Farm workers who became ill or infertile after handling a toxic pesticide on Nicaraguan banana plantations saw their case dismissed by a Paris court on Tuesday. Their lawyer, Raphael Kaminsky, said the court ruled the damages were disproportionate and that the team will appeal to France’s highest court.
Thousands of people in and around plantations in the Chinandega region experienced infertility, chronic kidney failure, skin disorders and cancer after prolonged exposure to Nemagon in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Nemagon contained dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a nematicide used to kill soil pests. The chemical was banned in the United States in 1977 after links to sterility in male workers were established, but it continued to be exported and used abroad into the 1980s.
In 2006 Nicaraguan courts ordered the companies that sold Nemagon — Shell, Dow Chemical and Occidental Chemical — to pay victims $805 million in damages and interest. Efforts to secure that compensation in US courts have so far been unsuccessful.
Grettel Navas, an assistant professor at the University of Chile who interviewed victims in Nicaragua in 2017 and 2018, said it is nearly impossible to put a monetary value on the harms. She described decades of struggle for recognition, accountability and redress, saying many workers “died while waiting.” Navas also said public institutions in Nicaragua have been too weak to support victims or to protect citizens from pesticide exposure and environmental damage.
The Nemagon case highlights a broader problem: pesticides banned in the European Union and other wealthy jurisdictions continue to be manufactured and exported for use in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Residues from such chemicals can contaminate air, water and soil, kill non-target species and reduce biodiversity. Long-term exposure raises risks of infertility, miscarriage, respiratory and neurological illnesses and various cancers.
Campaigners say European promises to stop exporting banned hazardous chemicals have not been met. In October 2020 the European Commission pledged to stop the production and export of hazardous chemicals banned within the EU, but investigations by NGOs have shown that export trade in prohibited pesticides has in some cases expanded since then. Friends of the Earth Europe and other critics call the continued export of dangerous pesticides a form of neocolonialism, since it subjects people and ecosystems in the Global South to risks no longer tolerated in Europe.
Research from countries such as Costa Rica illustrates how long-lasting and wide-ranging the impacts can be. Soledad Castro Vargas, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Zurich, has documented pesticide residues remaining in soil and drinking water years after use, including chemicals like chlorothalonil and bromacil that were phased out in the EU long before local bans were implemented. Small communities often lack the resources to monitor or remediate contamination or to secure alternative water sources.
Tropical climates pose particular challenges for pest management: warm, humid conditions favor pests and pathogens, while large-scale monoculture systems used for high-value export crops can amplify infestations and reinforce reliance on chemical controls. Researchers and studies have shown that synthetic pesticide use is common across both industrial farms and smallholders and is increasing in many lower-income countries.
The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that global pesticide use has roughly doubled since 1990. Between 2013 and 2023 agricultural pesticide use rose by about 14%, though it dipped slightly toward the end of that period. Limited reporting means actual use may be higher; various analyses suggest around two-thirds of the world’s agricultural land faces some risk of pesticide contamination.
Experts argue that structural factors — industrial agriculture models, global market pressures, debt and corporate input systems — create dependencies that make transitions away from heavy pesticide use difficult. Yet alternatives exist. Agroecological practices tailored to local conditions, crop rotation to maintain soil health and suppress weeds, and cultivating biodiversity to support natural pest control can reduce chemical reliance. Simple measures, such as integrating natural predators (for example, using ducks to eat snails and pests), have been cited as effective components of these approaches.
A 2017 UN special report on food highlighted agroecology among viable alternatives and asserted it could deliver sufficient food for the global population. Still, farmers need support to shift away from the “chemical pesticide treadmill.” That includes financial assistance, advisory services, stronger regulatory frameworks and institutional backing so farmers can redesign systems to work with nature rather than rely on short-term chemical fixes. Where farmers have made the transition, they often report lower costs and increased profitability, but many do so at their own risk without public backing.
Campaigners also call for regulatory coherence: if a pesticide is banned because it causes severe health effects in the EU, it poses similar risks elsewhere. They argue protections should not differ by geography and that export rules should prevent hazardous chemicals from being sent to countries lacking the same safeguards.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker