E D I T O R I A L: DEADLY EXPORTS TEN YEARS AFTER
Multinational Monitor 1991

David Weir and Mark Shapiro documented the effects of dangerous pesticide exports from industrialized countries to the Third World in their book Circles of Poison, the practice remains widespread. The persistence of the deadly trade is an international disgrace, a crime committed by the North against the South--and against itself. For the Third World, imported pesticides which are banned or restricted in Northern countries cause pesticide poisonings and severe environmental degradation. Consumers in Northern countries are also affected, as pesticides legally barred from appearing on their food slip through weak border inspection programs and show up on fruits and vegetables imported from countries which purchase the pesticides. The World Health Organization has recently estimated that Third World agricultural workers experience 25 million cases of acute occupational pesticide poisoning each year. Tens of thousands die from workplace exposures, with many more undoubtedly suffering from pesticide-induced or -related diseases.

Pesticide run-off into groundwater supplies, wetlands, rivers and streams is a major environmental problem in many Third World countries. Pesticide use, associated largely with agricultural goods produced for export, such as bananas and cotton, has poisoned bodies of water in countries ranging from Costa Rica to Tanzania to Malaysia. While overuse of a wide range of pesticides is responsible for this damage, many of the most toxic effects are caused by pesticides banned or restricted in industrialized countries. Northern countries have imposed restrictions on their use precisely because they are dangerous--but the restrictions do not apply to sales to the Third World. The primary elements of a morally justifiable and ecologically sound policy on pesticide exports are simple and straightforward. First, companies should not be permitted to export a pesticide from a country which has banned or refused to approve its use or does not allow any residues of the pesticide to appear on foods. Second, if a country finds a pesticide to be hazardous and restricts its use, exporting companies should be required to obtain "prior informed consent" from importing countries. Companies should provide importing countries with information explaining the pesticide's dangers, and the pesticide should not be transferred until the country's government affirmatively indicates its willingness to accept it. Third, all warnings about hazards should be displayed prominently on pesticide containers and written in the primary language of the importing country. Bills containing most of these provisions were introduced in the U.S. Congress in 1990, but a massive campaign orchestrated by chemical manufacturers defeated it.

In order to gain Congress's attention, consumer and environmental groups which supported the legislation highlighted the effects of pesticide use on Northern consumers rather than the more serious ramifications for people and the environment in the Third World. In part because of this focus, their efforts were beaten back by the pesticide lobby, led by the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA). NACA argued that pesticide residues on imported foods could best be limited by improved border inspections. This is false; the Food and Drug Administration only inspects between 1 and 2 percent of food imports and even a doubling of its efforts would still allow the vast majority of imported food to enter the United States without inspection. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Representative Mike Synar, D- Okla., have again introduced legislation, known as the "Circle of Poison Prevention" Act, to stop the vicious trade in banned pesticides. Their bills deserve support. Unfortunately, the legislation will not solve the problem of pesticide misuse and overuse.

Pesticide usage is not sufficiently regulated in the United States, so bringing U.S. exports in line with domestic policies will leave many hazards untouched. Additionally, the United States is only responsible for approximately 25 percent of world pesticide production and, as Angus Wright points out in the most recent issue of the Pesticide Action Network's Global Pesticide Campaigner, Third World pesticide production is rapidly increasing. Nevertheless, the U.S. Circle of Poison legislation, if enacted, will be an important step on the path to instituting controls on the world pesticide trade and on the even longer road to replacing intensive pesticide use with sustainable agricultural practices--in the Third World and in the North.