New research reveals gaps in COVID-19 prevention policies for farmworkers
Q&A with researcher Devon Payne-Sturges
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, migrant and seasonal farmworkers were in a precarious situation. Considered essential for maintaining the country’s food supply, these workers faced heightened risks of virus exposure due to crowded employer-provided housing, shared transportation and close working conditions. While policymakers and public health officials scrambled to protect essential workers, farmworkers, who often live in rural and isolated communities, generally received less attention.
Oregon was among the first states to implement emergency temporary standards (ETS) specifically targeting farmworker protections. But did these targeted policies actually work? A new study led by researchers at the University of Michigan and Indiana University examines Oregon’s COVID-19 response, revealing surprising findings about the effectiveness of farmworker-specific policies versus broader worker protections. The study’s results challenge common assumptions about policy design and offer crucial insights for protecting workers in future infectious disease outbreaks.
To learn more about this research, we spoke with study author Devon Payne-Sturges, professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Briefly tell us what you found in this study.
In this study, we examined how two ETSs and one executive order issued in Oregon impacted COVID-19 trends for the overall population and for farmworkers using an interrupted time series analysis and seasonal statistical models from March 1, 2020 through February 27, 2021.
We found that the first ETS and executive order targeting just farmworker worksites and housing was not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, the ETS targeting all workplaces was associated with statistically significant decreases in COVID-19 cases among both the general population and among farmworkers specifically. This suggests that the implementation of a comprehensive workplace COVID-19 exposure risk control strategy can reduce the incidence of cases.
We observed no impact on COVID-19 deaths for either of the ETSs or the executive order.
Your study focused specifically on farmworkers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Why were farmworkers particularly vulnerable during the pandemic, and why hasn’t their experience been studied more extensively?
There are an estimated 2.4 million hired farmworkers in this country, including many undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign workers present on H-2A visas. These farmworkers were particularly vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic because their work, housing and transportation conditions increased the risk of exposure to the highly contagious virus that causes COVID-19. Hired farmworkers are among the lowest paid, most vulnerable workers who labor and live under conditions that pose risks to their health, ranging from crowded housing to a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), field sanitation and handwashing stations on work sites. Additionally, many farmworkers lack access to health information, preventive care and medical treatment. These vulnerabilities are often compounded by language and legal barriers.
Early into the pandemic as outbreaks of COVID-19 among farmworkers occurred, numerous public health and farmworker advocacy organizations sounded the alarm, pushed for the federal and state governments to take action, provided medical assistance to workers and conducted studies to better understand the challenges these workers were facing. However, to date, efforts to quantitatively evaluate the impact of employer and governmental actions and inactions to reduce spread of COVID-19 among farmworkers have been limited.
Oregon was among the first states to implement emergency standards specifically targeting farmworkers. Can you walk us through what these policies actually required employers to do?
The first ETS issued by the Oregon Occupational Health and Safety Administration in May 2020 targeted farmworker employer-provided housing, labor-intensive agricultural operations, field sanitation and transportation. Employers were required to institute social distancing measures and increase the availability of toilet and handwashing facilities. Additionally, bunk bed use by unrelated people was prohibited, and employers were required to separate beds by at least 6 feet of space or install an impermeable barrier between beds. When transporting multiple farmworkers, facial coverings, social distancing of at least 3 feet, and sanitation of the vehicles were required. Other requirements included the isolation of individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in separate sleeping, eating and bathroom accommodations away from others who were not sick.
In contrast, the second ETS—which applied to all workplaces within the Oregon OSHA jurisdiction, including farmworkers and their employers—required employers to not only enact a comprehensive set of risk-reducing measures like physical distancing and the use of face coverings, but to improve ventilation, conduct exposure risk assessments, develop an infection control plan, provide training on these measures, notify workers of workplace COVID-19 infections and possible exposures to infected individuals, facilitate COVID-19 testing, and comply with “medical removal” of an employee if recommended by the Oregon Health Authority, local public health agency or medical provider due to quarantine or isolation for COVID-19.
Your findings show that the farmworker-specific policies weren’t effective, but the general workplace standards were. This seems counterintuitive. Wouldn’t targeted policies work better? From your perspective, what is behind the variation in effectiveness?
The second ETS, which applied to all workplaces, was more comprehensive, consisting of a layered approach for controlling exposures to COVID-19 hazards. More specifically, the second ETS addressed ventilation, whereas the first ETS did not. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence has shown that airborne transmission plays a role in spreading the virus, particularly from crowded indoor spaces with poor ventilation even at distances greater than 6 feet.
But, as we discuss in the paper, there were likely differences regarding implementation of these temporary orders. A survey of Oregon farmworkers several months after the issuance of the first ETS revealed that although employers were taking some steps to comply with the ETS, workers were not always provided with proper protection gear, were frequently unable to maintain 6-foot physical distancing while working, and were not able to quarantine or isolate when infected.
You found significant reductions in COVID-19 cases but no impact on deaths across all policies. What do you make of this
This was puzzling to us. In looking back at the data we thought perhaps the increase in COVID-19 transmission during the fall and winter months of 2021 may explain why none of the examined policies were associated with decreases in the daily COVID-19 mortality rate. Perhaps there were other factors contributing to deaths that were unrelated to workplace conditions.
Your research suggests that the design, communication and implementation of farmworker protection policies need to be re-evaluated. What specific changes would you recommend for future public health crises?
The vulnerabilities and harms that farmworkers faced during the COVID-19 pandemic should not be surprising. Preventive measures recommended to the general public to reduce disease risk are structurally constrained in a racialized economy where marginalized workers such as Black and Latino/a migrant and seasonal farmworkers live in segregated communities with substandard and crowded housing conditions, unsafe or limited water that make hand hygiene and social distancing challenging, if not impossible. These very same vulnerabilities were previously identified as barriers for successfully preparing and protecting farmworkers in times of a health crisis such as pandemic influenza, but were never comprehensively addressed.
The disparities illuminated by COVID-19 are the result of years of inequities built into practices, policies, and systems that continue to put farmworkers at risk, including the historical exclusion of farmworkers, motivated by anti-Black racism, from federally protected right to organize and other labor protections. Any effort to reduce health disparities among Black and Latino/a migrant and seasonal farmworkers and design an equitable response to the inevitable next pandemic must focus on understanding and dismantling the structural and institutional drivers of health inequities.
Media Contact
Andrea LaFerle
Director of Public Relations and MarketingUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health734-764-8094