90 Agricultural Harm to the Environment
Carchi. The EcoSystem Approaches to Human Health Program of IDRC (www.
idrc.ca/ecohealth) offered that opportunity through support to a project called
EcoSalud (salud means health in Spanish). The EcoSystem Approaches to Human
Health Program was established on the understanding that ecosystem manage-
ment affects human health in multiple ways and that a holistic, gender-sensitive,
participatory approach to identification and remediation of the problem is the
most effective manner to achieve improvements (Forget and Lebel, 2001).
The EcoSalud project in Carchi was essentially an impact assessment project
designed to contribute directly to ecosystem improvements through the agricul-
tural research process. The aims were to improve the welfare of the direct benefici-
aries through enhanced neurobehavioural function brought about by reduced
pesticide exposure, and to improve the well-being of indirect beneficiaries through
farming innovation. The project design called for before-and-after measurements
of a sample population that changed its behaviour as result of the intervention.
Consistent with IDRC’s EcoSystem Health paradigm, the intervention was
designed to be gender sensitive and increasingly farmer- and community-led.
EcoSalud started by informing members of three rural communities of past
research results on pesticide exposure and health impacts. To illustrate pesticide
exposure pathways, we used a non-toxic fluorescent powder that glowed under
ultraviolet light as a tracer (Fenske et al, 1986). Working with volunteers in each
community, we added the tracer powder to the liquid in backpack sprayers and
asked farmers to apply as normal. At night we returned with ultraviolet lights and
video cameras to identify the exposure pathways. During video presentations, com-
munity members were astonished to see the tracer not only on the hands and face of
applicators, but also on young children who played in fields after pesticide applica-
tions. We also found traces on clothing and throughout the house, such as around
wash areas, on beds and even on the kitchen table. Perhaps more than other activi-
ties, the participatory tracer study inspired people to take action themselves.
People, in particular mothers, began to speak out at community meetings. The
terms el remedio (the treatment) and el veneno (the poison) were often used inter-
changeably when referring to pesticides. Spouses explained that the need to buy
food and pay for their children’s education when work options were limited led to
an acceptance of the seemingly less important risks of pesticides. They explained
that applicators often prided themselves on their ability to withstand exposure to
pesticides. As one young girl recounted (in Paredes, 2001):
One time, my sister Nancy came home very pale and said that she thought she had been
poisoned. I remembered that the pesticide company agricultural engineers had spoken
about this, so I washed her with lots of soap on her back, arms and face. She said she felt
dizzy, so I helped her vomit. After this she became more resistant to pesticides and now
she can even apply pesticides with our father.
Despite stories such as this, many women became concerned about the health
impacts of pesticides on their families. During one workshop, a women’s group