Ethics statement

The study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of West Virginia University (Protocol #2401909110). No identifiers were collected during this study. A cover letter summarizing the study’s objective and method was used to obtain the participant’s written consent to participate in the research. By initialing at the end of the letter, the participant acknowledged that they had read and understood the study’s purpose, scope, and voluntary nature.

Study site

According to the World Bank, Trinidad and Tobago has a population of 1534937 with a population growth of 0.254 and a life expectancy of 74. Agricultural land accounts for 10.5% of the country’s total land area, and of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Trinidad and Tobago, about 1.07% comes from agricultural activities [32]. In Trinidad and Tobago, the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Fisheries (MALF) champions biodiversity conservation and sustainable food and non-food systems development. It is responsible for delivering integrated services aligned with a changing food and agriculture system [33]. Within the MALF exists an agency founded in 1839 named the Agriculture Society of Trinidad and Tobago (ASTT) that represents all farmers. It is a statutory body within the MALF representing all sectors, accounting for the 32774 farmers [34]. A total of 28442 farmers are located across eight counties in Trinidad and 4332 in the sister island of Tobago. Each county has multiple districts where an extension officer from the MALF is assigned to specific regional districts. An extension officer provides technical information on various areas, from the farmer registration process to agricultural technologies. Tobago is managed by the Division of Agriculture under the Tobago House of Assembly.

Study design

The study is underscored using phenomenology. This approach explored the participants’ experience, capturing their insights and attitudes towards pesticide use and its impact on their health. Interviews were conducted until data saturation. Thirty-two individuals from ASTT and MALF were invited to participate in the study voluntarily. The sample size was determined based on the literature recommendations, suggesting a minimum sample size between 12 and 30 participants as a standard for data [35]. A purposive sampling was used as participants were chosen due to their experience and knowledge in the sector specific to the study’s objective.

The representatives of the MALF and ASTT were interviewed with approval from the Permanent Secretary. A request letter was sent to the Permanent Secretary on February 21^st, 2024, and March 4^th, 2024. All interviews were done face-to-face in person at the various offices of MALF from March 25th to April 12^th, 2024. Participants from ASTT were interviewed from March 5th to March 20^th in person and an online setting. The interviews lasted approximately 30–45 minutes each. In addition, one interview was conducted with a well-established local chemical manufacturer representative. This company was contacted on March 24^th, and the interview was conducted on March 26^th, face-to-face in person. All invitees agreed to participate in the study. All interviews were done privately with no interference.

Data collection

An interview guide (Table 1) was created to assist in collecting data in the interview process.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Interview guide.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327283.t001

Interviewer

The field interviews were conducted by the author, a resident of the study site and a senior lecturer in occupational health and safety (OSH). The interviewer is a male and holds qualifications, namely an MSc in OSH and CertIOSH. He is a trained interviewer familiar with the local culture, language, and safety issues. Before the commencement of the interviews, the participants were informed of the researcher’s professional background and the reasons for conducting the research. They were also notified of the importance of gathering information in the subject area due to the need to influence a healthier worker in a safe environment. A prepared letter was shared with the participants, giving an overview of the study and the protocol number stating the IRB approval. Sufficient time was also spent in the field, gaining more experience with the participants in their settings. The researcher developed an in-depth understanding, enabling the conveyance of details about the site and people, thus lending credibility. The interviews were conducted using a prepared interview protocol and recorded for further use in the data analysis process.

Data analysis

All interviews were audio recorded with permission from the participants. The recordings were uploaded to a secure cloud server and transcribed using an automatic speech recognition system that enables transcription in multiple languages. The transcriptions were manually corrected for spelling and other errors. Then, identifiers such as names of people and specific places were removed from the text. The data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis [36].

The two researchers analyzed the data without predetermined categories, allowing themes to emerge directly from the participants’ responses. This was done by reading and re-reading the interview transcripts, carefully examining the content for recurring words, ideas, and experiences. During this process, initial codes were created to capture patterns observed in the data, such as farmers’ experiences with pesticide use, challenges accessing personal protective equipment, and concerns about health effects. As more transcripts were reviewed, these codes were refined and grouped into broader themes based on their similarities. For example, repeated mentions of discomfort and inconvenience in using PPE were categorized under the theme Barriers to PPE Adoption. After conducting inductive thematic analysis, deductive reasoning [37] was applied in the interpretation phase to contextualize and explain the findings within existing knowledge and literature. This process systematically compared the emerging themes with prior research, theoretical frameworks, and global best practices related to pesticide use, safety regulations, and agricultural occupational health.

Throughout, specific attention was given to the different perspectives of the stakeholders, such as the challenges farmers face with pesticide application, the regulatory and advisory roles of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the role of pesticide manufacturers in ensuring product safety and efficacy.

Participants

A total of 32 interviews were conducted with participants representing both the ASTT and the MALF. A total of 17 participants were MALF Officers, 14 were farmers (ASTT), and 1 was a Technical Officer in a chemical company. Table 2 shows the participants’ characteristics.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Participant characteristics (n = 32).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327283.t002

Themes

Responses from participants reveal several critical themes related to farming practices, chemical usage, and safety measures. Key themes include Barriers to Proper Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), where participants highlight the challenges in adopting safety gear due to tradition, lack of knowledge, and urgency. The theme of Challenges in Safe Chemical Use and Disposal Practices emerges as participants discuss the misuse of chemicals and improper disposal methods that pose environmental risks. Another theme, Health Impacts of Unsafe Chemical Exposure, underscores the serious health consequences, such as cancer and skin diseases, linked to unsafe chemical handling. In Challenges in Farmer Training and Adoption of Safety Practices, participants point out issues with the timing, content, and engagement in training programs, particularly concerning health and safety. Lack of Policies and Monitoring for Farmer Safety and Chemical Use addresses the absence of regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to ensure safe practices. Finally, the theme of Absence of Quality Control and Unsafe Practices in Local Produce reveals concerns about the lack of monitoring for chemical residues in locally sold crops, with some participants favoring imported produce over local due to safety concerns. Together, these themes underscore the need for improved safety practices, training, policy development, and quality control in the agricultural sector.

Theme 1: Barriers to Proper Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Among Farmers

All three stakeholder groups—farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture, and a representative from a pesticide manufacturing company—identified major barriers to the correct use of PPE. Common challenges included entrenched traditional practices, limited awareness of safety measures, inadequate education or training opportunities, and ingrained mindsets that underestimate the risks of pesticide exposure.

Theme 2: challenges in safe chemical use and disposal practices

Participants across all stakeholder groups recognized the misuse of chemicals, improper handling, and environmentally harmful disposal methods as widespread challenges. While farmers primarily spoke about on-the-ground realities, the Ministry of Agriculture officials emphasized the difficulty in monitoring and enforcing proper disposal, and no formal mechanism for chemical container collection was reported by any group.

Theme 3: health impacts of unsafe chemical exposure

Farmers from the focus groups shared firsthand observations and personal experiences illustrating the long-term health repercussions of unsafe pesticide practices. Ministry officials did not offer direct commentary on health impacts in this context, but their general concerns about PPE and disposal indirectly underscore the potential for severe health outcomes.

Theme 4: challenges in farmer training and adoption of safety practices

Farmers and Ministry of Agriculture officials alike indicated that training programs—though occasionally available—are often poorly attended or insufficiently focused on health and safety. The agricultural extension services offer some form of instruction, but both groups reported that farmers’ work schedules, skepticism, and a lack of dedicated health and safety content pose significant barriers.

Theme 5: lack of policies and monitoring for farmer safety and chemical use

Farmers and Ministry of Agriculture officials jointly highlighted the absence of robust, formal policies or regulatory frameworks overseeing chemical usage, storage, and disposal. While extension officers can offer advice, there appears to be no enforcement mechanism or designated authority to monitor compliance.

Theme 6: absence of quality control and unsafe practices in local produce

Both farmers and Ministry officials voiced concerns about the lack of systematic monitoring of chemical residues in locally grown crops. While export-oriented produce undergoes more stringent checks, domestic markets remain largely unregulated, creating potential risks for consumer health, including the farmers themselves.

Summary of results

Across all themes, a consistent finding is the interplay between limited safety awareness, entrenched cultural practices, and the absence of rigorous policy enforcement. Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture officials, and industry representatives all acknowledge that while isolated instances of good practice exist, these are overshadowed by ongoing barriers to effective training, consistent use of PPE, proper chemical handling, and thorough regulatory oversight. Consequently, farmers remain at significant risk of adverse health outcomes, and consumers may face potential hazards from unmonitored chemical residues in locally produced food.

Main findings and contribution

This study makes a significant contribution as the first to explore the impact of pesticide use on farmer health and safety in Trinidad and Tobago, gathering perspectives from farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture. The themes emerging from the findings reveal an interconnected system of challenges that contribute to unsafe pesticide use, inadequate safety measures, and long-term health risks for farmers and consumers. At the core of these challenges lies the absence of a structured policy framework and enforcement mechanisms, which is the root cause of the gaps identified across training, cultural practices, chemical handling, and health outcomes. The lack of formal policies regulating pesticide use, protective measures, and disposal practices results in limited oversight, leaving farmers responsible for their safety decisions without institutional guidance or regulatory accountability.

Ministry of Agriculture officials acknowledge this policy vacuum, emphasizing that there is no regulatory mechanism to monitor compliance, penalize unsafe practices, or ensure adherence to pesticide safety guidelines beyond what is printed on product labels. Farmers continue to operate without clear mandates in an environment where pesticide safety is discretionary rather than obligatory. This absence of enforcement directly affects training and education, as farmers are not required to undergo pesticide safety training. Although the Ministry of Agriculture and other agricultural organizations provide some training opportunities, they are not widely attended due to logistical constraints, such as scheduling conflicts with peak farming hours and a general reluctance among farmers to engage in safety-focused sessions.

Farmers often perceive such training as tedious or unnecessary, particularly when it does not meet their immediate economic needs. Even when training is provided, it is usually limited to crop production techniques rather than comprehensive occupational safety and health education. The lack of a regulatory push for structured training programs results in knowledge gaps and inconsistent safety practices, making farmers more susceptible to adopting risky pesticide-handling behaviors.

Compounding the issue of inadequate education is the persistence of traditional and cultural farming practices, which significantly influence the adoption of safety measures. Many farmers have inherited generational farming techniques prioritizing efficiency and convenience over safety. As a result, the use of PPE is often inconsistent, with some farmers relying on minimal protection, such as using a bandana instead of a respirator or walking barefoot in pesticide-treated fields. Even when PPE is available, farmers frequently report discomfort, inconvenience, or a lack of habit in using protective gear. The resistance to change is further reinforced by a belief that existing practices are sufficient despite increasing evidence of adverse health effects. These entrenched cultural norms are barriers to behavior change, making it difficult for training programs and safety recommendations to take hold. The inadequate use of PPE and the persistence of traditional pesticide-handling methods contribute to unsafe chemical application and disposal practices, leading to direct environmental and health hazards.

Farmers often misapply pesticides, fail to observe pre-harvest intervals, and dispose of empty chemical containers in rivers, fields, or drainage systems. The lack of a structured disposal system exacerbates this issue, as there are no established collection or recycling programs for empty pesticide bottles. Ministry officials express concern over the widespread disposal of hazardous chemicals in the environment, noting that no designated agency is responsible for managing or monitoring the safe handling of pesticide waste. The improper use and disposal of pesticides heighten farmers’ exposure to toxic substances and pose risks to surrounding communities through the contamination of water sources and soil degradation.

Many farmers in the study reported long-term health deterioration among themselves or their peers, attributing these conditions to prolonged pesticide exposure without adequate protection. The health risks are further aggravated by the absence of medical intervention and awareness, as farmers often do not seek medical attention or do not associate their symptoms with pesticide exposure. This lack of recognition of pesticide-related illnesses contributes to continued unsafe practices, creating a cycle of exposure and declining health that remains unaddressed due to weak regulatory oversight.

Beyond individual health risks, these unsafe farming practices also affect food safety and consumer health, mainly due to the absence of quality control and monitoring of pesticide residues in local produce. While export-oriented agricultural products undergo stringent checks, produce intended for local consumption remains largely unregulated. Farmers and ministry officials acknowledge that many farmers do not observe pre-harvest intervals, meaning that pesticide-treated crops are harvested and sold with potentially toxic chemical residues still existing. The lack of enforcement in this area raises significant concerns about public health, as consumers unknowingly purchase and consume food that may contain harmful levels of pesticide contamination. This, in turn, has led to a loss of confidence in locally grown produce, with some farmers themselves opting to buy imported vegetables rather than consume their pesticide-treated crops.

Comparison with the literature

Health risks

Our findings regarding the health impacts of unsafe chemical exposure among farmers reveal a concerning trend of severe health conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and skin disorders, attributed to inadequate safety measures and unsafe practices. This aligns closely with the existing literature, consistently highlighting the adverse health effects of pesticide exposure in agricultural settings [23]. Karunamoorthi et al. report that many farmers are exposed to harmful pesticides, which are often banned in industrialized countries, further compounding health risks [49].

In addition, the literature suggests that the cumulative effects of long-term pesticide exposure can lead to chronic health conditions. For example, Fibriansari et al. note that farmers with prolonged pesticide exposure often do not use PPE, resulting in a decline in their immune function and increased susceptibility to various diseases [50]. This aligns with our findings, where participants reported serious health conditions that may be linked to long-term pesticide exposure without adequate protective measures.

Our study also highlights the safety knowledge and training gap among farmers, highlighting the importance of targeted educational interventions to mitigate health risks. However, some studies suggest that awareness of pesticide hazards does not always translate into safe practices. For instance, Pengpan found that even when farmers are aware of the risks associated with pesticide exposure, they often fail to implement protective measures effectively [51]. This complexity indicates that simply increasing awareness may not be sufficient; practical solutions and behavioral changes are necessary to improve health outcomes among farmers.

Safety training and policy

The findings regarding the ineffectiveness of training and education programs for farmers, particularly concerning the safe use of chemicals, highlight significant barriers to participation and engagement. Despite the efforts of extension officers and organizations to provide training, issues such as inconvenient schedules, perceptions of safety measures as tedious, and reluctance to attend safety-focused sessions persist. This situation calls for a reassessment of training approaches to better align with farmers’ needs. The literature supports these findings, indicating that training programs often fail to achieve their intended outcomes due to similar barriers. For instance, Rahaman et al. emphasize the importance of motivating farmers and extension staff to enhance pesticide safety practices [52]. They argue that training programs will continue to fall short without addressing the underlying barriers to participation, such as scheduling and perceived relevance [52]. Similarly, Tandi et al. note that many farmers lack knowledge about appropriate pesticide management techniques, which can be exacerbated by poorly designed training programs that do not consider farmers’ practical realities [53]. This suggests that considering the farmers’ context and preferences, a more tailored approach to education is essential for improving engagement and compliance with safety measures.

As noted in our study, the absence of safety policies and the need for robust monitoring systems for the safe use of chemicals and farmer health resonates with the literature. Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al. argue for an agricultural concept that emphasizes reducing chemical pesticide use and implementing effective monitoring systems to safeguard human health and the environment [54]. This aligns with the findings that farmers are left to manage risks independently without clear guidelines and enforcement mechanisms, often prioritizing productivity over safety. Furthermore, Wu et al. discuss the need for improved environmental policy regulation and enforcement to address the overuse of agricultural chemicals [55]. They suggest that without adequate policies and monitoring, the risks associated with chemical use will continue to escalate [55]. This is echoed by Jepson et al., who highlight the widespread and severe risks associated with pesticide use, emphasizing the need for an enabling environment that supports sustainable agricultural practices [56].

Food safety and use of toxic chemicals

Our findings regarding the lack of quality control in locally sold produce and the resulting food safety concerns highlight a significant issue in consumer confidence. Participants preferred imported foods, believing them to be safer than locally grown crops, underscoring the need for enhanced quality assurance measures for local crops. This situation is consistent with existing literature that addresses consumer perceptions of food safety and the implications for local agricultural practices. Research by Scarpato et al. emphasizes that consumers are increasingly concerned about food safety, which significantly influences their purchasing decisions [57]. They argue that policy strategies are essential to reassure consumers about the safety of food products [57]. This aligns with our findings, where the lack of routine testing for chemical residues in locally grown crops has diminished consumer trust. The perception that imported goods are safer reflects a broader trend where consumers prioritize safety over local sourcing, as Obayelu et al. noted that health risks associated with toxic pesticide use in vegetable production contribute to consumer hesitance regarding local produce [58].

Moreover, the literature indicates that the absence of quality control measures can lead to significant public health risks. For instance, Xi et al. discuss the increasing concern over food safety incidents and the need for regulatory authorities to implement stringent quality and safety supervision in agricultural production [59]. This finding resonates with our study’s emphasis on the necessity for robust quality assurance measures to ensure that both local and export crops meet safety standards.

Recommendations

The safety concerns identified in our study call for a multi-level intervention, targeting policy reform, education, infrastructure, and monitoring mechanisms. However, it is important to acknowledge that many of these interventions require financial and institutional resources that may not always be readily available, particularly in LMICs where agricultural funding and regulatory capacity are often constrained. Therefore, careful prioritization, phased implementation, and innovative partnerships will be essential to achieving meaningful progress under resource-limited conditions.

Strengthening policy and regulatory frameworks

A critical first step in improving farmer safety is establishing enforceable policies that regulate pesticide use, PPE adoption, and safe disposal practices. National or regional regulations should mandate using PPE when handling pesticides, with specific guidelines for respirators, gloves, and boots. Furthermore, enforcing pre-harvest interval (PHI) compliance through randomized pesticide residue testing in local markets can help ensure that farmers follow recommended waiting periods before harvesting pesticide-treated crops [60,61]. To address the issue of pesticide container disposal, formal chemical disposal guidelines should require manufacturers and distributors to implement take-back programs [62,63], providing designated collection points for used containers. In addition to regulatory measures, a farm safety certification program should be introduced, linking compliance with safety regulations to incentives such as government subsidies, agricultural loans, or tax reductions [64]. This would encourage farmers to adhere to safety protocols while providing economic benefits for their compliance. Strengthening monitoring and inspection units within agricultural extension services is also essential to effectively implement these policies.

Expanding and improving training programs

Training is crucial in enhancing farmers’ awareness and adoption of safe pesticide practices. Mandatory pesticide safety training should be implemented to increase participation, requiring farmers to complete annual sessions before purchasing or using high-risk pesticides. These training sessions should be conducted on-site rather than in classrooms to ensure hands-on learning in real farming environments. Moreover, on-site demonstration programs can give farmers practical exposure to proper pesticide handling, PPE use, and chemical disposal techniques. Farmers who complete training programs should receive subsidized or free [65] PPE kits to incentivize participation further, reducing the financial barrier to adopting protective measures.

Establishing farmer-to-farmer training networks [66] can also enhance knowledge dissemination, wherein lead farmers are trained to educate their peers, fostering community-driven safety awareness. Mobile training units can also be deployed to remote farming areas, ensuring that safety education reaches all farmers, regardless of location.

Addressing cultural and traditional barriers

Many farmers have inherited generational farming methods prioritizing efficiency over safety, leading to the continued reliance on unsafe pesticide application and minimal protective gear. Community influencers and respected local farmers should be engaged as safety advocates to shift ingrained behaviors, reinforcing the importance of protective practices through peer-led initiatives.

Recognizing that farmers may resist abrupt changes, training programs should integrate traditional and modern hybrid solutions, acknowledging existing farming knowledge while introducing practical, science-based safety enhancements. A long-term approach to cultural change should include youth engagement in agricultural safety education, ensuring that the next generation of farmers is better equipped with safety knowledge.

User-centric PPE design

Standard PPE may be uncomfortable in hot, humid climates, leading to non-compliance. Partnering with manufacturers to develop breathable, lightweight PPE suited for tropical conditions can enhance adoption rates. Retail distribution strategies should also be improved by requiring pesticide sellers to bundle PPE with pesticide purchases, ensuring that protective equipment is readily available at the point of sale. Finally, proper PPE use, maintenance, and storage training should be integrated into pesticide safety programs to ensure that equipment is used effectively and remains in good condition.

Limitations

One limitation of our study is that it relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias or selective reporting. Participants may not have fully disclosed unsafe practices or health concerns due to social desirability bias, leading to potential underreporting of issues related to chemical exposure. Additionally, our study focused on a specific group of farmers and Ministry of Agriculture representatives in Trinidad and Tobago, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or contexts with different agricultural practices and regulatory environments. The absence of triangulation with quantitative data or direct observation of farming practices further constrains the study’s ability to verify participants’ accounts.

Protection of human and animal subjects

No human subjects were involved in the project.