U.S. CONGRESSMAN SAYS HERBICIDE BEING USED IN COLOMBIA DRUG FIGHT ISN'T
DANGEROUS

Rep. Jim Kolbe Said Saturday That He Uses The Herbicide Glyphosate -
Marketed In The United
States As Roundup - To Kill Weeds That Grow Outside His Vacation Cabin Back
Home

BOGOTA -- A U.S. lawmaker defended the use of a herbicide being used to
kill drug crops in Colombia, calling criticism that it causes environmental
damage and illness unfounded.

Rep. Jim Kolbe said Saturday that he uses the herbicide glyphosate -
marketed in the United States as Roundup - to kill weeds that grow outside
his vacation cabin back home.

"I think the fears about this are unfounded," said the Arizona Republican,
who is heading a four-person congressional delegation that arrived Friday
for a three-day visit. "It's impossible to eradicate the coca in the very
distance reaches of Colombia without using this aerial spraying."

Crop dusters protected by U.S.-donated combat helicopters have eradicated
thousands of acres of coca, the main ingredient of cocaine, since
fumigations began last December.

Reports have surfaced that the sprayings are causing ailments like skin
rashes and respiratory problems. Environmentalists say fragile ecosystems
are being hurt.

The U.S. State Department has said there are no harmful effects from the
herbicide. U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson decided recently to dispatch a
medical team to investigate complaints.

The drug war is being funded through a $1.3 billion aid package from
Washington that includes troop training and dozens of combat helicopters.
Critics say the aid package is bent too heavily toward military help and
should include more money for social programs.

But at a press conference late Saturday, Kolbe said the military backing is
essential in order to curb the country's narcotics industry. Most of the
cocaine and a growing portion of heroin consumed in the U.S. come from
Colombia.

Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat who opposes the aid package, also
arrived Friday on a separate two-day visit.

COUNTER-FACT SHEET - THE AERIAL ERADICATION OF ILLICIT CROPS: ANSWERS TO
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (ACCION ANDINA - March 2001)

QUESTION: What is the aerial eradication program?

ANSWER: Aerial spraying of illicit crops has taken place in Colombia since
the seventies, as part of a supply-reduction strategy. Marijuana was the
first crop fumigated; coca and poppy followed. Various herbicides have been
used in the process. Over 200,000 hectares of coca and 60,000 hectares of
poppy were sprayed in the last decade, using more than three million liters
of glyphosate. Nearly 25 years of aerial spraying amply demonstrate that
the strategy is not effective, though. In fact, aerial fumigation
contributed to significantly increasing illicit crop acreage, not the
opposite. The supply-reduction strategy and the way in which spraying is
carried out in Colombia have only served to unleash a vicious cycle of
destruction. This cycle causes pollution, also driving crops deeper and
deeper into the jungle and thus causing drastic deforestation.

Displaced crops are, in turn, sprayed again and the cycle repeats itself.

Aerial fumigation also forms part of a war structure in Colombia. There are
not only technical factors related to herbicides, environmental impact and
so on involved. Fumigation in itself calls for war logistics and security
measures. Spraying craft tend to be accompanied by helicopters and at times
this involves firing machine guns on areas adjacent to crops, causing panic
among the communities.

QUESTION: How are spray targets selected?

ANSWER: In spite of the highly sophisticated precision instruments
currently available to select spray targets (aerial photographs and
satellite images; the Global Positioning System for charting flight
courses, etc), many cases involving the destruction of legal crops and
alternative development projects can be documented. Aerial fumigation has
targeted home patches, ponds and water sources that should never have been
the object of this policy. This seriously questions the effectiveness of
the techniques or the selection criteria used, which do not stop at the
intentional destruction of subsistence economies.

QUESTION: What is the role of the U.S. government in the aerial eradication
program?

ANSWER: The U.S. government sets the eradication goals for the Colombian
Anti-Narcotics Police. It trains fumigation personnel or hires private
enterprises to undertake spray operations directly. NAS (Narcotics Affairs
Section) supplies the herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate),
aircraft, training and communication equipment. The Colombian Police
controls spraying in the designated areas, using air bases staffed by the
NAS personnel in charge of follow-up activities. The U.S. government
certifies Colombia each year, or refuses to certify it, for its anti-drugs
efforts.

QUESTION: What type of environmental monitoring and oversight is there?

ANSWER: In Colombia, monitoring the effects of fumigation on the
environment involves a structural problem. Related studies are not made
independently. Due to the nature of the contractual agreements reached
until now, such evaluations have a priori defended the interests of
contractors. In all 25 years, an independent, and thus credible and
impartial supervision has never taken place. Such a study should be
convened with a body designed to exert control, like the People's
Ombudsman, the Attorney General or the General Accounting Office, not with
the same entity that is to be supervised, in this case the anti-drugs
authorities.

QUESTION: What chemicals are being used in Colombia for the eradication of
illicit crops?

ANSWER: The State Department's response to this question is that only
glyphosate is being used. This answer is not satisfactory, however, since
the sprays applied not only contain glyphosate but a mixture of other
ingredients. It is common knowledge, for example, that Roundup, a
commercial formula registered by the Monsanto Company, contains a
surfactant called polyoxyethylamine (POEA), which is much more toxic than
glyphosate. Roundup has very different toxic properties from glyphosate in
its pure form. A modified formula based on Roundup has been applied since
1999. It is called Roundup Ultra and is spiked with the antifoaming
Cosmo-In-D, and the adjuvant Cosmo-Flux 411F , both found on the Colombian
market. These substances greatly enhance the action of agrochemicals,
making them more powerful at lower dosages. This change in the commercial
preparation was decided arbitrarily, ignoring national legislation and
institutional procedures.

On the other hand, although little is known about the danger of introducing
mycoherbicides into the ecosystem until now, lately the U.S. has been
insisting on the use of biological agents. The Fusarium oxysporum fungus
was developed in laboratories in the United States for the purpose of
attacking the coca bush. Fortunately, environmental authorities from
Colombia and other Andean countries have recently taken a strong stand
against this measure.

QUESTION: Has glyphosate been tested for environmental safety?

ANSWER: Insofar as glyphosate is not the problem, strictly speaking, any
debate limited to the chemical is a sham, completely ignoring the serious
doubts raised by the commercial sprays currently in use. As stated,
glyphosate is not used alone. The studies on glyphosates environmental
safety are incomplete if they do not consider its action combined with
other ingredients, which at present are not even mentioned on formula
labels. The habit of using the word glyphosate to avoid naming the added
ingredients serves to deceive public opinion and society as a whole about
the potential dangers for the environment and for the population exposed to
the toxic effects of these substances. Another aspect that the U.S.
government fails to mention is the concentration of Roundup used. Failing
to guarantee the herbicide's safety and violating the norms based on
technical trials, the concentration now employed for coca is 10
liters/hectare, which means 2.7 gallons of herbicide for each 2.5 acres of
coca.

QUESTION: Does glyphosate harm cattle, chickens or other farm animals?

ANSWER: Hair loss is the most visible symptom in cattle affected by
fumigation, especially among calves and breeding cows. Hair loss is caused
by moderate exposure and gradually disappears as the cattle are moved to
non-fumigated pastures. Abortion is frequent among pregnant cows, possibly
affected by the noise of overhead helicopters, which startles them causing
stampedes. Death of fowl affected by spraying or drinking contaminated
water has been confirmed, as well as the death of fish in sprayed rivers,
and the totality of the pond fish bred by settlers for their own
consumption or to supply local inhabitants.

QUESTION: Is glyphosate harmful to human beings?

ANSWER: The State Department assures us that glyphosate is less harmful
than common salt, aspirin, caffeine, nicotine and even Vitamin A. However,
studies carried out on the effects of commercial preparations containing
glyphosate reveal a very different panorama. In various countries, Roundup
is classified among the first pesticides to cause poisoning in humans.

Most cases involve skin and eye irritations in workers after exposure
during the mixing, transportation or application of the product. Nausea,
respiratory difficulty, alterations in blood pressure and allergic
reactions have also been reported. Doctors in Japan have certified cases of
poisoning, mainly through accidental swallowing of Roundup, but also
through occupational exposure. The symptoms of acute poisoning include
gastrointestinal pain, massive loss of gastrointestinal fluid, vomit,
excess lung fluid, pulmonary congestion or failure, loss of consciousness,
destruction of red blood corpuscles and kidney damage or failure.

Following repeated fumigation, the Yanacona Indians in Cauca are suffering
many of these symptoms. The dwellings in this community have been sprayed
indiscriminately, children being the most affected. The People's Ombudsman
documents countless cases of complaints filed by peasants exposed to
spraying. Though many questions remain unanswered on the use of commercial
preparations, especially with regard to Roundup Ultra + Cosmoflux, it is
worth pointing out that both children and adults in sprayed areas are
suffering from severe skin disorders nowadays.

QUESTION: Does glyphosate destroy the soil and prevent plant growth?

ANSWER: Information regarding glyphosate mobility and persistence in the
soil varies. It is known to be almost static in soils. It remains in the
upper soil layers, with little propensity for percolation and a low runoff
potential. Other studies, however, conclude that glyphosate can easily be
leached from some types of soil; that is, glyphosate particles may be
released, thus becoming quite mobile. Sub-lethal glyphosate doses carried
by the wind (drift) damage wild flowers and can affect certain species more
than 20 meters away from the site fumigated.

Analyzing glyphosate residue is costly and cumbersome. For this reason, the
U.S. government does not routinely carry out such studies. Some research
does exist, though, demonstrating that glyphosate can be carried by plants
to the parts used for food. For example, glyphosate has been found in
strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, lettuce, carrots and barley after
its application. According to the World Health Organization, using
glyphosate to dry the grain before wheat is harvested results in
"significant residues" in the grain.

And once again: Why does the State Department not say anything about the
impact on soil and plants of the other ingredients being used in the
commercial formulas with glyphosate?

QUESTION: Does glyphosate contaminate the water where it is sprayed?

ANSWER: Glyphosate is highly soluble in water. According to EPA (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency), it can enter aquatic systems through
accidental spraying, drift or surface runoff. It is considered to disappear
rapidly in water, as a result of adsorption to particles in suspension such
as organic and mineral particles, to sediments and probably by microbial
decomposition. If we accept that glyphosate is easily adsorbed into soil
particles, it will have little potential to contaminate surface and ground
waters. But if it is de-adsorbed or easily leached from soil particles, as
it has been proven already, the situation changes. What is known is that
glyphosate has contaminated ground and surface waters in various countries.

QUESTION: Is glyphosate dangerous for the environment?

ANSWER: Glyphosate is toxic for some beneficial organisms such as parasitic
wasps and other arthropod predators, and soil arthropods that are important
for soil aeration and humus formation. Some fish varieties are susceptible
to Roundup, which is approximately 30 times more toxic to fish than
glyphosate used alone. A study of rainbow trout and tilapia fish found that
the chemical caused erratic swimming and respiratory difficulties among
them. These behavioral changes altered their feeding, migration and
reproduction capacity and they also lost the ability to defend themselves.
As to how glyphosate affects birds, a study of exposed bird populations
showed that the product is moderately toxic for birds; the changes it
causes in plants affect birds, because they depend on such plants for food,
protection and nestling. Field studies have demonstrated that some groups
of small mammals have also been affected by glyphosate, due to death of the
vegetation that either they or their prey use for foodstuff and protection.
A study made in New Zealand showed that glyphosate substantially affected
the growth and survival of one of the most common worms found in its
farming soil.

Fumigation severely affects one of the most vital components of the Amazon
ecosystem, known as the cananguchales. Clusters of canangucha palms form
oases in the Amazon, inhabited by a great variety of animals and birds.

Water constantly surrounds the palms in each oasis. Many cananguchales have
been affected beyond salvation by spraying, when glyphosate has been
transported by the wind or through the soil. The cananguchales are found on
low terrains, which makes it easier for the water from fields sprayed
nearby to reach them.

QUESTION: If glyphosate is so benign - like the State Department claims -
why are there complaints of damage from its use in Colombia?

ANSWER: The State Department says that it does not have reliable sources on
which to ground complaints against glyphosate. Armed groups financed by
drugs file these complaints, it claims. However, just glancing through the
files of the People's Ombudsman in Colombia, it is possible to confirm the
existence of many complaints presented by individuals or by communities
suffering the consequences of aerial spraying directly. There are also
numerous studies and analyses carried out by prestigious scientific
institutions in Colombia (such as the Andes University), or abroad, whose
results produce evidence of how harmful the pesticides in question really
are. Fumigation and its catastrophic impact at every level has been the
subject of many articles, interviews, editorials and press releases in the
media, in Colombia and other parts of the world.

QUESTION: How are complaints about glyphosate investigated?

ANSWER: Unfortunately, the Colombian state and the entities in charge of
investigating reports dealing with the effects of fumigation on human
health and legitimate crops do not carry out thorough inspections or
studies. This is true in spite of the fact that the Ombudsman has clearly
expressed that enough serious suspicions exist to warrant making serious,
exhaustive investigations. The Ombudsman has processed hundreds of
complaints and conducted verification missions to investigate such claims
independently and on the ground. The People's Ombudsman published "Illicit
Crops: World Policy and Reality in Colombia" recently, a book specifically
referring to health problems, particularly skin, respiratory and digestive
disorders and irritation of the membranes and eyes among those inhabiting
the areas fumigated. The Ombudsman's Office is currently investigating
human casualties that have been denounced recently, deaths taking place in
the Putumayo after the introduction of the new Roundup Ultra + Cosmoflux
formula in the area. The Health and Environment Ministries and other
government bodies remain passive, insisting that the complaints made by the
population serve the interests of the insurgency. They often state that the
peasants are allies of the guerrilla, thus invalidating claims of any kind
and even ignoring the evidence of illnesses.

QUESTION: Is spraying contributing to the deforestation of Colombia?

ANSWER: An argument often used to legitimate spraying is that illicit crops
and drug processing affect the environment and contribute more to
deforestation than aerial spraying. Although surely both illicit crops and
their processing cause serious harm to the environment, the same is no less
true for fumigation. If their plots are sprayed, coca farmers see the need
to go deeper into the jungle to plant new crops. The deforestation and
pollution this causes will have been indirectly motivated by the spraying
of their plots. For simple reasons of survival, while the Amazon basin
exists as a potential cultivation area, each hectare fumigated will be
substituted by another hectare further inside the jungle. Chemical spraying
continuously displaces the cultivated areas towards ecologically more
vulnerable territories, multiplying the effects of deforestation on the
Amazon and the Andean mountains.

QUESTION: Why doesn't the United States government fund alternative
development programs instead of spraying illegal crops?

ANSWER: One of the most drastic arguments wielded by the U.S. anti-drugs
authorities is that they refuse to finance alternative development programs
in areas not under the control of the Colombian government, or in which the
state is not fully sovereign, which is the case of areas under insurgent
control. Defining territorial control as a basic premise of alternative
development inserts North American aid into the very frame of the armed
conflict. Without a guarantee of control, the U.S. government simply does
not support this type of activity.

In the North American model, the dissuasion represented by fumigation is a
pre-condition to pressure peasants into undertaking alternative development
programs. This starting point not only limits alternative programs but also
generates a war context as a pre-condition for the development of social
and economic programs.

As a result of this attitude, aerial spraying has seriously affected licit
alternative programs in the Bota Caucana, Medio and Bajo Cagun,
reforestation programs in various parts of the Department of Nario, and
alternative crop programs in the Colombian Pacific Coast. Spraying is not
compatible with the search for legal alternatives to illicit crops, war
much less.

QUESTION: Doesn't the spray program hurt the small farmer who has no other
way of earning a living?

ANSWER: To answer this question, the State Department begins by
acknowledging that many Colombians are going through a very difficult
situation, yet this is no reason for them to turn to illegal activities.

The illegal farming sector is for a good part inscribed into the context of
a survival economy. Part of this economy is in the hands of the big drug
barons, usually anonymous and absentee large landowners. The other part
consists of the many small and medium-scale farmers whose coca or poppy
fields are their only means of support. During the eighties and nineties,
due to a fall in prices of Colombian export products on the international
market, and to circumstances peculiar to the internal conflict that
fostered a new land concentration (a genuine process of agrarian
counter-reform), rural conditions, which were already bad to begin with,
deteriorated even more. Floods of peasants displaced by absolute poverty or
by the ongoing military conflict, and forced to seek economic alternatives,
found refuge in the production of illicit farming.

Aerial spraying destroys this survival and security web. This was amply
demonstrated when 240,000 coca farmers took part in protest marches held
between July and September 1996.

Aerial spraying indiscriminately destroys the few serious attempts to
provide legal alternatives for coca farmers through alternative development
programs. Together with coca hectares, their homes, families and legal
crops are also fumigated. Testimonies abound concerning the physical
destruction of alternative development projects caused by spraying. Asides
from the material damage, this policy completely eliminates any possibility
of reaching a climate of trust and cooperation in the participating
communities, something that is indispensable for the adequate
implementation of development programs. This widely illustrates that
spraying and alternative development strategies are simply incompatible.