ABSTRACT

Purpose: Agricultural workers are seven times more likely to die on the job than non-agricultural workers. These numbers are likely underestimates of fatal incidents. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) captures fatalities in production agriculture as part of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), but there are significant caveats based on the special circumstances of agriculture as compared to other industries. BLS reports of agricultural workplace injuries are important to surveillance. However, it should be made clear in publicly issued reports what is included in the case definition for agriculture. CFOI covers all occupational agriculture fatalities (to the best of CFOI ability), but excludes child and non-worker bystanders and public roadway collision victims who were not working, even if a working farm machine was directly involved.

Methods: We identified cases from AgInjuryNews.org that did not meet the criteria for CFOI but are related to agriculture. As part of our ongoing study, these cases will be further reviewed by BLS staff for inclusion or exclusion from CFOI. For this presentation, cases were divided into specific themes for discussion.

Findings: Three overall themes were identified: 1)Who is working and does it matter? 2) Where does the workplace end? 3) Does it have to be farm work? In theme 1, we highlight two cases involving children who were injured while not directly engaged in farm work. For theme 2, an agritourism and a public roadway incident were discussed. Lastly, theme 3 describes all-terrain vehicle cases where the riders were performing work that is not directly related to production agriculture or were impacted externally by production agriculture.

Translation: What do we lose by excluding non-occupational victims of public roadway, youth, and other non-working farm injuries? What is the purpose of agricultural injury surveillance? If injury prevention is a primary goal, we should continue to analyze data related to agricultural injury, regardless of victims’ occupational status. The Farm and Agricultural Injury Classification (FAIC) System is one effective way to distinguish between production agriculture (occupational) and bystanders, etc. Results from this study exemplify the gaps in current agricultural injury surveillance, uncover a more complete picture of agricultural injury burden, and help move the conversation toward organizational and federal policy discussions.

摘要

目的：农业工人死亡的可能性是非农业工人的7倍。这些数字很可能低估了致命事件。劳工统计局（BLS）将生产农业中的死亡人数作为致命职业伤害普查（CFOI）的一部分，但与其他行业相比，基于农业的特殊情况，存在很多警告。BLS关于农业工作场所伤害的报告对于监视非常重要。但是，应在公开发布的报告中明确说明农业案例定义中包括的内容。CFOI涵盖了所有职业农业死亡人数（最大程度地发挥了CFOI的能力），但不包括未工作的儿童和非工人旁观者以及公共道路碰撞受害者，即使直接涉及正在工作的农业机械也是如此。

方法：我们从AgInjuryNews.org中识别出不符合CFOI标准但与农业有关的病例。作为我们正在进行的研究的一部分，BLS工作人员将进一步审查这些案例，以将其纳入或排除在CFOI中。对于此演示文稿，案例被分为特定主题进行讨论。

调查结果：确定了三个总体主题：1）谁在工作，这很重要吗？2）工作地点在哪里结束？3）一定是农场作业吗？在主题1中，我们重点介绍了两个涉及未直接从事农业工作而受伤的孩子的案例。对于主题2，讨论了农业旅游和公共道路事故。最后，主题3描述了全地形车案例，其中骑手所从事的工作与生产农业没有直接关系或受到生产农业的外部影响。

翻译：排除公共道路，青年和其他非工作性农业伤害的非职业受害者，我们会遭受什么损失？农业伤害监视的目的是什么？如果以预防伤害为主要目标，则无论受害者的职业状态如何，我们都应继续分析与农业伤害有关的数据。农业和农业伤害分类（FAIC）系统是区分生产性农业（职业）和旁观者等的有效方法。这项研究的结果例证了当前农业伤害监测的空白，揭示了农业伤害负担的更完整图景，并帮助将对话转移到组织和联邦政策讨论中。