Article

Agricultural exposures and gastric cancer risk in Hispanic farm workers in California.

Cancer Registry of Central California, 1320 E. Shaw Ave., Suite 160, Fresno, CA 93710, USA.
Environmental Research (Impact Factor: 3.95). 07/2007; 104(2):282-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2006.11.008
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous studies have indicated that farm workers may be at increased risk of gastric cancer. Meta-analyses, ecological, case-control, and cohort studies suggest that some aspects of the agricultural environment may be implicated in the elevated risk. Hispanic farm workers in California are exposed to a multitude of potentially toxic substances in the work site, including excessive sunlight, fertilizers, diesel fumes, and pesticides. A previous analysis of a cohort of California farm workers who had been members of a farm labor union, the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) found a proportionate cancer incidence ratio for stomach cancer of 1.69 when using the California Hispanic population as the standard. The aim of the current study was to further evaluate associations between gastric cancer and the types of crops and commodities UFW members cultivate and the associated pesticide use as recorded by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). We conducted a nested case-control study of gastric cancer embedded in the UFW cohort and identified 100 cases of newly diagnosed gastric cancer between 1988 and 2003. We identified 210 control participants matched on age, gender, ethnicity, and who were known to be alive and resident in California up to the date of the cases' diagnosis. Both stratified analyses and unconditional logistic regression were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Work in the citrus industry was associated with increased gastric cancer (OR=2.88; 95% CI=1.02-8.12) although no other specific crops or commodities were associated with this disease. Working in areas with high use of the phenoxyacetic acid herbicide 2,4-D was associated with gastric cancer (OR=1.85; 95% CI=1.05-3.25); use of the organochlorine insecticide chlordane was also associated with the disease (OR=2.96; 95% CI=1.48-5.94). Gastric cancer was associated with use of the acaricide propargite and the herbicide triflurin (OR=2.86; 95% CI=1.56-5.23 and 1.69, 95% CI=0.99-2.89, respectively). Gastric cancer in California Hispanic farm workers is associated with work in the citrus fruit industry and among those who work in fields treated with 2,4-D, chlordane, propargite, and trifluin. These findings may have larger public health implications especially in those areas of the country where these pesticides are heavily used and where they may be found in the ambient atmosphere.

0 Followers
 · 
92 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Esophageal and gastric cancer generally have a poor prognosis and may share common risk factors. It has been demonstrated that the pesticide usage may contribute to development of many cancer types. In this study, the relation between amount of pesticides used in agriculture and esophageal and gastric cancer incidence was researched. Materials and Methods: Findings from the data bank of the Ministry of Health Provincial Health Directorate Cancer Records Center between the years of 1998-2010 were used. All patients who were diagnosed with gastric and esophageal cancer histopathologically were included. Data for annual pesticide usage were obtained from Provincial Agriculture Directorate for the same time period. Statistical analysis was performed using the Spearman test. Results: One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six patients were involved in the study, 1,233 males (65%) and 663 females (35%), 230 with esophageal cancer (12.1%) and 1,666 with gastric cancer (87.9%). No statistically significant relation was apparent between pesticide amount used and esophageal cancer (p: 0.87). Conclusions: In our study, there was no relationship between pesticide usage and esophageal or gastric cancer. However, the time between pesticide usage and cancer development was not known, qualifying the comparison.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 03/2014; 15(6):2821-3. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.6.2821 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Farmers, policy makers, and other stakeholders seek tools to quantitatively assess pesticide risks for mitigating pesticide impacts on ecosystem and human health. This paper presents the Pesticide Use Risk Evaluation (PURE) decision support system (DSS) for evaluating site-specific pesticide risks to surface water, groundwater, soil, and air across pesticide active ingredient (AI), pesticide product, and field levels. The risk score is determined by the ratio of the predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) to the toxicity value for selected endpoint organism(s); except that the risk score for the air is calculated using the emission potential (EP), which is a pesticide product property for estimating potential volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions by California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA). The risk scores range from 0 to 100, where 0 represents negligible risk while 100 means the highest risk. The procedure for calculating PEC in surface water was evaluated against monitoring data for 41 pesticide AIs, with a statistically significant correlation coefficient of r=0.82 (p<0.001). In addition, two almond fields in the Central Valley, California were evaluated for pesticide risks as a case study, where the commonly acknowledged high-risk pesticides gained high risk scores. Simazine, one of the most frequently detected pesticides in groundwater, was scored as 74 (the moderate high risk class) to groundwater; and chlorpyrifos, one of the frequently detected pollutants in surface water, was scored as 100 (the high risk class) to surface water. In support of pesticide risk quantitative assessment and use of reduced-risk pesticide selection, the PURE-DSS can be useful to assist growers, pesticide control advisors, and environmental protection organizations in mitigating pesticide use impacts on the environment.
    Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 06/2012; 82:104-13. DOI:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2012.05.019 · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source