PBGEA – which stands for the Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association – is composed of 18 companies , including their respective subsidiary firms and their member growers or farmers. Each company would have about 4,000 member growers. The group covers 11 provinces in Mindanao where about 50,000 hectares are used export-quality banana plantations. As the banana industry in the Philippines is unregulated, the PBGEA serves as the self-regulatory forum for the players in the industry to ensure compliance to international quality standards, continued competitiveness in the global market, undertake and promote research for technological innovations, and to look after the welfare of all those involved in the industry.

——–

Response of PBGEA and CropLife to Dr. Romeo F. Quijano’s “The Lies of PBGEA and CropLife”*

Lie No. 1. “At least two persons whom Quijano claimed to have died of pesticide spraying — the Dulla twins — are very much alive.”

Truth: There was no mention at all in our report of “twins …having died at birth”. What we did write in our report was the following:

When Rebecca Dolka, 36, bore her child, it was lifeless, its body and eyes yellow in color. “I didn’t expect that the pesticides I inhaled would affect my pregnancy”, she said.

I was quoting directly from Rebecca Dolka, who I personally interviewed and examined at the time of my investigation in the community. The data I gathered at that time were spontaneously provided by the residents I talked to and examined.

Response:

There is no -and there has never been – a Rebecca Dolka in Camocaan.  There is, however, a Rebecca Dulla who has been identified as the same person named Rebecca Dolka, whom  Quijano claimed to have personally  interviewed and whose photo he included in his own article.

The reality is Rebecca Dulla did bear twins, but they were not lifeless. Said twins are now healthy grown-ups.

This issue was earlier validated by FPA’s retired regional coordinator Mrs Iluminda Salting in an investigation report corroborated by local government officials.

Was “Dolka” a product of Quijano’s malicious imagination and fabrication,  created to confuse and mislead?  Or was this absolute carelessness by Quijano in his supposed research?

Lie no. 2. “At left is “Murillo” who was brought by the ban advocates to New Zealand where he was supposedly to have his foot looked at.  His foot was injured in a basketball game.  Not able to speak English, he feels that his foot malady was used as a showcase against aerial spraying of fungicide.  It was never attended to, just shown off.  He does not think aerial spray had anything to do with his foot.”

*Statement of medical toxicologist Dr. Romy Quijano of UP- Manila: “The Lies of PBGEA and Croplife” prepared for the House Committee on Ecology Public Hearing on the aerial spraying issue, Friday, November 20 at the Apo View Hotel, Davao City.

Truth: “Murillo” was brought to the “People’s Inquiry” on aerial spraying of pesticides in New Zealand by PAN Asia Pacific to bear witness on the Kamukhaan situation. He actually spoke English in his presentation in New Zealand. Earlier in Kamukhaan, he told us that the non-healing “wound” in his foot, and other complaints, were probably due to exposure to pesticides used by the plantation. We later brought him to a hospital in Davao where he was diagnosed to have TB of the foot (exposure to pesticides makes one more vulnerable to infections, including TB). We had him treated with anti-TB drugs until the “wound” healed. After the New Zealand trip, it has come to our attention that Mr. Murillo was “won over” by the plantation because of incentives. However, we have in our possession his affidavit and a  

video recording of his testimony obtained before the banana company got him. This is a classic case of a company buying off a witness.

Response:

Murillo was not presented in New Zealand by Quijano as having TB of the bones, but rather having a foot “wound” due to exposure to pesticides as written in the article of Dr Quijano, entitled “Kamukhaan Revisited”.  Quijano was the one who chose to present Murillo with this diagnosis, which he in effect indirectly and unwittingly admits in his prepared statement at the House Committee on Ecology public hearing. He had prior knowledge of TB of the bones. If Murillo had not been diagnosed with TB of the bones before the NZ trip, then Quijano must have acted extremely irresponsibly in NZ. He actually coached Murillo into saying that his wound was caused by exposure to pesticides.

Furthermore,  as a medical doctor, Quijano should know that TB is caused by a microorganism. He must substantiate his statement that “exposure to pesticides makes one more vulnerable to infections, including TB”.

According to Murillo and the Doctors who treated his wound, he got the wound from a basketball game injury while he was still residing in Monkayo, Compostela Valley.  He did not have it properly treated which resulted to its deterioration. His wound was operated twice but due to poor hygiene it got infected.

Lie no. 3. “Interviews were manipulated by Dr. Quijano to state that they blame the aerial spraying of fungicides in the adjacent banana plantations when they never even contemplated such a thought”

Truth: There was no manipulation of interviews and our report was based on the facts we obtained. At that time (1997-1999), people in Kamukhaan were freely sharing their experiences of illnesses which they attributed mainly to the pesticides used in the plantation, especially pesticides sprayed aerially. It was only when there was publicity of their complaints that the company took notice and started to shower the residents of Kamukhaan with various benefits  in exchange for not complaining anymore. They were specifically warned not to talk to me and my companions. Those who did not heed their warnings were harassed and were denied the benefits given to the residents who agreed to keep quiet. The community organizers working with us and myself were also harassed and threatened with bodily harm. The company even put up a streamer at that time warning me and my companions not to come to Kamukhaan. Even the members of the international fact-finding mission in 2003 were harassed by armed individuals obviously at the behest of the banana company and people were warned not to talk to the members of the fact-finding mission.

We did not include in our report “transients who brought their health problems into Camocaan” as alleged by PBGEA. All those we specifically mentioned in our report were legitimate residents of Kamukhaan at that time. The findings in our report were corroborated by two video-documentaries entitled “Nilasong Buhay” (Poisoned Lives) produced by ABS-CBN. It was further validated by an International Fact Finding Mission conducted by multisectoral groups in 2003. The study commissioned by the Department of Health also basically affirms the findings in our report.

Response:

Only an independent investigation (not by DOH) such as the one being planned by the House Committee on Ecology would prove who is lying. We are certain that Quijano would ultimately be proven to be the one lying.

The symptoms of acute exposure in the 2006 DOH study are purely from interviews of subject and therefore anecdotal in nature.  Recall bias is a major factor in the Dionisio study, which  is observational or anecdotal: mothers recall developmental milestones, subjects recall symptoms experienced when exposed to aerial spraying.

The responses elicited from the subjects (acute symptoms of exposure) need to be validated and if not done properly will result in reporting bias, which is what has happened.  The acute symptoms mentioned upon exposure are again descriptive and need to be documented and witnessed by at least a health worker.  There is no mention if this was done. Again, questionnaire, interview bias and recall bias play a big role here.

If there are really subjects who are sick, to date this remains a mystery.  The DOH has said that the names had been given to the municipal health officer right after the study was conducted in 2006 but to date, Dr P. Hernane (the current municipal health officer) asserts there has been no endorsement.  Why are these doctors not able to give the names?  Do these “ill persons” really exist?? Why do the doctors have to resort to making statements that cannot be supported?

Lie no. 4. “The DOH commissioned the Dionisio study because of the insistence and claims of Dr. Romeo Quijano”

Truth: The DOH commissioned the study by Dionisio et al. because of a directive from Malacanang most likely as a response to the international letters of concern about the Kamukhaan situation and the harassment suit filed against me and my daughter by the banana company, LADECO.

Response:

Quijano’s statement is belied by the very introduction of the DOH-commissioned study  which cited Quijano’s earlier study of Camocaan.  Therefore, it is clear that his study was one of the reasons the DOH-commissioned study was conducted.  There was no mention whatsoever of Malacanang’s directive in said introduction.

Lie no. 5.  “No community is complaining against the aerial spraying of pesticides in banana plantations”.

Truth: There are real people from communities in Davao City and other areas (including sitio Kamukhaan) complaining against aerial spraying of pesticides. The people from affected communities who have marched on several occasions, who have attended numerous hearings at the Davao City Council, who have lobbied different government agencies, who attended several fora and public gatherings on the issue of aerial spraying are real people from affected communties. To deny that there are people in affected communities complaining about aerial spraying of pesticides is a blatant and an arrogant disregard of people’s complaints.  The Kamukhaan community has been complaining since several years back. The voluminous documents submitted to the Regional Trial Court of Davao and to the city council of Davao are more than enough to show the people’s complaints. The only reason many of them testify now in favor of the banana plantation and have signed affidavits declaring that there are no adverse effects due to aerial spraying of pesticides in their community and apparently retracting their previous statements and affidavits is because of pressure from the banana and pesticide companies. The persistent campaign of “carrot and stick” on the residents of Kamukhaan have further disempowered the people in that community but the truth of adverse effects of aerial spraying of pesticides cannot be hidden by company solicited false affidavits and testimonies.

Community residents in Hagonoy, Davao del Sur had presented their complaints to both the company and to the local government officials even before our report was published by the newspaper Philippine Post in March, 2000. This fact was reported in the special article on Kamukhaan published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) also in the year 2000 and which was not denied by the company. It was essentially the same story that was published by the Philippine Post but the company did not sue the PDI nor the reporter who wrote the special report. The information and statements pertaining to illnesses and other complaints associated with pesticide use in the banana plantation contained in the article  published by the Philippines Post were also contained in the special report published by the PDI.

Response:

Claiming harassment seems to be a standard tactic of the anti aerial spray advocates, and they seem to be successful in using that tactic in raising funds from abroad. If there is indeed harassment, how could Quijano’s community organizers, like Nanette Rodriguez still freely move around the sitio? Mayor Calida himself has repeatedly said that no harassment has ever taken place. Even the former Mayor Superales of Hagonoy confirms that Quijano’s claims that residents of Camocaan were getting sick from aerial spraying is not true.

On their own volition, the residents of Camocaan vehemently deny that they have been getting sick from exposure to aerial spraying. In fact they are angry that Quijano has used them for his own interest. Likewise, the Barangay captains and Barangay health workers of Hagonoy attest to the fact that no illnesses due to exposure to aerial spraying have been reported nor recorded.

If there are really subjects who are sick, to date this remains a mystery.  The DOH has maintained the names have been given to the municipal health officer right after the study was conducted in 2006 but to date, Dr P. Hernane asserts there has been no endorsement.  Why are these doctors not able to give the names?  Do these “ill persons” really exist? Why do the doctors have to resort to making statements that cannot be supported?

The health care and livelihood programs of Guihing Agricultural Development Corp. in Barangay Aplaya of which Sitio Camucaan belongs is part of the company’s continuing efforts to promote community development.  It should be emphasized that the company gives priority to the health of the workers and their families and the people in the communities and the environment.

Mrs. Iluminada Salting, former regional coordinator of FPA, says “IFFM was biased and self-serving since there was no coordination with the local officials, they asked misleading questions.”

The people in communities around banana plantations who are complaining against aerial spraying are only those directly employed by foreign-funded NGOs such as Mrs. Cecilia Moran of Subasta, Calinan; Mrs. Liezl Bacalzo of Dacudao, Calinan; a certain Mosqueda of Daliaon, the Capenda sisters of Buhangin; Mr. Felixberto Batuhan of Mandug and Nanette Rodriguez of Sitio Camocaan. Other compainants are mostly from Manila or employees of IDIS and other people’s organizations all of which draw funds from CordAid of the Netherlands.

Banana plantations have been operating in Mindanao for the last 40 years already. If there were indeed sicknesses attributable to aerial spraying, such could not have been hidden from public knowledge. There would be an epidemic of illnesses.  In the same token, why is it that no labor groups or labor unions, who are usually vigilant, have come out and complained against the banana companies on health issues attributable to aerial spraying?

Lie no. 6. “the World Health Organization (WHO) pronounced that the DOH study was inconclusive, full of loopholes and does not support their recommendation to ban aerial spraying”;  “claims of health problems caused by the use of fungicides in banana plantations have been proven to be baseless by the WHO study”;  “The study was later found to be “inadequate and inconclusive” after undergoing a “peer review” by experts from the University of the Philippines and World Health Organization”.

Truth: Overall,  the “WHO review” did not debunk the DOH study. Most of the the questions were minor technical issues that could easily be answered satisfactorily by the DOH study team. Many of the more substantial comments were obviously due to lack of information on the part of the reviewers. Some apparently critical comments are debatable and, at this time, can perhaps be considered “differences of opinion among experts”.

Response:

The only conclusive way of resolving such “differences of opinion among experts” is for the DOH and UP Manila to release and make public the results of the technical/peer reviews of the WHO and UP Manila.  There has been an absolute lack of transparency in the DOH’s decision-making process, which basically by-passed the deliberation of the IACEH.

Lie no. 7.  “The pesticides used in banana plantations are not hazardous to human health and that the fungicides aerially sprayed are as safe as Nizoral shampoo.”

Truth: Although ketoconazole used in shampoo (Nizoral) has somewhat similar toxicity profile as the triazole fungicides (e.g., propiconazole, fenbuconazole) used in banana plantations, ketoconazole shampoo preparation poses much less risk than the antifungal preparations sprayed on banana plantations because exposure situations are very different and there are many more toxic antifungals (e.g., mancozeb, chlorothalonil) used in bananas which are not used as shampoo. There is much greater exposure to  various kinds of toxic antifungals used in banana plantations than the ketoconazole which is topically administered on the scalp within a limited period of time for a particular individual.  There is less chance of ketoconazole entering the systemic circulation, although this is possible, especially when there is a wound in the scalp or skin which is in contact with ketoconazole (ketoconazole can also be toxic when absorbed into the systemic circulation). On the other hand, antifungals used in bananas easily enter the body through inhalation, through the skin, and through ingestion of contaminated food and water. Furthermore, the toxicologic spectrum and the potential severity of adverse effects of the various antifungals used in bananas  are much greater that that of ketoconazole applied as shampoo.

Response:

We wonder if Dr Romeo Quijano is aware that ketoconazole is also sold as a 200mg tablet for systemic management of fungal problems in humans.

This only shows that it is all a matter of dose.

Ketoconazole’s acute LD50 is significantly lower (therefore, more hazardous) than most of the other triazole fungicides used in bananas.  Likewise, ketoconazole is more toxic than mancozeb or chlorothalonil.

Considering Quijano’s background, we are surprised at his glaring statement about “greater exposure to various kinds of toxic antifungals used in banana plantations than the ketoconazole”.  One gets his head, face and upper body soaked and lathered with shampoo. Therefore dermal and possibly oral exposure to shampoo is certainly much, much more than that of the incidental exposure to aerial spray drift.  The exposure of people outside the plantations to aerial spray drift is negligible with the use of modern, state of the art equipment which are actually being used by the plantations.  Is he confusing people deliberately, or is he confused himself?

Where is the data to show that the people are exposed to fungicides at levels that would lead to health concerns?  The Dionisio study did not show levels that should be of concern to us. The acute symptoms that they highlight (such as skin and eye irritation) are all based on recall from interviews.  At best, this information should have been documented by a health worker.  Anyone can make a complaint; unvalidated information is UNSCIENTIFIC. The EMB said that the recent (2009) soil and water samples collected from Camocaan did not contain any fungicide residues.  This is reflective of current fungicide use in the banana plantations.

Quijano’s discourse on “systemic circulation”, “toxicologic spectrum” and “potential severity of adverse effects” is simply meant to impress (or confuse?) people with medical gobbledegook.

 

Lie no. 8. “Coffee and table salt are more toxic than the fungicides used in banana plantations.”

Truth: This is a moronic assertion. Even a primary grade student(not poisoned by pesticides) could easily discern the falsity of this argument outright.  Despite its absurdity, the argument that pesticides are less harmful than coffee or table salt have long been used by the pesticides and industrial chemicals industry. The toxics industry “experts” and spokespeople often selectively and incorrectly compare the oral LD50 (the dose that would kill 50% of the experimental animals ingesting the substance) of the substances. For example, they take the LD50 of caffeine (estimated to be 195 mg/kg in rats) and compare this with the industry estimated LD50 of mancozeb (about 5,000 mg/kg in rats), a fungicide used in aerial spraying, and conclude that coffee is more harmful to humans than the fungicide. They use technical jargon to obscure the obvious. For those who cannot see the absurdity of this argument, I will explain further why this conclusion is grossly incorrect.  Firstly, caffeine occurs in coffee with many other naturally occurring phytochemicals which have also beneficial and protective effects (antioxidants, for example). Caffeine is never ingested as a  single compound preparation but always in the form of a coffee drink with all the other natural compounds in it. Coffee has been ingested by humans since time immemorial and has served, and still is serving, useful purposes not only as a performance enhancer and medicine, but also culturally and socially. Although coffee is not without adverse effects and can be toxic in certain circumstances,  overall, it has served humanity well. On the other hand the synthetic pesticides were designed to kill organisms considered as pests by those who poorly understand nature and human health, and serve mainly the profit makers. No medicinal, social, or cultural benefits for the majority of humankind can be reasonably attributed to toxic pesticides, including the 1% fungicide mentioned by PBGEA and Croplife.  Secondly, using the LD50 results alone from limited laboratory tests in animals as a basis for concluding that pesticides are less harmful than coffee is grossly erroneous, , even for fungicides with apparently low acute toxicity such as mancozeb. Harmfulness cannot be measured by the LD50 alone. Assessment of harm is done using several parameters. There are many ways that a substance can harm a person and that includes not only death but direct and indirect adverse effects. Direct adverse effects include damage to the different organ systems of the body, including long-term effects not recognized by the victim or by ordinary observers, or even by health professionals. Indirect adverse effects are the adverse effects on the environment(fish kills, ecological disruption, etc) that eventually adversely affect the well-being and health of humans. For the well informed, the spectrum of adverse effects to humans is certainly much wider and more serious for pesticides than for coffee or table salt. Thirdly, exposure circumstances and the entry and disposition in the human body are very different for coffee (or table salt) and pesticides such that the actual toxicity of the pesticide is actually more than the apparent toxicity of coffee (or table salt) as  extrapolated from the laboratory LD50 data. In real human life situations, the substances being compared enter the human body not as a single bolus dose with a uniform route of entry and mode of disposition as in the laboratory animal experiment but as variable small doses with different routes of entry and mode of disposition over a variable period of time. No one has actually tested in humans whether ingesting 100 cups of brewed coffee (a rough approximation of the LD50 applied to humans) would be more harmful than ingesting 100 cups of 1% fungicide in one single dose. I doubt very much whether the person who says coffee is more harmful than 1% fungicide would accept my dare that I drink 20 cups of brewed coffee in one day while he or she simultaneously drinks 20 cups of the 1% fungicide.

PBGEA, Croplife and their cohorts also cite Nobel Prize winner Dr. Bruce Ames’ statement that “you get more carcinogens in a cup of coffee than eating fruits sprayed with chemicals the whole day” as their authoritative source of the “pesticide safer than coffee” argument. This statement of Dr. Ames is false. A simple search of the scientific literature will tell you the obvious fact that there are more carcinogens in fruits sprayed with chemicals than in a cup of coffee. When Dr. Ames made that statement, trying to trivialize the dangers of pesticide residues in food, he was already a paid consultant of the  toxic chemicals industries, serving their business interests. Ames is a geneticist who, in the 1970s, developed bacterial assays for mutagenicity now commonly used as short-term tests for carcinogens for which he earned a Nobel Prize. He then published a series of articles warning of increasing cancer rates and of the need for tough regulation of industrial carcinogens. By the 1980s, however, Ames did a complete turnabout, now claiming just the opposite, that overall cancer rates are not increasing, that industrial carcinogens are unimportant causes of cancer which do not need regulating, and that the real causes of cancer are natural dietary carcinogens. He became a paid consultant of the toxic chemicals(including pesticides) industry such as the Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Crop Protection Association and the American Plastics Council and was put forward to counter increasing scientific data pointing to serious adverse health effects of various toxic chemicals. Chemical industry apologists often quoted Ames for his pro-chemical industry statements. He was in the advisory board of various industry institutions such as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and was in the company of other corporate henchmen  like Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.  In 2002 Michaels was involved in an organized crime fraud to block Kyoto Protocol in Canada. The event was constructed by Philip Morris’s ad agency APCO. APCO has a history of 13 years of organizing science hoax events beginning with TASSC. Michaels works for Oilmen Koch of Koch Industries under the front organization name of CATO Institute. Michaels is slipped money in his pocket from three book titles published by CATO.  Tobacco companies such as Philip Morris who have directors on the board of CATO, have been caught making payments through secret accounts paid through lawyers and swiss numbered account payments completely “off the books.” Singer, a former government scientist, has become one of the world’s leading and most quoted climate sceptics. Singer has also attacked other issues such as ozone depletion, acid rain, automobile emissions and whaling. During the US Congressional hearing on ozone depletion, Singer tried to establish his ozone credentials by claiming to have published several peer-reviewed papers in which he presented his current theories about why the continent-sized ozone hole over the South Pole isn’t a problem. However, when Congressional staff checked his references, they found that Singer’s only published work on ozone depletion during the past 20 years had been one letter to the editor of SCIENCE magazine, and two articles in magazines that are not peer reviewed. Singer has also tried to debunk global warming along with Patrick Michaels at press conference organised by the Wise Use group, Consumer Alert. Consumer Alert and Cooler Heads Coalition are both projects of Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI was founded in March 1984. In 1986, it began its “free market legal program,” which seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, chemicals, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency. By 1992, CEI tried to counter the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. CEI became a leading force behind an ongoing, industry-funded campaign to eliminate funding for environmental education throughout the United States. In 1995, CEI joined several other think tanks in attacking Our Stolen Future, the book about environmental endocrine disruptors, labeling the book “a scaremongering tract.” In March 1996, CEI published “Rachel’s Folly,” which claims that dioxin is good for you. In December of that year, CEI submitted comments opposing the EPA’s proposed air quality rule to limit particulate emissions. CEI was also active in opposing the 1997 international global warming negotiations in Kyoto. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been a particularly aggressive advocate of the notion that global warming is a ‘theory not a fact”.  CEI has also worked with John Stossel, the correspondent for ABC-TV’s 20/20 program who came under fire in August 2000 for citing non-existent scientific studies bashing organic foods. Stossel  put together a program titled “Tampering With Nature” that focused on attacking environmental education. In March 2001, a pesticide industry front group known as Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment(RISE) sent out an action alert memorandum to its members stating: “A producer for John Stossel is working on a program on environmental education. He needs examples of kids who have been ‘scared green’ by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism in the classroom. … Let’s try to help Mr. Stossel. He treats industry fairly in his programs.”

Another associate of Ames is the equally notorious Dennis Avery, author of the ridiculous book “Saving the Planet With Pesticides and Plastics”. Like Ames, Avery sees no problem with agricultural pollution, be it groundwater contamination, pesticide and fertilizer runoff. He denies that there is any link between pesticides and cancer or other illnesses. In fact, he says, organic food is what will kill you. Avery is also the director of the right wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues. He travels the world preaching his gospel of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade.

Dr. Ames, despite his previous remarkable achievements, unfortunately, has thoroughly discredited himself and any knowledgeable scientist would not take his comments on the safety of pesticides seriously.

In conclusion, I would like to cite a portion of what we have written in 1999 in “Kamukhaan: A Poisoned Village”:

“The plantation is nonchalant and feigns innocence when confronted with complaints about their unsafe pesticide operations, and the local authorities likewise proved to be of no help to them. Would man go as far as to slowly and painstakingly destroy more than 700 lives in the name of profit? Apparently, yes. In a land reeking with disease, coupled with poverty, the survival of the people of Kamukhaan merely hangs by a thread. It is in far-flung villages like Kamukhaan where the picture of globalization and human greed is most clearly depicted. Unfortunately, few ever seem to take notice, and even fewer who choose not to ignore and succumb to apathy. The victims of suffering and injustice has knocked on our doors. They have presented to us their plight, which clearly, in black and white, reveals the grave impact pesticides use has on people’s lives, how it caused the degeneration of Kamukhaan from a natural paradise to that of a living hell. The damage created by tyrant companies can only be undone with the aid of people, who unlike them, value the intrinsic worth of human life over any amount of money or profit. For as long as villages like Kamukhaan exist, the battle against injustice, human greed and oppression is never won.”

The battle against aerial spraying of pesticides in banana plantgations is a battle against human greed and social injustice.

Response:

We believe Quijano is referring to a tabulated comparison of the relative acute toxicity of different compounds.  There was no mention in that table about coffee.  What is included in the list is caffeine. They are two different things, although caffeine is normally present in coffee. There was no claim in that tabulated presentation that pesticides are less harmful than coffee.

We are shocked by Quijano’s challenge; he is simply being illogical, out of-line and reckless. We would love to watch him drink 20 cups of coffee and monitored for vital signs, but we are not about to drink 20 cups of mancozeb solution. Most of us drink coffee; mancozeb is not meant to be drunk. So are all the other fungicides used in agriculture. They are meant to be sprayed on a crop like banana to control sigatoka. The required precautions are observed by plantations before, during, and after application.

Quijano unnecessarily belabored himself with his lengthy treatise on LD50 and toxicology, even attacking a Nobel prize winner in the process. The comparative table of acute LD50s, was only meant to show the relative acute toxicity of different compounds, not their chronic effects. Nevertheless, all the compounds listed in the table, including caffeine and table salt, would have chronic effects, depending on the dose at which a person is exposed. Pesticides are of course also subjected to stringent risk assessment for their chronic effects.

LD50 is an internationally accepted measure of a compound’s toxicity. It is used to refer to the inherent property of a compound to cause harm which is referred to as Hazard. However, in practice what is more important is the risk, which takes into account the level at which a person is exposed to a compound (Risk = Hazard x Exposure). The key to pesticide management is in being able to identify and be aware of the risks, and mitigate and manage them accordingly.

The fungicides used in agriculture go through strict scrutiny though a review of voluminous toxicological data and data on environmental impact, by the various regulatory agencies worldwide. The fungicides used in bananas are registered in other countries. The FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) have evaluated the toxicology and residue profile of these fungicides and recommended maximum residue limits to the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, the intergovernmental standard setting body.

There are the so-called acceptable or allowable levels of exposure to these fungicides, such as acceptable daily intake, acceptable operator exposure level, and MRL, which should address the concern about their chronic effects.

Example:

	Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI, mg/kg body wt, WHO)	Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL, mg/kg bw/day)	Maximum Residue Limits, BANANAS (CODEX)
1. Mancozeb	0.03	0.3	2
2. Chlorothalonil	0.03	0.009	0.2

The regulatory agencies have one basic tenet: No carcinogenic compound can be registered.

Dr. Quijano knows fully well that he has been deliberately creating alarm among the public. Banning aerial spraying is not the solution. Aerial spraying is not the culprit. Behind his blind campaign against the use of aerial spraying is his vicious, blinded advocacy against pesticides. Such advocacy seems to be mixed up with an advocacy against control by multinationals and against monoculture. He does not seem to recognize that there are thousands of small banana growers involved in the banana industry and the role that the banana industry plays in the economy of Mindanao.

The banana plantations would just be happy to adopt organic techniques or products as he has suggested. Unfortunately, we have yet to see mature, practical organic technologies. Quijano should put his convoluted brain where his mouth is.

Stephen A. Antig

President

Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association (PBGEA)

December 16, 2009

———————————————————-

PBGEA Secretariat
183 Rizal St. 8000 Davao City, Philippines

Tel No.: (+63) 082 227.7771

Fax No.: (+63) 082 221.2024

Email: [email protected]