UNHEALTHY WEAPONS IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

The Essence of Lying Is in Deception, Not in Words. -Modern Painters

Although we've been telling the Colombians that it's harmless and some
people in the administration probably believe what they are saying
notwithstanding ample evidence to the contrary, we are only going to
continue using it until a substitute can be manufactured in sufficient
quantities to meet our needs.

Our needs are to rid the world of cocaine and Colombia is a good place to
start.

The United States has been engaged in aerial spraying of glyphosate in
Colombia for several years in an effort to eliminate the coca plant from
Colombia. The effort has not been without its side effects.

One was to wipe out most of the crops in the town of La Hormiga. In that
town, according to its Secretary of Human Development: "They've fumigated
everything, fields and plantain rows and yucca and everything that people
need to live on." Such reports are troubling to some folks in Congress who
wonder if the United States should be destroying crops belonging to people
in other countries, even when it's being done in order to reduce the amount
of cocaine available to us and other privileged countries.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has questioned the safety of the aerial program.
He may have heard about the town of La Hormiga. He might even have heard
about Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who visited Colombia in 2000 to see how
the eradication program was going.

While watching the Colombian National Police demonstrate its new approach
to fumigating coca Mr. Wellstone and his staff found themselves fumigated.

Their fumigation happened just after the U.S. Embassy in Colombia had
circulated materials to reporters describing the "precise geographical
coordinates" used to spray coca fields.

According to embassy officials, a computer program sets precise flight
lines with a 170- foot width, leaving little room for error.

Mr. Wellstone and his staff occupied that little room. The antinarcotics
director for the Colombian National Police said: "We did not spray on the
people or on the senator." When contradicted by someone who observed the
episode he said: "What hit him was because of the wind, not because they
had the intention."

In early 2002 Mr. Leahy froze $17 million needed to enable Colombia to buy
the herbicide mixture.

For the funds to be freed, the State Department was required to certify
that the eradication program meets the regulatory controls required in the
United States and does not threaten the public's health or the environment.
Mr. Leahy said that: "There are reports of health problems and food crops
destroyed from the fumigation. Spraying a toxic chemical over large areas,
including where people live and livestock graze, would not be tolerated in
our country. We should not be spraying first and asking questions later."
On Sept. 6, the certification was released.

It was reassuring, except for the part about the eyes.

In its report to Congress, the State Department's antinarcotics bureau
concluded that the herbicides used and the manner in which applied "do not
pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment."
That came as good news to the Colombians, who up until that report may have
been somewhat concerned about its health effects. For good reason.

According to a 1993 report published by the School of Public Health at the
University of California, Berkeley, glyphosate was the third most commonly
reported cause of pesticide illness among agricultural workers. Another
study from the School of Public Health found that glyphosate was the most
commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among landscape maintenance
workers. (Both studies were based on data collected between 1984 and 1990.)
Directions on the application of glyphosate products in the United States
warn users not to use "this product in a way that will contact workers or
other persons, either directly or through drift." The military advised
soldiers who do the spraying to shower after each flight to cleanse
themselves of any residue or herbicide.

Some Colombians might have read those studies and wondered why Americans in
Colombia kept telling them it was safe. In any event, that is all history.

The State Department report concludes all is well except for the bit about
the eyes. In preparing its report, the State Department consulted with the
Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, said the health risk from spraying was
"minimal" which is good enough when the spraying is taking place in a
far-off place.

The EPA said that the product is widely used in the United States with "no
unreasonable adverse effects" although it did admit that it had the
potential for what was called "acute eye toxicity." However, the risk to
the eyes was said by the EPA to be limited to the "handlers and mixers of
the concentrated formula as opposed to the general public." The general
public probably refers to those who get sprayed. On a scale of one to four
with one being the most toxic, the spray mixture had a "category three"
toxicity level.

Notwithstanding the report's good news, an announcement accompanying it
said that the State Department intends to order a new formulation with
lower potential for acute toxicity early in September and promises to use
it as soon as it becomes available.

The spraying will not, however, be halted until it's available.

By year's end there will be 18 crop-dusting planes carrying out the aerial
spraying in an effort to help the state department achieve its goal of
killing up to 300,000 acres of coca this year. While the old stuff is being
used, peasants may want to keep their eyes closed when wandering about out
of doors.