Pubdate: Mon, 20 Aug 2001
Source: St. Petersburg Times (FL)
Copyright: 2001 St. Petersburg Times
Contact:  http://www.sptimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/419
Author: Sibylla Brodzinsky, David Adams, Paul de la Garza

SPRAYING IN COLUMBIA: IS IT SAFE?

Farmers Say The U.S.-Sponsored Program To Kill Drug Crops Causes Health 
Problems. Officials Say There Is No Evidence But Promise Studies.

LA GRANJA, Colombia -- In this region of southwest Colombia, a song with an 
unusual subject is on people's minds these days.

It's a ditty about a herbicide.

Written by Celimo Hoyos, Damned Glyphosate addresses the U.S.-sponsored 
aerial eradication of illegal crops in Colombia.

"They order the spraying without looking at the calamities," says the song. 
"They damage our environment and leave behind disease. . . . That's why I 
damn that damned glyphosate."

It could well be referring to farmer Juan Rengifo.

Last Thursday morning, Rengifo stood amid his shriveling coffee bushes, 
surveying a lost livelihood. He had no doubt what had transformed his 
healthy, organically grown beans into desiccated, empty shells. Or what was 
making the children living on the farm sick with skin rashes, diarrhea and 
fevers.

It was, he would tell you, that cursed herbicide.

"Why does the United States do this to me?" asked Rengifo, 44, referring to 
the drug-destroying crop-dusters that passed over his farm last month, 
trailing a thick mist of weedkiller.

It's a question increasingly on the minds of many of his fellow farmers and 
Colombia watchers around the world, including members of Congress.

Last week, the U.S. State Department, which administers aerial eradication 
in Colombia, acknowledged publicly for the first time that glyphosate isn't 
completely harmless. It can cause eye and skin irritation. Still, officials 
say, while pilots may occasionally hit the wrong crops by mistake, no 
evidence in Colombia links U.S.-supplied glyphosate to the kind of health 
problems Rengifo and others claim.

Instead, U.S. and Colombian officials say the skin rashes and other 
symptoms are more likely because of far stronger chemicals, including 
gasoline and sulfuric acid, used to grow coca and process coca leaves into 
the paste that yields cocaine.

Rengifo, however, says there was no coca on his 12-acre farm. Because he 
was seeking organic coffee certification for his 26,000 coffee bushes, he 
says he used neither pesticides nor herbicides.

His wife, Nubia Bubano Acosta, said she gets upset when she hears 
government denials on the news. "The government says that glyphosate does 
no harm, that the farmers lie, that we are apologists for drug 
traffickers," she said. "But we don't lie. They are the ones who lie."

Skin Rashes, High Fevers

It was market day in the nearby town of Sucre when the spray planes came 
July 21 to La Granja in the southwestern province of Cauca. Rengifo, who 
was selling his produce in the town, said he saw the crop-dusters thunder 
past. He never considered his farm about 20 miles away was at risk.

Days later, when his plants started drying up and the small children of 
Rengifo's farm workers came down with fever, intestinal problems and skin 
rashes, he says he knew he had been hit.

Patricia Garces, 16, said two days after the farm was sprayed her 
1-year-old son, Hener Davidson, broke out in a rash and suffered from high 
fevers.

Another child, 5-year-old Roosevelt Solano, got diarrhea.

The local health department has declared an alert and is conducting 
rudimentary studies of the effects of the most recent fumigation in 
southern Cauca, where an estimated 17,000 acres of coca and poppies, used 
to make heroin, are grown.

Public health officials are keeping a medical history of three segments of 
the population: sample groups of schoolchildren, pregnant women and adult 
men who work in the fields.

So far, most of the health problems have been seen in children, said Dr. 
Milton Guzman, public health director in the provincial capital, Popayan.

"These are minor ailments, and, in all cases, have been treated 
adequately," Guzman said, noting children also have suffered headaches and 
pink eye.

He is concerned about the possible long-term health effects that could take 
years to emerge.

Physicians in Cauca, for example, have noticed a surprising rate of 
leukemia in children born since the aerial spraying began in 1994.

"Some say that (glyphosate) does nothing; others say yes it does," Guzman 
said. "The point is we don't know. But because it is not clear, it is a 
risk to the population."

Guzman is asking the Public Health Ministry to declare a health emergency 
in the province to free up funds to conduct studies.

Study of Spraying Planned

Opponents of aerial spraying, meanwhile, have called for a halt to the 
program while tests are being conducted. In an effort to reassure people of 
its safety, the United States is sponsoring a series of health studies in 
Colombia.

If the studies find any negative effect on public health, the spray policy 
might be reconsidered, according to Rand Beers, the assistant secretary of 
state who helps to oversee U.S. anti-drug policy in Colombia.

"What we would be looking for is long-term serious effect, or severe, acute 
effect. . . . If it were a mild rash that went away in five days, that 
would be of less concern, not no concern, but less concern to us than 
something that persisted," Beers said.

He said officials also are reviewing a program of compensation for farmers 
whose crops are sprayed by mistake or have taken ill because of the spraying.

While Cauca and other coca- and poppy-growing areas have been fumigated 
occasionally since the early 1990s, health complaints had not become 
widespread until now.

Colombian and U.S. government officials suggest leftist rebels opposed to 
the spraying program could be behind the complaints. Beers also suggested 
people are making up illnesses because they're losing money as a result of 
eradication.

"There are very dark interests at work," said Colombian National Narcotics 
Director Gabriel Merchan, who oversees counter-drug programs.

To counter the negative publicity, Merchan said the government wants to use 
international auditing experts to monitor the spray program. He suggested a 
far more likely explanation for the health problems were the chemicals 
peasants use in the illegal production of cocaine and heroin.

"We have proof that the great majority of complaints are the effects of 
illicit agro-chemical use in drug production." He added that others 
complaining of eye irritation "were working on their (drug) plots when they 
were sprayed."

Beers agreed. "The individuals themselves are dealing with a set of 
chemicals that are quite harsh in terms of toxicity, and that has to be 
taken into account in terms of what's going on there."

Merchan added that the spray technology was so precise "we have minimized 
errors to a maximum." Targets are carefully selected, he said, using the 
latest satellite imagery, and pilots are then given precise coordinates of 
where the illegal crops are.

He said rules for spraying were being strictly enforced, including a 
2,200-yard "no-spray zone" around towns and villages.

"We don't spray small farmers. We know exactly where the industrial 
plantations are," Merchan said.

Merchan confirmed spray planes were operating in the Cauca area on July 21, 
targeting poppy fields. As far as he knew no legal crops were hit, casting 
doubt on the veracity of Rengifo's story.

After seeing what happened to his farm, Rengifo said it was clear the 
system doesn't work.

"If that's what the satellites are telling them," he said, "then they have 
some adjustments to make."

A Stronger Weedkiller

Critics offer their own explanation for the health problems: an intensified 
aerial spraying program. Since the launch last year of Plan Colombia, a 
U.S.-backed offensive on drug crops, police have destroyed 124,000 acres of 
coca and 23,000 acres of poppy.

Activists also point to changes in the chemical mix used in the eradication 
program.

The main ingredient in the cocktail is glyphosate, a common backyard 
herbicide invented by the U.S. biotech company Monsanto. The company sells 
it commercially in the United States under the brand name Roundup.

Monsanto will not discuss its sales of Roundup to Colombia. Although it 
won't say why, U.S. officials confirmed senior executives at the company 
have received death threats from Colombian drug-trafficking interests.

But Monsanto defends its product. Roundup is the best-selling agricultural 
chemical ever produced, with $2.8-billion in sales last year.

"Roundup has a long history of safe use when used according to directions," 
company spokeswoman Janice Armstrong said.

U.S. and Colombian officials say glyphosate is one of the world's safest 
and most effective weedkillers. The Environmental Protection Administration 
approved it for general use in the United States in 1974.

But the St. Petersburg Times has learned that since 1998, the Colombian 
spray program has been using a more modern advanced form of a glyphosate 
mix known as Roundup Ultra.

According to Colombian sociologist Ricardo Vargas, who has studied the 
aerial eradication program since the early 1990s, the new formula is having 
a far more devastating effect on crops.

"Before, the glyphosate didn't seem to be so effective," Vargas said. "Now, 
when I visit areas of fumigation, it's like someone poured gasoline and lit 
a match."

U.S. officials deny there has been any significant change to the chemical 
solution.

Former U.S. ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette, however, confirmed 
there were problems with glyphosate in the mid 1990s. As a mist, it was 
subject to winds and to rain and wasn't getting enough leaf penetration.

At the time, the embassy came under pressure from Washington to use other 
forms of herbicides that were more effective.

To make matters worse, Monsanto was beginning to get cold feet after the 
death threats began. So, the State Department contacted other companies. 
Alternative chemicals were discussed. The embassy considered using 
chemicals that could be dropped as pellets, which would go to the root of 
the plant, as well as a highly toxic pesticide, tebuthiuron, and a 
controversial fungus, fusarium. But Colombian officials balked.

The problem was soon resolved, however.

When Monsanto's patent for glyphosate expired in the late 1990s, other 
companies were free to produce it. Feeling less threatened, the company 
began shipping to Colombia via an outlet in Hungary.

By 1996, Monsanto had developed Roundup Ultra. Colombian authorities also 
began enhancing the herbicide with soapy additives, known as surfactants, 
that weigh down the glyphosate. This is done to prevent wind drift over 
non-targeted areas, as well as allowing for better penetration in the 
leaves of the coca and poppy plants.

Experts warn that surfactants can be highly corrosive, depending on the 
concentration. In fact, Monsanto product labels specifically warn users of 
Roundup Ultra: "Do not add surfactants."

"Some surfactants can cause foliar (leaf) injury to crops," Armstrong said. 
"So by restricting surfactants we were avoiding potential crop injury 
problems."

Asked if there could be adverse health effects for humans if surfactants 
are added, she said, "It totally depends on what the surfactant is, what 
its chemical make-up is, and what strength it is being used at."

According to U.S. and Colombian officials the amount of surfactant used is 
minuscule. Even so, concern over the manner in which Roundup Ultra is being 
used in Colombian counter-drug spraying recently prompted the makers of one 
of the surfactant ingredients to halt the use of its product.

The British company, Imperial Chemical Industries, said the ingredient, 
Atplus 300F, had not been properly tested for use in aerial eradication of 
crops.

"It was not designed for that purpose," said ICI spokesman, John Edgar, in 
a telephone interview from London.

U.S. officials stress the surfactant being used in Colombia, Cosmo Flux, is 
made up of a dozen harmless ingredients.

Scientists say it certainly looks that way.

"From a chemists' point of view the ingredients don't look very reactive," 
said Susan Kegley, a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network in San 
Francisco.

"You need something to create a chemical reaction, and I don't see it," she 
said.

But Kegley said evidence of health problems in Colombia indicated something 
was wrong.

"It is puzzling to me. It seems they are adding something and not telling 
us, or the (skin) rash is being caused by acid burns from the surfactant," 
she said.

Surfactants are soapy products that allow water and oil to mix, thereby 
allowing the glyphosate to penetrate the wax coating on plant leaves. 
Health officials in Cauca wonder if it could have the same effect on human 
skin.

"If it is better absorbed in the plants, it may also more easily absorb in 
the skin," said Guzman, the local health official.

Besides the health of his children, Rengifo is left wondering how he's 
going to feed his family.

Although some of his neighbors tend small plots of coca or opium poppies on 
their farms to supplement their income, Rengifo said he never has. He was 
encouraged to plant organic coffee by a United Nations-sponsored 
alternative agriculture program. But now he said he may have no choice but 
to do as his neighbors.

"Otherwise," he said, "how will we survive?"
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens