Endosulfan: ryots want to be impleaded

Farmers from Gulbarga on Wednesday filed a miscellaneous petition in the high court to implead them in a petition filed by Endosulfan Manufacturers’ and Formulators’ Welfare Association (EMFWA) challenging the endosulfan ban imposed by the government.

The farmers claimed that they did not have any harmful effect after using the pesticide for the past two to three years. “The ban is against the expert committee report formed by the government to study the effects of endosulfan use in 2004. The ban affects the livelihood of about 5,000 people who are employed in the industry,” said the petitioners’ lawyer.

The government had banned endosulfan on February 19, 2010 on the basis of disability and diseases caused by the pesticide in several villages of Dakshina Kannada District.

http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_endosulfan-ryots-want-to-be-impleaded_1523588

EU's Double Standards

Why would EU want to press for a global ban on a pesticide that it has invented, sold and used over half a century? Was it because the pesticide was harmful or simply because it did not profit Europe anymore?

Why did the health problems not occur anywhere but in Kerala? Kerala did not even use substantial amounts of Endosulfan, which has been used in over 60% of the world’s arable land.

Did it want to eliminate competition from this pesticide, which had gone off-patent and was manufactured and exported in large quantities by a competitor—a developing nation—India?

By targeting Endosulfan, is the EU trying to eliminate competition and free up the market for its new, patented and unaffordable inventions?

If the European Commission had ordered its member nations to stop using Endosulfan as early as 2005, why did the European multinational continue to sell it to the rest of the world until 2010? If it was really harmful, would that not be a morally repugnant thing to do—or is the law different for European and non-European countries?

Why would the Italian Ministry of Health issue an order allowing Endosulfan to be used for 120 days to save Italy’s hazelnut crop which was being attacked by weevils if it was harmful? Does it not care for its people? Is the value of crops requiring Endosulfan greater in Italy than in India?

Does that mean that the suggested alternatives of Endosulfan were not effective in protecting the crop? What would the world do in case of such a disaster after a ban on Endosulfan is imposed?

Farmers Know Best

The typical Indian farmer is a small and marginal farmer with land holdings between 1 and 5 hectares. For farmers like these, agriculture is barely a business—at least, not a profitable one. Most of these farmers are involved in sustenance farming and toil for a hand-to-mouth existence. They can afford to pay very little for crop-protection and cannot bear losses caused by sub-standard, ineffective products. That is why they prefer Endosulfan, which is extremely affordable, effective and can be used on a large variety of crops.

Since farmers spend their days on the fields, they are fully aware of the dangers and benefits of all their farm inputs. They recognise the services provided by pollinators like honeybees as well as beneficial insects like ladybird beetle that devour on pests that harm crops. Since these insects appear at the same time as pests, they have to be dealt with differently. Endosulfan is the only in-use pesticide that is soft on pollinators and beneficial insects. Since they are unharmed with the use of Endosulfan and can continue regulating harmful pests, still lesser pesticide can be used. This bodes well for Indian farmers that are frugal with pesticide use.

So, when we decide that Endosulfan is bad for farmers, we take away their right to choose. We disregard their experience of Endosulfan use and impose our prejudices on their operating economies. Unfortunately, most of our farmers are distant from popular media and are unaware of the fate befalling them. It is, therefore, up to us—folks like you and me to direct their voices to where it will matter most—and save them from heading to the brink of survival.

Media Becomes Fuel for Endosulfan Fire

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it — Adolf Hitler

On February 21, 2001, CSE head Sunita Narain and Dr Padma S Vankar organised a press meet in Delhi to expose a ‘juicy titbit.’ Instead of first sharing the study findings with the scientific fraternity for peer review as is the custom in scientific circles, they chose to directly disseminate their ‘findings’ in the press.

·         In her report, Dr Vankar claimed to have found 9.19 parts per million (ppm) of Endosulfan in water samples. Endosulfan’s water solubility is 0.32 ppm. The figure claimed by her is nearly 30 times higher than the known solubility of Endosulfan and exceeds the water solubility of Endosulfan by over 2,800%.

·         A lethal concentration of Endosulfan in human blood is 0.86 ppm. But, 115.19 ppm of Endosulfan residue was found in the blood samples of one Dr Mohan Kumar (an activist associated with Pesticide Action Network-PAN).

What can only be described as a move to create a media stir did just that. Newspapers soon flashed claims that ‘alarmingly high levels’ of Endosulfan residues had been found in samples of filtered water, milk, fruits and blood samples collected from Padre village in Kasargod district, Kerala. Since then, several claims alleging that the pesticide has been ‘suspected’ of ‘killing’ 400 persons and harming countless more have been made. Most comments featured in the articles are purely hearsay and have simply no scientific support.

Similarly, the Congress polity in Kerala has created a furore against Mr CD Mayee and his report dismissing the Kasargod claims. No one has scientifically contested the findings of his committee. Yet, increasing pressure is being mounted on the state and central governments to accede to his resignation and a total ban on Endosulfan in India. Political parties are exploring opportunities to appease their vote banks through the debacle. The nexus of politicians, activists and media have pushed for hefty compensations to the alleged victims of Endosulfan. So much activity… and the media is lapping it all up, drop by drop. It is an instance of how the calculated dissemination of falsified information has helped create wide dissent for Endosulfan.

For more information on the safety of Endosulfan, read the blog ‘Public Ignorance of Scientific Facts.’

Public Ignorance of Scientific Facts

The general misconceptions regarding Endosulfan include that it causes cancer, birth defects, reproductive disorders and endocrine disruption. However, all relevant scientific data pertaining to its safety has been blocked out by media.

                                 

Science Clears Endosulfan: However, the chemical properties of Endosulfan have been proved without a doubt. For instance, it has been certified by WHO and Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) to not cause cancer, birth defects or any hormonal imbalance on contact. It is also the opinion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a body of WHO); UN Environment Programme; International Labour Organisation and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) and California Department of Pesticide Registration, that Endosulfan has no carcinogenic potential. In 1998, evaluations of Endosulfan by WHO/FAO/Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) have revealed that no genotoxic activity was observed in tests for mutagenecity and clastogenecity. They also stressed that no evidence was found to prove estrogenic activity involving Endosulfan. Additionally, in 2007, US-EPA established that Endosulfan is not an anti-androgen and does not affect sperm production, sperm count, motility, etc.

Degradable and Bio-degradable: In 1988, Endosulfan was reclassified by the WHO as ‘sulfurous ester of a chlorinated cyclic diol.’ An important feature of this molecule is its sulphur ring that makes it degradable as well as bio-degradable by bacteria. Environmental persistence is measured in terms how long it takes half the pesticide in soil to disintegrate, after which it loses efficacy. A pesticide with a half-life of more than 180 days is considered persistent. Endosulfan degrades between 20 and 70 days under tropical conditions. The tests that determined persistence were conducted in regions with colder climates in order to show an excess of 180 days. Clearly, this is not representative of the climate that may be experienced in most parts of the world, and more so in the tropical developing nations where it is widely used... another imperialist ploy by Europe to manipulate global chemical trade.

There is no proof of Endosulfan ever harming human health by use or through food as has been confirmed by several government studies conducted in India.

Kindly refer to the blog ‘Why Only Kerala?’ to learn more about the claims in Kerala.

ICT Students run to “Support the cause of the Indian Farmers”

Students of chemical engineering belonging to the Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), Matunga organized an event on Sunday, March 13, 2011 to support farmers’ right to use endosulfan – an insecticide which they are using for more than 40 years to

prevent their crop of pulses, fruits and vegetables from insect attack. Through this sports event called “ICT-Green Marathon 2011”, the students  initiated an awareness campaign ‘Support the cause of the Indian farmer’ and proposde to lend a strong voice against the push for banning endosulfan. If endosulfan is banned it will soon be replaced by alternatives which are not “honeybee-safe” and will destroy the small farmers ecosystem. For over 40 years farmers have used endosulfan as the insecticide of choice. Endosulfan while killing insect pests is safe for honeybees and beneficial insects like lady bird beetle, all of which are present in large numbers in the farm ecosystem. Students of ICT have responded to the global initiative of UNESCO which has declared 2011 as the “International Year of Chemistry”. During this year UNESCO is focused on activities to educate, create awareness, develop public appreciation and build scientific temper in bridging global knowledge gap with a clear objective to change the negative perception of chemicals. Students were inspired to select endosulfan as an example as they had read many negative media reports and observed internet campaigns putting pressure on governments to ban endosulfan. “This demand (for ban) is not supported by science or by the logic of experience of over 40 years of its use by farmers”, says Aditi a student of ICT. “We understand the chemistry of endosulfan and after various discussions with experts in chemistry, feel shocked – how have decisions been taken at the Stockholm Convention to review endosulfan in spite of significant data gaps.” The Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee (POPRC) of the Stockholm Convention has recommended endosulfan for listing as a persistent organic pollutant. A decision on this recommendation will be taken in April 2011 by the Conference of Parties (COP) of the convention. Health problems in Padre Village of Kasargod, Kerala have been wrongly linked by environmental groups to seek a ban on endosulfan. Over 75 million farmers in India, most of whom are small and marginal, are using endosulfan, their experience and right to choose needs to be taken into account. There are no observers representing farmer groups at the Stockholm Convention. A progressive farmer from Gujarat, who is also attending the marathon questioned, “Our small, poor and marginal farmers have no idea why there are demands from non farming communities to stop use of endosulfan and why there is no opportunity given to Indian farmers to be heard at these conventions? Why the Europe is refusing the Indian farmer to keep his right to choose endosulfan while European authorities themselves allowed the Italian farmers to use endosulfan in hazel nut crop in year 2008”. The authorities in Italy allowed use of endosulfan in 2008, although the European Union had banned its use in 2005. Was endosulfan safe for Italian farmers? Were reported health concerns ignored so that the Italian hazel nut farmer could be saved from financial ruin? Should Indian farmers not have the same rights as the Italian farmer? In April 2011, the Conference of Parties will meet to decide on the POPRC recommendation. If they accept the proposal to ban endosulfan it will seal the fate of farmers in Indian and rest of the developing world. They will be deprived of the right to choose an affordable, broad spectrum insecticide that is safe to honeybees and beneficial insects, which are part of a small farmer’s ecosystem. Endosulfan is the last remaining “bee-safe” crop protection which is also soft on beneficial insects. Endosulfan is an off-patent pesticide. Originally invented in Europe, endosulfan has been safely used by farmers across the world for 55 years. There has been increasing pressure from international as well as local environmental groups to seek ban for Endosulfan on terms that have been proven to be unscientific and fundamentally flawed. Through media reports NGOs have allegedly linked endosulfan to the deformities and illnesses found amongst some villages of in the Dakshin Kanada region bordering Karnataka and Kerala. Farmers and students have demanded for justice and seek support from more quarters of society before any axe falls on the farmers’ fundamental right – their “right to dignity”, to sustain their livelihood and “their right to choose”.

Karnataka decision on Endosulfan not based on Science

Endosulfan is not carcinogenic. US EPA has classified Endosulfan under Group-E (Evidence of non-carcinogenicity). (see below the image of original document from US EPA)

Dr Andrew McKenzie, Executive Director of the New Zealand Food Safety Authority said “The claim that endosulfan, among other pesticides, is a carcinogen is just plain wrong,” “While no-one can be 100% certain about anything, endosulfan has been specifically tested for carcinogenic potential and the World Health Organisation, United Nations Environment Programme and International Labour Organisation categorically state that endosulfan does not show any such potential. Equally any other chemical used in food production is extensively evaluated for safety to humans. Raising concerns of this sort for people, where no cause for them exists, is irresponsible,” said Dr McKenzie. “It is very difficult to counter the worries this will raise for people, and is particularly upsetting when we know the statement is patently untrue”. Source:
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2006-03-03.htm

Endosulfan: Victim of public perception

Among the first anti-endosulfan reports was Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) report titled “End of the Road for Endosulfan” – A call for action against a dangerous pesticide, first published in 2002.

Is it a simple coincidence that it was published just a year after the European Multinational manufacturer’s decision to phase out Endosulfan?

Who were the donors for EJF? The report featured the face of an Indian girl child Shruti, a gruesome photograph of a beautiful child with deformed fingers. Soon the internet was flooded with negative reports of Endosulfan.

In 2001 Pesticides Action Network (PAN) donated US$ 3250 to Thanal, a Kerala NGO based out of Kasargod, to educate citizens on the negative effects of persistent organic pollutants on public health, the environment and local communities.

Is it a simple coincidence that this grant was given to Thanal in the same year that the European Multinational manufacturer of Endosulfan decided to phase out Endosulfan?

What was the source of funds of PAN? How much of their funding is from European Union? Did Thanal have the approval of regulatory authorities to officially receive funding for such purposes? Was it known to the authorities?

Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), an Indian environmental NGO in a report in its magazine Down To Earth issue of February 28, 2001 titled “Children of Endosulfan” reported that “several unusual diseases afflict a Kerala village. Residents blame aerial spraying of the pesticide Endosulfan by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala”. Endosulfan has been aerially sprayed world over without any health effects.

Who would question Sunita Narain the Director of CSE? After all Sunita Narain, has been awarded the Padma Shri in 2005 by the Govt. of India for her commitment to environment protection.

Is it a simple coincidence that the CSE report was published in the same year that the European Multinational manufacturer of Endosulfan decided to phase out Endosulfan?

Analysis of samples from Padre village from Kasaragod district of Kerala for endosulfan residues (A report by Padma S Vankar et al, for the Pesticide Residue Monitoring Study of the CSE, New Delhi, 2001). This report damned endosulfan for the problems in Kerala and was used by CSE to discredit endosulfan. This report and its conclusions were later found to be fraudulent by a peer review of expert scientists.

Is it a simple coincidence that the report by Dr Padma S Vankar was published in the same year that the European Multinational manufacturer of Endosulfan decided to phase out Endosulfan?

National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) a Govt. of India health laboratory published in 2002 a report titled “Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre Village, of Kasargod district (N. Kerala)”. This report was published soon after a CSE report on Endosulfan.

Although the report was published in 2002, it was only in 2010 through the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) that raw data obtained from NIOH through intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) provided conclusive evidence that the data and analysis of the report and its results were based on false readings.

Is it a simple coincidence that the NIOH report was published one year that the European Multinational manufacturer of Endosulfan decided to phase out Endosulfan?

Environmental Health Perspectives in a report in December 2003 under the section Children’s Health published a report titled “Effect of Endosulfan on Male Reproductive Development” generated by Dr Habibullah Saiyed of National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) and his team of scientists. Dr Sayed was then the Director of NIOH and the report was published early in 2003.

Is it a simple coincidence that the NIOH report of Dr Saiyed was published one year that the European Multinational manufacturer of Endosulfan decided to phase out Endosulfan?

Dr Habibullah Saiyed is now Regional Advisor Occupational Environmental and Health Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments WHO regional office.

The current Director of NIOH is Dr Nag. He has had to appear before the Central Information Commissioner who hauled the NIOH Director for refusing to provide raw data on the endosulfan study under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).