Product Defence? 
Philippines groups question corporate strategies

Hoechst has been vigorously defending its market in the Philippines.  Two products, endosulfan (marketed as Thiodan) and fentin acetate (Brestan) have given rise to a number of health and environmental concerns and have become the target of campaigns by concerned citizens and farmers' groups. A government ban on sales of endosulfan in 1992 was successfully challenged by Hoechst, and the company has subsequently taken legal action against a doctor who expressed concerns that endosulfan may be carcinogenic.  Citizens groups in South East Asia have launched a booklet tracing the history of the disputes in support of Dr. Quijano.

Government bans overturned by courts
In April 1992 the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) of the Philippines government banned four pesticides following an investigation by a task force appointed by the Department of Agriculture. The four were methyl parathion, azinphos-ethyl, monocrotophos and the Hoechst product endosulfan. (see PN 16, p. 3) Concern with misuse of endosulfan against the golden kuhol snail pest in rice had grown since a government ban in 1990 against organotin compounds (which includes fentin acetate, also known as triphenyltin, marketed by Hoechst as Brestan).  As a result, many farmers switched to endosulfan to control this pest, although this was not a recommended use.
    Only Hoechst challenged the ban in the courts—on the grounds of 'due process', i.e. that the regulatory authorities did not follow the correct procedures in implementing the bans—arguing that the product had not been reviewed by the full board. The ban was overturned by the courts on these grounds. The full board issued a second order in 1993 banning several pesticides, including organotin compounds, and the use of endosulfan in rice. These restrictions were again overturned by the courts, when Judge Julio Logarta ruled that "The board simply adopted the actions of the board chairman in 1992." The government challenged this ruling, and the Office of the Solicitor-General questioned Judge Logarta's impartiality.  The government again implemented the ban on 1 June 1994.
    Endosulfan is among the company’s leading agrochemicals, currently its third largest seller. Although out of patent, use of this organochlorine insecticide has been growing in recent years, following the company's strategy to promote it as part of insect resistance management programmes. 
    Endosulfan is now registered in the Philippines for use on non-rice crops, at a low (5%) formulation.  However it continues to be the focus of concern, partly due to its misuse against the golden snail in rice fields.  Endosulfan is not recommended for aquatic use, as it is toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.  It also has health effects on users, and is known, for example to cause headache, dizziness, disorientation, abdominal cramps and fainting. Convulsions and unconsciousness can occur after exposure to higher doses.  The skin is an important route of absorption.  It has been responsible for many deaths, partly through 'misuse' or ingestion as a method of suicide.

Doctor expresses health concerns
In April 1993, at a conference on the effects of pesticides, Dr. Romeo Quijano of the General Philippine Hospital, made remarks about the carcinogenicity of endosulfan. The conference, including Dr. Quijano’s remarks, was reported in the press by the Philippine News and Features.  On 18 May the Philippines subsidiaries of Hoechst, Hoechst Far East Marketing Corporation and Hoechst Philippines Inc. took legal action against Dr. Quijano and two reporters. 
    Many studies indicate disturbing levels of pesticide-related deaths  and illness in the Philippines and Dr Quijano has worked as part of a team with the National Poisons Control and Information Service and Department of Pharmacology, University of the Philippines on a report which listed 1,302 poisoning cases between January 1992 and March 1993 in the National Capital region alone(1).  In 1993, a World Resources Institute  study on the Central Luzon region, the rice bowl of the Philippines, concluded that rice farmers have little accurate knowledge about pests and their control(2).
    Dr. Quijano, in his answer to Hoechst,  referred to a 1984 WHO comment that some rodent carcinogenicity studies on endosulfan were difficult to evaluate(3).  He believes this cannot be taken as a "clear and categorical" statement that endosulfan is not carcinogenic.  In his further defence, Dr. Quijano points out that the statement "Thiodan causes cancer" was the reporter’s interpretation of his lecture, a reasonable formulation for a layperson listening to a technical expert. He did not seek to malign, but to enlighten those at the seminar on the health risks of pesticides. 
    Support has been gathering for Dr. Quijano, and a booklet has been published to draw attention to Hoechst’s challenge to the government’s attempt to ban its product.  Citizens—Hoechst—Pesticides: The story of endosulfan and triphenyltin follows events covering government attempts to ban two Hoechst products and their action against Dr. Quijano.

Concern over company actions
There is widespread concern in the Philippines about the impact of pesticides. Many South East Asian groups are disturbed that the matter cannot be discussed without fear of facing legal action. They are concerned at Hoechst's manner of challenging government regulatory action. They are also concerned about press coverage which Hoechst’s subsidiary is initiating, indicating that all their products are safe(4).  In March, Hoechst was ordered by the FPI administrator to stop advertising Thiodan on TV, as the ad was "false, misleading and deceptive" and did not mention restrictions on its use(5). In launching the booklet, citizens groups express their views that:

• there are serious concerns whether pesticides such as endosulfan and triphenyltin can be used safely under the conditions of use in Southern countries;

• Hoechst’s subsidiary's actions in the Philippines over the decision to ban some pesticide products does not live up to the spirit of the FAO Code;

• the manner in which Hoechst has handled its concerns have intimidated and silenced groups and individuals who are genuinely concerned with the safety of certain products. (BD)

References:
1. Quijano Dr R, Dr.  Lynn Panganiban and Prof.Nelia Cortes-Maramba, WHO, 46th year, No. 5, September-October 1993, pp 26-27.
2. Rola, Agnes  and Prabhu Pingali, Pesticides, Rice Productivity and health Impacts in the Philippines, World Resources Institute, p. 47, 1993 .
3. Endosulfan, EHC No. 40, WHO, Geneva, 1984.
4. Philippines Daily Inquirer, 29/1/94.
5. Philippines Daily Inquirer, 11/3/94.

Research compiled by Paul Farbon, of Philippines Resource Centre, London and PAN Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.  Citizens—Hoechst—Pesticides: The story of endosulfan and triphenyltin, PAN, Malaysia, 1994.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 24, June 1994, page 11]