Abstract
Escalated pesticide use in Latin America has increased the number of people exposed to these substances. There are controversies about their health risks in rural contexts. This study, conducted 2018–2021, analyzed local perceptions and discourses on pesticide health risks in the Uruguayan agro-city of Guichón. We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with agricultural, health, educational, and social actors. In addition, we visited the city and observed activities related to pesticide use. This study identified two discourses in tension. On the one hand, we observed statements that minimized pesticide risks and avoided responsibility for protecting health, safety, and the environment. These discourses contrast with those from a health-environmental perspective. They focused on several diseases and the loss of fauna, using complaints as the primary response. In conclusion, it is necessary to promote preventive practices in local workplaces, increase municipal control, and involve community-based actors in the analysis of pesticide health risks.
Introduction
In the last 20 years, pesticide use has increased in the southern cone of Latin America, expanding and diversifying the occupational and environmental exposure to these substances. This has led to increased health risk, either due to the proximity of the population to production facilities or direct pesticide handling in work contexts.1,2 In Uruguay, the growing application of pesticides, due to expanded forestry and agriculture, has raised concerns among rural groups and communities.3–5 Some of these concerns focus on the effects of pesticides on health and the environment. Several risks and health harms were perceived by groups exposed to pesticides.6,7
Escalated pesticide use is linked to the advancement of agribusiness as a productive model, which has industrialized production processes, incorporating new technologies and inputs.8,9 In some extensive farming, direct sowing of transgenic seeds and chemical treatment of soil.10,11 This increased the application of pesticides per cultivated hectare. In Uruguay, the importation of these substances rose from 7000 tons in 2002 to 32 000 in 2016. 12 Public policies addressed this increase by regulating applications and promoting individual notification of poinsonings. 13 The preventive measures are an employer's responsibility and are limited to workplaces. 14 This passive monitoring limits aggregate information and public health response to the effects of pesticide exposure in Uruguayan rural contexts. 15
Previous studies in the region indicate that the health effects of these substances are still not fully measured.16,17 In this regard, Augusto 18 argues that weaknesses in health information systems make it difficult to highlight the collective dimension of the problem. Beyond this, at an international level, children, pregnant women, and rural workers have been identified as particularly vulnerable groups.1,2
In Uruguay, exposure to pesticides has gained public visibility in the context of agro-cities. These urban-rural spaces, which support agricultural production, 19 can have 5000‒30 000 inhabitants, in proximity to the chemical substances and mechanical technologies employed. 5 Studies in Brazil,20,21 Argentina,22,23 and Uruguay24,25 describe and analyze the cultural and social dimensions of occupational and environmental pesticide exposure in these agricultural cities. These studies address controversies or ambiguities at the community level about the uses and effects of pesticides. Differences in the prioritization of problems and how they are approached have hindered local monitoring of the impact of pesticides on health.20,24
Given this background, we implemented a multidisciplinary investigation whose purpose was to identify pesticide risks and design participative monitoring strategies. 26 The location is an agro-city called Guichón, Paysandú, Uruguay, where accelerated pesticide use mobilized the local community. More specifically, spontaneous abortions were reported during two summer production harvests. In addition, there were reports of contamination of natural waterways, and fish mortality, as well as poisoning cases.27,28 In 2017, our multidisciplinary study identified controversies regarding the health risks associated with pesticide exposure among local collectives and community leaders. These findings motivated the present investigation, which aimed to answer the following research questions: What types of health risks are perceived by local actors? How did these perceptions relate to their personal experiences or life trajectories? And what practices have been proposed in response to these perceived risks?
Health risk, besides being a measurable entity, is a social construct related to people's context. 29 These collective constructions are defined as the social perception of risks. This definition integrates the beliefs and interpretations that a group or community makes surrounding a hazard. Cultural background, information, and personal experiences are factors in the social construction of risks. 30 The perceptions that we studied included pesticide practices and potential strategies for mitigating associated health risks. 6 These positions or points of view are part of broader discourses and power relationships that provide coherence to social and agricultural practices.7,29,31
In summary, this paper describes and analyzes perceptions of health risks and pesticide practices among local actors in Guichón. We expect to contribute to the design of preventive strategies that consider the characteristics and collective health situation of this agro-city. This article will discuss how these strategies should take into account national regulations and international studies that prioritize environmental and health promotion.
Methods
Case Study and Population
Guichón is a city in northwestern Uruguay with an area of 3.2 km2 and a population of 5039. It is part of the Municipality of Guichón, which has an area of 1670 km2 and is home to 6860 inhabitants. 32 Livestock and extensive agriculture are its main productive activities. The last agricultural census (2011) reported that most of the productive capacity is dedicated to cattle and sheep production, which occupy 40.3% of the rural area. Forestry and cereal production cover 5.1% and 4.8%, respectively. While the area used for livestock has not changed since the previous census (2000), forestry increased by 244.8% and cereals expanded by 544%. 33 Guichón is considered a paradigmatic Uruguayan agro-city 34 because of its distinctive characteristics: population size, urbanized area in a rural context, and a primarily agricultural economy.
To address the research questions, a sample of informants was defined using a qualitative approach. 35 This selection was based on their capacity to “establish” discourses within the community. 36 It was consistent with the categories, purposes, and scope of the study. 37 Those eligible to participate were people residing or working in Guichón, with positions or functions of responsibility, and involved in local situations related to the use of pesticides. For this article, only local actors were included, and this involved 18 people: agronomists (3), farm owners (3), rural workers (3); educational and health sector representatives (3); and members of social and environmental organizations (6). Public policy authorities were analyzed in another article. 38
Dimensions Surveyed and Techniques Used
Perceptions of health risks due to pesticides were studied. Observations were made as to how risks or hazards related to exposure to pesticides were defined with reference to individual, collective, or public policy situations. Considering the social positions from which health risks were enunciated, experiences regarding substances, sources of information used, and perspectives on their purposes in agricultural production were explored. Finally, we investigated perceptions related to pesticide practices; in particular, we studied daily activities to protect, maintain, or promote health while using these substances. Thus, the analysis of the discourses and the dynamics of power relations involves how problems are defined, the position of the actor who enunciates the problem, and the practices that are promoted.31,39
From 2018 to 2020, 15 individual interviews and one group interview with members of an environmental organization were conducted. The dimensions of the study and the participants’ topics of interest were addressed using a semi-structured interview guide. 35 Interviews were recorded with prior consent, and their content was transcribed in Spanish. In addition, regular visits to the agro-city of Guichón, once or twice a month, were made during project execution. This allowed us to take part in activities related to pesticide use: meet farm owners, urban-rural zones, or talks of local groups. These unstructured or descriptive observations were later recorded in a research diary. 40
Data Analysis
The interviews and observation records were analyzed in three stages. A thematic content analysis was conducted during fieldwork. This allowed us to identify keywords, categorize the data, and evaluate the information collected. After the fieldwork, all the interviews and records were coded. This coding made it possible to identify themes, which were then interpreted conceptually according to the defined dimensions of analysis. 41
In turn, the discourses that emerged from the content analysis were explored. For this purpose, we used the approach proposed by Arouca, which is based on the works of Foucault and Althusser. Its aim is to identify the material bases of social discourses. 42 In this study, we analyzed the relationships between health risk perceptions and the community role of local actors surveyed. 7 After completing the analysis, we prepared the report of the results and translated it into English between 2022 and 2023. A professional translator transcribed the manuscript, and two researchers reviewed its content.
Results
Two local discourses were identified regarding health risks due to pesticides in Guichón. We called one set of discourses “productive-minimizing,” and the other was defined as “health-environmental.” The objective of its definition is twofold: to underscore the emphases and spot the contradictions in how local actors perceive the health risks of pesticides. We detail the risk perceptions, social position of enunciation, and pesticide practices for each of these discourses in the delimited territory.
1. Productive-Minimizing Discourses
Perceived Health Risks
First, among the productive-minimizing discourses, the perceptions regarding harm due to pesticides were limited to exceptional or accidental situations. For example, participants described specific cases of burning plants due to irrigation with water containing chemical substances or spraying on land adjacent to productive fields: “There are people who grab the pole [from agricultural sprayer], lift it over the fence, and leave. They kill whatever is on the street. And that's it” (Interview N°6). According to national regulations, farm owners are responsible for accidents. 13 However, this issue was not addressed by these discourses.
Next, we observed some downplaying of the risks related to pesticide exposure in these statements. In this context, it was asserted that the community's perception, or its “fear” regarding the use of pesticides, had led to an oversized “perception” of the magnitude of agro-industrial activity in the area: “Some opinions are exaggerated” (Interview N°15). Second, some forestry managers pointed out that pesticides are not the only risks to which we are exposed daily: “Logically, they are scary, just like a chimney in an industry is scary [Laughter]” (Interview N° 5). From the same rural actors, we identified objections to claims about symptoms or medical diagnoses associated with pesticide exposure (e.g., allergies, early pregnancy losses, poisoning): “I've heard people say that they applied something and then got a headache. But when I check, there's no way they actually had a headache. It's more psychological; they’re somatizing” (Interview N°15).
Finally, a set of statements referred to risks related to the context and public policies. On the one hand, farm owners expressed their discontent regarding local complaints, particularly sanction procedures. Some stated that sanctions were applied to producers without prior notification: “You cannot apply a fine without first notifying me” (Interview N°6). The “social pressure” they receive from the media was also discussed. Another aspect specified by agricultural producers was the scarce presence of municipal authorities providing information to the population. Additionally, an agronomist mentioned that there are difficulties with the oversight of some of the country's existing regulations: “A lot of progress has been made in terms of regulations (…) That's good, but there is little to no oversight” (Interview N° 15).
Experiences and Social Positions of Enunciation
As we previously noted, we studied how the health risks of pesticides were enunciated. This included experiences, information, and perspectives related to the use of these substances. Considering this, productive-minimizing discourses came mainly from agricultural producers or livestock-agricultural, and sellers of agricultural services: application of pesticides, sowing, and harvesting. On the other hand, we identified technical advisors, more specifically agronomists, and management positions in agro-industrial ventures (e.g., forepersons or managers).
The health risks perceived by these actors were reflected in the way pesticides were named. The predominant term was phytosanitary products or pesticides. Some of them were called agrochemicals, including fertilizers. They were distinguished by their type of action: insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. Producers also called them chemicals, products, or chemical compounds (e.g., 2.4-
Another element related to the actor's position was the information sources that people turn to. On the one hand, the role of agronomists was referenced concerning the doses and their risks. However, the professionals interviewed noted that their university education did not address the health risks of pesticides. Those who have received training linked it to the requirements of companies, particularly in the forestry sector. Another source of information is the labels on chemical products: “I respect the labels (…) what the label says is approved” (Interview N°6). Agronomists said that scientific institutions, such as the Faculty of Agronomy and the National Institute of Agricultural Research, as well as agricultural companies, provide information about new agricultural technologies and soil management.
Lastly, in these discourses, several references were made to the role of pesticides in local production. In this sense, agribusiness stakeholders argued that pesticides were indispensable to achieve good productivity levels and reduce costs. Furthermore, the type of production predominating in the city, mainly forestry, had an alleged decisive role in the local economy. Although it is not the sector that requires the most land use, it was identified as a sector that supports the city's economic life: “Almost one hundred and fifty people work there and contribute almost one thousand dollars a month. That is 100‒150 thousand dollars in the economy of Guichón. I think it moves. It moves a lot” (Interview N°5).
Perceptions About Pesticide Practices
When risks were recognized, it was suggested that this was due to the improper use and handling of pesticides. In some interviews, farm owners avoided their responsibility to inform and prevent pesticide risks, 14 blaming those who handled them: “I see risk with people who handle the product without knowing how toxic it is or how to handle it” (Interview N°13). These situations were attributed to other farmers, who were described as “careless.” In this regard, a forest agronomist made the following comment about agriculture: “You go to the agricultural area, and some people are applying pesticides and don’t use gloves, they don’t use masks. They don’t use them” (Interview N°15).
Several references were made to implementing mitigation measures in the territory studied. Many criteria were pointed out for the application of pesticides, among which the control of environmental variables was highlighted, in particular, wind direction and water courses. The owner of a fumigation company, who was working on various productive farms in the area, said: “I am particularly delicate in the sense that I take care of the wind, I take care of the drifts; that is, I try to ensure that there are not too many leaks” (Interview N°6). Another measure mentioned was the use of gloves and masks for personal protection: “When we exterminated ants, at that time we used gloves and a mask” (Interview N°4).
Another pesticide position was related to the regulation of the use of these substances: “Development comes with regulation, not with avoiding. If we avoid it, we become Indigenous again; we die at 10 or 20 years of age” (Interview N°15). In the case of forestry, one international company certifies its production 43 and establishes specific occupational health and safety criteria: “The Finns have regulations regarding occupational safety and environmental safety that are considerably more stringent than national regulations” (Interview N°6). On the other hand, in agriculture, it was suggested that regulation is underway (e.g., soil management plans, restriction of substances). Contradictory assessments were expressed about this issue. Although the need to regulate was underscored, at the same time, the imposition of sanctions and financial penalties generated unease.
Education, training, and advice on pesticide application were central to these statements. Ongoing activities were described, especially in a forest nursery, and actions to be developed in the future. Forestry training covers the different types of applications, the use of personal protective equipment, and what to do in cases of emergency: “All the personnel who conduct applications (…) received our training and knowledge of our procedures” (Interview N°5). Although a direct relationship was not established, education and training were linked to the desire to raise awareness or “become aware.” Information and its circulation were also associated with the possible dialogue between producers and the local community.
Finally, participants mentioned complaints as harmful or counterproductive actions in the search for solutions: “We have to find a way to avoid so much nonsense, but rather solve the issue now” (Interview N°4). Situations were reported in which planting and spraying were stopped due to complaints received. Regarding this, it was asserted that the complaints exaggerate the problem of pesticides in the Guichón area: “I believe that, on the one hand, agrochemicals are not harmless at all, but they are not the bogeyman as some people make them out to be” (Interview N°15).
Health-Environmental Discourses
Perceived Health Risks
The health-environmental discourses described several situations of pesticide exposure. The smell of the substances was perceived as a sign of danger. Workers highlighted the risks of poisoning due to direct contact with the substances. They discussed drift re-entry times after applications and the ineffectiveness of personal protective equipment.
Environmental exposure to these substances was linked to pesticide spraying, especially near schools and waterways (for recreational use or human consumption). It was stated that guidelines regarding wind direction and distances established by the regulations were not respected. This situation became more prominent when the soybean production increased between 2012 and 2013: “Nothing was respected, not even the distance from homes or schools, nothing” (Interview N°7). In several meetings and interviews, reference was made to an incident with a crop-dusting plane in 2009. The hose broke, and it sprayed pesticides on several agricultural properties. The interviews reported the death of livestock and fish and damage to beehives.
Another set of perceptions referred to health and environmental impacts. First, participants mentioned pregnancy loss as a concern. In 2013 and 2014, community representatives monitored spontaneous abortions: 23 and 14 cases were detected, respectively, but the lack of national statistics impeded an assessment of the situation. In addition, specific deaths of young people were reported, in which a link to pesticide exposure was suspected: “In that case, we perceived what happened, but we have no way of proving it” (Interview N°10). Suspected poisoning of residents in the area was also mentioned. Finally, several diseases were believed to be linked to pesticide exposure: thyroid, neurological, and rheumatological problems, respiratory conditions, and skin allergies.
The effects on local fauna were reported among the environmental harms. In particular, reference was made to fish death and the disappearance of native animals: “You don’t see armadillos as much when you are in the countryside. There are fewer and fewer lapwings. There is a reason for that” (Interview N°12). At the agricultural level, beekeepers mentioned the death of bees and the contamination of hives.
Feelings or emotions, such as exhaustion, fear, and concern, were raised in relation to the possibility of poisoning, environmental contamination, and/or the lack of institutional responses. Participants expressed uncertainty regarding the validity of their health claims because they had been told that no links could be established between events and harm. The public expression of concerns was limited by proximity in a small town like Guichón. People say to themselves: “I will not intervene because it could have consequences for me at work or affect the issue of social ties” (Interview N°16). The possibility of losing jobs was also mentioned as a reason for not reporting irregular situations.
Lastly, considerations about political and institutional vulnerabilities were expressed. Some reports highlighted the role of public establishments in the face of the problems mentioned. The local municipality, departmental authorities, and national agricultural agencies were identified. Their lack of involvement in the issue, conflict situations, and bias were noted: “When you sat at the table, you always got the feeling that they were defending the farm owner” (Interview N°9). Regarding the government in general, it was stated that there are no standard guidelines for monitoring pesticide use. In the complaints, the lack of commitment, “sloppiness” in collecting samples, limitations of laboratories, and centralized procedures were highlighted: “It has taken a long time to respond to specific complaints” (Interview N°8). In turn, reference was made to the shortcomings or weaknesses in the care provided by local health services.
Experiences and Social Positions of Enunciation
As we stated with productive-minimizing discourses, perceptions were related to certain local actors and their enunciative positions. Health‒environmental discourses were linked to environmental organizations, beekeepers, radio communicators, individuals related to ecological tourism, and representatives from the educational and health sectors. Some social or environmental sensitivity was noted when they described their life stories or referenced groups or organizations linked to preserving natural resources, the demand for labor rights, or Christian education.
Despite the different roles, there was a consensus in naming the substances as agrotoxins or poison. In one case, it was suggested that the name was adapted depending on the interlocutor; in particular, when communicating with a company, they called it agrochemicals to avoid “friction” and clarifications: “Although in everyday life with peers we call it poison; when you are talking to a company, for example, you say agrochemicals” (Interview N°10).
Some sources of information supported these perceptions. One source was their direct experience or interaction with people at local and regional environmental protection events. Personal study was also mentioned to defend the elements raised: “And then we have to study the issues to go out and defend our position, which is not easy” (Interview N°7). Among the sources of information, reference was made to that provided by research groups and Public Prosecutor's Offices. Thirdly, the Internet search was mentioned non-specifically. It was stated that workers had difficulty obtaining information in the workplace.
Finally, these discourses questioned the type of agricultural development implemented in Guichón. In this regard, reference was made to changes in the use of transgenic soy, the “explosion” of the agribusiness model, and the development of monocultures. Related, the city's environmental heritage and how agricultural and forestry production threaten it were mentioned. In this sense, contradictions were observed between the economic development of the area and the preservation of health and the environment: “Agriculture, forestry, livestock, and others, which are also elements that impact from an economic viewpoint, so to speak, ‘positive’ for the development of a community, but negative because of the quite destructive model type of that nature” (Interview N°9). Along the same lines, these discourses minimized the production model's economic benefits in the area, both because its impacts are not evaluated, and technological progress has shrunk employment at the local level.
Perceptions About Pesticide Practices
One of the strategies identified to address exposure to pesticides was related to ministerial complaints and local and national press reports. This mechanism aimed to preserve health and the environment from the expanded agriculture and consolidated forestry: “Well, the only tool that people sometimes have left is complaints” (Interview N°9). Regarding these complaints, they stated that in 2008, they made the first one to public entities. From 2011 onwards, they began to involve the press in these processes. Of note was the case of a beekeeper being poisoned in a suburban area of the city and the application of pesticides near the water treatment unit. The complaints were made directly by the person involved or through others. Among the latter, the local press and a group of neighbors who demand care for the environment stood out: “Sometimes you are sleeping, and they call you saying, ‘You have a phone call from a woman saying that they were fumigating next to her house’” (Interview N°7).
Some demands were made on the agricultural and business sectors without the same insistence as above. Lack of credibility was expressed regarding their safety practices: “The forestry companies’ slogan is that safety comes first (…) but those who are there, who are seeing it, generate tremendous doubts” (Interview N°10). These demands on the business sector and public policies in general were based on specific local roots, organization, and social sensitivity. In particular, some groups responsible for promoting environmental issues in the area were mentioned: “The establishment of groups here in Guichón started with the soy boom” (Interview N°8). The size of the population was seen as an element that generated awareness and commitment. Agroecological production has also been promoted by organizing events or productive projects.
Without the relevance that they acquire in productive-minimizing discourses, reference was made to preventive measures. Actions already performed or tasks to be done were discussed. Regarding what had already been done, the suspension of aerial spraying with pesticides and the prohibition of certain substances were acknowledged: “And the first times they told us that we were crazy and that we were against work, and then they ended up suspending endosulfan, prohibiting its use” (Interview N°7). As for actions to be implemented, it was suggested that there is a lack of work in preventive matters, especially in the safety practices of productive sectors that apply pesticides, such as beekeeping: “If they applied a product before flowering, the bee would work peacefully, and after flowering, you take the hive, and they would throw it back, and everyone would be happy” (Interview N°12). Finally, among these references, personal protective equipment was also highlighted in contexts where pesticides are handled and applied. Table 1 presents synthetically the main characteristics of both discourses described above.
Perceived Health Risks and Main Characteristics.
Discussion
We observed particularities in local perceptions and discourses on the health risks of pesticides in Guichón during the study period. The minimization and relativization of these risks have been emphasized in the productive-minimizing discourses. The health-environmental responses identified various individual and collective risks: fumigations, poisoning, diseases, loss of fauna, concerns, and fears. These narratives differ in the way the substances were named, the sources of information used, the views on production, and the universe of safety practices employed. In view of this, while productive-minimizing discourses proposed actions that either avoided responsibility for worker protection or were at the bottom of the occupational hazard control hierarchy, denunciation appeared as the most relevant practice in health-environmental discourses. However, when these discourses did address prevention, they talked about suspension of aerial spraying and prohibition of endosulfan, both of which are forms of elimination, which are at the very top of the hierarchy of controls.
First, we analyze those discourses that minimized the risks and hazards of pesticides and evaded their responsibility for health protection. As can be observed, people who were not responsible for risk prevention were blamed, and the mitigation measures promoted by the discourse (namely, PPE) were the least effective in the control hierarchy. 14 In previous research, this phenomenon was described as a defensive strategy. These suggest that in order to tolerate dangerous work processes, farm owners generated collective defensive strategies that relativize, minimize, or deny their risks.6,16,44,45 In Guichón, these strategies were observed in productive-minimizing discourses and involved people who applied or handled pesticides, as well as those who made decisions about the production process (e.g., agricultural engineers, supervisors, and the like). In other words, the defensive strategies went beyond the specific task. It was a transversality strategy in agricultural practices in Guichón, because it was observed among actors with several levels of hierarchies. 46
In turn, other types of discursive strategies were identified in the health-environmental discourses. They identified a series of health, environmental, and social risks. Similar perceptions had already been described in a previous study in another agro-city in northwestern Uruguay. 5 In turn, studies conducted in Brazil 47 and Argentina22,23 report different local critiques of farming practices promoted by agribusiness. This collective discourse that problematizes the effects of pesticides was also identified in Guichón. Foucault 39 stated that problematization takes place when something begins to cause difficulties and requires an intervention. Thus, the indispensable use of pesticides was questioned by some social actors, due to their potential risks to individual and population health.
In the context studied, discourses emerge from different enunciative positions, confirming that the role of the actor in productive relations conditions the viewpoints on the health risks of pesticides.7,31,48 For discursive analysis, this is related to specific power relationships. Arouca 42 indicated that discourses justify and provide coherence to non-discursive practices (e.g., types of crops and substances used). In other words, these discourses aim to influence what agricultural production takes place and how it is done. Rigotto et al. 17 point out that agribusiness, in addition to producing commodities, creates a discourse that sustains it. In the case of pesticides, this discourse seeks to legitimize their use from a pragmatic position. 22
However, this research showed that, alongside the discourse that minimizes the health risks of pesticides, there is another discourse that opposes and confronts it. This was described as a health-environmental discourse, which produces social perceptions that contradict the established ones. Deleuze and Guattari 49 conceptualize it as lines of flight from a micropolitical perspective. In Guichón, a complaint about pesticide poisoning, the preservation of a natural resource, or the promotion of agroecological practices produces discourses that dispute the productive model developed by agribusiness. 8 Research in Ceará, Brazil, indicated that the mobilization against pesticides allowed the creation of alternative social perceptions to the dominant model. 47
Beyond the tensions identified, both discourses agree on the need to regulate and control the risks of pesticide exposure. With different emphases, they point out the importance of evaluating and monitoring the problems detected. To approach this situation from a public policy perspective, community health studies recommend strengthening local or municipal governments.17,20,21 Uruguayan regulations address pesticide risk prevention in workplaces, 14 but policies for community territories are scarce and recent.13,50 This can be reversed by regulating the environmental protection capabilities of municipal governments, as outlined in the Law on Decentralization and Citizen Participation. 51 Thus, the prevention of pesticide health risks for rural communities would not only be the responsibility of employers or centralized authorities.13,14 Once this legal fragility has been overcome,2,17 municipalities would have the necessary resources to assess risks and promote local health and environmental monitoring.19,20
Liu et al. 52 and McKay and Johnson 53 agree that the inclusion of community-based actors – and not only farmers or agronomists – can contribute to creating sustainable and participatory alternatives. They can get involved in environmental risk prevention training and collaborate on local information collection and analysis. 52 Regarding the latter, McKay and Johnson 53 emphasize their familiarity with the territory. In turn, they add that community participation would increase the credibility of social actors in public policy. Although there are no Uruguayan precedents, similar strategies have been implemented in other regional contexts. For example, Peres et al. 6 developed a participatory approach in Brazil to prevent health risks associated with pesticides. Therefore, it is necessary to expand national research on territorial controversies and possible solutions to identified problems.
Limitations
These recommendations should be considered in terms of the time between study execution and dissemination. However, a later study of another Uruguayan agro-city confirmed the existence of conflicting discourses and practices about the health risks of pesticides.54,55 Second, study subjects were selected without delimiting gender, generational, or socioeconomic criteria. As these factors were identified in previous studies about social risk perception,56–58 it is suggested that they be included in future research.
Additionally, this study focused on the ways in which people perceive health risks related to pesticides in a rural area. Considering that national regulations detail the assessment and prevention of chemical risks in workplaces, 14 some of the practices described in productive-minimizing discourses require specific occupational health and safety assessments. 59 These research findings can inform future environmental and occupational health interventions in Guichón workplaces. Local assessments of occupational pesticide risk need to consider the following aspects: What hazards are presented by application equipment and empty pesticide containers? How is information provided to workers who handle or are exposed to pesticides? Is the training that applicators receive based on workplace risk assessment? Does personal protective equipment comply with the recommendations in the pesticide safety data sheets, especially regarding gloves and masks?
Finally, as mentioned, the methodological design allowed us to identify the discursive disputes present in a Uruguayan territory. For this reason, we also could not determine what occurred in more specific social spaces, such as schools and rural homes. A previous national study identified that people take action when the health effects of pesticides exceed “tolerable” thresholds. 25 The discourses described indicate that it would be relevant to deepen research about the connection of pesticides to agricultural and trade policies, in agreement with previous studies. They point out that the pesticide companies’ research was used to defend its application, 22 and these companies have contributed to establishing perceptions that minimize the effects of pesticides on human health. 60
Conclusion
The contradiction between productive-minimizing and health-environmental discourses enabled us to understand the perceptions and viewpoints of the main local actors in the agro-city of Guichón. The articulation of social risk perception studies with a discursive and community approach expanded the scope of the research on the subject. Pesticide risk perceptions are part of broader discourses and not only specific to individuals or groups. Conversely, this approach has generated visibility for alternative perceptions and discourses that have been partially investigated.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
