Malaysia:
“Cheap” Paraquat at the expense of the workers’ health
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
