Who pays for safety?

A number of delegates at the recent Brighton Crop Protection Conference presented papers relating to safety and pesticide regulation in developing countries.
    Mr PA Whylie from the Jamaican Pesticides Control Authority (PCA) defended his authority's decision to tax pesticide imports to help pay towards reducing pesticide misuse and abuse to the benefit of consumers and the environment(1). The industry and agricultural sector vigorously opposed the fee, claiming excessive increases in food production would occur. Jamaica relies heavily on pesticide imports that constitute more than 90% of the total market. Industry and farming concerns lobbied the government when the PCA said it would introduce a 2% fee on these imports (including air freight). However the government levied a tax of only 0.5% that came into force in January 1996. This is too low to support the long-term financing of the PCA. According to Mr Whylie the figure of 2% would fund 75% of the PCA's vital work, allowing it a certain amount of financial self-reliance. In the final analysis, there is nobody else to pay for protection of human health and the environment-we all have to pay, Mr Whylie concluded.
    Researchers from GTZ(2), the German technical aid organisation, have analysed pesticide products from 21 developing countries and confirm Mr Whylie's concern.
    The results indicate that over one third of pesticide available on the market in developing countries do no comply with international standards. GTZ recommended that increased efforts must be made by manufacturers and traders, and national control authorities in developing countries should control effectively the quality of products.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 34, December 1996, page 18]