THEDEADLYCHEMICALSINCOTTON

A report by theEnvironmental
JusticeFoundationin collaboration with

Pesticide Action
Network UK

5 St Peter’s St
London N1 8JD
Tel 44 (0) 20 7359 0440
Fax 44 (0) 20 7359 7123
info@ejfoundation.org
www.ejfoundation.org

Development House
56-64 Leonard Street
London EC2A 4JX
t: +44 (0)20 7065 0905
f: +44 (0)20 7064 0907
admin@pan-uk.org
www.pan-uk.org

CONTENTS
Executive Summary

2

Introduction

4

A Rich Man’s Commodity…Is A Poor Man’s Crop

6

The Chemicals in Cotton

7

Death in the Fields 10
West Africa 16
Uzbekistan 19
India 21
Towards Cleaner Cotton 24
Conclusions 28
Recommendations 29
A Brief History of Pesticides in Cotton Production 31
The Worst Chemicals in Cotton 32
References 35

Acknowledgements
This report was researched, written and produced by the Environmental
Justice Foundation in collaboration with Pesticide Action Network UK.
Design Dan Brown (danbbrown@blueyonder.co.uk)
Printed on 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, supplied by Paperback(t: 020 8980 2233).
Thanks to Brian Emmerson and all at Emmerson Press (t: 01926 854400)
EJF and PAN-UK would like to thank all those people and organisations who
have given their valuable time and assistance with information and visualmaterials used in this report. We in no way imply that these people endorse thereport or its findings.

The Environmental Justice Foundation is a UK-based non-governmentorganisation working internationally. More information about EJF’s work and
PDF versions of this report can be found at www.ejfoundation.org. Commentson the report, requests for further copies, or specific queries about EJF and thecotton project should be directed to info@ejfoundation.org.
Pesticide Action Network UK promotes healthy food, agriculture and an
environment which will provide food and meet public health needs without
dependence on toxic chemicals.
This document should be cited as: EJF, 2007, The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton,
Environmental Justice Foundation in collaboration with Pesticide Action
Network UK, London, UK. ISBN No. 1-904523-10-2

THEDEADLYCHEMICALSINCOTTON

A report by theEnvironmental
JusticeFoundationin collaboration with

Pesticide Action
Network UK© Still Pictures

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
● Cotton is the world’s most important non-food agricultural commod-

ity, yet it is responsible for the release of US$ 2 billion of chemical pesticides each year, within which at least US$ 819 million are considered
toxic enough to be classified as hazardous by the World Health Organisation. Cotton accounts for 16% of global insecticide releases – morethan any other single crop. Almost 1.0 kilogram of hazardous pesticides is applied for every hectare under cotton.
● Between 1 and 3% of agricultural workers worldwide suffer from acutepesticide poisoning with at least 1 million requiring hospitalization eachyear, according to a report prepared jointly for the FAO, UNEP and
WHO. These figures equate to between 25 million and 77 million agricultural workers worldwide.
● Acute symptoms of pesticide poisoning include headaches, vomiting,tremors, lack of coordination, difficulty breathing or respiratory
depression, loss of consciousness, seizures and death. Chronic effectsof long-term pesticide exposure include impaired memory and concentration, disorientation, severe depression and confusion.
● In India, home to over one third of the world’s cotton farmers, cotton

accounts for 54% of all pesticides used annually – despite occupying
just 5% of land under crops. In a single 5 month observation period, 97
cotton farmers experienced 323 separate incidents of ill health. Of these
39% were associated with mild poisoning, 38% with moderate poisoning, and 6% with severe poisoning.
● A single drop of the pesticide aldicarb, absorbed through the skin cankill an adult. Aldicarb is commonly used in cotton production and in2003 almost 1 million kilos was applied to cotton grown in the USA.
Aldicarb is also applied to cotton in 25 other countries worldwide.
2 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

A B O V E : Cotton accounts for 16%
of global insecticide releases – morethan any other single crop. Almost
1.0 kilogram of hazardous
pesticides is applied for every
hectare under cotton.
© Wo r l d B a n k

● In Uzbekistan, the world’s second largest cotton exporter, toxic agro-

chemicals first applied to cotton 50 years ago now pollute the country’s land, air, food and drinking water. Despite the substantial damage
that these chemicals cause to human health and the environment,
Uzbekistan’s dictatorship still sanctions the use of cotton pesticides sotoxic that they were banned under the Soviets.
● Despite being particularly vulnerable to poisoning, child labourers

throughout the world risk exposure to hazardous pesticides throughparticipation in cotton production. In India and Uzbekistan children
are directly involved in cotton pesticide application. While in Pakistan,
Egypt, and Central Asia child labourers work in cotton fields either
during or following the spraying season. Children are also often thefirst victims of pesticide poisonings, even if they do not participate tospraying, due to the proximity of their homes to cotton fields, or
because of the re-use of empty pesticide containers.
● Hazardous pesticides associated with global cotton production repre-

sent a substantial threat to global freshwater resources. Hazardous cotton pesticides are now known to contaminate rivers in USA, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Australia, Greece and West Africa. In Brazil,
the world’s 4th largest consumer of agrochemicals, researchers tested
rainwater for the presence of pesticides. 19 different chemicals wereidentified of which 12 were applied to cotton within the study area.
● 99% of the world’s cotton farmers live and work in the developingworld where low levels of safety awareness, lack of access to protective
apparatus, illiteracy, poor labelling of pesticides, inadequate safeguards,
and chronic poverty each exacerbate the damage caused by cotton pesticides to low income communities. Together developing world farmers are responsible for producing 75% of global cotton production.
● While the bulk of global cotton production occurs in developing coun-tries, the majority of cotton products are sold to consumers in thedeveloped world, with North America alone responsible for 25% of
global household cotton product consumption, and Europe accounting
for a further 20%.
● Since the 1980s the global consumption of cotton has risen dramati-

cally; almost doubling in the last 30 years. With demand now in excess
of 25 million tonnes annually, the world’s consumers buy more cotton
today than ever before.
● The world’s cotton farmers produce around 34 million tonnes of cot-tonseed annually in addition to the fibre. Cottonseed is used as an animal feed and, in the form of cottonseed oil, as a common cooking
product accounting for approximately 8% of the world’s vegetable oil
consumption. Data compiled by FAO/WHO show the potential for
pesticides to contaminate both refined cottonseed oil and cottonseedderivatives fed to animals.
● A 2004 study conducted by researchers at the Technical University ofLódz, in Poland, has shown that hazardous pesticides applied during
cotton production can also be detected in cotton clothing.
● Purchasing decisions made by consumers have the ability to directly

impact production methods and thereby both environmental security
and social equity.
● Organic cotton production offers a strong alternative to current pro-duction methods. Consumer demand for organic cotton currently
stands at between US$ 800 million and US$ 1 billion, and is growing
rapidly such that demand currently outstrips supply. With strong
demand, organic cotton production not only offers a more environmentally and socially sustainable alternative, but is economically viable.
Cotton traders and investors (public and private) should encourage theconversion of conventional cotton production to organic methods.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 3

A small price to pay
for environmental
jus�ced help kids
£5 / $6 per month coul
ds, endget out of the cotton ﬁelfarmers frompirate ﬁshing, protect
re, guarantee
deadly pesticide exposu
gees
a place for climate refu
This report has been researched, wri�en andpublished by the Environmental Jus�ce Founda�on(EJF), a UK Registered charity working interna�onallyto protect the natural environment and human rights.
Our campaigns include ac�on to resolve abuses
and create ethical prac�ce and environmental
sustainability in co�on produc�on, shrimp farming& aquaculture. We work to stop the devasta�ng
impacts of pirate ﬁshing operators, prevent the use of
unnecessary and dangerous pes�cides and to securevital interna�onal support for climate refugees.
EJF have provided training to grassroots groups inCambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Indonesia and Brazil
to help them stop the exploita�on of their naturalenvironment. Through our work EJF has learnt thateven a small amount of training can make a massive
diﬀerence to the capacity and a�tudes of local
campaigners and thus the eﬀec�veness of theircampaigns for change.

If you have found this free report valuable we ask
you to make a dona�on to support our work. For lessthan the price of a cup of coﬀee you can make a realdiﬀerence helping us to con�nue our work inves�ga�ng,
documen�ng and peacefully exposing environmental
injus�ces and developing real solu�ons to the problems.
It’s simple to make your dona�on today:

www.ejfoundation.org/donate
and we and our partners around the world
will be very grateful.

     

I N T RO D U C T I O N
A B O V E : Rangamma Harrijana
and her family weep at the grave ofher son Mallesh, who died after
spraying pesticide on cotton crops.
Andhra Pradesh, India.
© K aren Robinson, Panos Pictures

4 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

In the Indian cotton growing season of 2005, researchers set out toinvestigate the impact of acute pesticide poisoning on cotton farmers living in three villages in Andhra Pradesh. The scientists
recruited 50 female cotton growers who were asked to record theadverse health impacts experienced by themselves and by one designated male relative. While the design of the experiment was simple, theevidence it uncovered was deeply disturbing. Over a five month growing season, the 97 cotton labourers involved in the study experienced
a total of 323 separate incidents of ill health, of which 83.6% were associated with signs of mild to severe pesticide poisoning. Reported symptoms included burning eyes, breathlessness, excessive salivation, vomiting, nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, muscle cramp, tremors, loss of
consciousness and seizures. In total up to 10% of all spraying sessions
were associated with three or more neurotoxic or systemic symptoms.
In reporting their study, the scientists behind the investigation
described India’s 10 million cotton farmers as working in a highly
unsafe occupational environment where protective measures andequipment for the safe handling and spraying of pesticides are far frombeing adopted; people work bare-foot and bare-handed wearing only
traditional sarongs; cotton farmers are directly exposed to pesticides
for between 3 and 4 hours per spraying session, and concentrated chemical products are mixed with water using bare hands.
These harrowing observations of farmers exposed to hazardous pesticides are not untypical of cotton production in the developing world.
Yet they stand in stark contrast to the overtly safety conscious shopping malls of Western Europe and America, where newly washed tile
floors are earmarked with notices warning shoppers not to slip. However, despite the scant similarities between the developing world’s 27
million cotton farmers and Western consumers, the two groups are
inextricably linked by cotton: the world’s most important non-foodagricultural commodity – a fibre we now produce and consume ingreater abundance than ever before.

© Pe s t i c i d e A c t i o n N e t w o r k U K

Up to 99% of the world’s cotton farmers live and work in the developing world,
where cotton is predominantly a smallholder crop grown by the rural poor12.
D R G E R D W A LT E R - E C H O L S , FAO ( R E G I O N A L O F F I C E F O R A S I A A N D T H E P A C I F I C )Up to 99% of the world’s cotton farmers live and work in developing world countries; with almost two-thirds residing in either India or
China, and with many of the remainder located in West Africa, orSouth America. Predominantly members of the rural poor, these smallholders typically cultivate cotton on plots of less than one-half hectare,or on parts of their farms, as a means of supplementing their income.
But the cultivation of cotton comes at an appalling price. Between
them, the world’s cotton farmers are responsible for handling US$ 2 billion of agrochemicals every year; US$ 819 million of which are toxic
enough to be classified as hazardous by the World Health Organisation. These chemicals include some of the most poisonous substances
applied to crops anywhere in the world – and they are commonly usedin developing countries without any of the safeguards, regulations orprotections expected in the West.
In total almost one kilogram of hazardous pesticides is applied per
hectare under cotton, and cotton is responsible for 16% of global insecticide usage – a figure higher than any other single crop. The risks thesefarmers take are exacerbated by the circumstances of their relative
poverty, lack of effective regulation systems, poor labelling of pesticides, illiteracy, insufficient knowledge of pesticide hazards, and lack ofprotective equipment, each acting to sponsor exposure to hazardous
pesticides.
This report reveals the way in which most of the developing world’s
cotton farmers work and the hazardous pesticides which contaminate
their environment and threaten their health. It presents an astonishing
picture of the harm caused to supply wealthy, predominantly westernconsumers, and with it, presents a compelling case for immediate
action by all parties involved: business, consumers, politicians, unions,and farmers.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 5

© Wo r l d B a n kMore than three quarters of cotton output is accounted for by developing countries
J O H N B A F F E S , S E N I O R E C O N O M I S T AT T H E WO R L D B A N K ( 2 0 0 3 )A R i c h M a n ’s C o m m o d i t y … I s A P o o r M a n ’s C r o p
In 2004, for the first time, the world’s cotton harvest totalled over 100 million bales1 (21.8
million tonnes). This milestone was not a freak occurrence, but the result of sustained increases
in the amount of cotton we produce and consume. Worldwide, cotton production has almost
doubled since the early 1980s2 and with consumers now buying more cotton than everbefore3, growth forecasts predict further increases in production over the next five years4.
Up to 80% of all cotton-fibre products are destined for the consumer market5. Within thisfigure, a disproportionate volume of cotton manufactures is sold to consumers in thedeveloped world where higher per capita GDP translates directly into greater levels of fibre
consumption6. The primary product manufactured from cotton is clothing, which accounts forsome 60% of the world’s total cotton production7, with a further 35% used to make homefurnishings8. While the bulk of such products originate from Asia, the majority are sold toconsumers in the developed world, with North America alone responsible for 25% of global
household cotton product consumption, and Europe accounting for a further 20%9. In recent
decades these countries have witnessed dramatic growth in demand for cotton products, with
US per capita end-use consumption increasing from 7 to 16 kg/year in the last 25 years10.
While the bulk of cotton-fibre products is sold to consumers in wealthy nations, up to 99%
of the world’s cotton farmers live and work in the developing world. Almost two thirds live ineither India (10 million) or China (7.5 million)13. These farmers, unlike their counterparts in the
US or Australia, are predominantly members of the rural poor often cultivating cotton on plotsof less than one-half hectare14, or on parts of their farms, as a means of supplementing theirlivelihoods15.
In total, farmers in the developing world are responsible for over 75% of global cotton
production16, with those in China, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Brazil accounting for 55% of
the world harvest. In other developing countries cotton plays a vital role in supporting thenational economy, accounting for approximately 80 percent of export earnings in Benin, 50
percent in Mali, 40 percent in Burkina Faso and between 10 and 20 percent in Chad andTogo17.

6 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

North America andEurope account for 45% of
global household cotton
product consumption,
despite being home to just
13% of the world
population11

T H E C H E M I C A L S I N C OT TO NFB E L O W : The world’s cotton
farmers spend a total of
US$ 2 billion on agricultural
pesticides every year, of which over
US$ 819 million worth are toxic
enough to be classified ashazardous by the World HealthOrganisation.

rom its initial cultivation in the Indus valley and South America in 3,000
BC, up until the 1950s, global cotton production occurred predominantly
without the use of hazardous agrochemicals1. For some 5,000 years cotton pests were controlled by agricultural management and tillage practices.
Pest cycles were taken into consideration before planting and at harvesting,crop rotations were used, and cotton was planted at lower densities to reducethe impact of pest populations2.
Soon after the Second World War, global cotton production changed dramatically when a number of newly discovered neurotoxic chemicals – such as
DDT – were first introduced as an alternative means of pest control. Perceiving these chemicals to be a cheaper alternative to the use of labour and machinery, cotton farmers began to use these and former methods of pest control
were largely abandoned3. However, for many developing world cotton farmers,
the switch to toxic pesticides is a comparatively recent phenomenon. In Pakistan for example, just 5-10% of cotton cropland in the Punjab was treated withpesticides in 19834. By 1991 this figure had escalated to 95-98%.

© Still Pictures

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 7

In total the world’s cotton farmers apply a staggering US$ 1,310 million of insecticides to cotton each year:
far more than is applied to any other single crop worldwide – including maize, rice, soybeans and wheat13

A Chemical World
Today cotton farmers from as far apart as Egypt, India, Peru and Australia
spend a total of US$ 2 billion on agricultural pesticides every year5. Of thesechemical applications at least US$ 819 million are toxic enough to be classified
as hazardous by the World Health Organisation such as deltamethrin and endosulfan, which are the two most widely used insecticides on cotton6. Within thisfigure a staggering US$ 112 million is spent on aldicarb (WHO Ia) – the world’s
second biggest selling cotton pesticide, and one of the most toxic chemicals in
global agriculture (see table below). Other hazardous pesticides used in large
volumes include parathion (WHO Ia), methamidophos (WHO Ib) and alphacypermethrin (WHO II). In total almost 1.0kg of hazardous pesticides is applied
for every hectare of global cropland under cotton7.
While the bulk of these pesticides are released by the world’s major cotton
producing countries, the use of hazardous pesticides in cotton production has
become a truly global phenomenon. Of 33 countries responding to a 2005 survey, which together account for 90% of the world’s cotton production8, all ofthem listed at least 1 hazardous pesticide among the ten most commonly usedby their own domestic cotton producers9. These countries include 16 fromAfrica, 7 from Asia and 5 from South America. Within this, 18 respondents,(Argentina, Brazil, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Iran, Madagascar, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Zambia
and Zimbabwe) listed ‘Extremely Hazardous’ or ‘Highly Hazardous’ pesticides
among those commonly used10.

The Dirtiest Crop in the World ?
The bulk of pesticides associated with global cotton production are targeted at
insect pest populations. Indeed, insecticides account for almost 60% of all agrochemicals applied to cotton worldwide12. From the perspective of human healththis statistic is highly significant, as many insecticides act by impairing biological processes such as the nervous and reproductive systems – which are common among all animals; including humans.
In total the world’s cotton farmers apply US$ 1,310 million of insecticides tocotton each year: far more than is applied to any other single crop worldwide– including maize, rice, soybeans and wheat14. Despite accounting for just 2.5%of global cropland15, cotton in responsible for the release of 16% of global insecticides (by market share)16. While it is difficult to obtain comprehensive global
data on the application of hazardous pesticides in world agriculture, the factthat cotton outstrips all other major crops in terms of insecticide applications
supports the view that cotton has become the world’s ‘dirtiest’ agriculturalcommodity.
Pesticide Toxicity Classification
The World Health Organisation classifies pesticides according to acute toxicity, using the LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%) benchmark. LD50
denotes the amount of a chemical required to kill 50% of an exposed population of laboratory rats. There are two measures for eachproduct, oral LD50 (the product is administered orally) and dermal LD50 (the product is administered through the skin).

WHO category
Ia Extremely hazardous
Ib Highly hazardous
II Moderately hazardous
III Slightly hazardous

solids5 or below
5-50
50-500Over 500

8 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

Oral LD50
Dermal LD50
mg per kg body weight required to kill 50% of rat population
liquids
solids20 or below
20-200200-2000
Over 2000

10 or below
10-100100-1000
Over 1000

liquids
40 or below
40-400400-4000
Over 4000

Organic cotton plant, Benin.
© O B E PA B

World Cotton Production: an overview
Cultivated in over 80 countries worldwide – and on all 6 continents18, cotton is the world’s most important non-food agriculturalcommodity19. The world’s largest producer is China where farmers harvest 4.6 million tonnes of fibre annually. While the Indian cotton
harvest totals just over half that of China’s, India has the largest area under cotton cultivation, over 8.3 million hectares – located mainly inthe country’s North and West20. The most productive cotton producer in the world is Australia which harvests an average 1,689 kilos of fibre
per hectare under cotton – over 5 times as much as in India. Responding to both local needs and consumer demands, organic cotton is now
grown in over 20 countries around the globe. Organic cotton production has increased 5-fold over the past 4 years.

The Major Hazardous Pesticides in Cotton
WHO Class

Mass (Metric tonnes)

Value (US$ million)

Malathion

III12,600164

Aldicarb

Ia

3,650

112

Parathion

Ia

3,625

60

Insecticides

Acephate

III

1,920

51

Methamidophos

Ib

2,100

51

Alpha-cypermethrin

II

180

50

Beta-cyfluthrin

II

135

47

Dimethoate

II

2,000

42

Deltamethrin

II

133

40

Chlorpyrifos

II

1,280

40

Methylarsonic acid

III

2,245

33

Pendimethalin

III

1,690

33

Fluazifop-p-butyl

III

100

24

Bromoxynil

II

355

17

Etridiazole

III

50

12

Thiram

III

390

5

Metalaxyl
Data for 2002, from Agranova Alliance (2003)33

III

25

4

Herbicides

FungicideT H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 9

D E AT H I N T H E F I E L D S

How and why pesticides damage human health
Pesticides are hazardous by design: chemicals manufactured with the aim ofkilling, repelling or inhibiting the growth of living organisms by impairing biological processes essential for the maintenance of life1. In many cases pesticides
not only affect the physiology of the pest species they are intended to control,
but also impact upon the well-being of human adults and children. This phenomenon is particularly associated with insecticides, many of which aredesigned to interfere with biological systems common throughout much of
the animal kingdom, such as the nervous and reproductive systems. Indeed of
the 201 agrochemicals classified by the WHO as being either ‘Extremely’,‘Highly’ or ‘Moderately’ hazardous, insecticides represent by far the biggest
group (52%). By comparison the proportion of herbicides (15%), fungicides(14%), and rodenticides (10%) included within these hazard classifications issubstantially smaller2.
Of particular risk to human health is a class of insecticides which act by disrupting the enzyme acetyl-cholinesterase, a molecule essential for the proper
functioning of both the insect and human nervous system. This category
includes the insecticides aldicarb (WHO Ia), parathion (WHO Ia), andmethamidophos (WHO Ia) – all of which are among the top 10 pesticides
applied by cotton farmers globally3. By disrupting the activity of acetylcholinesterase these insecticides prevent individual nerve cells from communicating with one another, thereby impairing nervous co-ordination, and leading to symptoms ranging from tremors, nausea, and weakness to paralysis anddeath4. Exposure to acetyl-cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides has also been
linked to impaired neurological development in the foetus and in infants,
chronic fatigue syndrome, and Parkinson’s disease5.

I L LU S T R AT I O N : Normal acetylcholinesterase activity

Disruptive impact
of insecticides
By disrupting thebiological function of
the enzyme acetylcholinesterase,
insecticides such as
aldicarb, parathion andmethamidophos(WHO Ia) prevent
neurotransmittermolecules from being
broken down, causing
them to accumulate in
the spaces between
nerve cells. In this way
acetyl-cholinesterase
inhibitors effectively
jam the transmission of
nervous signals
between nerve cells.

6) neurotransmitteris re-formed

1) electrical signal
reaches the end of
a nerve cell2) this causes therelease of
neurotransmitter

5) The enzyme
acetylcholinesterase
breaks down theneurotransmitter,ending the signal

1 0 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

3) neurotransmitterbinds to receptor
on the next nervecell4) electrical signal
continues

HeadacheDizziness
MalaiseSweating
Seizures
Fatigue
Weakness
Loss of consciousness
Coma
Pin-point pupils
Blurred or dark vision
Excessive mucus
Irritability to Sound
Excessive salivation
TremorRespiratory depression
Productive coughFluid in lungs
Shortness of Breath
Skin Irritation
Irritability to Touch
Sensation of Prickling, Tinglingor Creeping Numbness

Tightness in chest
Wheezing
High Blood Pressure

Vomiting
NauseaAbdominal cramps/pain
Diarrhea
Incontinence
Limp Muscles
Muscle twitching

Lack ofcoordination

Source: Pesticide
Database, PAN (2005)
http://www.pesticideinfo.org

Death

Acute vs. Chronic Poisoning
Pesticides can have both acute and chronic health impacts, depending on thenature of exposure. Acute poisoning is caused by exposure to a high dose of a
toxic chemical, on one occasion. Symptoms of poisoning develop in close relation to the exposure and, in extreme cases, can result in death. The extent of
acute poisoning symptoms depends both on the toxicity of the product and on
the quantity absorbed. Acute effects can be delayed by up to four weeks and can
include cramping in the lower limbs that leads to lack of coordination andparalysis. Improvement may occur over months or years, but some residual
impairment may remain. Very high doses may result in unconsciousness, convulsions and death.
By contrast, chronic poisoning results from repeated exposure to toxic
agents over a longer period, with only a low dose entering the body each time.
Normally, no symptoms develop in relation to each exposure. Instead, victims
gradually become ill over a period of months or years. Over time poison canaccumulate in the body, or cumulative damage can become significant enoughto cause clinical symptoms. Chronic effects of long-term pesticide exposure
include impaired memory and concentration, disorientation, severe depressions, irritability, confusion, headache, speech difficulties, delayed reaction
times, nightmares, sleepwalking, drowsiness and insomnia12. An influenza-like
condition with headache, nausea, weakness, loss of appetite, and malaise has
also been reported13. Some symptoms may only appear later in life, or even in
the next generation. These include learning difficulties, behavioural and reproductive defects (e.g. accelerated puberty, infertility), and increased susceptibility to cancer14. Other long-term effects include teratogenesis (inducing embryo
malformation) and DNA mutations (inducing genetic or chromosomal mutations)15.
T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 1 1

Double trouble:
Immunotoxicity

Dangers for the Developing World

Pesticides may also disrupt the
body’s immune system,
suppressing normal immune
responses, and reducing
resistance to bacterial, viral andother infections6. While theseeffects are difficult to study
because there are so manyfactors affecting humanimmune function, several
persuasive studies indicate that
immune system effects may beconsequences of pesticide
exposure7. For example, among
Indian factory workers
chronically-exposed topesticides, blood lymphocyte
levels were found to havedecreased by as much as 66%8.
Immune system abnormalities
have also been observed
among farm workers in theformer Soviet Union, where
pesticides are used heavily9. A
comparison between pesticideexposed children with nonexposed controls revealed
significantly higher rates ofinfectious disease in the
exposed children10. One
important link is that people
whose immune systems havebeen artificially depressed
through taking
immunosuppressive drugs after
transplants, are at higher risk ofdeveloping the same profile ofcancers as those observed
among farmers11: a correlation
which may be due tocompromised immuno-activity
caused by long term pesticide
exposure.

While hazardous pesticides are applied to cotton grown worldwide, their negative impact on human health is visited disproportionately upon those living
and working in the developing world16. Not only are these countries home to
99% of the world’s cotton farmers17, but low levels of safety awareness, lack ofaccess to protective apparatus, illiteracy, poor labelling of pesticides, inadequate safeguards, and chronic poverty each exacerbate the damage caused bycotton pesticides among these low income communities.
According to a recent publication prepared jointly for the FAO, UNEP and
WHO, between 1% and 3% of agricultural workers worldwide suffer from acutepesticide poisoning: with at least 1 million requiring hospitalization each year18.
While these percentages may at first appear small, their global significance issubstantial. Worldwide, the agricultural workforce stands at 2.6 billion people19(over 40% of the total world population20). This figure sets the number of agricultural workers affected by acute pesticide poisoning at between 26 million(1%) and 77 million (3%) worldwide – an upper limit which significantly outstrips the population of the United Kingdom21.
While it is difficult to quantify the share of global pesticide poisonings
directly associated with cotton, the crop undoubtedly plays a major role incausing short-term ill health among agricultural workers worldwide. Not only
does cotton account for some US$ 819 million dollars of hazardous pesticides
annually, but within this figure cotton represents 16% of global insecticides
usage – a larger share than any other single agricultural commodity. To add tothis, in some major developing world cotton producing countries, such as India
and Pakistan, cotton production accounts for over 50% of all pesticides used inagriculture – despite covering just 5 and 15% of primary cropland respectively22.

© Still Pictures

Acute Pesticide Poisoning
The victims of cotton pesticide poisoning experience a broad spectrum of negative health impacts ranging from headaches, to seizures, loss of consciousness, and in severe cases death23. A 2005 study of 97 farmers working to growcotton in 3 different villages in India underlines the array of symptoms that
cotton pesticide poisoning can cause. Over a 5 month observation period, thelabourers reported headaches, excessive sweating, burning eyes, running nose,
breathlessness, excessive salivation, skin rashes, vomiting, nausea, dizziness,blurred vision, staggering gait, muscle cramp, twitching eyelids, tremors, lossof consciousness and seizures24. In total, 323 separate incidents of ill health werereported. Of these 39% were associated with symptoms of mild poisoning, 38%
with moderate poisoning, and 6% with severe poisoning. While these data
relate to just 97 workers among India’s population of 10 million cotton farmers25, they hint at a substantial health problem at the heart of the global cotton
producing sector.
While developing countries account for less than 30% of global pesticideconsumption26, the bulk of pesticide poisonings occur in a developing world
scenario; including an estimated 99% of pesticide induced deaths27. The reasons for this skewed distribution are twofold. Firstly, the developing world ishome to 96% of the global agricultural workforce28. The majority of theselabourers are found in Asia (1,900 million) and Africa (443 million), with a mere
1.3% of working in either the EU (27.3 million) or the USA (6.3 million)29. Secondly, developing world countries are characterised by agricultural practices
which encourage substantial exposure to hazardous pesticides.

Chronic Disease
Alongside the immediate health risks associated with poisoning, those working
in cotton production are exposed to the longer-term dangers of chronic disease.
While these effects are inherently harder to detect due to the time lag between
exposure and the onset of disease32, their impact on human health may be justas significant. Although few field investigators have directly measured the longterm health impacts of pesticide exposure in agricultural labourers, studies of

1 2 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

© Still Pictureslaboratory animals, together with a growing body of epidemiological research,and reported incidents involving human exposure, suggest pesticides may be
responsible for causing: spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, birth defects, earlyneonatal deaths, disruption of the endocrine system, sterility, decreased intelligence, behavioural abnormalities, leukaemia, lymphoma, brain cancer, and aweakened immune system33. The only study known to the authors whichattempts to examine the long term health impacts of exposure to hazardous
pesticides among labourers working in cotton production, found significantly
lower levels of serum acetyl-cholinsterase in exposed participants, coupled withlower neurobehavioural functioning in tests designed to assess visuomotor
speed, visual attention, auditory attention and memory, and visual memory34.

An Egyptian study of 52 cotton
labourers working in the
Menoufiya Governate found that88% of participants had neverused protective clothing36. Only
6% of workers reported frequently
wearing face masks over theirnose and mouth.

Non-occupational exposure
While the agricultural labourers who work in close contact with hazardous
cotton pesticides are among those worst affected by exposure, the healthimpacts of chemicals applied to cotton extend far beyond those directly
involved in pesticide applications. Accidental exposure and poisoning involving
individuals of all ages not directly involved in agricultural labour is known toresult from inappropriate storage of pesticides (a recent survey by PAN-UK
found that 86% of households surveyed stored their pesticides in their bedroom35), open access to contaminated equipment, and pesticide drift from spray
application in the field37. A 2002 survey of cotton farms in Tanzania found that
cotton pesticides were stored in bedrooms, near food, or near open fires in 2 out
of 10 farms38. Furthermore, in many developing countries empty pesticide containers are often re-used by farm workers to carry drinking water. A recent
investigation to identify the cause of serious illnesses among a village community in Madhya Pradesh (a cotton producing region of India) found that many
villagers were using empty pesticide containers in this way. Analyses of foodsamples and human blood, revealed high levels of endosulfan39: a major pesticide used in Indian cotton production40.

Children in cotton
Because of their smaller body size, differing metabolism, and rapidly
growing and developing organ systems, children are inherently more
vulnerable to the negative impacts of exposure to pesticides 41 . This
places children who live in cotton farming communities, particularlyin the developing world, at greater risk of ill health through association with hazardous agrochemicals applied to cotton.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 1 3

A B O V E : Pesticide containers:
resold and reused to carry drinking
water putting families at further
risk from poisoning.
© O B E PA B

Globally the number of children poisoned by pesticides is thought to be
substantial42. Such poisonings occur in the context of cotton production in a
number of different ways. Contact may arise through the involvement of children in agricultural labour. In parts of Uzbekistan43 and India44, children are
known to work directly in cotton pesticide application. While in Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and India, children regularly workin the cotton fields during, or following, the spraying season when levels of
pesticide residues are high45. Other scenarios include children following theirparents during spraying operations, children coming into contact with inappropriately stored equipment and pesticides, children playing close to cotton
fields following pesticide application, when family members fail to wash theirclothes following work in contaminated fields, and when the spraying of pesticides occurs close to living quarters, or drifts into neighbouring fields, homes
or schools46.
While evidence of ill-health among children exposed to cotton pesticides ispoorly documented, a study conducted in India found evidence that children
living in cotton producing regions may be at risk of impaired mental development. Released in 2003, the analysis tested a total of 899 children in Indian states
where pesticides are used intensively in cotton production, and compared theresults with a nearly equal number of children living in areas where few agricultural pesticides are applied47. In more than two thirds of the tests, children
living in cotton producing areas performed significantly worse in tests designed
to assess mental ability, memory, concentration, cognitive skills, balance, andco-ordination.

Something in the water
Globally, 99% of deaths
relating to pesticides occur
in developing world
countries35

1 4 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

Numerous studies undertaken in major cotton producing countries such as
USA, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Brazil, Australia, Greece and in West Africa
have documented detectable levels of hazardous pesticides commonly applied
to cotton in local water resources48. While this type of contamination undoubtedly occurs regardless of the economic status of the countries involved, it islikely to pose a greater threat to communities living in the developing world,
where drinking water is less often treated and quality monitoring facilities areoften lacking.
A 2005 study analysed samples of water taken from 6 locations in Lake Volta:
the most important inland water resource in Ghana. The lake is fed by the river
Volta which originates from Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire and Togo, and flows
through farming regions in these countries, before reaching Ghana49. Thesefarming regions are noted for their production of cotton, among other crops.
Lindane was detected in 22.7% of the samples, while endosulfan showed up in
up to 18%50. Endosulfan is commonly applied to cotton growing in Coted’Ivoire, while in Togo, lindane is applied to cotton in response to disease51.
US scientists tested water samples taken from the Mississippi Embayment(Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee), a majorarea for cotton production in the United States52. Dicrotophos (WHO Ib), an
organophosphate used extensively in the cotton growing areas was the most frequently detected (35% of samples)53. Methyl parathion (WHO Ia), the mostused insecticide in the cotton growing areas was the second most frequent contaminant (18%). The researchers also found traces of profenofos (12%),
malathion (12%), cyanazine (46%), fluometuron (57%), and norflurazon (49%)– all pesticides applied to cotton growing in the region54.
In Brazil, the world’s 4th largest consumer of agrochemicals, researchers
analysed samples of water taken from streams, rivers and surface water in the
Pantanal basin, southern Mato Grosso state. Among other pesticides the scientists detected traces of alachlor (WHO III), chlorpyrifos (WHO II), endosulfan (WHO II), metolachlor (WHO III), monocrotophos (WHO Ib) and profenofos (WHO II): all pesticides applied to cotton within the study area55. The
scientists also analysed rain water collected from sites in the same region finding traces of 19 different pesticides – 12 of which were applied to cotton. Almost
80% of samples taken from the planalto region – the major region of cotton production with in the study area – contained endosulfan.

Chemicals in the food chain
The primary economic rationale underlying the production of cotton is thetrade in cotton fibre, which accounts for around 80% of a cotton farmer’s
income57. In addition to fibre, the world’s cotton farmers produce around 34
million tonnes of cottonseed every year58. This high protein commodity is not
only used as an animal feed, but is also a source of cottonseed oil: around 3.1
million tonnes is used in the preparation of food each year59. In total, cottonseed oil represents approximately 8% of the world’s vegetable oil consumption60, providing the major source of fat and oil in Mali, Chad, Burkina Faso,
Togo, Ivory Coast, and Cameroon61, and forms a significant part of the diet of
the Middle East (3.8 g/day), Far East (0.5 g/day), and Latin America (0.5g/day)62.In total, as much as 65% of harvested cotton produce may enter thehuman food chain63.
Data collected by the FAO/ WHO Joint Meetings on Pesticides Residues inFood, show that hazardous pesticides applied to cotton – including aldicarb(WHO Ia), parathion (WHO Ia), methyl parathion (WHO Ia), methamidophos(WHO Ib), deltamethrin (WHO II), imidacloprid (WHO II), and chlorpyrifos64(WHO II) – can potentially contaminate both refined cottonseed oil, and cottonseed derivatives commonly fed to animals. Given that 75% of global cotton
production occurs in developing communities, and that less than 5% of cottonseed, and cottonseed derivatives, are traded internationally65, these chemicals
may pose a significant threat to communities in the developing world where thefacilities necessary for monitoring pesticide contamination are often lacking.
While these data represent mere snapshots of the global situation, they offera stark warning. Given that the use of such toxic pesticides is widespread, evidence of contamination found at one location points to a potential far greater
problem worldwide. Furthermore, the few studies which have analysed the frequency of cottonseed contamination have found pesticide residues to be widespread. A recent analysis of cottonseed samples harvested in 5 locations in India
found 26 % to be contaminated with chlorpyrifos (WHO II), 22% with endosulfan (WHO II),and 16% with ethion (WHO II)68. While a parallel study conducted in Pakistan found almost 75% of cottonseed samples to be contaminated with pesticides, with 41% exceeding the prescribed maximum residue
limits69. According to a recent study conducted by researchers in India, “Becauseof the injudicious and indiscriminate use of insecticides, it is feared that cottonreaching the market may be heavily contaminated with insecticide residues.”70© Wo r l d B a n k

Take the shirt off myback?
Hazardous pesticides applied
during cotton production canalso be detected in cotton
clothing. In 2004, a team ofscientists based at theTechnical University of Lódz
analysed garments
manufactured from cotton
originating from Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,
Tajikistan, and USA78. Theirresearch uncovered detectabletraces of parathion (WHO Ia)
and endosulfan (WHO II), as
well as numerous persistentorganic pollutants such as
aldrin, endrin and DDT.

Contaminated Cattle
Around 23 million tonnes of cottonseeds and their derivatives are fed to animals
every year. This comprises 6.8 million tonnes of whole cottonseeds, and 16.4
million tonnes of cottonseed hulls and meal71: by-products of the extraction ofcottonseed oil. These materials are rich in energy, protein, fibre, and mineralssuch as potassium, sodium, magnesium and phosphorus72, and can represent asmuch as 25% of a dairy herds total nutritive ration73.
Cottonseeds, and their derivatives, are also known to contain hazardous pesticide residues, often at levels significantly higher than those observed in cottonseed oil. Furthermore there is strong evidence that residues consumed byanimals can be incorporated into food products. In laboratory experiments,
hens reared on food containing parathion (WHO 1a) and methamidophos(WHO 1b) showed traces of the pesticides in their eggs74, while cattle reared ondiets containing parathion (WHO 1a), aldicarb (WHO 1a), and methamidophos(WHO Ib), passed these chemicals into their milk75.
Analysis of cows’ milk destined for consumption in Brazil, where endosulfan is used extensively in cotton production but on few other crops, found that
10% of samples contained traces of the pesticide76. Earlier research conductedin Nicaragua uncovered traces of organochlorine residues in samples of cows
milk from at least 38 different sites around the country; the most heavily contaminated milk came sites of intensive cotton production77. Thus, globally, cottonseed used as animal feed represents a second significant pathway by whichhazardous pesticides applied to cotton may enter the human food chain.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 1 5

WEST AFRICA
Barbara Dinham, former Director, Pesticide Action Network UKCotton is the lifeblood of at least one and a half million farming families,
10 million people, in francophone West Africa1. In Benin, it supports
over 50% of the population, and in Mali 20%2. The resourceful farmers
rely entirely on rainfall for water. They are dependent on a highly controlled
infrastructure for their seeds, fertilisers and pesticides provided on credit, as
well as for advice and collection of the harvested cotton.
The pesticides used in the cotton growing areas are extremely dangerous,
and the poor conditions allow little protection against adverse impacts onhuman health or the environment. Poisonings and ill-health are widespread.
The pesticides are supplied on credit by a national distribution structure organised through national cotton companies, once owned by the State in each country but increasingly privatised or part privatised. Most of these companies inturn are linked to a French company, Développement des Agro Industries duSud (DAGRIS), still 40% owned by the French government3.
Guidance for farmers is developed in research centres in France and West
Africa, which recommend pesticides and spray regimes. In some ways this advice
has prevented the extreme excesses of pesticide use. Spraying is conductedlargely on a calendar basis – meaning that farmers are given set spraying dates,
generally six to 10 times a season4 – whereas in cotton-growing areas of certain
developing countries pesticide spraying has escalated to 30-40 times a season5,6.
However under the local conditions, this has not reduced farmers’ problems.
In the late 1990s the insect pests developed resistance to the commonly-usedpesticides. In Benin, insecticide costs rose 86% between 1999 and 2000, andreached an average of US$97 per hectare in 2001 7. To combat resistance, theresearch institutes recommended the reintroduction of endosulfan for the firsttwo sprays of the season. Although classified by the World Health Organisationas ‘moderately hazardous’, this organochlorine insecticide is known for its
adverse health and environmental impacts. The cotton advice regimes hadrecognised the dangers of the extremely toxic organophosphates used throughout the 1980s and early 1990s (although insect resistance was a primary reason
for change), and problems from the use of a chemical as dangerous as endosulfan should have been predicted. Its use under the common conditions inWest African cotton farming households seemed at the best ill-advised, and atworst irresponsible.
At the end of the first season after endosulfan was introduced in Benin (19992000), stories of poisonings and deaths among farming communities in the cotton growing areas emerged. In one area, the authorities reported that cotton
pesticides had claimed at least 37 lives, and an additional 36 were identified withserious health problems. The government did not follow up with further investigations. Following these stories, the local non-governmental organisation,
Organisation Béninoise pour la Promotion de l’Agriculture Biologique(OBEPAB) carried out an independent investigation in 2000 and, among families interviewed, confirmed 24 fatalities. They estimated that at least 70 deaths
occurred just in the cotton areas it investigated8. OBEPAB followed this withinvestigations in the following two seasons, from 2000-2003. During this period
they investigated and recorded 577 poisoning incidents in the villages visited,which included 97 fatalities9.
The main products responsible for incidents were those containing the active
ingredient endosulfan, accounting for 69% of the cases. The second offending
product, causing 14% of poisonings, was a mixture of the pyrethroid lambdacyhalothrin and an organophosphate – in some cases dimethoate and in others
profenofos. This mixture is recommended for farmers to spray at least fourtimes, after the first two sprays of endosulfan10.
1 6 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

© Pe s t i c i d e A c t i o n N e t w o r k U K

A young boy of eight had been helping his parents by weeding in the cotton fields. Feeling thirsty, he ran back to thehouse, but found an empty container by the path and used it to scoop up some water from a ditch. He did not return
home, and a village search found his body next to the empty endosulfan bottle innocently used to quench his thirst11.

The reasons for the poisoning are various, and in addition to occupational
exposure include food contamination, confusion of pesticides with food or
drink, and self harm. They reveal numerous family tragedies. In one case afather left his pesticide-soaked work clothes on the roof of the house out of thereach of his four children, aged six to eight. It rained during the night, and thewater passed through his clothes, dripping into domestic water vessels. The
next morning the children drank and washed using water from the vessels andsome minutes later suffered headaches, nausea and convulsions. They weretaken urgently to the health centre, but all four children died within about 20
hours. In another case three boys aged 12-14 were weeding their father’s cotton
fields, which were cultivated with maize. The father had sprayed endosulfan on
cotton the previous day. After weeding, the boys ate some maize cobs, but it had
been contaminated with spray drift. Fifteen minutes later they started vomiting. They were taken to hospital, but the boy of 12 died. In another instance, ayoung boy of eight had been helping his parents by weeding in the cotton fields.
Feeling thirsty, he ran back to the house, but found an empty container by thepath and used it to scoop up some water from a ditch. He did not return home,
and a village search found his body next to the empty endosulfan bottle innocently used to quench his thirst11.
T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 1 7

In a further study carried out by OBEPAB in 2004 which interviewed 197 villagers, all recorded some impacts from pesticide exposure. A medical study of
14 farmers from nine small villages found similar problems. The medical investigation recorded pesticide incidents and symptoms, and found that some people have been incapacitated for life: they have lost visual acuity, experience regular pain from conjunctivitis, and suffer serious metabolic and digestion
problems12.
No industrialised country would allow pesticides to be used under the conditions prevalent in African cotton fields. Farmers cannot follow recommended
precautions. Personal protective equipment is not available or affordable – andin any event the heat and humidity makes it impossible to work with some ofthe essential items. Pesticide application is hard work, and users breathe instrongly while spraying. Most cotton pesticides are applied with light ULVsprayers: hands are easily saturated and light changes of the wind wafts spray
onto the body and clothing. Where a backpack sprayer is used, these often leakas there are few maintenance facilities, and filling the tank is a high risk activity. In Benin, the survey found particular problems for women farmers, who do
not have access to spray equipment and will often apply pesticides with same
small hand pump used for spraying household insecticides, or even spread witha bucket and brush. Spray drift frequently contaminates farmers and those living and working nearby.
Pesticides are valuable, and are stored in the house. Farming communities
live in basic housing, and few have lockable or isolated storage facilities. Afteruse, the empty containers are generally reused. Typically, water is not readily
accessible near the fields of the drier zones where cotton is grown, and few
houses have running water or a nearby standpipe. Farmers and workers cannot
immediately wash their hands or bodies splashed with pesticides. The task ofwashing out spray equipment and work clothing is generally assigned to
women, who may need to use the same bowls as for washing, clothes, cooking
or eating utensils, or possibly for food preparation.
The structural aspects of supply, credit, advice and training delivery ignore
the reality that pesticides can be used under these conditions without risk.
The culture of cotton pesticide use has encouraged farmers to use pesticides on all crops, and particularly on the widely grown cowpea. Cowpea islargely cultivated by women, and is important for both domestic consumption,
and as a source of cash from sales onto the local market. Cotton pesticides arewidely used on this crop because of their ready availability. There are few outlets for pesticides in rural areas of Benin, and the input distribution system forcotton pesticides is one of the main sources of supply. Farmers explain thatthey cannot rely on supplies of the recommended products for cowpeas, andthus use the readily available cotton pesticides13.
These problems of high costs of pesticide use, both economically and on thehealth of farming households, are replicated throughout the cotton growing
areas of Benin. A study in five of the francophone West African cotton-growing countries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Senegal) found similar cases of
poisoning and ill-health, including fatalities, associated with the current spray
regimes14.
Farmers must have access to better pest management. Options based on
training farmers in Integrated Pest Management are under-explored, eventhough a number of the Farmer Field School training projects in the region
have successfully shown that pesticide use can be halved or more. Strategies
show that training enables farmers to recognise pests and predators, identify
when these pose a threat to production and yields, learn how to encourage
beneficial insects, manage improvements to soil fertility, and adopt a range ofother strategies. A number of small but highly successful organic cotton projects in Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Senegal have shown that cotton can begrown without using pesticides, and that the savings on pesticides plus the premium paid bring economic benefits to farmers and eliminate health tragedies
being replicated across the region.

1 8 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n

U Z B E K I S TA NO

f the major cotton producing countries, Uzbekistan is arguably themost severely affected by pesticides. Toxic agrochemicals first applied
50 years ago now pollute the country’s land, air and water15, causing
substantial damage to human health and the environment. While many ofthese problems derive from the Soviet era, Uzbekistan’s totalitarian dictatorshiphas done little to correct or redress the use of toxic pesticides since Independence in 1991. The country’s state-controlled cotton sector continues to use
many of the same toxic chemicals applied during the Soviet era – in some cases
despite prohibitive legislation, sustainable practices are far from widespread,and the cotton sector is characterised by a near total lack of safety awareness
relating to pesticide application. Chronic mismanagement of the environment
relating to pesticides now poses a threat to communities living throughout
Uzbekistan and Central Asia.
Uzbekistan’s intensive use of toxic pesticides was initiated as a means ofrealising the Soviet ambition of cotton self-sufficiency. For 30 years pesticides,
such as DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, and lindane, herbicides and defoliants were usedin large quantities16. Estimates suggest applications of between 20kg and 90kg
of pesticides per hectare17 – almost 20 times the average level of pesticides currently applied to cotton in the US18. These chemicals have rendered almost 90%of land contaminated19, and a cocktail of pesticides now pollutes the country’s
water resources. Even at a depth of 100-150m, groundwater is often contaminated20. In 2000, a study conducted in Karakalpakstan, the country’s worst
affected region, found traces of DDT and lindane in all samples of treatedwater analysed 21. In the same part of the country around 85% of the population are said to suffer poor health as a result of exposure to agrochemicals andunsafe drinking water22.
The abundance of pesticides present in Uzbekistan’s soil and water systems
has left the country’s 25 million inhabitants25 constantly exposed to the dangerof diseases caused by chemical contamination of foodstuffs26. Precise statistics
regarding the level of ill-health relating to pesticides is largely unavailable – inpart because state doctors are often reluctant to diagnose illnesses caused bypesticides and intentionally provide alternate diagnoses27. However, numerous
studies carried out in rural Uzbekistan reveal a catalogue of diseases potentially linked to environmental health problems and toxicology. These include
elevated levels of developmental retardation, mal-absorption, hypothyroidism,
immunodeficiency, and chronic renal and lung diseases among children28. In
downstream regions the rate of DNA mutation is 3.5 times higher than normal– with the worst levels of deterioration observed in those most exposed to toxic
agrochemicals29. According to one of the scientists, “This means not only thatpeople are more likely to get cancer, but that their children and grandchildren
are too.”30
A second major health risk is the abundance of pesticide-laden dust particles.
Since the 1960s, Uzbek cotton farmers have drained their fields into the Amu
Darya and Syr Darya waterways. These giant rivers have for decades carriedpesticides from the cotton fields, towards the Aral Sea where they accumulate
in the soil. Strong winds then collect the pesticide contaminated dust particles“When I was little, people used totell me about a strange disease
called ‘chicken eye’ which attacks
people while they work in the
cotton fields. They said when you
catch it, everything in front of
your eyes becomes white until
eventually you temporarily lose all
vision. I used to wonder what onearth could cause such an
unusual condition. Years latersomeone explained that these
symptoms were the effects of thepesticides applied to cotton”
E J F I N T E RV I E W W I T H A RU R A L U Z B E K(2006)T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 1 9

and transport them throughout Central Asia31. According to Medecins Sans Frontieres, an estimated 43 million tonnes of pesticide-laden dust is blown into the air
every year32 – among the highest rate of dust deposition in the world33. It can be
no co-incidence that the Aral Sea region suffers the highest rate of throat cancer
in the world – with 80% of cancer victims suffering this form of the disease34.

Carry on contaminating
The seriousness and extent of pollution relating to pesticides applied during theSoviet era supports an overwhelming case for reform of Uzbekistan’s state-controlled cotton sector. However, despite the end of control from Moscow in 1991,
Uzbekistan’s totalitarian government has shown little interest in attempting tohalt the damage caused by cotton pesticides. While the overall amount of pesticides applied has fallen due to decreased availability and increased costs35, pesticides
are still applied to cotton at two or three times the recommended amount36
Of particular concern is the continued application of the highly toxic cottonpesticides that characterised Soviet cotton production. The authors are aware of
10 pesticides used during the Soviet era that were seen being applied to cotton
growing in Uzbekistan as recently as 200437. This list includes the defoliant butifos– a highly toxic organophosphate used widely between 1960 and the mid-1980s, butwhose use was officially terminated in 198738. Despite being known to affect thecentral nervous system, heart, liver and kidneys and female fertility39, butifos isstill manufactured at the Soviet built ‘Navoi Azot Kombinat’ (Navoi Fertilizer Factory) and applied to cotton grown in Uzbekistan40. Another banned pesticide isphosalone41, whose continued application to cotton was highlighted in a recent
communication from the Uzbek Ministry of Agriculture42. This hazardous broadspectrum pesticide, manufactured at the same plant in Navoi43, has now been identified as a contaminant present in the toxic dusts arising from the Aral Sea region44.
The state’s policy of seemingly ignoring Soviet-era prohibitions is compoundedby its failure to provide safety training to those involved in cotton production.
One expert interviewed by the authors explained, “No farmer I have met has been
given any sort of safety training, and the application of integrated pest management and biological control remains fairly limited”45. In perhaps the most alarming development since Independence, schoolchildren have been witnessed applying cotton pesticides46. In June 2004, state authorities in the Rishtan district of theFerghana Valley were reported to have excused local schoolchildren from theirend of year exams, and instead sent them to work spraying pesticides in the cotton fields47. One student described how she and her friends were issued with plastic mineral-water bottles filled with chemicals. The bottles had holes drilled in thecaps so that the children can go up and down the rows dowsing the plants.
Although the children were unaware of the exact identity of the chemicals they
were applying, it was noted that the contents of the bottles burnt the skin upon
contact48. Further reports indicate that children involved in applying pesticides are
not supplied with any protective clothing49.

The Sick Man of Central Asia
The continued application of toxic pesticides to cotton growing in Uzbekistan,and the failure to rationalise either the infrastructure relating to cotton productionor the manner in which cotton is produced, not only poses a serious problem forthe population of Uzbekistan, but for all those living in Central Asia. For not only
are the environmental impacts of Uzbek cotton production felt beyond the country’s borders (the Aral Sea dust cloud pollutes the air in Turkmenistan, and watercontaminated by Uzbek pesticides journeys through much of Kazakhstan), but
the use of toxic pesticides undermines efforts by other Central Asian countries toregulate their own domestic use of pesticides. Perhaps the best example is that of
Kyrgyzstan, whose Department of Plant Protection has drawn up a list of permitted pesticides to be imported from manufacturers in India, Switzerland andRussia, but where up to 80% of pesticides applied are smuggled illegally fromUzbekistan and are unlikely to comply with the Kyrgyz environmental standards50.

2 0 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n

Pesticides on a plate
In 2000, an international study
consistently found traces ofhighly toxic cotton-related
pesticides in beef, sheep fat,chicken, fish, eggs, dairy
products, onions and carrots
produced in Uzbekistan23. A
separate study by the WorldBank found that most of
Uzbekistan’s food products do
not meet national food quality
standards due tocontamination by cotton
pesticides24.

INDIAO

f all the communities adversely affected by hazardous cotton pesticides, a substantial proportion are located in India: home to more cotton farmers than any
other country in the world51. Indian cotton production is heavily associated with
the intensive use of hazardous pesticides, and is responsible for over half of all agricultural
pesticides applied nationally52. Within this figure Indian cotton is associated with some of
the most hazardous pesticides used anywhere on earth53. Characterized by a near total lackof safety measures, low quality equipment, and with protective clothing often unavailable
or prohibitively expensive, Indian cotton production represents a highly unsafe environment within which to work54. Observational studies reveal a heavy toll exerted on thehealth of those who work with cotton pesticides55 and chemical analysis has revealed tracesof pesticide residues in blood samples taken from Indian cotton labourers. Cotton undoubtedly represents one of India’s most important economic, nutritive and cultural commodities, but its conventional cultivation has become deeply problematic, both for those whogrow it and because of the external costs of its impact on health and the environment56.

Covered in CottonWith over 8.3 million hectares under cultivation, India has more land under cotton than any
other country57. This cropland is tended by the world’s biggest cotton farming community.
© Still Pictures

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 2 1

At 10 million strong, well over one third of the world’s cotton farmers live and work in
India58. The country’s vast cotton belt covers much of its western side, reaching as far southas Tamil Nadu, and stretching upwards almost as far as the Himalayas. Key production
zones are located in the north (Punjab, Haryana, northern Rajasthan, and part of Uttar
Pradesh), the centre (Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra) and the south (Andhra
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka)59.
Despite having more cropland, India trails both China and USA in terms of overall cotton output, accounting for just 13% of global production60. And while other major producers such as China, Greece, Brazil and Australia all harvest over 1000 kilos per hectare
under cotton, India’s yield stands at little more than 300 kilos per hectare – half the global
average61. The causes of India’s low yields are highly complex, but contemporary farming
practices undoubtedly play a major role. Traditional methods of pest control, such as manual removal of pests, intercropping, crop rotation, and the burning or removal of cotton
residues from the soil have been largely abandoned, and high yielding crop varieties which
are significantly more susceptible to plant pests and diseases have been introduced into thefarming system62.

Splash and burn
In an attempt to limit the damage caused by pest infestations, Indian cotton farmers now
apply an estimated US$ 344 million of pesticides annually. This represents 55% of the country’s entire expenditure on agricultural pesticides; a truly disproportionate figure giventhat cotton accounts for just 5% of India’s total cropland63. And within this figure a staggering US$ 235 million is spent trying to control bollworm alone64.
The majority of pesticides that dominate applications to Indian cotton are classified ashazardous65. Among these perhaps the most significant is the ‘Highly Hazardous’organophosphorus compound, monocrotophos, which accounts for 22% of the entire
Indian cotton insecticides market66. Other insecticides included in the top 10 are endosulfan (WHO II), quinalphos (WHO II), fenvalerate (WHO II), chlorpyrifos (WHO II),
dimethoate (WHO II), and imidacloprid (WHO II)67. In addition, surveys of pesticide use
in specific regions reveal farmers applying even more hazardous chemicals to their cotton.
A 2000 study of 3 villages in Andhra Pradesh documented cotton farmers applying pesticides classified as ‘Extremely Hazardous’: parathion, methyl parathion, and phosphamidon68. While cotton farmers in Karnataka are also known to use ethion (WHO II) and carbaryl (WHO II)69.

In the blood
For the 10 million labourers directly involved in Indian cotton production, the dangers presented by the many hazardous pesticides used on cotton are exacerbated by the manner inwhich they are applied. Protective measures and equipment for safe handling and sprayingof pesticides are far from being widely adopted70. Instead, cotton farmers have been documented working barefoot and barehanded, wearing only short-sleeved cotton T-shirts
and traditional sarongs71. Not only is protective equipment expensive, unavailable, andcumbersome to use, but in extreme hot weather conditions of the tropics protective gearis rarely employed72. Working under such conditions farmers are liable to be directly
exposed to pesticides for 3 to 4 hours per spraying session.
The consequences of occupational exposure to cotton pesticides are both extensive andsevere. A 2005 study of 97 farmers working to grow cotton in 3 different villages in thesouthern state of Andhra Pradesh documented 323 separate incidents of ill health over a 5
month observation period73. Labourers reported symptoms including headaches, excessive sweating, burning eyes, running nose, breathlessness, excessive salivation, skin rashes,
vomiting, nausea, dizziness, blurred vision, staggering gait, muscle cramp, twitching eyelids, tremors, loss of consciousness and seizures74. Of the total incidents reported, 39% wereassociated with symptoms of mild poisoning, 38% with moderate poisoning, and 6% withsevere poisoning, and up to 10% of all spraying sessions were associated with three or moreneurotoxic or systemic symptoms75.
Meanwhile recent medical analyses of villagers from cotton farming regions in northern India has revealed a more subtle, yet equally disturbing health consequence of exposure to hazardous pesticides. Blood samples taken from residents to 4 villages in Punjab, –India’s major cotton producing state – revealed traces of hazardous pesticides commonly

2 2 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

L E F T : Two Indian womenpicking cotton© Wo r l d B a n kused in Indian cotton production: chlorpyrifos (WHO II) was detected in 85% of blood samples analysed, monocrotophos (WHO Ib) in 75%, and endosulfan (WHO II) in 25%76.

Countrywide contamination
While the hazardous pesticides applied to cotton pose a clearly identifiable risk to those
directly involved in Indian cotton production, the same chemicals may also endanger thewell-being of innumerable people not directly associated with agriculture. Firstly, cotton
pesticides may be present as contaminants in drinking water. In 2003, Indian researchers
tested 16 brands of bottled drinking water for traces of pesticide residues. 14 brands tested
positive for chlorpyrifos, and 1 for dimethoate – both chemicals commonly applied during
Indian cotton production77. While this kind of exposure is not associated with the kinds ofextreme symptoms incurred during agricultural work, the presence of pesticides in India’s
drinking water supplies carries potential health implications for a far larger group of people.
Communities in India may also be exposed to hazardous cotton pesticides through thecontamination of cottonseed and cottonseed derivatives – an important source of edibleoil. Because of the intensive use of hazardous pesticides in cotton production much of thecottonseed oil entering the Indian food chain may be heavily contaminated78. One analysis of cottonseeds collected from 5 locations in Punjab found detectable residues of the cotton pesticides ethion (WHO II), cypermethrin (WHO II), endosulfan (WHO II), chlorpyrifos (WHO II): the latter being 2 of the most common pesticides applied to cotton inIndia79.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 2 3

© Pe s t i c i d e A c t i o n N e t w o r k U K

T OWA R D S C L E A N E R C O T T O N

Globally the world’s cotton farmers use around US$ 2.0 billion of chemical pesticides each year, with around two thirds of these sales accounted for by insecticides (US$ 1.3 billion)1. The bulk of these chemicals are manufactured by ahandful of multinational corporations, with just 7 companies accounting for over 60%of the world market2. While developed countries such as the USA are significant consumers of cotton insecticides, countries in the Far East and Latin America – which
include many significant developing world cotton producers – together represent 60%of the global market3.
In 2005, 33 cotton producing countries, which together account for 90% of global cotton production4, responded to a survey organized by the International Cotton Advisory Committee5. Each country was asked to list the 10 most important agrochemicals
that its farmers use to control cotton pests. EJF has analysed the responses they gave,and for each country has assessed the extent to which these commonly used agrochemicals are hazardous according to the WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides. All 33 respondents listed at least one hazardous pesticide as being commonly
applied by cotton farmers in their country6. Two thirds of countries, listed at least 5 hazardous chemicals in their top 107. Of the many hazardous pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and defoliants applied to cotton grown worldwide, EJF has identified 6 whichpose a particular risk to human health and the environment (Annex I). These chemicals
are used extensively by the world’s cotton farming communities despite the dangers
they present.
In response to the serious health and environmental risks posed by hazardous pesticides, some countries have either banned or restricted the application of specific agrochemicals in crop production. However, at present only 17 countries have imposed a ban
on any of the top 10 hazardous pesticides used in global cotton production8. Of these,
only 10 actually cultivate cotton, of which just 2 are major cotton producers9.
In addition to the few unilateral decisions to ban the use of specific hazardous pesticides associated with cotton, there has also been agreement on non-legally binding
2 4 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

actions such as The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides adopted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, which interalia, suggests that ‘Prohibition of the importation, sale and purchase of highly toxic and hazardous products, such as those included in WHO classes Ia and Ib (34), may be desirable if othercontrol measures or good marketing practices are insufficient to ensure that the product can behandled with acceptable risk to the user’11. The Code also states that, ‘Pesticides whose handling and application require the use of personal protective equipment that is uncomfortable,
expensive or not readily available should be avoided, especially in the case of small-scale users
in tropical climates’12. In reality, such conditions tend to apply to the use of all class Ia andIb pesticides and to most class II pesticides by farmers in most developing countries. As
one analyst notes, “From this it is safe to assert that considering the current lack ofappropriate protection measures in most developing countries, the FAO recommends
not to use Class Ia and Ib, and possibly most of Class II”13.
The World Bank has operational policies that prohibit the funding of formulated
products that fall in WHO classes Ia and Ib, or formulations of products in Class II, ‘if(a) the country (where they are to be used) lacks restrictions on their distribution and use; or (b)they are likely to be used by, or be accessible to, lay personnel, farmers, or others without training, equipment, and facilities to handle, store, and apply these products properly’14. Such circumstances are prevalent across much of the developing world.
The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade is a legally-binding agreement that came into force in 200415. Created as a joint initiative between the FAO and
UNEP, and now backed by 106 countries worldwide – including most leading cotton
producers – the treaty aims to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts in
the international trade of hazardous chemicals16. Of the pesticides currently subject to
the Convention, 7 are widely applied to cotton. Endosulfan (WHO II), an eighth hazardous pesticide – arguably the most widely applied in global cotton production – is also
to be considered for inclusion under the Convention’s protocols17.
The inclusion of so many cotton pesticides under the Rotterdam Convention underlines the danger these chemicals pose to the world population. However, whilst thetreaty aims to facilitate information exchange regarding the release of hazardous chemicals; to provide each party with a decision-making process on their import and export;
and to ensure that chemicals are correctly labeled with information relating to potential health and environmental impacts; the treaty does not exist to promote an end to
the sale and use of those chemicals it considers dangerous18.
As a global commodity grown predominantly in developing countries, cotton
undoubtedly has a great potential to provide a valuable income to some of the world’s
poorest communities. Yet because of the substantial use, and misuse, of hazardous pesticides, for many of those who live and work in close association with cotton, the impactof the crop is often severely negative. In seeking to end the damage caused by cotton,
and to enable cotton farmers to realize the benefits of the crop they produce, a variety
of international stakeholders are now acting to change the way in which cotton is
produced.

A B O V E : Made in the UK:
Dursban B – containing
chlorpyrifos – has been linked tomany deaths and accidents in
Benin.
© Pe s t i c i d e A c t i o n N e t w o r k U K

10 Major hazardous pesticides applied to cotton and where they are banned
Hazardous pesticide

Rank

WHO

Malathion

1

III

none

Aldicarb

2

Ia

Libya, Tanzania, Indonesia, Finland, Sweden, Saint Lucia, Kuwait

Parathion

3

Ia

Angola, Tanzania, Australia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, Finland, Portugal, Sweden, Belize, Kuwait

Methamidophos#4

Ib

Libya, Indonesia, Kuwait

Acephate#4III

NorwayAlpha-cypermethrin

6

II

none

Beta-cyfluthrin

7

II

none

Dimethoate

8

II

none

Deltamethrin

#9

II

none

II

none

Chlorpyrifos#9
Data from Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network10

Banned in

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 2 5

Cotton pesticides considered under the Rotterdam Convention
WHO19

Usage in global cotton production20

Parathion

Ia

Third biggest selling cotton insecticide worldwide (US$ 60 million). Applied to cotton in Greece and China.

Methamidophos

Ib

Fourth biggest selling cotton insecticide worldwide (US$ 51 million). Dominant cotton pesticide in Argentina, Mexico.
Also used in Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Greece, Spain, Thailand, USA and Vietnam.

Methyl-parathion

Ia

Dominant cotton pesticide in Brazil, Colombia, Mexico. Also used in Australia, Guatemala, Pakistan, Spain, Thailand,
USA.

Monocrotophos

Ib

The major pesticide applied to cotton in India. Dominant in China, Madagascar and Zambia. Also applied to cotton in
Bangladesh.

ThiramIII

Third biggest selling cotton fungicide worldwide. Applied to cotton in Argentina, Brazil, Cote d’Ivoire, Iran,Madagascar, South Africa, Togo, Turkey, Zimbabwe.

LindaneII

A major pesticide applied to cotton grown in India. Also applied in Togo.

Carbofuran

Ib

Applied to cotton in China, Vietnam, Colombia, Brazil, Bangladesh and USA.

Endosulfan*

II

Dominant in Argentina, Australia, Benin, Brazil, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Iran, Madagascar,
Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. Also used in Bangladesh,
Philippines, USA, and China.
* Endosulfan is to be considered for inclusion under the Rotterdam Convention, but is not currently subject to its protocols

Integrated Pest Management
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies reduce (but do not eradicate) the relianceon pesticides. IPM emphazises the growth of healthy crops and encourages natural
pest control systems22. Actions commonly considered under the IPM framework
include:● Encouraging bird species which act as predators to cotton pest populations;● Rotating cotton with crops less susceptible to the pests and diseases affecting cotton(i.e. wheat, pulses, legumes) in order to break the cotton/pest life cycle;● Cultivating refuge crops which provide a habitat for beneficial animal species;● Taking local ecology into account when selecting cotton varieties for cultivation;● Planting border crops (i.e. maize, sorghum) around cotton fields to provide a phys-

ical barrier and which mask the odours given off by cotton plants;● Planting intercrops (i.e. soybean, castor) among the cotton plants to encourage ben-eficial species into the cotton fields;● Planting trap crops (marigold and sunflower) at low density around the outside of acotton field to attract cotton pests away from the crop;● Tolerating non-yield reducing early season crop damage rather than spraying crops

with pesticides which may ultimately reduce the viability of beneficial species populations;● Using chemical pheromones to discourage cotton pests from the field;● Applying carefully selected narrow-spectrum pesticides designed to manage pest

populations while having minimal impact on beneficial species.
Perhaps the most significant programme to engage developing world farmers in IPM
cotton production is the ‘FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia’23. Operating insix countries across the continent (Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Vietnam), the project has spread awareness by developing a cadre of local IPM cotton trainers who work directly with cotton farmers to develop appropriate strategies.
To date, 100,000 cotton farmers have graduated from IPM schools established under
the scheme24. However, IPM does not entirely remove the use – and therefore the negative impacts – of chemical pesticides. It is a laudable aim, but a half-way house towards
pesticide-free cotton fields.

2 6 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O NOrganic Cotton
Organic cotton production is the only farming system by which cotton is produced
entirely free of chemical pesticides – and thereby without the risks that such chemicals
pose to human health and the environment. Organic cotton production represents analternative farming system within which natural predator populations are nurtured
within cotton production zones, and measures such as intercropping and crop rotation
are used to halt the development of cotton pest populations27.
Over the last few decades organic cotton production has grown from just 30 farmers producing 113 tonnes of cotton fibre, to a global total of more than 31,000 tonnes28.
While these figures represent only a small fraction (0.15%) of world cotton production,
they represent an important proof of principle that contemporary cotton production
can occur without the use of hazardous pesticides. In fact, so successful has organic
production proved, that global production has increased 5-fold over the past four years29.
Commercial organic cotton production is now underway in some 22 countries across
Africa, Asia, the Mediterranean and the Americas. In sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda, Tanzania and Mali are the main producers, and production in Benin and Senegal are increasing rapidly. Production recently also started in Togo, Zambia, Malawi, and Kenya. As
PAN-UK recently noted, ‘Most small farmers are motivated to move to organic cotton to avoid
corruption in the conventional sector, health risks, debt, and by the prospect of receiving organic
premiums as well as prompt cash payments. For women, the prime motivations for organic farming are improved family health, and their children are not at daily risk of fatal poisonings. Theirfood supply is also safer, and more plentiful’31. Women seem to benefit proportionately
more from organic cotton production, particularly from the freedom to control theirown incomes.

Driving Change by Buying Organic
Demand for organic products among Western consumers is substantial, and growing.
In a 2005 survey prepared by Ipsos MORI almost half of British consumers reported
buying organic products, with many registering environmental concerns among thosethat shape the way they shop32. In 2003, UK market growth for organic cotton was estimated at 38% per year, and continues to grow at a steady rate33. To add to this, major
clothing retailers, including Wal-Mart34, Harrods, Marks and Spencer, Coop Switzerland
and Italia, Migros, and Monoprix are all now offering organic clothing ranges35.
The growth in sales of organic cotton products is greatly enhanced by the existenceof comprehensive labeling systems which enable consumers in the developed world to
make informed choices about the type of cotton they wish to purchase. This vital connection, which endows the global cotton supply chain with a degree of transparency
and traceability, may be our best hope to date of harnessing the concerns of those in
the West as a powerful economic force for improving the lives of the million of people
who work to grow cotton in the developing world.

‘Organic farming … saves lives
from not using pesticides. We nolonger have debt problems.Income
is all profit at the end of season.
Land and soil are preserved.’
B É N I N FA R M E R G E R A P A U L 2 6

Major Organic
Cotton Producers

Organic Cotton
Harvest (MT)30

Turkey10,700

India

9,835

China

2,531

USA

1,867

Tanzania

1,336

Uganda

1,100

Peru

1,000

Pakistan

1,000

Mali

722

L E F T : Women organic
cotton farmers prepareneem mixture, a natural
pest repellent.
© Pe s t i c i d e A c t i o n N e t w o r k U K

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 2 7

© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n

C O N C LU S I O N S

For many millions of cotton farmers living and working in the developingworld, hazardous pesticides form the root cause of substantial environmental and human suffering. Lacking the fundamental skills, knowledge
and equipment necessary for the safe handling of pesticides, these agriculturallabourers are causing substantial harm to themselves, their communities andtheir environment in their attempt to grow cotton – an enterprise that brings
many into direct contact with some of the most toxic agrochemicals in theworld. In many cotton growing regions, acute poisoning has become a common phenomenon, with entire families at risk of contamination through pesticide drift and contamination of drinking water and food sources.
While the dangers posed by hazardous cotton pesticides may seem remoteto those who live and work in the developed world, the complexities of the
global economy mean that consumers, retailers, and politicians around theworld, are all in some small way linked to the suffering these chemicals cause.
But crucially, each of these groups is endowed, by their connection with theglobal trade in cotton and cotton products, with the ability to change the manner in which global cotton production occurs.
Whether by purchasing organic cotton products or by establishing programmes aimed at eliminating hazardous pesticides from developing world
countries, each one of these actors has the potential to secure positive change
for the lives of developing world cotton farmers. Failure to act represents anattempt to benefit from the commodity these farmers produce, while ignoring
their suffering. But with our existing understanding of organic cotton production, IPM and chemical safety procedures, the world’s consumers, retailers andpoliticians are already well equipped with the tools necessary to end the humanmisery that cotton pesticides create.
2 8 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S

General Recommendations
In the light of the information presented in this report, all relevant parties should:● Call for a phase-out of pesticides classed by the World Health Organisation

as being either ‘Extremely Hazardous’ (WHO 1a) or ‘Highly Hazardous’(WHO Ib) as well as the organochlorine endosulfan (WHO II);
● Implement the recommendation issued in the FAO Code of Conduct, that

formulated products that fall into WHO classes Ia and Ib, or formulations of
products in Class II, are not sold to cotton farmers in developing world countries;● Promote better agricultural practice based on reduced use of, reduced risk

from, and reduced reliance on pesticides;● Raise awareness of the problems linked to cotton pesticides, and how they

can be avoided through well-funded, extensive education programmes;● Promote organic cotton production and trade.

Consumers should:● Buy organic cotton products;● Ask clothing companies and retailers which pesticides were used in the pro-duction of cotton and cotton products they sell. Highlight their concern
about the impact of cotton pesticides on the health of cotton producing communities and their environment and ask retailers to stock organic cotton
products as a sustainable alternative.

International Clothing Retailers and Clothing Retail
Associations should:● Avoid sourcing textiles products manufactured from cotton grown in associ-ation with the use of formulated products that fall into WHO classes Ia andIb, or formulations of products in Class II;● Ensure that organic cotton products are available to consumers;● Actively support the expansion of organic cotton production in the develop-

ing world and educate consumers as to the benefits of organic cotton.

World Health Organisation should:● Conduct an urgent assessment of the global impact of cotton pesticides on

the health of the world’s cotton farming communities. This should include
an analysis of (a) the extent to which agricultural labourers suffer from occupational poisoning; (b) the extent to which non-agricultural labourers living
in cotton producing regions suffer from exposure to cotton pesticides; and (c)the extent to which cotton pesticides are present as contaminants in drinking
water and in cotton derivates entering the human food chain;● Establish regional health centres to monitor the occurrence of pathological

exposures to pesticides.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 2 9

The United Nations Environment Programme should● Conduct an urgent assessment of the global impact of cotton pesticides on the global

environment, and in particular the extent to which cotton pesticides contaminate
global freshwater resources.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation should:● Substantially expand IPM training programmes to include all cotton farmers in thedeveloping world; especially those in West Africa, Asia, and South America● Actively promote the production and trade of organic cotton and devise new strate-

gies to raise awareness of organic production techniques and benefits.

The Agrochemical Industry should:● Phase out production of pesticides classed by the World Health Organisation as being

either ‘Extremely Hazardous’ (WHO 1a) or ‘Highly Hazardous’ (WHO Ib);
● Take steps to implement the Recommendation issued in the FAO Code of Conduct,that formulated products that fall into WHO classes Ia and Ib, or formulations of
products in Class II, are not sold to cotton farmers in developing world countries;● Apply the same best practice standards in developing nations as are required in indus-

trialised nations throughout pesticide products’ entire lifespans;● Improve transparency by disclosing all products and formulations stating the countries

in which they are manufactured, formulated, stored and sold;● Take a proactive role in setting up efficient disposal or recycling programmes for

empty cotton pesticide containers.

The International Donor Community, Governments andInternational Financial Institutions should:● Support the extension of IPM and organic cotton training programmes so that they

may include all cotton farmers in the developing world, especially those in West
Africa, Asia, and South America;● Ensure that only organic cotton products may carry the EU textile Eco-label;● Actively promote the production of organic cotton and facilitate fair trade to theWest;● Support research in non-chemical pest management, and research in seed varieties

adapted to organic agriculture.
● Follow the World Bank in adopting policies in line with the FAO International Codeof Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, by denying finance for the useof formulated products that fall into WHO classes Ia and Ib, or formulations of products in Class II, if (a) the country lacks restrictions on their distribution and use; or (b)they are likely to be used by, or be accessible to, lay personnel, farmers, or others
without training, equipment, and facilities to handle, store, and apply these products
properly.

The National Governments of Cotton Producing Countries should:● Take steps to ensure that formulated products that fall into WHO classes Ia and Ib,

or formulations of products in Class II, are not distributed, or used by cotton farmers, lay personnel, and others, who lack training, equipment, and facilities to handle,
store, and apply these products properly – in line with UN FAO guidelines;● Sign and ratify The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC),

and ILO Convention 184 regarding Safety and Health in Agriculture;● Ensure that all agricultural workers involved in cotton production have adequate

access to protective equipment, and receive training in the responsible use of hazardous cotton pesticides.

3 0 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

A Brief History of Pesticides in
Cotton Production
1861 Cotton is the single most important crop
traded in the world with over 80% of cotton
being grown in the southern USA1. The
American Civil War triggers the globalization ofcotton production as US distribution networks
are disrupted, prompting other countries toinitiate cultivation.
WWII Until the end of World War II, cotton is
predominantly grown without the use ofchemical pesticides2. Farmers take pest cycles
into account when cultivating cotton, and use
methods such as crop rotation.
1948 Paul Müller wins the Nobel Prize for
medicine for his discovery of organochlorine
pesticides; including DDT (WHO II)3. Thesechemicals become widely adopted inagricultural pest control as they provide a cheap
alternative to the use of labour and machinery.
Between 1939 and 1954 pesticide sales climb
from US$ 40 million to US$ 260 million4.
1960s Growing concern regarding the safety oforganochlorines, and the development ofresistance among pest populations, prompts
their replacement with less persistent, but often
more toxic, second generation pesticides
including aldicarb (WHO Ia), parathion (WHOIa), and methamidophos (WHO Ib)5. Thesechemicals come to dominate global cotton
production.
1984 The world’s worst man-made chemicaldisaster occurs as a cloud of toxic gas leaks froma factory in Bhopal, manufacturing aldicarb(WHO Ia) and carbaryl (WHO II) for use in
Indian cotton production. 20,000 people are
killed: 120,000 people are injured6.
1989 Fashion designer Katharine Hamnett raises
awareness of the negative consequences ofcotton pesticides by launching her
Autumn/Winter ‘Clean up or Die’ collection7.
Meanwhile farmers in Turkey make the firstserious attempt at organic cotton production
since the invention of chemical pesticides8.
1997 Organic cotton production increases to 8150
tonnes as cotton farmers in 17 countries aroundthe world attempt to meet rising consumer
demand while themselves avoiding the risk of
exposure to toxic pesticides9.
2002 Aldicarb (WHO Ia) is listed as the world’s 2nd
biggest cotton pesticide with global sales
standing at US$ 112 million10. Parathion (WHOIa – US$ 60 million) and methamidophos (WHOIb – US$ 51 million) are also among the top 10
global chemicals applied to cotton11.
2005 While the global organic fibre market is now
worth around US$ 800 million12, conventional
cotton farmers across the world continue to usesome US$ 2 billion of chemicals per year, within
which at least US$ 819 million are classified ashazardous13, and cause substantial damage tothe well-being of developing worldcommunities and their environment.

© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 3 1

T h e Wo r s t C h e m i c a l s i n C o t t o n
Of the many hazardous pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and defoliants applied to cotton grown worldwide, EJF has
identified six which pose a particular risk to human health and the environment. These chemicals are used extensively by
the world’s cotton farming communities despite the dangers they present.

Aldicarb

Aldicarb, a powerful nerve agent2., is
Just one drop of
one of the most toxic pesticides
aldicarb, absorbed
applied to cotton worldwide. Despite
through the skin, is
its toxicity, US$ 112 million worth is3
applied to cotton every year : making enough to kill an
aldicarb the 2nd most used pesticide
adult1
4in global cotton production .
Aldicarb dominates cotton
production in the USA, where it is more widely applied
to cotton than any other insecticide5. In 2003 almost 1
million kilos of aldicarb were applied to cotton grown in
the USA6. Its extensive use has led to thecontamination of water groundwater in 16 states7.
While application rates in the US average at 0.7
kg/Ha8, in China the chemical is reportedly applied at
between 12 and 15 kg/Ha in response to certain cotton
crop diseases9.
Symptoms of Poisoning Nausea, abdominal
cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, difficulty breathing,
seizures, hypertension, cardio-respiratory depression,
dyspnea, bronchospasms and bronchorrhea with
eventual pulmonary edema10.
WHO Classification WHO Ia – Extremely
Hazardous11
Chemical Group Carbamate12
Current restrictions Banned in seven countries13;
Use restricted in seven countries (including USA andArgentina)14; Banned in EU from Dec 200715.
Other names Carbamic acid, Propionaldehyde,
Temik16
Dominant in cotton Argentina, USA17
Also used in cotton Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, China,
Colombia, Costa Rica,
El Salvador,
Aldicarb was one Egypt,
Ethiopia, Greece,of the cotton
Guatemala, Honduras,
Israel, Malawi, Mexico,
pesticides being
manufactured at Morocco, Pakistan,
Panama, Peru, Souththe Union Carbide Africa, Spain, Turkey,
Venezuela, Zimbabwe18.
plant in Bhopal,

India, when it
became the site of
the world’s worst
industrial disasterin 198420.

Environmental
Impacts Aldicarb isacutely toxic tomammals, and very
highly toxic to birds,
aquatic invertebrates andfish19.

3 2 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

Endosulfan
Applied to cotton grown in 28 different
countries, endosulfan is perhaps the mostwidely used cotton pesticide after
deltamethrin: it is applied to cotton in 9 of
the top 10 cotton producing countries
and is the dominant pesticide in the
cotton sector in 19 countries22. A recent
report suggests that endosulfan may be
the most important source of fatal
poisoning among cotton farmers in West
Africa22a. In India, home to the world’s© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o nlargest cotton farming community, over
3,000 tonnes is applied to crops annually, making it the second
most common pesticide in the country23. In 2004, analysis ofIndian cottonseed found 22% to be contaminated withendosulfan24. Indian farmers feed almost 3 million tonnes ofcottonseed and derivatives to cattle every year; and use around
500,000 tonnes of cottonseed oil in food preparation25.
Symptoms of Poisoning Headaches, dizziness, nausea,
vomiting, lack of co-ordination, mental confusion, convulsions,
hyperactivity, seizures, coma and respiratory depression. In
severe causes poisoning may lead to death. Long term exposure
has been linked with damage to kidneys, liver and thedeveloping foetus26.
WHO Classification WHO II – Moderately Hazardous27
Chemical Group Organochlorine28
Current restrictions List II for inclusion in the EU Dangerous
Substances Directive29; To be considered for inclusion under the
UNEP Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
Chemical (PIC)30; Banned in five countries; Use restricted in
four31.
Other names Bromyx, Caïman, Callisulfan, Cyclodan,
Cytophos, Endocel, Insectophene, Malix, Niagara, Phaser, Rocky,
Thiodan, Thiofanex, Thionex32
Dominant in cotton Argentina, Australia, Benin, Brazil,
Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Iran,Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, Pakistan, South Africa, Sudan,
Thailand, Turkey, Zimbabwe33
Also used in cotton Bangladesh,
China, Colombia, Ecuador,
Philippines, Spain, Thailand, USA,
Uzbekistan34
Environmental Impacts
Endosulfan has adverse effects onaquatic systems, and is highly toxic
to fish, birds, bees and otherwildlife35.

In a single provinceof Benin, at least
37 people died fromendosulfan
poisoning in justone cotton
season21.

In 1997,
Paraguay’s
Ministry of Healthand Welfare
identified
monocrotophos as
being responsible
for causing
paralysis inchildren living incotton growing
areas36.

Methyl parathion
Methyl parathion is applied to cotton in at least 10
countries; including five of the top 10 cotton
producers. Once commonly applied to cottongrown in the USSR, methyl parathion is now moreclosely linked with the Americas, being dominant inBrazil, Colombia and Mexico52. Despite US EPA
regulations which forbid labourers from entering afield within 48 hours of being sprayed with thechemical53, over 66 tonnes of methyl parathion are
applied annually across several southern US
states54.

© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n

Monocrotophos
In 1989, monocrotophos was voluntarily withdrawn
from the US market37 but remains on sale in many
developing world countries; 30,000 tonnes areused annually; mainly in Asia (58%) and SouthAmerica (26%)38. The chemical is particularly
dominant in India where 3,500 tonnes are applied
to crops annually39 – making it the most heavily
used pesticide in the country. Monocrotophos
represents 22% of the Indian market in cotton
pesticides40; a share worth US$ 76 million
annually41.
Symptoms of Poisoning Muscular weakness,blurred vision, profuse perspiration, confusion,
vomiting, pain, and small pupils42. Respiratory
failure can lead to death.
WHO Classification WHO Ib – Highly
Hazardous43
Chemical Group Organophosphorus
compound44
Current restrictions Subject to the UNEP
Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent(PIC)45; Banned in seven countries46; Use restricted
in 12 countries (including China, USA and Brazil)
and the EU.47.
Dominant in cotton China, India, Madagascar,
Zambia48
Also used in cotton Australia, Bangladesh,Pakistan, Thailand49
Other names Azodrin, Dimethyl ester, Fenom,
Monocron, Nuvacron, Phosphoric acid50
Environmental Impacts Monocrotophos isextremely toxic to birds and is used as a bird
poison51. It is also very poisonous to mammals, andhighly toxic to bees.

Symptoms of poisoning Vomiting, diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, blurred vision, involuntarymuscle contractions, and eventually paralysis of the
body extremities and the respiratory muscles55. In
severe cases there may also be involuntary
defecation or urination, psychosis, irregular heartbeats, unconsciousness, convulsions and coma.
Death may be caused by respiratory failure or
cardiac arrest.
WHO Classification WHO Ia – Extremely
Hazardous56
Chemical Group Organophosphorus
compound57
Current restrictions Subject to the UNEP
Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent(PIC)58; Banned in five countries59; Use restricted in
13 countries (including Brazil, China and USA) andthe European Union60.
Other names Folidol, Metacide, Metafos,
Phosphorothioic acid 61
Dominant in cotton Brazil, Colombia, Mexico62
Also used in cotton Australia, Guatemala,Pakistan, India, Spain, Thailand, USA63.
Environmental Impacts Methyl parathion ishighly toxic for aquatic invertebrates64, andmoderately toxic to mammals such as rats, dogs
and rabbits65. The chemical has been implicated in
the deaths of waterfowl and the acute poisoning offish, birds, cattle and wild animals. In 1995 a
mixture of methyl parathion and endosulfan led tothe death of over 240,000 fish in Alabama, whenheavy rain washed the pesticides washed from thecotton fields and into rivers66.
© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n
In a separate case a colony oflaughing gulls in Texas wasdevastated when methyl
parathion was applied tocotton three miles away. Morethan 100 dead adults were
found and 25% of the colony’s
chicks were killed67.

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 3 3

Methamidophos

Deltamethrin

With US$ 51 million applied to cotton each year,
methamidophos – a neurotoxin that impairs theactivity of key enzymes essential for the normaltransmission of nerve impulses69 – is the fourthmost significant pesticide applied to cotton
worldwide70. Cotton accounts for over 40% of
global use71. Methamidophos residues have been
detected in cottonseed and derivatives and may
pose a particular hazard to those who consume
cottonseed oil, or who feed derivatives tolivestock72. In laboratory experiments, hens andgoats reared with food containing methamidophos
showed traces of the pesticide in their eggs andmilk73.

Applied to cotton in 43 out of 81 cotton producing
countries, the nerve agent deltamethrin, is probably
the most extensively applied cotton pesticide in theworld. Global sales on cotton applications amountto some US$ 40 million, placing deltamethrin
among the top 10 pesticides applied to cotton
globally. These sales account for over one quarterof deltamethrin applications within the global crop
sector.

Symptoms of Poisoning Shakiness, blurredvision, tightness in the chest, confusion, changes inheart rate, convulsions, coma, cessation ofbreathing and paralysis74.
WHO Classification WHO Ib – Highly
Hazardous75
Chemical Group Organophosphorus
compound76
Current restrictions Subject to the
UNEP Rotterdam Convention on Prior
Informed Consent (PIC)77; Banned inthree countries78; Use restricted in ninecountries and the European Union79.
Other names Amidophos, Cypercal,
Cyperthion, Filitox, Monitor, Patrole,
Tamaron80
Dominant in Cotton Argentina,
Mexico, Pakistan81
Also used in cotton Brazil, China,
Colombia, Ecuador, Greece, Spain,
Thailand, USA and Vietnam82
Environmental Impacts
Methamidophos is toxic to birds,
aquatic organisms, and insects, andhas a half life in water of up to 309
days83.

3 4 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

In Sri Lanka patients
suffering withmethamidophos
poisoning experienced
paralysis of the limb,
neck, and respiratory
muscles up to 4 days
after exposure68.
© E nv i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e Fo u n d a t i o n

Symptoms of Poisoning Convulsions leading toparalysis, dermatitis, edema, peripheral vascularcollapse, tremors,
vomiting, and death
Medical analysis of adue to respiratorycommunity living in
failure85.
WHO
Classification
WHO II –Moderately
Hazardous86
Chemical Group
Pyrethroid87

Jozini, a South African
village located on theedge of major cotton
production area, foundtraces of deltamethrin
in human breast milk84.

Current restrictions none88
Other names Butoflin, Butox, Deltaphos, Decis89
Dominant in cotton Australia, Bangladesh,
Brazil, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Greece, Pakistan,
Sudan, Mozambique, South Africa, Syria, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia90
Also used in cotton Argentina, Bolivia, Burma,
China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Italy, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nigeria,
Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Spain,
Thailand, Turkey, USA, Venezuela, Zimbabwe91
Environmental Impacts Deltamethrin is highly
toxic to insects, including non-target species92.

REFERENCES
A Rich Man’s Commodity... Is A Poor Man’s Crop
1 United States Department of Agriculture (2005), Table 15, Cotton and Wool Yearbook,Economic Research Service, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/crops/89004/

2 Ibid
3 Ibid4 Townsend T , International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005), The World Cotton

Outlook, http://www.icac.org/cotton_info/speeches/Townsend/2005/iwto_wool.pdf

5 United States Department of Agriculture (2005) The Forces Shaping World Cotton

Consumption After the Multifibre Arrangement, Economic Research Service,
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/cws/apr05/cws05c01/cws05c01.pdf

6 Ibid
7 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2005), Information on Cotton,

Info Com: market information in the commodities area,
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/sitemap.htm

8 National Cotton Council of America, Cotton: From Field to Fabric, Cotton Counts,

http://www.cotton.org/pubs/cottoncounts/fieldtofabric/upload/Cotton-From-Field-toFabric-129k-PDF.pdf
9 United States Department of Agriculture (2005)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/cws/apr05/cws05c01/cws05c01.pdf op cit
10 Townsend (2005) op cit
11 United States Department of Agriculture (2005)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/cws/apr05/cws05c01/cws05c01.pdf op cit; Nation
Master http://www.nationmaster.com
12 Personal Communication with Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific (11 May 2006)
13 Ibid
14 FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia (2004), Environmental Education for Poor
Farmers,
https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/67999_programme.pdf.pdf ?filename=1115171994834_FAO_EU_Cotton_ipm_programme.pdf&refID=67999
15 Personal Communication with Gerd Walter-Echols, op cit
16 Baffes J, World Bank (2003), Cotton and Developing Countries: A Case Study in Policy
Incoherence,
17 Ibid18 United States Department of Agriculture (2006), USDA Foreign Agricultural Service,
Production Supply and Distribution, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/complete_files/CO2631000.csv; International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) Cotton Production Practices,
http://www.icac.org
19 Clay J, Island Press (2004), World Agriculture and Environment, A Commodity-byCommodity Guide to Impacts and Practices,
20 UNESCO-IHE (2005), The Water Footprint of Cotton Consumption, Value of Water
Research Report series no. 18, http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report18.pdf
21 Personal Communication with Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific (24 February 2006)

The Chemicals in Cotton
1 World Agriculture and Environment, A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts andPractices, Jason Clay, Island Press (2004)

2 Ibid
3 Ibid4 Banuri T (1998), Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade,

http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net/pdf/pk_Banuri.pdf

5 Agranova Alliance (2003) Crop Sector Reviews, http://www.agranova.co.uk
6 Ibid; World Health Organisation, Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard(2004), http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf
7 Agranova Alliance (2003) op cit; United States Department of Agriculture (2006), USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service, Production Supply and Distribution,
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/complete_files/CO-2631000.csv
8 Ibid9 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) Cotton Production Practices,
http://www.icac.org; WHO (2005) The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by
Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2004, http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en
10 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit; WHO (2005) op cit
11 Agranova Alliance (2003) op cit
12 Ibid
13 Ibid
14 Ibid
15 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2005) FAOSTAT,
http://faostat.fao.org
16 Agranova Alliance (2003) op cit

Death in the Fields
1 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004), Childhood

pesticide poisoning: information for advocacy and action, http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/pestpoisoning.pdf
2 WHO (2005), The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard andGuidelines to Classification 2004, http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en
3 Pesticide Action Network (2006) Pesticide Database, http://www.pesticideinfo.org;
Agranova Alliance (2003), Crop Sector Reviews http://www.agranova.co.uk
4 Pesticide Action Network (2006) Ibid
5 Ibid6 Pesticide Action Network UK (1996), Pesticide and the Immune System, Pesticide News
No32, http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/Pn32/pn32p15a.htm
7 Repetto, R., and Baliga, S. Pesticides and the Immune System: The Public Health Risks.
World Resources Institute, Washington DC (1996)
8 Kahn, S., and Ali, S. Assessment of Certain Hematological Responses of factory Workers
Exposed to Pesticides, Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (1993)
9 Pesticides Action Network (1996) op cit
10 Guilette, E. A comparison of illness rates between children exposed to agricultural
pesticides and non-agricultural children in Sonora Mexico. Presentation at E-Hormone 2000:
the cutting edge of endocrine disrupter research (2000)
11 Zahm, S. et al. Pesticides and Cancer. In Keifer, M. (ed.) Human Health Effects ofPesticides. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. Vol 12. No 2 (1997)
12 Extoxnet, Pesticide Information Profiles http://ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html
13 Ibid
14 Pesticide Action Network UK (1999), Endocrine Disrupting Pesticides, Pesticide News No
46, http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/endocrin.htm
15 Extoxnet op cit
16 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op cit
17 Personal Communication with Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific (11 May 2006)
18 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op cit
19 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006) FAOSTAT,
http://faostat.fao.org
20 United Nations Statistics Division (2004), Population and Vital Statistics Report: Series A,
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/seriesa2.htm
21 NationMaster http://www.nationmaster.com
22 FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia (2004), Environmental Education for Poor

Farmers,
https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/67999_programme.pdf.pdf ?filename=1115171994834_FAO_EU_Cotton_ipm_programme.pdf&refID=67999; United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006) op cit
23 Pesticide Action Network (2006); Pesticide Action Network UK (2000), Endosulfan deaths
and poisonings in Benin, Pesticide News No 47, http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn47/pn47p12.htm
24 Mancini et al. Acute pesticide poisoning among female and male cotton growers in India.
International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health (2005) 11: 221-232
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1103_Mancini.pdf
25 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (24February 2006)
26 Dinham B, and Malik S, ‘Pesticides and human rights’, Environmental Health (2003) 9: 40
27 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op cit
28 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006) op cit
29 Ibid
30 World Health Organisation (2004) The impact of pesticides on health: preventing
intentional and unintentional deaths from pesticide poisoning. http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/PesticidesHealth2.pdf; Pesticide Action Network UK(1995), The alarming use of agrochemicals in Rondonia Brazil, Pesticide News No 27,
http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/pn27/PN27P4.htm; Maumbe BM, Swinton SM. Hidden
health costs of pesticide use in Zimbabwe’s smallholder cotton growers. Soc Sci Med (2003)
57: 1559-1571; Aiwerasia Vera Ngowi (2002) Health Impact of Exposure to Pesticides inAgriculture in Tanzania, Acta Universitas Tamperensis 890, University of Tampere
http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5456-1.pdf; What’s Your Poison? Health Threats Posed by
Pesticides in Developing Countries. Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK (2003)
http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdf/whats_your_poison.pdf; Maria Celina Piazza Recena etal., Acute poisoning with pesticides in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Science of the
Total Environment 375 (2006) 88-95 http://www.unb.br/fs/far/tox/celina.pdf; Mancini et al.
op cit31 Maria Celina Piazza Recena et al Ibid
32 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op cit
33 Ibid
34 Farahat et al., Neurobehaviour effects among workers occupationally exposed toorganophosphorus pesticides, Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2003) 60: 279-286
http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/60/4/279
35 Glin L, Kuiseu J, Thiam A, Vodouhe DS, Ferrigno S, Dinham B (2006), Living with
Poison: Problems of endosulfan in West African cotton growing systems, Pesticide Action
Network UK; Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op
cit
36 Farahat et al., op cit
37 Maria Celina Piazza Recena et al., op cit
38 Aiwerasia Vera Ngowi, (2002) op cit
39 Dewan A et al., ‘Repeated Episodes of Endosulfan Poisoning’ Journal of Toxicology(2004) 42: 363-369
40 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) Cotton Production Practices,
http://www.icac.org
41 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op cit
42 World Health Organisation, Issue Brief Series: Pesticides, Healthy Environments forChildren Alliance, http://www.who.int/heca/infomaterials/pesticides.pdf
43 EJF interview with Uzbek human rights defender (2005); EJF interview with MichaelHall, Central Asia Analyst, International Crisis Group (2005); Further Growth in Uzbek
Child Labour, Institute of War and Peace Reporting (18 June 2004)
http://www.iwpr.net/?apc_State=hruirca2004&l=en&s=f&o=175887
44 Action Aid, Killing Fields: the truth about child labour in India,
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/1376/killing_fields.html
45 Mancini et al. op cit; World Health Organisation Issue Brief Series op cit; IIED, ProForest,
Rabobank (2004) Better Management Practices and Agribusiness Commodities, Phase 2
Report: Commodity Guides; Cotton, http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/art_CCF-BMPCotton/$FILE/BMP-Cotton.pdf; International Crisis Group The
Curse of Cotton: Central Asia’s Destructive Monoculture, (2005)
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3294&l=1
46 Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment Programme (2004) op cit; Maria
Celina Piazza Recena et at., op cit
47 Greenpeace India (2003), Arrested Development: a study on the human health impacts ofpesticides, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7010.pdf
48 United Stated Geological Survey (1998), Occurrence of Cotton Pesticides in Surface
Water of The Mississippi Embayment, http://ks.water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/factsheets/fs.022-98.pdf; Tariq et al., ‘Pesticides in shallow groundwater of Bahawalnagar,
Muzafargarh, D.G. Kahn and Rajan Pur districts of Punjab, Pakistan’ Environment
International 30 (2004) 471-479; ; Tariq et al., ‘Degradation and persistence of cotton
pesticides in sandy loam soils from Punjab, Pakistan’, Environmental Research 100 (2006)
184-196; Ntow W.J., ‘Pesticide residues in Volta Lake, Ghana’, Lakes and Reservoirs: Researchand Management (2005) 10: 243-248; Elisabeth Yehouenou A. Pazou et al., ‘Contamination offish by organochlorine pesticide residues in the Oueme River catchment in the Republic of
Benin’, Environment International (2006); Mawhinney W, ‘Case study, catchment water
quality and cotton: northern NSW’, Section 6. 1, WATERPak, Cotton Catchment
Communities CRC (2006) http://cotton.pi.csiro.au/Publicat/Water/WATERpak.htm;
Kumara and Chapman, ‘Minimizing the Impact of Pesticides on the Riverine Environment
in Australia: Profenofos Residues in Wild Fish from Cotton-Growing Areas of New South
Wales, Australia’, Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 740-750 (2001) http://intljeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/3/740; Kennedy et al., ‘Off-site Movement ofEndosulfan from Irrigated Cotton in New South Wales’, Journal of Environmental Quality
30: 683-696 (2001); Konstantinou et al., ‘The status of pesticide pollution in surface waters(rivers and lakes) of Greece. Part 1. review on occurrence and levels’, Environmental
Pollution (2005); Laabs et al., ‘Pesticides in Surface Water, Sediment, and Rainfall of theNortheastern Panatal Basin, Brazil’, Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 1636-1648 (2002)
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/5/1636; Uzbekistan: National Environmental
Action Plan, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank
(1998); Karakalpakstan: A Population in Danger, Medecins Sans Frontieres (2003); RajendranS., ‘Environmental and Health Aspects of Pesticides Use in Indian Agriculture’ in Martin J
Bunch et at., eds., Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Environment and
Health, Chennai, India, 15-17 December (2003); Childhood pesticide poisoning: information
for advocacy and action, Chemicals Program of the United Nations Environment
Programme (2004) http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/pestpoisoning.pdf; Chapagain,
A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y. and Savenije, H.H.G., Gautam, R. (2005) ‘The water footprint of cotton
consumption’, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 18, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, theNetherlands.http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report18.pdf; The impact of cotton
on freshwater resources and ecosystems – a preliminary synthesis, WWF (1999)
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/impact_long.pdf
49 Ntow W.J. (2005) op cit
50 Ibid
51 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
52 United Stated Geological Survey (1998) op cit
53 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
54 Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2003 Field Crops Summary, United States Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, May (2004) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf
55 Laabs et al., (2002) op cit
56 Ciscato et al., ‘Pesticide residues in cow milk consumed in S_o Paulo City (Brazil)’,
Journal of Environmental Science and Health (2002) 37 (4) 323-330 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/Images/20050615/Punjab_blood_report.pdf; Cotton Production Practices,
International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) http://www.icac.org
57 Composition and Feeding Value of Cottonseed Feed Products for Beef Cattle, Kansas
University Agricultural Experiment Station and Co-operative Extension Service (2002)
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/mf2538.pdf
58 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006) op cit
59 IbidT H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 3 5

60 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2005) Information on Cotton,
Info Com: market information in the commodities area,
http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/sitemap.htm
61 Ibid
62 World Health Organisation (2003), GEMS/ Food Regional Diets, Regional per Capita
Consumption of Raw and Semi-processed Agricultural Commodities, Global Environment
Monitoring System/ Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme(GEMS/Food), Food Safety Department,
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/en/gems_regional_diet.pdf
63 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2005) op cit
64 Reports of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (2003) (2002) (2000) and (1994)
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid
65 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006) op cit
66 National Cottonseed Products Association (2006) Twenty facts about cottonseed oil,
http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/facts.asp
67 Ibid
68 Blossom, B. Singh, Gaganjyot, ‘Monitoring of Insecticide Residues in Cotton Seed in
Punjab, India’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (2004) 73: 707-712
69 Ibid
70 Ibid71 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006) op cit
72 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004), Consensus Document
on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum and
Gossypium barbadense): Key Food and Feed Nutrients and Anti-nutrients, Series on the
Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds, No. 11,
http://appli1.oecd.org/olis/2004doc.nsf/43bb6130e5e86e5fc12569fa005d004c/109c8a13a5b673d
ac1256ef400445e42/$FILE/JT00168142.PDF
73 Composition and Feeding Value of Cottonseed Feed Products for Beef Cattle, Kansas
University Agricultural Experiment Station and Co-operative Extension Service (2002)
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/lvstk2/mf2538.pdf
74 Reports of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (2003) and (2000)
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid
75 Ibid
76 Ciscato et al., (2002) op cit; International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
77 Zapata Moran et al., ‘Organochlorine pesticide residues in cow’s milk, Nicaragua’, (1996)
120 (6): 483-490
78 Rybicki E et al., ‘Changes in hazardous substances in cotton after mechanical andchemical treatment of textiles,’ Fibre and Textiles in Eastern Europe, April/ June, Vol. 12,
No. 2, 24 (2004) http://www.fibtex.lodz.pl/46_18_67.pdf

West Africa
1 Watkins, K, Cultivating Poverty: The impact of US cotton subsidies on Africa, Oxfam

Briefing Paper 30, Oxfam UK, 2002.
2 Ferrigno S, Ratter SG, Ton P, Vodouhe DS, Williamson S, Wilson J, Organic cotton: a new
development path for African Smallholders?, Gatekeeper Series 120, International Institutefor Environment and Development, London 2005.
3 USAID, Summary and findings of the West African cotton assessment, September 25October 14 2004, 13 January 2005.
4 Glin L, Kuiseu J, Thiam A, Vodouhe DS, Ferrigno S, Dinham B (2006), Living with Poison:
Problems of endosulfan in West African cotton growing systems, Pesticide Action NetworkUK
5 Taylor B, Scouting in cotton IPM – a cautionary note and a peculiar observation, Antenna,21(1), 14-18. January, 1997.
6 Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Indigenous and modern approaches to IPM in Latin America,
http://www.agroeco.org/doc/indig-modern_approach.html
7 Glin L et al., op cit.
8 Ton P, Tovignan S, Vodouhê SD, Endosulfan deaths and poisonings in Benin, Pesticides
News No.47, March 2000, p12-14
9 Pesticide Action Network UK (2001), Cotton pesticides cause more deaths in Benin,
Pesticides News No 52, http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn52/pn52p12.htm.
10 Ton op cit, Tovignan ibid.
11 Glin L et al., op cit.
12 OBEPAB, Project Ecosanté, unpublished report, 2004.
13 Williamson, S (2003), The Dependency Syndrome : Pesticide use by African Smallholders,Pesticide Action Network UK
14 Williamson, S, ibid

Uzbekistan
15 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan

16 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan
17 Uzbekistan: National Environmental Action Plan, International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development/ World Bank (1999)
18 Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary, United States Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (May 2004) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf
19 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan
20 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan
21 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan
22 EJF personal communication anon. (February 2006)
23 Muntean, N., et al. Assessment of Dietary Exposure to Some Persistent Organic
Pollutants in the Republic of Karakalpakistan of Uzbekistan, Environmental Health
Perspectives, 111: 10 (2003)
24 Uzbekistan: National Environmental Action Plan, International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development/ World Bank (1999)
25 Uzbekistan: Common Country Assessment, United Nations Development Program(2003) http://www.undp.uz/images/stories/pdf/cca_2003_en.pdf
26 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan
27 EJF personal communication anon. (February 2006)
28 Muntean, N., et al. Assessment of Dietary Exposure to Some Persistent Organic
Pollutants in the Republic of Karakalpakistan of Uzbekistan, Environmental Health
Perspectives, 111: 10 (2003)
29 ‘Aral catastrophe recorded in DNA’, BBC (29 June 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3846843.stm
30 ‘Aral catastrophe recorded in DNA’, BBC (29 June 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3846843.stm
31 Environmental Performance Review of Uzbekistan, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (2001) http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/uzbekistan
32 Karakalpakstan: A Population in Danger, Medicin Sans Frontiers (2003)
http://www.msf.org/source/countries/asia/aralsea/2003/karakalpakstan/complete.pdf
33 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2001) op cit
34 ‘Aral catastrophe recorded in DNA’, BBC (29 June 2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3846843.stm
35 Personal Communication with Mike Thurman (10 February 2006)
36 EJF personal communication anon. (February 2006)
37 EJF personal communication anon. (February 2006)
38 N. Ishida et al. Environmental Problems in the Area of Syrdarya and the Aral Sea,

3 6 T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N

Symposium on the Aral Sea and the surrounding region – UNEP (1995)
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/techpublications/Techpub-4/izumi2-5.asp
39 Ibid
40 Pers comm anon, Feb 2006
41 Pers comm anon, Feb 2006
42 Communication issued by the Uzbek Ministry of Agriculture (February 2006)
43 Pers comm. anon, Feb 2006
44 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2001) op cit
45 Personal Communication with Mike Thurman op cit
46 EJF interview with Michael Hall (May 2005); EJF personal communication anon. (15October 04)
47 ‘Further Growth in Uzbek Child Labour’, Institute of War and Peace Reporting (18 June
2004) http://www.iwpr.net/?p=rca&s=f&o=175886&apc_state=henirca200406
48 Ibid
49 EJF interview with Michael Hall (May 2005)
50 EJF personal communication anon. (6 March 2006)

India
51 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Production Supply and Distribution, United States

Department of Agriculture (2006) http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/complete_files/CO2631000.csv
52 Sharma D. ‘The Introduction of Transgenic Cotton in India’, Biotechnology andDevelopment Monitor (2001) 44: 10-13; Siddaramaiah B.S. and Srinivas B.V. ‘Environmental
Hazards in Cotton Farming – an Indian perspective’, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Hebbel, Bangalore 560024, India; Mathur H.B., et al., ‘Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Blood
Samples from Villages of Punjab’, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi (2005);
Mathur H.B., et al., ‘Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Blood Samples from Villages of
Punjab’, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi (2005);
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/Images/20050615/Punjab_blood_report.pdf;
53 Herring R. ‘Is there a case for growing cotton in India?’, prepared for the workshop‘Indian Cotton: Biology and Utility, Meanings and Histories’, Cornell University April 29-30,(2005)
54 Mancini et al. Acute pesticide poisoning among female and male cotton growers in India.
International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health (2005) 11: 221-232
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1103_Mancini.pdf
55 Ibid
56 Herring R. op cit
57 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2006), op cit
58 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (24February 2006)
59 Choudhary and Laroia ‘Technological developments and cotton production in India andChina’, Current Science (2001) 80 (8) 925-932; Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y. and Savenije,
H.H.G., Gautam, R. (2005) ‘The water footprint of cotton consumption’, Value of Water
Research Report Series No. 18, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report18.pdf
60 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
61 Ibid
62 Sharma D. op cit
63 Ibid
64 Ibid
65 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005), Cotton Production Practices,
http://www.icac.org
66 Choudhary and Laroia (2001) op cit
67 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
68 Pesticide Action Network UK (2000), Indian cotton farming – study identifies training
needs, Pesticide News No 45, http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn45/pn45p12.htm
69 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (24February 2006)
70 Ibid
71 Ibid
72 Ibid
73 Ibid
74 Ibid
75 Ibid
76 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit; Mathur H.B., et al., ‘Analysis of
Pesticide Residues in Blood Samples from Villages of Punjab’, Centre for Science andEnvironment, New Delhi (2005);
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/Images/20050615/Punjab_blood_report.pdf
77 Rajendran S., ‘Environmental and Health Aspects of Pesticides Use in Indian Agriculture’in Martin J Bunch et at., eds., Proceedings of the Third International Conference ofEnvironment and Health, Chennai, India, 15-17 December (2003)
78 Blossom, B. Singh, Gaganjyot, ‘Monitoring of Insecticide Residues in Cotton Seed in
Punjab, India’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (2004) 73: 707-712
79 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit; Ibid

Towards Cleaner Cotton
1 Agranova Alliance (2003), Crop Sector Reviews, http://www.agranova.co.uk
2 Ibid
3 Ibid4 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Production Supply and Distribution, United States

Department of Agriculture (2006) http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/complete_files/CO2631000.csv
5 International Cotton Advisory Council (2005), Cotton Production Practices,
http://www.icac.org
6 Ibid; World Health Organisation (2004) The WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard, http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf
7 Ibid8 Pesticide Action Network (2006) Pesticide Database, http://www.pesticideinfo.org
9 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Production Supply and Distribution, op cit
10 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
11 Communication with Damien Sanfilippo, Cotton Project Officer, Pesticide Action
Network UK (8 May 2006); Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2002)
International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Revised Version),
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/Code/Do
wnload/Code.doc
12 Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2002) op cit
13 Communication with Damien Sanfilippo, op cit
14 The World Bank Operational Manual, World Bank (1998)
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/whatnewvirt/665D
A6CA847982168525672C007D07A3?OpenDocument#%E2%80%9CBank%E2%80%9D%20includes%20IDA%2C%20and%20%E2%80%9Cloan
15 Rotterdam Convention, UNEP/ FAO http://www.pic.int
16 Ibid
17 Rotterdam Convention, UNEP/ FAO http://www.pic.int/en/Table5.htm
18 Rotterdam Convention, op cit
19 World Health Organisation (2004) op cit
20 Agranova Alliance (2003) op cit; Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific (24 February 2006); Cotton Production Practices, International
Cotton Advisory Council (2005) http://www.icac.org; Report of the Joint Meeting of the
FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the WHO Core Assessment Group(2002) and (2000) http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid; Agricultural Chemical
Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary, United States Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, (May 2004)
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf

21 FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia (2004), Environmental Education for Poor
Farmers,
https://www.ippc.int/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet/67999_programme.pdf.pdf ?filename=1115171994834_FAO_EU_Cotton_ipm_programme.pdf&refID=67999
22 FAO, Rome (2002) Code of Conduct on Pesticides
23 FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia http://www.cottonipmasia.org/Index.htm
24 The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia (2005) http://www.cottonipmasia.org/Books/PPP%20Cotton%20IPM%20Asia2-CD.pdf
25 Ibid
26 Cited in Ferrigno S. (2004), Organic Cotton: A practical guide to the UK market, Pesticide
Action Network UK.
27 Ibid
28 Organic Exchange Update July-September 2005; Organic Exchange, 2006: Sowing theseeds of change: weaving Innovation and Integrity into Organic Agriculture.
29 http://www.pan-uk.org/new%20site/Projects/Cotton/index.htm
30 Organic Exchange, 2006: op cit
31 Ferrigno S. (2004), op cit
32 A Matter of Conscience: will the consumer pay for ethical products?’, a presentation
given by Jenny Dawkins of Ipsos MORI to the ASBCI annual conference (16 May 2006)
33 Ferrigno S. (2004), op cit
34 Wal-Mart http://www.walmart.com
35 Ferrigno S. (2004), op cit

A Brief History of Pesticides in Cotton Production
1 World Agriculture and Environment, A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts andPractices, Jason Clay, Island Press (2004)
2 World Agriculture and Environment, A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts andPractices, Jason Clay, Island Press (2004)
3 The Nobel Foundation (2006) http://nobelprize.org; World Health Organisation
Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard (2004), World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf
4 Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, Tariq Banuri (1998)
http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net/pdf/pk_Banuri.pdf
5 Pakistan: Environmental Impact of Cotton Production and Trade, Tariq Banuri (1998)
http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net/pdf/pk_Banuri.pdf; World Health Organisation
Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard (2004), World Health Organisation
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard_rev_3.pdf
6 International campaign for Justice in Bhopal http://www.bhopal.net/index1.html;
Pesticides News, Pesticide Action Network (1999) http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/actives/Aldicarb.htm
7 Biography: Katharine Hamnett (2005) http://www.katharinehamnett.com/Biography
8 Organic Cotton: from field to final product, edited by Dorothy Myers and Sue Stolton(1999)
9 Organic Cotton: from field to final product, edited by Dorothy Myers and Sue Stolton(1999)
10 Crop Sector Reviews, Agranova Alliance (2003) http://www.agranova.co.uk
11 Crop Sector Reviews, Agranova Alliance (2003) http://www.agranova.co.uk
12 Organic Exchange Update July-September 2005, Organic Exchange (2005)
http://www.organicexchange.org/newsletter_a.php
13 Crop Sector Reviews, Agranova Alliance (2003) http://www.agranova.co.uk

The Worst Chemicals in Cotton
1 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
http://www.sare.org/sanet-mg/archives/html-home/4-html/0300.html
2 Pesticide Action Network UK (1999), Aldicarb, Pesticides News No 45, http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/actives/aldicarb.htm
3 Crop Sector Reviews, Agranova Alliance (2003) http://www.agranova.co.uk
4 Crop Sector Reviews, Agranova Alliance (2003) http://www.agranova.co.uk
5 Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary, United States Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (May 2004) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf
6 Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary, United States Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (May 2004) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf
7 Fact Sheet on Pesticide Use, Monsanto (1999) originally published at http://www.biotechknowledge.com/showlib_biotech.php32. Now available at http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgibin/wa.exe?A2=ind0205&L=sanet-mg&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=13340
8 Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary, United States Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (May 2004) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf
9 Cotton Production Practices, International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005)
http://www.icac.org
10 Pesticide Action Network UK (1999), Aldicarb, Pesticides News No 45, http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/actives/aldicarb.htm
11 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines toClassification 2004, WHO (2005) http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en
12 Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network (2006) http://www.pesticideinfo.org
13 Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network (2006) http://www.pesticideinfo.org
14 Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network (2006) http://www.pesticideinfo.org;
Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report ( June 2003 update), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupjun03.htm
15 Pesticide Action Network UK (2005), The List of Lists, http://www.panuk.org/briefing/list%20of%20lists%202005.pdf
16 Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network (2006) http://www.pesticideinfo.org
17 Cotton Production Practices, International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005)
http://www.icac.org
18 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (1994) http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid; Cotton Production Practices, International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005)
http://www.icac.org; Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asiaand the Pacific (24 February 2006)
19 American Bird Conservancy http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/aldicarb.htm
20 Pesticide Action Network UK (1999), Aldicarb, Pesticides News No 45, http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/actives/aldicarb.htm
21 Pesticides News No.47, March 2000, p12-14 http://www.panuk.org/pestnews/pn47/pn47p12.htm
22 Cotton Production Practices, International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005)
http://www.icac.org
22a Glin L, Kuiseu J, Thiam A, Vodouhe DS, Ferrigno S, Dinham B (2006), Living with
Poison: Problems of endosulfan in West African cotton growing systems, Pesticide Action
Network UK
23 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (24February 2006)
24 Blossom, B. Singh, Gaganjyot, ‘Monitoring of Insecticide Residues in Cotton Seed in
Punjab, India’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (2004) 73: 707-712
25 FAOSTAT, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2006)
http://faostat.fao.org
26 Pesticide Action Network UK (2000), Endosulfan, Pesticides News No 47,
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/endosulf.htm
27 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines toClassification 2004, WHO (2005) http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en
28 Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network (2006) http://www.pesticideinfo.org

29 Pesticide Action Network UK (2005), The List of Lists, http://www.panuk.org/briefing/list%20of%20lists%202005.pdf
30 Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent, UNEP/ FAO
http://www.pic.int/en/Table5.htm
31 Pesticide Action Network (2006) Pesticide Database, http://www.pesticideinfo.org
32 Ibid
33 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) Cotton Production Practices,
http://www.icac.org
34 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (1994) http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid; United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (May2004) Agricultural Chemical Usage, 2003 Field Crops Summary, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf; provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO
Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (24 February 2006); EJF personal communication
anon. (February 2006)
35 Pesticide Action Network UK (2000), Endosulfan, Pesticides News No 47,
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/endosulf.htm
36 Pesticide Action Network UK (1997), Monocrotophos, Pesticides News No 38,
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/monocrot.htm
37 Ibid
38 American Bird Conservancy http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/Monocrotophos.htm
39 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (24February 2006)
40 Choudhary and Laroia ‘Technological developments and cotton production in India andChina’, Current Science (2001) 80 (8) 925-932
41 Ibid; Herring R. ‘Is there a case for growing cotton in India?’, prepared for the workshop‘Indian Cotton: Biology and Utility, Meanings and Histories’, Cornell University April 29-30,(2005)
42 Extension Toxicology Network, Cornell University Co-operative Extension
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/metiram-propoxur/Monocrotophosext.html
43 WHO (2005), The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard andGuidelines to Classification 2004, http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en
44 Pesticide Action Network (2006op cit
45 The Rotterdam Convention http://www.pic.int
46 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
47 Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report ( June 2003 update), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupjun03.htm;, Pesticide Action Network(2006) op cit
48 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005)op cit; Data provided by Gerd WalterEchols, op cit
49 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (1994) op cit; Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols,
op cit50 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
51 Extension Toxicology Network, op cit
52 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
53 Extension Toxicology Network, op cit
54, United States Department of Agriculture (May 2004) op cit
55 Extension Toxicology Network, Cornell University Co-operative Extension
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/methylparathion-ext.html
56 WHO (2005) op cit
57 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
58 The Rotterdam Convention op cit
59 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report ( June
2003 update), http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rupjun03.htm; Pesticide Action Network(2006) op cit
61 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
62 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
63 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (2000)op cit ; Pesticide Action Network UK (2000),
Indian cotton farming – study identifies training needs, Pesticide News No 45,
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn45/pn45p12.htm
64 Pesticide Action Network UK (2000), Methyl parathion, Pesticide News No 36,
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/methylpa.htm
65 Extension Toxicology Network, op cit
66 Pesticide Action Network North America , Problems with Conventional Cotton
Production, http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
67 Ibid
68 Extension Toxicology Network, Cornell University Co-operative Extension
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/Methamidophos-ext.html
69 Ibid
70 Crop Sector Reviews, Agranova Alliance (2003) http://www.agranova.co.uk
71 Ibid72 Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (2003) op cit
73 Reports of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Foodand the WHO Core Assessment Group (2003) and (2000)
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid
74 Extension Toxicology Network, op cit
75 WHO (2005) op cit
76 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
77 The Rotterdam Convention op cit
78 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
79 Ibid
80 Ibid
81 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
82 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, op cit; United States Department of Agriculture,(May 2004) op cit; Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide
Residues in Food and the WHO Core Assessment Group (2003) op cit
83 Extension Toxicology Network, op cit
84 Bouwman H et al., ‘Simultaneous presence of DDT and Pyrethroid residues in humanbreast milk from a malaria endemic area in South Africa’, Environmental Pollution (2006)
1-16
85 Extension Toxicology Network, Cornell University Co-operative Extension
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/deltamethrinext.html
86WHO (2005) op cit
87 Pesticide Action Network (2006) op cit
88 Ibid89 Ibid
90 International Cotton Advisory Committee (2005) op cit
91 Data provided by Gerd Walter-Echols, op cit; Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO
Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the WHO Core Assessment Group(2002) op cit; United States Department of Agriculture, (May 2004) op cit
92 Extension Toxicology Network, op cit

T H E D E A D LY C H E M I C A L S I N C OT T O N 3 7

5 St Peter’s St
London N1 8JD
Tel 44 (0) 20 7359 0440
Fax 44 (0) 20 7359 7123
info@ejfoundation.org
www.ejfoundation.org

Development House
56-64 Leonard Street
London EC2A 4JX
t: +44 (0)20 7065 0905
f: +44 (0)20 7064 0907
admin@pan-uk.org
www.pan-uk.org