The issue of hazardous farm chemicals caught the media's attention briefly last week when the Criminal Court ruled in favour of Witoon Lienchamroon, founder of BioThai -- a conservation group that promotes sustainable farming.
Known as a staunch critic of farm chemicals, Mr Witoon was accused by the Weed Science Society of Thailand of defamation by allegedly disseminating incorrect information on Facebook in 2019.
The specific information was related to a debate on technical terms of hazardous chemicals being subjected to a ban and under restricted use. The Criminal Court on Wednesday was quoted stating that "BioThai's message was couched in academic terms and was not considered false information under the Computer Act."
The verdict is being taken as a small victory for consumer protection and conservation groups who have for a few years been fighting pro-farm chemical groups in a bid to reduce the chemical spraying of food plants.
Understandably, both groups are expected to disagree but the bigger question is: Where is the responsible state authority?
Indeed, the lawsuit stems from debates on the directives by the National Hazardous Substances Committee (NHSC) in 2019. In October of that year, the NHSC voted to ban paraquat, chlorpyrifos and glyphosate due to pressure from consumer protection and conservation groups including BioThai.
A month later, pressured by pro-chemical groups, the NHSC revised the ban by still disallowing paraquat and chlorpyrifos but permitting the popular weed killer glyphosate to be used but under tight restrictions. The ban has been in place since June 2020.
Since then, the Department of Agriculture has been accused of dragging its feet and being slow in finding alternatives to the banned substances while glyphosate remains available through online shopping sites despite this not being allowed under restricted use.
Even Mananya Thaiseth, deputy agricultural minister and a Bhumjaithai MP, who advocates banning hazardous chemicals, often criticises the department's officials for concealing information when she wants to check on the amount of hazardous farm chemicals being imported into Thailand.
To be fair, both banned substances -- paraquat and chlorpyrifos -- have gradually disappeared from the market. However, vegetable and fruit testing conducted in 2020 by ThaiPAN, a food safety advocacy group, on samples from wet markets and modern retailers across 10 provinces, showed 58.7% of the 509 tested samples were tainted with toxic chemical residues including the banned chlorpyrifos.
In March this year, seven elephants suffered serious burns to their mouths and tongues from eating grass contaminated with the herbicide paraquat at a border village in Chiang Mai's Omkoi district.
The question is: What has the government has been doing? And should health and agricultural officials conduct testing to detect banned farm chemicals in foods and enforce laws against those who violate the ban? Should officials find alternative weed killers to replace hazardous substances?
The government must remember its goal of making Thailand the kitchen of the world, to be a hub of wellness and a promoter of organic farming. Those three goals largely depend on healthy and safe food. To do this, government needs to take charge and lead society and the farm sector into the future. But what society has seen so far is are confrontations between pro and con groups, while the state takes a bystander role.
