Government investigators found recently that 75 temporary farm workers in this small community had suffered from pesticide over-exposure, among them children and a woman who was five months pregnant.

Though some of the workers had to be hospitalized after the January accident, there were no fatalities—unlike in the pesticide poisoning incident that recently made headlines in Peru. (See “Pesticide tragedy prompts legislative efforts”—EcoAméricas, January ’00.)

But as in Peru, an accident has kindled debate about pesticide use and how it might be better controlled.

The Chilean poisonings, believed to be the result of aerial spraying, were cited by two legislators here as they announced the introduction of legislation to regulate pesticide use. The bill faces an uphill battle. Since 1990, three similar legislative initiatives have failed in the face of strong opposition from agribusiness.

José Manuel Concha, research and development coordinator for the National Agriculture Society, Chile’s leading agricultural industry association, says existing rules are adequate. And pesticide manufacturers, he adds, have taken careful precautions in production of the chemicals. Says Concha: “There isn’t any need for this law.”

But Christian Democrat congresswoman María Rozas, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, says Chile “urgently” needs a pesticide law.

“Many pesticides not used in any other part of the world are sold in sub-developed countries like Chile at a low cost,” Rozas says. “We want to see the costs of using these products significantly increased through regulation. It is time companies prioritized the health and lives of their workers over economic aspects.”

Her proposed legislation would require agricultural businesses and temporary work contractors to inform the federal Labor Inspection Department about labor contracts. The bill would require supervision of pesticide applications deemed dangerous to workers. It also would prohibit pregnant workers from handling pesticides and make aerial fumigation subject to approval by health officials.

Some pesticide-control advocates prefer that restrictions be imposed administratively by the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG) and the Health Ministry. Among them is María Elena Rozas, coordinator of Alliance for a Better Quality of Life, a coalition of social and environmental organizations in Chile.

“This is an emergency,” says Rozas, who is not related to the congresswoman. “The agencies responsible can do the same thing but much faster.”

She says authorities must also consider banning or restricting the use of more chemicals. Chile has banned all but one of the chemicals among the so-called “Dirty Dozen,” the pesticides deemed most hazardous by international environmental groups.

Of these chemicals only paraquat still is permitted in Chile, and it is currently being evaluated by SAG for possible prohibition. But Rozas, the alliance coordinator, says 39 chemicals found on the United Nations’ Consolidated List of Pesticides Prohibited or Severely Restricted by Governments can still be used in the country.

And while the government controls the importation of pesticides, there are no restrictions on the sale of pesticides within the country, she says.

“Anyone can buy any pesticide on any street corner in Chile,” she says. She also asserts that paraquat and other pesticides are often used in the aerial spraying of tree plantations and vineyards even though no norms exist in Chile for the spraying of areas smaller than 2,470 acres (1,000 hectares).

“Pesticides can be absorbed through the skin, but workers often re-enter the fields too soon after spraying. And water sources and soil are contaminated, impacting wildlife and nearby communities,” Rozas says.

According to Chile’s Health Ministry, each year more than 2.2 million people living in rural areas and more than 500,000 workers are exposed to pesticides. A 1998 study by Chile’s Hospital of Rancagua, located in Chile’s central valley, suggests pesticide exposure makes miscarriages and genetic malformations 40% more likely in the region, which accounts for an estimated 60% of pesticide use in Chile.

In December 1999, the Agriculture and Livestock Service published new norms governing the registration of pesticides. Last year, an inter-agency pesticide risk-evaluation committee was created. Velia Arriagada, chief of SAG’s pesticide department, says Chile’s pesticide controls are improving.

“The agency has made the decision to only allow chemicals which are environment friendly,” Arriagada says. “And this year, we created a committee which will develop a new strategy on how we can improve the monitoring of and safe use of pesticides in Chile.”