Toxic seesaw not helping
Local farmers are protesting at the Ministry of Agriculture’s plan to reclassify 13 herbs and plants, commonly used by local farmers as “green pesticides”, as Type-1 toxic substances. While this means they are now considered to have the lowest toxicity compared to other substances, the farmers’ anger is understandable.
Why? Because the department should remove these herbs and plants — some of which are key ingredients in popular Thai dishes — from the toxic substances list altogether.
The 13 herbs and plants (which include neem, galangal, ginger, turmeric, citronella grass — all familiar kitchen ingredients — and marigold) are now considered Type-2 toxic substances. The higher tier means stricter control measures, such as mandatory registration. The decision to upgrade them as Type-2 substances was made by a state panel back in 2013 amid a public outcry.
Before the classification began in 2009, local farmers had used these herbs and plants freely as means of natural weed and pest control, because the use of herbs is part of local wisdom.
Besides, putting galangal and chillies on the list of toxic substances could prove to be detrimental to the famous tom yam soup, our so-called national dish.
This year, the Department of Agriculture is aiming to move them back under Type 1, which means farmers who possess the plants and their extracts are required to notify the authorities.
Mananya Thaiset, the deputy agricultural minister who oversees the Agriculture Department, defended the move, saying the change is aimed at making natural insecticides more available.
“Farmers can benefit from the change as they can now extract the chemicals they need to make natural insecticides and herbicides without having to ask for permission first,” she said.
Such seesawing between Type 1 and Type 2 is nonsense, not to mention impractical. It will only add burdens for the farmers and give authorities a chance to abuse their power and demand kickbacks. Such persistent reclassification efforts also baffle the public. Why spend time and effort on what looks set to be a waste?
There are suspicions that by making green pesticides difficult to produce, authorities are trying to get some farmers to turn to — and rely on — farming chemicals, which are more convenient and profitable. Over past decades, the Department of Agriculture had been at odds with food safety advocates on the issue of three extremely toxic chemicals, paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos. This year, paraquat and chlorpyrifos were finally banned.
The latest move is challenged by Prapat Panyachatraksa, chairman of the National Farmers Council, who said reclassification alone will not be enough to encourage green pesticide use. Mr Prapat, a former agricultural minister, said the herbs and plants do not belong in either tier and urged the ministry to endorse free use to boost organic farming, which is important for food safety.
If Ms Mananya and the authorities are serious about helping farmers and promoting green pesticides — which would enable farmers to rely less on, or abandon farming chemicals — they have to invest more in research and development to ensure efficient use and work closely with local communities. The state must also provide incentives, and help with promotional campaigns and marketing. Such efforts are necessary, so green pesticides can be a part of mainstream farming.