Tag Archive for: Agrochemicals

Together with the community of Marcos Juárez we presented an environmental protection in the Córdoba Justice Department. We request that the current ordinance on agrochemicals be modified with the objective of expanding the protection zone, compliance with controls and the functioning of the Advisory Commission on the Environment be made effective.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The application of agrochemicals in Argentina continues to be one of the main environmental problems and leads to serious contamination of water, soil, air and consequent damage to biodiversity and people’s health.

There are thousands of scientific studies around the world that prove the toxicity of these products and their link with the development of chronic diseases that affect adults and mainly children. Among them are: abnormal neurological development, cancer, increased incidence of non-hodking lymphoma, a condition in the human placenta with a probable impact on the development of abortions.

The problem of agrochemicals is no longer limited only to rural communities who see their homes, hospitals and schools fumigated daily, but affects millions of people in our country. As an example, the organization Democracia en Red, within the framework of the Pesticides Introduced Silently (PIS) project, analyzed 200 urine samples in the towns of Lobos, Saladillo, Barrio Nicole (La Matanza), Mar Chiquita and the City of Buenos Aires. Aires. The results showed that in all districts there were positive cases for glyphosate.

At Fundeps we have been addressing this problem for some time, developing and implementing different strategies to achieve adequate public policies to guarantee socio-environmental sustainability. In that sense, in 2019 we published our Agrochemical Emergency website where we systematized the immensity of socio-environmental conflicts that occur in our province from the use/misuse of agrochemicals, we also provide tools so that communities can claim for their rights. Simultaneously, we develop models of ordinances that propose restrictions on the use of these products and the creation of protection zones, seeking to promote local advances to improve the quality of community life.

Following this path, in the month of May we presented a first environmental protection for contamination with agrochemicals in Colonia Tirolesa, a process where even and despite the scientific evidence about the various health problems that the community continually suffers, no solution has been found.

Marcos Juárez: what happens with pesticides?

Marcos Juárez is a town located in the southeast of the province of Córdoba, an area known for its economic growth linked to agricultural exploitation and agroindustry, which uses large quantities of chemical products such as fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and despite the fact that Marcos Juárez has With ordinance 2446, which regulates the use and application of chemical and biological products for agricultural use and which the Municipality adheres to Provincial Law 9140, a large part of the population is exposed to these products on a daily basis.

The Marcos Juárez Ordinance arose from a process of collective struggle in 2010, when members of the community organized against the excessive fumigation with agrochemicals due to the social and health consequences caused by this form of production and that was intensifying over time. This ordinance represented a true historical milestone for Córdoba, since it establishes environmental protection zones for the application of agrochemicals. However, over the years the community began to observe that this regulation is insufficient. Added to this is the fact that the Municipality is unable to enforce compliance with this regulation (there are dozens of complaints for violations).

In this context, in 2015 the Genetics and Environmental Mutation Group belonging to the Department of Natural Sciences of the University of Río Cuarto, headed by Dr. Delia Aiassa, evaluated the level of damage to the genetic material in children exposed to pesticides. in the town. The study shows that of the total number of exposed children, 20 (40%) presented persistent symptoms of various kinds. On the other hand, he maintains: “In the case of a relatively small city, this result shows that the sprays could reach (by air) the entire town and that the vulnerable population of children is subjected to extremely high and continuous exposure, givenwho lives surrounded by crops. Taking into account that there are no differences between the groups of children under study in terms of spray distances up to a maximum of 1095 m, this information should be taken into account when establishing environmental safeguards in localities that are surrounded by crops where spraying is carried out”.

From there, and considering that the ordinance establishes distances that are well below what is recommended, for example in some high risk areas (art. 4) the exclusion zone of 150 meters (when in other locations it is 1500 meters), the community organizes itself again and begins a long journey of demands to safeguard their lives and those of their children.

In this framework, at Fundeps we began to support this legitimate claim and after a long journey we decided to go to court in search of solutions.

The Environmental Protection Action

For these reasons, by virtue of the precautionary, preventive and intergenerational equity principle, on November 27 we presented an environmental collective action before the Córdoba justice system requesting, among other things:

  • The creation of an environmental protection zone no less than 1,095 meters away from the external limit of populated areas, where terrestrial fumigation is prohibited.
  • And an environmental protection zone of no less than 3000 meters where fumigation of areas with any type of chemical or biological product for agricultural use is prohibited.

The purpose of this action is to safeguard and protect the rights of those who live in the town. We hope that justice, making use of the powers granted by environmental legislation, will quickly order the Municipality of Marcos Juárez to adopt concrete and urgent measures. This is essential to safeguard the community’s rights to life, health and a healthy environment.

 

Authors:

Katen Moldes and María Laura Carrizo

Contact:

María Laura Carrizo, lauracarrizo@fundeps.org

We present an environmental protection for the contamination that Colonia Tirolesa suffers due to fumigations with pesticides. The community does not yet have a municipal ordinance that regulates its application.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Colonia Tirolesa is a town that is located in the Department of Colón in the province of Córdoba, 27 km from its capital. Its main economic activity is agriculture, focused on the production of soybeans, potatoes and corn. Due to this, for years, fumigations with pesticides have been constant, which has caused serious problems for the environment and health.

Despite the continuous demands by the population to control and regulate the spraying, since they still do not have their own ordinance that establishes distances according to the characteristics of the place, the Municipality of Colonia Tirolesa never responded.

For these reasons, last Monday, May 8, we presented an Environmental Amparo for the Justice of Córdoba to order the Municipality of Colonia Tirolesa:

  • The creation of an environmental protection zone of no less than one thousand ninety-five meters (1095 meters) away from the external limit of the urban plant, where ground fumigation is prohibited and an environmental protection zone of no less than three thousand meters where spraying areas with any type of chemical or biological product for agricultural use is prohibited;
  • It is prohibited within the environmental protection zone 1, the cleaning and transit of all types of machinery and/or equipment used for the application of chemical and/or biological products for agricultural use: as well as the discarding of containers of this type of product .

In turn, we request as a precautionary measure, that is, prior to the resolution of the above request, that authorizations for applications for future fumigations and/or spraying with chemical or biological products for agricultural use be temporarily suspended. within the mentioned areas, among others. The purpose of this action is to safeguard and protect the rights of those who inhabit the town.

We hope that Justice, making use of the powers granted by environmental legislation, quickly order the Municipality of Colonia Tirolesa to adopt concrete and urgent measures to safeguard the community’s rights to life, health and a healthy environment. . These rights are constantly affected by the excessive use of pesticides.

 

Author
Ananda Lavayen

Contact
Maria Laura Carrizo, lauracarrizo@fundeps.org

 

*Photograph of UTELPa

On November 30, the Legislature of the Province of La Pampa approved by majority the so-called “Comprehensive Pesticide Management Law” No. 3288, at the proposal of the Provincial Executive Power. This initiative is part of the attention through public policies of situations of social conflict, such as the application of agrochemicals so present in our province.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The regulations, applicable to the entire provincial territory, establishes protection zones, setting distances for agrochemical applications (pesticides according to the law) of 500 meters for land applications (environmental protection zone) and 3,000 meters for applications areas. Likewise, it provides for the prohibition of application on any establishment located in rural areas.

It should be noted that the new regulation establishes one of the greatest protective distances for aerial application, doubling that in force in the province of Córdoba. These are consistent with jurisprudential trends based mainly on the application of the so-called precautionary principle.

It should be noted that the new regulation establishes one of the greatest protective distances for aerial application, doubling that in force in the province of Córdoba. The rules of the Pampean law are consistent with jurisprudential trends based mainly on the application of the so-called precautionary principle.

Likewise, the Law provides for a complete comprehensive management regime for agrochemicals, since it implements a unique traceability system. This allows the “tracing” of the product in the production, marketing, use and application phases, including the differentiated management of the resulting empty containers.

The objectives that guide the system are based mainly on the preservation of human health, on guaranteeing food quality, preventing environmental impacts, as well as contributing to the responsible and sustainable development of agricultural activity.

A relevant point of the law consists in the creation of an interdisciplinary Council, made up of the portfolio of environment, health, university and research institutions, as well as specific technical institutions and councils.

The application of agrochemicals constitutes one of the main causes of social conflict, which calls for adequate regulation that guarantees the fundamental rights of those who, for one reason or another, are affected on a daily basis. We celebrate that the provinces advance, through their regulatory systems and public management, in the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate to guarantee fundamental rights such as the environment and health of the population.

Contacto

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

This document aims to examine, from a comprehensive environmental and public health perspective, the impacts caused by the application of agrochemicals. One of the many consequences of the existing agricultural production model in Argentina is linked to the excessive application of agrochemicals and their consequent negative externalities for the environment, public health and the general population.

In June, Deputy Leonardo Grosso (Frente de Todos) presented before the Chamber of Deputies of the Nation, a bill of minimum environmental protection budgets for the handling and application of agrochemical products. Specifically, it seeks to prohibit “all aerial applications of agrochemicals and terrestrial, manual or mechanical, of agrochemicals within one thousand five hundred (1,500) meters of urban areas, permanent housing, rural schools, human settlements, beekeeping plants, production and industrialization of animal products; rivers, streams, lagoons, courses, mirrors, reservoirs, dikes and water wells ”.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The importance of said bill, among other assumptions, starts from the basis of establishing a standard of minimum budgets which grants a uniform or common environmental protection for the entire national territory, and aims to impose necessary conditions to ensure environmental protection . The normative text is part of the State’s duty to preserve the human environment to the extent that it houses the health of citizens and safeguards their quality of life, which should configure its main objective (41 of the CN) and that in turn, it has been accepted by the General Environmental Law within the framework of the principles of environmental public policy.

Among the most notable aspects of the project the following can be mentioned:

Establishes minimum distances for the application of agrochemicals: art. 2 of the project prohibits the application, handling and storage of agrochemicals in urban areas and the obligation to establish a minimum distance of 1500 meters from urban areas, permanent homes, etc. It also establishes that in the event of a reasonable doubt about the delimitation of the environmental protection area, it will be the obligation of the person who is going to apply the agrochemical to request the delimitation of the prohibited area.

Regarding environmental damage, in art. 5 of the project, has an important forecast around responsibility. Thus, it presumes, unless proven otherwise, that whoever applies the agrochemical within the area of ​​environmental protection is responsible for the collective environmental damage caused. Likewise, it provides for a system of joint and several liability (jointly) of all the people who intervened in the application of the product, including the producers, usufructuaries, tenants, and any other person responsible for the property on which the product is applied. Said responsibility is extended in turn to the competent authorities that have not acted in a diligent manner when applying the law. Furthermore, the law obliges the latter to apply any ex officio measure tending to comply with the regulations.

From the content of the normative text arises, even if not expressly, the orientation of the rules arranged from the precautionary principle, cardinal in the environmental law microsystem. This establishes that the absence of scientific information will not be a reason to postpone the adoption of effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment in the face of a danger of serious or irreversible damage, in this situation and in the event of a hypothetical negative impact on the environment and the health of The population due to the exposure of agrochemicals should apply this principle, and restrict or regulate its use in such a way as to prevent any harmful impact.

The initiative is important because it makes visible the problems posed by the use and application of these products indiscriminately and allows us to discuss this aspect of the problem, which until now has been casuistically resolved by numerous local courts, guaranteeing safe application distances. Argentina leads the world ranking in terms of the amount of glyphosate used in its agricultural production and there are no doubts about the toxic, acute and chronic effect that agrochemicals have on the health of the population in particular and the environmental impact at a general level. It is therefore essential that the State, within the framework of its powers, issue public policies aimed at defending the environment, thus guaranteeing respect for a fundamental human right such as health.

Link to the bill

Author
Maria Canedo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org 

On August 11, through a Resolution of the Official Gazette, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock defined its new organization chart and made official the creation of the National Directorate of Agroecology, which will be chaired by the agronomist Eduardo Cerdá who is the president of the National Network of Municipalities and Communities that Promote Agroecology (Renama). This direction will act under the orbit of the Secretariat of Food, Bioeconomy and Regional Development.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The main objective of the directorate will be “to intervene in the design and implementation of policies, programs and projects that promote intensive and extensive primary production based on agroecology at all its scales, coordinating with producers, agrarian organizations and municipal and provincial governments.” To comply with this, it is expected, among other actions, the creation of a Strategic Plan of Productive Transition that contains the objectives, methodology and recipients for the agro-ecological implementation; and the granting of technical, credit and tax assistance to promote said activity.

This government decision is historic for our country, and is framed within the growing environmental crisis and the need to establish consistent public policies, such as the design of alternatives to the agricultural production model that prevails today. It is a decision that recognizes the approach that various farmer organizations have been developing for years, who have created alternatives to confront the hegemonic system. In addition, the current Minister of the Environment, Juan Cabandié, has repeatedly pointed out the risk that the use of pesticides and phytosanitary products entails in the health of the population and the environment, classifying them as “poisons”.

In this sense, agroecology proposes another way of producing food, which in the words of Eduardo Cerdá “implies taking into account and putting into play all ecological processes when producing agriculture and livestock. It is not a business look, it is a system look, to understand the natural processes that work in a field. By taking into account all the processes, it is easier to take care of them ”.

For these reasons, we welcome the implementation of this direction at the national level, since it represents a change of vision in the way of producing food in our country and implies an advance in the much-promised food sovereignty. We believe that this measure provides the appropriate initial impulse to give place and space to this production alternative based on sustainability and caring for the health of people and the environment. In this way, it is possible to incorporate a social and environmental perspective to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, which is extremely necessary in these times.

Authors

Maria Laura Carrizo Morales 

Ananda Maria Lavayén

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

As a result of a presentation made by the defense of one of the accused in the so-called “mother cause” of Barrio Ituzaingó, the Criminal Chamber No. 12, decided to allow the dismissal. She considered that the accused in question had already been convicted of the same crime in the first trial in which the fumigations in the neighborhood were tried. Now it will correspond to the Superior Court of Justice to resolve such situation.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On June 23, 2020, the Criminal and Correctional Chamber No. 12, decided to dismiss producer Francisco Rafael Parra in the “Mother Cause” of the Ituzaingó neighborhood. He was accused of the crime of malicious environmental contamination.

The Court understood that Parra had already been tried and convicted for the same crime. To reach such a conclusion, the judge confronted both facts, the one for which he was previously convicted, and the fact on which the current accusation fell (in the mother case). The Chamber determined that they were the same “criminal event”, so judging it again would imply violating the so-called “non bis in idem” guarantee that prohibits double persecution for the same fact already tried.

Faced with such a decision, the parties to the case filed “cassation” appeals. From there, it will correspond to the Superior Court of Justice through its criminal chamber, to decide whether the decision of the Criminal Chamber must be confirmed or reversed.

The dismissal of the producer, already previously convicted of the same crime, implies the impossibility that in the mega-case he can be convicted again. This situation is important, since an eventual second sentence would entail effective enforcement in prison.

On the other hand, the foundations on which the Crime Chamber was based to resolve the dismissal, are highly debated in the legal field. In this sense, the arguments put forward by the Public Prosecutor of the Chamber are important, who in order to seek the trial of the accused, argued that the fact judged previously, was not the same now tried, and that it was far from being applicable the category of crime continued in the case since the circumstances of time, place, and mode of commission were radically different.

It is worth remembering that the so-called “Mother Cause” (also called the Barrio Ituzaingó megacause) is well known for treating the accumulation of numerous complaints of fumigation in the Barrio. This has been more than sixteen years, in which the prosecution and complaint presented as witnesses to numerous affected neighbors, experts in the subject, teachers from different universities, among other specialists, tending to determine the effects of the fumigations in cancer rates and malformations in the neighborhood.

This year, the Chamber had set the date for the oral and public trial for March, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it had to be suspended. Even so, the Chamber processed the exception presented by Parra’s defense.

The first cause set an important precedent and was symbolic in the fight in residential areas, as it was the first sentence in our country and in Latin America to convict an agricultural producer and an air fumigator for the crime of malicious contamination. In this sense, the judgment of the “megacause” by the particular nuances it presents, is transcendental in this struggle initiated by the mothers of Barrio Ituzaingó.

Authors

  • Ananda Lavayen
  • María Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

On June 12, 2020, in the city of Santa Fe, the Second Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber, made up of Eduardo Sodero, Luciano Pagiliano and Armando Drago, resolved to establish a distance of one thousand meters for fumigations land around a family home. This resolution was made within the framework of a fumigation action filed by Norberto Oscar Bassi and Estefanía Bassi against the Commune of Zenón Pereyra, Carlos Schalbetter, Luis Ballarino, Ballarino Rural S.H. and “subsidiarily” against the province of Santa Fe.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Two residents of the town of Zenon Pereyra (Santa Fe) promoted an amparo action in order to prohibit fumigations in the fields adjacent to their home, in compliance with city ordinance no. 11/11. Through the action they requested that manual fumigation within 1000 meters with any type of agrochemical product be prohibited, at the same time that they requested the planting of a live fence to mitigate the contaminating effects of the products.

The plaintiffs claimed to be neighbors of the fields of Messrs. Schalbetter and Ballarino (the former, leased to the latter) in which soybeans and wheat were planted and fumigations with agrochemicals (2-4 D and glyphosate) were carried out through the use of “mosquitoes”. Furthermore, the plaintiffs stated that due to the fumigations and the toxicity of the products, they suffered from respiratory difficulties and other health disorders.

In the first instance, the District Judge in Civil, Commercial and Labor Law of the city of San Jorge decided to grant the amparo action and to prohibit the fumigation of the neighboring fields to the plaintiffs at a distance of less than five hundred meters. , “With no type of agrochemical”. In his sentence, the judge repeated what was resolved in the case «Peralta c. Municipality of San Jorge ”, considering that“ nothing has changed ”(and therefore“ the criteria set must be maintained ”), without prejudice to rejecting the request for“ a living fence ”.

Faced with such pronouncement, the co-defendant Luis Ballarino and the actors filed an appeal for annulment and appeal. The co-defendant maintained that the ruling was void because it had been based on poorly added documentation, and that this was favorably valued by the amparo. Regarding the appeal, he argued that the proposed protection did not meet the necessary requirements for its “origin” (requirements for it to be dealt with by a judge) and that the damage or injury to health had not been proven.

As for him and the amparista, they maintained that the sentence was null and void because the court said nothing about the request for the tree perimeter fence, and that it had only “copied and pasted” the grounds for a previous ruling. Regarding the appeal, they stated that the judge, when setting the distances, did so without taking into account the geographical and urban characteristics of the area, and that he considered the right to property and work over the right to life, to health and a healthy environment, without considering the environmental public order and the principles of “no regression” and “progressivity”.

The resolution of the Chamber

The Chamber granted the “appeal for annulment” filed by the actors. The organ affirmed that the judgment of first instance had effectively omitted to pronounce on certain issues raised, and that it lacked sufficient justification since it had only limited itself to literally transcribing its own precedent of relative antiquity, without taking into account or referring to the provincial rules and premises at stake as well as the principles that assist in environmental matters.

To resolve, they had special consideration in the rights of people who, for different reasons, settle in places adjacent to the land where exploitations are carried out (read fumigations), understanding that it is not fair or reasonable that they are disproportionately affected . They also took into account the protection deserved by people who have not yet been born, with whom there is a debit of intergenerational justice.

The court decided to set a thousand meters – counting from the outer limit of the plaintiffs’ house – the minimum distance to observe to carry out land spraying. The judges argued that, as a result of the greatest existing scientific evidence regarding the effects of agrochemicals, it was necessary to “adjust” the distances for the fumigations, also taking into account what was established by the judgment in the “Peralta” case. c. Municipality of San Jorge ”, of December 2009, which has become a common thread through the reiteration of other provincial courts. In this way, they reiterated the need to optimize the protection of health and well-being in the face of agricultural practices, encourage the use of alternative herbicides and redirect production towards another less dependent on agrochemicals.

In the aforementioned case, the classic collision of the economic rights of agricultural producers with the essential rights to a healthy environment, to life and to the health of people is presented. For its solution, a concordance between them must be sought, without forgetting that the human being is the source of all rights, taking into account the irreparability of the affectation of the essential rights of the affected communities, especially when there is ample evidence that shows that the Agrochemicals are not harmless to people’s health.

This resolution joins the list of judicial decisions that establish a minimum protective threshold for people who have their center of life in the vicinity of agricultural operations, protecting the neighbors who suffer the consequences of the fumigations and are deteriorated, thus their health and its development possibilities. In this context, and with the existing scientific information, we want to highlight the prevailing need to update the protective laws, which, based on the precautionary principle, must urgently advance in restricting the use of agrochemicals.

More information

Authors

  • Laura Fernandez
  • Ananda María Lavayén
  • Maria Laura Carrizo Morales

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

Following the opportunity represented by the change of management at the municipal level, we want to express ourselves on key issues for the future of our city. Therefore, we jointly address other Cordoba organizations to the new Mayor of Córdoba, Martín Llaryora, with the aim of making recommendations regarding structural problems that cause serious damage to human rights.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Within the framework of the assumption of the new municipal management, there are unattended situations for years that need an urgent response. Through an open letter, we announce in ten points what these problems are and we make ourselves available to the new cabinet to work in an articulated way.

The ten points are summarized in:

  1. Environmental and health emergency in the Chacras de la Merced neighborhood
  2. Solid Urban Waste
  3. Urban Planning and Development
  4. Gender parity in the cabinet
  5. Trans labor inclusion and quota law
  6. Access to Legal Disruption of Pregnancy in Primary Care Centers
  7. Application of the Micaela law
  8. Access to public information
  9. Healthy school environments
  10. Smoke-free environments and protection of the non-smoker

These are 10 points, which are not exhaustive or exclusive of other problems, but require an urgent response because of the critical situations they represent. We hope that in the next 4 years we can articulate a joint work to continue advancing in the fulfillment of the human rights of the Cordoba community.

Access the full letter

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini, carotamagnini@fundeps.org

On October 28, the Supreme Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, in the framework of an endless dispute between environmental groups, rural teachers and the Entre Rican government, issued a ruling validating provincial decree 2239/19, which establishes infamous distances of fumigation of the rural schools of said province.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The judicial dispute began when the Ecological Forum of Paraná (FEP) and the Entrepreneurship Association of Entre Ríos (AGMER) promoted an environmental protection action against the Superior Government of the Province of Entre Ríos and the General Council of Education ( in the cause called the Ecologist Forum “1”). Faced with this action, Chamber II, room II of Paraná, issued a ruling admitting amparo and forbidding ground spraying with pesticides within a radius of one thousand meters (1,000 meters) around all rural schools in the Province of Entre Ríos, and the aerial spraying with the same pesticides within a radius of three thousand meters (3,000 meters) around these educational establishments; all this, until it is determined by the specific state areas that identical preventive effects will be obtained for the health of students and staff who attend them with different distances ”. That ruling was then confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice.

Following this judicial record in the month of January of this year, the Entre Rican governor through a decree (No. 4407/2018), established an “exclusion zone” of pesticide application of one hundred (100) meters radius for the case of land applications and five hundred (500) meters for aerial applications, measured from the center of the hull of the rural school. This new decree, which markedly diminished the protective distances around rural schools, was again challenged by the Ecological Forum of Paraná and Agmer through judicial proceedings, requesting the annulment of the decree.

Such request is based on the fact that the State of Entre Ríos was obliged (by the previous sentence) to carry out necessary studies prior to establishing smaller distances, to guarantee the health of the students and the staff of the rural schools. From this action, the Third Chamber of the Second Chamber in Civil and Commercial, on March 28, 2019, resolved to annul the aforementioned decree, because the Province had not carried out the necessary studies, a resolution that it adopted in a similar sense the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos on May 14 of this year.

Even with all these pronouncements against it, the Government of Entre Ríos, by decree No. 2239/19 (dated 08/01/2019), insisted on reducing the distances of application of agrochemicals around rural schools. On this occasion, it established exclusion distances in relation to the hulls of rural schools, 100 meters for land spraying and 500 meters for aerial spraying. Before this new decree, the NGOs Forum Ecologista de Paraná and Agmer again resorted to justice by filing a new environmental protection, but this time against this new decree, arguing that the first of the sentences already analyzed was affected again. Such action obtained a positive pronouncement from the Third Chamber of the Second Chamber of Civil and Commercial Appeals, which ruled in favor of the amparistas, which decided to dictate the decree in question, under similar arguments as those that were held before the first attempt of the entrerriano Government to limit the distances of protection.

Before this last resolution, again contrary to the interests of the Government of Entre Ríos, and of its intention to reduce the distances of application, he appealed the sentence, finally obtaining a sentence favorable to his interests, at the expense of the protection of the health of students, teachers and staff of rural schools. Thus, the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, on October 28, ended the judicial course, ruling the validity of the last of the decrees (No. 2239/19).

Its main rationale was that the provisions resolved in the first ruling were transitory and therefore did not have the effect of “res judicata” and that said transience ended with the issuance of this decree. However, and almost absurdly, it raises a ridiculous modification: the 100 meters of shelter for ground spraying and the 500 meters for aerial spraying should be measured, not from the center of the school helmet, but from a plant barrier to be implanted. 150 meters away.

This questionable pronouncement, put an end to the judicial question in the Entre Rican justice. The organizations that were part of the fight for health and environmental rights, chose to continue their way before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Thus, it will be up to the highest judicial body in Argentina to resolve the conflict in rural Entrerrian schools, ending an issue that will undoubtedly affect all rural classrooms in the country.

After observing the presence of machines fumigating in fields near their homes, residents of the Tajamar Reserve District filed a complaint with the Judicial Unit of Alta Gracia.

2Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On the occasion of repeated fumigation episodes at a short distance from their homes, residents of the Tajamar Reserve District of the city of Alta Gracia, contacted Fundeps through our website “Agrochemical Emergency”. Concerned about the situation, after accessing information about the routes of action, they decided to file a criminal complaint with the Judicial Unit of the same city.

Thus, on October 28 they denounced that in repeated opportunities, at night hours and at a very short distance from homes, they were able to observe the presence of machines performing fumigation work. They also said that these fields are located a few hundred meters from their homes and that they have corn plantations. According to the complainants, there would be 60 families that would be affected by the spraying.

Based on the aforementioned complaint, a summary action was initiated, which was originally labeled as “Crime against Public Security.” The facts were communicated to the Prosecutor of Instruction of multiple competence of the city of Alta Gracia, in order to initiate the corresponding criminal investigation.

It should be remembered that this type of behavior – illegal spraying – is subject to sanction from Art. 55 and 56 of the hazardous waste law 24.051, which represses those using hazardous waste – please agrochemicals – poison, adulterate with imprisonment or contaminate in a manner dangerous to health, soil, water, atmosphere or the environment in general.

Author

Augusto Lopez

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

The federal judge of San Nicolás, Province of Buenos Aires, Carlos Villafuerte Ruzo, ordered “a restrictive and exclusion limit” of 1095 meters for ground spraying and 3000 meters for aerial spraying with pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, phytosanitary products, fungicides, and any other package of agrochemicals in the city of Pergamino.

Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic.

The head of Federal Court No. 2 that investigates pollution with agrochemicals in the city of Pergamino, province of Buenos Aires, extended a precautionary measure that had been issued in the same case, ordering on this new occasion to suspend aerial spraying at a distance 3,000 meters from the urban area and 1,095 meters for land applications. The prohibition includes the use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and any other package of agrochemicals, such as glyphosate and its derived metabolites, atrazine, triticonazole, metolachlor, acetochlor, chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, disetil, 2.4D; and commercial formulations such as ROUNDUP FULL II, ROUNDUP MAX II, ROUNDUP ULTRAMAX.

On this occasion, the judge considered that the reasons for ordering the original resolution had not changed, where a prohibition of 600 meters would be established provisionally, until studies on the health of the population were carried out. In this sense, new genotocixity studies were incorporated into the cause where the “presence of genetic damage in the organisms of people” was confirmed. The resolution said the studies found “glyphosate in the blood and urine of people, with an increase in blood markers of chromosomal damage.”

The cause was opened by the impulse of neighboring Florencia Morales and Sabrina del Valle Ortíz, who detected the poisonings in the Villa Alicia neighborhood, both referents of “Mothers of Fumigated Neighborhoods”. Throughout the cause, various tests were incorporated that demonstrated the environmental risk involved in the use of these products and their impact on human health. Given all this, the federal judge understood that these evidences, in principle, were sufficient to have as configured a danger of damage to health and the environment. Under the guideline of the precautionary principle, he argued that “in the absence of scientific certainty regarding the safety of the products discharged for the population of Pergamino justifies the extension of the measure already arranged and in the intended distances, since it is not possible to avoid that it is an extremely delicate and sensitive situation, the health of children and adults in that region being at stake”.

The Judge also assessed the results and evaluations carried out by the GeMA Research Group – Genetics and Environmental Mutagenesis – of the Department of Natural Sciences of the National University of Río Cuarto, in charge of Dr. Delia Aiassa. In one of their works, the researchers evaluated the level of damage in the genetic material of children in the city of Marcos Juárez, province of Córdoba. To this end, they studied three groups of children residing at different distances from the spray zone: less than 500 meters, between 500 and 1,095 meters, and more than 3,000. No differences in genetic damage were found between groups of children residing within 500 meters and between 500 and 1,095 meters. However, the genetic damage of both groups was significantly greater than that of resident children at distances greater than 3,000 meters, thus suggesting that the 500 meters of shelter indicated in art. 59 of Law 9,164 of the province of Córdoba (Law of Agrochemicals) are not enough in localities that are surrounded by crops where agrochemicals are sprayed.

 

Water in Pergamino

In April 2019, the same judge Carlos Villafuerte Ruzo ordered to suspend the application of agrochemicals in four fields surrounding three neighborhoods of Pergamino, determining a prohibition distance of 600 meters from the houses. There, the neighbors had reported serious health problems in children and adults. The judge’s decision was based on a study by the Experimental Agricultural Station (EEA) of the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) Balcarce, which resulted in the presence of pesticides in the water. From the Municipality they requested that a new analysis be made to the Water Authority of the province of Buenos Aires which, unlike INTA, concluded that the water was suitable for human consumption.

Although the presence of agrochemicals was found, it was detailed that they were below the parameters considered hazardous to health. Faced with these two reports, Judge Villafuerte requested a new study from the Toxicology team of the Supreme Court of the Nation, which confirmed that Pergamino water is contaminated with 18 types of agrochemicals. This result coincides with that shown by INTA Balcarce. This new report clarifies that the examination of the specialists of the Court was carried out based on liquid evidence and not on the reports already prepared that are part of the criminal case.

The three neighborhoods where water pollution was reported are: Villa Alicia, Luar Kayard and La Guarida. Villafuerte Ruzo in his ruling had urged the Municipality to immediately guarantee the provision of drinking water in these neighborhoods.

 

Cause impact

The Pergamino case and its subsequent ruling at the hands of the Federal Justice, generated that in the province the courts also handed down similar sentences. Such is the case at the town of Exaltación De La Cruz, where a recent ruling by Buenos Aires justice ordered the banning of sprays less than a thousand meters from the ground.

 

More information

 

Authors

María Laura Carrizo

Lorena Sciarini

 

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org