Kenya should do away with harmful pesticides

The risk of runoff of pesticides to our rivers, streams and lakes is high.

I recently tabled a petition in Parliament, calling for the withdrawal of harmful active ingredients in pesticides on sale in the Kenyan market.

The petition, drafted by Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, Kenya Organic Agriculture Network, Resources Oriented Development Initiatives and Route to Food Initiative, has elicited considerable debate.

Unfortunately, a significant number of media reports have gross inaccuracies about the content and intent of the petition. 

To begin with, it does not call for a blanket ban on pesticides as alleged in some articles. Neither does it call for a ban on most pesticides.

Rather, the petitioners have called for the withdrawal of specific active ingredients in the Kenyan market that are certainly classified as carcinogenic (45 products), mutagenic (31 products), endocrine disrupting (51 products), neurotoxic (175 products) or having clear effects on reproduction (360 products).

While it is shocking that 33 per cent of active ingredients on sale in Kenya have been withdrawn from the European Union due to their chronic health and negative environmental effects, these hardly represent most pesticides.

There are 235 products (27 per cent) out of 862 registered products that contain active ingredients, which are withdrawn from the European market.

Farmers will still have a wide array of products to select from even after those that are clearly harmful to our health and environment are removed.

6,400 tonnes

According to the 2018 annual report published by the Agro-chemicals Association of Kenya, the volume of imported pesticides, herbicides and fungicides has more than doubled within four years from 6,400 tonnes in 2015 to 15,600 tonnes in 2018.

This is equivalent to a 144 per cent increase.

It is not apparent that this significant growth is matched by robust data collection on how the pesticides are used, the concentration of pesticides in water, soil and food and related impacts.

One of the main concerns of the petitioners is that the ordinary smallholder farmer in Kenya cannot use pesticides in the manner prescribed by manufacturers – the so-called ‘safe use’.

Personal protection equipment such as masks, gloves, chemical-resistant coveralls and footwear are too expensive for the majority of the farmers.

In addition, with most land holdings being less than two acres, some mitigation measures prescribed by manufacturers such as buffer zones, are not practical.

The risk of runoff of pesticides to our rivers, streams and lakes is high as smallholder farms are often situated along hill slopes and close to water ways.

Exposure risk

It is worth noting that agriculture employs more than 40 per cent of Kenya’s population and more than 70 per cent in rural areas. By comparison, in Europe, less than five per cent of the population is employed in agriculture.

This means the exposure risk here affects a far larger segment of the populace.

Cognisant of the farming system context in Kenya, the petitioners also call for the strengthening of the monitoring system on pesticide use as well as increased data collection of food samples in the market to assess levels of pesticide residues.

Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services has failed to regularly publicise this information, raising doubts about its vigilance.  

The petitioners further recommend that the Government makes it mandatory for Pest Control Products Board to assess data on environment and human health impacts during the registration and re-registration process of products in Kenya.

Some opponents of our petition have argued that we should take comfort in the fact that pesticides sold here have been tested and approved in their countries of origin.

If this was the case, 33 per cent of the active ingredients withdrawn from the European market, would not be available for use in Kenya. Over-reliance on foreign regulation is problematic.

A poignant illustration of this is the recent judgements in the US against major pesticide companies where a causal link between some of their products and cancer has been proven.

Responsibility for Kenyan lives should not be outsourced. Our authorities need to be informed of global research on the health and environmental effects of pesticides, whilst keeping in mind the Kenyan farming and consumer context. Local research is essential too, particularly on usage data and impact assessments.

In a context where Africa represents less than 6 per cent of global pesticide sales–meaning the continent is the next big market for profit-centric agro-chemical companies–our policymakers must be vigilant to protect Kenya’s food and farmers' sovereignty.

 

Ms Shollei is Uasin Gishu Woman Rep