Stop Wildlife Poisoning

Category: Hippopotamus, Pesticides, carbofuran, lions | Date: May 07 2008 | By: admin

Hi, this is Ngaio again. 

Thanks to everyone for their comments and research. I think a few major issues are emerging here.

First and foremost, there is the issue of whether or not wildlife mortality and endangerment to human health have arrisen from legal (or labeled) useage or from illegal use. If it arises from legal use then FMC definitely has to take responsability for that.  Now, strictly speaking, the company is not responsible for individuals using carbofuran illegally, but they are knowingly manufacturing a highly toxic compound that is being purchased to poison wildlife, not just for agricultural purposes. We are talking about numerous incidences that are decimating wildlife populations, not just one or two isolated cases. If FMC had andy sense of corporate responsability they could launch an education campaign and carry out a proper risk assessment relevant to Africa to establish various toxicity levels to the species likely to be exposed. But would an effective education campaign then result in a decrease in their sales? And might a risk assessment reveal the risks to wildlife?

Howard, you made a good point–I completely agree that we need to back up our claims with some good, hard science. We cannot afford to be emotional on this one, it’s too easy to tear down emotional arguments. It would be very useful to see what sort of hard data FMC has. I was interested to read Jophie’s post regarding the claim that a hippo would have to consume 300 to 500 kg of carbofuran at once to die. Is this on the basis of toxicity tests carried out on hippos or surrogate species who would respond similarly? What dose level would this correspond to? To make some headway, we will need to be able to clearly establish that a) the animal was exposed to carbofuran in x formulation, b) the exposure to the carbofuran was the predominant or only cause of death and c) the level of exposure was consistent with a legal / illegal application.

Another issue is the root cause of the poisoning: human-wildlife conflict. As Dipesh says, it’s going to take more than banning a compound (or suggesting a ’safer’ alternative) to make the problem go away. Colleen, I thought your point about promoting more harmonious and equitable farming practices was very relevant. It’s certainly necessary to encourage people not to take matters into their own hands and go after a lion that has killed some of their livestock, for example, but it is also critical to take steps to minimise livestock losses in the first place. An audit of farming practices, crops and use of pesticides would likely reveal the occasions when pesticides are used, but not actually necessary. I’ll have a look through the list you sent and see about contacting some of the groups.

I guess the thing that strikes me the most, at the moment, is the argument that carbofuran does not pose an ‘unreasonable’ risk. This is a chillingly ambiguous term. Are we to believe that the wildlife and human health incidents noted up to now are ‘reasonable’ risks then? Who is setting this threshold?

Share This