The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. -Modern Painters
Although we've been telling the Colombians that it's harmless and some people
in the administration probably believe what they are saying notwithstanding ample
evidence to the contrary, we are only going to continue using it until a substitute
can be manufactured in sufficient quantities to meet our needs. Our needs are
to rid the world of cocaine and Colombia is a good place to start.
The United States has been engaged in aerial spraying of glyphosate in Colombia
for several years in an effort to eliminate the coca plant from Colombia. The
effort has not been without its side effects. One was to wipe out most of the
crops in the town of La Hormiga. In that town, according to its Secretary of Human
Development: "They've fumigated everything, fields and plantain rows and yucca
and everything that people need to live on." Such reports are troubling to some
folks in Congress who wonder if the United States should be destroying crops belonging
to people in other countries, even when it's being done in order to reduce the
amount of cocaine available to us and other privileged countries.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has questioned the safety of the aerial program.
He may have heard about the town of La Hormiga. He might even have heard about
Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who visited Colombia in 2000 to see how the eradication
program was going. While watching the Colombian National Police demonstrate its
new approach to fumigating coca Mr. Wellstone and his staff found themselves fumigated.
Their fumigation happened just after the U.S. Embassy in Colombia had circulated
materials to reporters describing the "precise geographical coordinates" used
to spray coca fields. According to embassy officials, a computer program sets
precise flight lines with a 170-foot width, leaving little room for error. Mr.
Wellstone and his staff occupied that little room. The antinarcotics director
for the Colombian National Police said: "We did not spray on the people or on
the senator." When contradicted by someone who observed the episode he said: "What
hit him was because of the wind, not because they had the intention."
In early 2002 Mr. Leahy froze $17 million needed to enable Colombia to buy
the herbicide mixture. For the funds to be freed, the State Department was required
to certify that the eradication program meets the regulatory controls required
in the United States and does not threaten the public's health or the environment.
Mr. Leahy said that: "There are reports of health problems and food crops destroyed
from the fumigation. Spraying a toxic chemical over large areas, including where
people live and livestock graze, would not be tolerated in our country. We should
not be spraying first and asking questions later." On Sept. 6, the certification
was released. It was reassuring, except for the part about the eyes.
In its report to Congress, the State Department's antinarcotics bureau concluded
that the herbicides used and the manner in which applied "do not pose unreasonable
risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment." That came as good news
to the Colombians, who up until that report may have been somewhat concerned about
its health effects. For good reason.
According to a 1993 report published by the School of Public Health at the
University of California, Berkeley, glyphosate was the third most commonly reported
cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers. Another study from the
School of Public Health found that glyphosate was the most commonly reported cause
of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance workers. (Both studies were based
on data collected between 1984 and 1990.) Directions on the application of glyphosate
products in the United States warn users not to use "this product in a way that
will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift." The
military advised soldiers who do the spraying to shower after each flight to cleanse
themselves of any residue or herbicide. Some Colombians might have read those
studies and wondered why Americans in Colombia kept telling them it was safe.
In any event, that is all history.
The State Department report concludes all is well except for the bit about
the eyes. In preparing its report, the State Department consulted with the Department
of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. Agriculture Secretary,
Ann Veneman, said the health risk from spraying was "minimal" which is good enough
when the spraying is taking place in a far-off place.
The EPA said that the product is widely used in the United States with "no
unreasonable adverse effects" although it did admit that it had the potential
for what was called "acute eye toxicity." However, the risk to the eyes was said
by the EPA to be limited to the "handlers and mixers of the concentrated formula
as opposed to the general public." The general public probably refers to those
who get sprayed. On a scale of one to four with one being the most toxic, the
spray mixture had a "category three" toxicity level.
Notwithstanding the report's good news, an announcement accompanying it said
that the State Department intends to order a new formulation with lower potential
for acute toxicity early in September and promises to use it as soon as it becomes
available. The spraying will not, however, be halted until it's available. By
year's end there will be 18 crop-dusting planes carrying out the aerial spraying
in an effort to help the state department achieve its goal of killing up to 300,000
acres of coca this year. While the old stuff is being used, peasants may want
to keep their eyes closed when wandering about out of doors.
Mr. Brauchli is a Boulder lawyer and and writes a weekly column for the
Knight Ridder news service. . He can be reached at brauchli1@attbi.com
Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera
###
