Are you still using pesticides?

Published in Poisons Beware

It's time to wise up! Look around, what's happening?

Save the bees! Save the bees! Vivian Grisogono

Life (and death) on Hvar

Hvar Island should be one of the healthiest places to live. However, ill-health is rife, with cancers, thyroid problems and neurological illnesses in alarmingly high numbers in such a small population. There are evident hormone problems, such as premature menopause in teenage girls, and difficulties breast-feeding in young mothers. Some of the ill-health is undoubtedly linked to the high incidence of smoking on the island. Environmental factors affecting soil quality, food production and the air that we breathe are also likely to be responsible. Environmental depletion is visible year on year throughout Hvar Island. In populated and cultivated areas there are fewer butterflies, fewer insects, fewer birds and much fewer bats. Fishermen complain that there are fewer fish. Bee-keepers in 2016 have even reported a lack of honey.

Hvar's bees are under increasing threat. Bumblebee with wildflower, March 2016. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Are chemical pesticides to blame? It is more than likely. Glyphosate, the active substance in Roundup/Cidokor, which is widely used on the island, has been strongly implicated in cancers, especially prostate and breast cancer, as well as Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, not to mention innumerable other health and environmental problems.

Words and deeds

Hvar islanders pride themselves on the island's reputation for clean air, sea and land. It's something they take for granted. Asked whether they produce their wine, olive oil, fruits and vegetables organically, the majority of islanders will answer 'Yes'.

Hvar's red earth, freshly tilled, January 2016. Healthy produce depends on uncontaminated soil. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

The reality doesn't always match up to the words. Chemical herbicides and insecticides are the stock-in-trade of many (perhaps most) Hvar farmers and gardeners. Many individuals use poisons of all kinds around their homes, gardens and fields. Some believe that pesticides are the best or even the only solution for the perceived problems of vermin, unwanted plants (aka weeds), and unwanted insects. Few think of, or care about the collateral damage caused. As for following instructions, well... weedkillers designed for annual use are often employed two or even three times in a year; recommended quantitites for application may be multiplied anything up to ten times; and poisons may be mixed together haphazardly for greater strength. Needless to say, any warnings about precautionary measures or possible health risks go unnoticed or ignored. The cumulative effects of the poisons inflicted on the island and its surrounding seas are building up year on year.

Local Council role

Jelsa's local Council (Općina) is not a role model for environmental awareness. We at Eco Hvar had reason to hope it might be. Some years ago, we were told that the Council had passed a Directive (odredba) under which it was forbidden to apply pesticides in public spaces. However, two years ago, Eco Hvar learned that Jelsa's little local park had been sprayed with a glyphosate-based herbicide, with hardly any warning, despite the fact that mothers take their children to play there on a daily basis. As a result of our complaint, Eco Hvar learned that the Council's Ecology Committee (Odbor za ekologiju), consisted of just a handful of people. One of them actually stated: 'the advancement of mankind depends on the use of 'plant protection products...' ' - that's a euphemism for poisonous pesticides, in case you didn't know. An astonishing assertion, typical of the compelling rhetoric spewed out on behalf of the agrochemical companies.

Jelsa's park could be greener. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Eco Hvar, naively as it turned out, assumed that reminding the Council about the Directive would be sufficient to put a stop to further unannounced pesticide applications in public spaces. In 2016, it became clear that this was not so. Eco Hvar questioned the Mayor and Council officials about the use of poisons in their area of responsibility. JELKOM, the Council company responsible for waste management and upkeep of public spaces like the local park, gave no clear answer on whether they had continued to use herbicide after the 2014 correspondence, but did admit to spraying the local park with insecticide against aphids. The reason for this action was obscure.

On April 11th 2016, Jelsa'a Mayor, Nikša Peronja, signed a statement encouraging local people to give up using dangerous pesticides. The document was produced and co-signed in collaboration with Eco Hvar, complete with official rubber stamps on both sides. It was to be put on all Council notice boards, according to the Mayor. That didn't happen. Not even on the board outside the Town Hall. Now it seems clear that the occasion was no more than a passing photo-opportunity. Meaningless in practice.

Dangerous practices

It should not have been a surprise that the Mayor's initiative was just empty words. Like the other local Councils on Hvar, Jelsa has a poor environmental record. One example is the continuing practice of distributing rat poison twice a year in flimsy cellophane bags. The instructions inside the bags are only in Croatian despite the number of foreign householders who are recipients of this largely unwanted 'gift'. Does poison solve vermin problems? No, mice and rats become resistant, leading to the inexorable rise of super-rats. There are better methods of vermin control, not least using their natural enemies, such as cats and certain terrier breeds of dog.

Rat poison, flimsy packaging. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

In fact, the rat poison Ratimor in the flimsy packaging ceased to be on the Ministry of Agriculture's Approved List in 2013.

'Ratimor' disallowed, 2013

Another pointless and dangerous practice on the island is the routine spraying of the streets in the height of the summer against mosquitoes. At least twice in the season a Dalek-like vehicle trundles round the streets in each Council area around Hvar Town, Stari Grad and Jelsa, spewing out a poisonous mist on either side. No quarter is given to pedestrians. There's no escape for any cars following the poison-emitter. The practice defies logic, it's the wrong time, wrong place.

Insecticide-spraying vehicle in Hvar Town. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Needless to say, far from solving the mosquito nuisance, Hvar is suffering from ever-increasing numbers of virulent isects as they become resistant to the insecticides. What are the poisons used? They change at intervals. In 2014, Permex 22E was used in a concentration of 12.36% - even though the official instructions recommend concentrations of 0.3-1% in water (page in Italian), or 3% in a solvent for confined areas. Eco Hvar warned the Council in August 2014 that Permex 22E was both dangerous and inappropriate. Yet in 2015 it was used again, this time in combination with two other poisons: Microfly and Twenty-one. Eco Hvar then made its concerns public.

As other local Councils on Hvar do much the same as Jelsa, the island is subjected to untold potential environmental harm on a depressingly regular basis.  

The example of Roundup (Cidokor)

Roundup (Cidokor) has been used in vast quantities on Hvar Island over many years. Roundup was banned from sale in the European Union on October 1st 2016, but it will still be in use for many months (if not years) as the ban did not comprise an immediate total recall.

The agrochemical industry has huge marketing power. Apart from going to great lengths to discredit any scientific evidence showing the harm done, the agrochemical companies exert a lot of influence through the internet. Well targeted Google ads often pop up alongside any article about agriculture. Glyphosate-based herbicides are foremost among the poisons given a benign makeover to encourage public consumption. Even paraquat (gramoxone), which was banned in Europe in 2007, is advertised in Google ads on European-based websites. Paraquat was used on Hvar, and is still widely used worldwide, although there is no doubt about its health risks, which include death. Marketing spin glosses over any unpleasant facts. It is not surprising that professional and domestic chemical pesticide users are lulled into a sense of false security about the products they are buying.

Google ad for the glyphosate website (matched with an article describing the poison's dangers!)

If you consult the 'Glyphosate Facts' website, it claims that that glyphosate can be used in all kinds of places, from private gardens to crop plantations, to 'aquatic environments' to forests; it is said to control all kinds of weeds, including the notorious Japanese knotweed. There are pictures of thriving fruit trees, butterflies, sunny fields. It's all very convincing to those who do not know about the mass of evidence showing the harm glyphosate can do. In 2001, a case was brought against Monsanto in the French courts, claiming that their advertising had misled the public on questions of environmental safety, specifically claims that their product was 'biodegradable' and 'left soil clean'. Despite two appeals, Monsanto lost the case in a final decision delivered in 2009. Undeterred, the propaganda machine rolls on, riding roughshod over such irritating setbacks. They are quickly pushed into oblivion so far as public aawareness is concerned.

Do herbicides work? What actually happens in practice?

The pictures below show a field near Pitve on Hvar Island, which was sprayed with Roundup (Cidokor) in March 2014. This was the first time the field was sprayed. It had been unattended for very many years, then ploughed up and planted with olives. The owner in fact wanted to cultivate his olives organically, but a workman took it on himself to use herbicide rather than strimming. The effect of the herbicide started to show about ten days after the application.

About 10 days after Roundup/Cidokor application, March 10th 2014. Photo Vivian Grisogono

After a couple of weeks, most of the plant growth was a burnt-out sorry-looking mess. It would be a major stretch of the imagination to describe the field as 'clean'. There were pheasants in that field until the spraying, but they disappeared straight away. Many months later, the body of one female pheasant was found (although it was not certain how she died). Two dogs who by chance were in direct contact with the herbicide fell ill with leishmaniasis, and are on long-term medication for this incurable condition. (Leishmaniasis is endemic on the island. In all the cases I have come across, the dogs were in contact with soil sprayed with herbicide. Coincidence? I for one do not believe that.)

About three weeks after application, 23rd March 2014. Photo Vivian Grisogono

A couple of months after the spraying, new growth began to appear.

Two months after application, 5th May 2014. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Another month, and the field was well covered, with bare patches of depleted earth as testimony to the effects of the herbicide. The following year, the depletion of the soil was still evident, but there was an abundance of wild growth. No pheasants though, they kept to surrounding areas which were not directly dowsed with herbicides.

Just over a year post-herbicide, 16th April 2015. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

So did the Roundup application eliminate the unwanted plants / weeds? No, obviously not. Did it cause collateral damage? Yes, undoubtedly. Are there long-term ill-effects? Pretty certainly. The person potentially most at risk is of course the workman who applied the herbicide.

Over a year post-herbicide, 4th May 2015. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

No escaping the ill-effects

Using herbicide affects much more than the target plants. The poison spreads. It is also spread around by footwear, especially if public paths are contaminated. One can see the telltale trail of yellowing plants when people walk over sprayed earth and then on to areas which have not been treated. Obviously, the poison can be transmitted in the same way into people's houses, a worrying thought, especially in homes where children play on the floor.

Path sprayed with herbicide. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Herbicides have lasting effects

Plants grow again after herbicide application. Some show the effects of the herbicide, sometimes for years afterwards. Grass, for instance, shows an unnatural yellow-orange tinge. This can happen even in areas which have not been sprayed directly, but which have been contaminated by footwear or by spray drift through the air.

Over a year after spraying: after-effects of glyphosate-based herbicide. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Cumulative harm

Of course, the manufacturers do not claim that a single application will remove unwanted plants forever. They want you to buy more. They don't tell you about the resistant plants which floourish after herbicide applications. The more attractive ones include creeping buttercup, poppies and arum lilies. For the increasingly resistant weeds, the agrochemical industry provides the stock answer: more and stronger herbicides. The Paraquat website boasts of paraquat being effective against glyphosate-resistant weeds. The weeds get tougher and tougher. Soil exposed to herbicides is more and more depleted, and remains contaminated for much longer than the manufacturers claim.

How can you trust them?

Smooth advertising spin from the agrochemical industry, coupled with official reassurances from regulators, make it seem that chemical pesticides are safe. Contrary information goes unseen. The manufacturers, of course, deny the damage which glyphosate-based herbicides are known to be associated with. To counter the agrochemical industry's well-oiled propaganda machine there would have to be a massive advertising campaign. But who would fund it?

Almond tree - probable wind-drift damage after Roundup/Cidokor application nearby, July 2014. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

It's your choice

Public health - that is yours and mine - has been put at risk for years by the use of tonnes of chemical pesticides. Every individual has the right to choose whether to use legally authorized substances or not. If you use, or intend to use chemical pesticides, BE INFORMED.

BEAR IN MIND that chemical pesticides are poisons which have not been, and cannot be proven safe. If you use them you risk your own health, the health of those around you, and that of future generations - of your children and theirs. You are also causing potential damage to the environment, ultimately creating more problems than you were trying to solve in the beginning.

THINK OF THE ALTERNATIVES. There are plenty of natural methods for controlling weeds, unwanted insects and rodents. Apart from the methods used by our forbears before chemical pesticides came into general use, you can find many different techniques on the internet.

THINK OF THE SAVINGS. Pesticides cost money. Pesticides cost health. Healthcare costs money. HEALTH IS BEYOND PRICE.

IT'S UP TO YOU!

 

© Vivian Grisogono MA(Oxon) 2016

Media

You are here: Home poisons be aware Are you still using pesticides?

Eco Environment News feeds

  • Report looks at 16 conflict areas and calls for military to stop targeting water resources

    Diarrhoea and other diseases related to poor sanitation are bigger killers of children in areas of conflict than violence and war itself, a report has found, highlighting the need for improved infrastructure as a way of helping civilian populations afflicted by warfare.

    Children under five are more than 20 times more likely to die from diarrhoeal diseases than from direct violence, according to Unicef. Henrietta Fore, the organisation’s executive director, said: “The reality is there are more children who die from lack of access to safe water than by bullets.”

    Continue reading...

  • Failure to protect wildlife, cut pollution and increase funding have left nature in ‘deep crisis’

    The UK will miss almost all the 2020 nature targets it signed up to a decade ago, according to a report by the government’s official advisers.

    The nation is failing to protect threatened species; end the degradation of land; reduce agricultural pollution; and increase funding for green schemes, the assessment concludes. It also says the UK is not ending unsustainable fishing; stopping the arrival of invasive alien species; nor raising public awareness of the importance of biodiversity.

    Continue reading...

  • The ‘Dieselgate’ scandal was suppressed for years – while we should have been driving electric cars. By Beth Gardiner

    John German had not been looking to make a splash when he commissioned an examination of pollution from diesel cars back in 2013. The exam compared what came out of their exhaust pipes, during the lab tests that were required by law, with emissions on the road under real driving conditions. German and his colleagues at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) in the US just wanted to tie up the last loose ends in a big report, and thought the research would give them something positive to say about diesel. They might even be able to offer tips to Europe from the US’s experience in getting the dirty fuel to run a little cleaner.

    But that was not how it turned out. They chose a Volkswagen Jetta as their first test subject, and a VW Passat next. Regulators in California agreed to do the routine certification test for them, and the council hired researchers from West Virginia University to then drive the same cars through cities, along highways and into the mountains, using equipment that tests emissions straight from the cars’ exhausts.

    Continue reading...

  • Rob Stewart’s followup to his 2006 feature shines a light on human cruelty – and gains power from the fate of its maker

    In the 2006 eco-doc Sharkwater, Canadian activist film-maker Rob Stewart gave us a heartfelt plea to save the planet’s sharks. He was on a mission to reduce overfishing and rehabilitate the creatures’ reputation as stone-cold killers – if only we could love sharks as much as we love cuddly pandas we’d do more to protect them. Back then, you couldn’t help feeling that Stewart wanted us to love him too, with all the shots of himself in tiny Speedos. Watching the sequel, I experienced a sharp stab of self-reproach. Stewart died in a diving accident while shooting this film – he was 37. Sharkwater: Extinction has been scrappily put together from footage he’d already shot.

    And there are some striking images here. Since the first film, many countries have banned “finning” ­– the practice of hacking off the fins then tossing the shark’s body back into the sea. But it still happens. In Costa Rica, Stewart uses a drone to film a warehouse packed with them. Shark fin soup is a delicacy in China, which drives the illegal market. And it’s not just finning that’s the problem. In California, he captures upsetting footage of a graceful thresher shark tangled up in a mile-long net intended for swordfish.

    Continue reading...

  • World Water Day study highlights lethal nature of unsafe sanitation and hygiene for children, especially under-fives

    Children under five who live in conflict zones are 20 times more likely to die from diarrhoeal diseases linked to unsafe water than from direct violence as a result of war, Unicef has found.

    Analysing mortality data from 16 countries beset by long-term conflict – including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen – the UN children’s agency also found that unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene kills nearly three times more children under 15 than war.

    Continue reading...

  • Science agency says scourge of wandering trad could be slowed by fungus, which they have called its ‘natural pathogen’

    Australia’s national science agency will release a Brazilian leaf smut fungus to target and kill an invasive weed that covers large parts of the continent’s east coast.

    Researchers from the CSIRO say the scourge of wandering trad could be slowed by the introduction of the Kordyana brasiliensis fungus, which they have called its “natural pathogen”.

    Continue reading...

  • While the ultimate goal is to stop plastics from entering the water in the first place, cleanup projects play an important role

    Somewhere in Hilo, on Hawaii’s Big Island, a team of scientists and engineers are tending to The Ocean Cleanup’s 600-metre-long rubbish-herding device, after its maiden voyage to the Great Pacific garbage patch was cut short in December 2018, because it fractured into two pieces.

    The project has had its fair share of problems since it was unveiled in May 2017 and has been criticised by marine scientists and environmental groups for its potential negative environmental impact. However, some still herald The Ocean Cleanup for having a positive effect on plastic pollution.

    Continue reading...

  • The latest study warning us to eat less meat has brought angry sceptics out in droves. But who should we believe?

    Sometimes, particularly when looking at the weekend newspapers, it can seem that our obsession with food and health has reached a pitch of pure hysteria. “Eat!” screams one headline. “Diet!” shouts another. Cut out carbohydrates, suggests one report. Carbs are good for you, says a different one. Lower your fat intake. No, fat’s healthy, sugar’s the problem. Coffee raises the risk of heart disease. But it lowers the risk of diabetes. And so on, until you just want to ditch the papers and watch The Great British Bake Off or MasterChef.

    Food, how to cook it, what it does to you and what growing or rearing it does to the planet are issues that crowd the media. And yet, as the clamour grows, clarity recedes. An estimated 820 million people went hungry last year, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. A third of all people were vitamin-deficient. Two billion were classified as overweight and 600 million as obese. It’s also estimated that 1bn tonnes of food are wasted every year – a third of the total produced. A plethora of academic reports concerning food consumption and production have been published in recent years. The latest and arguably the most far-reaching is Food in the Anthropocene:the Eat-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems, which was conducted over three years by 37 senior scientists from around the world and published earlier this year.

    Continue reading...

  • Scientists say a drastic cut in meat consumption is needed, but this requires political will

    It has been known for a while that the amount of animal products being eaten is bad for both the welfare of animals and the environment. People cannot consume 12.9bn eggs in the UK each year without breaking a few.

    But the extent of the damage, and the amount by which people need to cut back, is now becoming clearer. On Wednesday, the Lancet medical journal published a study that calls for dramatic changes to food production and the human diet, in order to avoid “catastrophic damage to the planet”.

    Continue reading...

  • The continent’s largest land mammal plays crucial role in spiritual lives of the tribes

    On 5,000 hectares of unploughed prairie in north-eastern Montana, hundreds of wild bison roam once again. But this herd is not in a national park or a protected sanctuary – they are on tribal lands. Belonging to the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, the 340 bison is the largest conservation herd in the ongoing bison restoration efforts by North America’s Indigenous people.

    The bison – or as Native Americans call them, buffalo – are not just “sustenance,” according to Leroy Little Bear, a professor at the University of Lethbridge and a leader in the bison restoration efforts with the Blood Tribe. The continent’s largest land mammal plays a major role in the spiritual and cultural lives of numerous Native American tribes, an “integrated relationship,” he said.

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds