Toxic farming chemicals acid test for new govt

The return to Thai-style democracy will almost certainly see horse-trading among the coalition partners as they scramble for A-grade ministerial postings. For those who are accustomed to Thai politics, the reemergence of this political zeitgeist is hardly a surprise.

The most talked about news is the fierce bargaining between the Bhumjaithai, Democrats and Palang Pracharath (PPRP) parties over prominent portfolios like the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

It is well-known that in the country's political landscape, these top ministries are a chance for politicians to gain access to the electoral mechanism and therefore court voter support.

Apart from agriculture, the top ministries include the interior ministry, commerce ministry, finance ministry and, believe it or not, the education ministry as it deals with teachers who have a substantial influence over how people in local communities think and decide.

Understandably, the agriculture ministry, with an enormous budget, has been known as a passport to win votes. It's a position that allows the minister and deputies to work to appease the 20 million voters involved in the farm sector, or nearly half of the total 50 million eligible voters.

Regardless of which party takes the helm of the ministry, we can expect to see populist policies doled out including farm price guarantees, mortgage assistance (under various guises) as well as other handouts to keep farmers satisfied.

Yet, the agriculture minister will have to reckon with a big headache.

In my humble opinion, one issue that will prove the agriculture minister's worth is about whether he or she has the guts to ban the use of three extremely hazardous chemicals used by domestic farmers.

Trios are paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos -- popular weed killing chemicals frequently used by Thai farmers.

So we can expect that not long after the new minister takes charge, he or she will face fierce campaigns from almost 700 groups of consumers who want the state to ban the chemicals and will demand that the ministry spell out its vision and action plan regarding this hazardous trio.

Scholars, consumer groups and state agencies, including the Public Health Ministry since 2017 have launched a series of campaigns pushing for a ban on these chemicals, while the mandarins in the agriculture and industry stubbornly refused despite reports of health hazards.

In 2017, the ministry of public health recommended that the three chemicals be banned from January of this year after academic and health reports showed their harmful impact on human health. However, in February the national committee overseeing hazardous chemicals allowed their use to continue, thanks to heavy lobbying by the Department of Agriculture, an agency under the agriculture ministry.

The agriculture ministry's stance shows it has little if any concern for public health.

Paraquat, in particular, has already been banned in 53 countries due to health concerns. The other two, if not banned, have their use restricted in several countries.

Yet, the department of agriculture has been steadfast in citing economic reasons for the continued use of paraquat such as a lack of alternatives and its popularity among farmers.

But the issue is likely to heat up over the next few months.

The Office of the Ombudsman in late April warned that it would take the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission by June or a bit later if the national panel tasked with the control of hazardous chemical substances fails to respond positively to the ban demand. It has accused the committee of negligence in its duty.

The Department of Agriculture has ignored these calls and, so far, has only issued regulations requiring traders to have licences as well as training for users and sellers.

The department has tried to prolong or skirt the ban by setting a two-year timeframe for a new study to find alternative chemicals. But it has yet to give a similar time-frame for when it will ban these three chemicals, saying only that a ban will be considered if restrictions on use prove ineffective.

So, the new agriculture minister will be faced with a challenge. If the minister has the courage to set a deadline for introducing a ban, public trust could be won over while protecting the health of farmers and consumers.

A ban would be good not only because of the health concerns, but since it could also pave the way for the country to embrace organic farming, a method that could lead to premium prices for our country's products.

No matter which party wins in the race to get the portfolio, this case is a test and a chance to prove that our politicians are about more than just populist handouts.