From panna@igc.apc.org Tue Aug 31 22:30:37 1993 Date: 31 Aug 93 12:56 PDT From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Subject: PANUPS: Tolerance Field-testing ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= US and Canada Lead the World in Herbicide Tolerance Field-testing August 31, 1993 Despite industry claims of the environmental soundness of agricultural biotechnology, the majority of field tests of novel genetically engineered organisms developed by these corporations are still focused on herbicide resistance. A recent survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that herbicide tolerance is the most commonly field-tested trait in genetically engineered crop trials around the world. Since 1986, 483 field tests for herbicide tolerance have been approved -- 57% of the total number of trials. The number of approvals of herbicide tolerant crops is more than four times greater than the number for the next most frequently tested trait, virus resistance. The United States (37%) and Canada (36%) account for nearly three-quarters of total OECD field- testing. A recent summary from the government agency Agriculture Canada indicates that 501 applications for field trials of genetically engineered crops have been received so far this year. The most common breeding objective was listed as novel herbicide tolerance. Included in the list of applications are the usual suspects: Hoechst Canada testing glufosinate-ammonium tolerance in alfalfa and Monsanto testing glyphosate tolerance in canola. Activists in Canada discovered a startling fact while investigating field- testing in their country: in the 1990-91 field season, the number one tester of genetically engineered crop plants in Canada was also the regulatory agency itself, Agriculture Canada. Members of the Biotechnology Caucus of the Canadian Environment Network explain that since 1988, Agriculture Canada has assessed and approved these tests without providing any opportunity for public participation in the regulatory process. In finding out the locations for the 1990-91 test sites, about half were obtained through the Federal access of information law, while the rest were leaked by federal employees. Herbicide tolerant plants are being developed to increase the agrichemical industry's market for certain key chemicals. According to "Biotechnology's Bitter Harvest," a 1990 report from the U.S. based Biotechnology Working Group, genetically engineering canola to tolerate glyphosate could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in additional sales for Monsanto; development of crops tolerant to Hoechst's Basta (glufosinate- ammonium) would increase the herbicide's global sales by an estimated $200 million a year. While the companies attempt to portray these chemicals as "environmentally friendly," they are definitely not friendly to the humans applying them. Glyphosate is one of the top ten chemicals in terms of worker illness in agriculture in California. Calgene has recently asked for permission from the USDA to begin large scale field testing of bromoxynil tolerant cotton. Bromoxynil, manufactured by Rhone-Poulenc, is a proven mutagen, and readily absorbed through the skin. Both the California and U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies have increased worker protection requirements for use of bromoxynil. Biotech activists advocate the regulation of herbicide-tolerant plants as pesticides, because of the increased use and impacts of the target herbicides. For instance, it is estimated that over one million acres of cotton in California could eventually be planted with bromoxynil tolerant cotton. Sources: The Gene Exchange 4(1), National Wildlife Federation, May 1993. "Agriculture Canada Receives 501 Applications for Field Testing," env.biotech on EcoNet. Contacts: CEN Biotechnology Caucus, Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, 517 College Street, Suite 400, Toronto, Ont., M6G 4A2. Biotechnology Working Group, c/o Minnesota Food Association, 2395 University Avenue, Room 309, Saint Paul, MN 55114; phone (612) 644-2038. Resource: "Biotechnology's Bitter Harvest," Biotechnology Working Group, available from Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center, 116 New Montgomery St., Suite 810, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 541- 9140, fax: (415) 541-9253 ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide- related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA RC). PANNA RC is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Fri Sep 3 21:31:18 1993 Date: 03 Sep 93 15:15 PDT From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Subject: PANUPS: Town Restricts Pesticides ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Canadian Town Restricts Pesticides September 3, 1993 The town of Hudson in Quebec, Canada, has won the right to keep a by-law passed in 1991 prohibiting the use of pesticides within the town. A judge of the Quebec Superior Court ruled that the by-law is legal and within the powers of the Town of Hudson. The Town Council first enacted By-law #248 in 1990, prohibiting application of "toxic substances" subject to certain specific exemptions. In 1991, a second by-law (#270) was passed that stated that 'the spreading and use of a pesticide is prohibited throughout the territory of the town." The term pesticide is defined in the by-law as "any substance, matter, or micro-organism intended to control, destroy, reduce, attract or repel, directly or indirectly, an organism which is noxious, harmful or annoying for a human being, fauna, vegetation, crops, or other goods, or intended to regulate the growth of vegetation, excluding medicine or vaccine." The Hudson by-law seeks primarily to eliminate the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes such as lawn and garden use. It does allow six exemptions for pesticide use: in swimming pools; to purify water; inside any buildings; to control or destroy animals which constitute a danger to humans; to control or destroy plants which constitute a danger to allergic humans (this exemption refers to a regional regulation requiring the elimination of ragweed); and as wood preservatives. Farmers are also exempt but are required to notify local authorities of all pesticides used within the town. Golf courses were given a maximum of five years to phase out pesticide use. The by-law does permit biological pesticides to control or destroy insects, although a definition of biological pesticides is not included in the law. Chemical lawn care companies were strongly opposed to the measure and refused to honor the statute. In the summer of 1992, Hudson successfully prosecuted two companies, ChemLawn and SprayTech. Both companies appealed, claiming that the by-law exceeded the powers of the Town Council and that it was "abusive, discriminatory and unreasonable." In his judgment on August 19, 1993, Judge James T. Kennedy of the Quebec Superior Court stated that the Council had acted in the public interest by virtue of inherent powers given them by the Cities and Towns Act. Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides (CAP), a grassroots organization dedicated to the reduction of chemical pesticides, applauded the ruling. The group is now calling on Hudson council to amend the by-law to include chemical fertilizers. The group also calls on all town councils in Canada to pass similarly restrictive by-laws to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to pesticide products. CAP challenges lawn care companies not to resist the trend and to convert to organic lawn care services. However, the Federation Interdisciplinaire de l'Horticulture Ornementale du Quebec (a lobbying group representing lawn care professionals and gardeners) has stated that it will appeal the decision to the Quebec Appeal Court. Source/contact: Merryl Hammond, Citizens for Alternatives to Pesticides (CAP), 20 Sunny Acres, Baic d'Urfe, Quebec, Canada H9X 3B6; phone (514) 457-4347; fax (514) 457-4840. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541- 9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Mon Sep 13 23:19:48 1993 Date: 13 Sep 93 14:30 PDT From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Subject: PANUPS: Organic Cotton Conference ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Conference on Organic Cotton Draws Growers, Manufacturers, Retailers September 13, 1993 On September 7th and 8th, 250 people gathered in Visalia, California for the second annual National Conference on Organic Cotton. Organic farmers, cotton ginners, retail companies, environmentalists and researchers came together in a unique cross-industry forum to discuss the future of organic cotton. The conference, which was organized by the California Institute for Rural Studies and co-sponsored by PAN NA, included a fashion show of the latest styles of organic clothing. Cotton is the world's largest cash crop and one of the heaviest pesticide users. Although it occupies only 3% of total farmland, cotton uses 25% of the world's chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Half of the 660 million pounds of pesticides used in the developing world are applied to cotton. In California alone, 10-17 million pounds of pesticides were applied to cotton each year for the past 10 years. Despite this heavy chemical use, weeds and pests continue to develop resistance to major cotton pesticides, creating an endless cycle of increasing applications and growing resistance. In 1992, California had 1,000 acres of certified organic cotton, with an additional 2,000 acres in pending status. Land in organic production must be managed without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides for three years prior to the harvest of a certified crop. Texas is also a leader in organic cotton cultivation. Techniques for organic cotton farming include rotation and trap crops, beneficial insect releases, defoliation with non-toxic nutrients and micro- management of fertility, pests and irrigation. The conference had panels on the organic cotton industry, natural resource concerns, regulatory issues and prospects/problems for organic cotton growers and clothing companies. The overall sense of the meeting was that the market for organic cotton is growing rapidly and there are tremendous opportunities for both growers and manufactures, despite some problems. These problems include locating enough certified organic cotton supplies to meet current demands, educating consumers about the benefits of organic clothing and developing enforceable certification standards in the U.S. and abroad. Many growers spoke during the conference. Lorna McMahon, a cotton farmer in Tennessee, said that after 50 years organic agriculture is putting farmers back into the driver's seat and taking control away from banks, chemical companies and the government. Steve Pavich, a grower from California, said that for the first time organic cotton allows farmers to get better prices for better environmental practices. Speaking about farmworkers, attorney Bill Monning explained that cotton farms are the third largest source of reported pesticide illnesses in California and that organic cotton will help reduce this high illness rate. Retails companies, such as ESPRIT and Patagonia, spoke about their commitment to organic cotton and sustainable manufacturing process. From an international perspective, Arif Jamal, a PAN participant from Sudan, spoke about the extremely heavy use of pesticides on cotton in his country. Sudan gets 40% of its national income from cotton exports but is experiencing massive pesticide problems. In the 1920s, Sudan harvested approximately 1,300 kilograms of cotton per acre but now harvests a mere 200 kg. per acre, an 85% reduction. In the 1980s, cotton farmers sprayed 12-14 applications of DDT per season. Carina Weber, from PAN Germany, explained that the demand for organic cotton is high in her country but "green" labeling by the government is misleading and needs to reflect more environmental and social concerns. The conference also included farmer delegations from Israel and Australia Contact/Source: Will Allen, California Institute for Rural Studies, PO Box 2143, Davis, CA 95617, phone: 916-756-6555, fax: 916-756-7429 and PAN NA. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna- info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Tue Sep 21 22:25:56 1993 Date: 21 Sep 93 10:17 PDT From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Subject: PANUPS: IPM in Mali and Sudan ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= IPM and Pesticide Use in Mali and Sudan September 21, 1992 After depending on pesticides for decades and experiencing severe pesticide problems, the African nations of Mali and Sudan are now looking at Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a safer, less expensive, and more environmentally sound system of pest control. New information has come out about both countries in government reports distributed at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization's Global Meeting on IPM, held in Bangkok from August 31- September 3, 1993. According to a report by Mali's Crop Protection Service, 78% of Mali's population is involved in farming, while agricultural production makes up 48% of the nation's GNP. The country's main food crops are rice, millet, sorghum and maize. Cotton is the largest cash/export crop, on its own accounting for 22% of the GNP (no date given), and is one of the nation's heaviest pesticide users . Pesticides are sprayed every 15 days from seeding to harvest (at least 4-7 times during the cropping season), resulting in almost 2.5 million liters of pesticides being applied to cotton each year. Having experienced the many pitfalls of pesticide dependence, the Malian government is now turning to IPM to control pests in cotton, cereal crops, and vegetables. IPM pilot projects began in Mourdiah in 1985 and in Banamba in 1990. The aim of these programs is to make farmers aware that alternative control methods are available, which are less expensive and produce potentially higher yields than using pesticides. To combat the nation's main pests (including grasshoppers and millet head mines), the government suggests several IPM techniques: digging grasshopper egg pods into the soil during the dry season; having farmers plant millet at the same time to minimize pest damage; and ploughing/weeding 2 meter rows around fields to prevent entry of grasshopper nymphs. The IPM program in Mali seems to be succeeding, although data is not yet available. Since 1989, however, more than 10,000 farmers have been trained in IPM techniques, with an emphasis on minimizing pesticide use. Sudan, on the other side of the African continent, has a long history of pesticide dependence and pesticide-related problems. Sudan began large-scale cotton production under British colonialism in the 1920s and started applying pesticides to its cotton plantations in the 1940s. Today cotton is still the most important export crop, representing 40% of the country's total export value and the major source of foreign exchange earnings. According to the report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Sudan's over reliance on pesticides has caused severe problems, including secondary pest outbreaks, pesticide resistance, greatly increased costs of production, and human and environmental poisonings. Surveys of pesticide residues have found DDT, heptachlor, endosulfan, aldrin and dieldrin residues in water, soil and food throughout the country. According to government statistics, nearly 500 people were poisoned by pesticides between 1980 and 1991, including 46 deaths. (These numbers are vastly underestimated, according to Arif Jamal of Sudan's Natural Resource Protection Group. In a Feb. 1992 article in PAN's ^Global Pesticide Campaigner^, Arif describes three incidents in 1988 and 1991 alone, where 604 people were poisoned and 31 people died.) In addition to these health crises, Sudan has also had to deal with escalating costs and decreasing effectiveness of pesticides. According to the government's IPM report, in 1925/26 cotton yields at the Gezira Scheme (a 2 million acre government-run farm) averaged 1622 kg/ha, with no pesticides applications. By 1985/86, however, cotton yields averaged just 1193 kg/ha, despite an average 8.5 pesticide sprayings at a cost of 315 Sudanese pounds per hectare. At the same time, the Gezira Scheme's budget for insecticides and herbicides jumped from 4.8 million Sudanese pounds in 1974/75 to 55 million pounds in 1984/85. This reliance on pesticides decimated farmers profits, depleted the country's limited foreign exchange and made the cotton difficult to export because of high pesticide residues. As a result, Sudan recently started an IPM program in cotton, vegetables, and wheat. The objectives of the program are to help farmers gain maximum returns at minimum costs, create less of a burden on the government's foreign exchange earnings and protect the health and environment of rural villages. Already the program has had tangible results. In 1988, with the help of the World Bank, a pilot IPM project on 600 acres of cotton in the Gezira Scheme was able to reduce pesticide use by one-third. The quality of cotton also improved in this program since it eliminated stickiness from white flies. The program has now expanded to 2000 acres. Under Sudan's larger IPM efforts, the government also plans to train more than 15,000 farmers, rural women, students, and staff in basic IPM concepts and strategies. Source: "IPM Status Report in Mali" by L. Diarra and M. Kamissoko, Mali Crop Protection Service, and "IPM Status Report in Sudan" by Dr. A. Alsaffar and Dr. S.M. Eldin, Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Sudan (both reports are undated and were distributed at FAO's Global IPM meeting, Sept. 1993). Contact: Arif Jamal, PAN NA ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Thu Sep 23 17:29:07 1993 Date: 23 Sep 93 12:41 PDT From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Subject: PANUPS: WA Suspends Pesticide ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Washington State Suspends Pesticide September 16, 1993 On August 31st of this year, the pesticide Phosdrin (commonly called mevinphos) used to control aphids on apple and pear orchards, was suspended for four months in the state of Washington. The suspension came as the direct result of the poisoning of 17 apple orchard workers from eastern Washington between July 19th and August 31. The United Farm Workers (UFW) declared the suspension a turning point for the rights of all farm workers. Julio Romero, a Washington UFW official stated, "We consider this suspension a major victory for farm workers in this state. This is the first time I can recall that a pesticide was removed because of its harmful effect on farm workers rather than on consumers." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials stated that they were concerned enough about the potential harm to farm workers to consider banning it nationwide, perhaps as early as next year. The 17 pesticide mixer/loaders and farm workers who were poisoned by Phosdrin required immediate medical attention, and several were hospitalized. Mevinphos, known to be highly toxic, is easily absorbed through the skin. The chemical works on the victim's nervous system, and symptoms include headaches, nausea and dizziness. Prolonged exposure can lead to involuntary muscle movements, lack of coordination, weakness, salivation, diarrhea, and vomiting. To date, most of the farm workers have returned to work, but at least three others continue to suffer from adverse effects of the poisoning. There have been other incidents of poisonings during the 40 years that Phosdrin has been in use. In 1989, more than seventy-five field workers in Florida were poisoned when they were sent back into the fields too soon after pesticide application. At least 2 farm workers also died in California in the early 1970's from Phosdrin exposure. Prior to this growing season, Phosdrin was not widely used in Washington. Growers had used another "less-toxic" pesticide, Apamidon, trade name for phosphamidon. This product was voluntary withdrawn in 1991 when its manufacturers chose not to comply with costly federal rules governing pesticide certification. However, unseasonably cooler temperatures of this past growing season have escalated the aphid infestation in central Washington. Many growers maintained that they had no choice but to use the more toxic Phosdrin or lose their crops to the aphids. Sources: EPA News Release, August 18, 1993. The Seattle Times, August 21, 1993. Seattle Post Intelligencer, August 31, 1993. Contacts: Washington State Department of Agriculture, Pesticide Management Division, Olympia Office: Cliff Weed, P.O. Box 42589, Olympia, WA 98504, Phone: (206) 902-2040. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Rick Parkin, EPA/Seattle, Phone: (206) 553-8574. For least-toxic alternatives to aphid control, contact: Bio-Integral Resource Center, P.O. Box 7414, Berkeley, CA 94521, Phone: (510) 524-2567, FAX: (510) 524-1758 or contact your local Cooperative Extension. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Mon Oct 18 23:47:52 1993 Date: 18 Oct 93 15:23 PDT From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Subject: PANUPS: Methyl Bromide Alert ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= ACTION ALERT ON METHYL BROMIDE October 18, 1993 Methyl bromide is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world. It is a biocide that kills all living organisms and is primarily used as a broadscale fumigant on soils, agricultural commodities and structures. Besides posing severe problems to workers' health, sustainable agriculture practices and the natural environment, methyl bromide is also a very powerful ozone depleting chemical. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), methyl bromide has caused 5-10% of current worldwide ozone depletion. In 1992, the UN's Montreal Protocol assigned methyl bromide an ozone depleting potential of .7, on a scale of 0 to 1. The U.S. is responsible for almost half (43%) of worldwide methyl bromide use, much of it in the strawberry, fresh tomato and structural pest fumigation industries. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to list methyl bromide as a Class I ozone-depleter this November and start the process for a phase-out of the chemical by the year 2000. But resistance is mounting in conventional agriculture circles, especially in the strawberry industry, which is heavily dependent on methyl bromide. For example, a September 30th "Special Notice" the California Strawberry Advisory Board is urging growers to write to EPA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and others, calling for a delay in the EPA ruling and phaseout. If EPA's rule is delayed, methyl bromide use will be extended beyond 2000, causing more damage to the ozone layer, and human health. PLEASE SEND LETTERS to USDA, EPA and relevant members of Congress to emphasize the need for an expedited phase-out of methyl bromide and the availability of alternatives to this dangerous chemical. Letters are welcome from international activists as well, since ozone depletion is obviously a world-wide problem. You can make the following points in your letter: ** A PHASE-OUT OF METHYL BROMIDE IS REQUIRED UNDER U.S. LAW. Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, EPA must phase-out chemicals with an ozone-depleting potential greater than 0.2. Methyl bromide's ozone-depleting potential is 0.7. EPA is ignoring the Clean Air Act by not immediately implementing a phase-out schedule for methyl bromide. ** METHYL BROMIDE'S THREAT TO THE OZONE LAYER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT WARRANTS AN EVEN FASTER PHASE-OUT SCHEDULE THAN EPA HAS PROPOSED. Current scientific estimates predict that by the year 2000, methyl bromide will be responsible for 15% of total ozone depletion if, as expected emissions continue to increase. Continued ozone loss will have wide reaching effects including increased incidence of skin cancer, cataracts and blindness, and possible suppression of the human immune system. Methyl bromide is also highly toxic to workers and other people who come into contact with it. From 1982 to 1990, in California alone, there were 15 reported deaths due to methyl bromide exposure. We cannot afford to delay the phase-out of this dangerous chemical. ** THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO MANY USES OF METHYL BROMIDE. While there is no one single substitute for the many uses of methyl bromide, there are numerous chemical and non-chemical replacements. Some of these techniques include controlled atmosphere for commodity fumigation, and soil solarization, crop rotation and biological control for pests in soils. Conventional farmers and the Strawberry Advisory Board's claims that no alternatives exist are highly inaccurate. EPA's proposal also allows methyl bromide use to continue for 7 years while alternatives are developed for situations where they do not already exist. PLEASE SEND LETTERS TO: The Honorable Mike Espy Secretary U.S. Department of Agriculture 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250 The Honorable Carol M. Browner Administrator Environmental Protection Agency Suite 1200 401 "M" Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20460 The Honorable Leon Panetta Office of the Director Office of Management and Budget Old Executive office Building Washington, D.C. 20503 Senator _________ United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Representative _______________ U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 3 11:45:00 1994 Date: 13 Dec 93 11:09 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: Philippine Pesticide Ban ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Philippines Bans Pesticides; Hoechst Responds With Legal Stalling Tactics December 13, 1993 The Philippines' Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) declared a ban and on five widely-used and highly hazardous pesticides in September 1993. In a legal challenge, Hoechst Philippines has filed a motion in a local court charging the FPA for contempt. While the court is deciding the case, the Center for Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI) has launched a nationwide information and boycott campaign against Hoechst. On September 29, 1993, the FPA banned the importation and use of three commonly-used pesticides: organotin compounds, methyl parathion, and azinphos ethyl. The FPA also severely restricted the use of monocrotophos to control outbreaks of bean fly infestations, which are extremely rare in the Philippines, and restricted the use of endosulfan in rice (the 35 EC formulation of endosulfan has been banned for all purposes). All five of these pesticides are known to be extremely hazardous to human health and the environment. For example, exposure to methyl parathion inhibits cholinesterase, an enzyme fundamental to the functioning of the nervous system. Azinphos-ethyl can cause birth defects and damage to the brain and the diaphragm. Monocrotophos is known to decrease fertility and to inhibit cholinesterase activity, and misuse of endosulfan can cause convulsions, skin rashes, and embryo malformations. The FPA ban ordered a six-month phase-out period of these dangerous chemicals beginning in October 1993. Full implementation of the ban takes place in March 1994. A similar ban on the five pesticides was announced by the Department of Agriculture on April 14, 1992. Soon after however, Hoechst, a major supplier of endosulfan, claimed that the decision was issued without due process of law, arguing that the FPA (not the Department of Agriculture) has sole authority to declare a ban. Hoechst filed a petition in April 1992 and won a temporary restraining order allowing continued import and sale of the endosulfan formulation Thiodan 35 EC, one of its best-selling products. The FPA affirmed the Department of Agriculture's ban in its September 1993 action, but Hoechst again resorted to a court injunction against its implementation. The company filed a petition before the Makati regional trial court citing three top agriculture officials for contempt: Secretary of Agriculture Roberto Sebastian, FPA Administrator Frank Cornejo and Bureau of Plant Industry Director Nerius Roperos. Hoechst calls the recent ban "an improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice." Both environmental activists and government representatives have publicly denounced Hoechst's delaying tactics. "The renewed ban sends a strong message to the pesticide industry that they cannot hide behind legal maneuvers to protect their dubious practice of pursuing profits through the sale of toxic chemicals," said Nicanor Perlas, President of CADI. Senator Orlando Mercado also spoke out against Hoechst, saying "these pesticides not only threaten the lives of farmers and their families but also adversely affect our soil and water source." In addition to a national boycott campaign against Hoechst, CADI is currently organizing a nationwide education program to alert farmers about the situation. The program focuses on Hoechst products and the company's legal schemes. CADI urges international activists to support the Hoechst boycott and to provide any information about the company that may be useful to CADI project coordinators at the address listed below. Sources/Contacts: Center for Alternative Development Initiatives, 110 Scout Rallos St., Timog, Quezon City, Philippines; phone 63-2-99-39-86; fax 63-2-99-76-08. Philippine News & Features, 1353 Leon Guinto, Ermita, Manila, Philippines; phone 63-2-58-80-03/ 63-2-521-74-42; email PNF@PHIL.GN.APC.ORG ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna- info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 3 11:51:21 1994 Date: 21 Dec 93 14:05 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: New Ag Policy Called for ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= National Research Council Report Calls for New National Ag Policies December 21, 1993 - A report released on November 17, 1993, by the National Research Council's Committee on Long-Term Soil and Water Conservation Policy concludes that new national policies and new approaches to farming are needed to address soil and water problems attributed to farming practices in the U.S. In an accompanying press statement, committee chair Sandra S. Batie, professor of Food and Agricultural Policy at Michigan State University, challenged the United States to look to new agricultural practices that will both protect the environment and help farm productivity. The committee's report, 'Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture,' recommends a number of strategies for national policy "that hold the most promise of preventing soil and water problems while sustaining farm profits." They include broadening current approaches to protecting soil quality to include factors such as salinization, compaction, and loss of biological activity; increasing efficiency in the use of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation methods; reducing farm erosion and runoff; and creating and protecting field and landscape "buffer zones." The committee proposes these strategies be pursued simultaneously to have maximum impact. As the report documents, agricultural production has been identified as a major source of non-point source pollution in U.S. lakes and rivers that do not meet water quality goals. Committee chair Batie points out that past U.S. conservation efforts, which focused primarily on soil erosion, were intertwined with income support programs and have been ineffective in achieving environmental goals. According to the committee's report: ". . . incentives created to grow only program crops and protect base acreage are barriers to the adoption of more diverse cropping systems to prevent soil degradation and water pollution." The report strongly recommends that prevention of surface water and groundwater pollution should be the goal of national policies. In terms of pesticides, it proposes that: "Source control to reduce the total mass of pesticides applied to cropping systems should be the fundamental approach to reducing pesticide losses from farming systems." The report also calls for acceleration of research to develop integrated pest management (IPM) practices, alternative pest control strategies and farming systems based on alternative pest control practices. In addition to alternatives and use reduction, the report further advocates the development of new pesticides that pose lower risks, for example, pesticides that are "less toxic, less likely to be lost to surface water or groundwater or more effective at lower application rates." However, the report concludes, that "long-term gains in reducing the total mass of pesticides used in farming systems can be achieved only by continued efforts in research and development of alternative pest control management and farming systems." The report concludes that traditional, voluntary approaches to improve soil and water quality need to incorporate modern market-based incentives and enlist support from the private sector to improve farming practices. One example of market- based incentives suggested in the report is a new tax on pesticides. It states: "Special consideration should be given to revenue sources such as taxes on agricultural chemicals, fuel, . . . and other inputs that can be related to soil and water quality degradation from agricultural production practices. . ." The committee recommends that such taxes be explored as ways to increase the funding available to support and sustain water quality improvement programs over the long term. Source/Contact: Craig Hicks, Media Relations Associate, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20418, USA; phone (202) 334-2138. "Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture" is available from the National Academy Press at the above address; phone (202) 334-3313 or (800) 624-6242. The cost of the report is $54.95 plus $4.00 shipping. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 3 11:56:28 1994 Date: 23 Dec 93 11:41 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: Pesticides Fuel Crisis ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Chinese Cotton Crisis Fueled by Pesticides December 23, 1993 China's production of cotton has decreased in recent years and will almost certainly continue to fall, due to losses to the cotton bollworm Heliothis armigera, and the rising costs of chemically-intensive production. This decline is significant due to the important role that cotton plays in China's export-oriented textile industry. According to extension agents and researchers in Hebei Province, an important cotton growing region south of Beijing, farmers continue to rely on pesticides even though they must now use increasing amounts for the same level of control due to pest resistance. The cotton bollworm has become so resistant to pyrethroids that the government restricts farmers to one application per season. Organophosphates are the most commonly used class of pesticides used against the bollworm. Parathion, for example, is frequently used despite being classified by the Chinese government as "severely restricted." By the end of the cotton season, some farmers apply organophosphates with backpack sprayers as often as three times per week. Protective clothing is rarely used. The increasing use of pesticides is making cotton production economically impossible. Farmers in Hebei can expect gross cotton sales to bring in roughly US$400 per acre, but pesticides for that same acre cost about US$150. When other costs such as fertilizers and labor are added, most farmers can no longer make a profit. As a result, more and more farmers are refusing to grow cotton and are switching to corn, soybeans and vegetables, or giving up farming to seek higher paying jobs. Because China relies on cotton production for its textile industry, many researchers speculate that the government will raise cotton prices with subsidies. This would allow farmers to continue pesticide- intensive methods for a time, but does nothing to encourage them to get off of the pesticide treadmill. Attempts to implement integrated pest management (IPM) for the cotton bollworm in the region to date have failed due early season use of pesticides for other pests and diseases (which kills beneficial insects), and the very small size of privately owned fields, which makes coordination difficult. Extension agents seem unsure of how to modify farmer behavior in the face of free market reforms. In the past, the government had considerable control over what farmers grew and what pest control methods were used. Farmers now make decisions based on free market prices, and extension agents must find ways of making farmers see personal advantages to adopting IPM. Source: Interviews with Qian Chuanfan, Department of Applied Agricultural Chemistry, Beijing and Zhu Zhiyu, Department of Plant Pathology, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding, China. Contact: Paul Thiers, 3610 Kincaid, Eugene, OR 97405, USA; phone (503) 485-4277; email pthiers@darkwing.uoregon.edu. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 3 12:32:08 1994 Date: 10 Jan 94 09:28 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: Right to Know Weakens ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= California Weakens Public's "Right to Know" on Methyl Bromide January 10, 1993 In an action strongly criticized by environmental and labor organizations, California's Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) changed the listing of methyl bromide under Proposition 65, depriving rural residents' and farmworkers' of the "right-to-know" when this pesticide is used in agricultural production. Five environmental and labor organizations have sued Cal EPA to ensure that the public is warned about all uses of methyl bromide. Under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), the state must publish and annually update a list of chemical known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive toxicity. The law, approved by California voters in 1986, is meant to inform and warn citizens about Their exposure to these dangerous chemicals. As of January 1993, the state had listed 540 chemicals under the Act. California officially listed methyl bromide as a reproductive toxin in January 1993 and gave farmers one year to start warning residents up to 4 miles away when they applied the pesticide. But bowing to pressure on Governor Wilson from 40 agricultural organizations, Cal EPA made a last minute decision to change the rule on methyl bromide. On December 22,Cal EPA announced that under Proposition 65, the public will be warned about methyl bromide only when the chemical is used in structural fumigation, but not when it is used for agricultural purposes. This means that farmers, who use the pesticide in their fields to sterilize the soil before planting, will not have to warn farmworkers or neighbors that they are using this dangerous fumigant. Since only a small fraction of California's methyl bromide use is in structural fumigation, Cal EPA's action means that the public will not be warned about most methyl bromide applications. Cal EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment estimates that in 1992, only 5% of the 19 million pounds of methyl bromide used in California was for structural fumigation. The remaining 95% was for agricultural uses, including sterilizing soils for strawberries, grapes, nursery plants and almond trees. Labor and environmental organizations criticized the decision as a politically motivated move to appease farmers and agricultural interests. Mike Johnson, of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, called the move "a great, big Christmas present to agriculture in an election year." Citizen groups also criticized Cal EPA's decision since it was made during Christmas week with almost no public notice. As a result of the Cal EPA action, five labor and environmental organizations filed suit and sought an emergency injunction against Governor Wilson to prevent the partial removal of methyl bromide from the Proposition 65 list. A hearing on the case will be held in San Francisco on January 14 before Judge Stewart Pollack. Judge Pollack will have to decide whether all uses of methyl bromide should be listed under Proposition 65 or whether Cal EPA's decision should stand (which will force the case to go to trial). The law suit was filed by California Rural Legal Assistance, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Scientific studies indicate that methyl bromide can cause birth defects and genetic mutations in laboratory tests, regardless of whether it is used in structural fumigation or in agriculture. But Gary Karnes of the Central Coast Pesticide Coalition (CCPC) maintains that Cal EPA made an artificial distinction between people exposed to agricultural and structural uses of methyl bromide: "The decision treats rural residents and farmworkers as different classes of people. You can't say methyl bromide is a reproductive toxin for one use [structural fumigation] and not for another." Agriculture groups claim it would be a financial burden for them to warm residents and farmworkers about the risks of methyl bromide. But as Gary Karnes of CCPC put it, "People have a right to know. They want to know what is being used in their neighborhoods and they are intelligent enough to know what's going on." Sources: "Pesticide Warning Gets Modification", The Californian, Dec. 24, 1993; "Methyl Bromide Health Concerns Said to Help Speed Phaseout", Pesticide and Toxic Chemical News, Dec. 22, 1993. Contact: Anne Schonfield at PANNA for more information about our methyl bromide campaign. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@igc.apc.org Thu Mar 3 12:41:28 1994 Date: 13 Jan 94 09:51 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: Global Pesticide Market ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Global Pesticide Market Review January 12, 1994 The last two years has seen a stagnation in the global agrochemical market. The total value of end-user markets declined in 1992 to US$25,200 million, a decrease of 6% on 1991 sales of US$26,900 million -- which in turn reflected a decrease of 2% on the previous year. Agrochemical sales fell heavily in Western Europe, due to weather conditions and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, while in Eastern Europe pesticide use dropped by as much as 30% as a result of the political upheavals. However, the decline was not uniform across geographical regions, and the pesticide markets in North America, Latin America and East Asia have all continued to grow. In East Asia, increased pesticide use occurred in a number of countries regarded as mature markets -- Japan, Taiwan and Australia -- as well as in developing countries, notably Vietnam, China and Indonesia. The Indian market for pesticides is expanding slowly. Pesticide sales in the Middle East are stable. Africa remains the continent with the lowest use of pesticides due to drought and poverty, and industry expects no increase in sales. In Latin America, Brazil remains the major consumer. Brazil is the worldUs fourth largest pesticide user, after the U.S., Japan and France; however, its 1992 sales dropped by 5% to $1,027 million. Sales are stable in Argentina, but show growth in Colombia and Mexico. It is noteworthy that Indonesia is considered by industry to be a growing market for pesticides, given the governmentUs commitment to promoting integrated pest management (IPM) in rice production. This policy has been an acknowledged success, not only in reducing pesticide use but also in maintaining and, in some cases, increasing yields. The government saved an estimated US$120 million annually since 1986 after introducing a ban on the import of 57 insecticides used on rice. The tightening up of the agrochemical market has resulted in a number of companies reorganizing and introducing cost- cutting exercises, while others have merged their interests. Notable changes are the merger of the German companies Hoechst and Schering, where Hoechst will become the senior financial partner, and the takeover of the pesticide interests of the Anglo/Dutch corporation Shell by the U.S. company American Cyanamid. American Cyanamid has a strong herbicide portfolio, and the acquisition of Shell will bolster its fungicide products. While always high, agrochemical research costs have increased dramatically in recent years. The regulatory response to concerns about health and environmental problems has been to impose more rigorous testing requirements before registering pesticides for use. Companies have had to develop new products to counter problems of insect resistance and resurgence. A recent survey by the U.S. National Agricultural Chemicals Association of 22 of its members indicated that global research expenditure had risen by 88% since 1987 to $1,900 million in 1992. Expenditure on new product research and registration amounted to $1,399 million in 1992, compared with $740 million in 1987, and product defense costs have risen from $263 million to $482 million over the same period. In spite of increased research costs, there is very little likelihood of a surge in novel products. After nearly 50 years of research, most modern synthetic insecticides are still derived from just three chemical classes -- organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids. According to industry observers, most research will generate support for existing products, aiming to maximize their potential and introduce lower dose-rate formulations. Increasingly, companies tailor their range of products to promote use as part of IPM programs, encouraging the view that pesticides are central to the agenda for sustainable agriculture. Older products are relaunched in this manner, for example HoechstUs endosulfan, an organochlorine with growing sales in developing countries. Biotechnology remains an area of interest to the major research-oriented agrochemical corporations, but few companies expect it to take the place of traditional chemical research in the foreseeable future. The exception to this may be Monsanto, in terms of bio-pesticides, and Zeneca, in terms of seeds research. The stagnant and stable market in the major pesticide consuming regions and lack of novel chemicals, will increase the tendency in the agrochemical industry to look to export markets and sales in developing countries -- particularly Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. Older active ingredients are likely to remain a key part of their product range, frequently in new formulations. (See also "Agrochemical Sales," PANUPS, November 4, 1993, for more information on top agrochemical companies.) Sources: Pesticides News 22, December 1993; John McDougall and Matthew Phillips, The World Agrochemical Market, Chemistry & Industry, November 15, 1993; Michael Hansen, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: FAO at the Crossroads, Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union and PAN, 1993; AgrowUs Top 25, September 1993; Agrow, No. 188, July 23, 1993. Contact: Barbara Dinham, The Pesticides Trust, Eurolink Centre, 49 Effra Road, London SW2 1BZ; phone (44 - 71) 274- 8895; fax (44-71) 274-9084; email pesttrust@gn.apc.org. This PANUPS is excerpted from an article in Pesticides News, the quarterly journal of The Pesticides Trust (address listed above). This excellent journal offers an international perspective on the health and environmental effects of pesticides. Contact The Pesticides Trust for subscription information. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@cdp.igc.org Thu Mar 3 13:01:50 1994 Date: 26 Jan 94 10:37 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: Pesticides and Health ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Pesticides and Health in the Americas January 25, 1994 "Pesticides and Health in the Americas," a report published by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) in 1993, recommends that urgent measures be taken to protect human health and the environment from adverse affects of pesticides, and that these measures be tied to national agricultural and broader economic policies for greatest impact. The report, released by the World Health Organization Regional Office for the Americas in both English and Spanish, offers summaries of epidemiological and other pesticide-related studies conducted in Latin America, as well as selected information on the use and health effects of pesticides in the United States and Canada. A review of these studies shows that substantial segments of the Latin American population have significant exposures to pesticides. The population groups most directly affected include: agricultural workers, women, minorities, and those living in agricultural areas. According to the report, at least 1,000-2,000 pesticide poisonings occur annually in the smaller Latin American countries, with proportionally larger numbers in the larger, more populated countries. Precise estimates are difficult due to underregistration of pesticide poisonings. The number of poisonings have been increasing every year since the 1980's, with percentage of deaths among those poisoned ranging by region from 1.5% to 12%. Workers in the agricultural and livestock sector account for approximately 70% of those poisoned. Other findings include: --The percentage of pesticide poisonings among people under 18 years ranged from 10-20%, with most percentages centering near 20%; --In Latin America, residues of organochlorine and organophosphorus compounds in drainage, wells and river water are common. --Levels of organochlorine compounds, especially DDT, in mother's milk are generally higher than in cow's milk, and are frequently above limits established by the Codex Commission, particularly in agricultural areas. According to the report, United States and Canada also suffer from long-term exposure to pesticide usage with expected chronic health effects, but with lower fatality rates than in developing Latin American countries. In 1990 alone, U.S. Poison Centers reported an estimated total of 130,000 pesticide poisonings. An average of 22.5 accidental deaths per year due to pesticides were reported annually in the U.S. during the 1980's; 16% of these were children under 5 years of age. Food supplies in the U.S. and Canada generally show a smaller percentage of contaminated samples with residual levels above the tolerance limit than are detected in Latin America. The report makes the following recommendations: --Expand the development of national plans, policies and legislation that will control the sale and importation of pesticides, their application conditions, and the implementation and enforcement of appropriate surveillance; --Improve and further expand active national surveillance programs to monitor the health impact resulting from the use of pesticides and institute appropriate treatment facilities and prevention programs; --Prohibit the use of pesticides according to the recommendations of international agencies such as the World Health Organization/International Program of Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS), International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and international non-governmental organizations such as the Pesticide Action Network (PAN). --End reliance on chemical substances to control pests and crop losses. The report considers Integrated Pest Management (IPM) the most practical alternative approach to solving pest problems. IPM is defined in the report to mean "a mixture of approaches, including biological control, cultural practices, general manipulations and judicious use of chemicals to stabilize crop production, while minimizing hazards to health and the environment." Source: Henao, Samuel (et al.), "Pesticides in the Americas," Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization, February 1993. Contact: Dr. Henk de Koning, Regional Advisor, Division of Health and Environment. Pan American Health Organization, 525 Twenty-Third Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037-2895; phone (202) 861-3200; fax (202) 861-8462. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna-info@igc.apc.org. ============================================================= From panna@cdp.igc.org Thu Mar 3 13:09:54 1994 Date: 28 Jan 94 12:42 PST From: Pesticide Action Network North America Reg Ctr To: "Recipients of conference panna.panups" Newsgroups: panna.panups Subject: PANUPS: Alternatives in Kenya ============================================================= PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA UPDATES SERVICE ============================================================= Pesticide Use and Alternatives in Kenya January 28, 1994 Improper handling of fertilizers and pesticides continues to endanger the lives of Kenya's small-scale farmers and their families, according to a recently released study by Mutuku Mwanthi and Violet Kimani at the University of Nairobi. While Kenya's importation and use of agrochemicals has more than tripled in the last decade, the majority of farmers do not handle the hazardous chemicals safely. Various health complaints among villagers in rural Kenya have been linked to precarious application and storage patterns. Mwanthi and Kimani studied 1800 households in 10 rural villages in an attempt to determine the magnitude of Kenya's agrochemical-related health problems. All farmers interviewed used chemicals extensively, but only 25% took any safety precautions during application. More than 60% of the farmers stored the chemicals in their homes in unmarked containers, despite the dangers associated with long-term exposure. When asked to interpret the instructions on a sample label, 60% of the literate respondents found the wording to be too technical. The researchers concluded that unsafe storage methods, improper protective clothing and ambiguous instructions contribute to the growing number of Kenya's accidental poisonings. In response to these study results, Mwanthi and Kimani, with assistance from the communities, initiated an intervention program to promote safe procedures for handling and storing agrochemicals. Suggestions from the community included supplying farm workers with soap and water after spraying, and notifying the public about the dangers of using sprayers for purposes other than their intended chemical use. Community members also requested that manufacturers use straightforward warning labels which incorporate local names for the chemicals. Another example of community-based projects working to improve the lives of Kenya's farmers is The Organic Farming Workshop, co-sponsored by the Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF) and Coordination in Development, Inc. (CODEL). The workshop was held in 1990 in Limuru, Kenya for Kenyan nongovernmental organizations (NGO's). Participants sought to create a national understanding of and support for natural approaches to agriculture. The workshop had three main objectives: to disseminate information on organic farming methods to environment-oriented development agencies, to encourage networking, and to provide first-hand training in practical applications for sustainable agriculture. In addition to the workshops, a variety of lectures and field trips gave participants the opportunity to speak with local farmers. A report entitled "Organic Farming in Kenya" provides an overview of the workshop and outlines the various training sessions which were offered to the 22 participants representing 18 NGO's. Individual workshops included composting, soil conservation techniques, and methods for planting and spacing. Following the workshop, KIOF staff members provided on- site visits to workshop participants throughout the growing season to offer support and encouragement for applying their new skills. Two reunions have been held for participants to share their experiences and to engage in creative problem- solving. At the most recent reunion held in October 1992, Josephine Onyango of the Kenya Freedom from Hunger Council (KFFHC) reported that she is now working with 250 women representing 6 organizations. Ms. Onyango has also established an organic demonstration plot to introduce women to organic farming and to study data collected from the crops. Future plans for the KIOF and CODEL staff include publishing a quarterly progress report, visiting organizations with new organic farming projects, and expanding the network of NGO's interested in organic farming. Through participant-initiated demonstrations and training sessions for local organizations and community leaders, KIOF and CODEL expect to eventually reach three million Kenyan farmers with their alternative approach to chemical-intensive agriculture. Sources: Mutuku A. Mwanthi and Violet N. Kimani, "Patterns of Agrochemical Handling and Community Response in Central Kenya", Journal of Environmental Health, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 11-16, May 1993. "Organic Farming in Kenya: A Report on a National Workshop for Kenyan Nongovernmental Organizations", edited by Sr. Mary Ann Smith, M.M. and Rev. Nancy G. Wright, CODEL. Contacts: M. Mwanthi, University of Nairobi, College of Health Sciences, Department of Community Health, P.O. Box 19676, Nairobi, Kenya. Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF), P.O. Box 34972, Nairobi, Kenya. Coordination in Development, Inc. (CODEL), 475 Riverside Drive, Room 1842, New York, NY 10115. Phone (212)-870-3000. ============================================================= The Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) is a pesticide-related news service posted weekly by the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA). PANNA is located at 116 New Montgomery Street, #810, San Francisco, CA 94105. Tel: (415) 541-9140. Fax: (415) 541-9253. To receive a standard information packet about the Pesticide Action Network send a short e-mail message to panna- info@igc.apc.org. =============================================================