No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Prevalence of Disabilities in the U.S. Farm Population
Abstract
Health limitations and disabilities among farmers, farmworkers, and farm family members may have implications on their day-to-day activities and well-being as well as the farm business, but little is known about the extent of these limitations and disabilities. Using the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files from 2008 to 2016, the following questions were examined: what is the prevalence of disability in the overall farm population; what is the prevalence of health difficulties and disability among farmers, farmworkers, and farm family members; and do farmer and farmworker disability prevalence rates vary over time, by state, gender, or race/ethnicity. Finally, the effects of demographic factors were estimated on the likelihood that farmers and farmworkers might experience a disability. The findings of this study indicated that the disability rate in the farm population was 12.9%. On average, almost two out of ten farmers (19.2%) and nearly one out of ten farmworkers (9.0%) had a disability. One in 25 farm family children (4.2%, ages 6 to 17) and slightly more than two in 25 farm family adults (10.5%) had a disability. Keywords: Cognitive difficulty, Disability, Farm children, Farmer, Farm household, Farmworker, Hearing difficulty, Independent living difficulty, Physical difficulty, Self-care difficulty, Vision difficulty.
... Yet, agriculture continues to be the most dangerous occupational sector in the United States. 1 On average, one in 25 farm family youth (4.2%, ages 6-17 years) have a disability. 2 The environmental and occupational hazards within this sector are numerous. Among working youth (<18 years-of-age), injuries and fatalities are responsible for an estimated cost to society of $1 billion and $420 million per year (2005), respectively. ...
... Fatal Non-fatal Agricultural and garden machinery (n = 20, 49%) Caught in or compressed by equipment (n = 5) unsupervised (1) worker (2) worker (1) were the four most common contributing factors associated with tractor injury incidents. Farm youth often operate tractors and perform work that is beyond their physical and cognitive abilities to carry out safely, and also operate or ride along in tractors with cabs, some of which were crushed flat in rollovers 34 In the United States, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, youth 14 and 15 years-of -age can legally operate tractors over 20 PTO horsepower for hire if they have completed a tractor and machinery certification training course. ...
Background: The hazardous nature of the agricultural environment, reflected in the numerous injuries and deaths to children who live, work and play on farms, coupled with the lack of a comprehensive national surveillance system in the United States, highlights the need for making the best use of publicly available youth agricultural injury data.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe a 3-year collection of youth agricultural injuries using the publicly available injury and fatality data from AgInjuryNews.org and present recommendations for future injury prevention strategies.
Methods: Data were obtained from AgInjuryNews.org, a web-based collection of U.S. news reports of agricultural injuries. We analyzed cases from 2015 to 2017 for youth aged 0–17. We classified injuries as occupational and non-occupational related, based on the Farm and Agricultural Injury Classification (FAIC) code. Each case was also coded for source and event using the Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS).
Results: Of the 348 injury reports reviewed, 51% were fatal, and about one-third of the victims were 6 years old or younger. Most injuries were non-occupational, and the most frequent injury sources were vehicles (includes tractors and all-terrain vehicles) and machinery. Youth operators, extra riders, roadway operations, and unsupervised youth playing near or in a worksite were four key contributing factors associated with vehicle and machinery related injuries.
Conclusions: This study reaffirms that youth agricultural-related injuries and fatalities are still a persistent problem in the United States. The hypothesis generating AgInjuryNews system can provide more current data than traditional surveillance datasets as a tool for understanding the sources of youth agricultural injuries, monitoring injury trends, and informing policy efforts and prevention strategies. Future studies should continue to explore and evaluate the comprehensiveness of this system’s data and the impact of its dissemination, as well as similar rural health informatics solutions for integration into sustainable interventions that can be customized and delivered domestically and abroad.
... The results around suicide endorsement in the scenario of terminal disease require more attention against the background of literature around physical health for individuals in farming/ranching occupations. People in farming/ranching industries have a greater prevalence of several physical health problems than the general population [78], including lung disease [21,24], chronic pain, arthritis [22], and several forms of cancers [51], including skin, stomach, and brain [79]. Pesticide usage has been associated among farmers with thyroid cancer [80] and lung cancer [81]. ...
Introduction
Suicide acceptability beliefs must be considered when evaluating interventions to prevent suicide, as such beliefs can reveal cultural sanctions associated with suicide and suicidal behaviors and thoughts. Compared to the general US population, farmers/ranchers have an elevated suicide rate, requiring culturally competent interventions. This analysis investigated whether farmers and workers in agricultural-related industries differ from the general U.S. population in suicide acceptability levels.
Methods
Cross-sectional General Social Survey (GSS) data were combined from years 2000 to 2022. Four yes/no items assessing whether respondents thought an individual should be able to decide to end their life amid four negative life scenarios were used to define suicide acceptability or endorsement. U.S. Census Bureau industry and occupational codes were used to delineate occupations. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational level, survey administration year, and religiosity level were covariates for multiple logistic regression analyses. Among 18,191 respondents to the GSS, 167 people worked in farming/ranching roles, including 74 farmers/ranch operators and 93 farm/ranch workers.
Results
In unadjusted models, individuals in farm-related occupations had a lower prevalence than the general US adult population of sanctioning suicide if facing an incurable disease. Yet, suicide endorsement beliefs showed no statistically significant differences between farmers/ranchers and the general population after demographic factors were included in the model. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, and education were significant predictors of suicide acceptability, p < 0.01. The prevalence of farmer/ranch operators identifying as very or moderately religious was significantly higher than that of farm/ranch workers and the general population, p < 0.05. The sample identifying as non-religious had higher odds of sanctioning suicide when faced with an incurable disease (aOR 5.980, 95%CI 5.235–6.829), bankruptcy (aOR 3.281, 95%CI 2.791–3.857), having dishonored their family (aOR 3.215, 95%CI 2.732–3.784), or becoming tired of living (aOR 3.660, 95%CI 3.209–4.175).
Conclusion
The present results showed that farmers’/ranchers’ acceptability of suicide was not distinct from the general US population in multivariable models. However, given their disproportionately high suicide rate, they require customized outreach and interventions. Further research may elucidate how religiosity, demographic factors, and beliefs about suicide and religion impact interventions to prevent suicide for individuals working in farming/ranching.
... However, there are significant challenges in accessing even simple data such as the number of incidents at work. [120]) found that similar neighbouring countries have shown over ten-fold differences in agricultural accident rates, raising questions about the accuracy of the reporting of accidents in agriculture. Lack of uniform data collection and reporting systems is one of reasons. ...
Ensuring the well-being of farmers, their families, farmworkers, and that of their communities is high on the agenda of governments and policy makers in OECD countries. The quality of agricultural jobs (e.g. working conditions) and quality of life aspects such as environmental quality, health, depopulation of rural areas, isolation, crime, discrimination, and access to knowledge together determine the well-being of those active in the agricultural sector. Relevant policy design has tended to be hampered by serious data gaps. By focusing on different dimensions of well-being, this paper proposes a framework for social issues in agriculture to identify cross-cutting challenges. Seven policy examples, covering diverse social issues such as mental health, developing social connections in isolated rural areas, and inclusiveness of Indigenous Peoples and those with disabilities, confirm the need to look beyond traditional sectoral policies and to address social issues from a broader policy perspective. Only a multipronged approach can successfully remove the barriers that hinder opportunities for all farmers and their communities.
... 12 Farmers and ranchers commonly report health conditions such as chronic pain, hearing loss, and/or permanent disability which may also increase risk of suicide. 13,14 Individuals engaged in agricultural production experience unique, occupational stressors and negative life events that threaten their mental health, including inconsistent work schedules, fluctuating commodity prices, shrinking labor pools, uncertain government policies, and unpredictable environmental conditions. [15][16][17][18][19] State-specific analyses, while becoming dated, have suggested farmers die by suicide at higher rates than individuals in other occupations. ...
Background:
Suicide is among the top 10 causes of premature death in the United States. This study provides details on farmer and rancher suicide decedents, including demographic information, mental health status, history of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and circumstances associated with death.
Methods:
Data for this study were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Violent Death Reporting System Restricted Access Database for the years 2003-2018. Descriptive statistics and adjusted odds ratios are presented for farm and nonfarm populations in addition to farm populations by age groups and sex.
Results:
This study found that almost half of the farmer suicide decedents were over 65 years old. Firearms were the most widely used method for farmers and ranchers regardless of age and sex. Young farmers and ranchers that died by suicide were more likely to have had relationship problems and older farmers and ranchers that died by suicides were more likely to have had a physical health problem. Male farmer and rancher suicide decedents were more likely to die by firearm than females, and female farmer and rancher suicide decedents were likely to have resided in a small metropolitan area, however, due to small numbers and suppression in the data, most sex comparisons were not able to be presented.
Conclusions:
While no clear risk factor for suicide among farmers and ranchers emerged, results underscore the complex nature of suicide and the need for multifaceted, culturally competent interventions and campaigns that address suicide risk and prevention at the individual and community levels.
... 1 In recent years, greater attention has been given to identifying, measuring, and understanding social sustainability aspects of farming including issues impacting farmers' quality of life and wellbeing. 2,3 Despite a general perception that farming is a healthy occupation, farmers in many countries have been found to have relatively unhealthy lifestyles resulting in high levels of cardiovascular disease and early mortality. 4,5 In addition, farmers and farm workers have been found to experience high levels of stress and relatively low levels of wellbeing, two key indicators of occupational social sustainability. ...
The demands of modern farming can place substantial stress upon the farmer, adversely impacting their wellbeing. This study identifies both the prevalence of stress and assesses the demographic, farm, and social characteristics that impact the incidence of stress. We report the results of a survey of a nationally representative sample of farm enterprises in Ireland undertaken in association with the Teagasc National Farm Survey (NFS) in 2018, which saw 736 questionnaires completed by farm operators. Frequency analysis is used to report the primary sources and prevalence of stress. A probit model is developed identifying and quantifying the factors that impact the incidence of stress. There were 57% of farmers who reported experiencing stress resulting from their farm work. Key sources of stress included “poor weather”, (47%), “workload” (32%) and “financial” concerns (28%). The results of the probit model establish that the effect of age on the incidence of stress is significant, positive, and non-linear, indicating as farmers get older they are more likely to experience stress but at a declining rate. Operating a sheep farm system, as opposed to any other type of farm system, reduces the probability of stress. Working off-farm also reduces the probability of stress by 0.097, other things being equal. The findings highlight variance in the levels of stress reported by farmers by age and farm system, and consequently, the need to develop targeted supports that take consideration of differences within the population of farmers and farm enterprises.
This paper builds on prior critical scholarship on Agriculture 4.0—an umbrella term to reference the utilization of robotics and automation, AI, remote sensing, big data, and the like in agriculture—especially the literature focusing on issues relating to equity and social sustainability. Critical agrifood scholarship has spent considerable energy interrogating who gets what, how decisions get made, and who counts as a “stakeholder” in the context of decision making, questions relating to distributive justice, procedural justice, and representative justice, respectively. Less attention, however, has been paid in this literature to the subject of recognition justice. Recognition justice asks the question, “Who are subjects of justice?” That query, however, is easily to oversimplify. As subjectivity is neither monolithic nor fixed, implied in these discussions are deeper questions having to do with the characteristics of one’s subjectivity that deserve moral recognition. This act of translation, from justice-in-theory to justice-in-practice, also complicates the evaluation of whether Agriculture 4.0 platforms are just, or not. These recognition justice tensions are explored by leveraging qualitative data collected through forty-two face-to-face interviews with individuals on farms located in the US states of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming who utilize these platforms. The study design intentionally oversampled for persons with disabilities, which highlights another distinguishing characteristic of the paper relative to critical Agriculture 4.0 scholarship. In addition to exposing certain ableist assumptions in these discussions, the sampling technique proved invaluable for interrogating how we think about labor, work, and leisure in agriculture. The paper specifically discusses how Agriculture 4.0, for example, shapes conceptions of what it means to be “able to work,” “willing to work,” “hard working,” etc.
In the US agriculture (including ranching) is among the most dangerous industries and it is the only one where children of any age are permitted in the worksite. Whether working or not, children are at risk of serious injury or death when present among the many hazards associated with agricultural work. In most cases the proximate cause of a traumatic incident involving a child (<18 years) is an adult's choice to allow the child's presence in a high-risk situation. Yet, little is known about the legal repercussions for a responsible adult when such events occur. With an overarching goal to enhance the culture of safety for children in agricultural settings, this project includes three phases: (1) identification and collection of public records and news reports regarding legal action following a childhood agricultural injury or fatality; (2) analysis of the proposed or imposed legal responses following these agricultural injuries and fatalities; and (3) development of recommendations for public agencies responding to events that lead to a criminal complaint or the imposition of non-criminal child welfare or other civil measures. This paper describes the project's mixed methods study design that yielded extensive details on 12 legal cases as well as perspectives from key informants on the strengths and limitations of legal responses to child endangerment on farms. Integration and analyses of data from quantitative and qualitative sources will be used to generate recommendations, including guidelines and protocols, for key stakeholder groups.
This study investigates the impact of health insurance coverage and participation in government programs-counter-cyclical, conservation, and risk management programs-on off-farm labor allocation decisions of U.S. farm-operator households. Using household-level data of family farms from the 2015 Agricultural Resource Management Survey, this study employs a simultaneous probit estimation method to estimate the empirical model. Results show that U.S. farm-operator households with employer-sponsored health insurance coverage are associated with being14 percent more likely to work off the farm. Secondly, off-farm work by farm families is associated with increasing health insurance coverage by 4 percent. Results also show a negative and significant effect of counter-cyclical, conservation, risk management payments on U.S. farm-operator households' off-farm work decisions.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) AgrAbility Program was established as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. It functions through partnerships between land grant universities and nonprofit disability organizations to improve the independence and quality of life of ranchers and farmers with disabilities. This article reports on analyses of the first 25 years of demographic data from clients served by funded state AgrAbility projects.
Between 1991 and 2016, State or Regional AgrAbility Projects (SRAPs) provided information, education, and service annually to an estimated average of 490 new clients for a total of 11,754 new clients. New clients’ average age was 52.1 with 75.1% male. Primary causes of reported disabilities were chronic nonincident-related disabilities (41.7%), non-agricultural incidents (32.2%), and agricultural incidents (19.5%). Typically AgrAbility served clients for one to 74 months (M = 14.85 months), because of the severity of their disabilities, the deterioration of their situation, and the years it sometimes took to assist them in reaching their goals. Combining new, ongoing, reopened, and closed case reports, SRAPs served approximately 1,190 clients annually on average. The average age of new, ongoing, reopened, and closed case reports was 52.7 with 78.0% male.
Data collection, analyses, and reporting of client data presented a means of providing program accountability and of helping guide future programming efforts. Findings were used by stakeholders, policymakers, and decision-makers to justify the continued inclusion of the AgrAbility Program in the 2018 USDA Farm Bill.
The agricultural industry has been identified as one of the most hazardous industries in developed countries. The main purpose of this paper was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of agricultural accidents (or injuries) in Taiwan during the period of 2009 to 2018. The occupational accident rates (per 1,000 farmers employed) in Taiwan’s agricultural industry showed a decreasing trend over the past decade from 1,486 in 2009 to 1,053 in 2018. This trend could be attributed to the joint-cooperation efforts of the industrial, official, academic, and non-profit parties under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) revised in 2013. Although the occupational accident, disability, and other injury rates in all non-agriculture industries were higher than those in the agricultural industry during this period, the fatality rates in the agricultural industry were higher than those in all industries. Finally, some inter-ministerial measures on occupational safety and health issues in the agricultural industry for preventing agricultural accidents or injuries were recommended in the paper.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.