Majority of the farmers are unaware of pesticide types, level of poisoning, safety precautions and potential hazards on health and environment. According to the latest estimate, the annual import of pesticides in Nepal is about 211t a.i. with 29.19% insecticides, 61.38% fungicides, 7.43% herbicides and 2% others. The gross sale value accounts US $ 3.05 million per year. Average pesticides use in Nepal is 142 g a.i./ha, which is very low as compared to other Asian counties. The focus of this paper is to analyze the use and application status of pesticides in Nepal to aware the society about adverse effects of chemical pesticides in the environment . Pesticidal misuse is being a serious concern mainly in the commercial pocket areas of agricultural production, where farmers are suffering from environmental pollution. Incidence of poisoning is also increasing because of intentional, incidental and occupational exposure. Toxic and environmentally persistent chemicals are being used as pesticides. Many studies showed that the chemical pollution of the environment has long-term effects on human life. It is therefore essential that manufacture, use, storage, transport and disposal of chemical pesticides be strictly regulated. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment Vol:13, Jun.2012, Page 67-72 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/aej.v13i0.7590

Farmer field survey and lab residue analysis studies were carried out to examine the use of pesticide in vegetable fields and its potential effects on human health and environment. Field information were collected using semi-structured questionnaires face to face interview with 200 farmers from three districts (Bara, Dhading and Kavre) of central region of Nepal. The recent study showed that the use of chemical pesticides in Nepal is 0.396Kg a.i./ha. The farmers' field survey showed that 72 percent of the farmers paid attention on acquiring information about the effectiveness of pesticide to control the target pests. While 65 percent of the farmers noticed the expiry date of pesticides, and only a few farmers considered the adverse effects of pesticide on human health and environment. The result showed that majority of them (51.5%) kept the remaining pesticides in their house freely, whereas 23.5 percent farmers destroyed the remaining pesticides; either buried or burnt. It was also found that 22.5 percent of farmers did not care and threw the remaining pesticides outside the house and in the fields. Residues analysis of 75 samples of 13 vegetables indicated that 58%t of the vegetable samples contained no detectable level (NDL) of the monitored pesticides, 38% samples resulted in trace level of the pesticides residue or below the minimum residue level (MRL), while 4% samples showed above MRL (EU Standard). Present study revealed ample scope for improvement on pesticide use and exposure, for which there is need of strong policy implementation, strengthening training, extension services and various awareness programs to farmers and agro-vets for judicious use of pesticides, health safety and environment protection.

This study explores how communication and its technical content shape farmers' response to advice delivered at plant clinics. Thirty-six farmers who visited a plant clinic in one of three countries (Malawi, Costa Rica and Nepal) were given at least one diagnosis of a plant health problem and up to six options for managing the problem. Almost all of the farmers were able to use at least some of these management recommendations. Communication was verbal, but reinforced in writing; all of the farmers received a one-page prescription form that summarized the recommendation. Communication per se was rarely the reason farmers failed to adopt technologies. Farmers who opted not to use recommendations often had logical, material reasons for doing so, and they showed a preference for chemical control. Of the 31 farmers who were advised to apply pesticides (including organic ones), 23 people (74%) accepted this advice to spray, but only 14 of 22 farmers (54%) tried advice for cultural or biological control. Farmers' response to an innovation is too complex to always describe as accepted vs rejected, and this decision depends on the fit of the technology itself, and on the quality of how the innovation is communicated.

Introduction: Intentional pesticide poisoning is a major clinical and public health problem in agricultural communities in low and middle income countries like Nepal. Bans of highly hazardous pesticides (HHP) reduce the number of suicides. We aimed to identify these pesticides by reviewing data from major hospitals across the country and from forensic toxicology laboratories. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 10 hospitals for pesticide poisoned patients and two forensic laboratories of Nepal from April 2017 to February 2020. The poison was identified from the history, referral note, and clinical toxidrome in the hospitals and from gas chromatography analysis in the laboratories. Data on demographics, poison, and patient outcome were recorded on a data collection sheet. Simple descriptive analysis was performed. Results: Among hospital cases (n ¼ 4148), the commonest form of poisoning was self-poisoning (95.8%) while occupation poisoning was rare (0.03%). Case fatality was 5.3% (n ¼ 62). Aluminum phosphide (n ¼ 38/62, 61.3%) was the most commonly identified lethal pesticide for deaths. Forensic toxicology laboratories reported 2535 deaths positive for pesticides, with the compounds most commonly identified being organophosphorus (OP) insecticides (n ¼ 1463/2535; 57.7%), phosphine gas (n ¼ 653/ 2535; 25.7%; both aluminum [11.8%] and zinc [0.4%] phosphide) and organochlorine insecticides (n ¼ 241/2535; 9.5%). The OP insecticide most commonly identified was dichlorvos (n ¼ 273/ 450, 60.6%). Conclusion:The data held in the routine hospital medical records were incomplete but suggested that case fatality in hospitals was relatively low. The pesticides identified as causing most deaths were dichlorvos and aluminum phosphide. Since this study was completed, dichlorvos has been banned and the most toxic formulation of aluminum phosphide removed from sale. Improving the medical record system and working with forensic toxicology laboratories will allow problematic HHPs to be identified and the effects of the bans in reducing deaths monitored.

Background Nepal recorded 5754 suicides in 2018–19 - a high number for a relatively small country. Over 24% of these suicides were by poisoning, most by ingestion of highly concentrated agricultural pesticides. Nepal has actively regulated pesticides to reduce their health impacts since 2001. We aimed to analyse Nepal’s history of pesticide regulation, pesticides responsible for poisonings, and relate them to national suicide rates. Methods Information on pesticide regulation was collected from the Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. National data on suicides from 1980 to 2019 were obtained from the National Statistical Bureau and Nepal Police. Data on the pesticides responsible for self-poisoning and pesticide suicides over time were obtained from a systematic literature review. Results As of June 2020, 171 pesticides were registered for use in Nepal, of which one was extremely hazardous (WHO Class Ia), one other highly hazardous (WHO Class Ib), and 71 moderately hazardous (WHO Class II). Twenty-four pesticides have been banned since 2001, with eight (including five WHO Class I compounds) banned in 2019. Although the suicide rate has increased more than twelve-fold since 1980, particularly for hanging (15-fold increase from 1980 to 2018), fatal pesticide self-poisoning has increased by 13-fold. Methyl-parathion is reported to be the key pesticide responsible for pesticide self-poisoning in Nepal, despite being banned in 2006. Conclusion The full effect of the recent pesticide policy reform in Nepal remains to be seen. Our analysis shows a continuing increase in suicide numbers, despite bans of the most important pesticide in 2006. This may indicate smuggling across the border and the use of the brand name (Metacid) for pesticides in general making it difficult to identify the responsible pesticide. More information is required from forensic toxicology labs that identify the individual compounds found. The effect of recent bans of common suicide pesticides needs to be monitored over the coming years. Evidence from other Asian countries suggests that HHPs bans will lead to a marked reduction in suicides, as well as fewer cases of occupational poisoning.