|
Santa Maria School on the plantation gets sprayed along with the pineapples. |
Over the 20 years that PINDECO has been operating in the south of Costa Rica, local communities have become increasingly concerned about the adverse impacts of the plantation both on the environment and health. Access to clean water is now a severe problem, as pesticides have contaminated fresh water, and irrigation has diverted the flow of rivers and reduced supplies. Drinking water for both local communities and for livestock has suffered, and intensive agricultural practices on the plantation are causing soil erosion.
Of the 10,000 ha of land PINDECO owns in Buenos Aires county, the pineapple plantation at present extends over 5,000 ha. It is the major employer in the province, whose population of 43,000 is the second poorest in the country. Operations have been expanding for the last three years and an announcement of plans to expand further have concerned many locals and the Popular Front – which has brought together church organisations, trade unions, national and local NGOs, researchers, professionals and individuals.
The planned expansion will take the plantation’s operations from the plains into the mountains and nature reserves, bringing additional threats to the fresh water and springs. Although illegal, the company has leased land and begun pineapple production in the indigenous people’s reserves, contaminating these areas.
PINDECO plays a significant role in the economy of the region and the country, controlling 50% of the entire Costa Rican pineapple production. Of the exports of 10 million boxes of pineapples a year, 40% go to Europe and 60% to the US.
Human health problems
No epidemiological studies have been carried out to provide scientific proof of the link between pesticide use in the plantations and human health problems: but such studies are always rare, and certain health conditions often linked to pesticides are higher in Buenos Aires than elsewhere in Costa Rica, with atypically high levels of respiratory diseases and asthma, unusually high congenital malformations, high incidents of spontaneous abortion and sterility – the latter mainly affecting men. The regional ombudsman supports the Front’s campaign for an investigation.
The group most directly affected by the plantation’s neglect of health and safety is the workers, generally men under 40, and mostly from Costa Rica. About 4,800 people work on the pineapple estates, employed both directly and through sub-contractors. The majority live on the plantations or in ‘communities’ set up to service the plantations.
The Popular Front’s enquiries about health and safety in pesticide application have been met with assurances that appropriate clothing is worn by sprayers. However, the spraying practices, mainly carried out manually with knapsack sprayers and long spray booms attached, are likely to result in high worker exposure. It is known that protective clothing is not always issued, and is difficult to wear, given the high temperatures and demands of the spray technology.
The Front has found that most workers have no information about the dangers of the products they use. Limited information suggests that the pesticides used on the plantation are, among others, diazinon, carbaryl, glyphosate, paraquat and bromacil. There are high levels of respiratory illness and other chronic complaints, but the company’s policy is to employ primarily casual labour and workers can be easily dismissed when they fall ill.
Company regulations stipulate that workers’ health must be checked regularly. However checks operate on a selective basis, testing ‘sample’ workers only. Tests are conducted by a company doctor and screening covers cholinesterase levels only – an indication of exposure to organophosphate pesticides. There is no investigation into chronic health effects.
The company operates a staff association, Solidarismo, and will not allow trade union organisation on the plantation.
Corporate responsibility?
As the company has not responded to requests for negotiations, the Front is now seeking international support for their campaign, and would like to see better regulation of company activities, as well as changes in its practices to bring about:
Environmental controls: including protecting water sources from pesticide residues, reduced use of agrochemicals, control of soil erosion and regulation of post-harvest practices like burning;
Improved working conditions: information and training for pesticide applicators, health and safety regulations enforced; compensation for workers whose health has been affected; conditions of employment in line with national and international laws;
Community considerations: protection from spray drift; regulation of the pineapple expansion and management practices together with proper land management and land use planning; regulation and safeguards for the transport of toxic products.
PINDECO maintains that it is promoting development, but the Front points out that there is little to show for its 20-year presence. Nevertheless, in spite of its criticisms the communities making up the Popular Front have no wish for the company to close its operations, and believe that clean production and better working conditions are not incompatible with profits for the producer. They are hopeful that an increased focus on the problems, and the recent agreements with banana workers (see page 9) may encourage change.
| Del Monte Fresh, which operates in Costa Rica, was established after the break up of the US parent company, and is 90% owned by an Arabic group and 10% by the Mexican government. Del Monte Fresh produces bananas in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Cameroon and Indonesia and pineapples in Costa Rica. It is probably the biggest global producer of pineapples, and a major producer of fresh fruit and vegetables. Del Monte Royal, a separate company, focuses on processed products and grows bananas in the Philippines, and pineapples in Kenya and the Philippines. |
Patricia Blanco Picado, San José, Costa Rica. Interview on 29 March 2000 with Barbara Dinham: interpretation by Stephanie Williamson.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 48, June 2000, page 8]