JULY 3, 2015

NR # 3884B

Ban on aerial spraying over banana plantations sought

Seven party-list lawmakers are pushing for a ban on aerial spraying over banana
plantations and other agricultural crops in the country.
Aerial spraying is not only a nuisance. It is also injurious to the health of the
people living near banana plantations, the authors said.
Under consideration by the Committee on Ecology chaired by Rep. Amado S.
Bagatsing (5th District, Manila) is HB 3857 entitled An Act prohibiting aerial spraying as
a method of applying chemicals and similar substances on agricultural crops.
Authors include: Gabriela Womens Partylist Reps. Luzviminda Ilagan and Emmi
De Jesus; BAYAN Muna Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Isagani Zarate; ACT
Teachers Partylist Rep. Antonio Tinio; Anakpawis Partylist Rep. Fernando Hicap; and
Kabataan Partylist Rep. Terry Ridon.
The lawmakers recalled that the bill, filed in February 2014, was first filed during
the 15 Congress and denominated as HB 5249.
th

For more than a decade now, the people living near banana plantations in
Mindanao are seeking the prohibition of aerial spraying. And they have compelling
reasons for their crusade: aerial spraying is disrupting their lives, contaminating their
environment and injurious to their health, the authors stressed.
To accentuate their point that aerial spraying is not only a nuisance but also very
injurious to human health, the authors noted that a 2006 study made by the Department of
Health revealed that people living in Hagonoy, Davao del Sur showed high levels of
ethylenethiourea (ETU) in their blood samples.
ETU and clorothalonil were also found in high levels in the soil and air of the
village and, because of chemical drift, even in nearby areas. ETU is a breakdown product
of Mancozeb, a fungicide widely used by large scale banana growers but has been
classified as carcinogenic by the State of California and the Swedish pesticide regulatory
authority.
It has been documented to have produced follicular and pallilary thyroid cancer
in rats and hepatocellular cancer in mice. The study also found that 52% of the village
residents who reported to have been exposed to aerial spraying showed post-exposure
symptoms like eye-redness, eye pain, eye tearing, eye and skin itchiness, headache, and
spells of vomiting and dizziness, the authors noted.

Hagonoy, Davao del Sur hosts several banana plantations, the biggest of which is
Guilhing Agricultural Development Corporation, a subsidiary of the Lapanday Group of
Companies, the authors noted.
Another important argument for the ban is that aerial spraying also affects the
vegetation and animal life in the vicinity of banana plantations.
Residents have reported that the soil in their villages had exhibited diminished
fertility and plant growth in their backyard and farms had been seriously stunted. They
now find it difficult to grown food crops and people find it harder to raise pigs and
chickens as they just die out. They also believe that their natural sources of water have
been contaminated because a lot of the animals refused to drink from streams and springs,
and those that do eventually die, they lamented.
According to the lawmakers, the Philippine Banana Growers and Exporters
Association (PBGEA) had challenged the peoples demand for prohibition on grounds of
property rights and that aerial spraying is the best practice in applying pesticides. They
further contended that prohibiting aerial spraying would kill the banana industry.
The authors added that such contentions are fallacious, narrow and self-serving
which cannot defeat the constitutionally-guaranteed primodial rights of our people to
health and sound environment. The property rights of banana planters end where the
health of the people and whole communities begin; the profits of a few cannot be above
the welfare of the many.
The bill also provides for penalty provisions ranging from a fine of P50,000 to
P150,000 and/or imprisonment of from not less three (3) months to one (1) year plus
suspension or cancellation of business permits and license and, on the part of the pilot,
cancellation of his pilots license on his third offense.
A method which has proved to be nuisance and is deleterious to health and
environment cannot, by any measure, be considered as a best practice, they argued. (30)
dpt