). Further Evidence on Pesticides, Productivity and Farmer Health: Potato Production in Ecuador, Agricultural Economics, 18(2), pp. 199-207.
7. Atrey, K. (2007). Pesticide Use in Nepal: Understanding Health Costs from Short term Exposure, Working Paper, No. 28-07, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Kathmandu.
8. Atreya, K. (2005). Health Costs of Pesticide Use in a Vegetable Growing Area, Central Mid-hills, Nepal, Himalayan Journal of Sciences, 3(5), pp. 81-84.
9. Atreya, K., Sitaula, B.K., Johnsen, F.H. and Bajracharya, R.M. (2011).Continuing Issues in the Limitations of Pesticide Use in Developing Countries, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(1), pp. 49-62.
10. Bagheri, A., Emami, N., Allahyari, M.S. and Damalas, C.A. (2018). Pesticide Handling Practices, Health Risks and Determinants of Safety Behavior among Iranian Apple Farmers, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, pp. 1-15.
11. BBS (2011). ‘Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh’, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), Ministry of Planning, Governing of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
12. Bonner, M.R., Freeman, L.E.B., Hoppin, J.A., Koutros, S., Sandler, D.P., Lynch, C.F., Hines, C.J., Thomas, K., Blair, A. and Alavanja, M.C. (2016). Occupational Exposure to Pesticides and the Incidence of Lung Cancer in the Agricultural Health Study, Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(4), pp. 544-551.
13. Bourguet, D. and Guillemaud, T. (2016). Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 35-120. Spinger, Cham.
14. Chitra, G.A., Muraleedharan, V.R., Swaminathan, T. and Veeraghavan, V. (2006). Use of Pesticides and Its Impact on Health of Farmers in South India, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 12(3), pp. 228-233.
15. Choudhary, S., Yamini, N.R., Yadav, S.K. and andAmit Sharma, M.K. (2018). A Review: Pesticide Residue: Cause of Many Animal Health Problems, Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 6(3), pp. 330-333.
16. Daniels, J.L., Olshan, A.F. and Savitz, D.A. (1997). Pesticides and Childhood Cancers, Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(10), pp. 1068-1077.
17. Devi, P.I. (2007). Pesticide Use in the Rice Bowl of Kerala: Health Costs and Policy Options, Working Paper, No. 20-07, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Kathmandu.
18. Devi, P.I. (2009)a. Health Risk Perceptions, Awareness and Handling Behaviour of Pesticides by Farm Workers, Agricultural Economics Research Review, 22(2), pp. 263-268.
19. Devi, P.I. (2009)b. Pesticide Application and Occupational Health Risks Among Farm Workers in Kerala-An Analysis Using Dose Response Function, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economy, 64(4), pp. 557-572.
20. Douglas, Steven H., Barnali, D., and Dale, G. (2018).Assessing Intrinsic and Specific Vulnerability Models Ability to Indicate Groundwater Vulnerability to Groups of Similar Pesticides: A Comparative Study, Physical Geography, pp. 1-19.
21. Dung, N.H., Thien, T.C., Hong, N.V., Loc, N.T., Minh, D.V., Thau, T.D., Nguyen, H.T.L., Phong, N.T., Son, T.T. (1999). Impact of Agro-chemical Use on Productivity and Health in Vietnam, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) Research Report Series, Tanglin, Singapore.
22. Fang, Y., Nie, Z., Yang, Y., Die, Q., Liu, F., He, J. and Huang, Q. (2015). Human Health Risk Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Market-sold Vegetables and Fish in a Northern Metropolis of China, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(8), pp. 6135-6143.
23. Ghazala, G., Mahboob, S., Al-Ghanim, K.A., Sultana, S., Alkahem Al-Balawi, H.F., Sultana, T., Al-Misned, F. and Ahmed, Z. (2014). Profenofos-induced Effect on Esterase Activity and Protein Content in Liver, Kidney, Brain, Blood, and Muscles in Indian Major Carp, Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 96(4), pp. 633-640.
24. Haider, M.Z., Ahmed, M.S. and Mallick, A. (2011). Technical Efficiency of Agricultural Farms in Khulna, Bangladesh: Stochastic Frontier Approach, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(3), pp. 248-256.
25. Headly, J.C. (1968).Estimating the Productivity of Agricultural Pesticides, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(1), pp. 13-23.
26. Hicks, B. (2013).Agricultural Pesticides and Human Health.National Association of Geoscience Teachers.Available from http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/pesticides.html.(Accessed on 13 January 2014).
27. Huang, J., Qiao, F., Zhang, L. and Rozelle, S. (2001). Farm Pesticides, Rice Production and Human Health in China. EEPSEA, Singapore, SG.
28. Hyseni, S. (2018). Understanding the Impacts of Pesticides on Children, Discussion Paper, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York City, New York, United States.
29. Janhong, K., Lohachit, C., Butraporn, P. and Pansuwan, P. (2005). Health Promotion Program for the Safe Use of Pesticides in Thai Farmers, Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 36(4), pp. 258-261.
30. Jha, R.K. and Regmi, A.P. (2009).Productivity of Pesticides in Vegetable Farming in Nepal, Working Paper, No. 43-09, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE), Kathmandu.
31. Kim, K.H., Kabir, E. and Jahan, S.A. (2017). Exposure to Pesticides and the Associated Human Health Effect, Science of the Total Environment, 575, pp. 525-535.
32. Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni,J. and Tette,J. (1992). A Method to Measure the Environmental Impact of Pesticides [inEnglish], New York State Agricultural Station, Geneva.
33. Lewis, K.A., Tzilivakis, J., Warner, D.J. and Green, A. (2016). An International Database for Pesticide Risk Assessments and Management, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 22(4), pp. 1050-1064.
34. Lozowicka, B. (2015). Health Risk for Children and Adults Consuming Apples with Pesticide Residue, Science of the Total Environment, 502, pp. 184-198.
35. Mahboob, S., Niazi, F., AlGhanim, K., Sultana, S., Al-Misned, F. and Ahmed, Z. (2015). Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Residues in Water, Sediments and the Muscle Tissues of CatlaCatla at Head Balloki on the River Ravi, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(3), p. 81.
36. Mahmood, I., Imadi, R., Shazadi, K., Gul, A.and Hakeem, K.R. (2016). Effects of Pesticides on Environment [online], Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286042190
37. Mamane, A., Baldi, I., Tessier, J.F., Raherison, C. and Bouvier, G. (2015). Occupational Exposure to Pesticides and Respiratory Health, European Respiratory Review, 24(136), pp. 306-319.
38. Miah, S.J., Hoque, A., Paul, A. and Rahman, A. (2014). Unsafe Use of Pesticide and Its Impact on Health of Farmers: A Case Study in BurichongUpazila, Bangladesh, cancer, 21(3), pp. 22-30.
39. Milner, A.M. and Boyd, I.L. (2017). Toward Pesticidovigilance, Science, 357(6357), pp. 1232-1234.
40. Mostafalou, S. and Abdollahi, M. (2013). Pesticides and Human Chronic Diseases: Evidences, Mechanisms, and Perspectives, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 268(2), pp. 157-177.
41. Oesterlund, A.H., Thomsen, J.F., Sekimpi, D.K., Maziina, J., Racheal, A. and Jors, E. (2014). Pesticide Knowledge, Practice and Attitude and How It Affects the Health of Small-scale Farmers in Uganda: A Cross-sectional Study, African Health Sciences, 14(2), pp. 420-433.
42. Oliveira, C.M., Auad, A.M., Mendes, S.M. and Frizzas, M.R. (2014). Crop Losses and the Economic Impact of Insect Pests on Brazilian Agriculture, Crop Protection, 56, pp. 50-54.
43. Pedlowski, M.A., Canela, M.C., Terra, M.A.C. and Faria, R.M.R. (2012). Modes of Pesticides Utilization by Brazilian Smallholders and Their Implications for Human Health and the Environment, Crop Protection, 31(1), pp. 113-118.
44. Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and Economics Cost of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the United States, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(2), pp. 229-252.
45. Pingali, P.L., Marquez, C.B. and Palis, F.G. (1994). Pesticides and Philippine Rice Farmer Health: A Medical and Economic Analysis, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76(3), pp. 587-592.
46. Rahman, S. (2003).Farm-level Pesticide Use in Bangladesh: Determinants and Awareness, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 95(1), pp. 241-252.
47. Rajendran, S. ‘Environment And Health Aspects Of Pesticide use In Indian Agriculture’ in Martin J., Bunch,V. Madha, S. and Vasantha, K. eds., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Environment and Health, Chennai, India, 15-17 December, 2003.
48. Salas, B.V., Duran, E.I.G. and Wiener, M. S. (2000). Impact of Pesticides Use on Human Health in Mexico: A Review, Reviews on Environmental Health, 15(4), pp. 399-412.
49. Sankoh, A.I., Whittle, R., Semple, K.T., Jones, K.C. and Sweetman, A.J. (2016). An Assessment of the Impacts of Pesticide Use on the Environment and Health of Rice Farmers in Sierra Leone, Environment International, 94, pp. 458-466.
50. Shah, B.P. and Devkota, B. (2009). Obsolete Pesticides: Their Environmental and Human Health Hazards, The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 10, pp. 51-56.
51. Sharma, D.R., Thapa, R.B., Manadhar, H.K., Shrestha, S.M. and Paradhan, S. B. (2012). Use of Pesticides in Nepal and Impacts on Human Health and Environment, Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 13, pp. 67-74.
52. Sharma, N. and Singhvi, R. (2017). Effects of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides on Human Health and Environment: A Review, International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology, 10(6), pp. 675-679.
53. Sheahan, M., Barrett, C.B. and Goldvale, C. (2017). Human Health and Pesticide Use in Sub-Saharan Africa, Agricultural Economics, 48(S1), pp. 27-41.
54. Stehle, S. and Schulz, R. (2015). Agricultural Insecticides Threaten Surface Waters at the Global Scale, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(18), pp. 5750-5755.
55. Sunding, D. and Zivin, J. (2000). Insect Population Dynamics, Pesticide Use and Farmworker Health, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(3), pp. 527-540.
56. Syed, J.H., Alamdar, A., Mohammad, A., Ahad, K., Shabir, Z., Ahmed, H., Ali, S.M., Sani, S.G.A.S., Bokhari, H., Gallagher, K.D. and Ahmad, I. (2014). Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables from Pakistan: A Review of the Occurrence and Associated Human Health Risks, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(23), pp. 13367-13393.
57. Tawatsin, A. (2015). Pesticides Used in Thailand and Toxic Effects to Human Health. Medical Research Archives, (3).
58. Tsimbiri, P.F., Moturi, W.N., Sawe, J., Henley, P. and Bend, J.R. (2015). Health Impact of Pesticides on Residents and Horticultural Workers in the Lake Naivasha Region, Kenya, Occupational Diseases and Environmental Medicine, 3(2), pp. 24-34.
59. Venkatesh, J., Priya, S., Balasubramaniam, M., Aarthy, C., Thenmozhi, S. and Balasubramaniam, P. (2012). Continuing Issues in the Use of Pesticides for Procuring Life in Developing Countries, Life Science Journal, 9(4), pp. 304-308.
60. Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. (2001). Why Farmers Continue to Use Pesticides despite Environmental, Health and Sustainability Costs, Ecological Economics, 39(3), pp. 449-462.
61. Yadav, I.C., Devi, N.L., Syed, J.H., Cheng, Z., Li, J., Zhang, G. and Jones, K.C. (2015). Current Status of Persistent Organic Pesticides Residues in Air, Water, and Soil, and Their Possible Effect on Neighboring Countries: A Comprehensive Review of India, Science of the Total Environment, 511, pp. 123-137.
62. Yasin, M.M., Mourad, T.A.A. and Safi, J.M. (2002). Knowledge, attitude, practice, and toxicity symptoms associated with pesticide use among farm workers in the Gaza Strip, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59(6), pp. 387-394.