British American Tobacco Uganda has denied accusations that is opposing the use of DDT in a malaria eradication campaign in the country.
"We only call for caution while spraying, and want assurances that farmers' produce will not be contaminated by DDT," said Jimmy Kiberu, BAT Equatorial Africa's corporate and regulatory manager. "In fact, we would like to partner with the government to ensure this."
BAT has been accused of opposing a plan to spray Ugandan homes with a weak DDT solution in an effort to kill the disease-carrying anopheles mosquitoes. Anti-malaria activists have even questioned the company's corporate morality over this. BAT fears that crops stored in family huts could be contaminated if homes are sprayed. "If agricultural exports are rejected by the EU, the US and Australia, it would be disastrous for the economy and jobs," a spokeswoman for BAT said.
But anti-malarial activists say that many African countries, including Zambia and South Africa, have used DDT against malaria for years without affecting agricultural exports.
Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, called the BAT stance hypocritical, saying it was "unbelievable that a company like BAT - which sells products known to cause cancer - would oppose the use of DDT. "Evidence has proved that its use can save millions of lives," said Mr Tren.
Mr Kiberu said the reservations were expressed by a group of agro-producers, including the tobacco company.
"We were only part of the consortium and not leading it," he said. He added that the position of the agro-processors was not against the use of DDT, but called for cautionary measures to ensure that it does not get into the food chain.
"It is not just tobacco but horticulture, fisheries, tea and other agricultural produce as well that could suffer," said Mr Kiberu.
In a report signed by 11 agro-producers from the flower industry, coffee and other beverages, and tobacco operating in Uganda, the consortium reviewed the "Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of the Re-Introduction and Use of DDT for Malaria Vector Control in Uganda" and raised concerns over some issues.
The consortium stated that it was unconvinced that the study had fully addressed issues like DDT entering the food chain.
The report did not fully address DDT use as a long-term proposition, nor did it consider alternatives, environmental consequences, and the economic impact of reintroducing the chemical, said the group.
The argument raised in various fora by agricultural dealers and environmentalist against the use of DDT in the malaria eradication campaign is Uganda's capability to administer the chemical without a spillover into the environment or contaminating the food chain, even with the proposed indoor residual spray method.
DDT's opponents to this end, cite weaknesses in the country's health system to manage public health.
Said Mr Kiberu, "Whereas we are not opposed to the use of DDT, it is important that this goes hand in hand with a comprehensive method of administering it by authorities and partners in the malaria control programme. We should avoid a situation where markets will reject large amounts of agricultural commodities and impoverish farmers."
He said that BAT Uganda has 30,000 contracted farmers whom it can educate about handling, storage and transportation of tobacco without contamination. "Education on how to work without contaminating agricultural produce is important in this campaign," said Mr Kiberu.
According to data from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics, agricultural exports to the European Union and other markets were worth over $488 million in 2005.
Malaria kills between 70,000 and 110,000 people a year in Uganda and an environmental impact assessment commissioned by the Ministry of Health June-July 2005 recommended the reintroduction of DDT for indoor residual spraying to combat the escalating malaria problem in the country.
https://allafrica.com/stories/200610301196.html