More Questions in the Search for Answers
At the request of Congress, the U.S. government is preparing a study of the health and environmental effects of the aerial spraying of drug crops in Colombia. But the first scientifically rigorous study of the effects of this controversial U.S. anti-drug strategy, is facing ethical and procedural questions of its own.
Designed with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control, the study will attempt to determine conditions before and after aerial spraying of illegal crops. It would examine 100 farmers in Putumayo, where eradication efforts of the U.S.-assisted Plan Colombia are concentrated, to assess their health before spraying begins, and reexamine the same 100 people after fumigation of illegal crops occurs nearby.
Farmers have claimed that the aerial spraying has sickened adults and children, and killed animals and fish. Environmentalists have also questioned the aerial spraying, particularly because they consider glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide used in drug eradication efforts in Colombia, a toxic ingredient that could adversely impact the area's exceptional biodiversity.
"I am not trying to hold up this study as a be-all and end-all," said Rand Beers, assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, last week. But, he added, the study may provide "further information and evidence that lead us to the conclusion that the underlying [health] conditions of the people who participate in the cultivation of coca [exist] whether or not we are spraying."
Beers pointed to the results of animal studies done in U.S. laboratories to demonstrate that the level of toxicity of the herbicide used to fumigate coca and poppy plants in Colombia is very low and therefore it is doubtful that it is a danger to health.
"Its active ingredient does not kill people, it kills plants," Beers said of the mixture used for anti-drug spraying in Colombia, which is 18 percent glyphosate and approximately 75 percent water. The rest of the ingredients help the plant retain the spray, and their level of toxicity has also been questioned, according to documentation offered by Beers. Beers said the herbicide can cause slight eye and skin irritation but it is not enough to cause the health effects attributed to it.
Coca and poppy farmers use other chemicals, including herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers containing toxic substances, that they apply themselves.
Beers suggested that the charges that glyphosate is dangerous could be based on complaints from farmers, since, "if the spraying is successful, it kills their income." Another possibility, he said, is the evidence of poor health conditions in areas where illegal drug crops are grown, such as Aponte, in Nariño province, where a recent clinical assessment of 21 people, including infants, children and adults, showed that their skin disorders were caused by parasites and bacteria.
In a "Consumer Factsheet" posted on its Web site, the EPA has said that glyphosate-based products can cause lung problems and rapid respiration, and in the longer term, kidney damage and reproductive effects. Warning labels on a glyphosate-based herbicide that is sold in the United States urge application in a way that avoids contact with humans.
The U.S. government has proposed the long-term study to help better determine if these health problems could be attributed to the spraying. U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Anne W. Patterson said in a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) in April that the EPA and the CDC have agreed to participate in the design and supervision of the study. Gail Hayes, a spokeswoman for the CDC, said its role so far has been limited to a "preliminary discussion phase," and the agency "has not participated in developing any type of protocol" for the study.
Dr. Fernando Lolas, chief of bioethics at the Pan American Health Organization raised the question of "an ethical double standard" in the study. He said that if such study is conducted in Colombia it should also be possible to conduct it in the United States, which he added was "highly unlikely" given the strict ethical standards in the United States for studies with human subjects.
"A study of this type would require a very clear description of what is known [about the chemical] to determine if it would be ethically acceptable in principle," said Lolas, who added that it was difficult to state an opinion without knowing the study's protocol. He recalled a tragic accident in India in 1984 when a gas leak from a pesticide plant in Bhopal killed more than 4,000 people and affected the health of 500,000 more.
Lolas acknowledged the dilemma facing officials in Colombia and the United States who hope to dispel growing doubts about the effects of the herbicide. But he stressed the importance of "considering the ethical dimension of the [study's] consequences before beginning." Otherwise, the effect on public opinion could be counterproductive especially since the topic is already heavily charged with political and social considerations in Colombia.
"The study could help determine if the fumigation is causing serious health problems," said an adviser to Sen. Leahy. "However, the U.S. government should participate in such a study only if it meets the highest ethical standards."
Gaps in Assistance to Internally Displaced
The international community and especially the United States have left a "major gap" in their response to the crisis of thousands of displaced persons in Colombia, according to the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.
A report Friday by the General Accounting Office says that farmers displaced by the U.S.-funded anti-drug campaign have been forgotten after a few months.
The farmers "were initially provided adequate food and shelter during the first 90 days of their displacement, but when they moved to secondary cities or urban areas, such as Bogota, they received little or no assistance," the report says. "This phase of displacement represents a major gap in the international community's response in Colombia."
In response to the GAO's findings, the State Department stressed the importance of distinguishing between people who were recently displaced, whose conditions are similar to "internal refugees," and those who were displaced earlier. Those displaced earlier, said the State Department, "have often settled in or around cities, where they now may be more like urban migrants in need of development assistance."
When the United States approved $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia in June 2000, it set aside more than $37 million to deal with displaced persons. It paid special attention to those who would be affected by the more recent concentration of eradication efforts in the south of Colombia.
In the latest report on spending for Plan Colombia at the end of last month, the Bush administration said almost all the $37 million had been distributed, most of it used for temporary food and shelter. The GAO report, however, said that other types of aid are needed.
"Non-life-sustaining help such as supplying clothing, education, psychosocial activities for traumatized persons, and employment opportunities generally were not provided or were provided only to a limited extent," the report says.
The U.S. Agency for International Development acknowledged the need for "increased coordination – among international donors – to ensure that the displaced receive the short-term and long-term assistance they require."
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |