Baraza

Category: Poisoning wildlife, wildlifedirect | Date: Nov 16 2009 | By: paula

After WildlifeDirect spoke to the father of 3 year old Kimutai last week there has been a flurry of media regarding this case. National Geographic also interviewed the childs father and the manufacturers of Furadan, FMC claim to be conducting their own investigations . This is not the first time that a human being has died from ingesting  deadly amounts of carbofuran, however it is the first time that it has gained media attention and a response from FMC in Kenya.

No reporting or under reporting of pesticide poisoning suggest this is probably not an isolated case

According to our sources in Uganda, a young man died in Uganda after ingesting Furadan last year. Although reported to FMC, we are told that FMC apparently have not responded to that incident. In the case of Kimutai the story reached the media because of a coincidence - the father knew a journalist who happened to be aware of the campaign to ban carbofuran in Kenya. Kimutai’s father told me that he fears that thousands of others may have been affected and have simply not reported the incidents. In rural Kenya autopsies are not conducted - and so the evidence trail ends.

A report compiled by the international crop research institute ICIPE states that 97.5% of Kenyan green bean farmers use pesticides and all are purchased in AgroVet stores.  The ICIPE report also claims that

“A fairly high proportion (about 21%) of farmers reported having visited clinics for treatment for maladies related to pesticide usage.” 

With such a high rates of maladies associated with pesticides one would expect the regulations to be stringently enforced. They are not. Kimutai was buried without an autopsy being conducted and according to his father, no record of the pesticide poisoning was forwarded to higher government offices. It seems that Kimutai represents an incident that never got recorded even as a statistic, even FMC cannot be sure that he died of Furadan poisoning. There were no tests, no documentation and apparently no death certificate. We agree with his father believes that this lack of reporting may be concealing a serious problem in farmlands across Kenya.

What does the Furadan label actually communicate?

 I have been asking people to read the Furadan label and tell me what it means

Two people have told me that it is a pest killer  for any form of pest from insects to rats to lions - this they know from recognizing the packaging and from previous experience. Two people thought it was a dusting powder for dogs against ticks - indeed the packaging for tick powder is in an identical container and may explain why Maasai herdsmen are trying to use Furadan on sheep. At half the price it’s a simple economic decision.

One person thought it was for malaria - the yellow square with x in side it is apparently a symbol used on malaria medicine.

None of the 5 people asked thought it was a deadly toxin. They associate a skull and cross bones with that.  None of the people I interviewed could explain what the six symbols in yellow at the bottom meant. Before I share with you recordings of farmers trying to explain - please send me your thoughts - what do you think the 7 symbols in yellow boxes at the bottom of the label mean?

Status of Furadan Buy-sback in Kenya 

We can also confirm that while the availability of Furadan  in Kenya is down, it is by no means gone from the Agrovet outlets. I personally visited several Agrovets in and around Nairobi and can confirm that it cannot be found anywhere near the headquarters of Juanco, the Kenyan distributor. Most Agrovets said they thought it has been banned by the government, however they admitted that it could be found in certain Nairobi stores, in major seed outlets and in up country Agrovets.

We have just received a report that it is available in Eldoret, a major agricultural town in central Kenya.  WildlifeDirect has been collaborating with FMC on reporting the presence of Furadan in Kenya but we remain dismayed at the lack of information regarding how much Furadan has been bought back, from where, where it has been taken or how it will be disposed. We have had no response to a series of emails to FMC on these issues. Our greatest fear is that tons of the product may have simply been moved to  border towns just outside of Kenya where we know the Agrovet stores are fully stocked with the deadly pesticide.

Ban Carbofuran in Kenya and Africa to save people and wildlife 

WildlifeDirect and other conservation organizations in Africa are proud to be associated with National Geographics Derek Joubert who says “We need to use whatever networks we’ve got, whatever political power we’ve got, to impose on FMC to pull this product out of Africa—that’s the bottom line.”

Tags: Africa, carbofuran, conservation, death, farming, furadan, Kenya, Lion, Lions, National Geographic, pesticide poisoning, pesticides, wildlife, wildlife poisoning, wildlifedirect

2 responses so far

Category: Africa, Lions, big cats, furadan | Date: Oct 13 2009 | By: paula

This article is in today’s Washington Post and is written by a good friend of WildlfeDirect, Dereck Joubert

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Just 50 years ago there were close to a half-million lions in Africa — about 450,000 in all. Today there are between 16,000 and 23,000. And yet, unlike elephants (a far more numerous species), lions have no protection under the international accord governing such matters.

Big cats are in trouble everywhere. The number of tigers has dipped below 3,000. Indeed, as we look at the lion population today, it’s the shadow of the tiger’s history that scares me most. Tiger bones are used extensively in the East for medicines and mythological (read nonsense) cures for ailments or limp libidos, and the demand is increasing. A growing demand and a disappearing supply is a formula for disaster.

The solution we are seeing play out is a switch from tiger bones to lion bones, which can be easily sold off as tiger bones. It’s ironic that the most famous animal in Africa, perhaps in the world, can’t even be poached on its own value but only as a “mock tiger.”

This week the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is meeting to decide whether lions, whose numbers have declined by 50 percent in the past 20 years, are worthy of protection under Appendix I to the convention: the listing of the most endangered animals. The problem is that the safari hunting industry and buyers in Asia are opposing it, because such a decree would limit what they can do with the trophies. Fact: Appendix I does not mean you can’t shoot a lion — it means you can’t import the skin to hang on the wall. And the answer to the question we are asked a thousand times is: Yes, you can still go to Africa to kill a lion.

CITES needs a country to sponsor the motion for lion protection. We can’t, so far, get one to put its hand up first, to take on the issue and save lions. No one will risk offending big safari hunting lobbies. It would seem that many are just not thinking this through. Extinction threatens by the year 2020. Then there will be no lions to hunt, or to protect.

(Meanwhile another ominous development poses a further threat to wildlife. A pesticide is being used by poachers to kill lions and many other animals. Sprinkled on meat, it kills lions, hyenas, vultures and other creatures in minutes).

We don’t have much time. The biggest threat isn’t hunters, poachers or poison makers — it is our own complacency, the lazy hope that someone else is taking care of the great beasts of Africa.

Lions and other large predators are disappearing even as we learn more about the collapse of entire ecosystems. The $200 billion a year reaped from ecotourism will be lost, causing suffering among communities all over Africa that rely on this trade.

As explorers in residence at National Geographic, my wife, Beverly, and I are calling on everyone with even a remote interest in big cats, or in Africa, to make sure that these wild systems keep working well. Scientists, conservationists — everyone — must come together, work together and support this effort now: the Big Cats Initiative. It’s a movement that doesn’t want to exclude a single soul or leave out any idea on how to reduce the conflict. We have a short window of time in which we can remedy this. It is closing very rapidly.

Dereck Joubert and his wife, Beverly Joubert, are National Geographic explorers in residence. They have spent years making films and writing about the big cats of Africa. To view some of their photos and films, visit http://www.wildlifeconservationfilms.com. For more information, visit http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bigcats.

Tags: Beverly Joubert, big cats, carbofuran, Dereck Joubert, Lion, Lions, National Geographic, pesticides

No responses yet

Category: Americas, Lions, Poisoning wildlife, conservation, furadan | Date: Aug 13 2009 | By: Maina

We received this press release from the good people at the University of Pittsburgh news section. I think it’s a wake-up call to government agencies charged with regulating pesticides. This gross oversight on the part of the EPA should scare you and make you ask yourself: ‘who is safe these days?’

The dangers that pesticides pose to wildlife is immense and although the researchers in this report used only amphibians, we can all imagine what implication these poisons would have on large mammals and other species. I am particularly reminded of the danger already posed by Furadan on lions and other predators, birds of prey and scavengers. Maybe you need to read along and see this for yourself, for these poisons are not only a danger to wildlife, but also to humans.

August 12, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:   Morgan Kelly
[412-624-4356 (office); 412-897-1400 (cell); mekelly@pitt.edu]

Pitt Research Suggests EPA Standard for Pesticide Safety Overlooks Poisons’
Long-term Effects

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry article reports “lag effect,”
revealing that harmful effects can remain hidden until after EPA’s four-day
direct exposure test

PITTSBURGH-The four-day testing period the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) commonly uses to determine safe levels of pesticide exposure
for humans and animals could fail to account for the toxins’ long-term
effects, University of Pittsburgh researchers report in the September
edition of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The team found that the highly toxic pesticide endosulfan-a neurotoxin
banned in several nations but still used extensively in U.S. agriculture-can
exhibit a “lag effect” with the fallout from exposure not surfacing until
after direct contact has ended. Lead author Devin Jones, a recent Pitt
biological sciences graduate, conducted the experiment under Rick Relyea, an
associate professor of biological sciences in Pitt’s School of Arts and
Sciences, with collaboration from Pitt post-doctoral researcher John
Hammond. The paper is available on Pitt’s Web site at
http://www.pitt.edu/news2009/Endosulfan.pdf

The team exposed nine species of frog and toad tadpoles to endosulfan levels
“expected and found in nature” for the EPA’s required four-day period, then
moved the tadpoles to clean water for an additional four days, Jones
reported. Although endosulfan was ultimately toxic to all species, three
species of tadpole showed no significant sensitivity to the chemical until
after they were transferred to fresh water. Within four days of being moved,
up to 97 percent of leopard frog tadpoles perished along with up to 50
percent of spring peeper and American toad tadpoles.

Of most concern, explained Relyea, is that tadpoles and other amphibians are
famously sensitive to pollutants and considered an environmental indicator
species. The EPA does not require testing on amphibians to determine
pesticide safety, but Relyea previously found that endosulfan is 1,000-times
more lethal to amphibians than other pesticides. Yet, he said, if the
powerful insecticide cannot kill one the world’s most susceptible species in
four days, then the four-day test period may not adequately gauge the
long-term effects on larger, less-sensitive species.

“When a pesticide’s toxic effect takes more than four days to appear, it
raises serious concerns about making regulatory decisions based on standard
four-day tests for any organism,” Relyea said. “For most pesticides, we
assume that animals will die during the period of exposure, but we do not
expect substantial death after the exposure has ended. Even if EPA
regulations required testing on amphibians, our research demonstrates that
the standard four-day toxicity test would have dramatically underestimated
the lethal impact of endosulfan on even this notably sensitive species.”

Andrew Blaustein, a professor in Oregon State University’s nationally ranked
Department of Zoology, who is familiar with the Pitt study, said the results
raise concerns about standards for other chemicals and the delayed dangers
that might be overlooked. Some of the frog eggs the Pitt team used had been
collected by Blaustein’s students for an earlier unrelated experiment, but
he had no direct role in the current research.

“The results are somewhat alarming because standards for assessing the
impacts of contaminants are usually based on short-term studies that may be
insufficient in revealing the true impact,” Blaustein said. “The
implications of this study go beyond a single pesticide and its effect on
amphibians. Many other animals and humans may indeed be affected similarly.”

Tadpoles in the Pitt project spent four days in 0.5 liters of water
containing endosulfan concentrations of 2, 6, 7, 35, 60, and 296
parts-per-billion (ppb), levels consistent with those found in nature. The
team cites estimates from Australia-where endosulfan is widely used-that the
pesticide can reach 700 ppb when sprayed as close as 10 meters from the
ponds amphibians typically call home and 4 ppb when sprayed within 200
meters. The EPA estimates that surface drinking water can have chronic
endosulfan levels of 0.5 to 1.5 ppb and acute concentrations of 4.5 to 23.9 ppb.

Leopard frogs, spring peepers, and American toads fared well during the
experiment’s first four days, but once they were in clean water, the death
rate spiked for animals previously exposed to 35 and 60 ppb. Although the
other six species did not experience the lag effect, the initial doses of
endosulfan were still devastating at very low concentrations. Grey and
Pacific tree frogs, Western toads, and Cascades frogs began dying in large
numbers from doses as low as 7 ppb, while the same amount killed all green
frog and bullfrog tadpoles.

The endosulfan findings build on a 10-year effort by Relyea to understand
the potential links between the global decline in amphibians, routine
pesticide use, and the possible threat to humans in the future.

A second paper by Relyea and Jones also in the current Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry expands on one of Relyea’s most notable
investigations, a series of findings published in Ecological Applications in
2005 indicating that the popular weed-killer Roundup® is “extremely lethal”
to amphibians in concentrations found in the environment. The latest work
determined the toxicity of Roundup Original Max for a wider group of larval
amphibians, including nine frog and toad species and four salamander
species. The report is available on Pitt’s Web site at
http://www.pitt.edu/news2009/Roundup.pdf

In November 2008, Relyea reported in Oecologia that the world’s 10 most
popular pesticides-which have been detected in nature-combine to create
“cocktails of contaminants” that can destroy amphibian populations, even if
the concentration of each individual chemical is within levels considered
safe to humans and animals. The mixture killed 99 percent of leopard frog
tadpoles and endosulfan alone killed 84 percent.

A month earlier, Relyea published a paper in Ecological Applications
reporting that gradual amounts of malathion-the most popular insecticide in
the United States-too small to directly kill developing leopard frog
tadpoles instead sparked a biological chain reaction that deprived them of
their primary food source. As a result, nearly half the tadpoles in the
experiment did not reach maturity and would have died in nature.

News releases about Relyea’s previous work are available on Pitt’s Web site
at http://www.news.pitt.edu

###

8/12/09/tmw

Tags: amphibians, EPA, Frogs, pesticides, poison, University of Pittsburgh, USA

No responses yet