Conceptual and practical contributions from two judicial cases of agro-chemicals pollution: the Ituzaingó Case (Córdoba) and the La Leonesa-Las Palmas Case (Chaco), Argentina

Abstract

In this article we present the results of our research- which begun in 2003- on the impacts of agrochemicals on human health in Argentina. Specifically, the research carried out on the knowledge generated in the framework of the resolution of two legal proceedings on environmental pollution by agrochemicals in two provinces, Córdoba and Chaco. From a pragmatic perspective, we analyzed the situated discursive practices identifying how the community of interpreters constituted in each case questions and deepens around key notions in the production of evidence in the trials, thus contributing to a sense that does justice to those affected. In the case (Chaco), the focus is on one of the key tools of an environmental public policy, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The criticism and contributions are based on an epistemology of complexity that goes beyond pseudo-scientific practices that do not contemplate the multiple dimensions at stake in environmental cases. From the other case (Córdoba), we focus on how the discourses around the classification of the case as a crime of danger become more complex. The objective is to present how the community of interpreters articulates scientific evidence with other knowledges, giving rise to complexity and epistemic plurality in the resolution of cases. For this research we have developed a model for the analysis of strategic knowledges (knowledges of- and in- action) based on analysis of documents and indepth interviews. We present here what we consider to be the most relevant in the first place for the criticism and updating of the key tool of environmental policy, the EIA, and secondly, for the classification of the crime, in order to make compatible the complexity at stake with the environmental regulatory block and the recognition and guarantee of the rights of each and every one.