Toxic Trail is a two part documentary that was produced by TVE in early 2001, and was first broadcast as part of its Earth Report slot on BBC World in April 2001. It follows Russell Dilts, an expert working with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as he investigates the pesticide industry in South East Asia. The trail begins in Thailand, moving to Cambodia and ending in Indonesia. The main focus, however, is on Cambodia, where Dilts uncovers major problems in the misuse of pesticides.

Russ Dilts makes stark and horrifying findings: the mass use of pesticides is progressively destroying delicate local ecosystems, as well as causing many health problems to farmers and their families involved. Eventually, everybody is affected by consuming agricultural produce with high levels of pesticide residues.

	Methyl Parathion Methyl Parathion, a major component in the toxic trade between Thailand and Cambodia, is a Class 1A chemical - termed as being highly dangerous by WHO. It is an organo-phosphate and is harmful not only to insects, but to humans as well. Toxic Trail covers many of the symptoms that unprotected long-term use can cause: it interrupts nerve transmission, affecting the central nervous system and resulting in symptoms such as excessive sweating, shortness of breath and pupillary constriction; irritability, insomnia and unconsciousness; excessive salivation, abdominal cramps, diarrhoea, vomiting; very long-term use may lead to inco-ordination, ataxia and convulsions. Many farmers who have been involved in long-term use also showed evidence of extreme skin damage.

Paradoxically, the pesticides often fail in their primary target of killing insects who are increasingly resistant or immune to these toxics. Dilts describes the "pesticide treadmill" where pesticides are used to kill insects which then become resistant; more insects appear, more pesticide is used - and so it goes on, in ever widening circles. Part I also shows how pesticides contaminate surface water and destroys harmless insects and fish.

Using investigative journalism methods, the film exposes big international producers of pesticide, such as the German firm Bayer, whose policies of product stewardship are little more than rhetoric. Many of their products contain substances such as the chemical Methyl Parathion which is classed as being highly dangerous by the World Health Organisation, WHO. These substances are illegal in Cambodia and in many western countries -- but not in Thailand. Cambodia's delicate political and economic situation, and its under-development, make it difficult for the small country to enforce customs regulations. Thus, these dangerous substances move freely between Cambodia and its big neighbour Thailand.

"Whatever the niceties of the legal regime may be, it makes very little difference here on the border with Cambodia. The country has no means to stop the toxic traffic from Thailand," observes Dilts as he crosses the border and enters Cambodia.

Bayer and other firms claim that they cannot be responsible for what ultimately happens to the product. Sarojeni Rengam, who works for the activist group Pesticide Action Network (PAN Asia), recalls how PAN Germany had once raised this issue with Bayer. "They basically answered by saying that they do not know what happens to their pesticides once it goes to a country like Cambodia. We say they are making a huge profit out of this, and they should be responsible not only on the production and sales but how it is used in the field."

	Product Stewardship Stated simply, Product Stewardship is when companies take the responsibility for their products. It includes the monitoring of the distribution of products with regard to choice of outlet and method of sale. Toxic Trail questions how this concept is practised in developing countries such as Thailand and Cambodia. Bayer and other companies are proving to be lax when it comes to keeping track of sales of their products in Thailand. This raises the general question: how much responsibility can a company be expected to take for the ultimate use of its products? Unless governments are strong enough to strictly enforce their own laws and monitor violations, large multinational companies in particular will try to avoid complying with health and safety regulations in countries where their products are sold or used. In the long term, this is not profitable to the companies, farmers or consumers.

In reality, things are more complicated. For a start, labels on many pesticide bottles sold in Cambodia are printed in Thai or Vietnamese, and not in native Khmer. Some farmers cannot read any language at all. Those who can may still find it difficult to follow all the safety instructions.

Helen Murphy, an epidemiologist who has been studying instances of pesticide poisoning among Cambodian farmers, doubts if safety instructions are practical at all. "This whole issue of safe practices I think is false security," she says. "There is no way that a farmer can absolutely not be contaminated in the field. He would have to wear a space suit -- and that's impossible here."

So the solution may lie in progressively reducing reliance on pesticides, and finding other ways to safeguard crops and people from pests. The second part of Toxic Trail focuses on how specialists and farmers are trying to achieve this in Thailand and Indonesia. Consumer pressure could make a difference here: the Bangkok Municipal Corporation now tests all vegetables coming into the city markets - they will only be allowed in if pesticide residues are within safe limits.

But it's in neighbouring Indonesia where the greatest strides have been made in the struggle to contain the use of chemical pesticides. Toxic Trail takes us to the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programme in Indonesia which has been in practice for 16 years. Farmers are educated in Farmer Field Schools about the multiple dangers of pesticides; many are now involved in researching alternative methods of pesticide control. The main thrust in these schools is for farmers to harness their own knowledge and to be proactive and independent.

Scientists and farmers work together to determine what is best for them, the crop and the consumer. In effect, these farmers have become scientists - scientists with results. They have taken two major steps in the fight against the pest and the pesticide, introducing their own process of seed selection and using natural predators to eliminate the insects that cause damage to crops.

Toxic Trail raises issues that continue to be ignored by industry, governments and nations in their quest to raise agricultural productivity. Tackling these issues is difficult and take much time and effort. It requires stricter national laws to protect both farmers and consumers. It calls for corporations to act with greater responsibility. More than anything else, the farmers need to be educated and empowered - as in Indonesia - so that they can choose wisely and carefully on how best to protect their crops and themselves.

Click here for more information on obtaining Toxic Trails

	Zoe Green spoke to Andrew Bartlett, until recently the head of Integrated Pest Management Programme for Asia, who was involved in the production, promotion and distribution of the hugely successful Toxic Trail programmes. Excerpts: What was the impact when Toxic Trail was first broadcast globally on BBC World in April 2001? The immediate feedback was very good. In the first month our website (www.toxictrail.org) had 1,500 visitors and we also received positive comments and requests for supplementary materials from UN agencies, bilateral donors and many civil society organisations around the world. What kind of non-broadcast use has been made of Toxic Trail? Our project (IPM Programme for Asia) has used it in briefings and in training activities across Asia. Advocacy organisations have shown the documentary at national and international workshops. Universities in developed countries use it as course material. Toxic Trail has been versioned into a number of Asian languages; what impact has this had? Yes, we have so far versioned it into Khmer, Thai, Bahasa Indonesia, Sinhala, Chinese and Hindi. These versions will greatly increase the number of non-English speakers who watch it and who are close to the problem. How did the pesticide industry react to Toxic Trail? Following its broadcast, the President of the Global Crop Protection Federation, an association of the major pesticide companies, wrote to the Director General of FAO, criticising the way in which the documentary had been made. Significantly, however, the letter did not challenge any of the facts presented in Toxic Trail. The broadcast of Toxic Trail also caused discussion about the cessation of formulation of category 1 chemicals amongst members of the industry association. I believe it is inevitable that, at some point, multinational companies will stop producing such chemicals and Toxic Trail may have speeded up this change. What sort of impact has Toxic Trail had on integrated pest management (IPM) programmes? In Southeast Asia, IPM training already existed on a large scale; Toxic Trail has not changed these programmes, but by documenting activities and achievements, we hope that it will inspire more people to undertake similar IPM work elsewhere. The documentary is an important addition to a pool of information which is available to planners and policy makers. How much can Toxic Trail do to solve the issues it raises? This is difficult to answer. The problems of pesticide poisoning, of unsustainable agricultural practices, of irresponsible multinational companies, require long term solutions, involving a number of parties and a number of strategies. The Toxic Trail documentary effectively complements the other work that we are involved in.

The feature and interview were written by Zoe Green, a free-lance journalist based in the UK.