|
search
international
home English
contact: info@safer-world.org
| |
From P A N U P S, Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
Plan Colombia -- Pesticide Experiments on Farmers
October 12, 2001
In October 2001, over 95 scientists and health professionals signed a
letter to the U.S. Senate calling for an immediate moratorium on
anti-drug fumigations in Colombia. The fumigation program -- which
involves aerial spraying of large quantities of Roundup Ultra, a
non-selective herbicide (active ingredient glyphosate), on coca- and
heroin-poppy-growing regions of Colombia -- has come under increasing
criticism from scientists, environmental organizations, human rights
monitors and Colombian government officials. In response to these
concerns, the U.S. State Department announced in August that it would
conduct a test of the human health effects of the aerial fumigations in
Colombia. The letter to the Senate stated that even though the State
Department was taking a positive step by agreeing to investigate the
sprayings' health effects, the signers "want to emphasize that [they] do
not believe [that] continued spraying during the long period of planning
and executing the investigation is ethical or justified."
According to initial reports, the State Department study -- which may
already be underway -- will use Colombian farmers as experimental
subjects. The study was designed with assistance from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control
(CDC). According to the Washington Post, the study "will examine 100
farmers in Putumayo, where eradication efforts of the U.S.-assisted Plan
Colombia are concentrated, to assess their health before spraying
begins, and reexamine the same 100 people after fumigation . . . occurs
nearby."
The State Department study is being undertaken because reports of
adverse human health effects from the spraying have now become so
widespread that they can no longer be ignored. Although there have been
numerous reports of human and animal illness, the farmers will be
exposed to the pesticide in order to assess whether it in fact has
adverse effects. As Dr. Fernando Lolas, chief of bioethics at the Pan
American Health Organization, points out, there is an "ethical double
standard" involved in the study. "The bottom line," explains Kimberly
Stanton of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Human Rights in Washington,
"is there's no place in the U.S. where a community would allow this kind
of fumigation to happen to them."
The Code of Federal Regulations outlines the ethical standards that must
be followed for all human testing in the U.S. (Title 45:Public
Welfare/Part 6). This 1991 policy governs the EPA and 11 other federal
agencies. The central component of the document is its policy of
"informed consent." Any researcher seeking to use human subjects must
"obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject." Test
subjects must be free to decide whether or not they want to participate,
without any "coercion" or "undue influence" by those conducting the
test. To date, the State Department has not provided any information
about whether they have obtained informed consent from the farmers being
tested in the study.
Many times in recent years, Colombian farmers have registered formal
complaints with the Colombian government, courts and medical officials
that the fumigations have caused enormous damage to their legal crops,
their families' health, livestock and the environment. At least 300,000
acres of Colombian farmland have been sprayed since 1999, yet total coca
production has steadily increased. The governors of the six southern
Colombian provinces on which aerial eradication campaigns have focused
have jointly called for an immediate end to fumigations. They propose
instead voluntary, manual eradication of illicit crops, aided by
international financial support for sustainable development projects.
Nongovernmental organizations in Colombia and the U.S. -- including PAN
North America, the Institute for Science and Interdisciplinary Studies,
PAN-Colombia (RAPALMIRA) and the American Bird Conservancy -- are
calling for an independent scientific body to propose and implement a
method of testing that does not further endanger human health. In order
to begin laboratory tests and the review of existing studies,
researchers will require accurate information about the exact
formulation of chemicals being sprayed and about the procedures and
safeguards governing the spraying -- information which is currently
unavailable. In the meantime, these environmental, human rights and
foreign policy groups demand a moratorium on further spraying.
Sources: http:www.washingtonpost.com,
"Anti-Drug Herbicide on Trial,"
August 22, 2001; Epidemiological Section of the Colombian Department of
Health, "Efectos de la Fumigación: Valle del Guamuez y San Miguel,
Putumayo," February 2001; Elsa Nivia, "Las fumigaciones aéreas sobre
cultivos ilicitos si son peligrosos: Algunas aproximaciones," May 2001;
St. Petersburg Times, "U.S. to study spraying risks in Colombia," August
12, 2001; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45:Public Welfare/Part 46,
August 1991,
Contact: PANNA.
PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and
reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the
mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North
America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to
advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.
--------
To comment, send a message to:
panna@panna.org
To subscribe, send a blank message to:
panups-subscribe@igc.topica.com
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA
Phone: (415) 981-1771
Fax: (415) 981-1991
Email: panna@panna.org
Web: http://www.panna.org
|