Saltar al reproductorSaltar al contenido principal
  • hace 1 día
Más de 30 investigadores y expertos en salud pública enviaron una carta a la ministra de Salud, Ana María Vesga, y a la directora del Instituto Nacional de Salud, Zulma Cucunubá, en la que expresan sus preocupaciones sobre el uso de glufosinato de amonio para fumigar cultivos de uso ilícito en Colombia. Los firmantes piden que no se avance con las aspersiones aéreas sin una evaluación rigurosa de sus posibles riesgos para la salud humana, las comunidades y el ambiente. En este video de El Espectador le explicamos los principales argumentos de la carta.

Categoría

🗞
Noticias
Transcripción
00:00A tremendous letter has just been sent to him by a group of more than 30 leading public health epidemiologists.
00:05and scientists from various disciplines to the Minister of Health, Ana María Vesga, on a central issue that has sparked
00:11A big discussion here in Colombia, the idea of ​​using glufosinate ammonium for aerial spraying in crops of
00:18illicit use.
00:19The nine-page letter is also addressed to Zulma Cucunuba, director of the National Institute of Health, and details by
00:28This group of researchers does not agree that the substitution of one herbicide for another should be assumed
00:34as an automatic guarantee of security.
00:37That is, to replace glyphosate with glufosinate ammonium, which has already been approved by the government.
00:45by Abelardo de la Espriella, at least to carry out a pilot plan to fumigate illicit crops.
00:52However, the National Institute of Health must issue a prior opinion before that plan can be implemented.
00:58And so far he hasn't done so.
01:00In their letter, this group of scientists is clear in their position. I will read you verbatim how it begins.
01:06The eventual implementation of aerial spraying with glufosinate ammonium for the eradication of illicit crops in Colombia
01:14It requires an independent, comprehensive and specific assessment of its risks to human health, the environment and fundamental rights
01:24of the potentially exposed communities.
01:27They point out that this substance has its own toxicological profile and must be evaluated considering the complete commercial formulation, the proposed doses,
01:39the operational conditions of the application and the environmental and social characteristics of the territories where it will be used.
01:48They also refer to the idea of ​​creating a pilot program to assess its impact on communities.
01:54They say its design is limited exclusively to the evaluation of acute and medium-term effects, but it does not allow
02:04assess the potential long-term risks in the absence of epidemiological studies.
02:10It is a scenario, they stress, in which these uncertainties must be acknowledged, the available evidence critically examined, and measures taken.
02:19preventive measures in accordance with the severity of the potential damage.
02:24And I'll read you another excerpt verbatim.
02:26No aerial spraying operation should proceed without the competent authorities demonstrating, through verifiable information and transparent procedures, that
02:37The risks have been adequately assessed, applicable legal obligations have been met, and effective measures are in place to protect
02:46populations and ecosystems potentially affected by the use of glufosinate ammonium.
02:53The letter is signed by other renowned researchers in the country, including Álvaro Javier Hidrobo, Julián Fernández Niño, and Fabián.
03:01Méndez, Laura Rodríguez or Maylen Rojas.
03:04Everyone involved includes Piers Dien and Piedemiology, as well as Jonathan García Ruiz, a researcher in Global Health, and Elena Stachensko, a PhD in Chemistry.
03:11Instrumental.
03:13The list is long.
03:14And the letter too, so I'm just going to highlight a couple more arguments.
03:18The group also recalls lessons learned from the use of glyphosate in aerial spraying for legal crops.
03:26The most important lesson, they say, is that the evaluation of aerial spraying cannot be reduced to the isolated analysis of
03:33a single molecule.
03:35You must consider the actual application conditions, product drift, and involuntary exposure of communities.
03:43the potential impact on water sources and food crops, and the difficulties in preventing, detecting, and repairing the damage.
03:51Similarly, they point out that although the causal attribution of each condition must be established through scientific evidence,
03:58Testimonies and community complaints are essential to identify potential damage.
04:05And here they raise one of the biggest challenges that, in their opinion, the country faces:
04:12This idea.
04:13Assessing the risk is not easy, because the proposed conditions of use have not yet been met.
04:21in the real world.
04:23The evidence is scarce, and that, they write, makes it difficult to make decisions based on purely technical criteria.
04:31In those paragraphs they send another message to the authorities.
04:34They have the obligation to protect the rights to health, a healthy environment, water, and participation.
04:40And one last thing, as health researchers, remember that the effects of a chemical substance depend on multiple factors,
04:48including the characteristics of the people, since the population is not homogeneous.
04:54It is very different, for example, what can happen with older people, with children and adolescents, or women in
05:02reproductive age.
05:02But if you want to know all the arguments, write the word "news" in the comments.
05:08and we sent them an article detailing all these arguments.
05:13And follow us on our social media channels, because here at El Espectador we are committed to doing good journalism.
05:18health, environment and science.
05:21Bye.
05:32Bye.
05:33Bye.

Recomendada