SPRAYING IN COLUMBIA: IS IT SAFE?

Farmers Say The U.S.-Sponsored Program To Kill Drug Crops Causes Health
Problems. Officials Say There Is No Evidence But Promise Studies.

LA GRANJA, Colombia -- In this region of southwest Colombia, a song with an
unusual subject is on people's minds these days.

It's a ditty about a herbicide.

Written by Celimo Hoyos, Damned Glyphosate addresses the U.S.-sponsored
aerial eradication of illegal crops in Colombia.

"They order the spraying without looking at the calamities," says the song.
"They damage our environment and leave behind disease. . . . That's why I
damn that damned glyphosate."

It could well be referring to farmer Juan Rengifo.

Last Thursday morning, Rengifo stood amid his shriveling coffee bushes,
surveying a lost livelihood. He had no doubt what had transformed his
healthy, organically grown beans into desiccated, empty shells. Or what was
making the children living on the farm sick with skin rashes, diarrhea and
fevers.

It was, he would tell you, that cursed herbicide.

"Why does the United States do this to me?" asked Rengifo, 44, referring to
the drug-destroying crop-dusters that passed over his farm last month,
trailing a thick mist of weedkiller.

It's a question increasingly on the minds of many of his fellow farmers and
Colombia watchers around the world, including members of Congress.

Last week, the U.S. State Department, which administers aerial eradication
in Colombia, acknowledged publicly for the first time that glyphosate isn't
completely harmless. It can cause eye and skin irritation. Still, officials
say, while pilots may occasionally hit the wrong crops by mistake, no
evidence in Colombia links U.S.-supplied glyphosate to the kind of health
problems Rengifo and others claim.

Instead, U.S. and Colombian officials say the skin rashes and other
symptoms are more likely because of far stronger chemicals, including
gasoline and sulfuric acid, used to grow coca and process coca leaves into
the paste that yields cocaine.

Rengifo, however, says there was no coca on his 12-acre farm. Because he
was seeking organic coffee certification for his 26,000 coffee bushes, he
says he used neither pesticides nor herbicides.

His wife, Nubia Bubano Acosta, said she gets upset when she hears
government denials on the news. "The government says that glyphosate does
no harm, that the farmers lie, that we are apologists for drug
traffickers," she said. "But we don't lie. They are the ones who lie."

Skin Rashes, High Fevers

It was market day in the nearby town of Sucre when the spray planes came
July 21 to La Granja in the southwestern province of Cauca. Rengifo, who
was selling his produce in the town, said he saw the crop-dusters thunder
past. He never considered his farm about 20 miles away was at risk.

Days later, when his plants started drying up and the small children of
Rengifo's farm workers came down with fever, intestinal problems and skin
rashes, he says he knew he had been hit.

Patricia Garces, 16, said two days after the farm was sprayed her
1-year-old son, Hener Davidson, broke out in a rash and suffered from high
fevers.

Another child, 5-year-old Roosevelt Solano, got diarrhea.

The local health department has declared an alert and is conducting
rudimentary studies of the effects of the most recent fumigation in
southern Cauca, where an estimated 17,000 acres of coca and poppies, used
to make heroin, are grown.

Public health officials are keeping a medical history of three segments of
the population: sample groups of schoolchildren, pregnant women and adult
men who work in the fields.

So far, most of the health problems have been seen in children, said Dr.
Milton Guzman, public health director in the provincial capital, Popayan.

"These are minor ailments, and, in all cases, have been treated
adequately," Guzman said, noting children also have suffered headaches and
pink eye.

He is concerned about the possible long-term health effects that could take
years to emerge.

Physicians in Cauca, for example, have noticed a surprising rate of
leukemia in children born since the aerial spraying began in 1994.

"Some say that (glyphosate) does nothing; others say yes it does," Guzman
said. "The point is we don't know. But because it is not clear, it is a
risk to the population."

Guzman is asking the Public Health Ministry to declare a health emergency
in the province to free up funds to conduct studies.

Study of Spraying Planned

Opponents of aerial spraying, meanwhile, have called for a halt to the
program while tests are being conducted. In an effort to reassure people of
its safety, the United States is sponsoring a series of health studies in
Colombia.

If the studies find any negative effect on public health, the spray policy
might be reconsidered, according to Rand Beers, the assistant secretary of
state who helps to oversee U.S. anti-drug policy in Colombia.

"What we would be looking for is long-term serious effect, or severe, acute
effect. . . . If it were a mild rash that went away in five days, that
would be of less concern, not no concern, but less concern to us than
something that persisted," Beers said.

He said officials also are reviewing a program of compensation for farmers
whose crops are sprayed by mistake or have taken ill because of the spraying.

While Cauca and other coca- and poppy-growing areas have been fumigated
occasionally since the early 1990s, health complaints had not become
widespread until now.

Colombian and U.S. government officials suggest leftist rebels opposed to
the spraying program could be behind the complaints. Beers also suggested
people are making up illnesses because they're losing money as a result of
eradication.

"There are very dark interests at work," said Colombian National Narcotics
Director Gabriel Merchan, who oversees counter-drug programs.

To counter the negative publicity, Merchan said the government wants to use
international auditing experts to monitor the spray program. He suggested a
far more likely explanation for the health problems were the chemicals
peasants use in the illegal production of cocaine and heroin.

"We have proof that the great majority of complaints are the effects of
illicit agro-chemical use in drug production." He added that others
complaining of eye irritation "were working on their (drug) plots when they
were sprayed."

Beers agreed. "The individuals themselves are dealing with a set of
chemicals that are quite harsh in terms of toxicity, and that has to be
taken into account in terms of what's going on there."

Merchan added that the spray technology was so precise "we have minimized
errors to a maximum." Targets are carefully selected, he said, using the
latest satellite imagery, and pilots are then given precise coordinates of
where the illegal crops are.

He said rules for spraying were being strictly enforced, including a
2,200-yard "no-spray zone" around towns and villages.

"We don't spray small farmers. We know exactly where the industrial
plantations are," Merchan said.

Merchan confirmed spray planes were operating in the Cauca area on July 21,
targeting poppy fields. As far as he knew no legal crops were hit, casting
doubt on the veracity of Rengifo's story.

After seeing what happened to his farm, Rengifo said it was clear the
system doesn't work.

"If that's what the satellites are telling them," he said, "then they have
some adjustments to make."

A Stronger Weedkiller

Critics offer their own explanation for the health problems: an intensified
aerial spraying program. Since the launch last year of Plan Colombia, a
U.S.-backed offensive on drug crops, police have destroyed 124,000 acres of
coca and 23,000 acres of poppy.

Activists also point to changes in the chemical mix used in the eradication
program.

The main ingredient in the cocktail is glyphosate, a common backyard
herbicide invented by the U.S. biotech company Monsanto. The company sells
it commercially in the United States under the brand name Roundup.

Monsanto will not discuss its sales of Roundup to Colombia. Although it
won't say why, U.S. officials confirmed senior executives at the company
have received death threats from Colombian drug-trafficking interests.

But Monsanto defends its product. Roundup is the best-selling agricultural
chemical ever produced, with $2.8-billion in sales last year.

"Roundup has a long history of safe use when used according to directions,"
company spokeswoman Janice Armstrong said.

U.S. and Colombian officials say glyphosate is one of the world's safest
and most effective weedkillers. The Environmental Protection Administration
approved it for general use in the United States in 1974.

But the St. Petersburg Times has learned that since 1998, the Colombian
spray program has been using a more modern advanced form of a glyphosate
mix known as Roundup Ultra.

According to Colombian sociologist Ricardo Vargas, who has studied the
aerial eradication program since the early 1990s, the new formula is having
a far more devastating effect on crops.

"Before, the glyphosate didn't seem to be so effective," Vargas said. "Now,
when I visit areas of fumigation, it's like someone poured gasoline and lit
a match."

U.S. officials deny there has been any significant change to the chemical
solution.

Former U.S. ambassador to Colombia Myles Frechette, however, confirmed
there were problems with glyphosate in the mid 1990s. As a mist, it was
subject to winds and to rain and wasn't getting enough leaf penetration.

At the time, the embassy came under pressure from Washington to use other
forms of herbicides that were more effective.

To make matters worse, Monsanto was beginning to get cold feet after the
death threats began. So, the State Department contacted other companies.
Alternative chemicals were discussed. The embassy considered using
chemicals that could be dropped as pellets, which would go to the root of
the plant, as well as a highly toxic pesticide, tebuthiuron, and a
controversial fungus, fusarium. But Colombian officials balked.

The problem was soon resolved, however.

When Monsanto's patent for glyphosate expired in the late 1990s, other
companies were free to produce it. Feeling less threatened, the company
began shipping to Colombia via an outlet in Hungary.

By 1996, Monsanto had developed Roundup Ultra. Colombian authorities also
began enhancing the herbicide with soapy additives, known as surfactants,
that weigh down the glyphosate. This is done to prevent wind drift over
non-targeted areas, as well as allowing for better penetration in the
leaves of the coca and poppy plants.

Experts warn that surfactants can be highly corrosive, depending on the
concentration. In fact, Monsanto product labels specifically warn users of
Roundup Ultra: "Do not add surfactants."

"Some surfactants can cause foliar (leaf) injury to crops," Armstrong said.
"So by restricting surfactants we were avoiding potential crop injury
problems."

Asked if there could be adverse health effects for humans if surfactants
are added, she said, "It totally depends on what the surfactant is, what
its chemical make-up is, and what strength it is being used at."

According to U.S. and Colombian officials the amount of surfactant used is
minuscule. Even so, concern over the manner in which Roundup Ultra is being
used in Colombian counter-drug spraying recently prompted the makers of one
of the surfactant ingredients to halt the use of its product.

The British company, Imperial Chemical Industries, said the ingredient,
Atplus 300F, had not been properly tested for use in aerial eradication of
crops.

"It was not designed for that purpose," said ICI spokesman, John Edgar, in
a telephone interview from London.

U.S. officials stress the surfactant being used in Colombia, Cosmo Flux, is
made up of a dozen harmless ingredients.

Scientists say it certainly looks that way.

"From a chemists' point of view the ingredients don't look very reactive,"
said Susan Kegley, a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network in San
Francisco.

"You need something to create a chemical reaction, and I don't see it," she
said.

But Kegley said evidence of health problems in Colombia indicated something
was wrong.

"It is puzzling to me. It seems they are adding something and not telling
us, or the (skin) rash is being caused by acid burns from the surfactant,"
she said.

Surfactants are soapy products that allow water and oil to mix, thereby
allowing the glyphosate to penetrate the wax coating on plant leaves.
Health officials in Cauca wonder if it could have the same effect on human
skin.

"If it is better absorbed in the plants, it may also more easily absorb in
the skin," said Guzman, the local health official.

Besides the health of his children, Rengifo is left wondering how he's
going to feed his family.

Although some of his neighbors tend small plots of coca or opium poppies on
their farms to supplement their income, Rengifo said he never has. He was
encouraged to plant organic coffee by a United Nations-sponsored
alternative agriculture program. But now he said he may have no choice but
to do as his neighbors.

"Otherwise," he said, "how will we survive?"