Smile at Earth

Colombia: Aerial Fumigation, Glyphosate & Cosmo-Flux 411F

Submit by: http://wakemenow.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/colombia-aerial-fumigation-glyphosate-cosmo-flux-411f/.

Following is an excerpt from the (very) rough draft of my report on the U.S. “war on drugs” in relation to

Colombia

According to the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP):

Colombia

is the source of over 90 percent of the cocaine entering the United States and a significant source of the heroin on American streets. The U.S. is working with the Government of Colombia to eradicate illegal crops and reduce the amount of drugs reaching American streets. Plan Colombia, an initiative approved by Congress on July 13, 2000, is one of the largest and most comprehensive efforts by the U.S. to assist an ally in Latin America deal with a national drug emergency.

The ONDCP website (on Targeting Cocaine at the Source) explains that aerial eradication measures are used to eradicate coca plants and claims that these measures have been successful up-to-date. An excerpt from the site states:

Aerial eradication remains central to the strategy for destroying potential coca base and cocaine hydrochloride in Colombia before it can be marketed by traffickers or terrorists such as the FARC, particularly in remote locations and those fields that are well-protected and/or mined. As the effectiveness of aerial eradication increased from 2001 to 2003, drug growers were put on the defensive, shrinking the size of their plots, dispersing them, pruning and replanting seedlings, and, finally, moving further into the eastern departments of Colombia.

In taking a closer look at what aerial fumigation and eradication consists of and its consequences, we find that there is a lack of research conducted to determine the safety of using the herbicide formulations currently being sprayed in Colombia. The formula used in aerial fumigation in Colombia includes glyphosate, an herbicide registered in the EPA’s Toxicity Category III, with Category I being the most toxic and IV the least, and it is noted that that glyphosate on its own has received these ratings, although in formulations the interactions between glyphosate and inerts (including surfactants) can change, and in this case do change, the relative toxicity of the herbicide products (Sherret, 2005, p. 155). It is also noted that individual biochemistry and genetics, lifestyle, and health status may predispose a person to react in a highly sensitive manner to a chemical believed to be innocuous. Formulations, including those with glyphosate, may have different or magnified effects once released into the environment, as compared with the release of a single chemical; in laboratories, only one chemical is tested at a time so there is little data to demonstrate how a mixture of chemicals might react with one another or other chemicals found in the environment (Sherret, 2005, p. 155).

Glyphosate is generally sold as the active ingredient in commercial formulations, which typically also include water and a surfactant. Manufacturers are not required to release the exact formulations or to identify the chemicals used as surfactants as this is considered proprietary information and because they are assumed to be inert, that is, not having herbicidal activity. Surfactants, a class of chemicals considered to be inert, are used to aid in penetration of the waxy cuticle of plant leaves. In Colombia, the formulation used does contain a surfactant, but not one approved for use in the U.S. The surfactant, Cosmo-Flux 411F, is manufactured by the Colombian company Cosmoagro and has not been subject to the same testing requirements as the surfactants being used in the U.S. and Canada (Sherret, 2005, p. 157).

In the summer of 2001, it was reported that Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), a British chemicals manufacturer, had stopped supplying one of the ingredients used in the manufacture of Cosmo-Flux 411F, Atplus 300F, citing reports of illness that plagued the regions where the new fumigation programs had been executed (Sherret, 2005, p. 157). Imperial Chemical Industries did not want to be associated with such a program and also cited the lack of evidence of the effects of mixing the additive with glyphosate.

The fumigation efforts in Colombia are receiving national and international attention because people are now being subjected to the spraying near their homes, where coca plants are said to be intermingled with food crops and where other licit activities take place (Sherret, 2005, p. 157).

There is also a good bit of controversy surrounding the varied results of the scientific testing of these formulations, with regulatory agency reviewers siding with Monsanto in more cases than not, discrediting or ignoring the results of independent studies and dismissing the methodology used despite them being published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals (Sherret, 2005, p. 158). In one section (Reproductive and Endocrinological Effects), the reviewers cite only two studies, both of which were undertaken by Monsanto researchers as the basis for their conclusion (Sherret, 2005, p. 158). This information is quite disconcerting and lends credence to suspicions that corruption exists within the corporations manufacturing these products and the U.S. regulatory agencies intended to ensure that the products are actually safe for their intended use.

In research conducted on the glyphosate formulation Roundup (a variant of which is being used in the fumigation mixture in Colombia) shows synergism when comparing the formulation’s effects on cells undergoing embryonic division to those of glyphosate on its own. According to Sherret (2005):

The study examined the regulation of cell cycle checkpoints and found that Roundup induced a concentration-dependent deregulatory effect, although the concentrations inducing the observed changes were higher than what would result from normal uses of the pesticide. Even with this discrepancy, the researchers still warned that the safety of glyphosate and Roundup on human health should be questioned. Cell cycle regulation at the embryonic stage is key for normal fetal development. Disruptions to the regular cell cycle have implications for development as well as carcinogenesis.

Basically what that is saying is that the ingredients of the formulation of Roundup used in Colombia show signs of affecting embryonic development. That’s a major concern and it becomes that much greater when we consider that one nation is spraying this from heights of 100 feet over lands populated by people in another nation, despite protests on behalf of those receiving the spraying and the concerns expressed by knowledgeable scientists all throughout the international scientific community. This is a major issue all unto itself and it’s shocking to know this is being carried out by one of the world’s leading superpowers.

The ONDCP justifies these measures by simply claiming, “Cocaine production in Colombia constitutes a threat to U.S. security and the well-being of our citizens.”

_____________________________________________________________

Primary source for this excerpt: Sherret, L. (2005). Futility in Action: Coca Fumigation in Colombia. Journal of Drug Issues, 35.1, 151-168. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Elite database.

Additional links of interest:

Click here to read what the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has to say about the health and environmental risks associated with the use of glyphosate.

The Pesticide Action Network of the UK (PAN UK), had this to say about glyphosate.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is also taking issue with glyphosate and its use in Roundup formulations.

Keep in mind that Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, is the same company responsible for creating Agent Orange for the eradication of forests during the Vietnam War. We’re all familiar with how well that went.

On April 22, 1970, Gaylord Nelson, a United States Senator, founded the first Earth Day in an attempt to bring about a better understanding of the affect we have on our planet, and calling us to take action to make positive environmental changes in our community. The first Earth Day was attended by 20 million Americans nationwide, from college campuses to town halls, and giant teach-ins were organized in New York City and Philadelphia, the latter event turning into a seven-day event known as Earth Week.

This small attempt to start something of this scale on the national level brought millions of people to band together in their neighborhoods, starting grassroots campaigns to help revolutionize the way we handled waste, recycling, power consumption, and conservation in general. That event set a powerful precedent for the rest of the world, eventually inspiring more than 140 nations all around the globe to have their own Earth Days.

By the year 1990, over 200 million people on Earth were participating in the event, making it one of the most-attended organizational activities ever created, even being called “the largest secular holiday in the world” by the Earth Day Network, the nonprofit organization that is in charge of the event on an annual basis since its inception in 1990.

Submit by: http://earthday2011.org/