POINTS SCORED, DEATHS IGNORED
Malaria continues to kill many hundreds of thousands of Africans every year despite the supposed best efforts of the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development. According to the CDC in 2000 malaria killed an estimated 742,000 African children under the age of five. Like young children, pregnant women are also especially vulnerable. It is tragic that so many Africans die of a disease that is both treatable and preventable.
Now I'm no malaria expert and don't claim to know exactly what steps individual African countries should take to bring malaria under control; such decisions are best made by governments in consultation with experts. So long as an anti-malaria program produces results I really couldn't care less if it relies on drug treatment, bed nets, indoor residual spraying (with DDT, malathion, Icon or others), some combination of the above, integrated vector management or whatever.
The Ugandan government, supported by technical and financial support from USAID, evaluated the situation and decided to implement an indoor residual spraying program using DDT as the most cost effective way to control malaria. The program was in trouble almost immediately:
Tim Lambert has posted on this without doing any research, his only concern being that my earlier post on this subject made him look foolish – Glenn Reynolds and I maybe scored a few points off him. He is wrong – shock! horror! – in assuming:
Lambert also claims the EU enthusiastically supports DDT use in Africa conveniently ignoring the following:
Best of all, Lambert seeks support in linking to idiotic nonsense from Ed "water is carcinogenic" Darrell.
Now I'm no malaria expert and don't claim to know exactly what steps individual African countries should take to bring malaria under control; such decisions are best made by governments in consultation with experts. So long as an anti-malaria program produces results I really couldn't care less if it relies on drug treatment, bed nets, indoor residual spraying (with DDT, malathion, Icon or others), some combination of the above, integrated vector management or whatever.
The Ugandan government, supported by technical and financial support from USAID, evaluated the situation and decided to implement an indoor residual spraying program using DDT as the most cost effective way to control malaria. The program was in trouble almost immediately:
Marck van Esch, manager of Bo Weevil, an exporter of organic cotton, told The EastAfrican that the spraying has been improperly done, and the chemical will inevitably spill over into the environment, and consequently into organic produce.Thus all cotton from areas where DDT was sprayed inside homes is assumed to be contaminated and cannot be sold at an organic premium. According to BoWeevil Ugandan cotton is certified organic by Ecocert International applying European regulation for organic agriculture (2092/91), which states in part:
"We have visual evidence from Oyam and Apac districts already with our lawyers. It shows the spray on the walls and roofs of the grass-thatched mud houses, as well as on farm-tools, bicycles and the produce as well, in the same room. Under such conditions, we shall definitely have contaminated produce," Mr Esch said.
He said the investment in the area is worth about $4 million, with some 27,000 farmer households focused on production of value-added cotton, sesame and dried chilli. "We now cannot take produce from Oyam and Apac for the next season, because we know it is contaminated. We have started to invest in Ethiopia, because the investment climate in Uganda is a great disappointment," Mr Esch added.
The inspection body or authority must make a full physical inspection, at least once a year, of all operators. The inspection body or authority may take samples for testing of products not authorised under this Regulation or for checking production techniques not in conformity with this Regulation. Samples may also be taken and analysed for detecting possible contamination by unauthorised products. However, such analysis must be carried out where the use of unauthorised products is suspected. An inspection report must be drawn up after each visit, countersigned by the responsible person of the unit or his representative.So it seems that Ecocert is obliged to visit the individual farmers to test their cotton for DDT contamination. Even if Ecocert isn't contractually obliged to test for possible contamination at the producer level BoWeevil isn't doing the right thing in refusing to buy any of the cotton because some of it is "known" to be contaminated. It really is important to find out if the cotton is contaminated and, if so, how it became contaminated so the government knows if it's made a mess of the spraying program.
Tim Lambert has posted on this without doing any research, his only concern being that my earlier post on this subject made him look foolish – Glenn Reynolds and I maybe scored a few points off him. He is wrong – shock! horror! – in assuming:
So if there were DDT residues in the cotton, it was because DDT was illegally diverted to agricultural use.No, if the cotton is contaminated, it's because it came into contact with DDT when it was stored indoor areas sprayed with DDT.
Lambert also claims the EU enthusiastically supports DDT use in Africa conveniently ignoring the following:
The head of the Economic, Trade and Social sectors desk at the EU delegation to Uganda, Tom Vens told The EastAfrican that the EU had warned the government against the use of DDT, which scientists claim, can cause cancer among humans if ingested.Sure, go ahead and use DDT but don't be surprised if consumers boycott your products.
"We have advised the government that they are taking a risk if they go ahead with this DDT use, he said. "We, however, leave it to the government, of course, to decide. But nothing will happen, at least on the official side, if they decide to use DDT in strict compliance with the Stockholm Convention," he said.
The Stockholm Convention is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants.
The EU official, however, said that they would have no control over the consumer organisations in Europe which could pressure supermarkets to stop selling agricultural products from Uganda.
Best of all, Lambert seeks support in linking to idiotic nonsense from Ed "water is carcinogenic" Darrell.
posted by J F Beck at 8:48 AM
20 Comments:
Now Quiggin's getting involved in the argument which is always to lambert's detriment. In fact Lambert must hate it as every time Professor Clouseau gets involved he always manages to fuck things up.
Here's Quiggins comment over a Delusionatoid:
You would have thought even Reynolds could work out that, if a purchaser can choose to accept or reject a shipment, it's unlikely that trade sanctions are in operation.
No, prof. That's wrong. It's about the "best" non-sequitur I've ever read.
Why would the cotton be stored in the huts where people live, instead of in the farmers' warehouses?
DDT should be sprayed in the huts, according to the protocols for controlling malaria -- where people sleep at night.
If DDT is used according to these rules, any contact would be minimal and non-contaminating, even were it sprayed in the warehouses, too.
So, for your scenario to play out, there must be some illegal use.
Still, neither you nor the ineptly named BoWeevil group have bothered to offer a scintilla of evidence that the cotton is contaminated.
Nor have you commented on the fact that it's a business group opposing DDT use, and not your usual whipping post, "environmentalists."
Warehouses? At least some Ugandan farmers are storing, at least temporarily, their produce in their homes. That's supposedly where the cotton was contaminated.
Where is there any claim that the cotton is stored in homes? Even BoWeevil's guy is claiming overuse -- where is there any indication of contamination from indoor residual spraying?
This is the relevant EU legislation to which EU importers comply.
Basically africans are paid to take the risk of disease
"We have visual evidence from Oyam and Apac districts already with our lawyers. It shows the spray on the walls and roofs of the grass-thatched mud houses, as well as on farm-tools, bicycles and the produce as well, in the same room. Under such conditions, we shall definitely have contaminated produce," Mr Esch said.
Beck, the DDT is supposed to be on the walls of the huts. You claimed that the cotton was stored there -- but that's not what that quote says at all.
The quote claims to present evidence of overspraying -- illegal, of course. But oddly, that overspraying is not documented other than by anecdote. And the overspraying indicated should not contaminate the cotton, since the cotton isn't processed by bicycle.
You've got uncorroborated hearsay that doesn't begin to document your claims.
Mr Darrell,
“Most small-holder farmers store crops inside their houses, which will lean against the walls during internal residual spraying. The walls will become wet with DDT and contaminate the crops. DDT can also be carried by the wind and water during washing or cleaning of floors and walls,” John Magnay of Uganda Grain Traders said.
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/521097
Rog, thanks for the links.
Interesting. None of those regulations say that there would be any problem with indoor residual spraying of DDT. What is banned is the spraying of non-natural chemicals on crops.
If DDT were sprayed on the cotton crops, that would frustrate the anti-malaria efforts by driving resistance to DDT in mosquitoes.
The interest of the farmers is in sticking to fighting malaria with DDT and keeping it off the crops.
Environmentalists' and farmers, and cotton buyers', interests all intersect at the same place in these issues.
Who is screwing this stuff up? It's not Rachel Carson, it's not environmentalists. There's no solid evidence of anyone doing anything wrong (the IMO standards Rog directs us to requires testing, which has not been done in this case, according to van Esch).
Mr. Beck's case gets weaker as we learn more.
Then move the cotton, don't spray it.
Indoor residual spraying is supposed to be done about twice a year, in the places where people sleep.
Cotton? Have you ever seen cotton bales? It's unlikely that it would be stored in anyone's hut.
But suppose it is: If the spraying was done three months ago, the possibility of contamination is close to zero. The only way cotton bales get contaminated is if the bales are sprayed in place, in the hut. That ruins the cotton's organic labeling? Maybe. But it ruins the effectiveness of the IRS, against malaria, too.
van Esch said bicycles and equipment were sprayed.
Why not just stick to the rules? Unless you have evidence that Greenpeace is forcing these farmers to spray their crops with DDT, there's no reason to blame environmentalists, and clearly, Beck's previous calls to increase DDT spraying are counterproductive.
Mr Darrell,
Did you read the bit where I say it's important to find out if the sprayers contaminated the cotton? You know,so the government can get things sorted out if there was a futz up. (Where is a garageless Ugandan meant to keep a bicycle other than inside his home, by the way?)
Cotton is stored by farmers until it is ginned. The cotton is baled after ginning. You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
Ed thinks they store in the underground garage where the farmers park their Mercs.
Here's another snippet to fog things up:
"There is not much enemies of cotton in Uganda, so the need for pesticides is not all that high. Often farmers do not have the money to invest in chemicals either. So the step to become organic is not all too large. What makes a difference, is that the organic farmers are trained in methods to prevent their crops in a natural way. A rather genius but logical invention is to plant red peppers around the cotton. Quite some animals don’t really like peppers so they will stay away. And by using this method, they also produce peppers. Another part of growing organic is using crop rotation. The different crops use the ground different, which keeps the soil fertile, so one does not need artificial fertilizers to pimp up the ground. The crop rotation also results in a more efficient use of the landfill and a higher production. In this way it is also more economic. And off course also the non-organic farmers are very interested to see what their neighbors are doing…"
http://blog.grass-routes.org/2007/12/organic-cotton-farming-in-uganda.html
Quoting other blogs is a desperate move.
Right, rog -- especially when it undercuts your position.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant. "We don't need no stinkin' accuracy!" rog said.
No Ed, you're the one not letting the facts get in the way of your ranting. Accuracy was never your strong suit though, was it.
Accuracy?
I'm not the one claiming:
1. "Environmentalists" stand in the way of fighting malaria, without any shred of evidence.
2. EU is guided solely by murderous environmentalists in refusing to buy cotton, though EU officials and documents say the opposite.
3. There's a ban on the use of DDT driven by environmentalists, though
4. DDT contamination scuttles the sales of Uganda's crops.
Yeah, the last two are rather quite contradictory. But if accuracy wasn't your goal in the first place, without that guidance, it's probable you'll end up with such contradictions.
I'm inaccurate? Sure. Just show where.
.......No Ed, you're the one not letting the facts get in the way of your ranting. Accuracy was never your strong suit though, was it........
What's funny is hat Ed and Lambert are now linking to each other. the web has now reached a new low.
Any evidence of a consumer boycott? I haven't seen any.
Some odd business groups are suing to stop the spraying in Uganda, not the EU, not environmentalists.
How about a consumer boycott of Bo Weevil if they still refuse to buy the cotton? Anybody up for that?
Post a Comment
<< Home