<p> The purpose of this project was to develop a garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum for educators of students in the fourth and fifth grades. The goals of this curriculum were to provide literature related to farm-to-school initiatives, to increase educators&rsquo; and students&rsquo; knowledge about farm-to-school programs through an evidence-based nutrition education curriculum, and to increase fruit and vegetable consumption among the students. </p><p> The curriculum, Let&rsquo;s Grow!, was created addressing perceived barriers that prevent the implementation of school gardens that may further encourage fruit and vegetable intake in children. Though intended to specifically reach students in Los Angeles, the curriculum may be used outside this urban setting. </p><p> The curriculum consists of nutrition lessons and gardening activities relating to topics identified from literature reviews. An expert-review panel reviewed the curriculum, having critiqued the literature, and provided feedback. Evaluation forms for the curriculum were created to assess the overall value of the program.</p>

Hazardous noise exposures and hearing loss have been documented among farmers and farm workers for many years. However, little is known about the noise exposures during specific agricultural work tasks and their effect on hearing loss. The objective of this dissertation was to assess the effects of specific agricultural tasks on hearing loss and their contribution to total noise exposures. Three studies were conducted to accomplish this objective. The first study examined associations between hearing sensitivity among rural residents (nfarmer = 960, nnon-farmers = 608) and self-reported years of participation in 12 agricultural tasks. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between agricultural activities and hearing loss >25dB. Linear regression analysis was used to examine associations between agricultural tasks and mean decibels of hearing loss. The results indicated farmers have greater hearing loss than non-farmers. However years of participation in specific agricultural tasks was poorly associated with hearing loss. This result suggests that self-reported years engaging in specific agricultural activities may be a poor surrogate for true noise exposure In the second study noise exposures (personal dosimetry) and corresponding task data (direct observation) were collected on 18 grain farms, and mean noise exposures (dBA) were calculated for specific agricultural tasks. Noise exposures ranged from 78.6 dBA to 99.0 dBA across all tasks. The noise exposures for each task varied greatly (large standard deviation and maximum exposure) with most of the variability within the farms. Although specific tasks with intense noise exposures were identified, most comparisons of mean noise exposures from one task to another were not statistically different and intense exposures were present for nearly all tasks. Therefore, controlling noise only for those tasks with the greatest mean noise exposures may not completely eliminate hazardous exposures or the hearing loss risk. For the third study, estimates of 8-hr time-weighted-average (TWA) noise exposures were calculated using time-at-task observations from one population of farmers and prior dosimeter measured mean task-based noise exposures from an independent population of farmers. Additionally, dosimeter measured daily noise exposures from the independent population of farmers were also analyzed to identify significant determinants of noise exposure. Simple linear regression analysis was used to compare estimated and actual dosimeter-measured 8-hr TWA noise exposures. The noise exposure determinants were identified by conducting multivariable linear mixed-effects regression analysis on the one-minute noise measurements from the dosimeter measured daily noise exposures. The results indicated the estimated and measured 8-hr TWA noise exposures varied considerably. Therefore, the estimates were not considered reliable. Furthermore, task, number of noise sources and work area were found to have a statistically significant association with noise exposure. In summary, hearing loss and noise exposures among agricultural populations are complex and cannot be completely explained by examining agricultural tasks only. More detailed evaluations of tasks are needed to increase the understanding of hearing loss and noise exposure in this dynamic work environment.

The acute nervous system toxicity of organophosphate (OP) pesticides is well described. However, the reported long-term effects of OP pesticides on the nervous system are inconsistent. This inconsistency may be due to imprecise estimates of pesticide exposure, variability of central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS) assessment, small samples, and poor control of confounding. The primary goal of this research was to examine the association between long-term OP pesticide use on CNS and PNS function among pesticide applicators. An additional goal was to examine the association between high pesticide exposure events (HPEEs), which typically do not result in acute toxicity, and CNS function. Study participants were recruited from among applicators enrolled in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) in Iowa and North Carolina. In 2006-2008, 701 male pesticide applicators completed a battery of neurobehavioral (NB) and neurological tests. Information about individual pesticide use was obtained from previous AHS interviews and a questionnaire administered during NB testing. Associations between pesticide use and neurological outcomes were estimated with linear and logistic regression models while controlling for covariates. When associations were examined between agent-specific pesticide use and nine NB tests, significantly poorer performance was observed on four tests and significantly better performance on five tests. Additionally, for some pesticides, we observed differential associations by state, suggesting that regional differences in pesticide practices may influence neurotoxicity. Overall, our results did not provide strong evidence that OP pesticide use was associated with adverse NB test performance. A history of at least one HPEE was reported by 23 percent of participants. Significant adverse associations were observed between HPEEs and two of the nine NB tests. Participants with HPEEs were, on average, 4.9 seconds slower on a test of visual scanning/processing, and 2.2 seconds slower on a test of visual scanning/motor speed. Overall, small but meaningful associations were observed between HPEEs and adverse CNS function. When associations were examined between pesticide use and PNS function, five of six neurological physical examination outcomes were associated with ever-use of one or more OP pesticides. Odds ratios ranged from 1.9 to 3.1. However, mostly null associations were observed between OP pesticide use and electrophysiological tests, hand strength, sway speed and vibrotactile threshold. This study provides some evidence that long-term exposure to OP pesticides is associated with impaired PNS function. In summary, our results suggest that exposure to a few individual OP pesticides as well as HPEEs may contribute to adverse neurological function. The observed exposure-effect associations were present after adjustment for confounding and were independent of past-diagnosed pesticide poisoning. We believe this research contributes important new evidence to an inconsistent literature. Reducing pesticide exposure and preventing HPEEs among pesticide applicators remain important public health goals.

No description available.