India’ Food Security at Stake if Endosulfan Use Is Banned

Once again the issue of imposing a ban on use of Endosulfan has cropped up, thanks to state elections in Kerala. Thus, from an industry or scientific issue it is gaining more ground as a political issue, where facts or fundamentals have no considerations. But what is certain is that if the Government bans the use of Endosulfan in the country under political pressure, , its impact on India’s food security will be unprecedented.

With increasing population, it is becoming essential for India to keep improving the country’s agricultural production and more importantly, to protect our crops. This is the only way to feed the country of over a billion people without being totally dependant on imports. One way to achieve this is integrated crop management.

Routine crop care is an integral part of this management system.It

includes pest management through plant-protection products which are imperative for maintaining the quality of farm produce. Food crops face a threat from around 30,000 species of weeds and 3,000 species of nematodes. Along with them, there is also a danger of 10,000 species of plant-eating insects. Every year, countries lose around 20–40 per cent of potential food production to pests. This indicates that to guarantee an adequate and constant food supply, the reliance on crop-protection products is paramount.

Over the years, it has been accepted that plant protection is vital for developing countries to improve their yield and to maintain food supply to meet ever-increasing demand. Chemical crop protection is a tool to achieve this. But, very few plant protection products actually qualify for integrated crop management. Endosulfan is one such product that is not only effective in controlling pests, but also in improving the productivity of crops without being harsh on the environment.

Currently, the worldwide use of Endosulfan is estimated at around 35 million litres, which makes it one of world’s top five generic agricultural insecticides. For tropical regions like India, Endosulfan acts as a tool for farmers to protect their crops and plantations from pests that are harmful for them. These pests, if uncontrolled may threaten our food supply as well as the financial condition of farmers. They also help improve agricultural productivity. Both activities are essential to meet the ever-growing food demand of India. Endosulfan is one of the most widely used pesticides in India. Indian farmers have been relying on Endosulfan to protect their crops for several years. Thus, prohibiting the use of Endosulfan can impose a serious threat on our food security.  

Replacing Endosulfan with other costly products will make farming expensive. It will negatively impact the production of crops on which Endosulfan is effectively used to control pests, including mango, cashew, cotton, oil seeds such as sunflower and spices . These products are high-priority crops for domestic and export markets.

India has a huge population to feed. Replacing Endosulfan with other patented and costly plant-protection products will increase the cost of pest management for India. Due to this, food prices may swell, causing inflation. The inflation rate in India is already very high. In these times whence the Indian economy is struggling to reduce the inflation rate, any change that can contribute to price rise should be avoided. Thus, it is recommended not to replace Endosulfan with any other product that can threaten India’s food security.

Centre not in favour of banning endosulfan

Even as an all-party delegation from Kerala meets Prime Minister Manmohan Singh here on Friday to press for the imposition of a ban on the use of endosulfan, the Centre has stuck to its position that a precipitate action on the issue would adversely affect the average Indian farmer and overall agricultural productivity .

Endosulfan is a broad spectrum insecticide used in India and several other countries for controlling pests in various crops. Armed with reports of various expert committees, the latest among them being that of a 11-member panel set up by the Gujarat government to assess the safety aspects of endosulfan, the Centre has sought to assuage the concerns of those demanding a ban on its use in view of reports of its ill-effects on people's health.

The government has all along maintained that there was no cause-and-effect relationship between the use of endosulfan and incidence of adverse health effects among the people. A final view on the demand, nevertheless, may be taken by the government only after the expert committee set up under the ICMR director-general last year submits its report.

For the past few months, the country has been witness to a concerted campaign launched by a section of the society seeking a ban on the use of endosulfan. The trigger behind all this was the reports of certain adverse effects among the inhabitants of areas in and around Padre village in Kerala's Kasargod district. Trouble surfaced after the Plantation Corporation of Kerala resorted to aerial spraying of undiluted endosulfan on cashew plantations located in undulating terrain with the presence of water bodies.

Following a public uproar, the Agriculture Ministry put in abeyance the use of endosulfan in Kerala, even though it has persistently maintained that the reported health problems in the Kasargod district had nothing to do with endosulfan. Amidst the raging controversy, the Karnataka government too has come out in favour of slapping a ban on its use in areas adjoining Kasargod district.

But agricultural experts and politicians from other states have stoutly resisted the proposal to ban the use of endosulfan, insisting that such a move will hit farmers hard. Ex-union minister Raghuvansh Prasad Singh wrote a letter to Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, arguing vehemently against any such step. A study commissioned by the Krishi Bhawan among the agriculture universities and ICAR institutes located in various states and UTs also came up with an interesting analysis.

None of the institutions reported the eruption of any serious disease or congenital defects among the residents because of the use of endosulfan. Among them was Kasargod -based CPCRI, which studied its impact on coconut plants. The issue may also figure in the fifth meeting of Conference of Parties (CoP) of the Stockholm Convention to be held later this month. While the EU has been exerting pressure to include endosulfan in the Convention, India and China, the most generous users of the chemical, have held out.

At the sixth meeting of Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), held in Geneva in October last year, India raised its voice against moving any further on the issue till its concerns, both procedural and substantive, were addressed by the CoP of the Stockholm Convention. The Indian representative to the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee, in fact, appended his dissenting note at the meeting.

"Endosulfan has many inherent properties that makes it most ideal for crop protection, especially in tropical and sub-tropical regions. It offers broad spectrum pest control at relatively low cost, does not adversely affect many beneficial insects, hence the most ideal candidate under Integrated Pest Management Systems , lends itself to be a useful tool in managing insecticide resistance and is relatively less toxic to honey bees and, most importantly, its long-term toxicity profile is well understood over 50 years compared to newly-introduced pesticides.

Its replacement would involve huge costs in several countries," Chhanda Chowdhury, POPRC member from India, contended. A sizeable section of the Indian establishment views the "ban endosulfan" campaign as part of a larger conspiracy hatched by MNCs to push their newer, more expensive formulations.

These corporations, they maintain, demand data protection while introducing new molecules in developing countries to maintain their monopoly, translating into higher, more prohibitive prices for Indian farmers. The alternatives, such as Fipronil, Chlorantraniliprole and Flubendiamide were so expensive that they, it was felt, would go beyond the reach of an average farmer.

Empirical studies conducted by the Centre made it clear that endosulfan was neither carcinogenic, nor mutagenic. There was also no evidence to suggest that its consistent use enhances toxicity substantially over time. Moreover, with a system for regulation of pesticides under the Insecticides Act, 1968, in place, there was, the government insists, no cause for concern.

Committees headed by OP Dubey and CD Mayee too discounted any causal link between the use of endosulfan and diagnosis of health problems. The report drafted by the Gujarat government-sponsored panel, submitted on March 15 this year, too concluded that "there are no health problems that can be associated to the exposure to endosulfan and is satisfied that there are no occupational health or safety issues arising out of it".

The Battle between European Pesticide Manufacturers and India’s Farmers

Since India overtook the global production of Endosulfan, Indian farmers were able to amply reap the benefits of this beneficial-friendly, cost-effective pesticide. Assumed to be in use for almost three decades in India prominently in the states of West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, it has become a staple pest-protection for crops such as cotton, tea and coffee. The Indian farmer spends a reasonable sum of about Rs 250 a liter on Endosulfan. Endosulfan is safe on beneficials and pollinators like honeybees, and has been proved to be reasonably safe on users given that necessary precautions for handling are taken, as with any pesticide.
Unlike its substitutes that develop resistance of use within 3–5 years of product introduction, Endosulfan is as effective as it was half a century ago. It has been observed that in comparison to Chloropyrifos and other organic methods of pest control in coffee plantations, Endosulfan has been most successful in preventing incidences of berry borer. Not only is the pesticide affordable, but fast-acting. This attribute ensures quick crop damage control and prevents huge losses from infestations. Endosulfan protects a variety of 29 crops from 60 types of infestations.
Imidachloprid (Rs 2,000/litre), Thiamethoxam (Rs 3,200/litre) and Coregen (Rs 700/litre) are the pesticides promoted as replacements for Endosulfan. Wherever Endosulfan has been substituted by more expensive alternatives like Neonicotinoids, it has resulted in the elimination of pollinators. In their absence, farmers will have to depend on expensive bee boxes that cost as much as Rs 90,000 to pollinate a one hectare farm. Thus, a shift from using Endosulfan will undoubtedly amount to manifold increase in farm input cost and further worsen the dismal condition of Indian farmers.
Endosulfan is the third largest-selling generic insecticide globally with a market value of more than $300 million. 40 million litres of the pesticide is used globally, while 12 million litres are consumed in India per annum. In an effort to convert this massive Endosulfan market into one for its patented substitutes, the EU has been unlawfully pushing for its inclusion in the list of Persistent Organic Pollutants at the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions. For this, it has attempted to stir up a melee through dubious reports spun by NGOs like Kerala-based Thanal and Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). These studies are also based on the flawed NIOH report. On the basis of such evaluations and by downplaying the findings of the government committees, the nexus of polity, activists and media are mounting pressure on the central government for a nation-wide ban on Endosulfan. Political parties are viewing the episode as an opportunity to appease their vote banks.

In Kerala, where Endosulfan has been banned, there is much emphasis on the virtues of organic farming. However, it is doubtful whether the same would be equally effective for employment on a large scale across India while ensuring minimal crop loss. Recent news reports suggest that the ban has compelled farmers there to resort to smuggling Endosulfan into the state in cans and bottles. With no substantial evidence to prove the Kasargod claims, it is prudent to decide whether the whims of vested interests are significant enough to effect a change that is sure to impact the enormous section of the Indian population engaged in agriculture.


References:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/07/28/stories/2010072852042200.htm
A Srinivas “Planters find ally in endosulfan to combat berry borer in coffee” in The Hindu Business line, July 28, 2010

Reviewing the Alternatives of Endosulfan

Since EU lost its share of the Endosulfan pie when it went generic decades ago, their recent promotion of patented pesticides is only part of its attempt to re-enter global pesticide trade. Since their attempts to compete with Indian Endosulfan producers and regain their lost markets did not meet with success, some of them are understood to have resorted to unfair trade practices. By churning out unfavourable stories surrounding Endosulfan through patronage to certain NGOs, the EU appears to be out to recapture their markets by any means possible. Now, in order to counter the affordability, utility and beneficial softness of Endosulfan, EU is engaging in illegal attempts to introduce Endosulfan as a Persistent Organic Pollutant in the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. They hope that a total ban will initiate a shift in global pesticide demand patterns.

Endosulfan is a broad-spectrum pesticide active ingredient that is sprayed on a range of 29 crops to protect them from about 60 types of pests. The most prominent benefit of Endosulfan over other pesticides, including those touted as its replacements, is that it is safe for beneficials and pollinators, such as honeybees. Endosulfan is the last pesticide in use that is recommended as a first-spray during pollination by agriculture scientists and entomologists worldwide. The replacement of Endosulfan would not only result in incalculable and irreplaceable harm to biodiversity and the agriculture ecosystem, but also present an additional cost of pollination to farmers. Since India became a prominent Endosulfan producer, India’s farmers have trusted its use in a variety of crops, especially coffee, tea and cotton. The states of Maharashtra, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are the top consumers of Endosulfan in India. More than 12 million litres of Endosulfan is used here per annum. In order to be popularly accepted, any substitute for Endosulfan will have to possess similar attributes.

Imidachloprid (Rs 2,000/litre), Thiamethoxam (Rs 3,200/litre) and Coregen (Rs 700/litre) are the pesticides promoted as replacements for Endosulfan. Presently, the Indian farmer spends Rs 250/litre for Endosulfan. Therefore, the obvious repercussion of a shift from using Endosulfan is the manifold increase in the cost of pest-protection. The next cost to emerge with the replacement of Endosulfan is that of the potential purchase of bee boxes. Bee boxes cost as much as Rs 90,000 for pollinating a 1-hectare field of crops in the absence of honeybees. Wherever Endosulfan has been substituted by more expensive alternatives like Neonicotinoids, it has resulted in the elimination of pollinators. Imidachloprid, the most popular Neonicotinoid is blamed for killing bees and is banned in France, Germany and Slovenia, among other European nations.

Affordability as a factor will be an impossible offering for patented pesticides from the EU. If the European agenda to free up a brand new market by banning Endosulfan meets success, farmers in developing nations and India in particular, will be left in financial ruin. If they consider options touted by local governments, they will have to rely on methods like organic farming. This means risking their produce for a method that if successful, may not possess the effectiveness for a required scale. News reports suggest that the present situation has now compelled farmers in Kerala, where Endosulfan is banned, to resort to smuggling the pesticide into the state in cans and bottles. The clash of ‘patented versus generics’ threatens to leave many such innocents in a lurch.

Will The Government Force Farmers To Commit More Suicides?

Agriculture, the principal occupation in India has been acutely inequitable to its practitioners over the last couple of decades. With former late Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri’s credo ‘Jai Jawan Jai Kisan’ lain to waste, farmer suicides have since been the cause of much socio-economic debate. It is estimated that a farmer owning 15 acres of land and considered well-off has an income of just a little more than what he would have earned if he were to earn a yearly legal minimum wage. Budget 2010 earmarked considerations for automatic management systems and cold storage. Whether these will offer tangible relief to agriculture is still to be seen. Yet, it is becoming essential for the government to lay greater emphasis on the affairs of cultivation by developing adequate sensitivity to the support infrastructure required today.
A time bomb in the making is the issue of Endosulfan. Since India overtook the global production of Endosulfan, Indian farmers have reaped the benefits of the pesticide for a wide range of crops including cotton, tea and coffee. In use for almost three decades in India in the states of West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, the beneficial-friendly, cost-effective farming pest-protection costs a farmer Rs 250/litre. In case of a ban on Endosulfan, Indian cultivators will be forced to purchase patented European pesticides at much higher prices. Imidachloprid, a product touted as a replacement to Endosulfan costs Rs 2,000/litre. Other alternative pesticides such as Thiamethoxam (Rs 3,200/litre) and Coregen (Rs 700/litre) are expensive as well. Unlike Endosulfan, most alternatives destroy much-needed honeybees and other beneficial populations required for pollination. It may force farmers to look for highly expensive alternatives for pollination. Besides, the alternatives to Endosulfan also develop resistance of use within 3–5 years of product introduction.
In India, farmers depend on naturally occurring colonies of honeybees and beneficials like ladybird beetle, chrysoperla, trichograma for the pollination of their crops. As they are naturally occurring, they play their part at no cost to farmers. Most of Endosulfan’s substitutes are harsh on bees and are therefore banned in many nations. Today farmers in countries where Endosulfan is banned depend on the use of bee boxes for pollination. Such bumblebees initiate pollination at a cost of US$1 per bee (approximately Rs 45). At that rate, it would cost Rs 90,000 for the Indian farmer to pollinate a 1-hectare field of crops in the absence of honeybees. Not only will the use of such pesticides result in almost a ten-fold cost increase for farmers, but also destroy the agro-ecosystem.
Today, NGOs and local polity in southern India are heavily espousing the benefits of organic farming in Kerala where Endosulfan has been banned. However, with limited financial resources to purchase costly pesticides or absorb losses from ineffective pest-control, cultivators do not have many options. Recent news reports suggest that the situation has now compelled farmers in the region to resort to smuggling the pesticide into the state in common cans and bottles.
Due to increasing costs being incurred by farmers and not enough returns, most of them are already debt-ridden. Some are already selling off valuable stretches of their fertile lands to industries and urban developers. With no substantial scientific evidence to prove the Endosulfan claims in Kerala and Dakshina Kannada, it is prudent to decide whether the whims of vested interests are significant enough to effect a change that is sure to impact India’s colossal farming population.


References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India#cite_note-12
M Rajivlochan "Farmers and fire-fighters" in Indian Express, August 28, 2007

Petition

Endosulfan has been used for over 50 years across the world and has proven to be a key element in the integrated pest management systems across various countries. There has been no evidence of Endosulfan affecting human health or on any other plants and organisms. The sole case, raised by some NGOs and other vested interests, in the anti-Endosulfan campaign has not been scientifically proven as yet and has been questioned on its credibility by a series of scientific studies. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support on reports that link Endosulfan to diseases and deformities in Kasargod, Kerala. On the other hand, we have our own doubts as to how this tragedy happened only in Kerala because Endosulfan is used in large volumes across India. All the reports which claim that Endosulfan is the cause behind the deformities in Kerala have been found to have scientific data gaps and some of them have proven to be forged. We believe that the NGOs that champion the ban on Endosulfan have been directly funded by the European Union (EU) through some of its official channels.

Being in use for over half a century, Endosulfan is very effective on pests while being soft on pollinators. It is said to be almost equivalent to the neem, which is considered in India as the best natural pesticide. Also, a liter of Endosulfan costs about Rs. 250 making it extremely affordable and economical for the poor farmers. And the reason behind it being so cheap is that it is a generic molecule. The patented pesticides proposed by the EU to replace Endosulfan have not been cleared scientifically as safe and are up to 10 times more expensive. We would like to reiterate that Endosulfan, unlike majority of the other pesticides, is soft on pollinators which help the farmers by pollinating and cross-pollinating. This is very essential for the ecosystem as well as for farmers.

WHO and other such organizations of international importance do not consider Endosulfan as carcinogenic or genotoxic. It has been proven that Endosulfan degrades very fast in the environment and also in the human and animal bodies, which we believe is enough to know that it is not harmful to humans or the ecosystem.
So if you want good food in the future and want our farmers to provide us with the same, sign this petition!
http://www.petitiononline.com/saveendo/petition.html

Cascading effects of flawed NIOH report on Endosulfan

In 2002, National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad published a study titled, “Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre Village of Kasargod district (N. Kerala)”. It was followed by another study made by the NIOH titled, “Effect of Endosulfan on Male Reproductive Development.” Both of these studies have become available on internet for public access. During thorough readings of these reports, scientists and experts have noted that the studies have several serious scientific errors relating to the residue analysis of Endosulfan.

Experts have found that the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) of Gas Chromatography (GC), which is used for chemical residue analyzes in these reports, was 1 part per billion (1 ppb) for Endosulfan. However, the studies carry residue finding as low as 0.4 ppb and 0.5 ppb, which fall much below the minimum detection level of the instrument used. This is scientifically indemonstrable. There were many more representative omissions and flaws noted in these studies by experts.

Subsequently, several requests were made by experts to the NIOH to provide ‘raw data’ for review and reprocessing to uncover any laboratory fraud made in this case. But, all these requests, made under the Right to Information Act of India, fell on deaf ears. For many years, NIOH has made various excuses for hiding these details but finally in 2010, with the interference of the Central Information Commission, provided 1,700 pages of raw data to the experts. However, large amount of information has been masked by the NIOH in the shared raw data. Now the question arises that if NIOH is confident of its work, why has this data been masked? Such acts of NIOH provide much insight and indicate that the data and analysis of the studies, and the resulting findings were based on inaccurate readings.

These studies have been cited at various national and international forums and referred to by various Indian and global authorities to propose a ban on Endosulfan. When found fundamentally flawed and incorrect, they should have created uproar across the world. Questions should be raised on the credibility of the NIOH. As a government body, NIOH is responsible to validate reports before publishing them. However, its attempts to discourage wide review of the raw data are astonishing.

On November 15, 2010 a group around 10,000 in number and comprising workers’ families and farmers, have presented a memorandum to the District Collector of Bhavnagar, requesting immediate withdrawal of the NIOH report on the grounds discussed above. The Indian Chemical Council has also written to the Prime Minister of India, requesting a call for a comprehensive scientific audit of the NIOH reports and to punish those who are guilty of committing laboratory frauds.

On account of various such requests, a panel has been formed to study the impact of Endosulfan in Kerala. The expert panel, which includes representatives from the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment, will be directly administered by the Health Department. The Central Government is expected to reference the findings of this expert panel before taking its decisions on the Endosulfan issue.