 |
| Home | | |
Analyses | | |
Aid | | |
| |
| |
News | | |
| |
| |
| |
| Last
Updated:12/15/02 |
| Report
on Verification Mission, "Impacts in Ecuador of fumigations in Putumayo
as part of Plan Colombia," October 2002 Report on Verification Mission “Impacts in Ecuador of fumigations in Putumayo as part of Plan Colombia” October 2002We thank the Joint Armed Forces Command of Ecuador for enabling us to move about Ecuador's border territory, as well as local authorities of the communities we visited in Colombia for facilitating our access to the places we examined. Prepared by: Acción Ecológica
Adolfo Maldonado American Friends Services Committee Lina Cahuasquí 0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The constant concern about the hazards of spraying the herbicide glyphosate and its effects on Ecuador's border territory has brought together various organizations to conduct a verification mission aimed at determining how it has affected the population in Colombia and Ecuador living alongside the San Miguel River, in the sectors of Aguas Blancas, La Pedregosa, Nueva Granada, and Los Cristales, in Colombia, and Chone 2 and Puerto Nuevo, in Ecuador (see map). The results of this verification are as follows:
1. BACKGROUND Aerial fumigations, as part of the Plan Colombia, officially started in the Department of Putumayo on December 22, 2000. By January 28, 2001, about 29,000 hectares had been fumigation; during 2001, according to the U.S. Embassy in Colombia, 94,000 hectares were fumigated. The U.S. Administration is planning to expand the fumigation area to 150,000 hectares during 2002 and to 200,000 hectares during 2003, which will heighten socio-environmental and health impacts on the people in the border area. 1.a The chemical formula usedAlthough it has been impossible to confirm the chemical mix that is being sprayed, according to the technical parameters of the National Narcotic Drugs Council for the aerial fumigation of illicit crops, [1] the following amounts are being applied in the mix:
The mix used contains: 44% of Roundup Ultra, whereas the label for use in the United States for Roundup Ultra permits concentrations of between 1.6% and 7.7% for the majority of uses and a maximum concentration of 29%. The U.S. label indicates that, under most conditions, the aerial application should not be over 1 liter (quart) per acre of the formulated product. In Colombia, the rate is equivalent to almost 4.5 times this amount. [2] If it is estimated that a 300-gallon plane (1,137 liters) drops 40 L/ha of mix, with an effective drop of 23.4 L/ha of Roundup Ultra; this drop is equivalent to 10.3 L/ha of glyphosate in the form of IPA salts. This means that the glyphosate is applied in concentrations of 26%, not at the 1% rate recommended in the United States for land applications, with protection gear and aimed at farm weeds. To this situation must be added the fact that Cosmo Flux 411F multiplies the biological action of glyphosate fourfold. 1.b Impacts of fumigations in Colombia in 2001The fumigations in Colombia have sparked a major debate, in view of the many reports of damage to licit crops and especially to the health of the population living in the areas adjacent to the areas of fumigation. In the Municipality of Valle del Guamuez, which lies on the Ecuadorian border, a consolidated report on the impacts stemming from fumigations was issued: 1,551 persons had their health affected, 3,174 hectares of licit crops were destroyed, and 55,045 animals were affected or died, distributed across 44 precincts. This report, prepared by the Police Station, [3] focuses on damage to crops and animals, broken down as follows:
1.c Impacts on Ecuador of the fumigations in Colombia in 2001 In October 2000, the press reported the first impacts on health in Mataje (Esmeraldas) associated to the fumigations in the Department of Nariño, with 44 persons falling sick after the first fumigation (El Comercio, Quito, October 22, 2000). In January, El Comercio reported on the impacts in the province of Sucumbíos stemming from fumigations in December (El Comercio, Quito, January 12, 2001). Months later, 188 campesinos from different communities filed a report with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman in Lago Agrio, which was transferred to the Ombudsman in Quito, where its processing came to a standstill. The report set forth the claims of the campesinos of the parishes of General Farfán, Nueva Loja, Pacayacu, Dureno, and Tarapoa. The claim noted the following losses:
Despite huge loses for subsistence and household farming, no government official has traveled to the areas to check, in the field, the damage reported in this claim. 1.d Impacts of fumigations in Colombia in 2002The second phase of fumigations started on July 28, 2002. Despite the short time that has elapsed, reports are piling up in the following institutions: - The Municipality of Puerto Asís [4] reported that, since August 11, 2002, it has been fumigated, and this has “affected more than 2,254 families (from 58 precincts), some of whom are beneficiaries of the Manual Eradication Program." - A report from Agroamazonía [5] dated September 23, 2002 describes how palm heart plantations have been affected in the Valle del Guamuez, Puerto Asís, and Orito. Out of 32 palm heart growers covering 54.8 hectares of sown crops, damage has been reported in 43.8 hectares, which accounts for 80% of farmed area. - The Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman for the Colombian People [6] asserted the following on October 9: “3.9.5 In addition to the previous reports, in the department there have been complaints about harm to the health of the inhabitants, presumably caused by fumigations. The report of the Deputy Department of Public Health of the Department of Putumayo on the impacts of fumigations in various municipalities of this territorial institution informed that “(…) 4,883 (85%) of the 5,929 persons referred to in the complaint forms and interrogated by the officials of the Technical Assistance Unit of Orito and coming from 46.4% of the 282 precincts comprising the three municipalities, spoke about symptoms that can be attributed to the fumigation. The symptoms were associated to respiratory problems 29% (964), gastrointestinal problems 26.4% (876), skin problems 15.8% (524), psychological problems 1.9% (64), fever 15.5% (516), general indisposition 5.4% (179), dizziness 4.1% (32) and others 0.9% (29)”. This report adds that, in the Hospital de la Hormiga, there was “a statistically significant rise in episodes of fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain, acute respiratory infections, and skin infections.” The report concludes: “An epidemiological surveillance system for acute intoxication caused by pesticides and a nutritional surveillance system are required.” [7] 1.e Impacts on Ecuador of fumigations in Colombia 2002The “Santa Marianita” Association of Campesinos [8] of the Parish of General Farfán, comprised of 27 members, reported that after the recent fumigations in Colombia they have suffered from “skin and eye diseases, respiratory infections, fevers like those resulting from malaria, but tests turn out to be negative. Females animals have problems when giving birth and we have noted a fall in the production of corn, cacao, rice, bananas, to such an extent that we cannot get our investment back.” The Chone 2, Puerto Nuevo and La Playera communities on the Tetetes road, in the parishes of Pacayacu, reported damage to their crops and animals. Likewise, they spoke of severe damage and health problems in the border community of Cohembí. 1.f Government actionsOn July 2, 2001, the Ecuadorian Government requested the Colombian Government: - “that the applications of chemical formulas used on its territory take place at least 10 kilometers away from the Ecuadorian border, so as to prevent the dispersion caused by winds from reaching Ecuadorian territory and producing toxic effects on persons and plant life.” [9] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia replied to this request [10] on July 14, 2001 and stated: - The Colombian Government has adopted the necessary precautions in programming its fumigations. In its substantive part, it proposed holding a Seminar-Workshop in Colombia, where the Government of this country “would have the opportunity to provide all the technical information required by Ecuadorian officials, for the purpose of addressing all existing concerns and building up a spirit of binational cooperation." During the Seminar-Workshop on the Eradication of Illicit Crops held in Bogotá, Colombia on February 13-15, 2002, the Colombian delegation pledged "to ensure an 8 to 10-kilometer buffer zone without any chemical spraying from the San Miguel River, which is the binational border limit, inside Colombian territory.” 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE VISIT AND PROCEDURE On the basis of this background, a multidisciplinary inter-agency commission was established, comprised of the Latin American Association for Human Rights (Asociación Latinoamericana para los Derechos Humanos, ALDHU); the Network for Action and Alternatives to Pesticides (Red para Acción y Alternativas a los Plaguicidas, RAPALl – Ecuador); and Ecological Action (Acción Ecológica), along with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of Sucumbíos, Laboratories Labsu, Creative Action (Acción Creativa) and some of the media. The purpose of this Commission was to conduct a Verification Mission to study the impacts of fumigations on the border and corroborate reports that were received, by doing field tests that would demonstrate the degree of vulnerability and disease of the border population. For this purpose, the Commission traveled to the province of Sucumbíos, in the zone of the Tetetes road, at the end of September 2002. The objectives of the mission were: 1. To determine if the distance of the fumigations observes the request made by the Ecuadorian Government to keep a 10-kilometer safety strip inside Colombian territory to safeguard the rights of Ecuadorians. 2. To check the reports on the impacts of the fumigations for the health of the inhabitants of the zone and corroborate a report on the decease of five persons in Cohembí (Ecuador). 3. To analyze the crops affected by the fumigations, check the alleged use of Fusarium oxysporum, and determine soil nutrients and to what extent they have been affected. 3. RESULTS 3.a. Objective 1: Determine if the distance of the fumigations observes the request made by the Ecuadorian Government to keep a 10-kilometer safety strip inside Colombian territory to safeguard the rights of Ecuadorians. The Seminar-Workshop on the Eradication of Illicit Crops that was offered by the Colombian Government took place in Bogotá, Colombia on February 13-15, 2002, in order to “illustrate its program for eradicating illicit crops and providing all the technical information that government officials might need.” The Seminar was attended by “high-level political, rather than technical, authorities, responsible for drug policymaking in Colombia, (…) the Ecuadorian delegation questioned the absence of technicians from the corresponding ministries (Agriculture and Livestock, Health and Environment) and (…) the informative lectures were delivered to an audience comprised largely of policemen, fumigation pilots and politicians.” [11] Despite these constraints and the absence of official analysis and information at this event that would have enabled the Ecuadorian Government to take preventive, remedial, and precautionary measures for future fumigations and to establish emergency programs for the border population, the Seminar was able to draw at least three important, decisive conclusions, in line with what was requested by the Ecuadorian Government through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs: a) A 8 to 10 kilometer safety strip away from the binational border toward the interior of Colombian territory will not be fumigated (in this buffer zone manual eradication programs will be used). b) Research on the impacts on water, soil, flora and fauna in shared ecosystems needs to be conducted. c) The program for eradicating illicit crops does not have an Epidemiological Surveillance System. At this event, the Ecuadorian Ambassador to Colombia, Fernando Ribadeneira, reiterated Ecuador's request regarding the “advisability of fumigating, as long as a safety strip of up to 10 kilometers away from the border is observed so as to safeguard the population and territory of Ecuadorian from the possible damaging effects of this spraying.” [12] The commitment to respect the 8-10 km buffer zone in the fumigation program was clearly stated by four of the lecturers representing the Colombian Government:
“We have not fumigated up to a margin of at least 7 kilometers away from the Ecuadorian border.” [13] Dr. Richard Baca, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Agency (NAS) of the U.S. Embassy in Colombia. “A strip of 8 to 10 kilometers away from Ecuador is no longer being fumigated.” [14] Luis Parra, Advisor to the NAS in the U.S. Embassy in Colombia, and Major Vargas, Field Visit Coordinator. “Fumigations are taking place at a distance of 8 to 10 kilometers away from the Ecuadorian border.” [15] General Gustavo Socha, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Police. Despite the above, the results of the verification conducted in the border zone have led to the conclusion that this government agreement has not been observed and Colombia continues to spray along the Ecuadorian border. Since 2001, local reports have referred to fumigation planes violating Ecuadorian air space so as to turn around and continue spraying. If concrete evidence is provided to prove this, it points to a direct attack on Ecuadorian territorial sovereignty. To check the distance of the fumigations made on the border, the verification mission entered Colombian territory and, with GPS equipment, proceeded to identify the zones fumigated in Colombia and their distance from the San Miguel River. It obtained the following results:
- In Pedrera (point 7), six meters from the San Miguel River, signs of crops destroyed by fumigation, possibly from wind drifts, were found. - At point 10, severe impacts were observed, since the area was sprayed directly at 706 meters away from the border. - In the precinct of Nueva Granada (points 8 and 9), at 1,600 meters from the border, eye-witness accounts by the population reported that, between August 30 and September 6, planes fumigated directly onto their houses. As proof of this, on the football field, located in the middle of the town, there were large rings of chlorosis. The schoolteacher stated that her 35 students fell ill with headaches, sore and runny eyes, and fever. - In Aguas Blancas (points 15 and 16), at a distance of 7 to 8 km from the border, there were clear signs that all kinds of crops had been destroyed. - In Los Cristales (point 14), there were eye-witness accounts of airplanes flying over the houses and spraying them on August 1 and 18, 2002, without any consideration for how it would be affecting homes, food crops, and water sources.
- In La Playera Oriental and Chone 2 (between 1 and 1,257 m from the bank of the San Miguel River, evident damage from the fumigation of September 6, 2002 on the Colombian side of the banks of the San Miguel River was observed. At all points, soil and plant samples were taken, health data on the population were gathered, and eye-witness accounts on social impacts were recorded. - In front of La Pedregosa (point 12, at 186 m inside Ecuadorian territory) damage was found in the banana plantations and other crops, which showed signs of chlorosis (yellowing), as a result of the proximity of fumigations in Colombia. The accounts pointed out that these impacts stemmed from the fumigations done on the Colombian side between August 30 and September 6, 2002. What was observed by the verification mission, the results from the samples that were taken, the eye-witness accounts that were recorded, and the interviews that were conducted enable us to assert that the fumigations in Colombia are taking place less than 10 kilometers away from the Ecuadorian border. On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that, at the time of the mission, the request made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ecuadorian Ambassador to Colombia had not been met. In some cases, there were fumigations as close as the banks of the San Miguel River. The drifting of sprayed products has caused severe harm to the Ecuadorian border population. 3.b Objective 2: Check the reports of impacts of fumigations on the health of the inhabitants of the zone and corroborate a report on the death of five persons in Cohembí (Ecuador). In June 2001, Ecological Action published a Research Report [16] on the impacts of fumigations of January 2001 on the border of Sucumbíos. The report showed that: - 100% of the population living in the border zone had been intoxicated by the Roundup Ultra fumigations over a 5 km strip, and 89% of the population, if the strip is extended to 10 km. - Three months after the fumigations, the population up to 5 km kept showing symptoms of chronic intoxication with signs of neurological impairment, skin problems and conjunctivitis. - There is a direct linkage, in terms of time, between fumigations and the appearance of disease. - There is a direct linkage between the distance of site that was fumigated and symptomatology. The symptomatology in the population declines in proportion to the distance of the fumigated site. - The possibility of new fumigations on the population that is already suffering from symptoms of chronic intoxication may cause an impact of incalculable consequences for their lives. - The population, which has suffered from the impacts of the fumigation, has become frantic. They do not benefit from any economic support, compensation, or suitable care for their health, which has been undermined by a fumigation program that renders them invisible. - The negative impacts on the population's health and its nutritional status may increase if no adequate measures are taken to offset the failure of their crops and the death of their livestock and barnyard animals. - The permanence of Roundup in the soil (from 120 days to 3 years) has generated considerable uncertainty among the population regarding the future of their crops. Because of prevailing winds at that time of year, communities such as San Francisco 1 and 2, Nuevo Mundo, San Miguel, 10 de Agosto, Proyecto San Miguel, and Perla del Pacífico, among others, were severely affected. Today, on the Tetetes road, most of these conclusions also hold true. The report also recorded the death of four children during the first days of fumigation. Reports from the Colombian Red Cross, the Hospital del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús, Valle del Guamuez, the Municipal Police Station (from the same station), health solidarity companies (empresas solidarias de salud, ESS), the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman,… include documents and clinical histories referring to persons who were affected by the fumigations. Regarding the reports about the death of five persons in the community of Cohembí, it was not possible to corroborate whether these deaths were caused or motivated by the fumigations. Logistic and security constraints have prevented access to this community. Because of this situation, the verification mission traveled to a zone that was also affected by the fumigations, but enjoyed better access conditions. For this inspection, the Commission undertook two health studies: a comparative study of the impacts of fumigation on the health of the population of both Ecuador and Colombia; and a study based on blood tests to identify potential chromosome alterations. 3.b.1 FIRST STUDY: Clinical histories Out of a universe of 199 families, 33 families were surveyed (16.6% of total), distributed among six communities, two in Colombia and four in Ecuador, with a total population of 657 persons in Ecuador and 470 in Colombia.
The average of affected persons among both populations is 88.5% in Colombia compared to 80% in Ecuador. The comparative table of symptoms between one population and the other can be appreciated in the chart on the “Impacts of fumigations on health in Ecuador and Colombia”. From the clinical histories that were examined, we can infer the following: - A large majority of the population after the fumigations has felt adverse impacts such as headaches and eye irritation and tearfulness. In the Colombian communities that were more intensely fumigated, it was common to find digestive problems, with dizziness, abdominal pains, vomiting and nausea, diarrhea, fatigue and loss of energy. This symptomatology is typical of organophosphates, which is the group that Roundup Ultra belongs to. The presence of fever in Colombia is also significantly more widespread than in Ecuador. - Another group of symptoms appears because of skin diseases. A great deal of pruritus (itchiness) is associated to different diseases, ranging from dermatitis (inflammation) to the appearance of pimples for different reasons. The irritation caused by the chemical is evident in this symptomatology, which also occurs in the eyes, which has a higher incidence on the Ecuadorian side than the digestive symptoms. - Some campesinos indicated that there are two types of fumigations: one involving a whitish or transparent fluid and the other a dark color, after which there is a powerful "itch." - The psychological impact that the fumigations exert on the campesinos of Ecuador is different from that on Colombia. Whereas the former display stress which leads to insomnia, the Colombians are depressive as a result of the complex reality that the inhabitants of this zone have to live through, heightened by the impacts of fumigations. The symptomatology
described by the population is consistent with what is produced as a result
of the inactivation of cholinesterase, which is the impact of the organophosphates.
The central nervous system is overstimulated, which in turn causes: headaches,
dizziness, nausea, vomiting, stomachaches, and fatigue. This symptomatology
is accompanied by the specific components of this product, which produces
acute eye and skin irritation. 3.b.2 SECOND STUDY: Blood test results One of the principal arguments of those who are for eliminating illicit crops by using pesticides is the claim that Roundup Ultra is harmless. [17] Nevertheless, it is well known that the active ingredients used in elaborating pesticides for commercial use exert adverse effects on health, not only for the end-consumers of the foods that are treated but also for the workers who have been exposed to them. [18] Among the effects caused by pesticides, the most important is genotoxicity, defined as the facility of producing alterations in the genetic material and therefore, the propensity for cancer, mutations, and alterations of the embryo. The blood tests that were taken were aimed at determining if the population affected by the fumigations showed any significant alterations in their chromosomes. To do this the following was used: a) “comet assay” and b) cytogenetic analysis, to look for chromosome aberrations (CA). Both tests are different, but complementary and have proven to be adequate biomarkers for chromosome fragility. “Biomonitoring studies in human populations show that an increase in CA frequency is related to exposure to genotoxic agents, and it is know that there is an association between the frequency of CA and the risk of developing cancer. Duplication in the incidence of cancer in individuals with a high frequency of CA has been reported, therefore the analysis of CA can be used to estimate the risk of cancer and genetic diseases.” [19] At first, it was expected that eight samples would be taken, because this is the laboratory's maximum capacity for analysis. Unfortunately, persons on the Colombian side did not arrive on time for the sample taking and so, for this first study, we only had four samples from Ecuadorian persons. Despite the low representativity of the samples that were taken, the results obtain have encouraged us to publish this report and to propose undertaking more extensive and systematic analyses of the impacts on the health of the population in the border zone affected by fumigations. Bearing in mind that fumigations have increased in the Department of Putumayo and that there have been fumigations once again in the area where the samples were taken (October 4, 2002), we believe that it is urgent to analyze and determine the scope of the risk that the population located on the border is running. Procedure. Four persons were evaluated: three women and one man, with an average age of 39 years old (women of 37, 40 and 53 years of age; 27-year-old man). The women received the impact of the fumigations at a distance of 200 meters; whereas the man's body was sprayed with fluid while he was working. All were exposed on the same dates and during a period of about one week. The samples were taken two weeks after the exposure. One of the women had traveled to Lago Agrio a week earlier because of the symptomatology secondary to the fumigations. None of them smoke, nor do they have any other contact with chemicals or other genotoxic elements. The tests were examined at the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics and Human Cytogenetics of the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador (PUCE) and they consisted of: Comet assay: It is a test that is very sensitive to changes or alterations in one or two of the DNA cell chains on which genotoxic agents have acted. It has the advantage of being rapid in obtaining results. This test was developed by Singh (1988) and in Ecuador there are many activities for which the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics and Human Cytogenetics of PUCE carries out this test. At present, it is used in clinics, human monitoring, radiation in biology, and genetic toxicology, among others. It has been demonstrated that the test is very sensitive for the surveillance of chemicals and complex genotoxic mixtures. In short, the test consists of subjecting cells to an electrical field. If there is no damage to the cell, the genetic material remains unaltered and the nuclei of the cells appear to be circular. The greater the damage to the genetic material, however, the more deformed are the nuclei of the cells and the more they look like comets trailing through space, and that is where they get their name from; depending on the amount of damage, the tail of the comet will be more or less dispersed (see photo and table below). TYPES OF VISIBLE COMETS IN THE COMET ASSAY
The results obtained from this test are highly significant. The analyses support the claim that the persons who were tested are subject to a high risk of suffering from cancer.
RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSES OF THE COMET ASSAY
# 3-CHROMOSOME FRAGILITY: 30.0% # 4-CHROMOSOME FRAGILITY: 28%
Control: CHROMOSOME FRAGILITY: 2-4% The results highlight the following: where there should be no more than 0.5% of damaged cells, we have found 48.3%, in case 1; 47.6%, in case 2; 69.4%, in case 3; and 58.8%, in case 4. In other words, there is a genetic damage that is between 11 and 17 times higher than normal. Cytogenetic analysis: Lymphocytes of peripheral blood were studied and chromosomes were examined to look for structural alterations (such as breaks) and numerical alterations (loss of chromosomes or duplications). This analysis evaluates exposure to genotoxins and is internationally recognized. The results of the cytogenetic tests are as follows: “In all the cases that were studied, there was a sign of much lesser mitotic division than what is considered normal. The data obtained, compared with the control group established in the laboratory, with a range of 2-4%, highlight a statistically significant damage in these individuals.” [20] The percentage of chromosome fragility for each one of the samples was 20%, 21.4%, 28%, and 30%; compared to 2 to 4%, this means that their parameters are 10 to 15 times higher than normal parameters. Their average chromosome fragility is 24.85%. A study conducted by the same laboratory in the province of Pichincha in a flower plantation showed that the workers who were examined had an average chromosome fragility of 18.29%, with 30 times more chromosome aberrations that the control group. On the basis of these data, it was stated that "the cytogenetic findings provide evidence that exposure to pesticides produces lesions to the DNA, which increases the mutagenic and carcinogenic risks in populations that are exposed because their occupations.” [21] Another study [22] from the same laboratory analyze the chromosome aberrations occurring among hospital workers exposed to low levels of radiation. The average (24.8) coincides with the one appearing in the group from the border zone. This study was able to observe that maintaining exposure to the genotoxin over time increased chromosome aberrations and therefore the risk of suffering from cancer. The results of the analyses obtained on the border are even higher than those found in the flower plantation and it has been confirmed that the analysis of chromosome aberrations is a reliable factor for predicting cancer and can measure the evolution, prognosis, and treatment of cervical lesions associated to the human papillomavirus. [23] On the basis of these results and bearing in mind the data from other similar studies, two hypotheses have been suggested, although they will have to be tested by further studies. 1. Fumigations may be the cause of these chromosome aberrations and, if so, they influence the risk of cancer among the exposed population. 2. Another chemical element may the cause of these chromosome aberrations in the genetic material. In this case, the fumigations may be increasing the risk of pathologies in a population that is already especially sensitive. Whichever of the two hypotheses is accepted, it is evident that both highlight the need for further, more in-depth studies on the health impacts for the population exposed to fumigations, to be carried out systematically and with the participation of the respective government institutions and with the mechanisms permitting comparisons of the results of these studies. 3.b Objective 3: Analyze the crops that are affected by the fumigations, check the alleged use of Fusarium oxysporum and determine soil nutrients and to what extent they have been affected After learning about the results of the blood tests, the words of Jeremy Bigwood, Advisor to the Ecuadorian delegation, appearing in the report attached to the analysis, are noteworthy: “Neither the Colombian Government nor the U.S. Government have investigated the environmental effects of various formulas that they have been using on different ecosystems in Colombia. Such a massive use of herbicide formulas that have not been researched and the continuous substitution of one formula for another would never be allowed either in the United States or in the majority of the countries of the world. As a result of this massive use of a formula that has not been used and the absence of research, Ecuador could well be facing a danger of unknown proportions.” [24] The uncertainty regarding the chemical formula used in the program for the eradication of illicit crops, the absence of rigorous proof about the dosage used and the levels of concentration of the mixture, the lack of mechanisms to control them, the frequent contradictions by authorities responsible for this topic, and the silence of many of them are in sharp contrast to reports made by the population on the possibility of alternating fumigations (whitish fluid and others consisting of brown dust, after which there is severe itching). Faced with this situation the question that is being asked is: Is the chemical formula Roundup Ultra being used alternately with the pathogenic agent Fusarium oxysporum? Because of the severity of the reports, in Ecuador and Colombia, samples were taken from the soil and plants to discount or confirm the presence of Fusarium oxysporum in Ecuador's territory. The samples were sent for analysis to the Ecuadorian Agricultural and Livestock Sanitation Service (SESA), at its Phytopathology Laboratory on the Experimental Farm of Tumbaco, which is an agency attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. During the visit in Ecuador and Colombia, samples were taken from the grass, corn, peanuts, rice, and the soil. A selection of samples was submitted to the laboratory for analysis, and they yielded the following results:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
