Home › General News › Article

Fomesafen Fear of Damaging Adzuki Bean Reputation; Farmers' Groups Urge Postponement; BAPHIQ Says It Has Already Assessed Carefully

General News 0 views
Herbicide Spraying of Adzuki Beans 06"Fomesafen Highly Toxic, Fear of Damaging Local Adzuki Bean Reputation; Farmers' Groups Urge Postponement; BAPHIQ: Already Carefully Assessed

Text by upstream/downstream reporters Li Hui-yi, Cheng Chieh-yi, Tsai Chia-shan, Lin Yi-chun

The Council of Agriculture planned to allow fomesafen to be used for defoliation and harvesting of adzuki beans, but not only did consumers push back, the farmers' associations in the two largest adzuki bean-producing regions and the Eagle Adzuki Bean brand also did not support it, creating the dilemma of "exactly whom is this being opened up for?" BAPHIQ held a press conference yesterday (the 22nd), reiterating that fomesafen is safe as a defoliant, and in response to fomesafen being banned by the EU due to reproductive toxicity, BAPHIQ assigned pesticide manufacturers to respond on its behalf, claiming that "fomesafen was not banned by the EU; rather, the company did not apply for license renewal due to commercial considerations."

However, according to the EU meeting held in January 2017, it was already clearly stated that "the properties of fomesafen are very dangerous, and its reproductive toxicity is category 1B, which means it does not comply with the plant protection product regulations introduced by the EU in 2009." BAPHIQ believes that only high concentrations of fomesafen cause reproductive toxicity risk, yet the latest research report points out that even low doses can cause embryonic damage.

Regarding BAPHIQ's statement that there have always been "farmers unwilling to be named" expressing demand to the agricultural research and extension station, which is why the fomesafen defoliation trial for adzuki beans was conducted, Chang Chih-lieh, director-general of the Wandan Farmers' Association in Pingtung, said, "Farmers unwilling to be named expressed demand, so the agricultural research and extension station conducted a trial. But our farmers' association put forward a named request hoping the government could hold a meeting and invite all parties to attend to solve the problem together, yet BAPHIQ is unwilling to respond directly. Are named farmers' associations less important than unnamed individuals?"

Naturally defoliated adzuki bean field of "Eagle Adzuki Bean" (photo provided by Li Chien-hui)

EU Regulations: Pesticides with Reproductive Toxicity May Not Be Granted or Renewed Licenses

After fomesafen was launched in the 1980s, more and more studies showed risks of neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity. A scientific review report published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2005 already pointed out that fomesafen has high reproductive toxicity, "may harm unborn children," and "may cause difficult-to-repair fertility risks."

In 2009 the EU passed new regulations governing plant protection products, explicitly stating that if a pesticide's reproductive toxicity falls under the highly toxic category 1A or 1B, a permit may not be issued or renewed. Germany's Ministry of Agriculture stated in 2009 that under the new law, fomesafen's reproductive toxicity is category 1B, exceeding the safety threshold. Sweden, which was responsible for submitting the draft review report on fomesafen, also stated at the EU meeting held in January 2017 that "the properties of fomesafen are very dangerous, and its reproductive toxicity is category 1B, which means it does not comply with the plant protection product regulations introduced by the EU in 2009."

Fomesafen's license expired on October 1, 2017, and because some farmers could not transition in time, it was extended to July 31, 2018. According to the regulations, after the license expires, the buffer period for EU member states to use up stock may not exceed 18 months, and that period has now also expired, amounting to a ban. Countries that continue to use it are violating EU rules.

According to the official meeting record of the "EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed" dated January 27, 2017, fomesafen is high-risk and has reproductive toxicity, and does not comply with EU regulations

At the pesticide regulatory authority's press conference, pesticide companies were unexpectedly brought in to speak on its behalf, obscuring the fact that the EU has clearly banned it

However, our BAPHIQ believes that only the EU cannot use fomesafen, while other countries still use it. Yesterday BAPHIQ unexpectedly invited pesticide companies to the press conference to help explain, and Chin Pao-hua, chairman of CropLife Taiwan, who is also an assistant manager at the major pesticide manufacturer BASF, which produces fomesafen, said, "Fomesafen was not applied for license renewal due to commercial considerations; it does not mean the EU banned it."

However, this claim ignores the fact that the EU's official meeting record clearly points out that fomesafen already "does not comply with the plant protection product regulations introduced by the EU in 2009." Even if the pharmaceutical company submitted a renewal application, it would be rejected. Even more noteworthy is that BASF, where Chin works, is precisely a major fomesafen manufacturer, and its best-selling product in Taiwan is called "Basta."

CropLife International, a sister organization to CropLife Taiwan, is the world's most important lobbying group for pesticides and genetically modified technology. Its members include international agrochemical giants such as BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto, which was later acquired by Bayer. It promotes pesticides and GM crops around the world and lobbies government decision-making, for example pressuring the EU to relax review standards for GM crops and spending heavily in the United States to oppose GM labeling.

When Taiwan's Council of Agriculture planned to open a new use for fomesafen and faced questions related to the EU issue at the press conference, representatives of the pesticide manufacturer unexpectedly spoke on its behalf, highlighting the Council of Agriculture's insufficient capacity. Even more worrying is that the manufacturer did not avoid the conflict of interest in the slightest and openly answered questions on behalf of the Council of Agriculture, making it hard to believe that the Council of Agriculture's decisions can remain objective and fair and ensure scientific independence.

Related Articles