High Pesticide Exposure Events and Self-Reported and Measured Olfactory Dysfunction

Importance Pesticide exposure may contribute to olfactory dysfunction in adults, but empirical evidence is limited. Objectives To examine the association between high pesticide exposure events and olfactory dysfunction in farmers. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study used data from a subcohort of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the Pesticide and Sense of Smell (PASS) Study, conducted from January 2020 to October 2021. Participants included farmers from Iowa and North Carolina, were alive as of June 2019, and either reported olfactory dysfunction in the AHS phase 4 survey or were randomly sampled from those reporting normal olfaction. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2023 to December 2025. Exposure High pesticide exposure events self-reported in the PASS Study and the AHS phase 1 through 3 surveys. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was olfactory dysfunction first self-reported and then measured using the 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (defined as a score ≤8). To extrapolate PASS Study findings to the target population, inverse probability weights were constructed to account for death and study nonparticipation. Results This analysis included 2545 of 4629 farmers (55.0%) who completed the study activities, including a survey and a smell identification test (mean [SD] age, 70.3 [9.6] years; 2467 [96.9%] male). The weighted prevalence of self-reported olfactory dysfunction was 21.2% (95% CI, 18.1%-24.3%) among farmers with a history of HPEEs and 15.1% (95% CI, 12.9%-17.3%) among those without, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04-1.62). The exposure was not associated with olfactory dysfunction identified from the smell test (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15) or with the farmers’ perceived testing experience, including reporting substantial difficulty in identifying odorants (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.13) and reporting the odorants as weak (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78-1.30). Results were similar when using exposure data from previous AHS surveys. Conclusions and Relevance This survey study found that HPEEs were associated with subjective reports of olfactory loss among farmers but not with their measured smell identification. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating both objective and subjective measures of olfaction in epidemiologic research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
Published
2026-09-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2026.2605
Primary Topic
Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

High Pesticide Exposure Events and Self-Reported and Measured Olfactory Dysfunction

Brenda L. Plassman, Zhehui Luo, Yaqun Yuan, Dale P. Sandler et al.
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
article

High Pesticide Exposure Events and Self-Reported and Measured Olfactory Dysfunction

Brenda L. Plassman, Zhehui Luo, Yaqun Yuan, Dale P. Sandler, Shengfang Song, Jonathan N. Hofmann, Jayant M. Pinto, Laura E. Beane Freeman, Honglei Chen, Christine G. Parks
article en

Abstract

Importance Pesticide exposure may contribute to olfactory dysfunction in adults, but empirical evidence is limited. Objectives To examine the association between high pesticide exposure events and olfactory dysfunction in farmers. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study used data from a subcohort of the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the Pesticide and Sense of Smell (PASS) Study, conducted from January 2020 to October 2021. Participants included farmers from Iowa and North Carolina, were alive as of June 2019, and either reported olfactory dysfunction in the AHS phase 4 survey or were randomly sampled from those reporting normal olfaction. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2023 to December 2025. Exposure High pesticide exposure events self-reported in the PASS Study and the AHS phase 1 through 3 surveys. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was olfactory dysfunction first self-reported and then measured using the 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (defined as a score ≤8). To extrapolate PASS Study findings to the target population, inverse probability weights were constructed to account for death and study nonparticipation. Results This analysis included 2545 of 4629 farmers (55.0%) who completed the study activities, including a survey and a smell identification test (mean [SD] age, 70.3 [9.6] years; 2467 [96.9%] male). The weighted prevalence of self-reported olfactory dysfunction was 21.2% (95% CI, 18.1%-24.3%) among farmers with a history of HPEEs and 15.1% (95% CI, 12.9%-17.3%) among those without, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04-1.62). The exposure was not associated with olfactory dysfunction identified from the smell test (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15) or with the farmers’ perceived testing experience, including reporting substantial difficulty in identifying odorants (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.13) and reporting the odorants as weak (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78-1.30). Results were similar when using exposure data from previous AHS surveys. Conclusions and Relevance This survey study found that HPEEs were associated with subjective reports of olfactory loss among farmers but not with their measured smell identification. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating both objective and subjective measures of olfaction in epidemiologic research.

JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
University of Chicago (US), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US), Duke Medical Center (US), National Cancer Institute (US), Duke University Hospital (US), Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Michigan State University (US)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.