About health and safety in agriculture

Agriculture has one of the worst fatal accident and occupational ill health records of any major employment sector.

Less than 1.5% of the working population is employed in agriculture yet the sector is responsible for between 15% and 20% of fatalities to workers each year. The industry also has a rate of self-reported illness which is typically higher than the average for all industries.

• Fatal accidents in agriculture
• The accident and occupational ill health record in agriculture
• The self-employed in agriculture: a special challenge
• Political background
• The changing nature of agriculture and the implications for health and safety
• The legal framework

[back to top]

Fatal accidents in agriculture

The provisional fatal injury rate in agriculture for 2007/08 was 9.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers - the highest of any industrial sector. Included in the definition of agriculture is horticulture, forestry and other related industries. In mainstream agriculture the area for particular concern is the self-employed.

In the 10 year period from 1997/1998 to 2006/2007 a total of 464 people have been killed as a result of agricultural work activities and many more have been injured or suffered ill health.

This means an average of 46 people each year are killed in the industry  – almost 1 death per week!

Of the 464 people killed over the past ten years:

• 145 were employees
• 254 were self employed
• 65 were members of the public, of which
• 26 of these were children under the age of 16 years old

The main causes of death to workers continue to be:

• transport (being run over or vehicle overturns) - accounting for 24% of fatalities.
• falling from a height (through fragile roofs, trees etc) - 17%.
• struck by moving or falling objects (bales, trees etc) - 15%.
• asphyxiation / drowning - 10%
• livestock related fatalities - 10%
• contact with machinery - 8%
• trapped by something collapsing or overturning - 7%
• contact with electricity - 5%

For more details on fatal and non-fatal accidents in the industry see the latest version of the 'Fatal Injuries in farming, forestry and horticulture' report.

• More health and safety statistics

[back to top]

The accident and occupational ill health record in agriculture

Over 400,000 people currently work in agriculture which in the current context includes, farming, arboriculture, horticulture, fish farming and of increasing significance, with the introduction of public “rights to roam” legislation, amenity use of the countryside. Although employment has steadily been declining, the industry has remained a priority for HSE because of its notoriously poor injury record. It has the worst fatal injury rate of any major employment sector which for 2007-08 stands at 9.7 deaths per 100,000 workers. During the last decade the fatal injury rate has fluctuated between 7.7 and 11.3 per 100,000 workers, approaching nearly 10 times the all-industry rate. The principal causes of fatal accidents are common to all sectors of the industry – transport, falls from height and being struck by an object.

In terms of non-fatal injuries, gross under-reporting obscures the picture. Only a small percentage of injuries are reported under national RIDDOR reporting requirements (Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995): about 26% for employees and 5% for the self-employed. This makes accurate estimation of incidence rates and comparisons over time and with other industries. The latest societal costs from accidents in agriculture were estimated at £343 million. To put this in context, UK farming contributes an estimated £6.6 billion a year to the economy. Accident investigation has shown that invariably such losses could have been avoided or reduced if sensible health and safety measures had been taken.

Agriculture is also an industry with a poor record of occupational health though, as in other sectors, the statistical base is weak, provides limited intelligence and is currently the subject of further HSE-commissioned research. The latest survey of self-reported work-related illness (SWI) carried out in 2007/08 estimated that 18 000 people whose current or most recent job in the last year was in the agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing industry suffered from an illness which was caused or made worse by this job.

The associated prevalence rate, 4 200 per 100 000 people (4.2%) working in the last year, was of a similar order (not statistically significantly different) to that for all industries (3 400 per 100 000 people – 3.4%). The picture is further confused by the age profile of the industry. Increasingly, people in Agriculture work on beyond normal retirement age, so the incidence of work-related ill health may in part reflect that of an age-skewed population.

Musculoskeletal injuries (MSD), exposure to dusts and respiratory sensitisers, zoonoses, noise and vibration (whole body and hand/arm) are the main causes of illness:

• 80% of those working in the industry suffer some form of musculoskeletal injury;
• the incidence of asthma is twice the national average, and 40% of those working in the industry suffer respiratory disorders;
• 20,000 people suffer some form of zoonotic infection each year; and
• 25% of those working in the industry suffer some form of noise-induced hearing loss.

[back to top]

The self-employed in agriculture: a special challenge

Estimates of the size of the labour force in Agriculture vary according to the methodology chosen for data collection but sources agree there has been a gradual decline over many years. According to the DEFRA June census, the total labour force (including farmers and their spouses) declined over 30% in the 12 year period between 1996 (616,000 workers) and 2008 (400,000). Over a longer timeframe and based on data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), HSE record a 42% decline in workers over the past 30 years.  None of these sources take full account of casual temporary and migrant labour (whether legally or illegally at work) and only very recent, interim research results begin to reveal its real extent and scale.

At the same time the self-employed population has been increasing relative to the employed. Analysis of fatal incidence rates (using ONS statistics) for each of these subsets reveals one of the big issues in terms of identifying the most appropriate strategy for operational intervention. Whereas the employee fatal incidence rate roughly halved during the 15 year period to 2001, the rate for the self-employed and family-farm sub-sector was consistently higher and more than doubled. Moreover, this latter rate increased markedly over the five years to 2001. This analysis suggests that whereas HSE’s regulatory approach, which historically concentrated on inspection, had been successful in respect of the larger enterprises with a management structure in place, it had not succeeded with the increasing proportion of self-employed and small family farmers – for reasons that are not difficult to understand.

Key issues

We know from proactive workplace inspection, accident investigation and the results of recent social science research that the key issues for HSE to address are:

• a deep-seated culture of unwise risk-taking in the industry;
• that many farmers are resistant to officialdom and feel that the industry is unduly burdened by regulation and red tape (derived from Government Departments as a whole, not just from HSE); and that
• health and safety is not yet universally regarded as integral to good farm business management.

[back to top]

Political background

There are a number of associated significant political considerations and drivers for change that have materially affected the development of the HSE’s agriculture strategy. The overall message from the Government’s better regulation strategy and from the recent reviews is overwhelmingly clear:

• the need for more efficient, more effective regulation and (ideally) less of it;
• a “lighter touch”, fewer burdens on business and less red tape;
• rationalised (if not reduced) inspection and enforcement activity;
• a clearer separation between enforcement activity and advice;
• a more “joined-up” approach between Government Departments;
• more meaningful collaboration and partnership between Government Departments and those with influence in the industry – its “stakeholders” and intermediaries in the Food supply chain; and
• improved and more widespread application of information technology.

[back to top]

The changing nature of agriculture and the implications for health and safety

The decline in overall employment, and a parallel decline in the number of larger farms, has been accompanied by increases in the number of smallholdings, self-employed units, contracting-out, part-time and niche market farmers. These trends are expected to accelerate markedly over the next ten years and the projected increase in the poorer-performing self-employed sector is therefore likely to impact adversely on injuries and statistics.

Diversification, a more technological agricultural industry and changes in the employment structure will place emphasis on skills training. In 2000, 22% of managers in the industry had completed either basic or full agricultural training, the majority had practical experience only. The proportion of managers with some agricultural training increases with farm size; conversely a greater proportion of smallholdings were run by persons with only practical experience.

Weather of course is a key factor in farming, particularly for arable farmers and growers. Variable weather hinders the harvest and subsequent cultivation, planting and drilling of crops. The number of accidents invariably peak at this busy time of year. In the future we can expect further changes in weather patterns, including heavier rain in the winter, which may lead to increased pressure and stress on farmers tempting them to take greater risks and cut corners.

Finally the shortage of casual labour and low profit margins may exacerbate casual, temporary and migrant working resulting in some cases, in illegal employment. Recently commissioned research suggests that the scale of casual, temporary and migrant labour is much larger than anticipated. An estimated 300-420,000 temporary workers are supplied by an estimated 600-1,000 labour providers with a further 120-160,000 workers directly recruited by farms themselves i.e. a total temporary labour force of up to 580,000 in agriculture, horticulture and on-farm product processing. The focus on migrant workers – a specific subset of the casual and temporary labour spectrum – can be expected to increase in response to rising political and media interest. Current interest is in part the result of a number of high profile work-related fatal accidents, most notably the 21 deaths on the tidal flats at Morecambe Bay in February 2004. Other factors likely to be of increasing concern to Government include immigration issues, tax and benefit fraud, race relations, low pay and social exclusion, welfare and housing, employment protection and the regulation of labour providers.

Migrant workers are entitled to the same protection of health and safety legislation as other workers regardless of whether or not they work illegally. Draft legislation requiring the licensing of labour providers was brought forward and subsequently enacted by Parliament in July 2004 as the Gangmaster (Licensing) Act 2004 and was given emphasis by the Morecambe Bay tragedy. HSE’s future focus will need to be on such aspects as identifying those workers at risk, whether or not their migrant status affects their vulnerability, and overcoming language and literacy barriers.

[back to top]

The legal framework

Current UK law is founded on the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 which places general duties on both employers and the self-employed and also seeks to protect anyone else who may be affected by work activity such as visitors and members of the general public. The duties to ensure that adequate provision is made for health and safety are qualified by the words “so far as is reasonably practicable”. In legal terms this means that an employer has to make a cost-risk analysis and assess on the one hand the risk of the work and on the other hand the difficulty, time, trouble and expense of steps needed to avoid the risks.

The Act introduced a broad goal-setting, non-prescriptive model, based on the view that ‘those that create risk are best placed to manage it’. In place of existing detailed and prescriptive industry regulations, it created a flexible system whereby regulations express goals and principles, and are supported by codes of practice and guidance. Based on consultation and engagement, the new regime was designed to deliver a proportionate, targeted and risk-based approach.

Today, the Act and the thinking behind it which inspired the current health and safety system, remains equally relevant, not least to the changing world of Agriculture. It is now supported by a raft of Regulations, the majority of which are goal-setting with application across all industries. In turn these are supported by a wide range of priced and free, industry-specific guidance booklets, leaflets and publications. This includes material which has been produced either by HSE, by the Agricultural Industry Advisory Committee and its working groups (e.g. the Arboricultural and Forestry Advisory Group), or by Industry Associations in the form of best practice guides.