Prior studies provide some clues to understanding these findings in the context of population livelihoods.23 27 29 Smallholder farming communities often perceive that IPM practices cause crops to become more susceptible to pests, whereas the application of pesticides

(particularly those of high toxicity) buy Dinaciclib ensures harvests and reduces production uncertainties. The use of pesticides guarantees the production of larger and apparently healthier products of competitive quality for consumers. A large percentage of farmers (approximately 70%) in the two studies used pesticides of extreme and moderate toxicity.20 Small farmers’ concurrent use of IPM practices and pesticides of various toxicity levels have been observed in other studies.23 27 37 The results of this study

suggest that the implementation of IPM crop management practices may be different among those participating in organisations but not with a differential effect on the health of small-scale farmers. On the other hand, other aspects of social capital are important for farmer human capital, including their health. In prior work, we have shown that community deprivation remained an important independent, negative determinant of neurobehavioural function (29), a form of human capital. Years of education have been positively associated with changes in knowledge about pesticide hazards (27) and farmer neurobehavioural function (29–31), both forms of human capital. However, across

studies of pesticide effects on health, ongoing exposure to high toxicity pesticides has a cumulative negative impact on neurobehavioural function, thus decreasing human capital. Hence, organisations as social structures which can facilitate appropriate information and less risky practices in crop management can thus contribute to the development and maintenance of human capital in multiple ways. Study limitations The findings of this study are explanatory rather than predictive for understanding the structures through which social capital is facilitated in contexts of development at micro levels (organisational and community). The primary limitation of this study was that the exploration of the aspects of social capital related to health impacts in the GSK-3 process of smallholder agriculture was not the primary goal of the previous participatory research (EcoSalud II).27 28 The results of this study should be considered within the context of social production of health38 and especially as an input to the debate on the role of social capital in relation to the health of individuals, groups and populations who live in contexts of social inequity. Our indicators of social capital were focused on organisational participation, although we recognise that this is just one component. It would have been beneficial to gather information about the duration of participants’ participation in organisations, to complement our findings.