U.S. LAW IMPERILS COLOMBIA COCA SPRAYING

WASHINGTON, July 10 - Even as the Bush administration is trying to increase
the aerial spraying of drug crops in Colombia with herbicides, an American
law enacted in January threatens to disrupt the strategy and possibly even
halt it.

A little-noticed provision in the $15.4 billion spending measure for
government operations abroad requires that the American-backed program to
eradicate coca crops in Colombia must meet the same health and safety
standards that would apply if the herbicides were being sprayed in the
United States.

"Colombia is far away, but we are making decisions that can directly affect
the health of thousands of people there," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
the Vermont Democrat, who sponsored the new law. "The American public and
our own health agencies would not allow use of a toxic chemical like this
on this kind of scale."

The provision requires that before the program in Colombia can proceed, the
Environmental Protection Agency must certify that the spraying of a
herbicide mixture containing glyphosate from low-flying planes does "not
pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment."

The glyphosate mixture is a variety of the weed killer known by the trade
name Roundup. Although most types of Roundup used in the United States have
been found to be only mildly toxic when used according to instructions, the
compound used in Colombia has more restrictive handling instructions,
indicating a higher toxicity, and has not been widely used in this country.
It was approved for use here only in November.

An unfavorable finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could
jeopardize one of the main United States efforts to reduce the production
of cocaine, for which the coca plant is the raw material, at its source.

Experts say that assessing the impact of the spraying will be complicated
without an epidemiological study, which would be costly and difficult given
the remote and sparsely populated areas where coca is grown.

Advocates for Colombians exposed to the fumigant have charged that it
caused a variety of ill effects. They assert, moreover, that an additive
intended for use in Colombia, to make it stick to the coca plants, makes it
even more dangerous.

Congressional supporters of the spraying program said they had been
compelled to support Senator Leahy's provision or face losing the overall
spending measure, which also finances programs like aid to Israel and
Egypt, security for international embassies and AIDS prevention around the
world.

Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican, denounced the Leahy
provision as "one more roadblock that the bleeding hearts tried to throw in
front of our program." The herbicides used in Colombia are no more toxic
"than what most people use in their backyards," said Mr. Mica, who is
co-chairman of the House task force on counternarcotics.

But critics of the spraying say that is not true. The mixture used in
Colombia carries handling instructions that correspond to the highest
Environmental Protection Agency toxicity rating, Class 1, while most
Roundup products used in the United States fall into the more benign Class
3 or Class 2. Even if the product were safe, the critics say, there is no
way to ensure that it is applied according to E.P.A. standards.

"It's not the same as what you're finding on the shelf at the Home Depot,"
said Anna Cederstav, a staff scientist at Earthjustice, an environmental
law firm.

When the Environmental Protection Agency reapproved the glyphosate for use
in this country in 1993, the agency said it had "relatively low" acute
toxicity when sprayed on the skin or ingested. But, noting that it caused
high numbers of injuries to agricultural workers in California, it required
a standard precaution that workers generally not be allowed to enter areas
that have been sprayed for 12 hours.

A restriction like that would be impossible to enforce in the areas that
would be sprayed in Colombia.

Environmental Protection Agency officials, who have been studying the
matter since last spring, missed a deadline last week to present their
conclusions to the State Department, which is preparing a report on the
program's safety for Congress.

The review will not be complete for "a handful of weeks," said David
Deegan, an E.P.A. spokesman, adding, "It's pretty difficult for us to
evaluate a program in Colombia."

Lino Gutierrez, an assistant secretary of state, said the goal this year
was to fumigate 370,000 acres of coca, compared with 207,000 acres last
year. The program involves about 14 crop-dusters operated by American and
Colombian pilots or foreign contractors.

Colombia's incoming president, Alvaro Uribe, has embraced the spraying. But
so far it has had mixed results. Despite widespread spraying last year, the
amount of coca under cultivation rose by nearly 25 percent, the State
Department has reported.

State Department officials say the herbicide being used is not toxic, even
when people are directly sprayed. One official who defended the program
said he had been inadvertently sprayed with the herbicide in Colombia on 15
occasions and had suffered no adverse effects.

Still, in a statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,
advocates for Colombians who were exposed to the fumigants said the
spraying caused "gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., severe bleeding, nausea
and vomiting), testicular inflammation, high fevers, dizziness, respiratory
ailments, skin rashes and severe eye irritation."

Last year, four Colombian governors from zones with heavy coca cultivation
traveled to the United States to ask for a halt in spraying. The fumigation
program "doesn't really take into account the human being," said Ivan
Gerardo Guerrero, their spokesman. "All it cares about are satellite pictures."

The administration has also fueled suspicion about the herbicide mixture
used in Colombia by refusing to disclose its precise ingredients or discuss
how the final product is prepared. Officials say they do not want to
divulge corporate trade secrets.

But spraying opponents accuse the administration of trying to conceal other
components, known as surfactants, added for use in Colombia to help the
glyphosate to stick to the coca leaves. "We don't know what those
surfactants are," said Dr. Cederstav of Earthjustice.