Chemicals fight must go before judges
Another big fight against powerful farm chemical giants is set to begin. A doctor who has joined a growing crusade against deadly chemicals such as paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos said the issue which has died down since a shameful decision by the Hazardous Substance Committee on May 23 this year to renew import licences for the three products, will be raised at a meeting involving relevant high-ranking officials. On his Facebook page, Dr Thiravat Hemachudha still had hopes the controversial decision could still be overturned, or else those involved should take the consequences.
Over the past months, the Public Health Ministry as a component of the Hazardous Substance Committee has taken a clear stance against the three farm chemicals. Because of this, the ministry has been at odds with two other agencies, the Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives and the Industry ministries. Through the voting process, the health representatives lost.
Dr Thiravat’s “or else” measure is a threat to resort to Section 157 of the Criminal Code — a clause dealing with dereliction of duty — against those blocking a ban on these chemicals, in particular paraquat — known under its trade name Gramoxone — a highly popular chemical among Thai farmers.
Despite case studies that demonstrate health threats from the chemical — with several cases ending in death — agriculture and industry officials insist they “need more information” to ban the chemical. This is deeply sad.
Obviously, the doctor’s move must have been inspired by the court victory in the US last week, which saw a California judge order Monsanto Co, which manufactures glyphosate, to pay US$289 million (9.6 billion baht) in damages in a cancer trial, and a federal judge in Brazil halt use of the herbicide over health concerns. Such decisions were welcomed by health personnel and environmentalists worldwide. Some called the day when the rulings came out as “judgement day”.
I am not so sure if such historic court cases will bring any change in Thailand, at least for now. It remains to be seen if the panel mentioned by Dr Thiravat, which deals with health reform, really has the power needed for the enormous task.
Not to mention that some state officials are resistant. I remember a chance encounter with an expert/scientist from the Pollution Control Department who tried to convince me that contamination levels of such chemicals are “too little” to be concerned about. I was stunned with her attitude, but still kept talking: “Oh! Too little?” Not when the country imports such a huge amount of paraquat, and the other two chemicals. We imported 31,525 tonnes of paraquat in 2016. In a twist, fears in the industry sector of a possible ban led to a sharp increase in its import, at 44,501 tonnes last year.
It was her turn to be stunned.
I am not a scientist. Apart from direct contamination of farm produce (which some optimists may argue can be cleaned off with lots of water and vegetable cleaning liquids), every drop of chemical we pour onto the land will end up in water sources, entering the food chain. As a number of studies suggest, it already happens and chemical residue is passed from mothers to babies through umbilical cords. I see no reason not to be alarmed.
What I don’t understand is that while officials are excessively sensitive about alcoholic beverages by placing bans on ads and their marketing in the belief they promote consumption, they simply turn a blind eye to aggressive marketing of these chemicals. Chemical dealers who sell dangerous substances are free to do anything. This is no exaggeration.
If you ever go upcountry, tune into provincial radio stations and you will know what I mean. Every station bombards listeners, most of them poor farmers, with commercial spots around the clock. Promotion tactics, that are banned for alcoholic drinks, are allowed for chemicals that kill, not just the users but consumers, as well as the environment.
It’s sad that despite the serious impact, the government still uses, time-buying tactics by forming committee after committee to study the issue, and we end up being stuck with the problem. Perhaps, the committee mentioned by Dr Thiravat is part of this cycle.
But we cannot give up.
Even though I am not sure if Section 157 is the answer, I hope the public will look at the possibility of making farm chemical firms pay through the legal system like in US courts.
There is more than enough evidence to take those concerned, particularly the manufacturers, to task.
Yes, it’s time these chemical giants are told: “See you in court!”