Dozens of deaths in agriculture in recent months have reignited concerns about safety in the sector. But these fatalities are not isolated incidents, writes Dr Karen Michell, research programme lead (occupational health) at IOSH. They are symptoms of a wider system generating thousands of unsafe conditions, injuries and near misses every year.

A recent Farmers Weekly headline declared: 'Six farm deaths in six weeks raise alarm over safety'. But let's be clear: this is more than an alarm. It is evidence of a deeper failure in how we manage occupational safety and health in agriculture.

The figures are stark. Between April 2025 and March 2026, 33 people lost their lives while working in the UK's agricultural and forestry sector – an increase of 10 fatalities on the previous year, when 23 workers were killed. That equates to almost two deaths every month. Yet within just six weeks of the new reporting year, six more lives have already been lost.

This is not a statistical anomaly. It is a pattern.

And, troubling as these numbers are, they represent only the visible tip of a much larger problem.

Looking beneath the fatalities

When confronted with these statistics, my instinct – like that of many occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals – was to think of Bird's Triangle and its predecessor, Heinrich's Triangle. These models describe the relationship between fatalities, serious injuries, minor injuries and near misses.

A commonly cited version suggests a ratio of:

• 1 fatality
• 10 serious injuries
• 30 minor injuries
• 600 near misses

Applying that model to the 33 fatalities recorded in agriculture and forestry suggests a potential burden of:

• 330 serious injuries
• 990 minor injuries
• 19,800 near misses or first-aid cases

The precise numbers are less important than the message they convey. Fatalities are rarely isolated events. They sit at the apex of a much larger pyramid of harm.

Viewed through this lens, the question changes. Rather than asking why 33 people died, we should be asking: what system of work allows thousands of hazardous events to occur within a single sector every year?

The limits of the triangle

Of course, Bird's Triangle is not a predictive tool and its ratios are not universal.

Research shows that relationships between fatalities, injuries and near misses vary across industries, risk profiles and organisational contexts. The assumption that reducing minor injuries will automatically reduce fatalities is overly simplistic. The model also relies on stable exposure to risk, consistent reporting practices and mature safety cultures.

None of these conditions can be confidently assumed in agriculture.

Exposure to risk is highly variable, reporting of injuries and incidents is often inconsistent – particularly for lower-level events – and safety culture can vary significantly between farms and businesses. Even fatal incidents may be subject to delays or inconsistencies in reporting.

Yet despite these limitations, the triangle remains useful because it provides perspective. It helps us understand that fatalities are often the visible outcome of a much larger system of unmanaged risk.

A global challenge

If these figures are concerning in a high-income country such as the UK, the situation in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is even more troubling.

Occupational fatality rates in LMICs are more than twice those seen in higher-income nations, while minor injuries and near misses are significantly under-reported because of weaker reporting systems and limited resources.

In other words, if the UK's figures may underestimate the true burden of harm, the global picture is likely far worse.

And this is only half the story

Even these sobering statistics focus solely on traumatic injury.

They do not capture occupational disease, poor mental health or the wider wellbeing burden experienced across the sector.

Farm workers routinely face long working hours, fatigue, financial pressure, isolation and exposure to a wide range of hazards, including chemical, biological, physical, mechanical and psychosocial risks.

These exposures are associated with numerous adverse health outcomes, including zoonotic diseases such as leptospirosis, brucellosis, Q fever and tuberculosis; allergic sensitisation; poor mental health; increased cardiovascular risk; and chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

In many respects, the injuries we record are simply the acute manifestations of a broader and more sustained exposure to harm.

A structural problem, not an individual one

One of the most significant – and often overlooked – challenges is how safety is managed on farms.

Unlike many larger industries, agriculture rarely has access to dedicated OSH professionals. Responsibility for safety typically sits with farmers themselves, who must balance health and safety alongside production, financial pressures and the many other demands of running a business.

This can result in limited independent scrutiny of working practices and risk management. The farmer is often the employer, the worker and the safety manager all at once.

That creates an inherent challenge: there is no independent lens through which risk can be routinely identified, assessed and challenged before harm occurs.

Where does this leave us?

The conclusion is uncomfortable but unavoidable.

We are not doing enough to make agriculture a safe place to work.

Six deaths in six weeks should not be framed as an exceptional event. They represent the continuation of an already unacceptable situation.

If we focus only on fatalities, we risk missing the bigger picture. The real issue is the systematic tolerance of risk, reflected in:

• high exposure to workplace hazards
• weak reporting and learning cultures
• limited access to professional OSH support and oversight
• persistent underinvestment in prevention

The true tragedy is not only the number of deaths. It is that, year after year, the conditions that lead to them remain largely unchanged.

If Bird's Triangle teaches us anything, it is this: fatalities are not isolated events. They are the predictable outcome of a system generating thousands of unsafe conditions, behaviours and exposures.

As OSH professionals, we need to rethink how we support farmers in managing the risks they face every day. Until we address the underlying system, the numbers will not change – and neither will the headlines.

Dr Karen Michell is research programme lead (occupational health) at IOSH.

Source: IOSH Magazine

Comment: "This really highlights why safety cannot be measured only by the incidents we see. The challenge is identifying and addressing the risks that sit beneath the surface before they have the chance to cause life-changing harm. A safer future for agriculture depends on supporting everyone involved with the right knowledge, resources and systems."