Introduction

Meeting the food demand of the ever-growing world population requires an effective and efficient agricultural system that can enhance productivity and produce sufficient food [1]. To boost productivity, various agricultural inputs are utilized, including improved seeds and agrochemicals, such as pesticides and fertilizers [2]. Over the past five decades, the global annual fertilizer consumption has surged to 206 million metric tons in 2024 [3]. The use of pesticides has increased productivity by one-third. Without pesticides, the production of fruits, vegetables, and cereals would fall by 78%, 54%, and 32%, respectively. In 2021 alone, the world used 3.54 million tons of pesticide active ingredients [4]. Since 2003, there has been a notable increase in the use of agrochemicals in Ethiopia [5]. The Ethiopian government imported 1.7 million tons of fertilizer in 2023, costing over $ 1 billion [6]. The percentage of crop area fertilized rose from 25% in 2003 to 60% in 2019. Similarly, the amount of fertilizer used per hectare increased from 22 kg in 2003–110 kg/hectare in 2019 [7]. Likewise, there has been a significant rise in pesticide use in Ethiopia [8]. The annual amount of pesticides imported to Ethiopia between 2016 and 2020 was close to 18,000 MT [9]. Ethiopia relies on importing agrochemicals, which places a heavy burden on end users due to price hikes and the national foreign currency reserve [10].

Agricultural inputs should contain adequate ingredients to achieve the desired outcomes. Agro-chemicals with fewer active ingredients cannot effectively reduce pests or weeds [11,12]. One reason for the deficiency of active ingredients in agricultural inputs is adulteration. Fertilizer adulteration may include the addition of sand, dirt, or salt to fertilizer bags. Similarly, pesticides can be adulterated by adding water [12]. Adulteration also includes the use of low-quality raw materials during the active ingredient production or formulation, or low-quality packaging materials [13]. According to [12], concrete evidence does not support the claims of adulteration of mineral fertilizer. However, adulteration is common in chemical pesticides. Counterfeiting is also a significant problem with agrochemicals. In counterfeiting, fertilizer bags without any fertilizing agents can be sold as fertilizer. In addition, only water or non-pesticide agents can be sold as a pesticide.

Crops treated with adulterated agrochemicals will have their growth adversely affected. Adulteration of both fertilizers and pesticides makes them ineffective and mainly affects economic profit in many ways. Applying a fertilizer or a pesticide with a less active ingredient requires a reapplication, which incurs additional cost. The productivity will also be compromised, resulting in the production of low yields per unit area [12]. The undesirable compounds added to the products could also threaten human health, the environment, and the economy [13,14]. The trade in counterfeit pesticides has significant negative economic impacts on governments, affecting sales, revenue, and employment. In 2020, illegal pesticides caused a 2.4% reduction in authentic pesticide sales in Europe [15]. The estimated global loss due to counterfeit products is 5.4 billion USD [13,16]. According to an earlier report [17], close to a third of pesticides sold in developing countries were below the international quality standard, attributed to the poor production and formulation, inadequate selection of chemicals, and a weak quality control system. This poses a threat to human health and the environment.

Due to the slow verification and registration process of new agricultural inputs like pesticides, the presence of older and harmful pesticides is very likely in many developing countries. Multinational companies often offer older pesticides, which have already recovered their development costs, at lower prices, making them appealing to low-income countries. Products that are banned in the EU are being exported to developing countries due to less strict regulations. Additionally, issues such as adulterated pesticide imports and the illegal blending and distribution of local pesticide variants have emerged, enabling the sale of cheaper products to farmers [16].

Agrochemical adulteration occurs at various stages of the supply chain, involving manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Understanding the awareness of the user, the key stages where the adulteration occurs, the aspects of the adulteration, and the impacts in the sector is the first step in the prevention. Users’ understanding can play a crucial role in avoiding adulterated products, which ultimately leads to reduced acts of adulteration, along with strategies to mitigate the problem. Therefore, this study aimed to survey the perspectives of farmers and other agricultural stakeholders on the status of agrochemical adulteration and its impacts on the agriculture sector.

Materials and methods

Sample size and sampling method

The sample size was determined using Cochran’s formula

Where  = sample size for an infinite population

Z = Z-score (1.96 for 95% confidence level)

p = estimated proportion of population (0.5 if unknown)

e = margin of error (0.05)

N = population size (98,280)

A total of 384 respondents participated in the study, comprising 18 development agents working in the selected kebeles (3 per kebele), 12 workers from the general agriculture farmers’ cooperatives (2 per kebele), and 354 farmers. The respondents were above 18 years of age and farmers/DAs/workers of a farmers’ cooperative. The kebeles in the district were initially divided into two groups based on their climatic conditions, Dega and Woinadega. Three kebeles from Dega (Bekeka fi Kore Odo, Geba Robi, and Wolmera Choke) and three kebeles from Woindadega (Geresu Seda, Asgori, and Nano Suba) were randomly selected. The number of respondents/households was predetermined based on the population at each kebele. Respondents were selected systematically by walking through residential areas and selecting houses at random, every fifth house for households close to each other and every 3^rd house when households are scattered. In locations where households were widely scattered, farmers were interviewed as they were encountered in their homes along the direction of the data collector’s walking route. A total of 73, 59, 45, 67, 31, and 79 respondents were selected from Wolmera Choke, Geba Robi, Bekeka fi Kore Odo, Nano Suba, Asgori, and Geresu Seda, respectively. The data collection started on January 4^th, 2025, and was completed on March 29, 2025.

Result

Farmers

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

A total of 354 farmers participated in the survey across six Kebeles: Asgori, Bekeka fi Kore Odo, Geba Robi, Geresu Seda, Nano Suba, and Wolmera Choke. The number of female participants was lower than that of male participants. Female participants accounted for only 13% (47/354), whereas male participants accounted for 87% (307/354). Respondents’ ages were classified into four groups, with the majority falling within the 40–49 age range (38%, 136/354), followed by the 30–39 age group (34%, 121/354). The youngest age group, 20–29, and the oldest group, 50–59, represented 7% (25/354) and 20% (72/354) of the respondents, respectively. The majority of the respondents (45%, 161/354) reported 11–20 years of experience. In total, 34%, 12%, and 8% of the farmers reported 21–30, 1–10, and 31–40 years of experience, respectively.

Farming and agro input usage practice.

Wheat was the main crop grown by the majority of respondents in the study area. This was followed by barley, teff, and sorghum. The majority of the respondents own land–1–5 hectares (91%/321/354), and the remaining 9% (33/354) owned 6–10 hectares of land. Regarding the respondents’ educational backgrounds, 36% (129/354) were illiterate, and 51% (179/354) and 13% (46/354) attended primary and secondary schools, respectively. Respondents accessed the land through ownership, rent, or both. The majority (57%, 201/354) of respondents acquired land through either rent or ownership. Slightly more than one-tenth of the respondents (14%, 50/354) rented, and 29% (103/354) owned a piece of land. Fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides were the agricultural inputs used by all the respondents (100%). All the respondents acknowledged that they had the opportunity to receive agrochemical training.

Agrochemical adulteration.

The study participants reported that they were aware of agrochemical adulteration 100% (354/354) and received information through formal channels (extension services and training) and informal networks (peer discussions and personal observations). In addition, all participants confirmed that they had received training on agrochemical adulteration and experienced chemical adulteration. They also reported being able to differentiate adulterated products from unadulterated ones. However, the majority of respondents (90%, 319/354) were not fully confident in their identification of adulterated products, and the remaining 10% were confident to some extent. According to the independent chi-square test result, all female respondents reported not being confident in their identification capacity of adulterated products; whereas, 11.4% of the male respondents reported being somewhat confident (Pearson χ² = 5.95, df = 1, p = 0.015). The logistic regression demonstrated that age, educational background, and experience in agriculture had no impact on respondents’ capacity to identify adulterated products (p > 0.05).

For a higher proportion of respondents (78%, 276/354), the effectiveness of the products was used to identify whether or not a product was adulterated. The way the products were packaged, and effectiveness were employed by 16% (58/354) of the respondents. Weight difference and effectiveness were the means used by 6% (20/354) of the respondents to identify adulterated products. Independ chi-square test indicated that the educational background significantly determined the method used to differentiate adulterated agrochemicals (Pearson χ² = 10.983, df = 4, p = 0.027). The majority of the illiterate farmers (86.0%) relied on product effectiveness.

All participants also confirmed that they had used an adulterated product, mistakenly thinking that it was genuine (100%, 354/354). The dilution of products and reduced weight were the types of adulteration that respondents reported encountering. The majority of the respondents encountered both dilution and weight reduction types of adulteration. Dilution and weight reduction were reported by 14% and 6% of the respondents, respectively. All respondents reported that they sometimes bought adulterated products. Fungicides and herbicides were more susceptible to adulteration in the study area. A significant proportion of respondents reported both herbicides and fungicides as the most adulterated products (χ2 = 441, p < 0.0001) (Fig 1).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Agrochemical products that farmers have reported as being frequently adulterated or compromised in quality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357311.g001

All the respondents (354/354) reported the presence of adulterated agrochemicals in the markets they always went to. Similarly, all the respondents stated that the problem of agrochemical adulteration occurred in their localities, but not always. In addition, all the respondents raised that some of the products available in the market were adulterated. All the respondents reported that they had heard others complaining about the adulteration of agrochemical products they bought from the market. None of the respondents were aware of any certification or labeling system for genuine agrochemical products; they just buy products, trusting the retailers. Besides, none of them used a testing service to verify the quality of the agrochemicals they purchase. They discovered the issues with the agrochemical products after use.

Impact of agrochemical adulteration.

The respondents held retailers, wholesalers, or producers accountable for the adulteration of agrochemicals. A significant proportion of respondents held retailers accountable for agrochemical adulteration (χ2 = 452, p < 0.0001) (Fig 2).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Stakeholders who were identified by farmer respondents as being accountable for the adulteration of agrochemical products.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357311.g002

The high demand for cheaper products, corrupted supply chain, lack of monitoring, and weak regulation were the reasons for agrochemical adulteration cited by respondents (χ2 = 48, p < 0.0001). For the majority of the respondents (21%), the combination of weak regulations and high demand for cheaper products was the driving factor for agrochemical adulteration (Table 1).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Respondents’ views on the causes of agrochemical adulteration and the body to which they reported adulteration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357311.t001

The respondents agreed that agrochemical adulteration affected society. Crop damage, yield reduction, and financial loss were the impacts cited by respondents. Over two-thirds of the participants (270/354) reported a combination of reduced yield, crop damage, and financial loss as impacts of adulteration (χ2 = 97, p < 0.0001) (Fig 3). The respondents quantified the amount of produce they lost due to adulteration, and a significant variation was observed in the amount of produce lost (χ2 = 381, p < 0.0001). The majority (81%, 288/354) lost between 5 and 10 tons of their produce. Only 1% (4/354) reported a loss of more than 10 tons, and 18% (62/354) reported a loss of 1–5 tons.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. Respondents’ views on the perceived impacts of agrochemical adulteration.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0357311.g003

To avoid purchasing adulterated products, respondents consulted extension service officers, bought from trusted retailers, or both (χ2 = 261, p < 0.0001). The majority consulted extension service officers (93%, 329), while the remaining 7% (25/354) used extension service providers and bought from trusted retailers. The respondents reported agrochemical adulteration when they encountered it. They reported this to agrochemical suppliers, extension service officers, farmers’ cooperatives, or local authorities (Table 1).

Discussion

The number of male participants was greater than that of female participants. This imbalance may bias the results toward the perspectives of male farmers, and the experiences and views of female farmers may differ. Most of the respondents were aged 40–49 years of age. Regarding farmers’ experience in farming, 11–20 years of experience was the most common. Fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides were the most commonly used by all participating farmers. This implies that farmers had access to agrochemicals in their localities, which made adulteration a potential threat. All the farmers confirmed that they had the opportunity to receive training on agrochemical usage. DAs reported that they provided training to farmers. This was very high compared to the report by [5], where only approximately 54% of the participants had the opportunity for training in Tigray. An earlier report by [18] also showed very low rates, less than one-fourth. However, getting training does not always guarantee practice. For instance [19], reported that farmers’ claims of pesticide knowledge mismatch with the improper practice of pesticide storage, application, and disposal.

The farmers were all aware of agrochemical adulteration, and they obtained this information from training, extension service providers, peer discussions, and personal observation. Similar to the farmers, all the DAs and cooperative workers were well aware of the adulteration. Agricultural extension services are crucial for creating sustainable agriculture by introducing farmers to new technologies and promoting safe crop production [20,21]. The understanding of farmers is the first step to avoiding the use of adulterated products. In this regard, farmers’ understanding could be an indicator of the efforts to create awareness about agrochemical adulteration, which would pave the way to minimize the availability of adulterated products in the market. The farmers also reported the unintentional use of adulterated products. Although farmers claimed that they could differentiate between adulterated and non-adulterated agrochemicals, the vast majority were not certain about their capability to identify adulterated products. This could indicate the presence of adulterated products in the markets and the difficulty of identifying adulterated products, despite understanding adulteration. Age, experience, and educational background did not significantly predict farmers’ ability to identify adulterated products, which implies the complexity of the issue that farmers experience, and secondary education cannot resolve. In reality, distinguishing between adulterated and non-adulterated products can be challenging unless specific quality assurance testing is performed [22]. reported that farmers cannot distinguish genuine products from adulterated ones [15]. also reported farmers’ challenges in detecting adulterated pesticides.

Low effectiveness during use, packaging, and weight were the means farmers used to identify adulterated products. Realizing that a product was adulterated after usage is a double jeopardy, where farmers lose their money to purchase the adulterated product and their crop as well, due to reduced effectiveness. Farmers often rely on inaccurate methods to identify adulterated products [23]. Dilution and weight reduction were the most commonly observed types of adulteration reported by farmers. DAs and cooperative workers also reported dilution, reduced weight, and mixing with something else. Adulteration may not always be intentional; manufacturing errors can lead to adulteration [12]. Retailers might unintentionally sell adulterated products; if it is intentional, they might consider easily undetectable methods, such as dilution. Identifying weight reduction may be possible; however, dilution may be difficult.

All farmers who participated reported that they had unintentionally purchased adulterated agrochemical products. Fungicides and herbicides are often adulterated in the area. DAs also reported insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides as the most commonly adulterated products. However, other researchers have shown adulteration in other products, such as fertilizers. Adulteration and counterfeiting are reported to be uncommon in urea fertilizers [12]. Farmers reported hearing complaints from other farmers about adulterated products. DAs and cooperative workers also heard complaints about adulteration by farmers. Users had no information about the verification or labeling of genuine products and often relied on retailers. Relying on retailers to obtain genuine products did not seem to work. This is in agreement with the report by [24]. Even though farmers mistrust retailers, they continued to use the products available in the market, which could be due to the lack of an alternative market.

Farmers, DAs, and cooperative workers held retailers, wholesalers, and producers accountable for adulterating agrochemicals. Similarly, food adulteration is caused by dishonest producers and traders [25]. According to the respondent farmers, the need for cheaper alternatives, corruption in the supply chain, lack of monitoring, and weak regulation were the reasons for the observed adulteration in the area. It is obvious that people prefer cheaper products, mainly those that they frequently buy. The lack of monitoring and weak regulation could be due to the lack of professionals in the area, and shops are scattered and difficult to monitor. Ethiopia has a pesticide regulation law; however, the enforcement of the law is limited due to the shortage of trained human resources, lack of standard testing laboratory, and poor monitoring in the value chain [26,27]. Large numbers of informal traders sell pesticides and fertilizers without licenses, training, and compliance requirements [28]. There is no functional post-registration monitoring, which contributes to adulterated agricultural inputs in the market [29]. According to [28], products without any labeling or names on the containers were observed in different retail shops in the country.

All participants, including DAs and cooperative workers, agreed on the negative impact of adulteration on society. Crop damage, yield reduction, reduced farmers’ trust in agrochemicals, resistance development and financial loss were reported [15]. reported that farmers agreed to the impacts of adulterated products on human and animal health and the environment. The impact does not stop at buying adulterated products; these adulterated products cannot function as intended. Consequently, crops may fail, or the yield may be very low [12]. reviewed the negative impact of applying adulterated products on crop growth. Farmers sought support from extension officers or bought from known retailers to minimize the possibility of purchasing adulterated products. This was also suggested by DAs and cooperative workers. Although the support farmers received from extension service providers helped minimize the purchase of adulterated products, identifying adulterated products might not be an easy task for extension service officers. As it requires resources and special analytical techniques [30]. In addition, retailers may stock adulterated products unknowingly due to poor regulation, as reported in food adulteration by [31]. Farmers reported adulteration to various stakeholders as they encountered, such as retailers/wholesalers, extension officers, farmers’ cooperatives, and other local authorities. The reporting was informal; there was no formal system and procedure to follow to report and claim justice.

To address the problem, DAs and cooperative workers suggested strengthening regulation and quality control, taking legal actions, and raising awareness among farmers. Although awareness and knowledge were desirable, the practice of reducing adulteration through legal procedures and actions remained difficult to implement. This study provided insight into the status of agrochemical adulteration and could function as a foundation for future work. However, no market investigation for adulterated products was made, which could be one of the future works.

A complete homogeneity was observed in farmers’ use of agrochemicals (fertilizer, insecticide, fungicide, and herbicide), participation in agrochemical-use training, and awareness of agrochemical adulteration. Therefore, these results should be interpreted in the context of the study area, Wolmera woreda, where farmers are likely to have similar exposure due to a wide distribution of agrochemicals and the implementation of extension services.

Conclusion and recommendation

Supporting information