\u201cWhy do we allow dangerous agrochemicals, and aren\u2019t there other ways to avoid poisoning ourselves?\u201d \u00d1aupas asks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For this investigation, led by Salud Con Lupa<\/a> in collaboration with Dialogue Earth, we began by analysing the pesticide market in Peru. What was most striking is that the system for evaluating and authorising pesticides in many countries allows large companies, such as the Switzerland-based, Chinese-owned company Syngenta, to register and sell pesticides that are otherwise banned in their home countries, taking advantage of more permissive regulations such as those in Peru.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unlike countries such as Chile<\/a> and Costa Rica<\/a>, or the European Union<\/a>, Peru does not issue authorisations for the use of individual pesticides for ten-year periods; rather, many of its pesticide registrations have been valid indefinitely<\/a> since the 1990s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This means that after a company receives authorisation to sell a product, its impacts will not be re-evaluated with more recent scientific information or studies, unless extraordinary initiatives to do so are launched by regulatory bodies. Under these regulations, Syngenta currently has registrations in Peru for the sale of 42 pesticides that are banned in the EU and Switzerland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2011, Peru updated its pesticide registration system to bring it into line with environmental parameters required by the Andean Community. But the country\u2019s Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation (Midagri) did not make any substantive changes to strengthen its system for the evaluation of agrochemicals, or to make this more transparent. Peru\u2019s evaluation processes have tended to prioritise studies and tests presented by manufacturers, rather than independent studies by scientific experts in the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another notable problem is that the clinical trials and references on which Peru\u2019s pesticide approvals are based have not been made public. Salud Con Lupa\u2019s investigation therefore relied on Peru\u2019s Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information in order to request the state to release files that have supported the agrochemical registrations granted to Syngenta in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under its current evaluation system, in the past decade Peru has only restricted nine pesticides for their potential risks to human health and the environment, while in the European Union 119 agrochemicals<\/a> have been withdrawn in the same period. This is evidenced by the case of the pesticide paraquat, one of Syngenta\u2019s best-selling products, and reported to be 28 times<\/a> more toxic than the more widely controversial glyphosate. Peru is among the Latin American countries that have used paraquat since the 1990s, and only banned its sale in 2021<\/a>, despite the fact that scientific evidence of its harmful effects<\/a> has existed since 1983.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, during this investigation we found that paraquat \u2013 the same pesticide that injured \u00d1aupas\u2019 son \u2013 continues to circulate in Peru, as it is easily smuggled<\/a> across the land border with Ecuador, where its use is still authorised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen the heart of palm crop is sprayed with paraquat, our eyes burn and then we get dizziness and severe diarrhoea,\u201d says Frobin Gil. He is a farmer in Pedro Vicente Maldonado, a canton in the Ecuadorian province of Pichincha, and an area known locally as \u201cthe capital of the heart of palm\u201d, the tender white vegetable popular in salads. Gil told Salud Con Lupa he was unaware that the pesticide he uses to fumigate the heart of palm is already banned in Peru and other parts of the world because of its high toxicity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A similar situation is seen in the municipality of General Lagos, in the Argentine province of Santa Fe, where herbicide-resistant soybeans and vegetables are grown. Paraquat is also applied here, with its use still permitted in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf the tomato plant is too tall and I have to spray the pesticide on top, it falls on my face \u2013 I have to wash right away because it burns so much,\u201d says Miguel Romero, who fumigates crops on a local farm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When a company applies for registration of an agrochemical to sell in Peru, it submits its dossier to the National Agricultural Health Service (Senasa), which is responsible for authorisation and the monitoring of conditions under which food is grown. Senasa will respond based on its own assessment and those of two other bodies: an environmental assessment carried out by the Directorate of Agricultural Environmental Management (DGAA)<\/a>, a body under Midagri; and a human health impact assessment carried out by the General Directorate of Environmental Health and Food Safety (Digesa), which sits under the Ministry of Health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The evaluations done by these directorates are mainly based on reports and studies attached to the dossier by the pesticide manufacturer. Under Peru\u2019s current system of one-time authorisations for pesticides, if the application is approved, it will likely never have to go through another review in the country. When Salud Con Lupa reviewed the reports supporting the registration authorisations of Syngenta\u2019s best-selling pesticides in Peru, we found that most of them were based on old studies, some dating back four decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the use of the herbicide diquat \u2013 banned in EU countries in 2019 and in Switzerland since 2022 \u2013 has been permitted in Peru since 2015, with a dossier based on studies carried out in 1985<\/a>, which suggested that it was not a hazardous substance. In the same year that Peruvian regulatory authorities gave diquat the go-ahead, studies<\/a> in the European Union described exposure to the pesticide for those working with it as a \u201ccritical area of concern\u201d, suggesting that it could potentially cause disruption to human hormone systems \u2013 an accusation that has been disputed<\/a> by Syngenta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another case is the pesticide atrazine, which is already banned in 44 countries<\/a> around the world, including Switzerland, largely due to concerns over risks of its contamination of water sources. In 2004 it was banned<\/a> in the European Union, but two decades later it is still used in Peru, where its impact on water is not monitored. Syngenta was one of the first companies to register atrazine in Peru in the 1990s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A similar situation occurs with mancozeb, a blue-coloured fungicide, banned in Switzerland since 2021. In the past two years it has risen to prominence in Peru, after traces of the substance have been found<\/a> in spring onions sold in several markets. Senasa has not reviewed the authorisation of mancozeb in a Syngenta product since 2016, when its permit was updated, despite scientific evidence<\/a> indicating negative effects on the endocrine system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Peru has also authorised new registrations for the heavily contested<\/a> pesticide glyphosate, despite the fact that its description as \u201cprobably carcinogenic<\/a>\u201d by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In 2023, the use of glyphosate was extended for 10 years<\/a> in the EU, with Syngenta and seven other chemicals companies reportedly having lobbied<\/a> to influence technical opinions about the risks posed by its use. Glyphosate also remains in use in Switzerland, with Swiss voters having rejected<\/a> a nationwide ban on all synthetic pesticides in 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Peru, pesticide manufacturers manage their interests through Cultivida<\/a>, an association of 23 companies currently chaired by Syngenta. Between February and November 2023, Cultivida held a series of meetings with officials from Midagri to offer the state access to two digital tools that can be used to assess the environmental risks of their pesticides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposal was finalised on 11 April this year with the launch of a web platform<\/a> that Midagri presented at a closed-door event<\/a> attended by representatives of agrochemical and business organisations. The first model proposed by Cultivida quantifies the levels of pesticide residues left in surface water by rainfall, while the second calculates the impact of pesticide substances on soil and water sources around crops.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Midagri opted to incorporate the latter proposal into its web platform as an evaluation criterion to be used prior to the registration of a pesticide. The ministry did not mention that among the organisations supporting the development of the programmes was CropLife, the international association of agrochemical producers of which Cultivida is part, and which includes Syngenta, alongside fellows such as Bayer, FMC, BASF, Sumitomo Chemical and Corteva Agrosciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When approached by reporters for comment, Cultivida denied the suggestion that these manufacturers are interfering in the Peruvian pesticide evaluation system with such donations or gifts of software tools. But some civil society organisations warn that these activities count as interference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPesticide manufacturers offer these tools as an alibi to say that they are controlling how pesticides are applied on crops,\u201d says Juan S\u00e1nchez, a consultant in rural development policies and current director of the Peruvian Organic Agriculture Network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jaime Delgado, a lawyer and former president of ASPEC, a Peruvian consumer rights NGO, says that if the Peruvian state intends to change the process of environmental assessment of pesticides, it is not appropriate for it to be reviewed or consulted with the companies that will then be inspected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to Peru\u2019s indefinite registrations<\/a> of pesticide authorisations, another issue arises in the lack of transparency around the permits granted. Unlike in the European Union, in Peru the studies and sources used to apply for pesticide registration are not made public. Salud Con Lupa therefore relied again on the Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information to request the release of these documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On reviewing the documentation, signs of a possible \u201crevolving door\u201d between government and industry were seen within Midagri\u2019s Directorate of Agricultural Environmental Management (DGAA), the body in charge of assessing the environmental impacts of pesticides in Peru. Juan Carlos Ar\u00e9valo Rengifo, who has worked at the DGAA since 2018, and has written at least four favourable reports to register Syngenta\u2019s pesticides atrazine<\/a>, brodifacoum<\/a>, cyproconazole<\/a> and profenofos<\/a>, previously worked for Syngenta as an agricultural representative<\/a> between 2014 and 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhy do we allow dangerous agrochemicals? Aren\u2019t there other ways to avoid poisoning ourselves?<\/blockquote>Lorgio \u00d1aupas, farmer<\/cite><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Argentina-soy-production_Patricio-Murphy_Alamy_2F74D0J-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>Peru\u2019s permissive system<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Influential industry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lack of transparency<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Farmers](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Farmer-ploughing-field-with-oxen-Peru_Alamy_BP0KJE.jpg\")
<\/div>