Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides

WORKER PROTECTION STANDARD FOR AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES (40 CFR Part 170, 1992)... 

Figures 2.5A and 2.5B. Posted warning signs to be used at entrances to treated areas. (Figure 2.5A, Protect Yourself from Pesticides-poster, EPA 735-H-93-001. Figure 2.5B, The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides-How to Comply, EPA, 1993).

U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides—How to Comply What Employers Need to Know, 1993. 

In 1992, the USEPA published its Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Final Rule (USEPA, 1992). This WPS contains provisions intended to inform agricultural employees about the hazards of pesticides, and provides specific protective clothing requirements for pesticide handlers. In conducting any field study, the... 

During the past ten years several important new and revised regulations have been issued. These regulations have mandated new certifications and training for those involved directly or indirectly with the application of pesticides. In addition, in 1992, EPA issued the Worker Protection Standard which mandated training for all agricultural workers and pesticide handlers and detailed the content of such training. 

Over the years, Oregon has adopted a number of major safety and health standards that, while deemed as effective as comparable federal standards, also have significant differences, ( egon has also adopted a number of state-initiated rules for which there are no federal counterparts, including Forest Activity Standards, Agriculture Standards, Firefighter Standards, and Pesticide Worker Protection Standards. 

The F.W.G.P.M. Task Force addressed itself mainly to the problem of organophosphates, and its terms of reference were to identify areas in which information on occupational exposure to workers was unavailable, to make recommendations for the development of research protocols to determine safe reentry levels for the protection of agricultural and forest workers, and to suggest interim reentry standards based on existing knowledge. The report was controversial but drew attention to the lack of a substantial data base and to the urgent need for surveillance of pesticide-related morbidity and mortality and for research to identify factors influencing safe worker reentry levels. 

---