Dear Editor,
There aren’t many citizens that would be able to conceptualize “The Green Revolution,” a period of technology transfer initiatives that enabled the high productivity of crops through various adapted measures like the increased area under farming, double cropping: planting two crops rather than one annually, adoption of a high-yield variety of seeds, highly increased use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides, and improved drainage and irrigation among other farming techniques.
Paradoxically, the pervasive use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides has been known to have a negative impact on the ecosystem and the physical well-being of our human resources. Therefore, it behooves the farmers to apply this formula with a great deal of common sense and wisdom to quell the degree of adverse counter-production.
Earlier this month, the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) advised farmers that while implementing protective measures for their rice crop, they must simultaneously endeavour to protect the European market by complying with the Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for various pesticides at different levels set by the European Union. Notwithstanding, the advisory contained a terse statement on the impact of pesticides on the ecosystem that would have missed the average reader. Though the advisory was timely, the GRDB appeared to be more consumed with securing the EU market than preserving the ecosystem for the good of humanity.
The bright side of the use of this strategy is that ever since Guyana embraced the ‘Green Revolution’ also known as the ‘Third Agriculture Revolution,’ in the late 1980s, there has been an exponential growth of agricultural production.
The GRDB warned that pesticide residue can possibly remain in rice grains and eventually pose a serious threat to biodiversity and human health. What the GRDB did not state is that if the MRL is above the EU’s threshold, there may be further debilitating impacts on biodiversity and promote adverse human health risks in Guyana.
Notwithstanding the reluctance of the GRDB and other relevant agencies to provide pertinent information; cursory observation of the impact of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides offers mixed reviews. Most interestedly is the negative impact of pesticides on the rice industry. The average farmer does not follow the integrated pest management (IPM) guidelines. Consequently, a variety of pesticides are introduced into the fields. In some areas, inorganic weedicides are also indiscriminately used on land and water to control the growth of weeds. These chemicals have devastating effects on the ecosystem. For example, coot, an aquatic bird that was common in the paddy fields, completely disappeared, and likewise, there is a significant decrease in freshwater fish in trenches in areas where rice is grown.
Ironically, the application of agrochemicals has contributed to both economic growth and environmental stress. This poses a small challenge and we must somehow create a balance to ensure that economic gains are not erased by unsafe agriculture practices and crop husbandry. It is incumbent upon the central government to establish and enforce clear IPM guidelines throughout the agriculture sector. The MRL of pesticides should be established for all grains, ground provisions, fruits, and vegetables sold in our markets since too many of our farmers are only interested in economic gains while neglecting the basic tenets of food safety.
Based on the available evidence, one can reasonably assume that the scarcity of freshwater fish is indicative of water and soil pollution in the rice cultivation zones. Undoubtedly, there is a high presence of pesticide and weedicide residue in these communities which ought to have prompted the relevant authority to urgently conduct a study on the use and impact of agrochemicals on the environment. Agrochemicals are responsible for the predator-prey imbalance we are experiencing in the agriculture sector. As a counter-productive strategy, rice farmers must relentlessly combat paddy bug infestation in every crop season. These farmers must also enforce the requirement of appropriate protective apparel during these exercises in order to counteract exposure to a litany of diseases and other health issues.
As a nation, ensuring food security will be an arduous endeavour should we fail to address the indiscriminate use of agrochemicals and other pertinent issues. Further, our commitment to providing food security to the CARICOM community while satisfying the ‘Sustainable Development Goal # 2,’ ending hunger through improved nutrition, while promoting sustainable agriculture will be challenged. The custodians of the agricultural community, farmers in collaboration with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, must endeavour to remove the ‘seed of doubt’ planted within the agricultural sector.
Sincerely yours,
Lelon Saul
