Are we being poisoned was the question we first posed some time ago in the Riebeek Valley Reporter in response to stories that the Municipality were spraying verges in the Valley with Roundup and other toxic chemicals. The question was subsequently broadened to encompass the spraying of crops with fungicides and pesticides (referred to here collectively as pesticides). After many meetings, much talk and a TV programme the time has come to see what has, or has not, been achieved so far.

An ad hoc committee was established to discuss problems and to, hopefully, resolve issues. On this committee were representatives of two camps. On the one side farmers and their advisors who maintained that they were operating legally within strict legislation (and the rigorous requirements of their customers, such as Tesco, in the UK). The chemicals were poisonous but used in the way recommended did not pose a significant threat to any one. On the other side sat concerned residents. A number of them were convinced that they were being poisoned by the farmers. To back up their case large amounts of research information - much gleaned from the internet - was produced.

During lengthy discussions various things became clear. Paramount amongst these was lack of communication. Farmers have been very bad at telling people what they are doing and why. Hopefully this will improve in the future. But this is not the only problem.

Farmers complained that residents failed to look after their gardens. This resulted in them becoming havens for the breeding of pests - particularly fruit fly. Because of this more spraying was necessary.

In all operations mistakes can, and do, occur. Pictures were shown of houses being drenched in spray. (The law states that pesticide spray should not be allowed to drift over residential properties. This looks fine in print but in practice can be difficult. It can take some time to spray a field. The wind can get up or change blowing spray in unexpected directions. Once a tank load of spray has been mixed it goes "off". Dumping is not a realistic option - so once a tank has been filled spraying must be continued until the tank is empty.) Naturally residents are highly concerned since, in most cases, they have no idea what is being sprayed or its effect on them or their environment.

Residents produced papers showing that the substances being sprayed were highly toxic while the farmers countered that there should not be a problem given the low concentration of active ingredient used.

The question inevitably arose as to what farmers and residents are trying to achieve. In the case of the farmers the answer is simple - profit from a commercial operation (1.5 million boxes of fruit are produced in the Valley each year). They are big employers (over 3000 workers at peak times), on which the local economy depends, operating in a highly competitive environment where margins are very low. In the case of the residents many have come to live in the country to escape urban pollution. Crop spraying has come as a bit of a shock. The country is not as clean as they thought. While people have an absolute right not be poisoned as a result of spraying (or anything else come to that) the matter must be put in context. There is also pollution from automotive exhausts, aerosols, pesticides, paint etc used in the home, emissions from cell phones and other electronic gadgets and, in spite of warnings, many smoke. Some suggest that there should be a spraying exclusion zone round residential areas - 3000 metres we read in one paper. An exclusion zone of this size would annihilate the South African fruit industry but a pollution free environment would not be created.

So where does the truth lie? Are we being poisoned? Let us start with the farmers. If there is a problem arising from the spraying of crops those most likely to be affected are farm workers. Overseas customers require that workers are properly trained and auditors are employed to keep a wary eye on what is going on. Those handling sprays are issued with protective clothing. In spite of the auditors and training, this is often not worn since it is cumbersome and hot and it restricts movement. This must make the operatives even more vulnerable but they do not seem to be affected. There are isolated cases of farm workers dying inexplicably but there appears to be no real evidence to show that farm workers are suffering from any particular disease in abnormal numbers (in the Valley at least). Additionally frequent blood tests are carried out by farmers to test the levels of cholene esterase. This is the enzyme the body uses to detoxify itself after contamination - the more a person has been exposed, the less enzyme is left. But it seems that no workers have had to be taken off pesticide work in recent years because of low enzyme levels. This suggests that the farmers are right in proclaiming that there is not a problem.

On the other hand claims made by some residents seem to be suspect. One of the chief activists who is seeking to ban/modify the use of pesticides is Jurgen Shirmacher who lives in Kloof Street, Riebeek Kasteel. He was featured (along with others) in a Carte Blanche (a popular South African current affairs TV programme) piece called Poisoned Fruit. The film concerned crop spraying in Riebeek Kasteel and another venue in the north of the country. The film opened as follows: Jurgen: "When you get a phone call from your wife to say that your child has died - that he is dead - and you are one-and-a-half hours drive away…" Voice over: Christopher had stopped breathing - his tiny body crashed. Jurgen: "He had seizures, he had tubes everywhere, respirators, tubes into his brain." Voice over: Doctors spent 50 minutes trying to bring him back to life … miraculously he survived. Jurgen's son was certainly rushed to hospital. Seizures can occur due to a variety of circumstances but in this case crop spraying was blamed. Yet no written evidence has been produced to show that crop spray was the cause. There is something else we do not understand. His house borders a field of vines and he has been campaigning for several years. It is incomprehensible that some one who really believes that the products being sprayed onto the fields round his house are imperilling his family (to the point of death according to the above) would not move.

David Bellamy, of the Cape Francolin Art Hotel in Riebeek Kasteel, was also featured in the Carte Blanche programme. He has been implying that cancer cases in the Valley have been caused by spraying. There is nothing to substantiate this. And following aerial spraying of crops round Riebeek Kasteel with GF-120 (fruit fly control) in December 2006 he claimed that his arm had been covered with a brown substance (from the plane) while he was on his property. Dr Brian Barnes, a senior researcher at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij Stellenbosch, comments: "GF-120 was applied at a rate of 2 litres diluted product per hectare (1 litre GF-120 + 1 litre water). This translates to only 0.2ml of GF-120 per square metre with all six (spraying) nozzles (on the plane) fully open. Making the fairly liberal assumption that the area of the top surface of a human arm is about 500 cm2, the amount that could reasonably be expected to be deposited on an arm is a mere 0.1 ml. Something doesn't add up."

These are two residents in the forefront of the campaign to bring farmers to book over spraying. But the behaviour of other less prominent residents is interesting. Not only Jurgen Shirmacher's house, but a number of others, along Kloof Street in Riebeek Kasteel, border on vineyards belonging to Johann Vlok. He is one of six farmers that have fields bordering residential areas. He has offered to plant beefwood trees (a commonly used wind barrier) to shield the properties from spray. In a number of cases we understand that this offer has been declined, since the house owner prefers the view to any possible crop spraying risks.

So where do we go from here? We would like to suggest the following:

1. Farmers must tell residents what is being sprayed and in what concentration together with effects (if any) should someone accidentally be contaminated. Residents should be given a telephone number so that they can check what is being sprayed at any given time.

2. Residential property should not be sprayed. Perhaps an exclusion zone on the edge of affected fields should be agreed. Clearly the more extreme demands of residents are unrealistic in this regard (3000 metres).

3. While the concerns of residents are recognised they should not make absurd demands or unsubstantiated statements. 4. The campaign to control fruit fly and other pests in residential areas should be intensified.

Since then nothing has really happened to convince us that the overall views expressed in the above article are wrong. It seems to us that many of the chemicals used are highly toxic but are relatively harmless in the concentrations used. A bit like chlorine – a very nasty product – which diluted is used to keep swimming pools clean and in even lower concentrations to purify drinking water. A telephone number which people can ring has been established and the fruit fly campaign has been intensified. Windsocks are being erected in key positions to help those spraying avoid residential properties. Other aspects as outlined in points 1 – 4 above are still being discussed. Discussions have also been held with Biowatch – the international environmental group.

Pesticides