The Invisible Harvest

How Urban Pesticides in Oyo State Are Reshaping Health and Plates

Exploring the impact of pesticide use by urban cultivators in South-Western Nigeria on public health and food safety

The Unseen Crop We Didn't Plant

When Yakub Ahmad, a 27-year-old farmer from Ilora in Oyo State, sprayed his one-acre maize crop in April 2024, he was thinking about weeds, not welfare. A leak in his Gramoxone container allowed the herbicide to trickle down his abdomen to his private parts.

"After [working on] the farm that day, my body started tingling," Ahmad recalls. "I had a burning sensation. I couldn't sit or stand until I was rushed to the hospital." More than a year later, numbness persists in his groin and stomach 1 .

His story represents thousands of invisible victims across Southwestern Nigeria, where urban and peri-urban cultivators feed growing cities while potentially compromising public health. The very chemicals promising food security are creating a silent health crisis that reaches from farms directly to urban dinner tables.

Thousands

Farmers affected by pesticide exposure in Southwestern Nigeria

Health Alert

Pesticide exposure can lead to both immediate symptoms and chronic health conditions.

The Chemical Cocktail on Our City Plates

What's in Your Market Basket?

Recent scientific studies reveal alarming patterns in pesticide use across Southwestern Nigeria. A 2025 assessment published in Frontiers in Agronomy examined 472 farmers across Ogun, Ondo, and Oyo States, finding that herbicides dominate the pesticide landscape 2 .

Most Commonly Used Pesticides

Pesticide Type Specific Pesticide Percentage of Farmers Using
Herbicides Glyphosate 81.9%
Paraquat 69.1%
Insecticides Dichlorvos/DDVP 56.5%
Lambda-cyhalothrin 49.8%
Fungicides Mancozeb 38.6%
Pesticide Mixtures Imidacloprid & Thiram 44.5%

Banned But Still Used

Nigeria's National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control banned paraquat in January 2024 due to severe risks to human health, animals, and the environment 1 . Yet it remains widely available and popular among urban cultivators.

Why Farmers Embrace the Forbidden

Economic reality, not recklessness, drives this chemical dependence. A bottle of Gramoxone (containing paraquat) costs ₦5,000 (approximately $3.40), while hiring labor for manual weeding would cost between ₦58,000 and ₦73,000 (equivalent to $40-50) 1 .

"As a farmer, you're always calculating," explains Mallam Qozeem Isa, a 43-year-old cocoa and yam farmer from Iwo, Osun State. "When the chemical costs less than the labor, the choice seems simple. I didn't understand the health consequences until it was too late." 1

A Safety Crisis in Plain Sight

Risky Business From Field to Market

The dangers extend beyond choice of chemicals to how they're handled throughout the farming process. Research among tomato producers in Northern Nigeria reveals startling safety gaps that likely mirror practices among Oyo State's urban cultivators 5 :

Container Reuse & Disposal

45% of farmers reuse empty pesticide containers for other purposes

Farm Disposal

14% discard containers directly on the farm

Open Burning

15% burn containers in open fires

Early Harvesting

40% harvest tomatoes within 1-5 days after pesticide application, violating the 7-day pre-harvest interval guideline

Perhaps most alarmingly, over 66% of agricultural workers in Rivers State reported wearing the same contaminated clothing in their homes after working in fields, potentially exposing children and family members to harmful residues .

The Body's Price Tag

The health consequences manifest in both immediate symptoms and chronic conditions. A 2025 study of Oyo State farmers documented concerning health patterns 6 :

Long-term Health Risks

"When a pollutant enters human tissue, it begins to accumulate before expressing its toxic effects — that's why [such chemicals] are called persistent," explains Michael Odey, environmental toxicologist at the University of Calabar in Nigeria. He notes that major accumulation may trigger cancer and cardiovascular diseases, with children and the elderly being particularly vulnerable because their bodies metabolize these substances more slowly 1 .

Inside the Lab: Decoding the Science of Safe Handling

A Key Experiment: What Determines Safety Practices?

A groundbreaking 2025 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health investigated the determinants of safe pesticide handling among rural farmers in Oyo State, with crucial implications for urban cultivators 6 .

Methodology: Listening to the Fields

The research team employed a cross-sectional design using 2-stage cluster sampling techniques to select Ido and Ibarapa Central Local Government Areas. They interviewed 383 farmers via structured questionnaires, assessing:

  • Socio-demographic characteristics and occupational history
  • Pesticide safety knowledge (12-point scale)
  • Safety attitudes about handling and application (9-point scale)
  • Safety practices during handling and application (11-point scale)

The researchers statistically analyzed correlations between training, knowledge levels, and safety practices to identify what truly drives behavioral change 6 .

Results: Knowledge as the Great Divider

The findings revealed striking patterns. While 73.5% of farmers had good safety and health knowledge, and 72.3% demonstrated safe handling practices, specific risky behaviors persisted 6 :

9.8%

Use empty pesticide containers for other purposes

11.5%

Blow nozzle tips with their mouth to unclog them

50.2%

Consistently wear coveralls, gloves, and masks

Most significantly, the research identified two powerful predictors of safety:

  1. Training attendance (OR = 2.821) increased safe practices
  2. Good knowledge (OR = 5.494) made farmers more likely to handle pesticides safely

Factors Influencing Safe Pesticide Practices Among Oyo State Farmers

Beyond the Farm: The Ripple Effect on Urban Plates and National Purses

The Export Rejection Trap

The consequences of unregulated pesticide use extend far beyond individual farms. Nigeria loses approximately $362.5 million annually due to the European Union's ban on Nigerian beans, primarily citing excessive pesticide residues 4 . Up to 76% of Nigerian agricultural exports face rejection on safety grounds, creating a devastating economic impact 4 .

"What is rejected abroad for health reasons is consumed back home," notes Donald Ikenba Ofoegbu of the Alliance for Action on Pesticides in Nigeria, "amplifying exposure and fueling cancer and kidney disease" 4 .

The Healthcare Time Bomb

This chemical exposure is contributing to a growing health crisis. Nigeria now records an estimated 127,000 new cancer cases annually, though leading oncologists warn the actual figure is likely double, as many cases go undiagnosed until late stages 4 . Similarly, more than 2 million Nigerians suffer from chronic kidney disease, with most presenting late for treatment due to cost barriers 4 .

127,000+

New cancer cases annually in Nigeria

2 Million+

Nigerians with chronic kidney disease

₦158 Billion

Annual dialysis subsidy for just 2% of patients

The economic burden is staggering. The federal government now subsidizes dialysis treatments at approximately ₦158.08 billion annually for just 40,000 patients—a mere 2% of those in need 4 .

Cultivating Change: Pathways to a Safer Agricultural Future

Sowing the Seeds of Knowledge

The research is clear: education works. "The first line of defense is knowledge," emphasizes Dr. Odey. "Farmers must understand what they are handling, and governments must ensure these products don't reach their hands in the first place" 1 .

Successful Training Programs

Successful training programs, like those implemented by Norina Farms in Rivers State, adopt a community-based, family-oriented approach rather than focusing solely on individual farmers. These initiatives address critical gaps in proper storage, container disposal, and personal protective equipment use .

From Toxic to Sustainable Solutions

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) presents a promising alternative by combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to minimize harm to human health and the environment 2 . Global experience demonstrates that phasing out highly hazardous pesticides doesn't necessarily reduce food production when paired with alternatives and farmer training 4 .

In Kerala, India, a ban on 14 highly hazardous pesticides had no negative effect on crop yields, with fluctuations driven instead by rainfall and land use patterns 4 . The key lesson is that transitions must be planned, gradual, and supported by extension services and availability of safe substitutes.

A Harvest of Hope

Back in Oyo State, Yakub Ahmad's scars may have faded, but his perspective has permanently changed. "I just wanted my maize to grow," he said quietly. "Now, I know the danger, but if we stop using these chemicals, how do we feed our families?" 1

His dilemma captures Nigeria's precarious balancing act between food security and public health. As urban agriculture expands to feed growing cities, the choices made by farmers, policymakers, and consumers will determine whether our food systems nourish or harm.

The science clearly shows that the price of cheap pesticides is ultimately paid in hospital wards, through export rejections, and in the silent accumulation of toxins in our bodies. But through education, regulation, and sustainable alternatives, Nigeria can cultivate a future where feeding cities doesn't come at the cost of poisoning them.

References