It is clear that agriculture hus not kept pace with other hazardous industries in reducing its injun, rute. For exmnple, between I960 and I990 the work deuth rate for agriculture decreased only 28% while the work deuth rates decreased 6.5% for mining arid 55% for construction [Purschwitz ( I Y92)/. A national conjerence in Iowa in 1988 cuine t o the forceful conclusion that "Americci 's most productive workforce was being systematically liquidated by cin epidemic o f occupational disease and traumatic death and injury " "CASH ( I 988)]. In 1991, the nation's top public health officer. the U.S. Surgeon General, convened a coiferrrice titled ' 'FcrrniSafe 2000-A National Coalition ,for I ~) c a l Action." to forinally address agricultural safety arid health issues. Importantly, conferees recognized that preventing injuty and disease WUIS superior to tniing to rehabilitate people ajier an injury occurred.
But does participation in fcirrn safe8 mid health educational programs lead to a reduction in risk of injury from .farm u-ork? Questions are being raised about the value of farm sufety and health educational information, campaigns, programs, and related activities. The questions haw identified a critical gap in the literature ojfarm sujety m d health education. There is currently no good evidence demonstrating that .farm safety and health education, campaigns, proxrams, or related activities lead to a relatively stable reduction of risk on the farm. In other words, do farmers and their families uctually put to use, in a relatively permanent or stable mariner, the educational information regarding elimination, reduction, or control of physical hazards and the modification o f work behavior that may cause injury? 0 I996 Wiluy-Liss. Inc.