Third world hazards - Pesticides News No. 26

Deaths at Indian pesticides plant
Gharda Chemicals in India has closed down its new chlorpyrifos plant in Lote, Maharashtra following an accident which left three people dead and about 25 injured. The accident was apparently caused by a blown gasket in a high-pressure reactor, which resulted in a release of acrylonitrile gases.
   
Following the accident at the end of August, all operations a the Lote site were halted and an investigation was set up by the company and Indian authorities. Initial company reports suggest the accident was caused by operator error.

Agrow, 216, 23/9/94.

Toxic claim in Brazil
Brazil’s public prosecutors are seeking damages from Rhóne-Poulenc after the dumping of 12,000 tonnes of toxic waste along the coast between Rio and Sao Paulo. The prosecutors say that between 1966 and 1988, 2.6 tonnes of toxic residues including hexachlorobenzene (HCB) were removed daily from the Rhône-Poulenc plant making pesticides and solvents in Cubatao. Lorries then dumped their toxic cargo all over the coastal region. Drivers even left some of it in banana groves telling the owners it was ‘good compost’. Rhône-Poulenc claims that the degree of contamination found is not dangerous and stems from general pollution in the area.

The Guardian 27/10/94.

Cotton problems in Pakistan
Since the early 1980s, there has been a major increase in cotton production in Pakistan with a corresponding rise in the uptake of chemical control — especially against insect pests. This extensive use is linked with pest-resistance to some insecticide groups, an upsurge in some pests due to the effects of broad spectrum chemicals on natural enemies and an increase in the number of people poisoned by insecticides. The latter is a particular problem. “It is a social matter which must be urgently addressed,” according to Professor Graham Matthews of Imperial College, London, who has recently visited cotton growing areas in Pakistan.
    Application techniques continue to be extremely poor due to substandard equipment. With about 75% of cotton growers on small farms, the knapsack sprayer will remain the main method of spraying. “Contamination of the operator readily occurs during application as well as prior to spraying when concentrate was spilt over the fingers, when mixing the spray,” recalled Professor Matthews.  

Leaf curl virus — continuing threat
Over the last few years the problem of leaf curl virus has gradually increased to such an extent that it may cause about 70% of damage to this year’s cotton crop. The complexity of the cotton ecosystem means it is difficult to attribute losses to a single factor, but the virus was the main contributor to a US$2.4 billion loss to the 1993-94 crop which earns 65% of Pakistan’s foreign exchange. There was optimism this season that despite the unprecedented levels of virus infection the crop was withstanding the epidemic well, due to the widespread use of tolerant varieties. However a late season outbreak of Heliothis has resulted in yet another poor crop. “There is optimism for the future, because new varieties at the stage of field trials are showing immunity to the virus” said Dr Peter Markham of the John Innes Centre at Norwich in the UK.
   
Leaf curl virus is spread by the insect Bemisia tabaci, the tobacco, cotton or sweetpotato white-fly. Until 1967, the virus was unknown in Pakistan. In 1988, 60 hectares were affected — today, the area is near to one million ha. A number of factors have contributed to this result. Since the late 1 960s there has been a steady increase in the use of pesticides in an uncontrolled fashion. The overuse of both pyrethroids and organophosphorous compounds has resulted in widespread resistance in several insect pests. Cypermethrin. cyfluthrin, methamidophos and monocrotophos are now ineffective against the whitefly. Some populations are also developing resistance to endosulfan. Inefficient use has meant that 90% of the insecticide misses the insect target. To compound these factors, whitefly now build up earlier in the growing season which presents better climatic conditions for the virus to develop. It is also thought that varieties, chosen because of a greater cotton fibre content, may have been more susceptible to leaf curl virus.
    “Unfortunately we are lacking sufficient data which would account for the spread of this virus, and for example account for where the virus comes form each year. There are so many inexplicable observations associated with this virus epidemic; it is difficult to recommend satisfactory control strategies. We find fields of a highly susceptible variety with no infection growing adjacent to a field of a tolerant variety with a high level of infection. In some fields the infection is very severe every year, while in other areas it may be variable from year to year,” lamented Dr Markham. Temperature at the time of planting, planting dates, wind and local farming practices all seem to influence the outcome of the epidemic.

Non-chemical solutions 
IPM techniques, including the search for resistant varieties, are being sought to solve the leaf curl virus problem. Cultural controls generally in cotton, such as uprooting at the end of the season to reduce survival of pink boll-worm, are also of fundamental importance. Selection of a quicker maturing variety integrates well with early uprooting. Avoiding the growing of okra near cotton also reduces the incidence of pink and spotted bollworms. Cultural techniques can also influence the conservation of natural enemies so the role of areas of fodder sorghum and berseen need to be more fully investigated. These measures may also help in the control of the virus. “Farmers need to adopt improved application technology and be assisted with IPM field training in order to improve adverse health and environmental impacts and to reduce losses to pest attack,” concluded Professor Matthews.

For more information contact: Professor Graham Matthews, Silwood Pest Management, Imperial College, Ascot, Berks, SL5 7PY, UK. Dr Peter Markham, John Innes Institute, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 26, December 1994, page 11]