Safe use or sustainable agriculture-the battle for hearts and minds

Three years ago the agrochemical industry association, GIFAP, launched a series of pilot 'safe use projects' (SUP) in Guatemala, Kenya and Thailand, with the aim of demonstrating how approaches to pesticide use can be improved through stewardship techniques.

Reporting on the first phase of the SUP in Thailand, industry believes the project has reduced pesticide poisoning cases by almost 40%(1). If indeed this is the case it is to be welcomed, given the disturbing news from FAO that the health impacts of pesticides have barely changed since the FAO Code was introduced ten years ago (see page 6). Under the Thai SUP, industry has provided antidote kits, treatment posters, manuals and textbooks, trained doctors and paramedics in treating poison cases, upgraded one poison centre and developed systems for recording poisonings. The project reports that it has trained more than 450,000 farmers, although the training appears to have been at 'farmer meetings' sponsored by the Thailand Pesticide Association. The meetings have encouraged use of personal protective equipment.

Who pays for safe use?
Companies which market pesticides have a duty to ensure that these can be used without harming users and the environment, and in this sense the SUPs are long overdue.
    Ideally, the cost of this work would be reflected in the product, as a means of internalising the full cost of pesticide use. Unfortunately, industry is now seeking government and aid funding to bolster the training programmes. At a time when direct pesticide subsidies are being stopped by many governments, this use of public funds to promote 'safe use' of pesticides raises concern. Training in relation to pesticide needs to be set in the broader context of sustainable agriculture, IPM techniques, in a manner which does not engender a false sense of security that toxic chemicals are 'safe'.
    It is important in training programmes that the message remains focused on the hazards of pesticides: that pesticides are the problem, not the farmer. Publicly funded training needs to focus on empowering farmers to understand their agro-ecosystems and reduce pesticide use. 

Targeting schools
One aspect of the SUPs which causes particular concern is the targeting of school children in rural areas by providing material, posters and comics with the objective of including 'safe use of pesticides' in the school curriculum. Schools have a responsibility to children to emphasise long-term health issues and a wider ecological context, raising awareness of successes of IPM, organic and sustainable agriculture along with awareness of pesticide hazards.
    In contrast to the GIFAP approach, an environmental health magazine aimed at schools in Southern Africa (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland) provides this perspective, and warns of the dangers of agrochemical use. The accompanying teachers notes contain information about the hazards of pesticides, reading labels, their chemical make up, dealing with poisoning, and essential steps in how to handle these safely, as well as alternatives. This is approach provides a good example, and a useful antidote to the safe use perspective(2). (BD)

1.  A Sound Safety Programme', Farm Chemicals International, Spring 1995, p. 10.
2. Poisoning our Earth: The dangers of pesticides' Action: The Environmental Health Magazine, 'No. 15, and teachers notes, 1995.  Action team, Box 4696, Harare, Zimbabwe.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 28, June 1995, page  8]