By Graciela Cristina Gomez
The first blunder is that the title was not touched. The phyto prefix "phytón" means vegetable, and "sanitary", is relative to sanitary practices. A term that we will never accept, is the denomination of "useful poisons" to a toxic-chemical weapon-poison, whose damage to human health is demonstrated throughout the province, reaching every corner of the country.
Much is said and little is done to reform Law 11,273, misnamed phytosanitary. We know that there is a half-sanction from 2004 that never found its half in a drawer. But reading the Opinion that the so-called Environment Commission arrived at on June 10, is to seriously analyze what the representatives of the Santa Fe people were thinking, trying to discern, what seems to confuse the most, the triptych Law-Regulatory Decree-Reform Law.
A reform without form:
They are so blinded in their inauguration that they make the grave mistake of believing that the document will only be read by some absent-minded citizen neophyte. They did not have an incisive reading, with the "crazy ecologists", and the "little green soldiers", how bad they are despite many and "I am power", we will continue to be their worst nightmare.
We heard an official wanting to lower the fumigation exclusion zone to 150 meters in the case of land sprays, and 300 meters when they are aerial. Although his resignation was requested for such an outburst, the members of the Commission seem to be his followers today.
Despite not knowing anything about drift and neurotoxicity, they had a "machete" that clarified phrases such as "post-harvest" that they seem to have captured well and applied in the first article, so as not to forget it in what follows in the article.
The first blunder is that the title was not touched. The phyto prefix "phytón" means vegetable, and "sanitary", is relative to sanitary practices. A term that we will never accept, is the denomination of “useful poisons” to a toxic-chemical weapon-poison, whose damage to human health is demonstrated throughout the province, penetrating every corner of the country.
I describe it well in my note on the World Day for the Non-Use of Pesticides, December 2007: “In the First World War Germany was blockaded and the allies prohibited the importation of Chilean saltpeter and other nitrogen fertilizers that could be used in the manufacture of explosives . When the war ended the Germans had a huge stock of nitrates, which no one wanted anymore. The chemical industry recycled them and imposed them on the farmer. This is how nitrogenous fertilizers were born. Agriculture was a kind of garbage dump. ”(1)
This is the genius they claim to regulate:
They say to modify 14 articles of Law 11,273: (1-2-3-8-11-12-13-15-19-22-23-32-33-34 and one is added: 35 bis), but in reality only the names of already disappeared entities are changed to the current names, it refers to other articles or laws, one word or another is added, nothing important. What is relevant and cannot be ignored is the change made from Article 33, there is the inexcusable mistake.
ART. 1: "The objectives of the law are the protection of human health, natural resources and agricultural production, including post-harvest" ... (The phrase "post-harvest" is added to the original article, a term that seems to handle the Legislators, something striking, now know agricultural terms, or have read the INTA project: "Precop II" (2). Silos and silo-bags are contemplated. Not only is a provincial silos law vetoed, now its legalization is also legal. existence and content, the residents of San Lorenzo and Barrio Malvinas Rosario will have to get used to the new cultural heritage. Soy and its lobbies said present in the newsroom)
ART 2: It is not touched, it is only added in the enumeration, to the original word "Storage", the phrase "In any of its modalities".
ART 3: The enforcement authority continues to be the Ministry of Production. (It is added to the original wording that it will act jointly with the Ministry of Water, Public Services and Environment only when there are impacts on the environment and the probable cause is agrochemicals. On the other hand, the Ministry of Health will control the effects and incidence of the applications and records of toxicological cases.)
ART.8: The Ministry of Education and Culture is added with dissemination programs to strengthen agroecological criteria in the population. (Diffusion is not enough when there are no subsidies for that purpose, as do “necro-fuels”).
ART 11: It refers to article 28 and 4, before it referred to articles 2 and 4.
ART 12: Nothing was changed, it is practically the same.
ART 13 The registration of authorizations for aerial or land fumigations provided for in article 23, subsection “C”, if the agronomic recipe is in duplicate in its original, it becomes its requirement in Triplicate.
ART 15: It remains the same, only the names of the Entities or Organizations that no longer exist are changed to the names of the current ones.
ART 19: Refers to article 14, previously referred to article 13
ART. 22: Refers to article 24, nothing else changes
ART 23: Among other things, the agronomist is required to attend "Every 2 years" the updating courses organized by the Enforcement Agency, (It does not speak of the courses that Singenta gives in Paraná, which we know who attended ).
ART. 32: It refers to Provincial Law 12.209 (promotion and supervision of beekeeping activities) and Law 25.127 (national organic production law), previously it referred to Law 7.045 and its Regulatory Decree (provincial beekeeping legislation)
ART. 33: Prohibits the AERIAL application of phytosanitary products -agrotoxic- class IA and IB, very dangerous products, within the area of 3000 meters from the limit of urban areas (remains the same as the original text) and 1000 meters from educational establishments, areas protected areas, coasts of streams, rivers, wetlands etc. (this is new, it is added to the original wording). The original article provided for the exception of aerial application 500 meters from urban areas of the products class B-C and D, moderate or little dangerous, which is now included in ART.34 but with changes.
Art 34: Prohibits the LAND application of phytosanitary products -agrotoxic- class IA and IB, very dangerous products, within the area of 1000 meters from the limit of urban areas, (this is new, the protection is extended) and 500 meters from establishments educational, protected areas, coasts of rivers, streams, wetlands, sports, recreational and tourist complexes, etc.
When in the jurisdiction there is a municipal or communal ordinance that authorizes it and only in those cases that the regulation specifically provides, it will be possible to apply products of toxicological classes II yellow band, moderately dangerous-harmful product, III blue band, product not very dangerous - careful, up to 300 meters from the limit of urban plants, the limits of rural educational establishments, industrial parks, sports complexes and areas of tourist interest, natural protected areas declared such by the competent authority, the rivers, streams, lagoons and wetlands indicated in the official cartography. The same exception, with the same requirements and using the products of toxicological class II-III and IV, will be appropriate for AIR applications that are carried out 500 meters from the places detailed in the previous paragraph. (The original article prohibited the LAND application within the radius of 500 meters of the urban plants of class A and B pesticides and those of class C and D could be carried out within that radius. Instead of improving the article and giving amplitude to the Protection, on the contrary, unprotect, by bringing the fumigation 200 meters closer to the villages. The minority wanted to bring it even closer: at 100 meters, more than a minority are genocidal. The most reprehensible thing is that glyphosate is not reclassified, and is among Class C or II (moderately dangerous) products, here included in the exception. Furthermore, regulatory decree No. 0552/97 is not taken into account, which in its ART.51 says "Exceptions WILL NOT BE APPROPRIATE when in the vicinity of the lots to be treated exist in educational, health, recreational or housing centers ", and in the opinion that is ignored and it is allowed to fumigate in those places.)
The article “In fine” culminates with another nonsense: “For the purposes of determining the distances established in ART 33, and until the Communes and Municipalities determine the urban limit, the delimitation used for the assessment will be considered as such. of the General Rate of Urban Services ”. (Here is the most hilarious of all the aforementioned: for 17 years nothing has changed with those taxes, therefore the city of Santa Fe is zoned in 10 zones, to apply the new agreed increase, whose delimitation is only one street, the one that It separates the urbanized area from the non-urbanized area. Not to mention the Communes and Municipalities, which have that tax twice: urban and suburban. In addition, few Communes have even their agronomic area delimited, despite being a requirement in ART 52 and 53 of the Decree "ut supra" named, which we always denounce and is the excuse to continue fumigating on the houses at any time.
Thinking ABSTRACTly how these great deputies do it: crossing the street that delimits the tax. Is it possible to fumigate? What were they thinking when they wrote such an absurdity, referring to an inadmissible delimitation, a vague and imprecise concept?
To conclude, Art 35 bis is added: "The enforcement authority in coordination with the Ministry of the Environment, Municipalities and Communities will promote promotion policies in suburban areas for organic alternatives, farms or recreational green spaces that serve as a barrier or buffer with regarding the current or residual impact of agrochemicals ”. (The addition does not clarify what measures will be taken in parks, squares, recreational spaces and roadsides, where today glyphosate is used as “matayuyos”, leaving aside the manual blinding of grasses and weeds, so the added article goes to be sterile and implausible).
The most striking thing is that one of the signatories of the Opinion presented, back in December 2007, the File. No. 19814, calling for the recategorization of glyphosate, today it seems that he changed his mind, and believes it harmless. On the other hand, the Chamber of Deputies voted, unanimously, last days, a request for reports on the possible increase in dangerous human pathologies in different parts of the province due to the widespread use of glyphosate. Curiously, the same character is also a signatory of that request. Do they recognize the pathologies and still approve of spraying 300 meters from urban areas? - "External hypocrisy, being a moral sin, is a great political virtue," said Quevedo, there they have a clear example.
The different routes of exposure of pesticides were not taken into account for the reform: dermal, oral and respiratory. The toxicity that arises from small daily exposures and the effects of that prolonged exposure, the concentration in the air, a product of drift. Regressive gangrene in trees perimeter to the fumigated place. It is not taken into account that the soil particles transport the herbicide in the form of "secondary drift", and that damage has been reported 30 km from the site, after spraying. Therefore, it is essential to take into account the factors that favor volatilization: air temperature and humidity, droplet size, height of the spray bar, and the wind. (3) If for a minute they had analyzed these data, even more not for ethics, they would not approve of allowing fumigation a few meters from the villages. Gentlemen lack empathy, unforgivable in a representative of the true "sovereign."
The ruling in question is a mockery of the intellect of each affected citizen, each environmentalist in their struggle, each human loss as a result of these unsustainable policies. A betrayal of future generations that far from being taken into account in their intergenerational law, that which they are going to inherit, they have mortgaged to their crazy decisions. They are not "deputies for a day", the children who play at that innocently expose the issues they bring to the venue expecting a positive response to their requirements, they feel proud to sit in the session room, even if it is not for a few hours. You are elected legislators, act accordingly. His reforms to the law are insubstantial and lacking in significance. Far from being something agreed between legislators, NGOs and health organizations, it is the result of a selfish decision and of ignoring them.
For all the above, I want to express my repudiation and rejection of such reform documented in that opinion. To urge that a new project be prepared, with criteria, suitable and credible data on the damage caused to the population by the poisons that this law seeks to regulate. We get tired of seeing glyphosate as a campaign flag, on the lips of people who in their lives saw a can of Round Up or its adjuvant, and who do not even know how they interact. A clean investigation of politics and outside of elections, since health is not raffled to the best candidate, but it is a human right of those they represent, who have invested them in their position, pay their salary, coffee for their sessions, and they deserve better than this grotesque and shameful document they claim to regulate.
This is also an act of inaction or omission of public authorities, which currently or imminently injures, restricts, alters and threatens, with arbitrariness or manifest illegality, rights and guarantees recognized by our Constitution. The right to petition the authorities and the human right to a healthy environment.
Graciela Cristina Gomez - Lawyer (UBA) - Notary Public (UNR)
1-Echoes of Romang, "The holocaust is here, but you don't see it"
2- INTA Balcarce, PRECOP II Project - "Postharvest Efficiency: generation, development and diffusion of technologies to increase the efficiency of conditioning, drying and storage of cereals, oilseeds and industrial crops in the country" R. Bartosik, J. Rodriguez, L . Cardoso, D. de la Torre, C. Casini, M. Santajuliana, E. Behr and A. Godoy (January 2008)
3- “Use of agrochemicals in peri-urban spraying and its harmful effect on human health”, Jorge Kaczewer, doctor (UBA)