Uruguay
¿Uruguay au-naturel?
The agro-export model increases the use of
pesticides threefold in eight years |
At present, more than 10 million
kilos of agrotoxic substances are
applied yearly on Uruguay’s fields,
creating a serious environmental
problem and acutely and chronically
impacting the health of producers
and consumers. According to
information from the government’s
General Board of Agricultural
Services, every year Uruguay imports
51 million dollars worth of
agro-toxics substances.
Ninety-seven to ninety-nine percent
of the agrotoxic substances
(fungicides, insecticides,
herbicides) applied in the fields
do not even achieve their
intended purpose, as they are lost
in the air, soil or water, and only
a small percentage eventually
reaches its planned “destination.”
From 1997 to 2005 pesticide imports
increased by 350 percent in
Uruguay, according to data
from the General Board of
Agricultural Services (DGSA),
an agency that operates under the
Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture
and Fishery (MGAP), which is
responsible for authorizing the sale
of 294 active principles and 805
brands of pesticides, 43 of
which are banned or severely
restricted in the rest of
world. Among these are: aldicarb,
sodium arsenite, azinphos-methyl,
methyl bromide, carbofuran,
methamidophos, methomyl, paraquat
and parathion-methyl,
which are sold under different brand
names and are category I pesticides,
that is, the most toxic.
There is little awareness in
Uruguay about the degree of
chemical residues present in fruits,
vegetables, milk, meats, cereals,
yerba mate, and oilseeds. In 2004,
through an initiative of the
Municipal Government of Montevideo (IMM),
the Department of Food Technology of
the School of Agronomy, University
of the Republic, and the Managing
Board of the Model Market conducted
a research study on the
quality of fruits and vegetables and
their agrotoxic contamination
levels. After analyzing
pesticides in 200 samples of the
leading fruits and garden vegetables
(apple, peach, strawberry, tomato,
lettuce, potato, pumpkin, spinach,
and others), the results revealed
that 28 percent of the samples had
no detectable residues, 65
percent had residues below the
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)
established by the CODEX (the
joint FAO and WHO food
program), and 7 percent had
residues above those maximum
levels. A very significant number of
fruits and vegetables were found to
have more than one agrotoxic
substance and in some cases more
than five chemical products were
detected in the same food. This
poses an additional risk, as the
actual health damage caused by the
combined effects of two or more
agrotoxic substances occurring in
the same food can be much more
severe than that produced by
only one of these substances. The
combination of residues from the
chemicals contained in each of these
toxic substances can result in a
greater percentage of food having a
higher residual content than what is
permitted, which would mean that the
percentage of food containing
agrotoxic residues above the
admissible limits would most likely
be significantly greater.
The
United
States
requires a
77-day
waiting
period to
harvest
apples after
the
application
of
Mancozeb,
while
Uruguay
requires a
mere 12
days.
Does this
mean that
degradation
is quicker
in
Uruguay?
No, the
reason for
this shorter
period is to
increase
product
sales and
frequency of
use. |
|
Due to technical constraints, the
study did not look for
residues of Mancozeb or
Dithane, the most widely used
pesticide in the country and the
most commonly used in fruits and
vegetables (peaches, apples,
tomatoes, potatoes, lettuce, among
others). According to the United
States Environmental
Protection Agency,
Mancozeb is a carcinogenic
product which affects reproduction
and the endocrine system. When
degraded it turns into a substance
called ETU (ethylthiourea) which is
even more toxic than the active
principle that generated it. ETU is
also produced when food contaminated
with Mancozeb is cooked.
But that’s not the only problem.
Uruguay’s recommended waiting
periods for agrotoxic substances are
not always the same as those
established in the first world. The
United States, for example,
requires a 77-day waiting
period to harvest apples after the
application of Mancozeb,
while Uruguay requires a
mere 12 days. Does this mean
that degradation is quicker in
Uruguay? No, the reason for this
shorter period is to increase
product sales and frequency of use.
Fruits are subjected to a very
significant amount of insecticides
and fungicides from sprouting to
harvesting. Apple crops, for
example, use 100 kilos of agrotoxic
substances per hectare in
applications conducted from August
to March.
If this weren’t enough, after the
fruits are harvested they are once
again sprayed with chemical products
which allow them to be preserved
longer in the open.
Moreover, recent studies conducted
by the School of Chemistry of the
University of the Republic found
agrotoxic substances in five of
the leading brands of yerba
mate consumed in Uruguay.
Uruguay has no regulations
establishing a maximum toxic
substance residue level for yerba
mate, as it does for tea and coffee.
The study detected traces of
several organophosphorous
agrotoxic substances in low
concentration in all the
yerbas analyzed.
Uruguay
evidences an increase in the use of
agrotoxic substances, particularly
herbicides and insecticides, as
shown in the table below.
Evolution in tons of agrotoxic
imports 1999 – 2005
Type of pesticide |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
Herbicide |
2324 |
2399 |
2975 |
3232 |
5377 |
6697 |
6726 |
Fungicide |
883 |
686 |
908 |
1077 |
1149 |
1163 |
1120 |
Insecticide |
659 |
533 |
577 |
800 |
889 |
1096 |
1238 |
Others |
574 |
165 |
177 |
226 |
196 |
330 |
481 |
Total |
4440 |
3783 |
4637 |
5336 |
7611 |
9286 |
9566 |
Source: Input Control Department.
DGSA/MGAP
In the case of herbicides, the
increase may be due to a large
extent to Glyphosate, which
accounts for half or more
than half of the tons of herbicides
imported in 2005. This agrotoxic
substance is used in direct sowing
of conventional and transgenic
crops, a technique that over the
last few years has become very
widespread in the country and the
region. In the case of insecticides,
the increase registered in imports
can also be linked to the
significant expansion of soybean
crops in Uruguay.
Most producers ignore the risks
they are exposed to when they apply
agrotoxic substances. These
substances can cause acute
intoxication, which is detected
at the time of application or
immediately after, with noticeable
symptoms such as vomiting,
dizziness, headache, and blurry
vision; but they can also cause
chronic intoxication, which is
only manifested several years after
being exposed in applications or
after eating contaminated food,
through fully developed diseases
such as cancer, immune and endocrine
system alterations, brain damage,
conditions affecting the nervous
system, allergies, birth defects (teratogenesis),
liver dysfunctions, miscarriages,
and skin and sensory organ damage.
Like the rest of the region,
Uruguay is firmly consolidating
an agro-export model based on
single-crop farming (eucalyptus,
soybean, pine, corn), meat and milk
production and export, and the
advancement of the agricultural
frontier.
The application of this model has
serious social, environmental and
public health consequences. While it
may be beneficial in the short-term
–and even this is highly debatable-,
in the medium and long-term it will
lead to increases in Government
spending, as the State will have to
face problems in terms of natural
resources, rising marginality and
poverty, and high incidence of
diseases.
En Colonia,
Fernando Queirós Armand Ugón*
©
Rel-UITA
6 de febrero de 2007 |
|
|
|
*
Agronomist
Literature consulted
Agrotóxicos, remedios peligrosos. Análisis de la
situación de los plaguicidas más
tóxicos en Uruguay [Agrotoxic
substances, dangerous remedies. Analysis of the
situation of the most toxic pesticides in
Uruguay]. Sebastián Elola. RAPAL/CEUTA. June
2004
Agrotóxicos: el síndrome “todo bien” [Agrotoxic
substances: the “everything’s cool” syndrome].
Alberto Gómez. CEUTA. May 2005.
Determinación de Residuos de Plaguicidas
Organofosforados en Yerba Mate. [Determination
of Organophosphorous Pesticide Residues in Yerba
Mate]. Virginia Villagrán – Joaquín González.
Agrochemicals Course II, Pharmacognosis and
Natural Products Course.
School of Chemistry.
University of the Republic. 2005.
Pesticidas y Agrotóxicos.
Veneno en la piel [Pesticides
and Agrotoxic Substances. Poison on the skin].
Nausícaa Palomeque, “¿Qué Pasa?”
Supplement “El País” Newspaper. April 2006.
Producción Agroecológica – Orgánica en el
Uruguay. Principales conceptos,
situación actual y desafíos [Agroecological
– Organic Production in Uruguay.
Main concepts, current
situation and challenges]. Raquel Barg and
Fernando Queirós.
RAPAL.
January 2007.
Sembrando venenos - cosechando destrucción [Sowing
poison - harvesting destruction].
RAPAL
http://www.chasque.net/rapaluy.
December 2006.
Volver a Portada
|
UITA - Secretaría Regional
Latinoamericana - Montevideo - Uruguay
Wilson
Ferreira Aldunate 1229 / 201 - Tel. (598 2) 900 7473 - 902 1048 -
Fax 903 0905
|