PhD candidate, Charlotte Scott, writes about attending a people’s tribunal on agritoxins.

In March this year, I attended the South African People’s Tribunal on Agritoxins (SAPToA), convened by a coalition of civil society organisations, which offered a platform for workers, communities and experts to confront the devastating, and often unseen, impact of agritoxins.

People’s tribunals are alternative forums for seeking justice, often in cases where access to official judicial process is lacking either due to limited political will, evidence or capacity and resources. They are often set up by social movements and mimic the structure and function of international tribunals. Their judgements are non-binding, but they can still wield considerable power in the legitimacy of their findings. Jurors are often retired judges or experts from around the world with knowledge of domestic and international legal obligations. They can provide platforms for those marginalised and harmed to testify alongside researchers, thereby amplifying their stories in the media. And beyond this, they can be tools to strengthen civil society campaigns and coordination, building a groundswell of momentum and evidence that can be carried into further action.

The tribunal was purposefully anchored in the testimonies of individuals whose lives have been irrevocably altered by pesticide exposure. Demanding justice, accountability, and fundamental policy change in South Africa’s agricultural sector, it laid bare what many speakers described as crimes against humanity.

Stories from the frontlines of pesticide use

Farmworkers in the Western Cape recounted inter-generational harm and patterns of fear and powerlessness on farms where workers have limited agency and the nature and toxicity of the chemicals used is often concealed from them. Speakers talked about the physical impact on them and their families, including chronic respiratory problems, reproductive health impacts, vision loss, skin irritations and burns, cancer and death from poisoning.

Testimony from community members affected by the United Phosphorous Limited (UPL) disaster in Durban provided a stark illustration of industrial negligence. In July 2021 a warehouse in Durban belonging to Mumbai-based chemicals multinational UPL was set alight during unrest in the area. The warehouse contained 5 000 tons of agrichemicals, including highly hazardous pesticides which were released into the environment.  Community members described the incident as a “toxic catastrophe” that poisoned the air, water, and livelihoods of nearby communities, including Blackburn Village and Phoenix Fisherfolk. The catastrophe left local residents with multiple physical impacts, including respiratory issues and eye problems and many of the chemicals released are known to cause cancer in humans and persist in the environment.

The tribunal also heard stories of the impact of “street pesticides”. These are agricultural pesticides decanted and illegally sold in smaller containers for household use and are another avenue through which workers and communities are routinely poisoned. Accounts were given of children dying after ingesting agricultural pesticides such as fumigants containing the chemical compound terbufos. They showed how agricultural chemicals permeate urban informal settlements, often used as a last resort by communities living in areas with high pest burdens, including rats and cockroaches. Individual stories were recounted such as the case of a grandparent mistaking the pesticide Aldicarb for pepper to season her grandchildren’s meals. This led to the deaths of two children and brought new meaning to the dry statistics on poisonings.

These stories were heard against the backdrop of a broader injustice – that many of the pesticides responsible for poisonings are already banned in Europe and other countries. But Europe still exports these same chemicals to South Africa in a blatant double standard and lack of care for the safety and well-being of workers and communities outside of Europe.

Research unpacking hidden dangers

The tribunal invited several experts to provide testimony based on their own data and research, alongside the lived experiences of workers and communities, contextualising them within a system of harm and negligence.

Dr Andrea Rother highlighted the widespread, compounding nature of exposure – not just in agriculture, but in homes, food, public spaces, and schools. She highlighted how South Africa’s outdated legislation (Act 36 of 1947, predating apartheid) and a fragmented regulatory system involving seven government departments and 15 pieces of legislation, have led to ineffective oversight. She also expressed concern about the powerful influence of the agrichemical industry, which influences policy, provides advice, and even conducts toxicology reviews due to a lack of independent toxicologists in government.

Recent cohort studies from UCT provided detailed evidence of widespread pesticide exposure and its long-term effects on children living in farming communities. These confirmed that pesticides and their metabolites are present in the air, water, and soil where children live and play. Researchers also presented evidence linking pesticide exposure to respiratory symptoms, immune response changes, as well as neurobehavioral and neurocognitive effects.

Professor Salashni Naidu presented global and South African evidence linking pesticide exposure to menstrual irregularities, fertility issues, spontaneous miscarriages, pre-term births, and congenital abnormalities.

Moving forward

Civil society has been involved in extensive processes advocating against agritoxins: submitting comments on regulations, engaging parliamentary portfolio committees, launching petitions, sending letters of demand to government ministers, and filing complaints with advertising bodies. However, these efforts have often been met with silence, lip service, or unconvincing rebuttals.

More than a series of presentations, SAPToA represented a culmination of over two years of collaborative work by a coalition of organisations, building on decades of advocacy. The tribunal was a response to the exhaustion of conventional remedies for redress.

After two days of detailed and emotional testimony, the judges retired to consider their jury statement. However the testimonies and research presented have already begun to coalesce around a clear and urgent call for fundamental policy changes, including:

• An immediate ban on Highly Hazardous Pesticides.
• Strengthened and holistic regulation that moves beyond the current reliance on industry-funded consultants for safety reviews.
• Accountability and compensation for communities based on an enforced “polluter pays principle.”
• Enhanced information and training on pesticide risks.
• And ultimately a systemic shift away from toxic agriculture towards agroecology and non-chemical alternatives through investment in research, training, and support for farmers.

The testimony from the tribunal leaves no room for complacency: the human cost of South Africa’s dependence on hazardous pesticides is measured in poisoned bodies and intergenerational harm to communities. It has laid bare the de facto acceptance of “sacrifice zones”*- areas where communities are exposed to extremely harmful toxins and pollutants with long-term impacts in the name of industry and development, that government has long turned a blind eye to. By centring the voices of those most affected, it aimed to convey pain into testimony and testimony into a roadmap for change. Ensuring that government and industry heed this call may be a longer road still, but the groundwork has surely been firmly laid.

 

* The term “sacrifice zone” originated in the cold war era to describe areas rendered uninhabitable by nuclear experiments that caused high and lasting levels of radiation. Today, the term has been used by researchers, UN rapporteurs and civil society to describe hot spots of pollution and contamination which acutely affect nearby communities. They are areas where the health and human rights of residents are knowingly sacrificed for growth or development, often in the interests of large private actors.

Photograph: Johannes Richter/Flickr