Published in Frontiers in Public Health and commissioned by the Pesticide Action Network, the study examined pesticide exposure among farmers and farm workers in six West African countries. Nigeria recorded the second-highest incidence in the region, behind Burkina Faso, where the figure was estimated at 83.8 per cent. The Gambia recorded 51.5 per cent, Ghana 39 per cent, Senegal 30.5 per cent and Côte d’Ivoire 20 per cent. Across the six countries, an average of 48.9 per cent of farmers and farm workers were estimated to experience unintentional acute pesticide poisoning annually.
Acute pesticide poisoning refers to illnesses or harmful health effects experienced shortly after pesticide exposure. Symptoms can include headaches, dizziness, vomiting, breathing difficulties, abdominal pain, weakness, and eye and skin irritation. Severe exposure may result in unconsciousness or death.
Nigeria’s 69 per cent figure is shocking, but it is not surprising. Evidence from farming communities suggests that it may even understate the true scale of the problem. Many cases are never diagnosed, treated or officially recorded because farmers lack access to functioning healthcare facilities, poison-control services and appropriate laboratory testing.
The study comes shortly after former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo drew national attention to another dimension of Nigeria’s food-safety crisis. Speaking at an Open Day for Gardeners’ seminar in Lagos, Osinbajo disclosed that laboratory analysis had found his wife Dolapo’s freshly squeezed orange juice unfit for human consumption.
According to him, his wife had stopped taking carbonated drinks and adopted fresh orange juice as a healthier alternative. Yet she began experiencing unexplained headaches. The subsequent laboratory test raised troubling questions about the substances used to produce, ripen and preserve fruits sold in Nigerian markets.
The incident should not be dismissed as an isolated case. It illustrates a much wider failure in Nigeria’s management of pesticides, food preservatives and other hazardous agricultural chemicals. Substances such as calcium carbide and highly toxic pesticides are reportedly being used to ripen fruits, preserve produce and control pests, often without adequate regulation, training or consideration for their effects on human health and the environment.
Research cited by Osinbajo found that some fruit sellers admitted using calcium carbide to ripen produce artificially. Another survey among fruit and vegetable retailers in Lagos found significant use of chemicals to preserve produce. Such practices potentially expose farmers, traders, food vendors, consumers and entire communities to dangerous substances that should never enter the food chain.
Evidence from Nigerian farming communities
The Alliance for Action on Pesticides in Nigeria has investigated pesticide use in the country since 2019. The investigations examined the brands used by farmers, their active ingredients and the regulatory status of products available in Nigerian markets.
In one survey involving smallholder women farmers, 94.2 per cent of respondents reported using synthetic chemical pesticides. Among those using pesticides, 85 per cent did not use or have access to appropriate personal protective equipment. 75 per cent reported serious health problems that they associated with pesticide exposure, including headaches, dizziness, breathing difficulties, skin rashes, and irritation affecting the eyes and mouth.
AAPN has also reviewed pesticide brands and agrochemicals listed in the Green Book of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. The assessment indicated that approximately 65 per cent of the pesticides registered in Nigeria could be classified as highly hazardous, while about 58 per cent were not approved for use in the European Union, but were imported to countries in the Global South.
In a 2023 assessment of 104 pesticide brands, AAPN identified active ingredients associated with serious chronic health and environmental hazards, including carcinogenicity, kidney disease, endocrine disruption, immune-system damage, neurological effects and reproductive toxicity.
These findings give a human face to the new regional study. The estimated 69 per cent incidence of acute pesticide poisoning is not an abstract statistic. It represents millions of farmers and agricultural workers who may be repeatedly exposed to toxic substances while producing the food consumed across Nigeria.
Dangerous chemicals are readily available
Highly hazardous pesticides are not difficult to obtain in Nigeria. They are sold in community shops, village markets and urban agrochemical outlets across the country. In some communities without a functional pharmacy or primary healthcare facility, farmers – even children can still easily purchase dangerous pesticides, sometimes from dealers with limited knowledge of their toxicity, correct application, storage requirements or safe disposal.
Hazardous pesticides have also entered farming communities through agricultural support programmes, farmers’ associations, ministries, donor-supported projects, constituency interventions and donations by politicians and philanthropists. Too often, the emphasis is on distributing products rather than determining whether farmers understand their dangers.
Before any pesticide is handed to a farmer, basic questions must be answered. Has the farmer been trained to apply it correctly? Does the farmer have appropriate protective equipment? Does the farmer understand the required dosage and storage and disposal procedures? Does the farmer know the waiting period between pesticide application and harvesting? Is the product even approved for use on the intended crop?
In far too many cases, the answer is no.
Agricultural extension services, which should provide farmers with reliable information, have deteriorated considerably. Even where extension support exists, pest management is frequently reduced to recommending chemical application. Many extension personnel have not received adequate training in integrated pest management, agroecology and other sustainable practices that can prevent or control pests while reducing dependence on hazardous chemicals.
Public spending reflects this imbalance. In the 2023 federal budget, approximately ₦2.08 billion was allocated to chemical pesticides through the headquarters of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. By comparison, only about ₦37.4 million was allocated to organic pesticides and biopesticides. Such priorities reinforce a farming system that treats chemical pesticides as the first response rather than the last resort.
Highly hazardous pesticides are not difficult to obtain in Nigeria. They are sold in community shops, village markets and urban agrochemical outlets across the country. In some communities without a functional pharmacy or primary healthcare facility, farmers – even children can still easily purchase dangerous pesticides, sometimes from dealers with limited knowledge of their toxicity, correct application, storage requirements or safe disposal.
Hazardous pesticides have also entered farming communities through agricultural support programmes, farmers’ associations, ministries, donor-supported projects, constituency interventions and donations by politicians and philanthropists. Too often, the emphasis is on distributing products rather than determining whether farmers understand their dangers.
Before any pesticide is handed to a farmer, basic questions must be answered. Has the farmer been trained to apply it correctly? Does the farmer have appropriate protective equipment? Does the farmer understand the required dosage and storage and disposal procedures? Does the farmer know the waiting period between pesticide application and harvesting? Is the product even approved for use on the intended crop?
In far too many cases, the answer is no.
Agricultural extension services, which should provide farmers with reliable information, have deteriorated considerably. Even where extension support exists, pest management is frequently reduced to recommending chemical application. Many extension personnel have not received adequate training in integrated pest management, agroecology and other sustainable practices that can prevent or control pests while reducing dependence on hazardous chemicals.
Public spending reflects this imbalance. In the 2023 federal budget, approximately ₦2.08 billion was allocated to chemical pesticides through the headquarters of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. By comparison, only about ₦37.4 million was allocated to organic pesticides and biopesticides. Such priorities reinforce a farming system that treats chemical pesticides as the first response rather than the last resort.
The danger does not end at the farm gate
The pesticide crisis is often discussed as though it affects only those who apply chemicals on farms. This ignores the multiplier effect across the food system.
Farmers’ families may be exposed through contaminated clothing, improperly stored products, discarded containers, polluted water and pesticide drift from nearby farms. Traders and processors handle treated produce, while consumers may ingest residues remaining on fruits, vegetables, grains and other foods.
Women farmers may face particularly serious risks because they are often involved in planting, pesticide application, harvesting, processing and food preparation, in addition to caring for sick family members. They can therefore be exposed at several points in the food system. Children may encounter pesticide residues through food, water, contaminated clothing, improperly stored chemicals and discarded pesticide containers.
Farmers sell their produce to traders, who supply markets, processors, restaurants and households. Chemical residues can move along this entire chain. Waterways, soil, beneficial insects and biodiversity may also be damaged by indiscriminate pesticide use and improper disposal.
The question, therefore, is not only how many farmers are being poisoned. We must also ask how many traders are handling contaminated produce, how many communities are drinking from polluted water sources and how many consumers are unknowingly eating food containing unsafe pesticide residues.
When this multiplier effect is considered, pesticide exposure becomes not merely an occupational hazard but a national public-health emergency.
The pesticide crisis is often discussed as though it affects only those who apply chemicals on farms. This ignores the multiplier effect across the food system.
Farmers’ families may be exposed through contaminated clothing, improperly stored products, discarded containers, polluted water and pesticide drift from nearby farms. Traders and processors handle treated produce, while consumers may ingest residues remaining on fruits, vegetables, grains and other foods.
Women farmers may face particularly serious risks because they are often involved in planting, pesticide application, harvesting, processing and food preparation, in addition to caring for sick family members. They can therefore be exposed at several points in the food system. Children may encounter pesticide residues through food, water, contaminated clothing, improperly stored chemicals and discarded pesticide containers.
Farmers sell their produce to traders, who supply markets, processors, restaurants and households. Chemical residues can move along this entire chain. Waterways, soil, beneficial insects and biodiversity may also be damaged by indiscriminate pesticide use and improper disposal.
The question, therefore, is not only how many farmers are being poisoned. We must also ask how many traders are handling contaminated produce, how many communities are drinking from polluted water sources and how many consumers are unknowingly eating food containing unsafe pesticide residues.
When this multiplier effect is considered, pesticide exposure becomes not merely an occupational hazard but a national public-health emergency.
A largely invisible health crisis
The actual number of pesticide-related illnesses and deaths in Nigeria is difficult to establish. Many affected people never reach a hospital. Even when they do, healthcare workers may not recognise or record pesticide exposure as the cause of the illness.
Routine medical screening remains inaccessible to a large part of the population, while poison surveillance, laboratory capacity and national reporting systems are inadequate. Consequently, many cases of acute and chronic pesticide poisoning remain invisible in official statistics.
Pesticides are also frequently used in acts of self-harm because they are cheap, highly toxic and readily accessible. Yet Nigeria still lacks the surveillance and reporting systems required to establish the full relationship between pesticide availability, poisoning and suicide.
The absence of comprehensive national data must not be used as an excuse for inaction. Where surveillance systems are weak, a lack of official statistics may indicate institutional failure rather than the absence of a problem.
The actual number of pesticide-related illnesses and deaths in Nigeria is difficult to establish. Many affected people never reach a hospital. Even when they do, healthcare workers may not recognise or record pesticide exposure as the cause of the illness.
Routine medical screening remains inaccessible to a large part of the population, while poison surveillance, laboratory capacity and national reporting systems are inadequate. Consequently, many cases of acute and chronic pesticide poisoning remain invisible in official statistics.
Pesticides are also frequently used in acts of self-harm because they are cheap, highly toxic and readily accessible. Yet Nigeria still lacks the surveillance and reporting systems required to establish the full relationship between pesticide availability, poisoning and suicide.
The absence of comprehensive national data must not be used as an excuse for inaction. Where surveillance systems are weak, a lack of official statistics may indicate institutional failure rather than the absence of a problem.
A threat to trade and the economy
This is not only a public-health and environmental crisis. It is also an economic and trade crisis.
Nigeria continues to face rejection of agricultural exports because of pesticide residues, aflatoxin contamination and other food-safety failures. Concerns have been raised about pesticide residues in export commodities such as sesame. Every rejected shipment damages the country’s reputation, reduces farmers’ earnings and weakens Nigeria’s ability to compete in increasingly regulated international markets.
At a time when global demand for organic and sustainably produced food is expanding, Nigeria should be investing in traceable production, biological inputs, agroecology and dependable food-safety systems. Instead, the country risks subsidising hazardous chemicals at home while losing access to premium markets abroad.
The health costs are equally serious. Nigeria cannot continue spending scarce public resources on treating cancers, kidney diseases, reproductive disorders and other chronic illnesses while failing to address preventable exposure to hazardous chemicals. Prevention is not only safer; it is also far less costly than treatment.
This is not only a public-health and environmental crisis. It is also an economic and trade crisis.
Nigeria continues to face rejection of agricultural exports because of pesticide residues, aflatoxin contamination and other food-safety failures. Concerns have been raised about pesticide residues in export commodities such as sesame. Every rejected shipment damages the country’s reputation, reduces farmers’ earnings and weakens Nigeria’s ability to compete in increasingly regulated international markets.
At a time when global demand for organic and sustainably produced food is expanding, Nigeria should be investing in traceable production, biological inputs, agroecology and dependable food-safety systems. Instead, the country risks subsidising hazardous chemicals at home while losing access to premium markets abroad.
The health costs are equally serious. Nigeria cannot continue spending scarce public resources on treating cancers, kidney diseases, reproductive disorders and other chronic illnesses while failing to address preventable exposure to hazardous chemicals. Prevention is not only safer; it is also far less costly than treatment.
Regulation without enforcement is not enough
NAFDAC has taken important steps, including announcing restrictions on substances such as paraquat and atrazine and conducting enforcement operations in some markets. However, banned and restricted products reportedly remain available.
Regulations mean little when enforcement agencies lack sufficient personnel, laboratories, logistics and operational funding. The Federal Government cannot underfund NAFDAC and still expect it to monitor thousands of manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers and markets across the country effectively.
The same applies to agricultural extension agencies, environmental regulators, customs authorities and public-health institutions. Agencies cannot fulfil their mandates without the financial, technical and human resources required to conduct inspections, test products, enforce regulations and educate the public.
Responsibility must also extend beyond regulators. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security must stop treating pesticide procurement and distribution as routine agricultural support. The Federal Ministries responsible for health, environment, finance and budget planning must recognise pesticide exposure as a cross-sectoral national emergency.
State ministries of agriculture must rebuild extension services and train personnel in integrated pest management. Legislators must scrutinise pesticide-related budget lines and stop using dangerous agrochemicals as constituency gifts.
Agro-dealers must be trained, licensed and held accountable for the products they sell. Manufacturers and importers must disclose the hazards associated with their products and accept responsibility for environmental contamination and human harm.
Countries and multinational corporations should not export to Nigeria chemicals that they have prohibited or severely restricted within their own jurisdictions. Nigeria must not be treated as a dumping ground for pesticides considered too dangerous for use elsewhere.
Farmers’ associations, civil society organisations, research institutions and development partners also have a responsibility to examine the products they distribute or promote. A pesticide does not become safe simply because it is supplied through a government programme, donor project or farmers’ cooperative.
NAFDAC has taken important steps, including announcing restrictions on substances such as paraquat and atrazine and conducting enforcement operations in some markets. However, banned and restricted products reportedly remain available.
Regulations mean little when enforcement agencies lack sufficient personnel, laboratories, logistics and operational funding. The Federal Government cannot underfund NAFDAC and still expect it to monitor thousands of manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers and markets across the country effectively.
The same applies to agricultural extension agencies, environmental regulators, customs authorities and public-health institutions. Agencies cannot fulfil their mandates without the financial, technical and human resources required to conduct inspections, test products, enforce regulations and educate the public.
Responsibility must also extend beyond regulators. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security must stop treating pesticide procurement and distribution as routine agricultural support. The Federal Ministries responsible for health, environment, finance and budget planning must recognise pesticide exposure as a cross-sectoral national emergency.
State ministries of agriculture must rebuild extension services and train personnel in integrated pest management. Legislators must scrutinise pesticide-related budget lines and stop using dangerous agrochemicals as constituency gifts.
Agro-dealers must be trained, licensed and held accountable for the products they sell. Manufacturers and importers must disclose the hazards associated with their products and accept responsibility for environmental contamination and human harm.
Countries and multinational corporations should not export to Nigeria chemicals that they have prohibited or severely restricted within their own jurisdictions. Nigeria must not be treated as a dumping ground for pesticides considered too dangerous for use elsewhere.
Farmers’ associations, civil society organisations, research institutions and development partners also have a responsibility to examine the products they distribute or promote. A pesticide does not become safe simply because it is supplied through a government programme, donor project or farmers’ cooperative.
Safer alternatives are possible
The belief that Nigeria must choose between producing enough food and protecting people from poison is both false and dangerous. The choice is not between eating contaminated food and starving. The real choice is between continuing a poorly regulated and chemically dependent agricultural system and building a safer, more productive and sustainable food system.
Safer alternatives already exist. Nigerian farmers and enterprises are practising agroecology, integrated pest management, biological pest control, organic production and other forms of sustainable agriculture. Local companies are also producing safer pest- and weed-management products.
What remains inadequate is the policy support, public investment, farmer education and market development required to make these alternatives accessible and affordable at scale.
Nigeria needs a properly funded national programme to progressively phase out highly hazardous pesticides and replace them with safer alternatives. This must be supported by stronger surveillance, effective market inspections, improved poison-control services, regular testing of food and water, public disclosure of enforcement findings and substantial investment in agricultural extension.
The government must redirect subsidies and agricultural budgets towards integrated pest management, biopesticides, agroecology, farmer field schools and locally produced alternatives. No pesticide should be distributed through a government programme, constituency project or donor intervention without proper training, protective equipment, clear instructions and arrangements for collecting expired products and empty containers.
Above all, Nigerians must reject the fatalistic idea that illness and death are unavoidable costs of food production. Farmers deserve protection. Consumers deserve safe food. Communities deserve uncontaminated water and soil. Nigerian businesses deserve access to international markets without repeated rejection of their products.
The evidence is already before us. The warning signs are visible on our farms, in our markets, in our hospitals and in the rejection of our agricultural exports. We can no longer pretend that we do not know.
Nigeria must act before today’s pesticide crisis becomes an irreversible public-health, environmental and economic catastrophe.
The belief that Nigeria must choose between producing enough food and protecting people from poison is both false and dangerous. The choice is not between eating contaminated food and starving. The real choice is between continuing a poorly regulated and chemically dependent agricultural system and building a safer, more productive and sustainable food system.
Safer alternatives already exist. Nigerian farmers and enterprises are practising agroecology, integrated pest management, biological pest control, organic production and other forms of sustainable agriculture. Local companies are also producing safer pest- and weed-management products.
What remains inadequate is the policy support, public investment, farmer education and market development required to make these alternatives accessible and affordable at scale.
Nigeria needs a properly funded national programme to progressively phase out highly hazardous pesticides and replace them with safer alternatives. This must be supported by stronger surveillance, effective market inspections, improved poison-control services, regular testing of food and water, public disclosure of enforcement findings and substantial investment in agricultural extension.
The government must redirect subsidies and agricultural budgets towards integrated pest management, biopesticides, agroecology, farmer field schools and locally produced alternatives. No pesticide should be distributed through a government programme, constituency project or donor intervention without proper training, protective equipment, clear instructions and arrangements for collecting expired products and empty containers.
Above all, Nigerians must reject the fatalistic idea that illness and death are unavoidable costs of food production. Farmers deserve protection. Consumers deserve safe food. Communities deserve uncontaminated water and soil. Nigerian businesses deserve access to international markets without repeated rejection of their products.
The evidence is already before us. The warning signs are visible on our farms, in our markets, in our hospitals and in the rejection of our agricultural exports. We can no longer pretend that we do not know.
Nigeria must act before today’s pesticide crisis becomes an irreversible public-health, environmental and economic catastrophe.
No comments:
Post a Comment