Politicians are back in action, thanks to the forthcoming Assembly elections in Kerala and this time the agenda for Kerala State Assembly election is, ‘Ban Endosulfan’. But as always, ‘All talk no work’ is the strategy to execute this political agenda as well. Every political party has suddenly become concerned about the ill-effects of Endosulfan on human health and joined the race to show the people of Kasargod District their invaluable support. A scientific subject has now transformed into a political issue. Politicians of the state are leaving no stone unturned to encash this opportunity.
Please note that Endosulfan is being used across the globe for more than 50 years and before the Kasargod conundrum came into light, there has been no talk of health hazards due to this pesticide in India or anywhere else. It is interesting to note how the debate on Endosulfan has intensified in the last few months. For the first time, something other than the Plachimada issue has caught the fancy of politicians in Kerala. Obviously, politicians have a stand on issues that are hot-favourites among the media and create public frenzy. And all they have to do to achieve their objectives is to build on the havoc created by the NGOs in Kerala over the past few years. The fascinating thing here is while the scientific community is ridiculing the studies published by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), these politician and NGOs are using the same as tools to persuade people to support a nationwide ban on Endosulfan.
Some of them went ahead and compared the Kasargod situation to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. What they did not consider is that if Kasargod was an ‘industrial disaster’ like Bhopal, then workers in Endosulfan manufacturing facilities would have reported health problems. On the contrary, these workers are condemning politicians and NGOs for exploiting the Kasargod situation for their vested interests and demanding an end to anti-Endosulfan campaigns immediately. They are also demanding a withdrawal of the misleading NIOH studies on Endosulfan.
On the other hand, politicians and NGOs are completely ignoring experts’ opinions regarding the fraudulent NIOH studies. They are deliberately ignoring facts that point towards serious scientific flaws in these studies. They have even criticised the Minister of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Shri Sharad Pawar for setting up a panel to study the Endosulfan issue. Insensitive towards farmer’s needs and its various socio-economic repercussions, these politicians and activists are blindly struggling for a total ban of Endosulfan in the country.
So far, politicians have declared relief packages, but made negligible efforts to find the actual cause of these health problems to keep a check on it or try to eradicate it. It is apparent from the poor conditions of these victims that only a portion of these relief packages have actually been handed to them. The state government is now demanding that the Central government provide a Rs 100-crore rehabilitation package to the alleged Endosulfan victims of Kasargod district. An approval to this effect will only give room to more publicity for these politicians. Vote bank politics in Kerala never had it so good.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
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 theStockholmandRotterdamconventions. 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 acrossIndiawhile 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
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 theStockholmandRotterdamconventions. 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 acrossIndiawhile 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
Monday, April 18, 2011
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.
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
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
Thursday, April 14, 2011
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
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
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Predicament of Agriculture without Endosulfan in India
Since India overtook the global production of Endosulfan, farmers here were able to amply reap the benefits of this beneficial-friendly, cost-effective pesticide. The pesticide that has been used for almost three decades in India in the states of West Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, has become a staple farming pest-protection for crops such as cotton, tea and coffee, among many others.
Presently, the Indian farmer spends Rs 220/litre for Endosulfan. In case Endosulfan is banned, farmers will be forced to purchase patented European pesticides touted as their substitutes at much higher prices. If replaced with Imidachloprid, which is the offered replacement to Endosulfan, the price of pest control will escalade to Rs 2,000. Other alternative pesticides such as Thiamethoxam (Rs 3,200/litre) and Coregen (Rs 700/litre) are expensive as well. Besides this, most alternatives of Endosulfan develop resistance of use within 3–5 years of product introduction. Pests have not developed resistance to Endosulfan since the global commencement of its use more than 50 years ago.
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. Imidachloprid is harsh on bees and is therefore banned in France. Today farmers in Europe, USA and countries in the developed world 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. 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. Therefore, if Endosulfan is replaced, the cost of Endosulfan substitution along with the cost of bee boxes for induced pollination is expected to result in a heavy burden on Indian farmers. By raising the cost of farming almost ten-fold, replacing Endosulfan can lead to increased food prices and inflation.
With limited financial resources to purchase pesticides, cultivators in India do not have many effective options to keep their produce from being ravaged by pests. Today, NGOs and local polity in southern India are heavily espousing the benefits of organic farming in Kerala where Endosulfan has been banned. However, news reports suggest that the situation has now compelled farmers there to resort to smuggling the pesticide into the state in cans and bottles. This instance indicates the demand for Endosulfan among farmers within Kerala itself. So, it may not be a stretch to assume that the pesticide will be similarly missed by farmers all over the country in case of a total ban.
It is incredibly curious that no cases of Endosulfan-linked health disorders have ever been reported elsewhere besides the select talukas in Kerala and Karnataka. With no substantial evidence to prove these 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 large portion of the Indian population engaged in agriculture.
Presently, the Indian farmer spends Rs 220/litre for Endosulfan. In case Endosulfan is banned, farmers will be forced to purchase patented European pesticides touted as their substitutes at much higher prices. If replaced with Imidachloprid, which is the offered replacement to Endosulfan, the price of pest control will escalade to Rs 2,000. Other alternative pesticides such as Thiamethoxam (Rs 3,200/litre) and Coregen (Rs 700/litre) are expensive as well. Besides this, most alternatives of Endosulfan develop resistance of use within 3–5 years of product introduction. Pests have not developed resistance to Endosulfan since the global commencement of its use more than 50 years ago.
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. Imidachloprid is harsh on bees and is therefore banned in France. Today farmers in Europe, USA and countries in the developed world 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. 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. Therefore, if Endosulfan is replaced, the cost of Endosulfan substitution along with the cost of bee boxes for induced pollination is expected to result in a heavy burden on Indian farmers. By raising the cost of farming almost ten-fold, replacing Endosulfan can lead to increased food prices and inflation.
With limited financial resources to purchase pesticides, cultivators in India do not have many effective options to keep their produce from being ravaged by pests. Today, NGOs and local polity in southern India are heavily espousing the benefits of organic farming in Kerala where Endosulfan has been banned. However, news reports suggest that the situation has now compelled farmers there to resort to smuggling the pesticide into the state in cans and bottles. This instance indicates the demand for Endosulfan among farmers within Kerala itself. So, it may not be a stretch to assume that the pesticide will be similarly missed by farmers all over the country in case of a total ban.
It is incredibly curious that no cases of Endosulfan-linked health disorders have ever been reported elsewhere besides the select talukas in Kerala and Karnataka. With no substantial evidence to prove these 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 large portion of the Indian population engaged in agriculture.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Karnataka high court gives state govt one last chance in endosulfan case
The high court of Karnataka has given the state one last chance to file objections in the case that accused the government of making hectic efforts to malign the use of the drug endosulfan.
The court has also made party to this case, the state’s agricultural commissioner and agricultural secretary.
The Endosulfan Manufacturers and Formulators Welfare Association, Excel Crop Care Ltd, Hyderabad Chemicals Limited and Bharath Insecticides Ltd had, in their petition filed before the high court, contended that the government was making efforts to malign the use of endosulfan.
“It is submitted that there is no basis in the government’s action in taking steps to ban the product. In fact, the action is wholly contrary to the report of the expert committee dated October 29, 2004 constituted by the state for the very same purpose of determining the effect of the use of insecticide endosulfan,” the petitioners submitted before the court.
Endosulfan is an off-patent organochlorine insecticide and acaricide, and has emerged as a controversial agrichemical due to its acute toxicity.
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_karnataka-high-court-gives-state-govt-one-last-chance-in-endosulfan-case_1526883
The court has also made party to this case, the state’s agricultural commissioner and agricultural secretary.
The Endosulfan Manufacturers and Formulators Welfare Association, Excel Crop Care Ltd, Hyderabad Chemicals Limited and Bharath Insecticides Ltd had, in their petition filed before the high court, contended that the government was making efforts to malign the use of endosulfan.
“It is submitted that there is no basis in the government’s action in taking steps to ban the product. In fact, the action is wholly contrary to the report of the expert committee dated October 29, 2004 constituted by the state for the very same purpose of determining the effect of the use of insecticide endosulfan,” the petitioners submitted before the court.
Endosulfan is an off-patent organochlorine insecticide and acaricide, and has emerged as a controversial agrichemical due to its acute toxicity.
http://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_karnataka-high-court-gives-state-govt-one-last-chance-in-endosulfan-case_1526883
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
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?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
EU Funds ENGOs to Turn Indians against Endosulfan
To create gradual public dissent for Endosulfan, the EU has pulled many Indian environmental NGOs (ENGOs) on its side in addition to prominent International ENGOs like PAN, EJF (Environment Justice Foundation) and I-PEN (International POP’s Elimination Network). Information obtained though the RTI Act from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India shows that between 2000 and 2007, CSE received foreign funds to the tune of Rs 53 crore. A majority of this donation came from the EU. The EU ambassador to India confirmed that in the same period, a steady annual contribution was made by the EU to CSE to implement a project on ‘Policy Research and Awareness Creation in the Field of Environmental Health Interface and Development of an Alternative Pollution Monitoring System’ from 2000 to 2006.
The verbatim objective of the CSE program was to ‘sensitise the public to the linkages between environmental degradation and health’; ‘develop policy strategies in the field of environmental health’ and ‘catalyse the formation of pressure groups.’ One can easily estimate the real intent behind these objectives:
· Sensitise the public to the linkages between environmental degradation and health: Disseminate misguided information about Endosulfan and its effects on people and environment, thereby stirring a ‘people-driven’ movement against the pesticide. Government committees that have rubbished Endosulfan links to health problems in Kerala have been severely criticised even without scientific critiques.
· Develop policy strategies in the field of environmental health: Harness the opinion of the masses to bring about a policy change in matters that guide manufacturing and use of the concerned chemical; thus helping EU achieve its goal at ground-zero (India India
· Catalyse the formation of pressure groups: Use misguided mass opinion to generate pressure such that the government accedes to a ban, despite the absence of any scientific evidence to support the claims. This has already worked in procuring compensation for the alleged ‘victims.’
This case reveals how inconspicuously funded activism prospers in India
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
Monday, March 7, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Kerala hype about endosulfan baseless
Shetkari Sanghatana founder-president Sharad Joshi has said that Kerala’s fears on pesticide Endosulfan is baseless and a ban on its use will mean fewer farmers going for cultivation of pulses.
A final decision on Endosulfan is likely at the Stockholm Convention scheduled next month. “While the Centre is firm on its decision of not banning the pesticide, the Kerala government is trying to sabotage this,” Joshi said, adding that the Centre should ensure that no other state followed Kerala’s stand.
He said Endosulfan was earlier being manufactured by European companies, but Indian companies have started manufacturing it while the European companies began production of its costlier alternatives. “By banning Endosulfan, the EU wants to push its costlier products in India, which would be a heavy burden on farmers.”
Endosulfan has been blamed for incidents of congenital abnormalities, cancer and so on, which is why Kerala issued the notification. Joshi countered the claims, citing a medical study that said the abnormalities and deformities had been a result of continuous in-breeding among certain tribes. He said the Centre had formed four committees under the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Environment and an AIIMS doctor and all of them had recommended the use of Endosulfan.
Joshi said India had been using this pesticide since 1971 and now manufactured around 12 million litres of Endosulfan a year, worth Rs. 4,500 crore. This amounted to 70 per cent of Endosulfan production in the world and India even exports it to South America. In India, the state had the highest use of the pesticide at 22-23 per cent followed by Madhya Pradesh (20-22 per cent), Gujarat (25-26 per cent) and Punjab (12-13 per cent). “Strangely, Kerala, which uses 0.8 per cent of Endosulfan, has issued a notification that renders sale of pesticides illegal, unless supported by a prescription from an appropriate agricultural officer.”
Asked about alternatives for Endosulfan, he said, “Indoxacarb, Imidacloprid and Acetamiprid are three alternatives. However, Ensdosulfan is used widely because, unlike its alternatives, it goes soft on pollinators. Also, it is four times cheaper; Endosulfan is Rs 250-260/litre as against the alternatives that range between Rs 900-3,000/litre.”
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
HEAR OUR VOICE – ENDOSULFAN WORKERS OF INDIA
Followed is a letter from the endosulfan workers to the Prime Minister of India asking to support their efforts in seking withdrawal of NIOH report:
We are the union of Endosulfan manufacturing units in India. We have been reading several media reports related to Endosulfan and its alleged linkage to many physical ailments in Kerala, India. Endosulfan was invented, manufactured, traded also used in Europe for 55 years. Endosulfan is a generic insecticide manufactured and supplied on large scale by India at most reasonable prices since last 10 years. Endosulfan is safe to pollinators and beneficial insects and is one of the largest generic pesticides in use worldwide. Over 45 million litres of Endosulfan is used globally with an on farm value in excess of US$ 300 million (Rs.1350 crore). It is widely used in agricultural economies such as India, China, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, etc.
There have been allegations that exposure to Endosulfan is causing abnormal human health effects, birth defects, infertility, and a host of other illnesses. Most of these allegations have originated from Kasargod in Kerala where such abnormalities have been reported. The same allegations have also been made from Belthangady taluka in Karnataka. The phtograph of Shruti, a child with abnormal birth defects has been used as proof in both Kerala and Karnataka. All problems in Kerala are alleged to be happening due to aerial spray of Endosulfan. It would be interesting to know that there are no problems relating to aerial spray of Endosulfan anywhere in the world. It is extensively applied by aerial application in several countries and there are no reports of birth defects anywhere else. There are no problems health problems anywhere in India where Endosulfan is extensively used.
In India alleged reports linking endosulfan to physical problems have been repeatedly investigated. Six committees appointed by the Government of India have concluded that there is no evidence linking Endosulfan to physical ailments. Endosulfan has undergone trial by media for over 8 years. Inspite of this a few NGO’s led by Ms Sunita Narain of CSE (Centre for Science and Environment) and Thanal and supported internationally by PAN (Pesticide Action Network), EJF (Environment Justice Foundation) and I-PEN (International POP’s Elimination Network) have used the internet and media to generate negative public perception against Endosulfan by repeatedly publishing gruesome photographs of children with abnormal birth defects. When eminent scientists like Dr M S Swaminathan, who is on the Board of CSE, also lend their voice supporting a call for a ban on Endosulfan without understanding the scientific facts and without choosing to talk to us, what do we do? There is extensive funding by the European Union to these NGO’s with an objective of forming pressure groups which in turn serve the interests of European business. Why should we lose our jobs just because their economy is under pressure?
We represent the Endosulfan family in India. We are 6000 families directly supporting over 24,000 persons and lakhs of farmers in India. We have had direct exposure to Endosulfan while working at the factory and the farmers while using them in the farm. Some of us have been exposed to Endosulfan for over 20, 25 and even 30 years. Yet none of us have had any health problems. We are ready to offer samples of our blood for testing to prove that Endosulfan does not cause any health issues. Among us are also Endosulfan workers from Kerala who are ready to offer their blood for testing. These workers, our brothers from Kerala are in constant fear as none of the elected representatives dare challenge the position orchestrated by the NGO’s. They are in fear of trial by media.
Endosulfan has polarized the world opinion in the debate on generic versus patented chemicals. The European Commission few years ago decided to nominate Endosulfan for inclusion in Rotterdam Convention under Prior Inform Consent (PIC) and in 2007 for inclusion in Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Based on the recommendation of POP Review Committee, the Stockholm Convention’s Conference of Parties is expected to decide on its listing as a POP during their meeting in April 2011. The estimated replacement value of Endosulfan is expected to be over US$ 1000 million (Rs.4500 crores).
Endosulfan has been proposed by EU for a ban citing precautionary measure for its impact on human health. EU-funded environmental NGOs and lobby at the international trade related conventions such as Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions have extensively quoted judgments based on a study titled “Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre village, of Kasargode district (N. Kerala)” made by National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmadabad.
We have learnt that fundamental flaws in the NIOH study have been observed by scientists and lawyers. To understand the errors, several applications were made by experts under the Right to Information Act. We have also learnt that NIOH did not respond to request for parting with raw data until the intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner, the appellate authority at the NIOH. The case was heard at the Information Commission and it took two orders by the Chief Information Commissioner for NIOH’s appellate authority to finally handover the 1700 pages of raw data. Experts examined the raw data and learned that the analysis conducted by NIOH had laboratory flaws beyond any doubt. The NIOH study has been referred to widely in international conventions and by regulatory authorities worldwide in seeking a ban on Endosulfan.
We are hurt. Our experience and our opinion are not even being considered. We have no option but to protest and let our voice be heard by the representatives that we elected to represent us in the Government. There are 6000 workers engaged in manufacturing of Endosulfan and lakhs of farmers who have a tangible experience of working with Endosulfan. The NGOs have failed to address this experience of farmers and workers of Endosulfan. On November 15, 2010 about 10000 families representing the workers as well as farmers walked a silent protest to present a memorandum to District Collector, Bhavnagar district – demanding immediate withdrawal of the NIOH report. The families were supported by the local Member of Legislative Assembly – Mrs Vibhavari Dave and the Member of Parliament – Mr Rajendra Sinh Rana.
Mr Rana has not only supported the workers by joining them in the rally but for the past one year has made several representations to the Prime Minister - Dr. Manmohan Singh, Minister of Environment & Forests – Mr Jairam Ramesh and Ministry of Health – Mr Gulam Nabi Azad seeking immediate action and withdrawal for the flawed report by NIOH.
Please support our efforts in seeking a withdrawal of the NIOH report on Endosulfan by writing to the Prime Minister of India. Please help us to let our voice be heard.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Victims of Endosulfan or Imperialism?
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).
Monday, February 28, 2011
Endosulfan: Safe on Human Beings
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.
A study was conducted in Kasargod, Kerala by the Fredrick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology (FIPPAT) of Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu in 2001. Mr Pradeep Dave, President, Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India announced the finding that except for marginal deposition in soil (0.001–0.012 mcg/gm) and leaf (0.040–2.893 mcg/gm), no residue was found in samples of human blood, cow milk, fish or water. 112 samples of residents from the age group of 3–70 years were collected along with 90 leaf, soil and water samples, and transported to the FIPPAT facility under strict supervision. The residue estimation was conducted as per Good Laboratory Practices.
In a study conducted by TS Kathpal of the Haryana Agricultural University, India, it was found that Endosulfan dissipates in soil to an extent of 92–97 per cent during the first four weeks after its application (Pesticide Science, 1997, 50 21-27). Endosulfan degrades rather faster in tropical and subtropical environment. It degrades through consumption by micro-organisms present in soil, chemical breakdown under the impact of sunlight (photolysis) and chemical reaction with water (hydrolysis).
According to a ‘Pesticide Information Project’ of Cornell University, Michigan State University, Oregon State University and University of California at Davis, transport of Endosulfan is most likely to occur if it is attached to soil particles in surface runoff. However, it is not expected to pose a threat to groundwater. Their study also revealed that in raw river water at room temperature exposed to light, both of Endosulfan’s isomers disappeared in four weeks.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Endosulfan: NGOs Funded by European Union
There has been no sound scientific study linking Endosulfan to adverse health effects in India or anywhere in the world. In response to claims connecting Endosulfan with human disorders in Kerala and Dakshina Kannada, six committees and expert groups were set up by the Government of Kerala, Government of India and the Government of Karnataka. Each committee concluded that none of the alleged victims were affected by Endosulfan. The committee findings have been methodically dismissed at the will of vested interests in the form of NGOs and possibly, media. Is it coincidence that EU made donations to these NGOs at the same time that it was seeking to phase-out Endosulfan production?
India’s NGOs:
Many erroneous reports emerged from the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) report titled, ‘Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre village, of Kasargode district (N. Kerala),’ which is proved to be fundamentally flawed. NGOs like Kasargod-based Thanal and Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) have all produced reports linking Endosulfan to adverse health problems including cancer, infertility, birth defects and neurotic disorder. However, not only are these based on the tainted NIOH reports, but also deliberate.
A $3,250 donation was made to Thanal in 2001 by EU-funded Pesticides Action Network (PAN). A similar contribution was made by the EU to Sunita Narain-led CSE to implement a project on ‘Polley Research and Awareness Creation in the Field of Environmental Health Interface and Development of an Alternative Pollution Monitoring System’ from 2000 to 2006. One of the objectives of the CSE programme was to ‘catalyse the formation of pressure groups.’ The intent of these pressure groups is quite obvious. (Copies of these documents are with site owners) Studies that produced results proving that Endosulfan did not cause the claimed health ailments were mocked and rejected. Such was the case of a Kerala Agricultural University study that pointed out insignificant residues of Endosulfan in samples in February 2001. CSE had also targeted Pepsi and Coca Cola alleging that their soft drinks had high residues of pesticides. Their finds were later quashed by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare...http://www.whybanendosulfan.org/eu-funding-ngo.htm
Monday, February 21, 2011
Vested Interests Profit from the Debacle
In response to claims connecting Endosulfan with human disorders in Kerala and Dakshina Kannada, six committees and expert groups including representatives from health, environment and agriculture departments were set up by the Govt of Kerala, Govt of India and the Govt of Karnataka. Each committee has concluded that none of the alleged victims were proven to be affected by Endosulfan. The committee findings have been methodically dismissed at the will of vested interests in the form of NGOs and possibly, media. Similarly, studies with results that did not favour the NGO’s agenda have been mocked and rejected. Such was the case of a Kerala Agricultural University study that pointed out insignificant residues of Endosulfan in samples in February 2001.
Similarly, there is much vitriol generated by the polity in Kerala against Mr DC Mayee and his report establishing no link between Endosulfan and health abnormalities. Due to the clout wielded by NGOs and polity, several allegations have been made in the Indian media in recent years, especially in the region of Kasargod, Kerala. No news report has scientifically contested the findings of his committee…http://www.whybanendosulfan.org/endosulfan-in-india.htm
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)