The investigating judges of the public health center of the Paris court pronounced on March 25 the end of the investigations in the investigation into the poisoning of the West Indies with chlordecone. In 2006, several Martinican and Guadeloupean associations had filed a complaint for poisoning, endangering the lives of others and administration of harmful substances. This file could therefore be closed without indictment, by a dismissal, the facts being in their vast majority prescribed. In a column published by franceinfo, Wednesday April 26, the signatories of an online petition denounce “a complacent investigation with the industrialists and the big banana families” and challenge the current definition of prescription. As the legislative elections approach, they call for “legislate without delay” to fix “the starting point of the prescription on the day the pollution ceased”.
Too often, polluters take advantage of the statute of limitations to escape legal action. This is what could happen soon in the chlordecone scandal. This injustice must end. In view of the legislative elections, civil society is mobilizing and submitting to debate and cooperative work a reform of the criminal statute of limitations in terms of pollution.
On March 25, 2022, after more than fifteen years of proceedings, the investigating judges of the Paris public health center announced that they had completed their investigation. According to them, no one should be sent back to court because the offenses would be time-barred.
How is this possible?
First of all, it is worth remembering what chlordecone is. A powerful pesticide intended to eradicate the banana weevil, this organochlorine has been known since 1968 to be particularly dangerous and persistent. Due to its chemical structure, it is difficult to eliminate, so much so that it is now considered that the pollution will last for several … centuries!
Besides its biocidal effectiveness, chlordecone is known to be bioaccumulative, meaning that micro-doses that accumulate in the body can over time become toxic to human health. This pesticide is an endocrine disruptor and carcinogen. Today, it affects 92% of the Caribbean population, without distinction of age, sex or social status.
Banned in the United States in 1975 after the discovery of discharges from the only manufacturing plant located in Hopewell (Virginia), it was not until 1990 that it was banned in France. And again, industrialists and landowners with the complicity of the state have worked to “manufacture ignorance”. Letting believe that it was not so serious, they even obtained an exemption allowing the use of this poison until 1993.
Thus, despite the seriousness of the pollution and the scientific recognition of its carcinogenic nature by the WHO since 1979, it was not until 2004 that the public authorities began to put in place timid support measures, far from meeting expectations. populations. We are far from the voluntarist policy of the governor of Virginia, who took courageous decisions in the month of the discovery of the pollution of Hopewell.
In 2006, several environmental associations and enlightened citizens took legal action. But the latter prefers to lead a procedural guerrilla warfare to refuse to investigate. Ten years wasted because the Public Prosecutor refuses to see reality in the face and disputes the admissibility of the complaint even before the Court of Cassation. And now, after a few years of a complacent investigation with the industrialists and the big families of the banana, the parquet floor comes to explain to us that there is prescription.
We understand the excitement that such a position, if it were definitively confirmed by the courts, would arouse locally. But, beyond the situation in the West Indies, the limitation period risks being used to defend the interests of other manufacturers, including in France. It is therefore urgent to act and a solution exists.
Why change the statute of limitations in terms of environmental pollution? Quite simply to bring it into line with reality. For some toxic substances, the human body itself cannot eliminate these toxins or after a long time.
In terms of prescription, the law can modify two parameters, either the duration or the starting point of the prescription. The proposed solution consists of creating a special method of calculating the limitation period, when the offense prosecuted results from soil, air or water pollution. In the current state of the law, the starting point is fixed on the day of the pollution without it always being possible to determine with precision the exact date of its beginning.
We believe, on the contrary, that the starting point of the prescription should be moved to the day when the pollution ceased. This would have the consequence of motivating the polluter to act as quickly as possible and not to let the evil spread.
The weight of industrial lobbies has so far prevented such a development. But the chlordecone scandal in the West Indies and more generally the awareness of French public opinion in terms of the toxic release of pesticides require legislation to be passed without delay. This is why the authors of this forum appeal to local elected officials, parliamentarians and the President of the Republic for a reform of the prescription regime to be adopted at the start of the next legislature.
Beyond that, society as a whole must take action to fight against the goliaths of the pesticide industry.
Patricia Chatenay-Rivauday, Janmari Flower, Jeanine Feler, Association VIVERE Guadeloupe
Dr. Jean-Claude Pitat, CEO Capès Dolé and clinic Center medico social Pitat
Philippe Pierre-Charles Lyannaj pou dépolyé Matinik (cdmt)
Marie-Jo Hardy-Dessources, Lyannaj pou dépolyé Matinik (ufm)
Laetitia Privat, Lyannaj pou dépolyé Matinik (sesd)
Roger Arnault, Lyannaj pou dépolyé Matinik (assaupamar)
Jean-Jacob Bicep, Alyans for Gwadloup
Malcolm Ferdinand, researcher at the CNRS
Ghyslain Vedeux, former president of CRAN
Christophe Leguevaques, lawyer at the Paris staff