88 Agricultural Harm to the Environment
strategy of prioritizing PPE is similar to locking the stable after the horse has
bolted. Our research has shown the ineffectiveness of product labelling (point 5).
Isolation (point 4) is difficult in open environments such as field agriculture where
farming infrastructure and housing are closely connected and some contamination
of the household is virtually inevitable, particularly in poorer households. Priority
should be given to other more effective strategies of exposure reduction, beginning
with point 1: eliminating the most toxic products from the work and living envi-
ronments. Likewise, this is the highest priority of the Integrated Production and
Pest Management (IPPM) 2015 initiative.
INIAP, the Ecuadorian agricultural research institute, is prepared to declare
that alternative technologies exist for the Andean weevil and foliage pests and that
highly toxic pesticides are not necessary for potato production and other highland
crops in Ecuador (Gustavo Vera, INIAP Director General of Research, personal
communication). Meanwhile, pesticide industry representatives have privately
acknowledged that they understand that highly toxic pesticides eventually will
need to be removed from the market. Nevertheless, the Ecuadorian Plant and Ani-
mal Health Service (SESA) and Crop Life Ecuador have taken the position that
they will continue to support the distribution and sale of WHO Class I products
in Ecuador until the products are no longer profitable or that it is no longer polit-
ically viable to do so.
One seven-year study by Novartis (now Syngenta) found that SUP interven-
tions in Latin America, Africa and Asia were expensive and largely ineffective,
particularly with smallholders (Atkin and Leisinger, 2000). The authors argue that
‘the economics of using pesticides appeared to be more important to [small farm-
ers] than the possible health risks’ (p121). The most highly toxic products are the
cheapest on the market in Carchi, largely because the patents on these early gen-
eration products have expired, permitting free access to chemical formulas and
competition, and because farmers have come to accept the personal costs associ-
ated with poisonings.
Table 4.1 Hierarchy of controls for reducing pesticide exposureMost effective
1 Eliminate more highly toxic products, e.g. carbofuran and methamidophos
2 Substitute less toxic, equally effective alternatives
3 Reduce use through improved equipment, e.g. low volume spray nozzles
4 Isolate people from the hazard, e.g. locked separate pesticide storage
5 Label products and train applicators in safe handling
6 Promote use of personal protection equipment
7 Institute administrative controls, e.g. rotating applicators
Least effectiveSource: Adapted from Plog et al, 1996