Research FINAL Draft Word 2

Conflict, Justice, and Bananas 1
Conflict, Justice, and Bananas: The Health Affects of Aerial Spraying, and the Relationship
between Interface Development Interventions and Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters
Association
Ashley Hettler
George Mason University

Introduction
I remember it like it was yesterday. She was sitting on a wooden bench, outside of her
bamboo constructed house, swatting away mosquitoes that were buzzing around her face. She
was speaking quietly, in a dialect of Tagalog, the main language of the Philippines. Her
translator listened carefully, then converted her words into English for me and my study abroad
group so we were able to understand. Her lip started to tremble, her head dropped, and she
started to cry gently. Through the translation, she explained how her son worked for a large
banana growing corporation. He was out in the fields every day, and then became sick. So sick,
that before he reached his 30th birthday, he died. She claims it was from the constant exposure of
the chemicals that are used for aerial spray.
Aerial spray, also called toxic rain and crop spray, is the use of agricultural aircraft
spraying pesticides over plants to kill any insect that may threaten plant growth. Small airplanes
fly above the plantations and use a type of hose to spray the chemicals widely across the banana
plantations. However, although the pesticides are helping the banana growth and prepare the
plants for exportation, it is harming people and surrounding plants who are in range of the spray.
Due to the method of spray and weather components like wind and rain, the chemical spray is
reaching further than the banana plantations. The drift goes over the boundaries of the
plantations and lands on peoples homes and personal space that are on the borders of the massive
plantations. Aerial spraying contains chemicals that have been tested and proved to increase
cancer risks, asthma levels, skin discoloration, and diseases like cerebral palsy. Despite these
health risks, aerial spray is the technique the Philippine banana industry is using. It makes it easy
for banana plantations to grow more bananas and keep them ripe to export to their designated
countries. The spray is not only used as a fertilizer, but is more strongly used as a pesticide spray

to keep bugs off the plants that may damage the bananas. The banana industry is a massive part
of the Philippines’ economy, and aerial spray makes it possible to prepare the bananas for
exportation as fast as possible.
The banana industry is the largest source of revenue in the Philippines. Banana
plantations range from personal plantations to major fruit companies, like AMS, Dole and Del
Monte ownerships. These plantations are all clustered in Davao City, a 224,000 hectare large city
on the southern island of Mindanao, the Philippines’ second largest island. Due to the massive
size of the city, Davao city is home to many environmental projects and agricultural practices,
and is home to the main banana fields of the Philippines. In 2007, there were 5,000 hectares of
banana plantations which converts to over 12,000 acres. The fields are prominent in the
landscape of the island. The amount of land used for banana plantations has increased throughout
the years since 2007. In order to successfully care for the extraordinary amount of fruit
production, the banana plantations are using agricultural pesticide prevention spray through
aerial spraying. This spray, however, has created lots of conflict and aggravated many social
groups in the Philippines. The following research has been narrowed down to two social groups
who stand on opposing side of the aerial spray issue. These groups are Interface Development
Interventions (IDIS), and the Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association (PBGEA). IDIS
is a non government, environmental protection group, who focus on sustainable issues like
fighting for clean watersheds in Davao, and banning aerial spraying. They are coordinated with
other NGOs, religious organizations, and are interlocked with several communities that are
negatively affected by aerial spray. PBGEA is a non stock corporation who regulates the banana
industry, and controls the exportation of the bananas. PBGEA includes thousands of banana
plantations and are responsible for coordinating all of them in preparation for exportation to

Japan and their other large export countries. The companies under PBGEA all have to pay a
closed amount for the use of aerial spray, and thus expands the aerial spray over a set amount of
land, and is then drifting over more area, affecting more people who live on the outskirts of the
plantations. The relationship between these two groups ultimately determine the future use of
aerial spray, and puts pressure on the already tense relationship
Literature Review
Aerial Spraying has been a conflicting issue in the Philippines for years. The fight to ban
aerial spray primarily began in 2005, when the banana exportation industry started to grow. Over
time, there has been increasing conflict between the environmental activists against aerial
spraying, and the business owners that support the banana plantations and their use of aerial
spray. The conflict escalated in 2007 through about 2009, and there has been little activity since.
This conflict has two prominent sides to the issue of aerial spraying in the Philippines. There is
the desired use of aerial spray because of the necessity to produce mass amounts of bananas from
the plantations, and the environmental argument on how it is harmful to humans and detrimental
to health of humans and also personal plants. Due to the two prominent sides of the issue, there
has been increasing conflict over aerial spray. In this research, IDIS and PBGEA are the two
focus groups we are looking into for this issue.
Several years ago, a study was done on the health effects of women still capable of
reproduction in the Philippines, in the same region as this research, and surrounding areas as
well. Mary Ann Fuertes, Executive Director of IDIS, worked with colleagues to develop this
research in 2007. There were 300 women who participated in the research, 100 women from the
separate regions in Davao city. These regions are Mandug, Baganihan, and Tawan-tawan. A
sample of 100 women were taken from each city, which resulted in a total of 300 women

participants. Through interviews, lab tests, and physical examinations, the participants were
tested and their results were analyzed. Through that research, health effects have been observed
and documented, and the fight to ban aerial spray has continued. The research results found that,
“a significant association between the type of community and the incidence of allergies,
tuberculosis, and autoimmune disease among the respondents did exist. Higher number of these
cases was evident in Mandug where aerial spraying is practiced. There is a significant
association between the type of community and the reported cases of kidney disease, diabetes
mellitus, and thyroid disease.” (Fuertes, 165). This research has further shown that aerial spray is
definitely harmful, and the responsibilities or banana plantation growers and supporters are
increasing. The chemicals, although previously described as producing very little harm to people
or other variations of life, are clearly causing damage. IDIS created a list on 20 reasons to ban
aerial spraying in 2008. The list ranges from moral issues, to scientific reasoning behind the
chemical of mancozeb and it’s effect on life. Number 2 on the list states, “According to the
National Research Council in the US, only 10% of pesticides in common use have been
adequately assessed for hazards. We do not know the long-term effects of most of them.
Pesticides are like time bombs. They can kill a lot of people. In fact according to the World
Health Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, as many as 25 million people
are seriously poisoned by pesticides every year” (IDIS, 20 Reasons). Pesticides may be deemed
harmless, but very few are tested to the extent of knowing that for sure. A colleague that traveled
to the Philippines had a similar statement. “For example, there was the whole environmental
movement around BPA… It’s a chemical in plastic bottles that alter hormones in the human
body. BPA started it’s appearance in plastic bottles around 1950’s. Around 2003 people took
notice of BPA and started protesting against it. Now, no bottles contain BPA, however the

makers of plastic bottles back in 1950s until 2003, didn’t know the effects of BPA, they just
thought it was another chemical in the plastic bottle. It’s similar to pesticides; just because the
toxicologists said the area is not toxic, does not mean it is not” (Do, 2014).
The pesticide drift from the excess spray from the agricultural aircraft is primarily made
up of Dithane, better known as Mancozeb. Although the pesticide is termed lowest toxicity of
toxins, it increases the chances of cancer in children and adults, and also can enter the lungs and
cause respiratory issues such as asthma. Another reason from IDIS’ list of 20 reasons to ban
aerial spray is the following: “Although Mancozeb, the most commonly used fungicide during
aerial spraying is not considered highly toxic in acute exposure, it is a probable human
carcinogen, meaning there is sufficient documentation of the carcinogenic potential in animal
studies. It is also listed as a cancer-causing chemical by California’s Office of Health Hazard
Assessment under Proposition 65. Mancozeb is converted into ETU or ethylenethiourea as
degradation product or metabolite. It is an acknowledged thyroid toxin, known to cause birth
defects and tumors” (IDIS, 20 Reasons). Mancozeb has been used in aerial spraying in the
Philippines for the past 40 years, but roughly in the past 10 has it been seen as a health hazard to
banana employees and the people living on the outskirts of the plantations that come in contact
with the spray drift. The Environmental Health Perspective, a peer reviewed journal through the
U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), published a study that
focused on blood ETU and it’s correlation to thyroid cancer. According to their research study,
the groups of people that were tested were employees of the banana plantations. The conclusions
of their study determined that the exposure of mancozeb and the chemicals of the pesticides they
came in contact with increased their thyroid functions, and were put at risk for thyroid nodule
goiters and thyroid cancer. “Our finding of solitary nodules among the exposed group is

significant because, in 95% of cases, thyroid cancer presents as a nodule or lump in the thyroid
gland, usually solitary” (EHP case study). Articles and journals reporting of aerial spraying have
all mentioned the health effects that is detrimental to the people that come in contact with it, and
also to the environment.
Mamamayan Ayaw sa Aerial Spraying (MAAS), which translates to Citizens against
Aerial Spraying, is a branch off of Interface Development Interventions. They are a local
grassroots program that is rising in Davao City, and they have observed and spoken out on the
effects the spray has had on the environment. Dagohoy Magaway is the president of this
organization, and has reported on the spray affect. “We’ve taken pictures of various vegetables
showing leaves sprinkled with white dusty particles. Some families have also reported instances
of vegetable leaves shriveling up due to chemical burn.”. Although MAAS is aware that aerial
spray is the most effective way to reach the hectares of bananas located on the plantations, it is
dangerous and lives are at risks. MAAS interviewed a grandmother who lives on the outskirts of
Barangay Wangan, one of the plantations in Davao. “We know that those sprays are intended for
the plants but since it’s an aerial spray, of course, it will not only pour on the plantations but also
on the nearest areas which is now the problem. It’s not safe in terms of health for us here”.
MAAS continued to fight by involving other NGOs and environmental protection
agencies in the fight in a public and forward manner. On Monday, March 23, 2015, NGOs
gathered together to format a letter to the president of the Philippines, President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo. This letter is incredibly blunt. The opening statement is, “Aerial spraying or
the use of small planes to drop agrochemicals is a shameful and blatant disregard for the people’s
right to health, environment and livelihoods. In aerial spraying, people do not have a choice.
People’s personal boundaries are violated by the chemical trespass…” (Saligan). They contacted

the Department of Health (DOH) in reference to aerial spray, and they agreed with the
environmental groups. They investigated in lots of Philippines and International data, and came
to the consensus that aerial spray is devastating to human health, and needs to be put to a stop.
They said it is a health hazard, and “must be immediately stopped” (Saligan). The government
organization, the Philippines Department of Health in the Philippines coordinated with the World
Health Organization to also get input on the use of aerial spray in the Philippines and the effects
of the surrounding people who are affected. The World Health Organization agrees with the
Department of Health and also demands it be banned. Two other government agencies, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, also see
what a health hazard aerial spraying is, and they concur with the statement from the Department
of Health. The Department of Agriculture has already drafted a ban for aerial spray and is in the
process of being applied in the regions using aerial spray. Letters and petitions like these will be
the game changers for the attempt to ban aerial spray and save the health of the people affected.
After stating facts of who is involved and what are the affects of aerial spray, the letter turns
personal. It reads “Madam President, your three main government agencies have already spoken,
yet aerial spraying continues. It is time to heed the voices of the poorest among your people. It is
time to remind the banana industry that it is their corporate responsibility to abide by the findings
and recommendations of the DOH. Please issue, or cause to be issued, the order banning aerial
spraying, now.” A matter of life and death is not anything to be passive about. Years have passed
of people being sick and dying due to the chemical exposure, and the environmental agencies
have reached out to government and international organizations to strongly and persistently push
for change.

Although the fight to ban aerial spray is clear, there is a counterargument to banning
aerial spraying. Stephen Antig is the executive director of the Philippine Banana Growers and
Exporters Association (PBGEA) in the Philippines. PBGEA is a billion dollar franchise, and
keeps the banana industry and the companies involved running smoothly. He has claimed they
have done nothing wrong with the aerial spraying. In another interview, he claims that for over
40 years the Philippine banana growers have obeyed the fertilization laws and have followed all
practices listed and approved by the Food and Agricultural Organization by the United Nations.
In an interview, Antig stated that “In case our critics are forgetting, we are producing a food
product that is exported to countries with even more stringent policies. We are very careful and
very scientific in our production practices”. Companies that are members of PBGEA include
Lapanday Foods Corporation, Diamond Farms Inc, and Del Monte Fresh Produce Philippines
(DMFPP). DMFPP presented on their rights and morals of the company in defense of the
accusations thrown at them by environmental groups trying to ban aerial spray. The presentation
slides included titles that read: Missions of the Company, Respect For Individuals, Core Values,
and more. A quote from their Respect For Individuals slide states that “We (DMFPP) are
concerned about the welfare of co-workers and we are conscious of how our actions and
decisions affect others” (Del Monte, presentation). That statement is debatable in their aerial
spray issue. If employees are constantly being exposed to the chemicals of the spray, Del Monte
would know about it and would not be following their core values. That could eventually lead to
legal issues of the company.
Claims and accusations are being made and thrown by the opposites of the issue.
However, no argument can be made that aerial spraying is not impacting the locals surrounded
by the extent of the aerial spraying drift. This issue is relatively known, and has become a surge

for the Philippine government since 2007. The objective of this research is to investigate in the
justice, or lack thereof, in accordance to this topic to make the issue more well known and to
determine what can be done between the banana plantations owners and supporters, and the
environmental activists against aerial spraying to communicate better and find a common
ground.
Argument
This research is exploratory research, and does not wish to pick a side of the argument to
uphold and defend. However, the conflict of aerial spray itself is an argument. IDIS has fought
actively since 2005, and has continued to reach out to other environment protection agencies and
international organizations to showcase their argument on the detrimental affects on health and
wellbeing due to the chemical exposure from aerial spray. PBGEA has taken a more defensive
approach to this conflict. However, defensive does not mean passive or inactive.
The DoH studied Philippines and international health data, and determined that aerial
spray must be banned. On November 19, 2009, Saging Republic issued a report that PBGEA
claimed that they were fed wrong information, and the ban of aerial spray is uncalled for.
PBGEA says that when the DoH came to inspect the areas of pesticide use, they were present in
the areas only a few times, and the timeline does not match. “PBGEA said the deception is clear
and should be rectified. ‘How can only 3 occasions from 2006 to 2009 be considered active
participation by the Municipal Health Office in the so-called Pesticide Exposure Study?’ rued the
banana growers” (Saging Republic). The Department of Health said they were actively involved
in observation of the chemical exposure to areas where the anti aerial spray campaigners and
environmental groups like IDIS are focused, but PBGEA were only aware of them being there
very few times. PBGEA made an aggressive claim afterwards, stating that this conflict is much

larger than Filipino persecution against the banana industry. They claim that the company
supporting the anti aerial spray campaigns come from a Dutch company called CordAid. PBGEA
asks in a report, ““is it just a matter of coincidence that Dutch companies are opening banana
plantations in Halmahera Island and Sumatera Island in Indonesia? Their websites say that they
are out to get the Japanese market from the Philippines.” (Saging Republic). PBGEA is furious
that the Department of Health is supposedly receiving wrong information about the details of
aerial spraying, and banning it on incorrect statistics. “At stake here is a major industry with half-
million dependents, the economy of Mindanao, and we cannot just allow judgments to be made
based on wrong information” (Saging Republic). PBGEA brought this case to court and
challenged the ban to be unconstitutional. The Business and Human Rights Resource Center
reported on the lawsuit on December 17, 2013, saying, “The Regional Trial Court found that the
ordinance was constitutional, but this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals in 2009,
despite a filing by the Office of the Solicitor General stating that the ordinance is valid and
constitutional”. IDIS complained that while the lobbying to reevaluate the ban on aerial spray,
locals who lived in the area affected by the chemical exposure were not consulted in the dialogue
discussing the ordinance. President Aquino found out about the unequal parties in the discussion,
and asked for the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), who organized the
event, to consolidate all parties involved. Angered by the reversal of the decision and the
exclusion of anti-aerial spray representatives, local Filipinos and Davao City brought this case to
the Supreme Court, and is still under review to this day. There is a long, legal battle to this issue
with no end in sight. Yet, Davao City and environmental groups like IDIS and MAAS continue
to fight.

The role of IDIS and MAAS in the aerial spraying conflict is to advocate the protection
of health towards people who are exposed to the chemical spray, and to shut the technique down.
They have done extensive research to back up their claims against aerial spray and PBGEA. In
2009, MAAS teamed up with EcoWaste Coalition, which is a “public interest network of
community, church, school, environmental and health groups pursuing sustainable solutions to
waste, climate change and chemical issues facing the Philippines and the world” (Panaligan).
They joined over a meeting where Cecilia Moran, the president of MAAS in 2009, spoke against
the policies of PBGEA. She claimed that there is not a clear cut policy on aerial spray through
PBGEA, and because of the lack of policy, they have been promoting violence towards people’s
health. Her statement, translated into English, reads “Why do they spray us with chemical
poison? We are humans not pests. Even if we are poor, we have the right to live with dignity and
dwell in a safe and healthy environment” (Panaligan). MAAS strongly believes in justice,
equality, and the right to live safely. PBGEA, through the continuation of aerial spray, focuses
on the economy and the revenue coming from their organization, not the importance of people’s
lives being sprayed with chemicals. IDIS and MAAS are focused on the humanitarian side of the
argument, but both sides are actively involved on the legal front.
Dagohoy Magaway. the current president of MAAS, spoke out at a press briefing and
rallied the organization to continue to be persistent in the fight to ban aerial spray. The speech
marked the 5 year anniversary of the ordinance that has not yet been enforced by the Supreme
Court. “We’re calling on the Supreme Court to decide fast on the issue in our favor and put an
end to our suffering… For the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye and deaf ears on the plight of
the suffering communities by failing to issue a prompt ruling is an injustice of massive
proportions” (Magaway).

A final bit of the argument between the two sides of the issue is the alternative route to
aerial spray. IDIS and MAAS have advocated ground spraying. Ground spraying would limit the
area the chemicals would reach. Spray would be focused on individual plants and have far less
chance of being blown by the wind onto people, their houses, and personal land. Ground
spraying is cheaper for small plantation owners, and is more cost efficient per acre. Ann Fuertes,
an executive director of IDIS said in a statement, “This is because small farmers, who are
contracted by the plantations to grow Cavendish bananas, no longer have to pay for the aerial
spraying which is being administered by the banana companies” (Mindanews). Brad Miller, from
the Global Information Network, wrote a report in 2007 on the conflict of aerial spray, and
addresses the alternative routes to aerial spraying. “Business owners say they cannot afford to
switch to manual, boom or sprinkler methods of applying chemicals, and as their profits drop, a
large percentage of the approximately 5,000 workers directly dependent on the banana industry
in Davao may lose their jobs. The collapse would affect workers not just on the plantations, but
in the packing, transport and retail spheres, as well” (Miller, 2007). Despite the push to ban
aerial spray, IDIS is not close minded to what PBGEA stands for. IDIS understands that aerial
spray is more cost effective for larger plantations, and can save over 28,000 Philippine Pesos per
hectare per year. Yet, the argument remains, is the cost of aerial spraying over the plantations
more important than the health and lives of the people being spraying and effected by the
chemical exposure?
Methodology
The research methods for this research project has changed throughout the process.
Originally, the intent was to conduct interviews, two with members of IDIS and two with
members of PBGEA, but several factors prevented me from conducting these interviews. Due to

geographical locations, I do not have the ability to travel to the Philippines and to meet in person
with members of IDIS and PBGEA. Also, there are language barriers that made it difficult to
conduct a clear, understanding interview. Finally, the Philippines, being a third world country,
lacks strong technological resources compared to the United States and more developed
countries. Skype or other video chat operations are more difficult to access, and finding a strong
connection is more difficult. With research, methods, ideas, and plans are always changing.
Originally, this research was going to be argumentative. This research was set to argue the point
of banning aerial spray, and how companies like PBGEA are wrong and have no excuse to
continue using the technique of chemical exposure through aerial spray. However, to my
surprise, this conflict is much deeper and more complex than what was originally thought. Thus,
with these challenges, I had to take a different approach to the research.
The official methodology that was used for this research was document analysis and
reports of personal experiences from colleagues that joined me on our study to the Philippines.
Transcripts of government meetings and conferences between IDIS and PBGEA, official
documents from the United Nations, letters and bills issued to the Philippine government from
activist groups, previous research done by IDIS and other organizations, blogs from both
Interface Development Interventions and Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association,
and health reports all contributed to the research. By analyzing these documents, I was able to
explore and come to a conclusion on the relationship between the two groups, and determine the
better argument that both IDIS and PBGEA are making. Further document collection and
analysis of those documents determined my analysis of who has the better argument against
aerial spray. Also, I was able to talk to my colleagues and receive their recollections and personal
experiences from visiting the banana plantations and hearing testimonies from Filipinos who live

in the affected regions. By gathering both personal stories and official documents, my research is
well rounded in qualitative data.
If I were to pursue this research, I would like to continue it in about ten years. Ten years,
I feel, would give an adequate amount of time towards the Supreme Court to potentially make a
decision based on aerial spray. I would return to this basis of study, and see how the relationship
has changed due to the result of the court ruling. If there is no conclusion in ten years, I would
still like to return to this research and see if the relationship between IDIS and PBGEA has
developed or gotten more aggressive towards each other.
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
This research studied the relationship between IDIS and PBGEA, and their contributions
towards the complicated, deep, and controversial topic of aerial spray. Sadly, there is no
conclusion or resolution to the conflict yet. Ultimately, once the Supreme Court of the
Philippines take the issue into court to address, the conflict is at a stand still. This conflict does
not only remain in the Philippines. There are outside groups like the United Nations and CordAid
from the Netherlands that are intertwined in this conflict. Aerial spray does not remain in the
Philippines either. Events in Central America using aerial spray are extensive, and are having
similar situations where similar health affects seen in the Philippines are seen in Ecuador, Costa
Rica, and other countries using aerial spray.
This is primarily exploratory research. It can be developed into an argument, if future
research decides to pick a side. This research studied the relationship of two very passionate and
persistent groups. The conflict of aerial spray is a huge conflict, and includes much more than

these two groups and the Philippines. The factors involved with the conflict continue to grow and
develop more intricately. The corruption of the Philippine government and court system, which
was not emphasized in this research, plays a huge part into this conflict. The delay of the
ordinance in the Supreme Court is a crucial point to the aerial spray issue, and the
acknowledgment of dangerous health detriments to local Filipinos are also a concern. Stephan
Antig, executive director of PBGEA, claims that he is more than money hungry. “This is not just
about profit. It is about providing the access for people to improve the quality of their lives”
(PBGEA). Clearly, there is a humane element that all are away of in this conflict. It is difficult to
argue someone who has been personally affected. in Philippines with testimonies of the locals
throughout. “‘If plants die, what about me?” asked Rosita Bacalso, running her hands down her
brown arms, which are marked with milky-white scars. The marks are remnants of chemical
fallout from her neighbor, the AMS banana plantation’ (Miller, 2007). AMS is a large banana
plantation that is member of PBGEA. The disagreement and accusations coming from both
groups are devastating because peoples’ lives are at stake. If aerial spray is banned, the cost of
the plantations will rise, and the companies will be forced to make employment cuts, creating
unemployment for Filipinos who desperately need their job to survive and provide for
themselves and their families. The other side is that the chemicals, no matter what health
organizations say, is harming people who are exposed to it. Whether they are employees of
plantations who use the chemicals, or the locals who are doomed to be exposed by the spray
drifting over the plantations onto their land, into their homes, aerial spray is a difficult situation.
It is a matter of life and death. This research is far from over, and the fight to continue the
banning or allowance of aerial spray goes on. There is no right answer to this conflict, and it does
not look like there will ever be a clear answer to the problem. However, despite the grey areas of

this issue, there is progress towards change. There are outside organizations coming in and
recognizing the conflict, and they are seeing the effects of aerial spray for themselves. There is
recognition of the impact of the banana industry on Mindanao and the entirety of the Philippines.
Also, finally, the government is being forced to become involved. Both sides want to find a
resolution, and both have pushed to bring the issue to court. The Philippine Supreme Court has a
case on their hands, and the result has massive impact on both organizations, the locals affected,
and the economy of the Philippines. The result of this conflict will affect the country immensely,
no matter what the court decision is. This is probably one of the reasons why the Supreme Court
has put this issue on hold. Despite the stand still of this issue, this conflict of aerial spray is real
life proof that persistence and community can make a difference. Justice is not easy to achieve,
and it has not been achieved in this situation yet. However, community can come together,
participate in dialogue, and push towards an event that they believe needs to be changed. Both
PBGEA and IDIS have gathered sources on their side, and have valid arguments. Movements
can be created, and the Filipino locals are excited to have their voices heard in a government
corrupted country. The result of this conflict will affect the Philippines forever, and it will be
interesting to see where it goes.

Bibliography
Acute Toxicity. (2000, January 1). Retrieved February 12, 2015, from
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidefactsheets/toxic/mancozeb.php
Banana Market Review and Banana Statistics 2012-2013. (2014). Intergovernmental Group on
Bananas and Tropical Fruits, 1-33.
Barraza, D., Jansen, K., Van Wendel de Joode, B., & Wesseling, C. (2011). Pesticide Use In
Banana And Plantain Production And Risk Perception Among Local Actors In Talamanca, Costa
Rica. Environmental Research, 111(5), 708-717.
Do, E. (2015, February 5). Aerial Spray Conflict in Davao City, Philippines.
Elver, H. (2015, February 27). Preliminary Observations and Recommendations Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food on her Mission to the Philippines. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15619&LangI
D=E
Fuertes, M., Lindo, R., Lupase, V., Sagarino, E., Lindo, J., Nolasco, I., Sanchez, J., Fuentes, R.,
& Petilona, D. (2013). Women’s Health in Selected Banana Plantations in Davao City,
Philippines. IAMURE: International Journal Of Health Education, 1(1). Retrieved February 12,
2015, from HE&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=6146&path%5B%5D=6348
Panganiban, L., Cortes-Maramba, N., Dioquino, C., Suplido, M. L., Ho, H., Francisco-Rivera,
A., & Manglicmot-Yabes, A. (2004). Correlation between blood ethylenethiourea and thyroid
gland disorders among banana plantation workers in the Philippines. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 112(1), 42–45.

IDIS. (2012, February 14). Protests vs aerial spray still alive, growing louder | Interface
Development Interventions [blog]. Retrieved from http://www.idisphil.org/protests-vs-
aerial-spray-still-alive-growing-louder/
Miller, Brad. “Philippines: Villagers Fight to Retain Ban on Aerial Spraying - ProQuest.”
Database. ProQuest, November 29, 2007.
http://search.proquest.com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/457572311
Mindanews. (2013, June 3). Philippines: Study says banana growers earn more with ground
spraying. Fresh Plaza, p. 1.
Noise banning aerial spraying foils rehab efforts in banana communities | PBGEA. (2013,
February 20). Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://pbgea.com/?p=503#more-503
Panaligan, R. (2009, August 10). EcoWaste Coalition: “End Toxic Rain, Ban Aerial Spraying”
(Manila groups join clamor to ban aerial spraying). Retrieved March 23, 2015, from
http://ecowastecoalition.blogspot.com/2009/08/end-toxic-rain-ban-aerial-spraying.html
Panganiban, Lynn, Nelia Cortes-Maramba, and Carissa Dioquino. “Correlation between Blood
Ethylenethiourea and Thyroid Gland Disorders among Banana Plantation Workers in the
Philippines.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, January 2004.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241795/
Resource Center, B. and H. R. Aerial Spraying Ban Lawsuit (Re banana companies in
Philippines) (Regional Trial Court n/a). Retrieved from http://business-
humanrights.org/en/aerial-spraying-ban-lawsuit-re-banana-companies-in-
philippines#c86310
To spray or not to spray. (2013, July 29). Retrieved February 13, 2015, from
http://idisphil.org/dirtybananas/to-spray-or-not-to-spray/

20 Reasons to Ban Aerial Spraying in Davao City. (2008, July 21). Retrieved February 10, 2015,
from http://idisphil.org/dirtybananas/20-reasons-to-ban-aerial-spraying-in-davao-city/

Professor Firchow,
In the beginning of the research project, it controlled me. I let myself get swept up in the
overwhelmingness of how to perfect a research project, rather than take it one step at a time. I
felt very immature in the research process, and did not know where to start. Honestly, I was
incredibly intimidated by you and all your incredibly impressive research work and
accomplishments. I had the highest expectation for me and my first research project, but I
quickly learned that I am not perfect, and neither will my first experience with research be. After
our first meeting, I started to get a grasp on research and how to approach it. I did not realize
how to control my research, until I started writing. I wrote twenty versions of my research
question before I decided on my final question. I rewrote my introduction more times than I can
remember. Rewriting and rewriting gave me more confidence in what I was writing and in my
final draft. Throughout this semester long process, I became more aware of how I present my
work, myself, and how to explain my thoughts in an efficient and effective way. I have learned
many things through this class, but the main thing I learned was to keep striving for the best of
my ability, and to continue to be persistent.
There were several times I wanted to force concepts into my research paper that did not
fit, or change to a topic that was easier or more straightforward. However, the more persistent I
was in digging to find the information, the more my research fit together and I became more
passionate about the issue.
I want to take this opportunity to personally thank you, Professor Firchow. I have higher
expectations of my writing because of you challenging me to become better in my thoughts and
writing. Also, I am looking into grad school and the possibility of pursing a career in research of
international conflict and security. I wanted you to know that this choice and newfound interest

in research was because of you and this class. Thank you, for challenging me to become a better
student and better writer.
Sincerely,
Ashley

Research FINAL Draft Word 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Research FINAL Draft Word 2

Similar to Research FINAL Draft Word 2 (16)

Research FINAL Draft Word 2