NOTE: The following is a rough translation and summary of an important article from the Argentine press reporting a new court ruling that upholds a 2010 ban on the spraying of glyphosate and other pesticides near homes. We would be grateful to receive a better quality English translation.
While the case concerns rice crops, the ruling will also apply to GM soy. Rice and GM soy are sprayed heavily with pesticides, often from the air, causing serious public health problems.
For more information on Roundup/pesticide spraying on GM soy and other crops, which has led to a massive public health problem in Argentina, see
http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/12479-reports-reports
---
---
Health first, then commerce [Primero la salud, despues los negocios]
by Dario Aranda
Pagina12 (Argentina), 18 Mar 2011
English summary of article in Spanish:
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-164438-2011-03-18.html
An Argentine court has upheld a 2010 court injunction banning the spraying of pesticides near homes in Chaco province. The pesticides named in the case include glyphosate (Roundup), endosulfan, methamidophos, chlopyrifos, and picloram, among others.
The court banned spraying with chemicals within a thousand meters of housing if the method is terrestrial and 2000 meters if using aerial methods. The Court re-asserted the precautionary principle (with the possibility of irreversible environmental damage, it is necessary to take protective measures) and stressed that priority should be given to the health of the population over agricultural production. The court also banned spraying near waterways.
The previous 2010 court injunction was appealed by the rice producers. In September 2010, the measure was relaxed by the same court. The limit was reduced from 1000 to 500 meters and spraying over waterways was allowed again. The main arguments were an environmental impact study provided by the company (not involving independent experts) and a letter from the Epidemiology Dept of Chaco (under the Ministry of Health), which had downplayed the cases of residents with leukemia.
The latest court ruling makes clear what should be the priority of the judiciary regarding the health of the population and agricultural production: "You can not modify the relief granted (which protected the residents) giving primacy to economic productivity over the risks to health and life of the people."
The judge also questioned the evidence that allowed the relaxation of the measure in the first instance: "We understand the environmental impact study prepared by one party (the companies) should have been subjected to further evaluation by impartial government agencies," he said in his ruling.