A report written by John Madeley for Berne Declaration Swedish Society for Nature ConservationPesticide Action Network UK Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific Foro Emaús

We would particularly like to thank the following for their contributions to the report: Jumat Majid, PERBBUNI Labour Union, Indonesia, Catharina Wesseling, IRET, JenniferMourin, Revathi, Irene Fernandez and many others at Tenaganita, Evelyn Underwood and Bill Cable

April 2002

Paraquat–Syngenta’s controversial herbicide

Berne Declaration, Quellenstrasse 25, P.O. Box CH-8031 Zürich Switzerland, Tel: +41 1 277 70 00Fax: ++41/(0)1-277 70 01, Email: info@evb.ch web:www.evb.ch

PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network UK, Eurolink Centre, 49 Effra Road, London SW2 1BZ, Tel: +44 20 7274 8895, Fax: +44 20 7274 9084, Email: admin@pan-uk.org

Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, P.O. Box 4625, SE116 91 Stockholm, Tel: +46 8 702 65 00, Fax: +46 8-702 08 55, Sweden, E-mail info@snf.se

PAN Asia and the Pacific, P.O. Box 1170, 10850 Penang, Malaysia, Phone: (60-4) 656 0381/657 0271, Fax: (60-4) 657 7445, E-mail: panap@panap.po.my

Foro Emaús, Apdo. Postal 106, Siquirres, Limón Costa Rica, Tel/fax: (506) 7688276, E-mail: foremaus@racsa.co.cr

Contents Summary................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

1. Setting the scene...........................................................................................................................................................................5Pesticide use in developing countries 6

Corporate influence in agriculture 7

Effects of pesticide use in developing countries 8Poisoning and health concernsEnvironmental concerns

Agriculture and poverty 9

Agriculture in the context of development strategies 9

2. Paraquat concerns..............................................................................................................................................................10Health issues 10Accidental poisoningsOccupational injuries: nails, skin, eyes, nose, nauseaSuicide concerns

Environmental issues 12

Problems on plantations 13

Problems for smallholder farmers 13

Countries taking action to ban or restrict paraquat 14Industrialised countriesDeveloping countries

3. Case studies...........................................................................................................................................................................................16Malaysia – women workers at risk 16

Indonesia – conditions on plantations 17

South Africa – lung capacity reduced17

Costa Rica – decreased use helps health 17

4. Can agriculture manage without paraquat?..............................................................................................................................................................19

Alternative approaches

Conservation agriculture 20

Examples: Cuba 20

Alternative strategies in cropping systems that use paraquat 21CottonCoffee

5. Corporate approaches...........................................................................................................................................22Warning or promoting? 22

Box: China: Pesticide use ‘atrocious’ 23

6. Recommendations..........................................................................................................................................................24

Footnotes.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................26

3

Paraquat is Syngenta’s most controversial pesti-cide. It is widely promoted by the company inboth developing and industrialised countries.But the health risks from paraquat are acknowl-edged worldwide. A new investigation fromMalaysia shows the daily hazards to workerswho spray paraquat on a regular basis. Inter-views with workers on Indonesian estates con-firm the misery of routine exposure, which placeplantation workers and small-scale farmers inan intolerable position.

The Berne Declaration, Foro Emaús, Pesti-cide Action Network Asia Pacific, PesticideAction Network UK and the Swedish Societyfor Nature Conservation are launching thisreport to draw attention to these global con-cerns, and demand action to phase out paraquatproducts.

Paraquat can not be used safely, particularlynot on plantations and small farms, and there isno antidote. People are dying while others areleft seriously ill. The most severe health effectsare found in developing countries where work-ers suffer from damage to lungs, skin, eyes,nose, fingernails and toenails. There are alsoconcerns in the industrialised world and one cannot disregard the environmental effects.

This report examines Syngenta’s associationwith paraquat. Paraquat has been criticised forthe adverse impacts on workers since the1960s. The company’s new paraquat factory in

China shows that the management has dis-missed important objections and concerns for along time.

Paraquat is already banned or severelyrestricted in eleven countries. The report askswhether agriculture needs paraquat, given themany alternative ways of controlling weeds. It istime to take global action and remove this oldpesticide from the market. The report demandsSyngenta to:

• Phase out the promotion and sale of paraquatproducts in developing countries within threeyears.

• Cooperate with national initiatives to banparaquat.

• Reassess the toxicity classifications to reflectthe lack of an antidote and the danger ofdeath from acute poisoning.

• While sales remain, ensure all products aresold in returnable containers, and that all for-mulations contain the warning dye, emetic andstenching agent.

• Allocate greatly increased resources to devel-op agricultural products that contribute to safe,ecological and sustainable agricultural pro-duction worldwide, and phase out the produc-tion of paraquat and other hazardous pesti-cides.

Summary

5

Syngenta is the world’s largest agrochemicalcorporation, with a share of approximately 20per cent of the pesticide market. Its interestsencompass a wide range of agrochemical prod-ucts and seeds, particularly genetically engi-neered varieties. The last ten years have seenincreasing concentration in the agrochemicalindustry, and Syngenta was formed when theBoards of the Swiss company Novartis andSwedish-British AstraZeneca decided to mergetheir agrochemical and seeds interests, settingup the first global, dedicated agribusiness com-pany.1 In spite of what the company describedas ‘a difficult market’ in 20012, sales totalledUS$6,323 million (see table 1).

Herbicides, or pesticides that kill weeds,make up the major share of the agrochemicalmarket, with sales in 2000 reaching approxi-mately $14 billion, about half the value of theworld pesticide market.3 Syngenta has a 17 percent share of the herbicide market, through itssales of both selective (designed to kill specificweeds) and non-selective herbicides that will killmost plants.

Herbicide sales form 38 per cent of the Syn-genta business. The most important of its prod-ucts is paraquat, a controversial non-selectiveherbicide, sold in over a hundred countriesunder the trade name Gramoxone. The compa-ny describes Gramoxone as the world’s secondlargest selling agrochemical.

Although sales and profits of paraquat prod-ucts in developing countries are not divulged bySyngenta, being considered ‘commercially sen-sitive information’4, these markets are importantfor profits. In 2000, Syngenta reported that:“Market expansion due to the substitution of

manual labour in Asia and increases in herbi-cide-tolerant crop plantings in the US marketcontinued to drive sales of Gramoxone andTouchdown”.5 Touchdown is the trade name forglyphosate-trimesium, developed by Zeneca tochallenge the biggest selling herbicide world-wide, glyphosate, which is marketed asRoundUp by rival Monsanto.

Paraquat was first synthesised in 1882 butits herbicidal properties were discovered only in1955 by ICI (forerunner of Zeneca). It has a tar-nished reputation because of its acute toxicity,lack of an antidote, and ill-health associatedwith operators, particularly on plantations ofdeveloping countries. Neither the Annual Report2001 nor the Annual Review 2000 say thatGramoxone contains paraquat. The companyrefers to Gramoxone’s “unique combination ofbenefits. Around the world, it is helping toimprove crop yields, raise productivity andreduce the need for extensive manual labour.This is the herbicide which first made possiblethe concepts of minimum tillage, conservationtillage and ‘no-till’ farming … (Gramoxone) isapproved by governmental regulatory bodies inover 100 countries. Growers use Gramoxone toprotect and develop over 50 different cropsacross the world’s major agricultural regions”.6

But pesticide specialist Barbara Dinham,director of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) UKpointed out: ”There are many different ways tocontrol weeds. Organic and other agroecologi-cal systems have developed successful tech-niques. Farmers have used the equivalent ofconservation strategies for hundreds of years,and it is highly misleading for the company toclaim that paraquat first made possible the con-

1. Setting the scene

6

cepts of low-till systems. Farmers using herbi-cides in a low-till system have made savings andreduced their overall costs, but it is wrong toimply that there is no need to continue makingimprovements that reduce dependence onchemical herbicides.”7

Pesticide use in developingcountries Pesticide use in developing countries has grownover the last 20 years, with international pres-sures, especially the trend towards trade liberal-isation, accounting for much of the increase.Since the early 1980’s the World Bank and theInternational Monetary Fund have insisted thatdeveloping countries implement structuraladjustment programmes if they wanted aid,investment and debt relief. The cultivation ofmore crops for export is part of these pro-grammes. Export crops produced in monocul-ture systems for example bananas and cotton,normally require far higher applications of pesti-cides than food crops for domestic use. Commercial pressures are an important factorin the growth. The major producers of pesticideare all based in Europe and the United States.

The better-off developing countries are seen asexpanding markets, although a slowdown hasbeen recorded in the last two years, with salesof agrochemicals falling in 2000 for the secondyear running, and the trend may be repeated in2001. Farmers bought fewer pesticidesbecause of low commodity prices and low farmincomes. In poorer countries, old pesticides arecheaper than new chemicals and are frequentlymarked for a broad spectrum use.

Trade liberalisation has encouraged exportproduction and lowered import barriers. Thisstimulates commercial pressure and unlessfarmers are offered alternative strategies thisleads to increased pesticide use. With thesepressures and open markets, poorer farmersseek the cheapest, usually more toxic, pesti-cides.

The growth has posed additional hazards formany of the world’s poor. According to the Inter-national Labour Organisation (ILO), the esti-mates made in 1994 indicate there were two tofive million annual occupational cases of pesti-cide poisoning, with 40,000 fatalities.11 In somecountries pesticides cause 14 per cent of all

Table 1. Syngenta sales of pesticides and seeds (US$ million) 2001 2000Pesticide sales by region 8 Sales SalesAsia and the Pacific 951 1,039Latin America 677 850Europe, Africa and Middle East 1,870 1,991NAFTA countries (US, Canada, Mexico) 1,887 2,008Total pesticides 5,385 5,888Seeds 938 958Total pesticides and seeds 6,323 6,846

Herbicide sales 9

Selective herbicides (killing specific weeds) 1,722 1,841Non-selective (including paraquat) 687 760Herbicides as a per cent of sales 38% 38%

Profits from pesticides and seeds10 Profits ProfitsGross profit – pesticides 2,645 2,874Operating income – pesticides 738 866Gross profits – seeds 479 462Operating income – seeds 71 3

7

occupational injuries in agriculture and 10 percent of fatalities.12

Recognising the problem, governmentsmeeting in 1985 at the Food and AgricultureOrganisation of the United Nations (FAO)agreed an International Code of Conduct on theDistribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO Code),which sets standards for both governments andindustry in dealing with pesticides. The agro-chemical industry has signed up to the Code,with the industry organisation (now calledCropLife International) making compliance acondition of membership. All the major agro-chemical industries have accepted the Code:with the Syngenta fore-runners Zeneca andCiba Geigy playing a leading role to introduce‘product stewardship’ to implement their obliga-tions. Nevertheless, pesticide hazards remainhigh in developing countries.

The health and environmental impact of pes-ticide use are likely to be more severe in devel-oping countries. Many governments lack theresources to legislate and monitor the use ofpesticide. Water supplies and land are both atrisk. Users often find it difficult to use pesticidesaccording to instructions: they are generallyinadequately trained in the use of compounds,they may be illiterate and unable to read thesafety precautions, or labels may not be in a lan-guage the user understands. The users may beunable to afford the protective clothing neededfor spraying and there is also the discomfort ofwearing protective clothing in hot weather.Around 30 per cent of pesticides marketed indeveloping countries do not meet internationallyaccepted quality standards set by the FAO. Theproblem is most acute in Africa, where qualitycontrol is weakest.13

The economic and social impact of pesti-cides on small-scale farming communities indeveloping countries is profound. When usersare not trained, pesticides can lead to a treadmillof increasing use, debt and in some cases tolower yields.

Industrialised countries have not overcomeall the problems of pesticide use. Most users donot comply with the specified personal protec-

tive equipment. There are chronic and delayedhealth effects, such as that experienced bysheep dippers in the UK, and in the US someagricultural pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos,have been banned because of concerns withthe impacts on children.14 With these difficultiesin richer nations, it is not surprising that theproblems are magnified in poor countries, andeven more so for poor users.

Corporate influence in agriculture A small number of international agribusinesscorporations dominate production and trade inagricultural inputs, such as chemicals andseeds. They sell seeds, fertilisers and pesticidesto farmers, patent new crop varieties and areinvolved in plant genetic engineering and plantand animal breeding. “The major agrochemicalcompanies are engaged in a cut-throat battle tomaintain their share of profits from agriculture –while having a common interest in the overallexpansion of the market for their products”, saysBarbara Dinham.15

Consolidations in the industry have meantthat the number of major agrochemical corpora-tions has fallen from ten to six in the past fouryears. The six companies – Syngenta, Monsanto,Dow, Bayer (which acquired Aventis in October2001), BASF and DuPont – between them con-trol 80 per cent of the pesticide market. Fourcompanies – Du Pont, Mitsui, Monsanto andSyngenta – hold over 70 per cent of the patentson the six leading staple foods namely rice,maize, wheat, potato, soybean and sorghum.16

“Around 30 per cent ofpesticides marketed indeveloping countries do notmeet internationallyaccepted quality standardsset by the FAO”

8

Effects of pesticide use indeveloping countriesPoisoning and health concernsPesticides are responsible for some 20,000accidental deaths each year, and 200,000 sui-cide deaths, according to the World HealthOrganisation (WHO).17 They also account forabout three million cases of acute poisoningeach year, although this may be a conservativeestimate and is lower than the ILO estimate noted above. Not all poisoning is reported.18 Infact, a recent study in Nicaragua showed a 98per cent under-reporting in the best surveillancesystem of Central America.19

The people most severely affected by pesti-cides are agricultural workers on plantationsand large estates whose full time job is to spraypesticides. Many untrained small-scale farmersin developing countries use pesticides weekly,or more often. People working in sprayed areasand all who handle pesticides, or are in closeproximity, are also at risk. Accidents and deatharise from exposure to toxic pesticides, acciden-tal spillages, leaking or poorly insulated knap-sack sprayers, consumption of contaminatedfood – for example, grain contaminated withcotton pesticide where the two are grown closetogether – drinking from a container which hasbeen used for mixing pesticides, and accidentalor deliberate ingestion. Lack of washing facili-ties such as showers, running water and soapcompound the problems.

If workers fall ill and are unable to workbecause of pesticide poisoning they can besacked and lose their source of income. Therehave been cases of pesticide applicators onlybeing employed for six months, ‘a tacit admis-sion of health-related problems’.20

Birth defects, sterility and cancers haveresulted: 160 pesticide active ingredients havebeen classified by recognised authorities asbeing carcinogenic to some degree and 118pesticides have been identified as disruptinghormonal balance.21

Pesticides are readily available to peoplesuffering acute depression or humiliation, withheavy and unpayable debts for example. Anoverview of the major public health problem of

pesticides as a result of both accidental andintentional exposure found that paraquat hasbeen reported to be a problem in many parts ofthe world, including Brazil, the Caribbean,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Guadeloupe,Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Papua NewGuinea, Reunion, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suri-nam, Taiwan, Thailand and Western Samoa. 22 Astudy found that 14 per cent of deaths among10 to 50-year old females in Bangladesh weredue to poisonings, ‘the majority following suici-dal ingestion of pesticides’.23

In some countries, agricultural workers areincreasingly aware that pesticides can bringserious health problems and are becominginterested in safer alternatives.

Environmental concernsChemical pesticides “are the only toxic chemicalsdeliberately introduced into the environment.”24

Widespread environmental problems haveresulted, including contamination and pollutionof local water supplies, fish losses, soil degrada-tion, deaths of animal wildlife, insect resistanceand the destruction of flora and fauna. Theexcessive use of fertilisers and pesticides inareas with highly intensive agriculture is leadingto a degradation of water quality.

Small amounts of pesticides can cause sig-nificant damage the environment. In the UK aspill of the pesticide chlorpyrifos resulted inconcentrations of less than 0.001 parts per mil-lion (equivalent to one drop in ten Olympic sizeswimming pools) in a river, but was sufficient tokill river bed invertebrates and cause seriousharm to fish, which were found alive but withtheir backbones protruding.25 The EuropeanDrinking Water Directive sets a maximum con-centration of any pesticide in drinking water at1 part in 10 000 million. In a farming area of theUK, high levels of use of the herbicide atrazinepolluted a large Midland reservoir to such anextent that treatment facilities had to be takenout of supply for months while the pesticidedegraded naturally.26

An ongoing study in Costa Rica has foundhigh residues of multiple agricultural anddomestic pesticides in soil, drinking water, home

9

dust, and dust taken from children’s mattressesin houses and a school near a banana planta-tion.

Highly hazardous stocks of obsolete pesti-cides pose “a serious threat to the environmen-tal and public health”.27 Such stocks total over20,000 tonnes in Africa and at least 100,000tonnes in all developing countries. The condi-tions under which these are stored rarely meetinternationally accepted standards. Many pesti-cide containers deteriorate and leak their con-tents into the soil, contaminating both the landand groundwater.

Agriculture and povertySome 70 per cent of people in developing coun-tries live in rural areas and most earn a living inagriculture or related activity. Around 800 mil-lion are chronically short of food, according tothe UN Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO), although the world produces more thanenough food to feed everyone adequately.

Lack of food is not caused by the lack of out-put but by low incomes and unequal access toresources such as land, water and markets. Mil-lions of the poor are either landless or have onlysmall plots of land; they cannot afford to buy thefood that is available. People can go hungry invillages where local markets are brimming overwith food. In most rural areas, there are few jobsoutside agriculture, and the growth rate in ruralnon-farm employment is low. This means thatfew have the chance to earn an income that willenable them to buy the food they need.

Lack of money is one of the most importantfactors hindering both urban and rural peoplefrom obtaining the diverse foods needed for anadequate diet. Even when poor rural families arehelped to produce a greater variety of foods ontheir household plots, they will often sell theseitems rather than consume them because oftheir high market value. Systems of agriculture

that work for the poor can make an importantcontribution to overcoming poverty.

Agriculture is however more than just anoth-er economic activity; it plays a variety of differ-ent functions not only by producing crops andanimals but also providing jobs and stimulatingrural economics. Agriculture is a way of life thatservices a deep human need, the provision offood.

Agriculture in the context ofdevelopment strategiesWhile the majority of the population in develop-ing countries live in rural areas, agriculture isoften afforded low priority by governments.Development strategies place more emphasison industrialisation, modernisation and diversifi-cation. The need to repay foreign debt has putpressure on the sums available to agriculture.Development aid to agriculture almost halvedbetween 1988 and 1999.28

Within the spending that has been ear-marked for agriculture, priority has tended to goto crops for export, rather than to domestic foodcrops and the elimination of hunger. In May2001 an FAO paper charged both developingand developed countries with failing “to demon-strate their commitment to set aside theresources required to achieve the eradication ofhunger in all its dimensions … there has been aconspicuous lack of focus within poverty reduc-tion strategies on food security issues.”29

There are signs that the relative neglect ofagriculture is being recognised. In 2001 Africanleaders shaped a ‘New Partnership for Africa’sDevelopment’, for example, which says:“Improvement in agricultural performance is aprerequisite of economic development”.30 Thequestion arises whether this will increase theuse of hazardous pesticides under inappropriateconditions in developing countries, or openopportunities for more sustainable strategies.

10

2. Paraquat concerns

Health issuesAccidental poisonings“The only highly toxic herbicide of the post-waryears” is how the World Health Organisation hasdescribed paraquat.31

Paraquat poisoning is a severe health prob-lem in many developing countries. Highly toxicvia ingestion, one teaspoonful of paraquat isfatal. Following ingestion of very small amountsof the liquid concentrate, pulmonary oedema,cardiac failure, renal failure, liver failure and con-vulsions caused by central nervous systeminvolvement, can occur. Under these circum-stances, death from multiple organ failure mayfollow within hours or days. There is no anti-dote.32

The greatest risk to workers of fatal and seri-ous accidents is during mixing and loadingwhere contact with concentrate occurs, but fatalaccidents have also been described due to pro-longed contact with the diluted paraquat sprayduring application. Conditions of use in manydeveloping countries make it difficult to followlabel instructions and recommendations. Work-ers on estates are frequently employed assprayers for six days a week, ten months a year,and therefore have a high degree of exposureto the chemical.

Paraquat drift from spraying has also causedhealth and environmental problems. For exam-ple, a diluted paraquat mixture was applied inApril 1991 to two fields near Hollister, Califor-nia. “Drift from these applications passed direct-ly over the community residences and the asso-ciated complex which included gasoline servicestations, restaurants, a recreational narrow-

gauge railway, and an outdoor barbecue pavilionand eating area”. Following complaints by resi-dents, a survey was undertaken to determine ifany health consequences resulted from thedrift. The survey found an increase in coughs,eye problems, diarrhoea, irritation, headache,nausea, rhintis, throat infections, breathingproblems, unusual tiredness and wheezing.33

“If swallowed, burning of the mouth and throatoften occurs, followed by gastrointestinal tractirritation, resulting in abdominal pain, loss ofappetite, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea.Effects due to high acute exposure to paraquatmay include excitability and lung congestion,which in some cases lead to convulsions, inco-ordination, and death by respiratory failure. Oth-er toxic effects include thirst, shortness ofbreath, rapid heart rate, kidney failure, lungsores, and liver injury”.34 Respiratory adult dis-tress syndrome due to lung fibrosis is usuallythe cause of death. Reduced lung capacity isalso reported (see case study of South Africa).

Accidental paraquat poisoning may occurunder a variety of circumstances, although theborder “between occupational and non-occupa-tional accidental exposure is not always easy todistinguish”.35 In occupational use, poisoningcan occur through the skin, sometimes duringknapsack spraying. The presence of scratches,cuts or sores on the skin substantially increasesthe risk. The confusion of paraquat concentrateor solution due to inappropriate storage in soft-drink, beer or other bottles has apparently less-ened in recent years but still occurs.

The accidental poisoning of children is ofacute concern. In Latin America children are

11

often given the job of carrying spraying equip-ment. A US Environmental Protection Agencystudy (to determine oral exposure of childrenfrom containers for garden use) analysedparaquat residues of diluted spray on nozzlesand nozzle discharge, and concluded that thereis a potential hazard.36 In Costa Rica, between1991 and 1995, “the exposure circumstancesof severe and fatal poisoning in children aged 1-6 included the cases of two toddlers placingrespectively a rinsed spray jet and a bottle topinto their mouths, two cases of confusion of bot-tles stored in the kitchen, two cases of childrenplaying with empty bottles, and a 7-year old sis-ter giving ‘cough medicine’ to a younger broth-er”.37

Long-term and delayed health effects mayalso occur, including Parkinson’s disease, lungeffects and skin cancer. “Regulatory agencieshave not fully recognised either the inherenttoxicity of paraquat for human beings or the par-ticular risks derived from exposures in develop-ing countries.” 38

In spite of its high toxicity and the lack of anantidote the WHO classified paraquat only asmoderately hazardous. It is classified as ‘highly’hazardous in the United States.

Occupational injuries: nails, skin, eyes,nose, nausea“I could not continue, I was sick. The workmakes one feel nauseous. I also had troublewith my sight and my fingernails fell out duringmy work, also my toenails” says former bananaplantation worker in Honduras.39

Continued exposure to paraquat, as encoun-tered by sprayers on plantations, affects theskin, eyes, nose and fingernails. Diminishedeyesight and common nosebleed have beenreported.

Skin problems include mild irritation, blister-ing, ulceration, peeling, necrosis (cell death inskin tissue), dermatitis of the hand and blister-ing in scrotal areas, from leaking sprayers soak-ing trousers.

Severe exposure on hands has resulted innail damage, ranging from localised discoloura-

tion to temporary nail loss. According to USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA),paraquat causes moderate to severe eye irrita-tion. Eye injuries include blepharitis (eyelidinflammation), conjunctivitis, ulcerations or ker-atosis (growth like a wart) of the cornea. Nose-bleeds can also occur.

Skin, nail, and eye lesions have been report-ed, including in children.40–46 Workers in formu-lating factories are at high risk. A survey among18 paraquat formulation workers in the UKfound that 14 (78 per cent) had experiencednail damage, nosebleed, or skin lesions. InMalaysia, 15 out of 18 formulators had topicallesions, such as dermatitis or chemical burns(50 per cent), and eye injury or blepharitis (39per cent).47

In Costa Rica, hundreds of paraquat injuriesoccur each year, most of them in the bananaproducing Atlantic Region. In the most recentsurvey, the majority (60 per cent) of victims suf-fer from skin burns or dermatitis and 26 percent eye injuries. The remaining 14 per cent hadsystemic poisonings, nosebleeds and nail dam-age.48 Excesses of different skin cancers (lip,penile cancer, non-melanomous skin cancerand skin melanoma) were found in coffee grow-ing regions, as well as an excess of skinmelanoma in men in the banana producingAtlantic region.49 Another study of CostaRican banana workers also found an increasedrisk for skin melanoma.50

Paraquat breaks down the natural skin barri-er after prolonged or repeated use, and couldresult in a much higher absorption of the prod-uct. The Material Safety Data Sheet producedfor Gramoxone extra by Zeneca USA describesthe effect: “Intact skin is a very effective barrierto paraquat. If extreme damage occurs this bar-rier is removed and, in the presence of sufficientparaquat, absorption of toxic amounts mayoccur. Repeated and/or prolonged skin contactwith the concentrated product can cause skindamage, including erythema, oedema, andulceration. Penetration is faster through injuredor damaged skin.”51 Most spray operators are

12

likely to have damaged skin, at least occasional-ly, because of the general working conditions.

Suicide concernsAccidental or deliberate ingestion of paraquat“has been responsible for a large number ofpesticide-related deaths. It is a major suicideagent in many developing countries”.52 In SriLanka, a 1989 study of 669 poison incidentsindicated that agrochemicals were responsiblefor 59 per cent and that paraquat was the mostcommon poisoning agent, with a fatality rate of68 per cent.53 From 1986 to 1990 in Malaysia,

1,156 committed suicide by drinking pesticides,mainly paraquat.54

In the late 1980s the manufacturers added ablue pigment, a stenching compound, and alsoan emetic to many formulations of paraquat tohelp avoid severe unintentional poisonings dueto oral intake. In response to a report on thehigh frequency of suicidal paraquat poisoningsin Trinidad,55 the manufacturer claimed thatparaquat suicides are decreasing, and that safeuse practices and training have decreased if noteliminated unintentional poisonings.56 Recentdata from developing countries, however, do notsustain this claim and, on the contrary, anincrease of paraquat suicides has been docu-mented in Costa Rica.57

In Samoa, the government has taken actionto curb the number of suicides from paraquat.Between 1972 and 2001 over 360 people diedafter exposure to paraquat, in almost all casesas a result of deliberate ingestion. The popula-tion of Samoa is 167,000, and around 5000farmers use herbicides. The formulation sold inthe country contains the blue dye, emetic and

stenching agents to discourage those intent onsuicide, and the death rate reduced when thesewere introduced, but cases continued and num-bers are beginning to rise again. 58

Environmental issuesParaquat has been ranked as ‘very persistent’ insoils by a Cornell University environmental riskindex.59

“Paraquat is highly persistent in the soil envi-ronment, with reported field half-lives of greaterthan 1000 days … The reported half-life in onestudy ranged from 16 months (aerobic laborato-ry conditions) to 13 years (field study). Paraquatis slightly to moderately toxic to many species ofaquatic life, including rainbow trout, bluegill, andchannel catfish … In one study, 4 days afterparaquat was applied as an aquatic herbicide,weeds sampled showed significant residue lev-els … small amounts of residues were found inpotatoes treated with paraquat as a desiccant,and boiling the potatoes did not reduce theresidue”.60

Paraquat is labelled as a potential ground-water contaminant by the California Departmentof Pesticide Regulation on the basis that it haspotential to move into groundwater based onwater solubility, ability to bind to soils and longhalf-life.61

The German federal biological institute(BBA) refused re-registration of products con-taining paraquat based on its potential to accu-mulate in the soil, which could lead to the buildup of harmful levels after a period of years. ICI(forerunner of Zeneca) challenged the ruling inthe courts. Although the courts subsequentlyallowed a new formulation to be registered, theproduct is restricted to use on field crops onlyonce every four years. Wider registrations wererefused by the Court as their effects on theenvironment could not be justified.62

The European Commission’s Scientific Com-mittee of Plants said in December 2001 that amore detailed appraisal “on the likely effects ofparaquat on the rate of degradation of organicmatter in soil” should be provided.63 It expressedconcern about the effects of paraquat on animal

“a major suicide agent in many developingcountries”

13

welfare, especially on hares and birds. The com-mittee concluded that “paraquat can be expect-ed to cause lethal and sub-lethal effects forhares and this is confirmed by field reports”. Onthe effect of paraquat on birds, it said that thepossible effects on the reproduction from spraysolutions reaching eggs in nests and resulting inreduced hatching and serious abnormalities“could be of serious concern”.64

Problems on plantationsParaquat is sprayed extensively on plantationsof crops grown chiefly for export, such asbananas, cocoa, coffee, cotton, palm oil, pineap-ple, rubber and sugar cane. The spraying occurswith high frequency especially in conditions ofhumid weather and rapid plant growth.Onbanana plantations, for example up to every sixto eight weeks. Plantation workers are thereforeexposed to paraquat on a regular basis.

Studies carried out by or in collaboration withICI (forerunner of Zeneca) concluded that para-quat is most unlikely to cause serious healthproblems under correct conditions of use,despite the fact that in several of these studiesreported injuries in between 40-50 per cent ofworkers.65

Other researchers have concluded thatspray operators were continuously at risk forhigh exposures that may lead to severe intoxica-tion and injuries. Even on plantations whereefforts had been made to reduce risks, danger-ous situations and events of inadequate han-dling were registered.66,67 On banana planta-tions, the body parts identified with highestexposure were hands, wrists, back, and scrotum.The exposure determinants included splashingduring preparation of the spray solution andopen transportation, deposition of spraying mist,contact with spray solution when filling knap-sack, leaking of knapsack on back and groin,adjustment of spray equipment, and walkingthrough the sprayed vegetation.

Use of protective clothing is supposed toconsiderably reduce dermal exposure, althoughfew studies have evaluated the effectiveness ofpersonal protection or other safety measures.

The retention of pesticides by protectivedevices may even result in increased absorp-tion.68,69

Problems for smallholder farmers Crops such as coffee, cotton, rubber and palmoil are grown by smallholders as well as on plan-tations. Smallholders may also use paraquat.Because paraquat is now an old pesticide, it isrelatively cheap, and farmers often find the costacceptable where labour costs are relativelyhigh. But the costs of using paraquat withoutrisk are prohibitive. A study of small farmers inKenya found that no protective clothing wasworn when applying paraquat, since the cost ofrubber gloves were too high.70

Small farmers face some of the same prob-lems as estate workers – such as lack of train-ing, washing and medical facilities. Surveys car-ried out by the agrochemical industry in

Malaysia in 1987 showed that most of the esti-mated 715,000 rubber and oil palm smallholderfarmers in the country used paraquat. Over a10-year period to 1995 paraquat contributed tonearly 700 poisoning cases in Malaysia, ofwhich 27 per cent were accidental and occupa-tional exposures and the remainder were sui-cides.71

In Western Samoa, commercial slogans like‘Paraquat for healthier crops’ have encouragedpeople to feel that spraying alone will ensurebetter crops. “Many people have been condi-tioned to accept spraying, planting and harvest-ing as the only essential agricultural activities”.72

These kinds of slogans can violate the FAOCode, which says that pesticides should not beadvertised in a way that implies safety and envi-ronmental benefits.

“paraquat can be expectedto cause lethal and sub-lethaleffects for hares”

14

Countries taking action to ban orrestrict paraquat Industrialised countries Under the 1998 Rotterdam Convention on PriorInformed Consent (PIC), an early warning sys-tem on hazardous pesticides, governments areasked to notify control actions taken on pesti-cides. While paraquat is not included in the PICprocedure, six governments of industrialisedcountries have notified the Secretariat of bansand restrictions:73

Austria: all uses banned from 1 January 1993.Denmark: all use prohibited from 1 July 1995.Finland: use and import banned. Effective 30August 1986.Hungary: severely restricted. No remaininguses currently allowed. Effective 30 September1991.Slovenia: banned for use in agriculture. Effective 13 June 1997.Sweden: banned. No remaining uses allowed.Effective 31 December 1983.

The basis of bans are primarily acute toxicity,absence of antidote, health and environmentalconcerns. In other countries strict guidelinesare applied. For example the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency allows its purchase and usesolely by certified applicators.74 In Switzerlandparaquat is not registered for use. In Norway,the government decided in 1993 not to acceptan application for the renewed registration of aparaquat product, Preeglone, due to its toxicity.But Zeneca, the producer, successfullyappealed against the decision, claiming that forpractical use, there is sufficient safety margin.Nevertheless the company stopped producingthe formula in 1997 and it has since not beensold in Norway.75

The German ban arose from concern over itspersistence in soil. Products containing para-quat were de-registered by Germany’s federalbiological institute in 1983, although only newproducts were affected. Following legal actionby ICI (forerunner of Zeneca), the Braun-schweig (Lower Saxony) administrative courtruled, in 1992, that registration must again be

granted for the product. But the new paraquatformulation contains only 10 per cent of theactive ingredient whereas the earlier formula-tion contained 20 per cent.76 Elsewhere, Ger-man pesticide regulation laws relating to beeprotection were tightened and spray equipmentchecks made compulsory.

The Swedish regulatory authority, KEMI, ishighly concerned that changes in pesticide reg-istration procedures in the European Union willforce it to take paraquat back onto the market. Itdoes not believe that paraquat is a suitableproduct to use in the country.77

Developing countriesThe following developing countries have noti-fied bans or severe restrictions to the PIC Sec-retariat:78

Indonesia: severely restricted to use under pro-fessional supervision and on large estates.Effective 1 February 1990.Korea (Republic): restricted. Special labellingand all formulations to contain emetic, stenchingagent and distinguishing colour. 30 March 1987.Kuwait: banned. No remaining uses allowed. 1January 1985.Togo: restricted to contain emetic, colorant andstenching agent. Effective 1 January 1991.

Other countries have taken action but not madea notification under PIC. Paraquat is restrictedin Chile, which prohibited aerial applications inApril 2001. In some Central American countriesit is not registered for aerial applications. In Sep-tember 2000, the Central American Ministers ofHealth signed an agreement on restricting themost toxic pesticides, including paraquat.79 Theagreement has not yet been implemented.Samoa has given notice of impending restric-tions (see box), but illustrates the difficultiesfacing governments when farming systems aredependent on a specific pesticide, and no alter-natives have been developed.

15

Restrictions in SamoaConcerns with suicides prompted an NGO Symposium report to the Prime Minister topropose a phase out of paraquat over three years (see above). The Minister of Healthexpressed the need to protect the population and ban paraquat. However paraquat isalmost universally used in the country in the production of taro, the staple food crop whichis also exported to the Samoan diaspora.

The Pesticides Technical Committee of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheriesand Meteorology has now issued new guidelines to restrict paraquat. It pointed to thecomplicating factors: “increased interest in the restricted use of paraquat, the misusing ofparaquat as a suicide agent, the high value placed on pesticides by farmers who rely onagriculture for their livelihood, the public interest of safety to individuals and to the envi-ronment from the usage of paraquat”.

Nevertheless, the guidelines restrict sales of paraquat and introduce risk reductionstrategies. Those who buy or sell paraquat must be licensed/certified to do so, and train-ing “shall be conducted for buyers/users of paraquat to ensure that proper use and pro-tective measures are taken during the use of and, storage of the paraquat after use”. Thenew guidelines were implemented with effect from 1 March 2002.80

16

3. Case studies

Malaysia – women workers at risk81

Agrochemicals are widely employed in Malaysia,especially on the plantations. Herbicidesaccount for three-quarters of pesticides usedand are sprayed on 4 million hectares of planta-tion crops namely palm oil, rubber and cocoa.Paraquat is one of the most frequently usedherbicides.

The market for pesticides in Malaysia rosefrom RM 262 million ($70 million approximate-ly) in 1993 to RM 326 million in 1997 ($86 mil-lion approximately). The aerial spraying of pesti-cides is still permitted by the Pesticides Boardthough only as a last resort. Several local com-panies are diversifying into agribusiness andMalaysia is becoming a focal point for pesticideexports in the Asia region. The country’s ThirdNational Agricultural Policy (1998-2010) statesthat rapid growth of the oil palm industry will besustained. Rubber is also seen as a significantexport earner.

Government figures found that most casesof poisonings between 1979 and 1986 wererelated to pesticides, mainly to paraquat. Geo-graphical areas with plantations are likely torecord higher levels of mortality due to pesticidepoisoning. Data suggests that farm and planta-tion workers constitute 45 per cent of reportedpesticide deaths.

Most sprayers on the plantations are women.Herbicide applicators on plantations average262 spraying days a year; a woman sprayer car-ries an average of a four-gallon load on herback. It appears to be common practice not todisclose the names of the pesticides to thesprayers; on some occasions the labels from

containers are removed before they reach them.Where the sprayers were able to identify thecompound, they reported that the one most fre-quently used was paraquat, (followed by metsul-furon, glyphosate, 2,4-D and glufosinate ammo-nium).

A 1996 study by the Consumers Associa-tion of Penang found that 90 per cent of farm-ers surveyed did not observe safety measureswhile handling pesticide. Most plantation work-ers did not use protective clothing as they find ittoo uncomfortable in hot weather.82 Boots,which are commonly worn because of denseundergrowth and snakes, are used to tuck introusers and thereby catch pesticide drips.

At a meeting of government officials, indus-try, NGOs (Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacif-ic [PAN AP] and the Consumers Association ofPenang) and farmer associations, in November2001, a representative from Syngenta Malaysiasaid that paraquat has been used without prob-lems for the last 20 years in Malaysia. He said ifthere are problems, these have related to delib-erate consumption for suicide and noted thatthe company had received information thatparaquat causes no, or very minimal, soil degra-dation. This was refuted by PAN AP, who saidthat paraquat posed health problems for planta-tion workers.

The publication by Tenaganita and PAN APon which this case study is based says that theMalaysian government’s “seeming lack ofurgency in reducing the amount of pesticidesused in the plantations is a cause for concern,especially with regards to the safety and well-being of women workers, particularly thoseemployed as pesticide sprayers and applica-

17

tors”. It continues: “Poisoning due to paraquat isclearly demonstrated in the surveys and inter-views with workers and indicated in the medicalexaminations. Paraquat use is rampant in theplantation sector … because of its effects toworkers and users of paraquat, Malaysia hasalready restricted its use and classified it asClass 1 pesticide. However, more needs to beundertaken, given the extent of poisoning … itis urgently required that Malaysia bans para-quat.”

Tenaganita and PAN AP recommend that: asystematic pesticide use reduction policy isneeded. “Pesticides should be replaced withlong-term, safe and ecological solutions to pestmanagement.”

Indonesia83

The trade union representing agricultural work-ers in Indonesia is extremely concerned aboutthe conditions of pesticide sprayers on planta-tions, and in March 2002 carried out interviewswith workers on three typical palm oil estates inMata Pao and North Sumatra.

As in Malaysia, women often form the major-ity of the sprayers. The number of pesticidesprayers in each plantation depends on its size:in the Mata Pao plantation, 42 sprayers wereemployed, of whom 30 were women.

Paraquat is sprayed approximately onceevery two days, and the product used is manu-factured by PT. Zeneca Agri Products Indonesia.The containers are labelled in English andIndonesian, but most sprayers cannot read.

According to the sprayers, they frequentlyexperience symptoms: blurred vision, difficulty inbreathing, skin damage and diarrhoea. They linkall these symptoms to exposure to paraquat.

None of the sprayers had received any kindof training on pesticide spraying techniques.The plantation management does not monitorhealth and safety, nor implement measures toprotect the sprayers. The management doesprovide masks, but these are difficult to wearand impede breathing. The clothing worn duringspraying are very hot and was described by thesprayers as being ‘absorbent to the skin’, possi-

bly meaning that it sticks to the skin, and thusincreases skin contact when soaked with pesti-cides.

The workers are not clear who owns theplantations. The one in North Sumatra is a localcompany, and owners of the other two arebased outside the district, and could be eitherforeign or Indonesian.

South Africa – lung capacityreduced84

A study of 126 workers on fruit farms in theWestern Cape area of South Africa used a newtest for measuring respiratory effects on thelungs of workers with long-term exposure toparaquat.

The study eliminated confounding factorssuch as smoking history, alcohol consumption,age, weight and height. It found that the lungcapacity of workers exposed to paraquat wasconsistently 10–15 per cent lower than a refer-ence population as demonstrated by decreasedarterial oxygen uptake during exercise.

Of the workers studied, over half had beenexposed to paraquat and the vast majority (83.5per cent) were current applicators. The effectswere apparent, even though none of the work-ers reported that they had been poisoned byparaquat, and only four had a history of skinburns (back, hands or other) from paraquat use.“The main finding is a small but significanteffect”, says the study.

Costa Rica – decreaseduse helps healthBananas are one of Costa Rica’s most impor-tant agricultural exports and pesticide use andpoisonings on plantations are high. Until the1960s bananas were grown worldwide with rel-atively few agrochemicals. Today, bananasrival cotton and rice as the biggest consumer ofagrochemicals. Banana plantations in develop-ing countries use, on average, up to 20 timesmore pesticides per hectare than applied inagriculture in industrialised countries. Many ofthe chemicals used are highly toxic, and the toll

18

on the health of plantation workers and theircommunities is severe.

In Costa Rica, in 1996, 45 kg of active ingre-dients were applied on each hectare of bananacultivation, equivalent to 65 kg per bananaworker.85 Over 60 per cent of reported pesticidepoisonings in the country are from banana plan-tation workers.86

Paraquat is one of the main pesticides usedon the plantations. Over a quarter of the poison-ing incidents reported between 1995 and 1997involved paraquat; fourteen of these incidentsinvolved workers under 18 years old, whom thelaw says should not be handling these pesti-cides.87

A Ministry of Health intervention pro-gramme in the early 1990s helped to decreasepoisonings on banana plantations. The pro-gramme brought about significant improve-ments in safety measures. Nematode applica-tors were provided with full protective equip-ment, they are not permitted to eat or smokewhile working, spray for only a limited period

and rotate with other workers. Medical serviceswere also made available. These measures werenot extended, however, to herbicide and fungi-cide spraying and injuries related to these pesti-cides did not decline.88

A decrease in the use of paraquat appearsto have brought the biggest improvement.Between 1993 and 1996 a decrease of 40 percent in paraquat injuries was observed. Accord-ing to Wesseling, professor at the InstitutoRegional de Estudios en Sustancias Toxicas(IRET) in Costa Rica: “the obvious reason isthat less paraquat was used in 1996 than in1993. However, under-reporting of milder casesof paraquat injuries was suspected. In bothyears, paraquat was the pesticide most fre-quently associated with injuries, mostly skin andeye lesions. Of herbicide-related illnesses in1996, for which compounds were specified, 71per cent concerned paraquat”. Pressure fromcommunity organisations and the “requirementsof international norms of product quality certifi-cation” lay behind the fall in paraquat’s use.89

In June 2000, a coalition of non-governmen-tal organisations, including Foro Emaús, andtrade unions in Costa Rica, Germany andFrance launched a national and internationalcampaign to ban the use of paraquat on bananaplantations in the Latin American region.

The campaign has included press articles,letters to key politicians and importers and pop-ular education. Campaigners report that therehas been a reduction in imports of paraquat toCosta Rica.

“A decrease in the use ofparaquat appears to havebrought the biggestimprovement.”

19

4. Can agriculture managewithout paraquat?

Alternative approachesAt first sight, herbicide use seems to be justifiedeconomically when compared to hand weeding.In transplanted rice, for example, one studyshows that the benefit-cost ratio of controllingweeds is 16:1 for herbicides and 3.3:1 for handweeding.90 In a Ghana study, maize plots treatedwith glyphosate yielded 45 per cent more infarmers’ fields than hand weeding, 151 per centmore on test plots.91 A study of maize-basedsystems in the Embu district of Kenya foundthat benefits to farmers increased by 61 percent when herbicide was used in a maize/beanintercrop system and 46 per cent in maizemonocrop.92

The studies have important limitations: theyassume that farmers have the money to buyherbicides. This may not be the case. The costof borrowing could be high enough to sharplyreduce the economic benefits. The economiccosts of sickness caused by the use of herbi-cides, or environmental impact are not takeninto account, nor is the impact on hand weederswho lose their job because a farmer switches tochemicals.

The primary limitation, however, is that thecomparison is made with farmers who are notusing alternative weed control strategies. Manyother options are open. The alternatives are farwider than hand or chemical weeding. The intro-duction of integrated weed management is themost important alternative to paraquat. Thisinvolves the use of natural enemies of weedsand uses a combination of techniques, whichmay include some herbicide and hand weeding.

The techniques are being used with success ina number of developing countries.

“Techniques include crop rotation, covercropping, intercropping – growing two or morecrops in the same area – adjusting the timing ordensity of planting, manipulating soil tempera-ture and moisture, planting weed-suppressivevarieties, mulching, tilling … and allelopathy(natural release by certain plants of chemicalswhich inhibit growth of plant species)”93

Mulching makes use of cut grass or strawplaced on the ground, usually around the baseof the plant’s stem. The approach is widely usedin smallholder agriculture, but is also provingbeneficial in plantations. One study has foundthat oil palms on plantations in Costa Rica, thatare growing with legume ground covers, “usual-ly show better growth, nutrition, and yield thanmonocropped palms”.94

Sustainable non-chemical weed control isgenerally more complex than spraying herbi-cides. “It demands recognition that weeds arepart of a complex agrosystem and may havebeneficial properties, and that the goal of weedmanagement is a healthy, productive system –not necessarily weed eradication”.95

If farmers use a system that stifles weedsthen herbicides may be unnecessary. Continu-ous, all the year round, vegetation helps; soil isthen covered virtually throughout the year. Inthese systems, leguminous forage crops areoften rotated with mainstream crops. The foragecrops add nitrogen to the soil and serve as agreen manure.

Incorporating legume crops into this type ofsystem “has reduced weeds significantly”.96

20

These systems also reduce erosion and con-serve moisture. The use of green manures in aproject in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina isrecorded as “eliminating the need for mostweeding”.97 Small farmer agriculture has shownthat it can manage without paraquat, and evenwithout herbicides, but the use of alternativeson plantations appears more difficult.

While less toxic herbicides than paraquatmay be an option, many pesticides can causeproblems under conditions of use both in devel-oping and developed countries, and where pos-sible alternatives need to be encouraged.

Conservation agricultureThe technique known as ‘conservation agricul-ture’ may be suitable for plantations andestates. This is being promoted by, among oth-ers, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.Instead of farmers burning crop residues afterthe harvest, or ploughing biomass into theground, they leave them in place, as soil cover.At the start of the next cropping season, fieldsare not ploughed. Seeds are instead drilled witha special ‘zero tillage planter’ directly into thesoil.

“Besides reducing mineralization, erosionand water loss, the surface cover inhibits thegermination of weeds, protects soil micro-organisms and helps build up organic matter.Result: less time and labour spent on landpreparation, lower fuel consumption and less airpollution, reduced need for chemical inputs, andincreasing yields and farm income”, says theFAO. 98

Conservation agriculture (CA) requires care-ful planning of crop rotations and newapproaches to weed control and pest manage-ment. But CA is being adopted from the humidtropics to northerly temperate zone countries.Recent studies estimate that the system is prac-tised on about 58 million hectares of farm land,mainly in North and South America, and also inSouthern Africa and South Asia.

Conservation agriculture (also known aszero tillage or no tillage) is generally a ‘win-win’situation, says the FAO, although herbicides are

seen as “an important component in CA, partic-ularly in the transition phase until a new balancein the weed population is achieved … In gener-al, CA farmers use fewer chemical inputs thancomparable conventional farmers and, over theyears, quantities of chemical inputs tend todecline … once the CA environment has sta-bilised, it tends to be more manageable and pro-ductive than conventional agriculture.”99

CA is not organic agriculture although thetwo could be combined; rather it works on thesame principles as integrated pest manage-ment. “Like IPM, it enhances biological process-es, and expands IPM practices from crop andpest management to overall land husbandry”.100

Monocropping is the norm in plantationswhere under zero-tillage is possible, says theFAO, although they do not recommend itbecause it is “just as in conventional farmingand it creates pest problems.”101 But as the pestproblems are created anyway, the adoption ofzero tillage offers advantages, not least in termsof reduced herbicide applications.

CubaPrior to 1989, Cuba’s agriculture had one of themost mechanised agricultural sectors in LatinAmerica. The vast majority of its agriculturalinputs were imported. When the Soviet Uniondissolved in 1989 the entire system of foodsecurity in Cuba collapsed. The United Statesthen passed a bill which tightened the alreadystringent blockade against Cuba, exacerbatingthe food crisis. The country was faced with eco-nomic isolation, cut off from 80 per cent of itstrade.

Cuba was forced to make rapid and dramat-ic changes to its entire system of food produc-tion and distribution in order to avoid wide-spread malnutrition. It had to produce more foodwith less inputs. The most significant aspectwas the removal of the chemical crutch, asimports of fertiliser, pesticides and herbicidesdried up.

The country’s scientists developed alterna-tives to chemical dependency, including a bio-logical pest-control programme. As a result of

21

such necessary innovations, the Cuban land-scape, once dominated by chemical inputs, haschanged rapidly. Many of the new control meth-ods are proving more effective than pesticidesin increasing crop yields. One farm, where maizehas doubled “in both yields and size of the cobover one year”, appears typical of many.102

“Crop rotations, green manuring, intercrop-ping and soil conservation are all common today.Planners have also sought to encourage urban-ites to move to the countryside … Conventionalwisdom has it that a switch away from chemical-ly-intensive agriculture will ultimately lead to afall in yields – though this is not necessarily thecase. In Cuba, the intensive State sector, con-trolling the vast majority of the land, suffered afall in yields, but small-scale farmers were ablein some instances to increase their productivity.In many cases, peasant farmers had remem-bered old methods and reapplied them”.103

Cuba’s experience shows that agriculture canthrive without herbicides.

Alternative strategies in croppingsystems that use paraquatCottonA programme to encourage the elimination inpesticide use on cotton is being implemented byFAO. According to the FAO, safe use of pesti-cides on cotton is ‘practically impossible’ in theSouth “… farmers will finally learn that anunsprayed cotton field is not necessarily devas-tated by pest outbreaks”.104

Farmers from Australia, Benin, China, India,Peru, Pakistan, Uganda and Zimbabwe arealready using their understanding of agroecolo-gy and natural control methods to greatlyreduce and sometimes eliminate their use ofpesticide on cotton.105

There are, for example, traditional techniquesfor controlling weeds which are present in thesoil where cotton is being grown. The techniqueof hoeing loosens the surface of the soil andalso “eradicates weeds and limited surfaceevaporation”.106 There is a need for furtherresearch on keeping cotton weed-free withoutthe use of chemicals.

CoffeeFarmers in Ethiopia, where coffee originated,are showing that herbicides are not necessaryto control weeds. Coffee in Ethiopia is over-whelmingly a smallholder crop; about 95 percent is grown without the use of chemicals.Weeds, insect pests and crop diseases are con-trolled by traditional farming practices, includingintercropping and the use of mulches; these areprominent around coffee trees.107

On established coffee, and also tea estates,chemical-free management of weeds can bedone with leguminous or other cover crops,occasional hand weeding and animal mulches.Growing under shade trees helps to suppressweeds.108

22

5. Corporate approaches

Warning or promoting?“Wash with soap and water after use … if symp-toms persist, consult a doctor immediately”.109

Instructions like this are common for pesticideoperators in developing countries. But they aretotally unrealistic. Running water, showers and

soap are often a rare commodity in many rurallocations while doctors are even rarer.

In 1991 ‘The Global Safe Use Project’ waslaunched by the pesticide industry to train pesti-cide operators in developing countries. Safe useprojects (SUPs) are designed to provide trainingfor large groups of users, and those who influ-ence how pesticides are used, including medicalpersonnel, agricultural technicians and teachers.The industry cites SUPs as a prime example ofhow the pesticide industry is taking its commit-ment to sustainable development seriously “byensuring a central but sustainable role forchemical pesticides in the production of worldfood crops and commodities”.110

In Guatemala, the first phase of a projecttrained 800 government agents, who went on totrain “a further 226,000 farmers and house-wives, 2,800 teachers, and 67,000 schoolchild-ren, 700 pesticide distributor employees, 330

technical and sales people and 2000 physiciansand health personnel”.111

Industry claims that the programme is a suc-cess, with a significant decline in reported pesti-cide poisonings. But under-reporting is chronicin Central America, and exacerbated inGuatemala by the effects of civil war and thedrastic decline in public sector activities. Thefigures quoted by industry do not make clearwhether they refer to persons reached with pes-ticide-related information, or the successes oftraining. Another problem with the Safe Useprogramme in Guatemala is the assumption thatpesticide problems are linked to poor use prac-tice, rather than the intrinsic properties of thechemicals. Farmers may know the dangers, buttheir ability to take action is defeated by practi-cal constraints of poverty or other pressures.Critics point out that the main message of SafeUse programmes is “use pesticides safely, butby all means use pesticides”, rather than onethat recognises that many of the pesticides cur-rently in use may need to be eliminated.112

Chemical companies also run their own pro-grammes. Under a farmer-training programmeCiba-Geigy trained farmers in ten developingcountries in integrated pest management andapplicator safety. A former leader of the pro-gramme says that the programme had success-es in Dominican Republic and Pakistan. In 1998Zeneca had safe use projects in India and Pak-istan. These arose “because of the crisis situa-tion in cotton where there were very poor cropmanagement practices”. The company figuresshowed that pesticide use after trainingdropped by 20–30 per cent, yields increased by25 per cent. Profitability for farmers increasedby 33–65 per cent.113

“Wash with soap andwater after use … if symptoms persist, consulta doctor immediately.”

23

China: Pesticide use ‘atrocious’Syngenta has a new paraquat factory in Nantong, Jiangsu province, and describes China as ”amajor growth opportunity”. The Annual Report 2001 says: ”with an estimated 800 million rural Chi-nese living on farms of less than half a hectare and more than 2,000 crop protection retailers, thechallenge of distributing, marketing and communicating to this customer population is consider-able. Through successful segmentation, supported by a significant investment in domestic manu-facture, Syngenta has taken leadership in this complex market and sustained strong growth in2001”.

Yet pesticide use in China ”is in general atrocious”, says Dr. Kong Luen Heong an entomologistwith the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Manila; ”pesticides sales are promoted byextension (services) everywhere in China. This and the low prices are part of the reason why Chi-na’s pesticide use is easily five times more than countries like Thailand or Vietnam, which in myopinion is already high. There seems little control over how pesticides are used, stored or sold.Paraquat is a deep concern.”

”At a conference last year, we initiated an environmental attitude in some stakeholders and wehave now taken this further. In Jinhua county (200,000 households) we are cooperating with thevice mayor to evaluate a 50 per cent reduction in insecticide use for rice pests over several villagesusing a farmer participatory approach. The aim is to collect sufficient evidence from large scaleexperiments on pesticide reduction in order to initiate change at the policy level. We did this in Viet-nam and stimulated the government to stop registering some insecticides”. This project, called the”Jinhua Initiative for cleaner and greener agriculture” will be launched by the Jinhua County onWorld Environment Dat 2002 June 5.

“Safe use of paraquat cannot be guaranteed in China. The company cannot build its future onan old dirty product – that is the wrong way for the company, for investors and for clients”, saidFrancois Meienberg

Sources: Syngenta Annual Report, 2001 Communication: Dr Heong, IRRI, and Francois Meienberg,Berne Declaration, and Meienberg to author.

24

6. Recommendations

Syngenta’s Annual Report 2001 and AnnualReview 2000 do not mention paraquat by name.This might suggest that the company wouldprefer the world not to know about its associa-tion with paraquat. This is hardly surprising, asparaquat has become a dirty word for one of theworld’s most controversial pesticides.

Syngenta is tainted by its association withparaquat. The pesticides a company promotesare a reflection of its character. As a responsiblecompany, Syngenta should show leadership inphasing out production, sales and promotion ofparaquat products.

Health and environmental problems arisingfrom pesticides are global, but the conditions ofpesticide use in developing countries can makeit virtually impossible to use acutely toxic pesti-cides without harm to human health and theenvironment. The women and men who applypesticides, either as small-scale farmers or agri-cultural workers, are particularly vulnerable.Paraquat is an acutely toxic pesticide that hasconsistently caused concern when used underconditions of poverty. New evidence of hazardsin the field in developing countries and scientif-ic evidence indicates the need for urgent action.

The Berne Declaration, Foro Emaús, Pesti-cide Action Network Asia Pacific, PesticideAction Network UK and the Swedish Societyfor Nature Conservation are launching thisreport to draw attention to these global con-cerns:

Bearing in mind that pesticide hazards cannotbe avoided even in industrialised countries withinfinitely more human, financial and technical

resources, and that hazardous pesticides arepromoted under conditions where users lack:

• training and good literacy skills;

• ability to apply complex label instructions;

• appropriate and affordable personal protec-tive equipment;

• access to running water to shower afterspraying and wash clothes;

• easy access to medical treatment;

• good quality and well maintained spray equip-ment and

• suitable storage facilities and the means todispose of containers.

Noting the inherent toxicity of paraquat and lackof antidote which makes it impossible to preventsevere health effects;

Recognising that governments, particularly indeveloping countries lack the capacity to regu-late pesticides and restrict the availability of themore hazardous pesticide formulations;

Recalling that the FAO Code requests industryto “halt sale and recall products when handlingor use pose an unacceptable risk under any usedirections or restrictions” (5.2.4);

Considering the importance of sustainable agri-culture for health and the environment as sup-ported by Syngenta in its launch of the Founda-tion for Sustainable Agriculture in October2001;

Demands that Syngenta demonstrates its com-mitment to corporate responsibility, to promot-ing sustainable agriculture, and to implementingthe undertakings of FAO Code by acting on thefollowing recommendations:

25

1. Within three years, and starting immediately,phase out the promotion and sale of paraquatproducts in developing countries.

2. Cooperate with national initiatives to banparaquat taken on the basis of health or envi-ronmental concerns, and support the inclu-sion of paraquat under the Rotterdam Con-vention on Prior Informed Consent to alertgovernments to concerns under adverse con-ditions of use.

3. Ensure that governments and users are alert-ed to the acute toxicity of paraquat and thelack of an antidote by collaborating with theWHO to place paraquat in its ‘extremely’ or‘highly’ hazardous classification (rather thanthe present ‘moderately hazardous’ classifica-tion). This is consistent with the ‘highly haz-ardous’ classification of the US Environmen-tal Protection Agency.

4. While sales remain in developing countries:implement a system of returnable and refill-able containers; and ensure that formula-tions are sold only with the addition of thedye, stenching agent and emetic, where thelimited safeguard of Fuller’s Earth can beguaranteed to be immediately available andwhere all users have ready access to afford-able independent medical facilities.

5. Allocate greatly increased resources todevelop agricultural products that contributeto ecological, sustainable agricultural produc-tion, and phase out the production ofparaquat and other hazardous pesticides.

26

Footnotes

1 Novartis was itself a merger of Ciba Geigy and San-doz, and AstraZeneca a merger of Astra andZeneca, which had formerly been ICI.

2 Annual Report, 2001, page 7.

3 Syngenta website, www.syngenta.com

4 Syngenta spokesperson to author, March 2002.

5 Annual Review, 2000, page 21.

6 Syngenta website, op. cit.

7 Barbara Dinham to author, March 2002.

8 Figures from Syngenta Annual Report, 2001. Thecompany’s regional breakdown makes sales todeveloping countries difficult to ascertain. Theycould be estimated at about a quarter to a third.

9 Annual Report 2001, page 12.

10 Annual Report, 2001, page 39

11 ILO, ‘Chemicals in the Working Environment’, inWorld Labour Report, 1994, Geneva, 1994.

12 ILO, Wage workers in agriculture: Conditions ofemployment and work, Sectoral Activities Pro-gramme, Geneva, 1996.

13 ‘Risky pesticides on sale in Africa’, Pesticides News51, March 2001.

14 Perry, M.J., Marbella, A., Layde, P.M. Compliance withrequired pesticide-specific protective equipmentuse. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2002,41:70-73.

15 Dinham, B., ‘Corporate change’, Pesticides News, 53,September 2001.

16 ‘Crops and Robbers’, Action Aid, October 2001.

17 Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agricul-ture, WHO in collaboration with UN EnvironmentProgramme, WHO, Geneva, 1990.

18 World Health Organisation website, www.who.org.

19 Corriols M, et al. Incidencia de intoxicaciones agu-das por plaguicidas y estimación del subregistro enNicaragua. Serie Investigaciones # 6. Nicaragua,Managua: Proyecto Plagsalud (OPS-OMS/DANI-DA), 2002).

20 Dinham, B., ‘The Pesticide Hazard’, Zed Books,1993, p. 39.

21 Figures calculated from List of Lists, PAN UK, Lon-don, September 2001.

22 Eddleston, M., ‘Patterns and problems of deliberateself-poisoning in the developing world’, Originalpapers, QJ Med, 2000, 93: 715–731.

23 Ibid.

24 Dinham, 1993, op. cit., p. 64.

25 Chlorpyrifos pollution kills fish, Pesticides News 53,September 2001.

26 Beaumont, P. ‘Keeping pesticides out of water’, Pes-ticides News 51, March 2001.

27 ‘Prevention and disposal of obsolete and unwantedpesticide stocks in Africa and the Near East’, Rome:FAO, 1996, quoted in Madeley, J., ‘Big Business,Poor Peoples’, Zed Books, 1999, p. 45.

28 Bage, Lennart, speech to the Governing Council ofthe UN International Fund for Agricultural Develop-ment, Rome, February 2002.

29 FAO website: www.fao.org

30 Agreed at an Organisation of African Unity Summit,Lusaka, July 2001.

31 ‘WHO, Paraquat and Diquat, 1984’. WHO, Geneva,quoted in G R Conway and J Pretty, ‘UnwelcomeHarvest’, Earthscan, 1991, p. 110.

32 For an example of unsuccessful attempts to treatparaquat poisoning, see Zoppellari R, Brunaldi V,Righini F, Mantovani, Avato FM, and Zatelli R, ‘Evalu-ation of the Effectiveness of Hemoperfusion inparaquat poisoning: a clinical case’, Human Toxicol,1987.

33 Ames, R. G., Howd, R. A., Doherty, L., ‘CommunityExposure to Paraquat Drift’, California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, in ‘Archives of EnvironmentalHealth’, January/February 1993 Vol. 48 No. 1

34 Pesticide Information Profile, Pesticide InformationProject of Cooperative Extension Offices of CornellUniversity, Oregon State University, the University ofIdaho, and the University of California at Davis andthe Institute for Environmental Toxicology, MichiganState University, 1996.

35 Wesseling, C., B van Wendel de Joode, C Ruepert, C.Leon, P. Monge, H. Hermosilla, T Partanen,‘Paraquat’, Central American Institute for Studies onToxic Substances (IRET), Universidad Nacional,Heredia, Costa Rica et. al., 2001.

27

36 Staiff DC, Comer SW, Amstrong JF, Wolfe HR.Exposure to the herbicide paraquat. Bull EnvironmContam Toxicol 1975;14:334-40.

37 León C, Monge P, Wesseling C. Hospitalized andfatal paraquat poisonings in Costa Rica during1992-1998, a preliminary report (Intoxicacioneshospitalizadas y mortales con paraquat en CostaRica durante 1992-1998: un informe preliminar).Heredia, Costa Rica: IRET, Universidad Nacional,unpublished manuscript, 2001. In Spanish.

38 Wesseling et al, op cit.

39 The Pesticide Hazard, op. cit., p. 43.

40 Howard JK. A clinical survey of paraquat formulationworkers. Br J Ind Med 1979;36;220.

41 Hoffer E, Taitelman U. Exposure to paraquat throughskin absorption: Clinical and laboratory observationsof accidental splashing on healthy skin of agricultur-al workers. Human Toxicol 1989;8:483-5.

42 Villa L, Pizzini L, Vigano G, Ferioli A, Maroni M, Rug-geri R, Barlassina C, Vannini P. Paraquat-inducedacute dermatitis in a child after playing with a dis-carded container. Med Lav 1995;86:563-8. In Ital-ian.

43 Vlahos K, Goggin M, Coster D. Paraquat causeschronic ocular surface toxicity. Aust N Z J Ophtalmol1993;21:187-90 Wesseling C, de la Cruz E, HidalgoC. Epidemiological study on pesticide poisonings inCosta Rica (Estudio epidemiológico de intoxica-ciones con plaguicidas en Costa Rica). Technicalreport of Pesticide Program to PAHO/WHO. Here-dia: Universidad Nacional; 1988.

44 George AO. Contact leucoderma from paraquatdichloride? Contact Dermat 1989;20:225.

45 Hearn CED and Keir W. Nail damage in spray opera-tors exposed to paraquat. Br J Ind Med.1979;28,399

46 Cant JS and Lewis DRH. Ocular damage due toparaquat and diquat. Br Med Bull 1968; 25,224

47 Howard JK. A clinical survey of paraquat formulationworkers. Br J Ind Med 1979;36;220.

48 Wesseling C, van Wendel de Joode B, Monge P.Pesticide-related illness among banana workers inCosta Rica: A comparison between 1993 and 1996.Int J Occup Environ Health 2001;7:90-7.

49 Wesseling C, Antich D, Hogstedt C, Rodríguez AC,Ahlbom A. Geographical differences of cancer inci-dence in Costa Rica in relation to environmental andoccupational pesticide exposure. Int J Epidemiol1999;28:365-74.

50 Wesseling C, Ahlbom A, Antich D, Rodríguez AC,Castro R. Cancer in banana plantation workers inCosta Rica. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:1125-31.

51 Zeneca USA MSDS, described by Casabona, H.,Debourg, C., Ohlsson, A., Romert, L, KEMI (SwedishNational Chemicals Inspectorate), letter to EuropeanCommission of 29 November 2000.

52 ‘Points on paraquat’, Pesticides News, No 32, June1996.

53 Ibid.

54 Dinham, 1993, op. cit., p177.

55 Wesseling, van Wendel de Joode, et al, op. cit., 2001

56 Wilks, M.F. Paraquat poisoning, Lancet1998;352:1393.

57 Wesseling, van Wendel de Joode, et al, op. cit., 2001

58 Bill Cable, regulator, Samoa, personal communica-tion to Barbara Dinham, March 2002.

59 Warner, M.E., An environmental Risk Index to Evalu-ate Pesticide Programs in Crop Budgets, Itacha, NY.,Dept of Agric. Econ., Cornell University, 1985, quot-ed in G R Conway and J Pretty, Unwelcome Harvest,Earthscan, 1991, page 40.

60 Website of the Pesticide Information Project ofCooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University,Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, andthe University of California at Davis and the Institutefor Environmental Toxicology, Michigan State Univer-sity.

61 PAN North America database: www.pesticideinfo.org

62 ‘German paraquat decision endorsed but ICI to gainnew registration’, Agrow No 166, 28 August 1992.

63 Minutes of the thirty first meeting of the ScientificCommittee of Plants, Brussels, 20 December 2001.EC. SCP/REPT/031-Final, 31 January 2002.

64 Opinion of the Scientific Committee of Plants onspecific questions from the commission regardingthe evaluation of paraquat in the context of councildirective 91/414/EEC. Brussels,SCP/PARAQ/002-Final, 16 January 2002.

65 Wesseling, van Wendel de Joode, et al, op. cit., 2001

66 Van Wendel de Joode BN, de Graaf IAM, WesselingC, Kromhout H. Paraquat exposure of knapsackspray operators on banana plantations in Costa Rica.Int J Occup Environ Health. 1996;2:294-304.

67 Spruit O and van Puijvelde. Evaluation of the protec-tive equipment used during herbicide application onbanana plantations. 1998. Internal report 1998-304, Wageningen Agricultural University

68 Brouwer DH, De Vreede JAF, Meuling WJA, et al.Determination of the efficiency for pesticide expo-sure reduction with protective clothing: a field studyusing biological monitoring. In: Worker exposure toagrichemicals. HC Honeycutt, ed. ACS SymposiumSeries. Batton Rouge, FL, USA: CRC, Lewis Publish-ers, 2000;65-86.

69 Meuling WJA, Franssen AC, Brouwer DH, et al. Theinfluence of skin moisture on the dermal absorptionof propoxur in human volunteers. A consideration forbiological monitoring practices. Sc Total Environ1997;199:165-72.

70 Craig, Ian and Chris Mbevi, ‘Contamination in theTropics’, Pesticides News, 19, March 1993, p.5.

71 Mohd Isa Abd Majid, Review of PARAQUAT Poison-ing, Professional Bulletin of the National PoisonsCentre, Malaysia,www.prn.usm.my/bulletin/1995/prn5.html.

28

72 Marshall, Karl Joseph, ‘Paraquat in Western Samoa’,Dirty Dozen Campaigner, September 1989.

73 PIC Circular X, Synopsis of notifications of controlactions received before 11 September 1998, Inter-im Secretariat for the Rotterdam Convention on thePrior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure, December1999.

74 US EPA. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED).Paraquat dichloride. Office of Prevention, Pesticidesand Toxic Substances. EPA 738-F-96-018; 1997.

75 Pers. Comm. from Landbrukstilsynet to PernillaMalmer, email 14 February 2002.

76 Agrow No 166, 28 August 1992, op. cit.

77 Casabona, H., Debourg, C., Ohlsson, A., Romert, L,KEMI, letter to European Commission of 29 Novem-ber 2000.

78 PIC Circular X, op. cit.

79 Wesseling C, Aragón A, Castillo L, Corriols M,Chaverri F, de la Cruz E, Keifer M, Monge P, Parta-nen T, Ruepert C, van Wendel de Joode B. Haz-ardous pesticides in Central America. Int J OccupEnviron Health.

80 Bill Cable, regulator, Samoa, personal communica-tion to Barbara Dinham, March 2002.

81 Fernadez, Irene et. al., ‘Poisoned and silenced: AStudy of Pesticide Poisoning on the Plantations’,Tenaganita, (Malaysia) and PAN Asia and the Pacific,March 2002.

82 Consumers Association of Penang, 1996, PesticideContamination Continues, Utusan Konsumer, mid-July 1996, page 5,

83 Interviews by representative of the Perbbuni LabourUnion, 11-12 March 2002. (Note: Names of theplantations were provided)

84 Dalvie, M. A., White, N., Raine, R., Myers, J.E., London,L., Thompson, M., Christiani. D.C.,’Long term respira-tory health effects of the herbicide, paraquat, amongworkers in the Western Cape,’ Occupational Environ-mental Medicine 1999;56:391-396.

85 Wesseling, C., van Wendel de Joode B., Monge, P.,Pesticide-related illness and injuries among bananaworkers in Costa Rica: a comparison between 1993and 1996.

86 Smith, Alistair, The modern banana plantation ‘Still agreen prison’, Pesticides News 48, June 2000.

87 Educational video, ‘Bananas Unpeeled’, Banana Link,Norwich.

88 Wesseling C, Hogstedt C, Fernandez P, Ahlbom A.Time trends of occupational pesticide-relatedinjuries in Costa Rica, 1982-1992. Int J Occup Envi-ron Health 2001;7:1-6.

89 Wesseling, van Wendel de Joode and Monge, op. cit.

90 Naylor, R, 1996 ‘Herbicides in Asian rice production’in Herbicides in Asian Rice Agriculture, Ed: R Naylor,IRRI, Philippines, quoted in ‘The use of herbicide inthe agriculture of developing countries, P J Terry,Second International Weed Control Congress, 1996.

91 Darkwa, E. O., Johnson, B.K., Nyaalemegbe, K.,Yangyuoru M, Oti-Boateng, C., Willcocks, T.J.., Terry,P.J., ‘Weed management on Vertisols for small-scalefarmers in Ghana’, International Journal of Pest Man-agement, 2001, 47(4) 299-303.

92 Maina, J.M., et. al., ‘Participatory development ofweed management strategies in maize based crop-ping systems in Kenya’, KARI-NARL, Nairobi,(undated).

93 Siedenburg, Kai, ‘Alternatives to Paraquat’, DirtyDozen Campaigner, September 1989.

94 Quoted in E. Villalobos, R. A. Ortiz, C. Echandi andH. Leon, ‘Mulch and Antitranspirant application forWater Conservation in Oil Palm Plantations’ in CostaRica, ASD Oil Palm papers, Number 6,1992.

95 Gips, Terry, ‘Breaking the Pesticide Habit’, Interna-tional Organisation of Consumer Unions, Penang,1990, p. 194.

96 Altieri, Miguel, ‘Crop Protection Strategies for Sub-sistence Farmers’, Westview Press, 1993, p. 17.

97 Green manures and cover crops in ‘Amaranth to Zai-holes’, L S Meitzner and M L Price, Echo, Florida, p.167.

98 Information provided by the FAO at the World Con-gress on Conservation Agriculture, October 2001.

99 Ibid.

100 Ibid.

101 Ibid.

102 Dinham, B., ‘Cuba – the organic revolution’, Pesti-cides News No. 34, December 1996.

103 Warwick H., ‘Cuba’s organic revolution’. The Ecolo-gist, Vol 29, No. 8. December 1999.

104 Kuyek, Devlin, ‘Corporate profile: Syngenta’, PAN AP,2000.

105 See ‘Learning to Cut the Chemicals in Cotton’, PAN-UK, 2001.

106 Sament, G., ‘Cotton’, MacMillan, 1998, p 56

107 Information based on author’s visit to coffee growingareas of Ethiopia, March 2001.

108 See ‘Environment Management in Tropical Agricul-ture’, R J A Goodland, C Watson and G Ledec, p.37.

109 Recommendations issued to farmers by BAT inKenya about pesticide applications.

110 Hurst, Peter, ‘Safe use in Guatemala – are industryprojects effective?’ Pesticides News, 43, March1999.

111 Murray, D., and Leigh Taylor, P., ‘Safe Use – not sosafe’, Pesticides News, 54, December 2001.

112 Ibid

113 Philippa Guest, Zeneca, conversation with BarbaraDinham, September 1998.