SRI LANKA
The dilemmas of the organic/pesticide debate are strikingly captured in the protests against the 2015 ban on glyphosate by the Sri Lankan government. This leaves Sri Lanka as one of just five countries that ban the chemical weed killer.
Farmers have reported growing crop losses that leave them at a “crippling disadvantage” in world markets. The chairman of the Sri Lanka tea board points to the increase in the use of unauthorized alternatives and contraband smuggled from India and sold at five times the world price.
Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used weed killer, with most of the main alternatives, such as paraquat, banned or restricted. It is the active chemical ingredient in Monsanto’s controversial Roundup. At the core of the controversy, as is so often, are contested scientific claims and social concerns that turn into political activism. The politics of the Sri Lanka ban transcend science and economics, with accusation of lack of good faith on both sides.
That began with the ban itself. It was made with no announcement or consultation through a presidential order in 2015. This was triggered by a single study that suggested a possible connection between glyphosate and a chronic and long-lasting epidemic of chronic kidney disease that killed many thousands of agricultural workers in hot, dry areas of the country. Excessive use of agrochemicals has long been assumed but not proven to be a primary cause of the disease which has affected similar areas in Central America, India and Egypt. The counterargument has been that the cause is water contamination and that there is no evidence to justify the ban on glyphosate.
Farmers report heavy cost increases for weeding, which amount to close to 29% of production expenses. Where fertilizer application is delayed by weed and pest issues, crop losses may be in the 25% range. The tea board puts the cost in the 18 months after the ban as amounting to $100 million of export revenues. Workers are migrating to towns as overgrowth and low yields cut jobs.
The glyphosate issue is not clear cut and controversy is not confined to Sri Lanka. In 2015, the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer reported that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. In 2015, the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization reported that it is not. The World Health Organization found no evidence either way.
The EU Commission’s vote in late November 2017 on whether to renew the license authorizing glyphosate use for five more years was just as split. There was early strong opposition, many abstentions and a final narrow decision to approve the extension. Germany swung the balance in favor, in opposition to the firm No vote by France.
The debates and policy fights will not disappear or be easily resolved. Sri Lanka is just one arena and glyphosate one agenda.