Endosulfan: ryots want to be impleaded

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

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

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

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

EU's Double Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 being Endosulfan’s second largest market and largest producer). India is one of the few economies against the ban. If our government gives in, the EU agenda will succeed.

·         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. Such NGOs care little about the effects of Endosulfan or the people they claim are affected by it. If they were, they would demand studies that explore the reason for their ailments, instead of studies that link Endosulfan to them. How else could one account for their unscientific vendetta against a chemical that has been safely used the world over for more than 55 years? They would rather continue lying to the Indian public than disappoint their European benefactors.

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.

Farmers protest against the Endosulfan ban: The Real Endosulfan victims

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.” 

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.

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).