Horticulturists suffer with the Endosulfan ban

A BAN on further manufacturing of the “workhorse” pesticide, endosulfan, has left the horticulture industry suddenly struggling to find a replacement product to control several challenging insect pests. 

Some cotton growers may also be caught short by the Federal Government decision to phase out five commercial spray products containing endosulfan as they face a potential big season for sap sucking insects across this summer’s much-expanded cotton plantings in NSW and Queensland.

A major industry initiative by the avocado, macadamia, custard apple and lychee sectors is this week set to begin exploring a range of alternative sprays and management strategies to assist producers phase out endosulfan use.

But the $180 million a year national avocado industry, which has battled for 30 years with the problem of fruit spotting bug is fearful that as much as $72 million will be wiped from the farmgate value of the Australian crop because the insect won’t be properly controlled in summer.

The fruit spotting bug – a large mosquito-type insect – drills into young avocados causing the fruit to mature with hardened blemishes which render it almost worthless in most produce markets.

Fruit spotting bug and lace wing bugs are two significant pests of avocado and macadamia crops in NSW and Queensland still kept in check by endosulfan despite big efforts by growers to reduce use of the chemical in the past decade.

“Endosulfan has remained one of the most effective and softest products available to our farmers and we’d hoped to achieve more progress on alternatives before any ban was introduced,” said Avocados Australia chief executive officer, Antony Allen.

The NSW and Queensland governments and agribusinesses are partly funding the urgent horticulture initiative.

After a long run of negative publicity about endosolfan, the Federal Government agency, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), last week declared prolonged use of the chemical was likely to “lead to adverse environmental effects from spray drift and run off”.

But the APVMA’s report also said endosulfan was ”not a significant risk to public health,” despite some international reports which have identified endosulfan as an interfering with hormones and reproduction.

It is already banned in more than 60 countries, including European Union member States and New Zealand.

Although endosulfan’s use has shrunk significantly in Australia, the two year phase-out to a complete ban is still likely to be awkward for the tropical fruit, nut and vegetable industries, and the cotton sector, which applies the biggest quantity of the chemical.

Cotton Australia said today only 10 per cent of the crop was treated with endosulfan, and application restrictions made it increasingly hard for farmers to work with it, but the chemical was cost effective.

Cotton Research and Development Co-operative general manager, Bruce Pyke, said endosulfan was a “rather unique” product which caused limited collateral damage to friendly insect populations and fitted well with intergrated pest management strategies promoting predator bugs.

He said while fewer crops were treated with endosulfan in recent years, the looming season was shaping up as similar to 1998 when a mass of winter vegetation growth produce a “horrendous explosion” of aphids, myrids and other insects migrating into cotton.

Farm chemical manufacturer, Nufarm Australia, confirmed it would phase out endosulfan distribution as formulation supplies ran down, not continuing sales for the full phase-out period once its current stocks were exhausted.

Nufarm had generally anticipated the registration changes, and was therefore developing alternatives, but a lack of suitable replacements continued for some crops.

Macadamia growers had two alternate treatment options – an existing product called Lepidex, and a new line, Lancer, to be available in the next month.

Australian Macadamia Society chief executive officer, Jolyon Burnett, said new management strategies would be expensive in the short to medium term but growers accepted the changes were here.

“We just hope governments and others don’t see this change as an opportunity to start a stampede, or Australians will end up paying a lot more to eat and eating a lot more food grown overseas,” Mr Burnett said.

Endosulfan is Safe!

Since Endosulfan is a contact insecticide as opposed to a systemic one, it is not absorbed into crops or the food chain. It cannot bio-accumulate in the human body as it is continually degraded by metabolism to a lesser state of hazard.

• The Endosulfan evaluations conducted in 1998 by World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues have recorded that no genotoxic activity was observed in an adequate battery of tests for mutagenecity and clastogenecity. This study categorically mentioned that no evidence was found to prove estrogenic activity involving Endosulfan.
• Endosulfan has been certified by WHO and FAO to not cause cancer, birth defects or any hormonal imbalance on contact.
• It is the opinion of the UN Environment Programme, International Labour Organisation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) and California Department of Pesticide Registration, that Endosulfan has no carcinogenic potential.
• In 2007, US-EPA established that Endosulfan is not an anti-androgen, i.e. it does not affect sperm production, sperm count, motility, and the like.
• A peer review by Silva and Gammon (2009) declared that Endosulfan is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant or an endocrine disruptor.
• The WHO has classified Endosulfan as a Class II–moderately hazardous insecticide.

Effects of Endosulfan on Human Health

Several countries with significant stakes in agriculture, such as Argentina, China, India, South Africa have experienced no reason to express concerns over the alleged dangers of Endosulfan. It has been among the top five generic insecticides used globally on almost 60 per cent of the world’s arable land. Farmers across the world have benefited by the use of Endosulfan and this is long-standing evidence proving that Endosulfan is safe—leaving limited room for doubts based on dubious lab tests.

The Proof:

Endosulfan has been certified by World Health Organisation (Switzerland) and Food & Agriculture Organisation (Italy) to not cause cancer, birth defects, or any hormonal imbalance on contact.

It is also the opinion of the United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour Organisation, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the US Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Pesticide Registration, that Endosulfan has no carcinogenic potential.

The pesticide does not persist in the environment, and its degeneration is faster in tropical and sub-tropical climates. It degenerates from consumption by micro-organisms in soil, in sunlight, as well as in water. It is unlikely to persist in the human body as it is continually degraded by metabolism to a lesser state of hazard.

New Zealand Food Safety Authority noted on its website, “Endosulfan has shown no potential to accumulate over time in animals. It is more water soluble than other organo-chlorines… and is less persistent in the body because it metabolises quickly. The chemical is extremely unlikely to have an effect in humans at any level of intake that is likely to occur through food residues.” Endosulfan was even introduced in USA for veterinary purposes in 2006 to stop parasite problems in cattle bred for meat and milk.... http://www.whybanendosulfan.org/human-health.htm

Pesticides killing bees that pollinate our food

Currently, the U.S. loses one in every three beehives for a variety of reasons: poor nutrition, poor quality of queens, pathogens such as mites, difficult winters and lack of pollinator habitat.

But industrial pesticides tend to be the problematic "elephant in the room." Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidizes corn and soybeans so heavily (and the Food and Drug Administration is not subsidized nearly enough) pesticides tend to fall into areas of very little oversight — until major bee kills happen. Honey bees pollinate 30 percent of the food we eat, and pollinators provide 75 percent of the reproduction needed for flowers.

For this reason, the documentary Vanishing of the Bees is a must-see for anyone interested in food and environmental issues. It will be shown at the Kentucky Theatre Feb. 24, at 5 p.m. and again at 7:30 p.m., as part of the One World Film Festival. In addition to the film, sponsors such as Good Foods Market and Café, Natasha's, Whole Foods, Coal Country Beeworks and Bluegrass Beekeepers Association will be providing snacks and information about local bee schools.

The documentary's producers, Maryam Henein and George Langworthy, highlight a pesticide produced by Bayer Pharmaceutical company called clothianidin (product name "Poncho"). Clothianidin is of the neonicotinoid family of systemic pesticides. Systemic pesticides are taken up by a plant's vascular system and expressed through pollen, nectar and gutation droplets from which bees then forage and drink.

Neonicotinoids are of particular concern because they have cumulative, sublethal effects on insect pollinators that correspond to neurobehavioral and immune system disruptions.

Clothianidin has been widely used as a seed treatment on many of the country's major crops for eight growing seasons under a "conditional registration" granted in 2003. This registration was granted while the Environmental Protection Agency waited for Bayer Crop Science to conduct a field study assessing the insecticide's threat to bee-colony health. Originally approved for use as a seed coating on corn and canola, clothianidin is now being approved for a growing list of other crops as well.

But the field study was problematic according to Tom Theobald, a 35-year beekeeper. The field study was too limited, focusing on two crops, canola (primarily grown in Canada) and corn (planted too far away from the bees). It also was just one year, primarily during a time when the effects of clothianidin would not show up immediately in the hives.

Scientists are equally concerned about clothianidin. According to James Frazier, a professor of entomology at Pennsylvannia State University's College of Agricultural Sciences, "Among the neonicotinoids, clothianidin is among those most toxic for honey bee ... Our own research indicates that systemic pesticides occur in pollen and nectar in much greater quantities than has been previously thought, and that interactions among pesticides occurs often and should be of wide concern," he said. The most prudent course of action would be to take the pesticide off the market while the flawed study is being redone.

In the film, migratory beekeepers David Hackenberg and Dave Mendes tell their stories of hive losses, structuring the beekeepers' search for pesticide information into cinematic chapters. Both men form a charismatic friendship, a contemporary Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.

The movie's larger global backdrop is the European Union, France in particular, which didn't approve clothianidin after learning of bee kills suspected to be caused by the product in Germany.

The movie's conclusion is predictable enough: that until the United States takes responsibility for its pollinators, honey bees and the national food supply remain very much at risk.

Stronger measures need to be taken by all citizens to incorporate pollinator awareness into the civic ethos. Chicago, Denver and New York have sponsored urban beekeeping gardens on top of buildings. Perhaps it is time for Lexington to consider such an initiative.

Certainly, most of us could landscape with wildflowers, donate to a bee foundation such as North American Pollinator Partnership Campaign and the Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees, and support local beekeepers. Churches, civic organizations and individuals could also host screenings of Vanishing of the Bees.

Another showing will be at Eastern Kentucky University April 14 at Crabbe Library, 5:30 p.m., to celebrate its Pollinator Week.

At the very least, we need to reduce pesticide use. "This is the Deepwater Horizon in agriculture," warns beekeeper Theobald. "America's farmland is awash in these questionable chemicals as surely as the shorelines of the Gulf Coast are awash in crude oil, and for many of the same reasons."

This movie shows why and makes you wonder why there isn't as much outrage about pesticides as there is about oil spills.

About the author Tammy Horn is a researcher at Eastern Kentucky University's Environmental Research Institute and author of Bees in America: How the Honey Bee Shaped a Nation.

Endosulfan

Maslow's theory of hierarchy of needs is very relevant in understanding psychology of activists.

According to Maslow, human needs can be presented in form of a five-level pyramid with the most basic needs at the bottom of the pyramid and highest level needs at the top.

5. self-actualization (morality, creativity, achievement etc.)

4. esteem

3. belongingness

2. safety

1. physiological needs (food, clothing, shelter)

As per Maslow's theory, people will first try to satisfy their physiological i.e., lowest level needs such as food, clothing, shelter etc. Once the lowest order need is satisfied, they will try to satisfy higher level needs such as safety and belongingness. Once that is satisfied, they will think of esteem. And finally, when all lower order needs are satisfied, they will think of self-actualization.

This theory is applicable to activists. More particularly in developing countries like India; there is a problem of unemployment. To start with something, activists accept funds for campaigning. Sacrificing morality, they come out with tailor-made unscientific reports. Once they get addicted, they want to make a quick-buck through funded campaigns.

There is also a rush to claim "compensation" for which people try to prove that they are "endosulfan victims". Some politicians distribute funds to such victims despite the fact that the expert committee appointed by the government has concluded that there is no link between alleged health effects and Endosulfan.

Q&A: Pradip Dave, President, PMFAI

Even as it raises the banner of revolt against the European Union over the ban on the use of Endosulfan, the Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators’ Association of India (PMFAI) is gearing up to lock horns with the Central Insecticides Board and the Union Ministry of Agriculture over a threat to the pesticide industry — issuance of registrations to import readymade pesticide formulations, without registering the technicals. In an interview to K Rajani Kanth, PMFAI President Pradip Dave, also the vice-president of Endosulfan Manufacturers and Formulations’ Association charts the association’s plans, including going to the Gujarat High Court. Edited excerpts:
Besides Endosulfan, what are the other issues facing the Indian pesticides industry?
Lately, the Central Insecticides Board (CIB), a Government of India body, has been issuing registrations for import of readymade pesticide formulations without registering the technicals. This presents a great danger for the country as even the government would not be in a position to know where the raw material comes from and whether it is toxic, sub-standard or expired. And, if this registration process continues (without registering the technicals), there will not be any pesticide manufacturing activity in the country and we (manufacturers) will end up becoming re-packers.

So far, how many such registered products have entered India?
Almost 18 products have been registered in the last seven-to-eight years, valued at more than Rs 4,000 crore, courtesy the vested interests of multinationals, especially from the European Union.

Are you making any representations to the Central government to cease such registrations?
As per existing regulations, the pesticide industry needs to obtain clearance from the Central and State regulatory authorities before commencing production. All products need to be scrutinised and registered by CIB, and companies are required to submit various data and dossiers to the authorities, which is not the case at present. Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators’ Association of India (PMFAI), comprising 210 members – including ….http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ltbgtqampaltbgt-pradip-dave-president-pmfai/425109/

Withdraw erroneous report on endosulfan, Centre urged

The Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators' Association of India (PMFAI), on the radar of some environmentalists and business lobbies, on Friday demanded the Central government to withdraw the “erroneous” report of the Ahmedabad-based National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) declaring endosulfan as a health hazard.

Describing the opponents of the insecticide as the agents of some European chemical manufacturers, the PMFAI claimed that imported substitutes to endosulfan would cost the Indian farmers dearly.

Pointing out at a media conference that the NIOH report had become an alibi for some non-governmental organisations working for an environmental cause and business lobbies to raise the anti-endosulfan propaganda, the PMFAI claimed that there was nothing to suggest that endosulfan was harmful to human health in any way.

‘Genetic disorder'

The six committees set up by the Centre earlier had also concluded that endosulfan was not the reason for the alleged ill-health of the people at Padre village in Kasaragod district of Kerala, where the farmers had been using the insecticide for many years.

The diseases were found to be caused by some inherited genetic disorders that obtained even before endosulfan came to be used, PMFAI president Pradip Dave said. He alleged that the basic issue involved was “to protect the business interests of European chemicals manufacturers at the cost of the Indian farmers under the garb of environmental and health issues for which the NIOH report has come in handy.”

S. Ganesan, Chairman, International Treaties Experts' Committee, said that these European chemical giants had decided to phase out endosulfan in 2001 as it was no longer profitable to them. Chemicals including pesticides and insecticides were the second largest traded commodity in the world, after fuel, in which the manufacturers of the European Union countries enjoyed a 60 per cent share in 2009. A ban on endosulfan to be substituted by other imported pesticides would immensely benefit these manufacturers, he alleged.

‘Largest manufacturer'

According to R. Hariharan, a representative of the International Stewardship Centre, India is the world's largest manufacturer of endosulfan and has a 70 per cent market share of endosulfan business globally with exports worth Rs.180 crore annually. Gujarat alone produced about 55 per cent of the world's requirements - of 40 million litres worth Rs.1,350 crore, while its imported substitute would cost the Indian farmers over Rs.4,500 crores, he claimed.

A farmer from Amreli district in Gujarat, Nayan Visavalya, claimed that he had been using endosulfan for many years and it had not caused health problem to his family or anyone in the village.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1447725.ece

Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala: Dr. S. K. Handa

At a media briefing held by the PMFAI, speakers questioned the flawed study conducted and published by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad. The study titled “The Final Report of the investigation of unusual illness allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre Village of Kasargod district (N. Kerala)”, has been the root cause for the demand for a ban on the pesticide Endosulfan. An expert panel examined the unscientific and implausible aspects of the NIOH’s study which has been under scanner for the last one year. The flaws have been exposed through the RTI and the masked raw data has evoked public outrage when ten thousand people drew a rally in Gujarat to seek withdrawal of the flawed report. Similar agitation was led by thousand workers in Kochi to demand justice for the unfairly stigmatized workers at the government run HIL plant.
As per the international norms prescribed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), it is mandatory for residues to be reported as identified only after performing “confirmatory test” of each sample. “Different chemicals may appear in the same peak due to similar retention time leading to wrong reporting. However, in the NIOH study in Padre Village in Kerala no confirmatory data was generated, thus NIOH report on Endosulfan is incorrect and misleading. No decisions can be taken based on his report.” said Dr S K Handa, Fellow of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He further added “since there was no confirmation referring to presence of Endosulfan in the report made by scientists at NIOH, Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala.” Dr. S K Handa pointed out that Endosulfan is a safe molecule and as per World Health Organisation (WHO) does not possess properties to cause cancer or diseases as reported in Kasargod, Kerala.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/endosulfan-cannot-be-blamed-for-diseases-in-kerala-dr-s-k-handa/424070/

‘Move to ban Endosulfan will hit Indian farmers’

The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) expressed concern over European Union’s proposal to categorize Endosulfan as a persistent organic pollutant (POP).

According to PMFAI, EU’s proposed move to launch new, patented, expensive products in the Indian market will be against the interests of the farming community.

Currently, farmers use generic pesticides which are available at affordable prices. Interestingly, Anil Kakkar, director, Crop Care Federation of India, said in countries such as India where small acre farming and sustainable farming was widely prevalent, a ban on Endosulfan would deprive the Indian farmer access to an affordable and effective crop protection solution and alternatives are likely to be harmful to the farm ecosystem and destroy pollinators and beneficials.

“The European Union’s proposal to list Endosulfan as POP is against the interests of Indian farmers as they will be forced to buy patented pesticides at high prices,” said R Hariharan, chairman, International Stewardship Centre Inc (ISC). For instance, Imidachloride, a product touted as a replacement to Endosulfan costs `2,000 per litre, while other alternative pesticides such as Thiamethoxam costs `3,200 per litre and Coregen `700 a litre while Endosulfan is only `200 per litre.

According to estimates, the global crop protection industry is worth $40 billion and the top three companies alone account for over 50 per cent. “There is a strong motivation for the European multinationals to replace widely used, generic and low-priced pesticides with their high-priced patented alternatives,” said Pradip Dave, president, PMFAI.

Endosulfan is the third largest selling generic insecticide worldwide with global market in excess of 40 million liters valued at over $300 million with replacement cost of alternative estimated to be in excess of $1 billion. India’s share in global Endosulfan market is over 70 percent. Similarly, exports of Endosulfan from India are valued at $40 million.

Source: http://expressbuzz.com/cities/hyderabad/%E2%80%98move-to-ban-endosulfan-will-hit-indian-farmers%E2%80%99/246486.html

Proxy battle over endosulfan

Strange is the interplay of money power, business interests and NGO politics. In most cases, farmers turn out to be victims. A recent notification of the Kerala government is a good instance. The State Government recently issued guidelines which render sale of pesticides illegal , unless supported by a prescription from an appropriate agricultural officer.

Behind this apparently innocuous notification lies a complex interplay of various interests. The ostensible object of the notification is to ensure a proactive remedy against health hazards caused by certain pesticides. The real purpose is to effectively proscribe a particular pesticide, viz. endosulfan blamed for certain incidents of congenital abnormalities, cancer and other diseases.

DEBATE OVER ENDOSULFAN

Endosulfan has been the subject of intense debate and controversy. Sixty nations have banned it — 27 belong to the European Union; the 21 African countries that have banned it have substantial trade with Europe known for its reservations against GM foods and pesticides in agricultural produce.

India accounts for about 70 per cent of the world production of this pesticide — about 12 million litres annually, valued at Rs 4,500 crore. The controversy is very similar to that concerning GM foods. European Union countries do not favour GM food items as they harm European pesticide interests. They also oppose pesticides that have ceased to interest them.

On the other hand, endosulfan is used on a very large scale by Indian farmers, particularly in horticulture and pulses. It is considered to be soft on pollinators such as honeybees and other beneficial insects such as ladybird beetles, though effective as a pest killer, acting through the digestive system. It is used for aerial sprays in the cashew plantations in Kasargode district of Kerala.

In the incidents reported from certain villages in Kasargode district , no conclusive evidence has been produced to show that the diseases were linked causally to endosulfan and nothing else. An independent study demonstrates that the symptoms in reported cases correspond to those of handi godu, attributed to chronic inbreeding in the region. Kasargode district represents a peculiar topography that is not ideal for aerial sprays. Endosulfan by itself applied locally might have produced no adverse effects of the alleged type.

The timing of the Kerala notification is ominous. A group of 172 nations is scheduled to meet in April 2011, under the auspices of the Stockholm Convention, to take a final decision on declaring endosulfan as a persistent organic pollutant (POP). India is opposed to such listing…http://bit.ly/proxybattle

Trade body opposes ban on Endosulfan

The killer pesticide Endosulfan is in news again. With `1,300-crore market in the country, Endosulfan has been facing the wrath of environmentalists and NGOs who are demanding a ban on the pesticide. But a trade body representing pesticide manufacturers has opposed the ban, saying the chemical was not responsible for the deaths it is accused of.

The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) on Friday said Endosulfan was not responsible for the deaths and sufferings of people in Kerala’s Kasaragod. Talking to the media here, president of PMFAI Pradeep Dave alleged the environmental groups campaigning against Endosulfan were funded by the multinationals in Europe who wanted to ensure a ban on the affordable and generic pesticide to push their patented and expensive alternatives.

However, he said several expert committees were set up by the Union Government and all of them concluded that there was ‘no link established’ between Endosulfan and the alleged reports of health problems in Kasargod. Dave blamed the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) study, which was the root cause of demand for ban on Endosulfan, but it contained “unscientific and implausible” aspects.

He said, “Endosulfan was cheap at `250 a litre compared to the cost of patented alternatives that ranged from `2,000 to `8,000 a litre.”

However, India produces over 80 per cent of global production and uses 12 million litre of this pesticide. It also exported 18 million litres of this pesticide last year.

In a related development, MP and environmentalist Maneka Gandhi has urged all the State Governments to ban the pesticide. She said recently at Hubli that the use of Endosulfan has proved fatal in many cases. “It is causing huge damage to soil fertility and crops, besides severely affecting the health of people who consume crops sprayed with endosulfan,” she remarked.

SK Handa, fellow of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, said as per international norms prescribed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), it was mandatory for residues to be reported as identified only after performing ‘confirmatory test of each sample’.

“Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala. It is due to other reasons. Genetic variations in certain groups of people in Kerala could be responsible for these diseases. There are such health problems reported in other parts of Kerala where Endosulfan is not used,'” he claimed.

However, R Hariharan, chairman of Washington-based International Stewardship Centre, said the proposed listing of Endosulfan as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) was to serve European trade interest. “If generics are banned through regulatory mechanisms it becomes easier for patented molecules to expand their market share. These contentions are being exploited by the vested interest,” he alleged. 

NIOH failed to verify the final analysis of Endosulfan residues

PMFAI defends Indian government’s position on Endosulfan

At a media briefing held by the PMFAI, speakers questioned the flawed study conducted and published by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad. The study titled “The Final Report of the investigation of unusual illness allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre Village of Kasargod district (N. Kerala)”, has been the root cause for the demand for a ban on the pesticide Endosulfan.  An expert panel examined the unscientific and implausible aspects of the NIOH’s study. The flaws have been exposed through the RTI query and the masked raw data evoked public outrage when ten thousand people drew a rally in Gujarat seeking withdrawal of the flawed report. Over thousand workers in Kochi held a rally recently to seek justice for the unfairly stigmatized staff at the government run HIL plant in Kerala.

As per the international norms prescribed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), it is mandatory for residues to be reported as identified only after performing “confirmatory test” of each sample. “Different chemicals may appear in the same peak due to similar retention time leading to wrong reporting. However, in the NIOH study in Padre Village in Kerala no confirmatory data was generated, thus NIOH report on Endosulfan is incorrect and misleading. No decisions can be taken based on this report.” said Dr S K Handa. He further added “since there was no confirmation referring to presence of Endosulfan in the report made by scientists at NIOH, Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala.”    Dr. S K Handa pointed out that Endosulfan is a safe molecule and as per World Health Organisation (WHO) and does not possess properties to cause cancer or diseases as reported in Kasargod, Kerala. Dr Handa is a Fellow of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, has over 35 years of research experience in pesticide residues and was former WHO consultant, Ministry of Health, Government of India. He was All India Coordinator for pesticide residues, has authored several books on pesticide residue analysis and has published 120 research papers.

Mr. Pradip Dave, President, Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) indicated that several expert committees were set up by the Government of India and all of them concluded that there is no link established between Endosulfan and the alleged reports of health problems in Kasargod, Kerala. He added, “Even Government of Karnataka constituted an expert committee of very senior scientists. A detailed report was submitted in October 2004 stating that the use of Endosulfan was not responsible for the reported health problems. The report was table in the Karnataka Assembly on April 14, 2005 and accepted.”

Based on a proposal by the European Union, Endosulfan is being considered at the Stockholm Convention, to be listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP). India has rejected listing of Endosulfan as a POP due to lapse in proceedings, gaps in scientific data and lack of transparency which have been observed, reported and protested by India and other member countries. Endosulfan was invented in Europe and was manufactured and used across the entire region for over 55 years.

Clarifying the status of Endosulfan in USA, Mr. Charles Hanson – Executive Director, International Stewardship Centre clarified that “Endosulfan is not banned in the USA. It was a voluntary withdrawal by the manufacturer and sole registrants and a fall out of a congressional mandate to conduct cost prohibitive product testing for over 64 chemicals, one of which is Endosulfan. Citing small user market in USA, huge investment in research, mounting pressure and uncertainty at the international conventions, the manufacturer chose to avoid any further studies and opted for a voluntary withdrawal of Endosulfan.” There is concern amongst the farmers as USA has not found alternatives for all uses of Endosulfan. While various alternatives have been suggested as a possible replacement, many of these are known carcinogens, toxic to pollinators such as honey bees and are banned in countries like Germany and France.

Ban on Endosulfan is meaningless

The ban on Endosulfan is meaningless. There is either very little or no agricultural activity in counties where Endosulfan is banned, or the use of Endosulfan in those countries was negligible. For example, in Europe only 201 tonnes of Endosulfan was used when it was banned.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-76-06-669/EN/KS-76-06-669-EN.PDF In all other countries where it is banned, the land used for agriculture is very insignificant. In some of the counties like Singapore, there is practically no agricultural activity. In countries like Bahrain, Belize, St. Lucia etc., where Endosulfan is banned, the irrigated land is hardly 30-40 sq. km. In six other countries it is 130-750 sq km. In four countries it is 1k to 9k sq km and in one country it is 16k sq km.
Therefore there was nothing to lose in banning Endosulfan in those countries when the activists published wrongful information on Endosulfan. The authorities did not find it necessary to verify the statements made by activists as it was not going to make any difference in those countries!
US EPA has classified Endosulfan under the class of non-carcinogenic substances i.e., class-E. The activists created stories stating Endosulfan as "cancer causing substance" to draw attention of public.
In fact Endosulfan is very important substance as there are no viable alternatives for many of its uses.

http://www.whybanendosulfan.org

Funds for Anti-Endosulfan Campaign

Thanal Conservation Action And Information Network has received a grant of $5,000/- from Global Green Grants Fund 
( www.greengrants.org.pdf/2001_report.pdf please see page 19 ) to support medical and educational efforts to 'protect' people in kerala from continued exposure to Endosulfan and other pesticides. Under pretense of such "protection", activists are launching anti-ecdosulfan campaigns for misleading innocent people.

EU’s move to ban Endosulfan to benefit European Crop Protection Industry

The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) held a press conference today and invited speakers who pointed to European Union’s (EU) role in steering proceedings at international chemical conventions. The Stockholm Convention has been exploited by European Commission to further its trade interests as world market leader in crop protection chemicals. A push for elimination of the generic pesticide Endosulfan will directly promote the use of patented alternatives and benefit European multinationals.
The meeting was addressed by senior members from the International Stewardship Centre Inc. (ISC) – a non-profit organization registered in Washington D.C. that holds an observer status at these conventions. Along with ISC there was participation from Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) which is focused on advancing the cause of Indian farmers through better crop protection. The speakers shared their experiences and highlighted the current status of Endosulfan and the proceedings that are likely to impact India and its agriculture in the months ahead.

Speaking to the press, Mr. Pradip Dave, President – Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) gave an overview of the international chemical trade. “Europe is a leader in the international chemicals trade which includes crop protection chemicals. The global crop protection market is valued at over US$ 40 billion. The top three companies which dominate this business are all European and account for over 50% of the global market. This market share has been built with a strong focus on patented and proprietary crop protection chemicals supported by strong regulations, driven by the European standards.” “This has been the motivation for European multinationals to replace “low priced generics” with their “expensive patented alternatives”, added Mr. Dave.

The European Union (EU) has been pushing for a global ban on Endosulfan by proposing its inclusion in the Stockholm Convention as a Persistent Organic Pollutant. As an observer at the Stockholm Convention, Mr. Charles Hanson - Executive Director of International Stewardship Centre Inc. shared that, “Aggressive campaigning by the EU and environmental NGO’s supported and funded by the EU, has resulted in a number of countries announcing a ban on Endosulfan.” Echoing the EU call, the Chemical Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention recommended the listing of Endosulfan as a Persistent Organic Pollutant despite significant data gaps and without a clear consensus on the decision.

Endosulfan is the third largest selling insecticide worldwide. Invented in Germany over 55 years ago, today it accounts for a global market in excess of 40 million liters valued at over US$ 300 million. Mr. R. Hariharan – Chairman, International Stewardship Centre Inc. (ISC) shared, “Indian companies account for over 70% of this market which has come at the cost of the European manufacturers. The replacement value of Endosulfan by patented alternative is estimated to be in excess of US$ 1 billion. As a result, Endosulfan is today in the eye of the storm in the battle of “patented” versus “generic” pesticides.”

 Source: Business Standard http://bit.ly/endosulfantruth