The cost of hazards posed by pesticides in Kenyan export crops

In common with many developing countries, pesticide use in Kenya is concentrated in the large-scale production sector, particularly those parts growing export crops that generate foreign exchange such as coffee, fruit, vegetables and flowers. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) International commissioned Hassan Partow to provide an audit of pesticide shipments to Kenya. This article looks at the hazards of use, and the products on the market.

The Kenyan market was valued at US$ 40.4 million in 1992(1), placing it among the highest pesticide users in sub-Saharan Africa(2). Approximately 60% of pesticides are applied on coffee, which was the principal foreign exchange earner until 1988. As the coffee price fell, so did production, and the cost of agrochemicals increased with devaluation. Consequently, pesticide use has fallen, although coffee remains the largest user of pesticides, primarily fungicides to combat coffee berry disease and leaf rust. Herbicides are used extensively in wheat production, while flowers, vegetables and cotton production consume significant quantities of insecticides(3).

Pesticide use in the coffee sector
Coffee is produced by both small-scale farmers and large estates. Most small-scale farmers can no longer afford to apply pesticides(4), although when they do it often involves the family, including children.
    The situation is quite different on the estates, where use remains significant, and sprayers are regularly exposed. The author visited 19 estates in Kiambu (13) and Murang’a (6) districts in April-June and October-December 1993, coinciding roughly with the peak spraying periods. Interviews with 105 pesticide mixers, loaders and applicators on these estates provided additional information.

Problems of application
Spraying is predominantly a male occupation. Only two of the workers observed were women. However, coffee harvesting activities are almost exclusively the domain of female labourers and their children, and the picking period, which peaks from September to January, overlaps with pesticide application periods. Women are frequently exposed when required to pick in recently sprayed areas.
    Typically, workers sprayed from six to eleven hours a day. No lunch breaks or other rest pauses are offered, although one estate provided workers with half a litre of milk per day. The monthly wage was roughly US$11-14, placing pesticide farm workers in the bottom half of the lowest income group in Kenya(5).
    In none of the estates was soap, drinking water or field sanitation available to pesticide workers during spray operations. Water was only available to workers from drums intended for mixture with the pesticide concentrate, although tractor operators had access to water tanks, ponds or streams for refilling. Water was available in the estate headquarters, but most workers postponed washing-up until reaching home and many workers complained of the difficulty of obtaining soap. This means that workers are exposed to any spills for a long period.
    Chemical concentrates were always dissolved using bare hands and stirred with a tree branch or stick. Solutions were poured without use of funnels, making spillage and splashes almost unavoidable. Workers sprayed with and against the wind as tractors were driven up and down the rows in succession to save time and fuel.
    Some workers were provided with protective gear, which would be beyond their own means to purchase: 59% were supplied with overalls or aprons and 36% with gum boots. However most worked bare foot (53%) or wore open slippers (11%). For those provided with overalls, laundering was either weekly (in 68% of cases) or at 2-3 week intervals, which means workers use spray-soaked clothing. Even where clothing was provided, it had deteriorated, but workers found it extremely difficult to convince management to issue replacements. Casual workers were particularly disadvantaged. As in other tropical countries, high temperatures and humid conditions are a major obstacle to wearing protective clothing.
    None of the workers had received formal training in mixing, loading or application of pesticides and novice employees learned on the spot from fellow workers or supervisors. Most sprayers had some primary school education, but reading labels was not considered necessary because estate management gave strict instructions on calibration, method and timing of use. Over half the workers (58%) did not know the name of the chemical they were applying. None was familiar with first-aid methods. During the course of the survey, workers applied fungicides (captafol, chlorothalonil, copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride and cuprous oxide), insecticides (azinphos methyl, diazinon and omethoate) and herbicides (glyphosate and paraquat). Application methods included open cab tractors, hose pipes attached with a spray lance, and knapsack spraying. Equipment was generally in a poor condition, with leaks common and dirty water frequently used for mixing cloggs spray nozzles.

Poisoning signs and symptoms
Most workers experienced adverse health effects. Many described their dizziness as ‘feeling drunk’ or used the Kiswahili term kiunguzungu (a spinning sensation). Eye irritations included complaints of ‘burning inside’ and ‘seeing darkness’. Other common symptoms were skin irritation (84%), breathing difficulties (71%), stomach problems (58%) and nausea (20%). Women harvesters were equally aware of the hazards to which they were exposed, and complained that the most common effects on their health were dermatitis, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. Pickers were adamant that pesticides were the cause of such ailments, noting that these symptoms did not arise when they were processing coffee or weeding manually. While the overwhelming majority of workers were well aware of the health consequences of pesticides, their fear of job loss led most to dismiss occupational safety as an unaffordable luxury. One spray operator summed up the dilemma, saying “if the pesticides don’t kill us, then hunger will(6).” 

Pesticides on the Kenyan market
As all pesticides are imported, import data, although fragmented, provides the basis for information on active ingredients in use in the country. The Office of the President and the Ministry of Agriculture agreed to grant the necessary clearance and make available classified records on pesticide import licensing, making it possible to examine authorised imports between 1989 and 1993. According to official statistics from Kenya’s regulatory authority, the Pest Control Products Board (PCPB), commercial pesticide imports average around 7,300 tonnes annually(7). However there are large fluctuations with imports of 10,371 tonnes in 1987 compared with 4,054 tonnes in 1991(8). The picture is more complex as smuggling is a problem(9), and the statistics fail to distinguish between formulated product and technical grade concentrate which is imported for formulation in the country. As a consequence of World Bank/IMF policies encouraging deregulation the need for prior regulatory approval for pesticide imports has been dropped, and the government has no advance indication of intended imports.
    Kenya operates a pesticide registration scheme and in 1994 370 formulations were registered for use, representing 217 active ingredients. Most of the products registered by the PCPB are insecticides (43%), followed by fungicides (22%), and herbicides (18%). On average 5% of the volume of pesticide imports is technical grade material (11% of the value) although it is practically impossible to estimate the volume of formulated product from the technical grade material.
    Fungicides normally account for half of the Kenyan market, and insecticides and herbicides represent on average 20% and 18% respectively. Pesticides classified by the WHO as extremely and highly hazardous (i.e. WHO Class Ia and Ib) account on average for around 22% of the volume imported. Moderately hazardous products (WHO Class II) make-up slightly over 20% of imports. A substantial proportion of imports of technical grade material for local formulation is WHO Ia (15%) and Ib (39%), effectively increasing the proportion of these products used. While the bulkier inorganic chemicals constitute the largest group of imports by weight (21%), significant quantities of organophosphates (15%) and organochlorines (11%) are imported.
    Ten active ingredients account for over half the quantity of imported pesticides (see Table 1), and twenty account for 80%. Of the formulated imports, one third are made up of copper oxychloride, chlorothalonil, cuprous oxide (all mainly for use in coffee) and mancozeb (mainly applied in vegetable and horticultural cultivation). Two soil fumigants, 1,3-dichloropropene and the ozone-depleting methyl bromide, account for 15% of imports, while the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D amine and sodium trichloracetate make-up 9%. Roughly 83% of the volume of technical grade material imported consists of highly toxic insecticides, and a further 15% is paraquat which is classified ‘moderately hazardous’, but ingestion of this product is fatal.

Table 1   Main imports of formulated products into Kenya, 1989-1993 (Weight in tonnes [t], and % of total)
Formulated product	1989		1990		1991		1992		1993
Active ingredient	t	%	t	%	t	%	t	%	t	%
1, 3-dichloropropene	361	5.97	560	11.46	411	10.9	760	11.4	340	9.14
2,4-D amine	165	2.73	204	4.18	43	1.15	109	1.63	240	6.45
chlorfenvinphos	100	1.65	400	8.18	-	-	-	-	30	0.82
chlorothalonil	165	2.73	203	4.16	280	7.43	623	9.35	232	6.23
copper oxychloride	940	15.53	292	5.97	596	15.77	1,142	17.13	401	10.75
cuprous oxide	872	14.41	218	4.46	40	1.06	40	0.6	110	2.68
glyphosate	190	3.13	256	5.24	137	3.64	156	2.34	124	3.32
mancozeb	324	5.34	198	4.05	232	6.15	256	3.84	270	7.25
sodium trichloracetate	100	1.65	75	1.53	125	3.31	150	2.25	-	-
methyl bromide /chloropicrin	348	5.75	289	5.91	280	7.42	255	3.83	68	1.83
Sub-Total	3,565	58.89	2,695	55.14	2,144	56.83	3,491	52.37	1,815	48.47
Total  Imports	6,063	100	4,891	100	3,772	100	6,666	100	3,725	100
Source: Hassan Partow, Pesticide use and management in Kenya, see reference 1.

Exporting countries
Kenya imports around 95% of its formulated pesticides from twelve countries (see Table 2), mainly in Europe, with Germany providing 22% of all requirements in recent years. US imports averaged 18% over three years, and UK 15%. Four countries accounted for roughly 90% of the total volume of technical concentrate imported: UK (29%), Germany (25%), Japan (24%) and the Netherlands (11%).
    Pesticides which have not received registration in the exporting country make up a significant part of sales in Kenya. It should be noted that pesticides may not be registered in the exporting country for a number of reasons: crops on which they are used may not be grown; or different formulations may be registered. Lack of registration in some cases indicates that the pesticide would not be accepted for registration.
    In 1991 and 1992, half of the German pesticide exports to Kenya were not authorised for use in the domestic market. This was mainly the organochlorine fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene which is a carcinogen is also a suspected mutagen(10,11). In 1991, 13% of the volume of US exports to Kenya were unregistered for use in the US, although this dropped to 3.7% in 1992 and 1.6% in 1993: exports in this period included 70,550 kgs of carbosulfan. Unregistered exports from the Netherlands comprised ametryn, carbosulfan, heptachlor, mancozeb, metalaxyl, monocrotophos, quinalphos and thiabendazole, and made up 8.9% of Dutch exports in 1991, 44% in 1992, and 11.4% in 1993. Other unregistered exports include: from the UK—hexaconazole, piperonyl butoxide, and sodium dichromite/arsenic pentoxide; from France—L-flamprop-isopropyl; from Switzerland—ametryn, iodofenphos, phosphamidon, profenofos and thiometon.

Pesticides sold but not registered in Kenya
Many pesticide formulations sold in Kenya have not been screened by government research stations. In the course of this study, a total of 96 formulations were recorded as in circulation without having been registered with the PCPB. The figure could be three to four times higher. Unregistered products found on sale included 26 organochlorine active ingredients, including DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, lindane and pentachloro-phenol. DDT was banned for agricultural use in 1986, but is still authorised for malaria control, with restrictions—application must be by trained Ministry of Health staff and only in mosquito breeding grounds. However DDT remains available in retail outlets throughout Kenya, where label instructions still recommend its use on various agricultural crops. Both multinational companies (e.g. Montedison and Murphy group, part of Rhône-Poulenc)(12)  and local formulators sell DDT.
    Shell agrochemicals (now part of American Cyanamid, in turn owned by American Health Products) was marketing the widely-banned pesticide dieldrin—also banned in Kenya since 1986—as late as 1992 indicating use ‘For Coffee’. Shell Kenya denied it was marketing dieldrin in Kenya, saying it must be smuggled in from Tanzania where Shell’s dieldrin is also not registered for use. However the label states  ‘PCPB Registration No. …’ implying intended use in Kenya. The registration number is left blank. Shell stopped global production of dieldrin in 1989 but there are large obsolete stocks in Africa as a result of previous locust control strategies. 

Table 2  Leading pesticide exporting countries to Kenya by value, 1991-93  (millions of KShs and % of total) [KShs 55.3 = US$ 1.0]
Country	1991		1992		1993
	KShs.	%	KShs.	%	KShs.	%
Germany	104.7	17.93	267.4	21.07	354.3	27.55
US	103.8	17.77	266.3	20.98	182.7	14.21
UK	116.1	19.88	160.5	12.64	123.8	9.63
France	51.3	8.79	115.3	9.08	146.8	11.41
Italy	32.6	5.58	141.5	11.15	32.2	2.50
Israel	43.6	7.46	63.8	5.03	63.9	4.97
Belgium	34.4	5.89	46.2	3.64	86.4	6.72
Switzerland	17.6	3.01	58.3	4.59	69.4	5.40
Netherlands	28.6	4.90	53.1	4.18	41.3	3.21
Japan	6.2	1.06	14.6	1.15	28.8	2.24
Zambia	9.5	1.63	25.9	2.04	7.2	0.56
Canada	12.5	2.14	7.1	0.56	21.5	1.67
Sub-Total	560.7	96.03	1220.0	96.12	1158.2	90.06
Grand Total	582.6	100.00	1,268.90	100.00	1,286.0	100.00
Source: see table 1.

Del Monte pineapples and the ‘circle of poison’
The US pineapple giant, Del Monte Corporation, has large plantations in Kenya, with both pineapple estates and canning factories. It also has substantial acreage under coffee, as well as some horticulture and sisal—all run under tight security. Pineapple production is almost entirely geared to providing tinned pineapples to the export markets in Europe and North America. To grow its crops Del Monte imports significant quantities of the highly persistent, bioaccumulative pesticide heptachlor. Heptachlor is one of the pesticides included in the PIC procedure and has been banned in 21 countries and is severely restricted in seven others(13).  Kenya banned heptachlor in 1986 on the grounds of unacceptable health risks(14).
    Import records confirm that Del Monte has been regularly importing and using heptachlor(15)  (see Table 3). The PCPB continues to process the Del Monte import applications, on the grounds that the product is "for importer’s own use". Pesticides imported under such terms are to be used exclusively by the importers themselves and cannot be resold. Although "owner use" is referred to in the Pest Control Products Act, the Act contains a general prohibition on unregistered products: “No licence shall be issued for the importation of a pest control product unless the pest control product is registered in accordance with the Pest Control Products (Registration) Regulations(16).”  It  implies that the PCPB may grant such an application only if the pesticide “contains ingredients that have been previously assessed or evaluated for the purposes of the Act and these regulations and which have been accepted for registration(17).” Given that heptachlor is banned, it could be argued that the Act intends to prohibit its import. The PCPB maintains that Del Monte was not allowed to import heptachlor from the end of 1992. However records show that in May 1993, the Office of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture authorised Del Monte to import 10,000 litres of heptachlor from the US company Velsicol Chemical corporation after formulation in the Netherlands.
    Del Monte has apparently argued that there is no equally effective insecticide for its termite problem. This argument may, however, be related to cost since heptachlor remains a relatively inexpensive option, and alternatives are available(18).
    The term 'circle of poison' was coined to refer to hazardous pesticides which are exported from industrialised countries and re-imported in the form of food residues. It can equally be applied to imported produce, even without residues, grown using such exported hazardous pesticides. There appears to be no testing of tinned pineapples by importing countries for residues of heptachlor.

Table 3   Import of heptachlor by Del Monte (K) Ltd, 1990-93
Date*	Volume (Litres)	Value (KShs.)	Country of Origin
13 May 1988	N/a	N/a	N/a
26 October 1990	8,600	1,303,674	Israel
28 November 1991	10,000	1,617,436	Israel
27 November 1992	8,200	1,755,456	Netherlands*
2 November 1993	10,000	3,938,220	Netherlands**
*   Date of issue of import licence by the Ministry of Agriculture   **  Heptachlor active ingredient is manufactured by Velsicol Chemical Corporation in the US and is formulated in the Netherlands as Heptachlor 3EC.   Source: see table 1.

Conclusion
Kenya has a relatively developed pesticide regulatory system, but, as this article indicates, it is still extremely difficult to exercise proper controls over the sale and use of banned and severely restricted pesticides, whether the ban is in the exporting country or in Kenya itself. Pineapple production in Kenya provides an example of the ‘circle of poison’, where highly hazardous pesticides are exported to produce foods, in this case tinned pineapples, which are consumed in the US and Europe.
    Agricultural workers, particularly those working on estates, have not benefited from the increased awareness of pesticide hazards and the need to ensure that applicators are trained, have proper protection, and access to washing and medical facilities. In the coffee sector, this means that worker health is sacrificed to keep coffee prices low.

This information is released with the consent of the Resource Consumption and Pollution Unit of WWF International. The data cited are derived from research conducted by Hassan Partow between February 1993 and February 1994 for his diploma at the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, while based at the WWF East Africa Regional Programme Office in Nairobi, Kenya. The project, entitled ‘The Traffic in Toxics: Monitoring The Prior Informed Consent (PIC) System of FAO/UNEP aims to assess the impact of current and proposed international codes and standards in controlling chemical imports into Kenya.

References 
1.  Pesticide Control Products Board (PCPB), Kenya, in Partow, Hassan, Pesticide Use and Management in Kenya, Institute Universitaire d’Etudes du Développement, Genève, February 1995, p.205.
2.  Farah, J., Pesticide Policies in Developing Countries: Do They Encourage Excessive Use?, World Bank, Washington DC, 1994, p.13.
3.  Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training Project, Pesticides in the Agrichemical Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, Winrock International Environmental Alliance, for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Virginia, USA, July 1994, p. 17.
4.  Survey of 30 small-scale farms in the Kiambu region by the author.
5. As defined in the Economic Survey 1993.
6.  Interview with pesticide worker (name supplied) 13 April 1993.
7. Based on PCPB figures for the period 1987-1992.
8.  PCPB in Partow, op cit., p. 206.
9.  An East Africa industry source estimates that half the pesticides used in the country may have been smuggled, pers. comm., Nairobi, 20 November 1993.
10.  IRPTC Legal File (1992-93, Volume II) reports control action taken on dichloropropene by countries due to its suspect carcinogenic effects, high mobility in soils, and its classification as being very hazardous in water. The WHO Environmental Health Criteria on dichloropropene cites evidence of leaching from soils leading to well and groundwater contamination and recommends against use as a soil fumigant. Environmental Health Criteria, No. 146, WHO, Geneva, 1993.
11.  Ordinance on the Use for Plant Protection, IRPTC Legal File (Regulations and Guidelines on Chemicals, an Extract of the IRPTC Databank), Vol. II, B-798, UN, New York, 1993.
12.  Partow, op. cit. 1  p. 167.
13. Decision Guidance Document, UNEP/FAO, Rome-Geneva, 1991, pp. 35-45.
14.  PCPB ‘List of banned/restricted Pesticides in Kenya’ cites heptachlor as banned from 1986, although the IRPTC Legal File cites February 1987.
15.  Central Bank of Kenya, Imports Declaration Form, CBK 191B, 22 October 1993; Velsicol Chemical Corporation, pro forma Invoice PF 384/93, 6 May 1993.
16.  Laws of Kenya, Pest Control Products Act Article 2(1), Chapter 346, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1985, p. 27.
17.  Ibid., Article 5(1)(b).
18. The UNEP/FAO Decision Guidance Document on heptachlor reports ‘many alternatives are known to be used’ which have ‘resulted in the phasing out of heptachlor in preference for less environmentally persistent pesticides’.