|
Anti-pesticide campaigns get boost from
worrisome new studies
Katherine Stapp
New York, New York May 14 (IPS) — New data proving that
an array of pesticides have reached alarming levels in the general population
are galvanizing calls for a ban on the most harmful chemicals and greater
investment in sustainable farming strategies.
This week, the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network North America
(PANNA) released an analysis of data on 34 pesticides collected from
more than 9,000 people by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), a U.S. government agency that monitors public health.
Their report found that among people who had both their blood and urine
tested, 100 percent showed pesticide residues. Two insecticides —
chlorpyrifos and methyl parathion — were found at levels up to
4.5 times greater than what the US government deems ”acceptable.”
Chlorpyrifos, manufactured under the trade name Dursban by Dow Chemical,
was especially pervasive, according to the study, titled “Chemical
Trespass: Pesticides in Our Bodies and Corporate Accountability.”
PANNA estimates that Dow is the source for some 80 percent of the chlorpyrifos
found in those tested.
In fact, Dursban has been controversial for years. In 1999, the CDC
announced that 82 percent of U.S. citizens had the chemical in their
bodies. As a result, Dow agreed to phase out most household uses of
Dursban, although it is still widely sold both in the US and abroad.
The chemical is used in products ranging from flea collars for pets
to garden and lawn care products. It is also a component in insect control
products, both in agriculture and for household use.
Under a 1994 agreement, Dow also promised to stop advertising its product
as “safe”. After the company continued to claim that Dursban
had no “long term (health) effects” and posed ”no evidence
of significant risk to the environment,” it was slapped with a
two-million-dollar fine last December, the largest of its kind in US
history.
PANNA says the company reacted predictably to the most recent study.
“Dow’s response has been to say that these pesticides don’t
last very long [in human tissue and the environment], but the CDC data
directly contradicts that,” Said Monica Moore, co-director of PANNA.
“This really needs to be a wake-up call.”
PANNA gained access to CDC data broken down by gender, age and ethnicity,
but not by geographic area or occupation. However, Moore said that the
particularly high pesticide levels seen in Mexican-Americans, for example,
were suggestive of exposure during farm labor.
“What this study shows is that it’s not just an individual
solution,” she said. “We need to adopt sustainable agriculture
techniques. Even if you only eat organic produce, these chemicals are
in the air, the water, the stuff you touch. That’s why we’re
calling for removal of these pesticides from the environment.”
The PANNA analysis came on the heels of another study by the Ontario
College of Family Physicians that found linkages between pesticide exposure
and a host of cancers, as well as birth defects and fetal death.
The Canadian researchers sifted through some 12,000 studies conducted
from 1990 to 2003 around the world, and concluded that there is no evidence
that some pesticides are less dangerous than others, rather that they
have different effects on health that take different periods to appear.
While women often register higher exposures then men because their body
fat traps the toxins from pesticides, experts note that children are
consistently the most vulnerable group.
In India, a study released by Greenpeace at the end of April titled
“Arrested Development” determined that exposure to even small
doses of pesticides impairs children’s analytical abilities, motor
skills and memory.
“When we started on this study, we knew we were likely to find
unsettling evidence of children damaged by pesticides,” said Kavitha
Kuruganti, lead investigator of the study, in a statement.
“But the results of a systematic, nationwide study were far more
shocking than we’d expected: 898 children from backgrounds as diverse
as Tamil Nadu and Punjab who have nothing in common but their exposure
to pesticides also share the inability to perform simple play-based
exercises — like catching a ball or assembling a jigsaw puzzle
— simply because they’ve been exposed to pesticides over a
period of time,” she said.
Among four- and five-year-olds in the country’s pesticide-intensive
cotton belts, the exposed children performed worse than the control
group in 86 percent of the tests. Among older children, ages nine to
13, the figure was 84.2 percent.
“North-eastern states like Sikkim and Mizoram have already recognized
the risks of using pesticides and declared themselves ‘organic
states’,” said K. A. Chandrasekar, director of the Social
Initiative for Rural People’s Integration, a local partner in the
project.
“This study will show farmers the real price they have been forced
to pay for succumbing to the marketing tactics of pesticides manufacturers.”
On May 17, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs) will take effect. It targets an initial 12 chemicals — known
as ”the dirty dozen” — for elimination, nine of them
pesticides. The accord, just ratified by the necessary 50 countries,
bans the use of POPs, and also focuses on eliminating obsolete stockpiles
of pesticides and toxic chemicals that contain POPs.
The George W. Bush administration has so far refused to ratify the treaty.
But some anti-pesticide campaigners are not waiting for the federal
government to act. In the western state of California, a coalition of
local organizations, including an indigenous group, has filed a lawsuit
against the state’s environmental protection agency for failing
to meet goals on reducing pesticide use and smog-causing pollutants.
Farm workers in Washington state, in the northwest, are suing the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allowing the use of two toxic
pesticides, azinphos-methyl and phosmet, despite research showing the
dangers of exposure to such chemicals.
Just last week, 13 people working in a California peach orchard were
rushed to the hospital after being exposed to the deadly nerve gas pesticide
Monitor 4 and the pesticide Penncozeb 75 DM, when the wind shifted from
a nearby potato field that was being sprayed.
Activists hope the new PANNA report will galvanize public opinion against
pesticide use the way research documenting the health effects of smoking
turned the tide against cigarette companies in the 1990s.
“The pesticides we carry in our bodies are made and aggressively
promoted by agrochemical companies,” said Skip Spitzer of PANNA.
“These companies also spend millions on political influence to
block or undermine regulatory measures designed to protect public health
and the environment.”
‘Dirty dozen’ toxins are banned by UN pact
A “dirty dozen” of industrial chemicals blamed for causing
deaths and birth defects will be outlawed May 17 by a UN pact, with
many experts wanting other toxins added to the blacklist.
The 2001 Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
comes into force after its ratification by 50 countries, ending the
use of a range of pesticides, dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
“The convention will save lives and protect the natural environment
... by banning the production and use of some of the most toxic chemicals
known to humankind,” said Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN environment
programme (Unep).
Many experts say the “dirty dozen” list is too short. “Some
of the old classical pesticides are in decline in some areas,”
said Lars-Otto Reiersen, head of the Arctic monitoring and assessment
program. “What alarms us most is that levels of new products like
brominated flame retardants are increasing.”
POPs can cause cancer and damage the nervous, reproductive and immune
systems of people and animals, Unep says.
POPs such as the pesticides DDT, aldrin and dieldrin have been long
banned in many countries. Even so, anyone scraping off old paint from
a window frame, for instance, may release PCBs.
The Stockholm convention will release around $500m, partly to help to
destroy stockpiles and seek alternatives. About 25 countries, including
South Africa and Ethiopia, will be allowed to keep using DDT to spray
malarial mosquitoes.
The European environment commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, who is Swedish,
said she was screened last year for 77 toxins, including POPs. “I
had 28 in my body, including PCB and DDT,” she said. “I was
told that my result was below the average of the group tested.”
(Guardian (UK))
Activists wary as Monsanto withdraws
GE wheat
By Stephen Leahy
Brooklin, Canada, May 11 (IPS) — Activists who fight genetically
engineered products are declaring victory after agricultural giant Monsanto’s
decision to shelve plans to launch GE wheat in Canada and the United
States. But some warn that the battle over the wheat, and GE crops in
general, is far from over.
“I was surprised and skeptical about the announcement,” says
Marc Loiselle, an organic farmer in Saskatchewan. “On closer examination
Monsanto really said it will begin to focus on other types of GE crops
but also look at other types of GE wheat aside from the ‘Round-Up
Ready’ varieties it has already developed,” he says.
The company genetically engineered Round-Up Ready wheat to withstand
its herbicide of the same name.
The UN-based firm did not respond to requests for an interview, but
in a statement Monsanto Executive Vice President Carl Casle said, “this
decision allows us to defer commercial development of Roundup Ready
wheat, in order to align with the potential commercialization of other
biotechnology traits in wheat, estimated to be four to eight years in
the future.”
The approval of GE wheat would have been a disaster for Canadian grain
farmers and their grain trading company, the Canada Wheat Board (CWB).
Nearly 90 percent of the CWB’s customers had previously said they
would not buy GE wheat.
“Monsanto has made the right decision by respecting the wishes
of their customer farmers,” CWB Chairman Ken Ritter said a statement.
“Farmers overwhelmingly opposed the introduction of Round-Up Ready
wheat, which offered few agronomic benefits and threatened to destroy
premium markets for their product,” he added.
Canadian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) joined farmers and others
in a bitter three-year battle to stop the crop being approved for use
in Canada. Just last week, Friends of the Earth in the province of Quebec
and the Council of Canadians launched a campaign to have Canadians mail
Prime Minister Paul Martin a slice of bread to protest the government’s
support of GE wheat.
“Strong rejection of GE wheat from virtually every corner of the
globe once again showed the resistance to GE foods,” said Pat Venditti
of Greenpeace Canada, in a statement.
Strong opposition by farmers, consumers and countries likely prompted
Monsanto’s decision, says Debra Harry, executive director of the
UN-based Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism.
The issue has particular relevance for indigenous people because GE
crops are grown in open field environments and have the potential to
affect neighbouring environments, including soil and water, Harry told
IPS at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York.
“Any time we can set a limit or stop the proliferation of GE crops,
it’s good for all of us,” she added.
The NGO Genewatch UK is warning that as a result of Monsanto’s
decision and other companies’ withdrawal of other GE crops from
Europe, the developing world will likely become the focus of the biotechnology
industry’s market aspirations.
India is being used as a bridgehead into the vast cotton markets of
Asia while South Africa is being used as an entry into the African continent,
Genewatch Director Sue Mayer wrote in the Guardian newspaper May 11.
“While supporters of biotechnology make claims for its ability
to provide solutions to world hunger, those at the sharp end have a
different perspective. Monsanto and the rest of the biotechnology industry
may see these largely disempowered communities as easier to overcome
than the consumers of the developed world,” she added.
In 2002, two farmers in Canada’s Saskatchewan province filed a
class-action lawsuit against Monsanto to prevent the sale of GE wheat.
They feared that seeds and pollen from neighboring farms would blow
onto their fields and contaminate their organic crops.
That lawsuit was part of a larger effort to get compensation from Monsanto
over the loss of the organic oilseed rape market. Contamination from
widely grown GE oilseed made it impossible to grow GE-free rape in Western
Canada the farmers alleged, and cost organic growers 14 million dollars
(10 million UN dollars) in lost sales.
“The lawsuit will continue despite the announcement,” says
Loiselle, who represents organic grain growers at the Saskatchewan Organic
Directorate (SOD).
However, an injunction to prevent Monsanto from planting more GE wheat
in open field test plots will likely be dropped, he said.
After such a long, intense battle against GE wheat, Loiselle remains
wary about the company’s aims.
“It doesn’t look like Monsanto [has] officially withdrawn
their application for commercialization to the Canadian government,”
he points out.
Despite this week’s announcement, the biotech juggernaut continues
to roll, according to BIO, the industry association. Eighteen countries
are now growing 67 million hectares (165 million acres) of GE crops,
chiefly cotton, maize and soya. The area planted with GE strains rose
15 percent in 2003, it adds.
Harry cautions that corporations, partnered with the World Trade Organization
(WTO) will continue to do whatever they can to prevent opposition to
and increase the spread of GE crops.
“It will take continued activism to stop all of the other GE food
sources,” she predicts.
|
