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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)