iMOL Archives - Return of Paraquat - Activists Aghast
Welcome iMOL Archives



Home 2SubscribeTrigger HappyEthnic ClashForumHistorySocialPoliticsEconomyEducationPlantation WorkersAbout me
Silence is not an option when things are ill done - Lord Alfred Dennings
Search   in  

 Create an AccountMain Home | Submit News | Your Account | Content | Topics | Top 10  

· Home
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Feedback
· Forums
· Private Messages
· Recommend Us
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 8 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Select Interface Language:

Random Headlines

Samy Vellu
[ Samy Vellu ]

·I've Never Issued Instruction To Withdraw RM4 Million From MIED Account - S
·Samy Vellu pockets over RM27,000 monthly as special envoy
·Samy Vellu's Tell-All Biography Launched
·Samy Vellu speaks his heart
·My farewell to Datuk Samy Vellu
·Samy Vellu’s final Koothu (drama)
·Leadership, Unity Take Centrestage At MIC CWC Meeting
·Samy to be made envoy
·I Will Resign As Promised, Says Samy

Return of Paraquat - Activists Aghast

Contributed by Anonymous on Thursday, October 19 @ 12:10:52 CDT

Plantation WorkersAnil Netto

PENANG, Oct 18 (IPS) - The Malaysian government has stunned activists by ‘‘temporarily lifting'' a ban on the toxic weed-killer paraquat so that ‘‘an extensive study'' can be carried out.

The move, this month, follows an intensive lobbying campaign by the Swiss agrochemical giant, Syngenta, which markets the herbicide under the brand name Gramoxone, and other industry groups.

It has been a classic lobbying battle with ups and downs for both the industry groups and anti-paraquat campaigners in recent years.

In 2002, anti-paraquat campaigners were jubilant when, after a 10-year campaign, they succeeded in persuading the Malaysian government to clamp down on the substance. The government issued a circular that year saying that pesticides containing paraquat and calcium cyanide would not be re-registered and all forms of advertising of the two substances would be banned.

The government justified its decision saying that more cost efficient and less dangerous alternatives were readily available in the market.

It was a major setback for Syngenta and other transnationals. The decision by Malaysia, the world's largest producer of oil palm with a long plantation tradition, sent shockwaves among giant agrochemical transnational corporations that have thrived on the sales of such herbicides, especially in developing countries. Paraquat sales in China especially have been soaring in recent years and the Asian market is considered hugely important.

Global sales of paraquat exceed one billion US dollars annually at end-user level and Malaysia's ban would have sparked fears among the agrochemical firms that a chain-reaction to introduce similar bans in other Asian countries would follow.

But victory for anti-paraquat campaigners lasted only four years. The government's decision now to ‘‘temporarily lift the ban'' swings the lobbying war in Syngenta's favour. ‘‘We want to do an extensive study on paraquat, its harmful effects and positive aspects, before the set date for its total ban in November next year,'' Pesticide Control Division director Nursiah Tajul Arus was quoted as saying.

The Pesticides Board is now allowing registration of paraquat for all crops ‘‘to facilitate the study''.

Syngenta's public relations offensive, complemented by lobbying campaigns by associations representing plantation owners and the agrochemical industry, began soon after the decision to phase out paraquat was made in 2002.

The following year, IPS witnessed how the firm's Malaysian arm, Syngenta Crop Protection Sdn Bhd, feted journalists to a five-star hotel dinner in Penang after holding a briefing on the benefits of using paraquat. Also present was the chairman of the Malaysian Crop Care and Public Health Association, which represents the agrochemical industry.

During the briefing, Syngenta Crop Protection's general manager, John McGillivray, famously described paraquat as a ‘‘dream product'' even as, unbeknown to him, a young man lay dying in hospital in Kuala Lumpur in another paraquat suicide case.

Syngenta has sought to counter the findings of anti-paraquat activist groups. It has come up with a summary rebuttal to a report entitled ‘Paraquat - Syngenta's controversial herbicide', produced by the Pesticide Action Network and the Berne Declaration. In its rebuttal, Syngenta said in its Gramoxone fact sheet that it is usually serious misuse or abuse situations that have been responsible for creating the wrong impression that occupational exposure to paraquat can lead to long-term health problems.

Syngenta said paraquat is ‘‘so remarkable'' and ‘‘so well known'' that it is a prime target for groups opposed to the use of pesticides. ‘‘One such group, PAN (Pesticide Action Network), has published a do*****ent that uses anecdotes and irrelevant references in an attempt to vilify paraquat,'' it said, adding that if PAN's proposals were taken seriously, food production could fall and local economies that depend on farm output would suffer.

The Swiss transnational firm also pooh-poohed a report launched in 2002 by workers' rights group Teneganita and PAN titled ‘Poisoned and Silenced: A study of Pesticide Poisoning in the Plantations'.

The two-year in-depth study conducted among 72 women sprayers in 17 plantations in three states on the peninsula revealed a host of symptoms. Among them were fatigue, vomiting, back pains, giddiness and nausea, breathing difficulties, skin disorders, eye irritation, headaches, tight sensations in the chest and burning sensations in the vagina.

But in an appraisal of the study's findings posted on the firm's website, Syngenta retorted that the design of the study did not meet even the basic requirements for a proper assessment of exposure and related effects. ‘‘Because of the inadequacies of the Pesticide Exposure Study and lack of other sufficient credible scientific evidence, several of the conclusions in the report are not justified.''

The PR offensive continued with the setting up of a website by the ‘Paraquat Information Centre' to provide ‘‘comprehensive information on Paraquat, its uses in agriculture, and its profile on human and environmental safety.'' The site is ‘‘powered by Syngenta and sponsored by the Global Paraquat Community'', whose members ‘‘represent leading agricultural and environmental organisations''.

Activists groups had also warned that industry lobby groups were trying to persuade the government to reverse its ban. In addition, plantation owners took out full-page advertisements in the English-language press extolling the benefits of paraquat while downplaying the health risks.

PAN is now fighting back. It is a well-known fact that paraquat is one of the most highly toxic herbicides to be marketed over the last 60 years, said PAN in a statement. ‘‘As little as 17 mg/kg has been known to kill a human, and there is no antidote.''

It pointed out that its latest joint report, ‘‘Paraquat - Unacceptable Health Risks for Users'', contains extensive reviews of the impact of paraquat, largely from peer-reviewed studies, which found that large numbers of farmers and workers suffer daily as a result of the herbicide.

The World Health Organisation classifies paraquat as ‘‘moderately hazardous''. But because of its serious long-term effects on plantation workers, Malaysia had classified it as Class 1 B (extremely hazardous). Moreover, paraquat has not been approved for use in Syngenta's home country, Switzerland, since 1989.

So why did the Malaysian government buckle under and lift the ban, albeit ‘‘temporarily''? The ban was put in place a year before Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi took over the reins in late 2003.

Since then, his administration has aggressively promoted agribusiness û rather than sustainable traditional farming to promote self-sufficiency û in its bid to rejuvenate the agriculture sector and reduce income disparities in the country. He even renamed the Agriculture Ministry the Agriculture and Agro-based Ministry as part of this endeavour.

Moreover, one of the nine thrusts in Malaysia's biotechnology policy unveiled last year is for the country to become a centre of excellence for agro-biotechnology. This ties in with the move to industralise the agricultural sector.

‘‘There was a lot of pressure from the plantation owners,'' Sarojeni Rengam, executive director of PAN's Asia Pacific office, told IPS. She also pointed out that bio-fuel derived from palm oil was also being pushed in a big way. (END/2006)



Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Plantation Workers
· News by sound

Most read story about Plantation Workers:
‘Dawn Raid’: Who were the beneficiaries?

Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

Disclaimer: The views expressed by the authors and comments on this website are the sole responsibility of the writers themselves. The writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The accuracy, completeness, honesty, exactitude and factuality of the articles and comments are not guaranteed by iMOL.

If you do not wish any of your writing republished here, please send mail to sound20[at] Allow us one month to remove it. Thanks. Copyright © 1998 iMOL

Page Generation: 0.27 Seconds