Corporations and Pesticides

Barbara Dinham

Pesticides and Companies

Mainly developed, manufactured, sold by multinational corporations.

These companies and policies promoting pesticide use have a significant influence on agricultural development.

1960’s-1970’s average growth rate of 10%/year.

By 1990’s, .6%/year. Sale pressures led to a merge of

companies, so that six companies control about 80% of the world agrochemical market. (Syngenta, Bayer, Monsanto, BASF, Dow, DuPont)

Pesticides Strategies for increasing pesticide sales

include developing and promoting new chemical products and selling services.

Many developing countries produce and export pesticides.

India is the largest organophosphate producer and some Indian companies make hazardous products banned elsewhere.

WHO (World Health Organization) classifies many products as hazardous.

Two classes: Ia (extremely hazardous) and Ib (moderately hazardous).

Corporate Research Costs

10% of companies sales. Biotechnology and discovery of new

active ingredients requires long-term, costly research.

Research helps Big 6 to maintain lead in agrochemical market.

Companies predict pesticides will remain central to agriculture industry, despite rapid genetically modified (GM) growth.

Companies seek to increase discovery time of new active ingredients.

Corporate Markets Advertising plays key role in

persuading farmers to buy pesticides. Ads in 1940’s-60’s stressed science;

1970’s stressed dominance of nature; today stress harmony with nature.

Declining prospects for pesticide growth in rich markets, making developing markets the new target.

Fresh produce export industry for developing countries has accelerated pesticide use by 25%.

FAO Code of Conduct Growing need to protect human health and the environment.

Led to the adoption of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides by governments in 1995.

Amended in 1999 and 2002 to improve guidance to governments and industry.

Pesticide Industry Association (all major agrochemical corporations) have amended the FAO Code of Conduct a condition of membership.

Effects of FAO

In industrialized countries, companies are required to register each formulation of pesticide active ingredients

Developing countries operate simpler systems which can be difficult to enforce.

Regulatory authorities in industrialized countries tend to raise standards over time.

However, products manufactured in the EU can be exported for use in developing countries, despite the restrictions placed on these pesticides.

What’s happening

Stricter regulations in industrialized countries create phasing out and banning of older products.

Encourages companies to market product elsewhere.

Farmers in developing countries want cheaper products and buy “banned” pesticides.

Highly toxic organophosphate insecticides are marketed; Classified by WHO as Ia.

Pesticide Market Asian region has been target for

pesticide market. Much of pesticide use may be

unnecessary and could be curtailed with better access to information and training for farmers.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies have demonstrated successes for rice and vegetables and have reduced pesticide dependence.

This suggests that farmers elsewhere may be using unnecessarily large amounts of pesticides.

Costs Major markets are in industrialized

countries, but price is not a guide for comparing pesticide use in industrialized and developing countries.

Pesticides costs relative to farm incomes are far lower in industrialized countries.

Poor farmers in developing countries spend a higher percentage of household income on pesticides.

On certain crops, excessive and unnecessary spraying has been recorded.

Pesticide Growth Development

Asia: 1970’s and ’80’s government subsidized pesticides.

This helped the market grow. During the 1990’s IMF and World

Bank promoted trade liberalization. Farmers can now buy from a broader

range of products, but their information comes from the company or the retailer.

Pesticide Use

Pesticides are often sold in small kiosks, markets, shops selling food and other household goods and by traveling salesmen

Village pesticide dealers are rarely well- informed about best pesticide to use for a particular problem, or how to avoid health problems when using pesticides.

Traders have status “similar to a doctor.” Often farmers teach other farmers about

pesticide use when they themselves are poorly informed.

FAO relies on governments, the agrochemical industry, food industries, and public interest groups to assist in implementation of pesticide use in developing countries.

1995 survey found no improvements to health and a deterioration of health standards.

Most governments now have regulatory rules and standards for pesticide use, but find it hard to implement and enforce.

FAO Code of Conduct 2002

States that “Pesticides whose handling and application require the use of personal protective equipment that is uncomfortable, expensive, or not readily available should be avoided.”

Calls for licensing of pesticide dealers, ensuring they are well-informed to assist farmers purchasing products

Changed the definition of IPM: “IPM means the careful consideration of all pest control techniques…to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimalize risks to human health and the environment.”

Implementing New Code

Companies developed product guidelines Products must be registered for use on each crop Lowest toxicity formulations should be encouraged Expert medical advice must be available 24/7 Protective clothing must be available & convenient

Most pesticide use in developing countries do not comply with these rules at field-level.

Some companies have pledged to address pesticide poisoning in developing countries, but continue to produce products, even Ia’s.

“Safe Use” Three pilot programs (Kenya, Thailand,

Guatemala) aimed at educating farmers on use of pesticides (distribute information and channel it)

Studies of “safe use” programs suggest that behavioral changes were often temporary.

Central concept of safe use is rooted in an assumption that pesticide problems are caused by irrational behavior.

Reality: conditions facing farmers and agricultural workers mean their behavior is perfectly rational.

Honduras: 15 melon workers poisoned; applied pesticides with bare hands and ate w/o washing. Not given water/safety equipment, and leaving field to wash could jeopardize their jobs.

After the studies

Not everyone who can adopt relatively simple modifications in behavior will actually do so, even when it’s shown to be for their long-term best interest.

FAO concluded that pesticide manufacturers that could not guarantee the safe-handling and use of its toxicity class Ia and Ib products should withdraw them from the market.

Techniques

Companies (Bayer) teach and train farmers in developing countries about pesticides.

Bayer decreased the number of different pesticides used in the Senegal River Valley area, 1315 to 7, but increased the number of times a year they sprayed, 12 to 20.

IPM uses farmer field schools, teaching other techniques to farmers.

Both groups had a yield increase, but only IPM had an income increase.

Endosulfan Associated with health and environment

problems in many countries. Local NGO established a team to

investigate poisonings. 1999/2000 season 147 cases (10 deaths) 2000/2001 season 241 cases (24 deaths)

Aventis investigated and first identified suicides as cause of most fatalities.

Aventis later acknowledged contaminated food and water was cause of poisonings.

Recommendation was for training in “safe use” rather than cease use of endosulfan.

IPM projects Organic cotton project in Benin is

achieving good results on yields with improved farmer health and higher incomes as a result of spending less on pesticides.

IPM project in Mali found that pests could be controlled with the botanical pesticide neem rather than 4-6 sprays of synthetic pesticides.

Yields were slightly lower, but farmers’ net revenue was 33% higher because of cost savings.

Conclusions Despite overwhelming evidence of

farmer poisoning, the pesticide industry continues to downplay the seriousness of such poisonings.

They suggest a high degree of suicides. Assert that poisonings are not severe

and should not be a public health priority.

More assertive action may be needed in developing countries to find safer, more sustainable pest management solutions.

IPM training and farmer field school approach challenges companies view that pesticides are essential.