An article from Jennifer Mourin, deputy executive director of Pesticide Action Network’s regional office for Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), referred to a situation which is hardly unique in the Malaysian oil palm sector: “Rajam worked as a pesticide sprayer on an estate earning a daily wage of RM18. The main pesticide she sprayed was paraquat [herbicide]. She was not provided any protective clothing such as boots, masks, gloves, goggles or apron.
On 1 April 1998, Rajam was spraying Gramoxone (paraquat) when she slipped and fell. Due to rain the previous night, the ground was wet and slippery. The impact of the fall caused the nozzle of the pump to spray the pesticide directly into her eyes. She immediately felt an intense burning sensation on her face, lips and eyes. Unfortunately, there was no water supply for her to wash her face. She then started to walk back from her work area to the estate clinic, where she arrived more than two hours later. By the time she reached the clinic, her eyes had reddened and swelled drastically. The hospital attendant washed her eyes and asked her to go to the government hospital. They admitted her in the hospital for one week. One year after the incident, she is blind in her left eye. As for the other eye, she stills feels pain and a burning sensation and experiences excessive tearing all the time.”
On August 27, 2002, a ban on paraquat use was put into effect and the Pesticides Board had held firm to the decision despite strong pressure from the industry, including Syngenta, the world’s largest producer of paraquat. According to PAN AP, “Soon after the decision was made public, Syngenta Malaysia Ltd. representatives had made visits to government officials about the ban. Articles then appeared in major papers supporting paraquat as ‘Safe to Use in Agriculture’ and calling for a lifting of the ban and phaseout.”
The Malaysian government decided to temporarily lift the ban on the dangerous paraquat herbicide from 1 Nov 2006 to allow “a comprehensive study on its many uses”. That’s bad news, especially for oil palm plantation workers. As noted by PAN AP, “Paraquat is a ‘mainstay’ within the plantation sector, especially in palm oil production. It is considered by many in the palm oil sector as the ‘cheapest’ form of control for weeds.”
It may be “cheap” for the industry because it is the workers who pay the costs. PAN AP explains that “In Malaysia, paraquat has been a major cause of concern due to continued poisonings suffered by plantation workers —especially pesticides sprayers who are mostly women. Workers on estates are frequently employed as sprayers for six days a week, ten months a year or more, and therefore have a high degree of exposure to the chemical. The greatest risks to workers of fatal and serious incidents are during mixing and loading of spray equipment, where contact with the chemical concentrate occurs. Fatal accidents have also been described due to prolonged contact with the diluted paraquat spray during application.”
The joint report by Berne Declaration, Pesticide Action Network (PAN UK) and PAN AP, “Paraquat – Unacceptable Health Risks for Users”, reveals that “Paraquat is applied before sowing or planting the crop, in pre-emergence application (following planting) and as a defoliant before harvest. On plantations, workers are given virtually no choice about whether or not to use toxic pesticides.”
“Paraquat, together with organophosphates and endosulfan, has accounted for numerous cases of acute poisoning and a number of occupational deaths.”
“Hot and humid weather, low income, lack of knowledge and control over the workplace, put a large proportion of farmers and workers at risk. Even when protective clothing is worn, there may still be unacceptable risk to workers’ health from paraquat. Inadequate working conditions - including insufficient protection of workers - occur on a large scale in many countries, both developing and developed. For most workers it is not possible to use sufficient personal protective equipment - this is not available, too expensive or uncomfortable in hot and humid climates. Even when used it does not always provide sufficient protection. The burden of responsibility cannot therefore be placed on workers, as there is compelling evidence of the high risks to workers’ health from paraquat exposures during everyday use. Workers’ exposure to pesticides is greater where no water is available for washing skin that has been contaminated with pesticides.”
Quoting PAN AP we agree with its view that: “The recent reconsideration of the ban on one of the most dangerous poisons in the world has serious implications on the protection of workers’ and farmers’ health and their right to a safe working environment. The ban, which should have taken effect in July 2005, would have been an exemplary act of caring leadership on the part of the Malaysian government that would have placed the health and well being of thousands of agricultural workers (mostly women) and farmers above other considerations. The government’s current action, however, would seem to imply that in Malaysia the industries’ profits override the health considerations of the people.”
Article based on information from: “Lifting the paraquat ban - in whose interest?”, February 2007, Jennifer Mourin, Pesticide Action Network’s regional office for Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), Aliran, http://www.aliran.com/content/view/197/10/; “Paraquat – Unacceptable Health Risks for Users”, September 2006, Berne Declaration, Pesticide Action Network (PAN UK) and PAN Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), http://www.evb.ch/cm_data/Paraquat_Report_final_rev2.pdf
