Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Centre for Chronic Disease Control, New Delhi, India.
Lancet Planet Health. 2022 Apr;6(4):e310-e319. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00062-6.
The use of pesticides in agriculture has been associated with the destruction of biodiversity and damage to human health. A marked reduction in pesticide use is urgently required globally, but whether this can be achieved rapidly and at scale is unclear. We aimed to assess whether government-legislated and funded organic farming training in Andhra Pradesh, India, reduced pesticide use by farmers and sales of pesticides by pesticide retailers.
We did a cross-sectional survey between Aug 11 and Nov 26, 2020, among farmers and pesticide retailers in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh (India). We assessed the impact of the Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) programme, which aims to transition 100% of the agricultural land of Andhra Pradesh (population approximately 49 million, 6 million of whom are farmers) to organic farming practices by 2030. We did cross-sectional phone interview surveys of farmers and face-to-face surveys of pesticide retailers. We used multivariable Poisson regression models to estimate relative risks (RRs) and logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs).
962 farmers were invited to participate, of whom 894 (93%) consented (709 conventional farmers and 149 APCNF farmers). 47 pesticide retailers were invited to participate, of whom 38 (81%) consented. APCNF farmers had practised APCNF for a median of 2 years (IQR 1-3). APCNF farmers were less likely to use pesticides than conventional farmers (adjusted RR 0·65 [95% CI 0·57-0·75]), although pesticide use remained high among both APCNF and conventional farmers (73 [49%] of 148 APCNF farmers vs 695 [99%] of 700 conventional farmers; p<0·0001). APCNF farmers had lower pesticide expenditures than conventional farmers (median US$0 [IQR 0-170] for APCNF farmers vs $175 [91-281] for conventional farmers; p=0·0001). Increased frequency of meeting with agricultural extension workers was associated with reduced pesticide use among ACPNF farmers. Seven (18%) of 38 retailers reported a decrease in sales of pesticides in the past 4 years; no difference in the odds of reporting a decrease in pesticide sales in the past 4 years was identified between APCNF retailers and conventional retailers (OR 0·95 [95% CI 0·58-1·57]).
Despite a major government drive for organic agriculture, about half of APCNF farmers continued to use pesticides and no impact on pesticide sales at local retailers was observed. A combination of policy instruments (eg, bans on highly hazardous pesticides), not solely training for farmers, might be needed to eliminate pesticide use in agriculture.
Scottish Funding Council and UK Research and Innovation.
农业中使用农药会破坏生物多样性并损害人类健康。全球迫切需要大幅减少农药使用，但能否迅速大规模实现这一目标尚不清楚。我们旨在评估印度安得拉邦政府立法和资助的有机农业培训是否减少了农民的农药使用和农药零售商的农药销售。
我们于 2020 年 8 月 11 日至 11 月 26 日在安得拉邦库尔努尔区（印度）对农民和农药零售商进行了横断面调查。我们评估了安得拉邦社区管理自然农业（APCNF）计划的影响，该计划旨在到 2030 年将安得拉邦 100%的农业土地（约 4900 万人口，其中 600 万是农民）过渡到有机农业实践。我们对农民进行了横断面电话访谈调查，对农药零售商进行了面对面调查。我们使用多变量泊松回归模型估计相对风险（RR），并使用逻辑回归模型估计优势比（OR）。
邀请了 962 名农民参加，其中 894 名（93%）同意（709 名常规农民和 149 名 APCNF 农民）。邀请了 47 名农药零售商参加，其中 38 名（81%）同意。APCNF 农民从事 APCNF 工作的中位数为 2 年（IQR 1-3）。与常规农民相比，APCNF 农民使用农药的可能性较小（调整后的 RR 0.65 [95%CI 0.57-0.75]），尽管 APCNF 和常规农民的农药使用仍然很高（148 名 APCNF 农民中有 73 名[49%]，700 名常规农民中有 695 名[99%]；p<0.0001）。APCNF 农民的农药支出低于常规农民（APCNF 农民的中位数为 0 美元[IQR 0-170]，常规农民为 175 美元[91-281]；p=0.0001）。与 APCNF 农民相比，与农业推广人员开会的频率增加与农药使用减少有关。在过去的 4 年中，有 7 名（18%）零售商报告农药销售额下降；APCNF 零售商和常规零售商在过去 4 年报告农药销售额下降的可能性没有差异（OR 0.95 [95%CI 0.58-1.57]）。
尽管政府大力推动有机农业，但大约一半的 APCNF 农民仍在继续使用农药，而且当地零售商的农药销售没有受到影响。可能需要结合政策工具（例如，禁止高度危险的农药），而不仅仅是对农民进行培训，才能消除农业中的农药使用。
苏格兰资助委员会和英国研究与创新。
