Vietnam’s goal towards a clean agriculture is now facing a very big obstacle caused by pesticide abuse in agriculture production. In finding the root, authorities blamed the primary cause on uncontrolled pesticide advertisement on mass media. The following is the excerpt of an interview with Mr Nguyen Xuan Hong, Head of Plant Protection Department under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Nguyen Thanh reports.
The amount of pesticides in use in the country is increasing rapidly. In the past 10 years (2000-2011), the amount of pesticides and herbicides used had risen by 2.5 times, the number of pesticide brands registered for use increased 4.5 times, and the value of imported pesticides by 3.5 times. The value of imported insect killers was US$472 million in 2008, US$537 million 2010, and US$576 million in 2011.
The list of pesticides and herbicides permitted for use in 2012 consists of 1,446 active substances while other countries in the region had from 400 to 600 types, e.g. 630 types in China, and 400-600 types in Thailand and Malaysia. Mr Hong said, at a meeting on implementation of agricultural production plans in southern provinces on July 20, leaders of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development noted that the abuse of pesticides and fertilisers is posing increased risks in agricultural production on which nearly 70 percent of Vietnamese population are living.
It is said that the current abuse of pesticides in agriculture production is resulted from excessive pesticide and herbicide advertising on mass media. What is your opinion about this remark?
Currently, pesticide advertising is subjected to the Law on Advertising and the Circular on pesticide management. This new circular replaces the Circular 38 on pesticide advertising. According to this rule, advertising is applied to registered products only, based on instructions and indications, and subjected to recommendations of competent authorities.
The Plant Protection Department also has sent a request to all affiliates, banning them from getting involved in pesticide advertising programmes sponsored by involved companies. We have also sent written documents on correction of pesticide advertising.
However, many advertisements have been found violating the rule. Does the Plant Protection Department bear responsibility for this situation?
Currently, the responsibility for this activity is decentralised. The Plant Protection Department is responsible for managing pesticide advertising contents on centrally run newspapers and television channels. A very few violations are found in this level. However, management over pesticide advertising is not very close on local TV ads. Local TV broadcast stations now have a very broad coverage. For instance, audience in Quang Ninh province can watch Ca Mau Television channels. To rectify, the department has allocated the power to local plant protection units to monitor pesticide advertisement.
Do you think there are loopholes in legal documents?
The Law on Advertising provides that advertisement contents shall be approved within five working days. Perhaps, media companies do not follow all statutory steps to launch advertisements. Plant protection authorities responsibly check advertisement contents with business certifications of advertisers. Many advertisements have misleading contents. For example, according to business licence certificate, a company is allowed to produce brown backed rice plant hopper (BPH) killer but it may boast that its pesticide kills any plant hoppers. Or, a pesticide is suitable for a plant but it boasted to be good for many. Seriously, some advertisements insert wrongful information that pesticides help increase productivity, improve seeds, etc.
At present, excessive advertisements are not only available on mass media but consultants of many pesticide companies also meet with farmers to introduce their products. Does this violate the law?
Field-trip advertisements are better for farmers because they can find good pesticides for their crop diseases. However, in many cases, consultants make recommendations contrary to the law because they only want to sell products, boost sales and expand market shares, not take care of farmers’ interests. For that reason, any loophole in pesticide management regulations may also be exploited.
In principle, the use of pesticides is closely interconnected with weather conditions and plant conditions. The use of fungicides on seeds is the most dangerous if used shortly before being harvested. It is easy to leave residues on seeds. To protect nearly harvested crops, many farmers are advised to spray pesticides by producers. Such advice or recommendation is very dangerous.
How can we deal with this situation?
The key to change these things is to improve awareness and understanding of farmers. Advantageously, farmers now are easily accessible to mass media like radio, TV, newspapers or the internet. However, they are quite easy to confuse with so much information of concerns. Therefore, grassroots plant protection officers must be, first of all, on the forefront in showing farmers knowledge and methods of using pesticides.
Second, authorities from central to grassroots levels must have close cooperation with media vehicles. If enterprises provide inaccurate information about pesticides, farmers can know it from State management agencies, scientists and media. I firmly believe that farmers will believe in State management bodies more than in enterprises. We do not do this well.
Third, we need stricter regulations on pesticide advertisements and usage recommendations. Advertising contents must be checked for accuracy. If companies violate, they will be made know on mass media. Face-to-face marketing must also comply with the law, not at consultants’ discretion.
Vietnamese
