SA riddled with pesticides, jurist warns

The cabinet will soon decide on a recommendation on the regulation and possible banning of the harmful pesticide Turbefos, which caused the death of six Sowetan children last year, agriculture department director-general Mooketsa Ramasodi told MPs Tuesday.

Turbefos, which is widely used in the agricultural sector, is banned in Europe, and local civil society organisations are calling for this to happen in SA as well because of its danger to human health.

An interministerial technical committee had been examining the question of Turbefos and pesticide regulation, including a possible ban, Ramasodi said during a meeting of parliament’s agriculture committee, which heard testimony from panellists of the tribunal on agrotoxins, which was held in Stellenbosch in March.

Farm and factory workers and communities exposed to highly hazardous pesticides gave evidence at the two-day tribunal, which still has to finalise its recommendations.

One of the tribunal panellists, judge Navi Pillay, said there were 192 highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) registered and in use in SA, of which only 16 had partial bans or restrictions, 57 of which were banned in the EU “due to their unacceptable risks to human health and the environment” and 36 of which belong to the most hazardous class of pesticide, which are known to have carcinogenic potential and can cause death.

Apart from Terbufos, other HHPs in use in SA include Mevinphos and Carbofuran.

Agriculture minister John Steenhuisen indicated his department was mulling alternatives to the use of Terbufos amid calls for its banning.

Pillay said the department must urgently start phasing out the use of toxic chemicals, beginning with HHPs. She said it was “very disappointing” that SA was a party to international conventions but had not implemented them. Almost all South African Development Community (Sadc) countries observed the ban on HHPs, except SA, which is the largest consumer of agrotoxins in Africa.

Pillay said research and evidence presented to the tribunal indicated a “connivance between government and the corporate world” in the continued use of chemicals.

Evidence presented to the tribunal was that pesticides were sprayed without farmworkers having protection and in proximity to their homes and children. They had no idea of the names of the chemicals and the harm they could cause such as infertility and cancer.

Another panellist, Dr Sophia KistingCairncross, described the effects of pesticide exposure on children, including cognitive and neurological problems, respiratory diseases and skin problems. She stressed the urgency in dealing with this “enormous tragedy”, which affected the most vulnerable .

Kisting-Cairncross said “it boggles the mind” that the government allowed the “tonnes and tonnes” of pesticides imported into SA and urged that there not be a long phase-out of their use and not longer than six months.

ActionSA chief whip Athol Trollip was concerned SA allowed products that were banned elsewhere and that the strict protocols applied to exported agricultural products were not applied to local production. He noted the fragmentation of legislation dealing with pesticides and its implementation.

DA MP Willie Aucamp acknowledged the need to protect lives but called for a pragmatic approach, warning that a ban on certain pesticides would cause a crisis in agriculture and food production, food security and jobs. A balanced approach was needed, Aucamp said.

His views were slammed by EFF MP Mothusi Montwedi, who said the sanctity of human life trumped all other concerns.

Pillay said what had been seen of a “pragmatic approach” in the name of food security and profit for farmers was not to take any decision and delay it for years and years. Quick action was needed.

UCT professor of public health Leslie London highlighted the government’s long delay since 2010 in dealing decisively with the issue, which had not been taken seriously.

He questioned the ability of the department to supervise the conditional use of HHPs if they were not banned outright.

“Trying to restrict use of an HHP requires a lot of effort and infrastructure and our track record has been able to maintain that up till now. It is not clear that there are not alternatives.”

London said the agricultural sector should find alternatives and had been aware for a long time of the European Green Deal, which expects the reduction of HHPs by at least 50%.