After years of debate, the Council of Agriculture in October announced its intention to ban two pesticide products that contain the weed killer paraquat. According to the council’s schedule, the ban on the sale and use of the pesticides is to become effective in February 2019.
We applaud this important and life-saving change in policy. Paraquat ingestion can cause a painful death and is responsible for the deaths of at least 200 people every year in Taiwan, where paraquat is the single herbicide causing the most deaths.
However, three Democratic Progressive Party legislators — Huang Wei-che (黃偉哲), Su Chen-ching (蘇震清) and Chung Chia-Pin (鍾佳濱) — have questioned the policy.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Department of Mental and Oral Health has urged a ban on paraquat for years to reduce suicide and protect farmers’ health, and now the council has responded with a schedule for introducing the ban.
We support the policy to ban paraquat and will introduce the evidence in this article.
Many suicides are impulsive. Research shows that more than half of people who take poison do so within 30 minutes of first thinking about it, often after an argument.
Paraquat kills six to nine out of 10 people who ingest it, based on studies in Taiwan, while other weed killers kill less than one in 10 people.
Most people who attempt suicide and survive do not try again, receive psychiatric treatment and go on to lead productive and happy lives. Most people who ingest paraquat do not get a second chance.
The two electorates that the three legislators represent — Tainan and Pingtung County — lost 74 and 98 lives respectively to paraquat poisoning from 2012 to last year. Over the same period, the total number of deaths in Taiwan by paraquat poisoning was 1,028, including 101 people who were younger than 35. If paraquat were banned, many of these deaths could have been prevented.
In this year’s Taiwan Global Health Forum organized by the ministry, David Gunnell, a professor at the University of Bristol, England, shared research findings from a review of international evidence concerning the effectiveness of banning highly hazardous pesticides on suicide prevention.
The rate of suicide by pesticide ingestion dropped 40 to 50 percent in South Korea and Sri Lanka after highly hazardous pesticides, including paraquat, were banned. The incidence of suicide using other methods did not increase and overall suicide rates decreased by 13 to 21 percent.
By contrast, other regulatory measures, such as restricting the use and sale of highly hazardous pesticides, have less of an effect on suicide prevention.
Ireland has tried restricting sales of such products to licensed dealers, educating farmers and requiring safety labeling, but these measures proved ineffective and paraquat is now banned throughout the EU.
South Korea had tried to create a registry of purchasers and has added emetics and odorous agents to paraquat products, but again, they have had no effect.
A small amount of paraquat can be fatal and these regulations could not prevent paraquat being stored, even in small amounts, in households. By contrast, an outright ban can completely remove paraquat and thus reduce fatalities.
An outright ban is clear-cut and easy to implement, while other restriction measures — such as licensed sprayers — would not totally prevent regular farmers from acquiring the pesticide and would thus have a limited effect in preventing paraquat-related deaths.
Other forms of the pesticide, such as paraquat granules, still need to be made into a solution before use, which might be stored in farmers’ homes and would therefore not eliminate the risk of impulsive suicide.
In Taiwan, 60 percent of paraquat ingestion involved using paraquat stored in the household, showing that a complete ban is the only measure that can effectively remove paraquat from farmers’ houses and prevent harm.
The causes of suicide are complex. Suicide prevention requires multifaceted action. A paraquat ban is one of many suicide prevention measures, but there is strong evidence to show that a ban can prevent suicides and save lives.
More than 50 nations have already banned paraquat. China banned the sale and use of paraquat solution last year.
Paraquat is not the most-sold weed killer in Taiwan. A ban would not affect the availability of the many alternative weed killers.
The council has recommended alternative pesticides and a local farmers’ union also promotes crops that were cultivated without using paraquat.
These alternative approaches to paraquat should receive more support from not only costumers, but also policymakers to protect the safety and health of farmers and their families.
Chang Shu-sen is an associate professor in the College of Public Health at National Taiwan University. David Gunnell is a professor of population health sciences in the Medical School of the University of Bristol, England.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS