Risk perception, risk communication, and the effectiveness of pesticide labels in communicating hazards to South African farm workers

More than 80 percent of global pesticide usage occurs in developed countries; despite this, 99 percent of all recorded pesticide poisoning cases occur in developing countries. Pesticide labels are a risk management strategy for communicating health risks to farm workers with the assumption that the transmission of this information in itself will evoke the required safety behaviors for farm workers to reduce poisoning incidents. Despite the use of pesticide labels, pesticide poisonings continue in developing countries.; This dissertation argues that pesticide labels are ineffective in communicating health and safety risks with the intention of evoking safety behaviors. This hypothesis was couched in the environmental sociology literature of risk perception (i.e., the psychometric model, the Cognitive Social Psychological Model, the Health Belief Model, and Cultural Theory) and risk communication (i.e., the social amplification model and the mental model approach). In reviewing pesticide labels ineffectiveness as a risk communication tool, this research attempted to assess (1) whether there is an interaction between farm workers' pesticide risk perceptions and pesticide risk communication and (2) if this interaction influences the effectiveness of risk communication tools, along with pesticide risk decision-making.; Face-to-face interviews and focus groups were conducted with 115 farm workers on wine and table grape farms in the Western Cape of South Africa. Statistical and ethnographic findings measure farm workers' pesticide risk perceptions and their social/cultural interpretations of the label components, including pictograms, color codes, and precautionary statements. A factor analysis identified risk perception and risk communication factors that highlight the interaction occurring between the two.; The dissertation results show that South African farm workers' pesticide risk perceptions are high. Findings further indicate that approximately 50 percent or more of the farm workers had misleading, incorrect and critically confused interpretations of the pesticide label components. Perceptions and label ineffectiveness were further highlighted by various influencing factors identified such as "authority influences" (e.g., by farm owner, pesticide company representatives), social framing effects (e.g., Apartheid legacy, farm worker's subservient relationship with farmer), gender influences (e.g., women not receiving pesticide training as women's work is not believed to lead to pesticide exposures although they mix pesticides and work in sprayed fields), and industry's "safe-use" training programs (e.g., claiming intrinsically that all pesticides are safe). Another study finding was that five pairs of risk perception (RP) and risk communication (RC) factors significantly reinforce the interaction between each other. These factors of interaction identified were eternalized risk (RP) with familiarity (RC), externalized risk (RP) with emic view (RC), relative risk (RP) with etic view (RC) and tangible risk (RP) with emic view (RC). Environmental sociologists should challenge traditional risk perception and risk communication research approaches by incorporating this interaction element into future research, especially in developing countries.