Pesticides are so commonplace in modern agriculture that many forget they are poisons. Designed, as they are, to kill weeds, insects, and other organisms that threaten crops, their usefulness is rarely if ever in dispute. However, these chemicals intended to protect agricultural production also often threaten the people producing the food and those consuming it.
A report published by the UK Guardian at the beginning of this month, based on research commissioned by the Pesticide Action Network estimated that between 402 million and 433 million farmers and farm workers across 139 countries experience unintentional acute pesticide poisoning every year. That translates to about 46 percent of the world’s farming population. It was also stated that some 11,000 people die annually from such exposure in the countries studied.
While the above estimates are global and there was no indication that Guyana was among the 139 countries studied, there is cause for concern. For one thing, there is no readily available information regarding the situation in this country. For another, pesticide use here has increased compared with two decades ago.
According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data, Guyana’s agricultural pesticide use rose from an estimated 182 tonnes in 2000 to 458 tonnes in 2023. More tellingly, pesticide use per hectare of cropland rose from 1.50 kilogrammes to 3.63 kilogrammes over the same period. That is an increase of roughly 142 percent. The figure for Guyana in 2023 was also above the global average of 2.40 kilogrammes per hectare. Surely an increase of this magnitude ought to prompt more scrutiny of what is being used, where it is being used, how it is being applied and what happens to the chemicals afterwards.
The quantities entering the country also deserve attention. FAO data shows that Guyana imported an estimated 5,184 tonnes of pesticide products in 2024, a sharp increase from the 3,423 tonnes imported in 2023. These import figures measure formulated products and should not be confused with the 458 tonnes of active ingredients estimated to have been used agriculturally in 2023. Nevertheless, the sharp rise in imports raises questions about what is driving demand and how closely the movement of pesticides through the country is being monitored.
Not that Guyana is without safeguards. There is the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Board (PTCCB), which was established in 2000 and is responsible for regulating the manufacture, importation, sale, storage, transportation, distribution and use of pesticides and toxic chemicals. The PTCCB also operates a laboratory that tests pesticide formulations and monitors residues in food and according to its website, its residue unit examines rice, fruits, vegetables, vegetation and water for pesticide residues. Clearly, the regulations exist. The question is whether they are keeping pace with the increasing use of pesticides.
A study published in July last year, “Occupational safety and health risks of farmers: A qualitative study in Guyana” provides some reason for asking that question. The researchers, after interviews with 16 Guyanese farmers and 16 agricultural extension officers identified barriers to the proper use of personal protective equipment, challenges in safe chemical use, difficulties in training and adoption of safety practices, and what they described as gaps in policies and monitoring for farmer safety and chemical use. They also identified concerns about quality control and unsafe practices involving local produce.
This is particularly significant because the problems are not necessarily confined to the farmer who handles the chemical. A pesticide does not necessarily disappear after it has done its job. It can move through soil and water, drift beyond the intended area of application, be carried home on contaminated clothing and equipment and, if proper intervals are not observed, remain on crops.
Indeed, there have been local instances of agricultural chemicals moving beyond their intended target. In 2017 at Windsor Castle and in 2025 at Black Bush Polder, farmers complained that chemicals used in nearby rice fields damaged fruit and cash crops. While such complaints do not establish the extent of the problem nationally, they illustrate why application practices and enforcement matter.
There is also the question of testing. How often are locally produced fruits and vegetables tested for pesticide residues? How many samples are tested each year? How many exceed maximum residue limits? Which crops are most frequently found with residues? What chemicals are detected? What action follows when limits are exceeded? And how much of this information is made public?
The government should also be able to tell the public how many farmers and agricultural workers are trained annually in the safe handling and application of pesticides, how many inspections are conducted, how many violations are recorded and how many prosecutions or other enforcement actions result. It should know how many unregistered or prohibited pesticides are intercepted and how much illegal product is removed from circulation. Most importantly, is information being systematically collected on whether people are becoming ill from occupational exposure to pesticides. If not, then that is a deficiency that needs to be addressed.
While farmers have legitimate reasons for using pesticides, and food production presents real challenges, they should not be treated as though they are indifferent to their own health. It is well documented that many small farmers are often working with economic and practical constraints and may not have easy access to safer alternatives, protective equipment or adequate training. As long as there remains no cost-effective option, chemical pesticides will continue to have a place in agriculture and must be treated with the seriousness that their toxicity warrants.
The government does not have to wait for an issue to arise before ensuring that the safeguards are working. The PTCCB should be actively measuring exposure, testing food, monitoring farms, enforcing regulations and making the results available to the public. Caution is not an obstacle to agricultural development when we know that the chemicals being employed can also be harmful. There is a responsibility here that cannot be sidestepped.
Discussion