In other instances, the banned pesticide Aldicarb, prohibited in South Africa since 2016,was also detected.
Last year, between September and November, there were about 900 reported cases of alleged food-borne illnesses across the country.

In the mass hysteria of media reports and public frenzy, conspiracies and other creative theories emerged.

Some suspicions arose that a deliberate campaign to poison township children was at play.
Others wondered whether the large supermarket groups were involved, to discredit the local spaza market so they could capitalise on the township economy.

In other cases, some suspected mass psychogenic illness, or masshysteria, a globally common psychological phenomenon that manifests as the spontaneous and rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs among a group or population.

Schools regularly report mass hysteria on their premises, often over paranormal sightings. Symptoms can and do sometimes become physical.
Others implied that the problem was limited to foreign-owned spaza shops. Long standing anti-immigrant sentiments resurfaced.

In some communities, locals acted by closing spaza shops owned by foreign nationals, in the belief that they sold the expired foods that were killing the children.
Social media platforms were abuzz with recordings of the purported manufacturing of fake food products by foreign nationals who owned spaza shops.

An unexpected consequence in some areas has been a rise in the targeting of immigrant spaza shop owners by extortionists seeking ‘protection fees’.

However, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi and President Cyril Ramaphosa subsequentlyconfi rmed that the deaths of children were directly related to exposure to the organophosphate Terbufos.

What has been government’s response?

Delivering government’s comprehensive response to the reported cases last November,Ramaphosa presented Cabinet’s decision of a three-pronged intervention strategy, namely Get hazardous pesticides off the street;
Protect children from exposure; and Prevent future outbreaks.

The output programmes include registration of all food-handling facilities and shops; door-to-door compliance inspections of all spaza shops, tuck shops and other informal traders; inspections of food-handling facilities, manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers; and investigating the supply chain process for distribution and sale of Terbufos, to ensure that controls are being adhered to and that there is accountability for who they sell to.

What is Terbufos?

Terbufos is a highly hazardous pesticide that has been classified by the World Health Organization as a class 1a organophosphate pesticide.
It has neurotoxic effects and is particularly dangerous to children and adolescents.
The agrichemical is considered to have a higher potential to harm public health, the environment, wildlife or other crops, compared with other pesticides.
Due to its extremely toxic and hazardous nature, Terbufos has been banned for use in many parts of the world. In the EU, it has been banned since 2009.
In the Southern African Development Community, it is banned in Angola, the Comoros,Botswana, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius,Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. In South Africa, it is not banned.

The use of Terbufos in South Africa

Despite its extreme toxicity, Terbufos is widely and commonly used in the agricultural sector in South Africa. Citrus and wine farms, maize, wheat, and sugarcane plantations are among the frequent users.
Its sale and access is highly controlled, as it has been classified in terms of applicable regulations as a “restricted pesticide” since 2023.
Farmworkers, particularly women and their children, are continuously exposed to and vulnerable to the highly toxic pesticide.
Most of the workers exist under extremely precarious conditions, which at times include the non-negotiable use of pesticides, often without the necessary protective gear.

Farm owners regularly ignore the regulations regarding protective gear with impunity. In the townships, informal settlements and at taxi ranks, it is known as "halephirimi".
Literally translated to mean 'you will never see the sunset', halephirimi lives up to its promise and guarantee. It is highly toxic, lethal and fast acting.
At any street corner in the townships and informal settlements, one can easily find the small black bag of granulated poisonous death.
It is almost always in the translucent, unmarked, small packet used for packaging amakipkip and other snacks loved by children. It has three main uses in the townships:suicide, rats and dogs.

Previously, the Gauteng health department reported that halephirimi was a popular choicefor those attempting suicide, particularly in the townships.

Criminals, particularly the burglars, love halephirimi. When rubbed on apiece of meat, it does a quick job of killing guard dogs.
But its most common use is to kill rats and it is the preferred choice of residents of the congested, rat-infested neighbourhoods.
Deprived of their socioeconomic rights and essential services, for many, halephirimi is a necessity.

In his address to the nation last November, Ramaphosa conceded that the rat infestationswere due in part to poor waste management in several municipalities. The president said:
Rubbish is not collected regularly, streets are not being cleaned, creatingconditions for rats and other pests to thrive. Often, the poorestcommunities are the worst affected and often the cheapest remedies thatare used are these highly hazardous substances such as Terbufos and Aldicarb.
Environmental racism: A high form of neocolonialism
Whether it is in the daily, unavoidable encounters between the highly toxic chemicals and farmworkers, or through exposure of children in rat-infested settlements, the bodies mostvulnerable to the hazards of Terbufos and other highly hazardous pesticides are thevictims of, and/or descendants of the victims of, colonialism and apartheid.
The UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Dr Marcos Orellana, visited South Africa in August 2023.
In his report to the UN Human Rights Council, he notes that environmental racism, which is rooted in colonialism and apartheid policies, continued tohinder the development of South Africa.
Environmental racism refers to racial discrimination in environmental policy making,regulations and laws; and the deliberate targeting of black communities and othermarginalised groups to toxic waste exposure.

Terbufos is but one on a list of highly hazardous pesticides banned in the EU but still exported into South Africa. This practice, according to Orellana, “reproduces long-standing racist and colonial patterns of exploitation” – a form of neocolonialism.

Is government’s response sufficient?
Some in society have pointed to a seeming overemphasis on the spaza shops in government’s response. While interventions to register and inspect spaza shops are commendable, some argue that they do not address the systemic foundations of thecurrent problem. The problem is Terbufos.

For years, advocacy groups, including scientists, activists and environmentalists, have called on government to ban the highly hazardous pesticides.
Since 2019, the Women on Farms Project has been challenging the use of harmful pesticides in vineyards in the Western Cape and the Northern Cape.
They have called out the "double standards" in the import of chemicals that former colonies have deemed unfit for consumption by their citizens.

In his report, Orellana recommended, among other solutions, the following to government:
Similarly, last November the SA People’s Tribunal on AgroToxins issued a petition callingfor government and the chemical industry to account for deaths and serious illnesses fromtoxic pesticides on farms and in food.
Among its demands, the tribunal asked government to distinguish between foodpoisoning as a result of highly toxic pesticides and food contaminated by food-borne illnesses.
Conflation of the two has led to the disproportionate and inappropriate focus on the spazashops in dealing with the problem.

Last December, the African Centre for Biodiversity and a coalition of farm workers and civil society organisations petitioned Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen and the registrar, in terms of Act 36 of 1947,
“ to ban the acquisition, disposal, sale, or use in any form of the registered agricultural remedy known as Terbufos”.
In his response, Steenhuisen said: It's very easy for these organisations to stand on a soapbox and say,'immediately ban it' ... [but there are] broader implications for the agricultural sector, not least around food security.
The minister also cautioned against possible huge crop failures, pest infestations and food insecurity if the pesticide is banned without appropriate alternatives. His predecessors had taken a similar position.

classified as extremely hazardous and highly hazardous was due to “limited viable alternative pesticides”.
Rather than banning them, government chose to impose restrictions which govern the sales and use of certain pesticides.
Yet, despite the incontrovertible evidence of the devastation caused by highly hazardous
pesticides such as Terbufos, regulatory action to find sustainable alternatives has been slow and ineffective.

The SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) supports calls for the banning of these highly hazardous pesticides.
The commission further supports production systems that strive for nutritious food, workers’ rights and environmental sustainability.
In the current reporting period, the SAHRC will host a policy dialogue on alternatives to highly hazardous pesticides.
The aim will be to develop policy solutions for a sustainable and just transition from agricultural practices that reproduce long-standing racist and colonial patterns of exploitation.

Ntuli is a commissioner of the SA Human Rights Commission. Jonas is a research adviser of the SAHRC.