Introduction
Pesticides have been widely documented
to have deleterious effects on health and the environment,
and research efforts have been done all across the globe
to examine the effects of pesticides on people’s
health in the work place and in communities1,2,3. In the
Philippines, community monitoring activities have been
done mostly in the rural areas. One particular study was
done in the village of Kamukhaan, Davao del Sur. Several
cases of poisoning, sickness, and death have occurred
ever since a banana plantation moved in next to the community,
exposing the village to large doses of pesticides the
plantation used to grow its cash crop.4
Although studies have been done to monitor the health
of people in plantations and farming communities, at present
there seems to be little or no studies on pesticide practices
in research institutions in the country. This study attempts
to explore the effects of pesticide practices and pesticide
exposure on workers who formerly worked for a scientific
institution, namely, IRRI.
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is an
agricultural research and training organization based
in the Philippines. The Institute has laboratories and
training facilities on a 252-hectare experimental farm
on the main campus of the University of the Philippines
Los Banos. IRRI employs hundreds of scientific and support
staff, 95% of whom are Filipinos. 5
According to IRRI, its main goal is “to find sustainable
ways to improve the well-being of present and future generations
of poor rice farmers and consumers while at the same time
protecting the environment”.5 The research center
was established supposedly “to help poor rice farmers
in developing countries grow more rice on less land using
less water, less labor, and fewer chemical inputs”.
In line with this, IRRI developed the first semi-dwarf
breeding lines for rice in the mid-1960s. Pushed by international
institutions, governments, and large agrochemical companies,
the new grain varieties rapidly engulfed farming systems
and triggered the so-called “Green Revolution”.5
During this time, IRRI’s researches and promotion
of High-Yielding Varieties (HYVs) resulted in small farmers’
intensive use of pesticides. In the Philippines, pesticide
importation grew fivefold from 1972 to 1978 alone.6
Over the years, rice scientists have incorporated elements
of resistance to major insects and diseases in successive
modern varieties.5 Last year, IRRI announced that a re-engineered
variety of high-yield, pest resistant rice was ready for
distribution to farmers. The NPT (New Plant Type), as
it was called, was claimed to have substantially higher
yield and supposedly needs fewer chemicals to protect
it from pests and diseases.7
IRRI also claimed to have embarked on a campaign last
year to reduce the use of pesticides in rice production,
in the wake of studies that showed that the chemicals
cause more damage than benefits. Citing a 1995 report
titled: “The impact of pesticides on farmer health:
a medical and economic analysis of the Philippines”
by P.L. Pingali, the IRRI said that the value of crops
lost to pests is lower than the cost of treating diseases
caused by pesticides. 8
“The health costs incurred by farmers exposed to
pesticides are 61 percent higher than those of farmers
who are not exposed,” it said.8
At the IRRI’s main experimental farm, IRRI claimed
to have reduced pesticide use by 60 percent.9
However, the militant Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
(KMP), a farmer group with chapters all over the country,
hit IRRI for “hypocrisy” in its campaign against
the use of pesticides in rice production. The KMP said
the campaign was just a public relations strategy of bio-tech
companies to generate public acceptance for genetically-engineered
(GE) seeds and food in favor of gene giants and agrochemical
transnational corporations (TNCs). KMP chair Rafael Mariano
said IRRI promotes GE seeds and relies on financing from
chemical pesticide-producing countries where major pesticide
manufacturers and agrochemical TNCs like Monsanto of the
US and Syngenta of Switzerland are based.6
A local congressman also expressed doubts that IRRI’s
sophisticated farming technology is really helping promote
food security. He questioned whether the institution was
catering to the needs of the Filipinos or only being used
by foreign countries, represented by agro-chemical TNCs.
The congressman asked why the Philippines keeps on importing
rice when the country is supposed to be the “kitchen”.
He observed that many students from other countries come
here to be trained by the Filipino scientists and yet
their countries are the ones exporting rice to the Philippines.10
Another farmer group, the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para
sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) or Farmer Scientist
Partnership for Agricultural Development, also said the
IRRI has not been successful in achieving food sufficiency
in Asia despite pushing research for genetic engineering
to the detriment of small farmers. Because of this, farmers’
groups have asked President Macapagal-Arroyo to abolish
IRRI. 10
The farmers groups also urged the President to look carefully
into the mandate of IRRI, especially its “immunity”
from being accountable to any serious accidents or complaints
from workers. Rafael Mariano from the KMP said IRRI has
not been made accountable for the deaths of at least 215
former workers and other members of the community since
1975. Presidential Decree No.1620 gives IRRI a “diplomatic
status” thus, its activities, whether in research
or labor practices, could not be made to undergo litigation.11
This study attempts to look deeper beneath
the claims and the public relations images that were created
by IRRI and government pronouncements by going to the
IRRI workers themselves and eliciting their experiences
and views about the institution.
The objectives of this study are:
1. To determine the pesticide practices in IRRI .
2. To document the effects of pesticide practices and
exposure on the health of former IRRI workers .
Methodology
Initial Engagement with the Community
Prior to the actual survey, PAN(Pesticide Action Network)
Philippines and IOHSAD (Institute for Occupational Health,
Safety and Development) conducted a series of consultations
with several groups, including the former IRRI workers
union, BISSIG, and conducted community consultations,
focus group discussions, and medical missions in the Barangay
Paciano Rizal wherein most former IRRI workers were living.
A questionnaire was developed and pre-tested.
Place and Duration of the Survey
The research was conducted in the province
of Laguna. The main target were the communities in Bay
and Los Baños where most of the former IRRI workers
resided. The actual survey took about six (6) months (June-Nov,
200) which was conducted by BISSIG volunteers and IOHSAD
staff.
The project was undertaken through the collected efforts
of PAN-Philippines, IOHSAD, and BISSIG. PAN Asia Pacific
provided the financial support. PUMALAG and other provincial
organizations affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas
(KMP) or Peasant Movement of the Philippines and Kilusang
Mayo Uno (KMU) or May 1st Movement rendered the much needed
assistance in organizing.
Validation and Review
After the actual gathering of information,
IOHSAD staff then reviewed all data, ensuring that questionnaires
were properly accomplished. Validation was done through
focus group discussions and repeat interviews. Encoding
and processing of data were done at the IOHSAD office.
Results
Personal Data
There were eighty-eight (88) respondents,
all whom were former IRRI workers. Only three (3) women
were included. Majority (95.5%) of the respondents were
married. Some of them (9.1%) were in their mid-40s.
Among the respondents, six (6) were able to reach college
level, while thirty-one (31) or 35.2% have attained secondary
education. Twelve (12) or 13.6% finished primary education
while four (4) did not have any formal education. Some
did not elaborate their educational attainment.
Employment Background
A greater number of respondents have been
with IRRI for more than twenty (20) years. Fourteen respondents
(15.9%) have served IRRI for twenty-two (22) years. Most
respondents (94.3%) were categorized as core-regular workers.
Forty-seven (47) or 53.4% attested that IRRI was their
first job while about 26.1% were previously employed in
research facilities of the University of the Philippines
in Los Banos (UPLB) prior to their employment in IRRI.
Seven (about 8.0%) respondents were engaged in livelihood
farming.
Forty-seven (47) respondents, comprising about 53.4%,
were classified by IRRI as field workers in central research
farm (CRF), eleven (11) were deployed in the central experimental
station while six (6) were from administration department,
four (4) from entomology and three (3) from mechanical
unit. Six (6) respondents revealed that they were classified
as pesticide applicators. The remainders were from agronomy,
physical plant, ground maintenance, plant breeding, rat
control, soil microbiology, and other experimental units.
(See Figure 1)
Work Description
All respondents were assigned to work in
the experimental field for eight (8) hours performing
various manual chores. (See Table 1)
Ten (10) respondents or 11.4% stated that they have been
doing the abovementioned tasks for five (5) years while
seven (7) or 8.0% disclosed that they have been performing
various tasks for ten (10) years. In addition, twenty-eight
(28) or 31.75% of the respondents confirmed that they
have been in the field for more than ten (10) years, while
eight (8) of them were detailed for eighteen (18) years
or more.
Training and Safety Precaution
Training and/or work orientation were not
sufficiently provided by IRRI management to field workers.
In fact, thirty-eight (38) respondents or 43.2% divulged
that they were not given any training and/or orientation
while twelve (12) or 13.6% said that they have undergone
training for less than a day. On the other hand, twenty-one
(21) or 23.9% workers stressed that training was conducted
in less than a week while fifteen (15) respondents emphasized
that training for more than a week was given to them.
Regarding specific training and/or orientation that should
have been provided by IRRI, results are categorized based
on the details and/or disclosure of former IRRI workers.
(See Table 2 and Figure 2)
When asked regarding exposure to any hazard element and/or
dangerous condition in their workplace, twenty-one (21)
workers did not give any response while 49.4% said no.
On the other hand, twenty-three (23) respondents or 26.4%
indicated that they were prone to hazardous elements in
the field but in varying times.
Pre-employment Medical Examination
As part of employment requisites in IRRI, seventy-two
(72) or 82.8% out of eighty-eight (88) respondents said
that they underwent physical examination wherein workers
had chest x-ray, liver tests, and ECG. Upon regularization,
workers were scheduled for an annual medical examination.
Numerous medical examinations were conducted for workers
depending upon the results of their previous medical examination,
as a work requirement or as requested by their immediate
supervisor. (See Table 3 and Figure 3)
Chemical and/or Pesticide Exposure
The names of the pesticides mentioned by
the respondents used at IRRI during the period of their
employment include the following:
1. ENDRIN(endrin)
2. AZODRIN(monocrotophos)
3. FURADAN(carbofuran)
4. GRAMOXONE(paraquat)
5. ROUND-UP(glyphosate)
6. HYTOX(isoprocarb)
7. 2-4 D(2-4 D)
8. METHYL BROMIDE
9. DECIS(deltamethrin)
10. MALATHION(malathion)
11. HOPCIN(b-p-methylcarbamate)
12. BASUDIN(diazinon)
13. MACHETE(butachlor)
14. THIODAN(endosulfan)
15. BRODAN(chlorpyrifos)
16. BENLATE(benomyl)
17. SEVIN(carbaryl)
18. BRESTAN(triphenyltin)
19. ZINOGAS(zinc phosphide)
Respondents were also asked to narrate
the number of hours/days of their actual exposure to pesticides
in the course of their employment. Results are summarized
based on individual statements (See Tables 4&5, and
Figures 4&5). The manner of exposure to pesticides
in the conduct of their work in the field was also explored,
as shown in Table 6 and Figure 6.
Sixty-nine (69) respondents or 78.4% were directly exposed
to pesticides in the field. Fifty-four (54) or 61.4% further
revealed that they were not given any orientation regarding
the ill effects of pesticides to health and how to avoid
such risk. Their only consolation was the fact that a
shower was provided for them.
Regarding protective/safety suits, workers disclosed that
not all gadgets were provided by IRRI as indicated by
the data obtained (See Table 7 and Figure 7). It was only
in the late-80s that safety gadgets and/or protective
suits were provided for pesticide applicators.
To further broaden the context of pesticide exposure,
respondents were asked to elaborate their working habits
during and after the course of work while applying and/or
using pesticides (See Table 8&9 and Figures 8&9).
Aside from pesticides, respondents were
asked about their exposure to other hazardous elements
in the course of their employment in IRRI. Details of
answers are summarized in Table 10 and Figure 10. Forty-two
(42) respondents or 47.7% stated that they were also exposed
to pesticides in their home and/or farm since most of
them are former tenants/farmers. Forty (40) or 45.5% of
the respondents also disclosed that they were exposed
to pesticides in their previous job before working in
IRRI. Most of these workers were once employed in researched
facilities at the University of the Philippines in Los
Banos, Laguna.
Health-Related Problems
Subsequent to pesticide exposure in the field, fifty-five
(55) respondents or 62.5% reported ill effects of pesticides
and/or chemicals. Complaints frequently mentioned include:
? Severe headache
? Dizziness
? Skin rashes
? Soggy eyes
? Motion sickness
? Numbness
? Muscle pain
? Trembling
? Vomiting
? Chest pain
? Cough
? Hyperacidity
In addition, fifty-eight (58) respondents
or 65.9% claimed that they suffered serious illness in
the course of their employment in IRRI.
Among the illnesses mentioned were the following:
1. ABDOMINAL CYST
2. ACCIDENT
3. CATARACT
4. ACUTE APPENDICITIS
5. ACUTE POISONING
6. BRONCHITIS
7. CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME
8. DIABETES
9. PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS
10. SEVERE DIARRHEA
11. PARALYSIS
12. INFLUENZA
13. GALLBLADDER STONES
14. HEART AILMENT
15. HEPATITIS A
16. HEPATITIS B
17. HYPERTENSION
18. KIDNEY FAILURE
19. INGUINAL HERNIA
20. KIDNEY INFECTION
21. MILD STROKE
22. PARKINSON’S DISEASE
23. PNEUMONIA
24. SCROTAL CYST
25. BLINDNESS
26. RHEUMATISM
27. LOSS OF HEARING
28. SCHISTOSOMIASIS
29. NON-HODGEKIN’S LYMPHOMA
30. THYROID CYST
31. THYROID NODULES
32. TYPHOID FEVER
33. ASTHMA
34. MISCARRIAGE
35. RESPIRATORY AILMENT
36. KIDNEY STONES
37. HEART DISEASE
38. APPENDECTOMY
39. HERNIOTOMY
40. STIFF HANDS AND FEET
41. TONSILITIS
42. WEAK LUNGS
Other Factors
Seventy-nine (79) or 89.8% of the respondents
strongly stressed that they didn’t have any serious
illness or health problem prior to their employment in
IRRI. However, 71 respondents or 80.7% also admitted to
smoking cigarettes and drinking liquor during their employment
at IRRI.
Sixty-nine (69) respondents or 78.4% indicated that they
were taking several medicines when they were still employed
in IRRI while twenty (20) workers acknowledged having
a child with congenital abnormalities.
Among the abnormalities mentioned were the
following:
1. CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE
2. MENTAL RETARDATION
3. PHYSICAL DEFORMITY
4. PARALYSIS
5. GANGLION DISEASE
6. ASTHMA
7. BLUE BABY
8. MENINGITIS
9. PREMATURE BABY
10. RHEUMATIC HEART DISEASE
Among the pesticides used by IRRI that are
known to be genotoxic, embryotoxic, or endocrine disruptor
are the following:
1. ENDRIN(endrin)
2. THIODAN(endosulfan)
3. FURADAN(carbofuran)
4. 2-4 D (2-4 D)
5. DECIS(deltamethrin)
6. BENLATE(benomyl)
7. BRODAN(chlorpyrifos)
8. METHYL BROMIDE(methyl bromide)
9. ZINOGAS(zinc phosphide)
10. GRAMOXONE(paraquat)
11. SEVIN(carbaryl)
12. BRESTAN(triphenyltin)
13. MALATHION(malathion)
Discussion
Being a well-known international agricultural
research center, IRRI has always been perceived by governments
and the general public as a responsible institution providing
its workers the best conditions of work, compensation
and benefits which supposedly even went beyond the minimum
requirements set by national labor laws. Officials of
IRRI have always claimed that they employed the best techniques
and materials and that their workers were provided the
best training and education on safety measures available
at any given time. The results of this study, however,
reveal otherwise.
While only 53% of the respondents were officially designated
to work in the experimental farm, all of them, in fact,
were at one time or another, been assigned to work in
the experimental fields performing various tasks which
directly exposed them to different kinds of pesticides.
Seventy eight per cent (69) of the respondents actually
used or applied pesticides despite the fact that only
6 (6.8%) were classified as pesticide applicators. Table
6 and Figure 6 indicates the nature of exposure of the
IRRI workers to pesticides.
Contrary to the claims of IRRI officials, the former IRRI
workers were not given adequate training and/or orientation
with regards to safety precautions, particularly, with
respect to pesticide use and exposure. A large percentage
(43.2%) of the respondents indicated that they were not
given any training at all. The situation was even worse
with respect to training and/or orientation on pesticide
use. An overwhelming majority (63.6% - 69.3%) of the respondents
indicated that they did not receive training and/or orientation
on the following topics (Table 2 & Fig.2):
• Effects of pesticides and precautionary measures
• Awareness and symptoms of chemical poisoning
• Usage of personal protective outfit
• Things to do in case of pesticide-related accident
• Safe storage of pesticides
• Safe disposal of pesticide container and
• Safe usage/application of pesticide
Furthermore, the results also show that safety gadgets
such as mask, respirator, eye goggles, gloves, etc., were
not adequately provided for by IRRI and when available,
they were not used anyway most of the time (Table 9 and
Fig.9). The former IRRI workers also indicated that the
safety gadgets were made available only in the late 1980’s.
The poor worker safety practices indicate the lack of
training and inadequate safety procedures and equipment
being provided to the workers during the period of their
employment.
As may be expected from their exposure to pesticides,
the majority (62.5%) of the respondents indicated various
signs and symptoms that they frequently experienced during
their work at IRRI (See Health-Related Problems). While
a large percentage (45.5%) of the respondents also indicated
that they were also exposed to pesticides during their
previous jobs and in the household, these exposures were
much less in number, amount, intrinsic hazards, and frequency
compared to their exposure to pesticides at IRRI. It is
also significant to note that 65.9% of the respondents
revealed that they had suffered serious illnesses during
the course of their employment at IRRI and that they did
not experience such illnesses prior to their employment
at IRRI. Moreover, the actual incidence of serious illnesses
among the former IRRI workers is most likely greater than
what has been captured by this study since the mortality
cases were not covered and since long-term effects such
as cancer and other debilitating illnesses11 have not
been fully accounted for among those who are still living.
It would take life-time monitoring to capture the real
incidence of the long-term effects of their previous pesticide
exposure at IRRI. Although the former IRRI workers could
not attribute directly most of their illnesses to pesticide
exposure, it is certain that exposure to various kinds
of pesticides had something to do with the occurrence
of many of these illnesses during their stay at IRRI.
Considering the criteria for determining the association
between exposure to pesticide and illness12, it can be
reasonably argued that exposure to various pesticides
largely account for the illnesses observed among the former
IRRI workers. Previous studies done by IRRI scientists
themselves and other related studies worldwide show that
increased pesticide exposure correlates with increased
incidence of various types of illnesses. Furthermore,
available animal studies clearly demonstrate that the
pesticides used at IRRI cause different organ system abnormalities
including, among others, brain and neurologic disorders,
immune system dysfunction, reproductive disorders, congenital
abnormalities, liver and kidney diseases, blood disorders,
and cancer12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20. There is also sufficient
knowledge about the mechanism of toxicity of the pesticides
used at IRRI and there is strong biological plausibility
that the illnesses observed are the consequences of molecular
events caused by exposure to such pesticides. The intrinsic
hazard characteristics, the clear temporal relationship
and empirical evidence, including testimonial and physical
evidence, show that pesticide exposure is the most likely
cause of the high occurrence of illnesses among the former
IRRI workers. The presence of confounding variables such
as intake of medications, genetic predisposition, dietary
factors, and previous exposure to pesticides constitute
a very small contribution to the overall risk to the occurrence
the various illnesses observed. While smoking and the
possible presence of other toxic substances may significantly
contribute to the incidence of certain illnesses, the
overall picture would still point to the exposure to pesticides
used at IRRI because of the much greater strength of association
of the illnesses with pesticide exposure compared with
smoking and possible exposure to other toxic chemicals.
It is also significant to note that about 23% of the respondents
revealed having children born with abnormalities during
their stay at IRRI. While the presence of other factors
that could possibly cause the same abnormalities cannot
be excluded, exposure to pesticides known to be embryotoxic,
genotoxic, or endocrine disruptor is the most likely factor
that could explain the high occurrence of such child abnormalities12,18,20
For several years, IRRI used highly toxic
pesticides such as ENDRIN, THIODAN, AZODRIN, FURADAN,
GRAMOXONE, METHYL BROMIDE, ZINOGAS, SEVIN, BASUDIN AND
BRESTAN and exposed its workers to the various hazards
that these pesticides bring. ENDRIN, which is has been
listed among the initial 12 POPs or persistent organic
pollutants18 targeted for global elimination or phase
out under the Stockholm Convention, was used by IRRI even
at a time when its extremely toxic properties were already
known and developed countries have already begun to disallow
its use. Another extremely toxic pesticide, THIODAN, which
is chemically related to ENDRIN and also a persistent
organic pollutant, was also being used by IRRI well into
the 1990’s when some countries have already banned
or restricted its use and years after the manufacturer
of the chemical has been found guilty of submitting fraudulent
toxicologic data to regulatory authorities. Similarly,
AZODRIN, FURADAN, GRAMOXONE, ZINOGAS and METHYL BROMIDE,
all Class I pesticides, were being used by IRRI even when
it was obvious that conditions of use in the country do
not allow any “safe use”. While IRRI would
declare later that they no longer use Class I pesticides
in their research, they never acknowledged their mistake
in using these kinds of pesticides for a long time during
the so-called Green Revolution era. More significantly,
they never acknowledged their responsibility in causing
adverse health effects to the workers that they had deliberately
exposed to such highly toxic pesticides.
Despite its claim that it has been using the best available
practices, IRRI has been using pesticides, such as glyphosate
and butachlor, which have undergone very limited toxicologic
screening tests and whose toxicologic data have almost
exclusively been generated by the manufacturer itself
(which explains the fact that the reports of clinical
toxicity could not easily be extrapolated from the seemingly
innocuous laboratory toxicologic data produced by the
company). Worse, IRRI had been using a pesticide (butachlor)
which was not registered for use in its country of origin
(US).
