Many of these problems are precisely those that the FAO Code and the PIC provi-
sions were designed to minimize. Yet the pesticides implicated in these poisonings of-
ten remain outside the international regulatory systems.
Specific Poisoning Cases
In October 1991, it was reported that 350 people, thirty-one of whom died, were
poisoned by endosulfan in Sudan when they ate bread made from contaminated
maize flour. The manufacturers, Hoechst, argued that although endosulfan has high
acute toxicity, its hazards can be overcome if the compound is used with proper care.
Yet in 2000, a report from Benin showed the havoc that endosulfan is still causing to
farming communities.
In June 1992, research compiled in Central America and Malaysia demonstrated
how paraquat under conditions of use in these countries is a major occupational haz-
ard for plantation workers. In June 1996, a study estimated that in the previous year
there were 15,300 cases of pesticide poisoning in China, 91 percent involving or-
ganophosphate insecticides. In March 2000 a report on the Del Monte Kenya pine-
apple plantation revealed that pesticides recommended by the FAO as too dangerous
to use in developing countries are used on the plantation. There appeared to be no
training for workers, yet the company claims to take part in a program for the re-
sponsible use of pesticides run by the Global Crop Protection Federation.^23 Another
account describes how Africans fishing on Ghana’s Lake Volta discovered that if they
dumped the insecticide Gammalin 20, imported for use by cocoa farmers, into the
lake, many fish died and floated to the top for easy retrieval. These fish were then
eaten by villagers or sold. The people began suffering dizziness, headaches, vomiting,
and diarrhea—the first symptoms of poisoning by lindane, the active ingredient in
Gammalin 20. Convulsions, brain disturbances, and liver damage followed. The fish
population declined by up to 20 percent. The fishermen did not link the pesticide to
the damage done to their health and their fishing until a private aid agency noted the
connection.^24
Corporate Accountability
During the 2003 annual meeting season, shareholders demanded that two of the
three largest agrochemical companies acknowledge the environmental and health risks
of their products. Led by socially responsible investment firms, shareholders at Bayer
and Monsanto requested detailed information about the handling of dangerous pesti-
cides and by-products and the possibility of costly lawsuits. Although not legally
required, this information helps investors to assess their risk and promotes a corpo-
rate commitment to environmental health and safety. Bayer shareholders, meanwhile,
highlighted the board’s insufficient response to a tragic poisoning in Peru.
Investors at Monsanto’s annual meeting in April 2003 expressed concern about the
company’s handling of unregistered carcinogenic and obsolete pesticide stocks. A
resolution submitted by Harrington Investments, Inc., called on Monsanto to disclose
International Trade in Pesticides | 229