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

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.” 

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.

Q&A: Pradip Dave, President, PMFAI

Even as it raises the banner of revolt against the European Union over the ban on the use of Endosulfan, the Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators’ Association of India (PMFAI) is gearing up to lock horns with the Central Insecticides Board and the Union Ministry of Agriculture over a threat to the pesticide industry — issuance of registrations to import readymade pesticide formulations, without registering the technicals. In an interview to K Rajani Kanth, PMFAI President Pradip Dave, also the vice-president of Endosulfan Manufacturers and Formulations’ Association charts the association’s plans, including going to the Gujarat High Court. Edited excerpts:
Besides Endosulfan, what are the other issues facing the Indian pesticides industry?
Lately, the Central Insecticides Board (CIB), a Government of India body, has been issuing registrations for import of readymade pesticide formulations without registering the technicals. This presents a great danger for the country as even the government would not be in a position to know where the raw material comes from and whether it is toxic, sub-standard or expired. And, if this registration process continues (without registering the technicals), there will not be any pesticide manufacturing activity in the country and we (manufacturers) will end up becoming re-packers.

So far, how many such registered products have entered India?
Almost 18 products have been registered in the last seven-to-eight years, valued at more than Rs 4,000 crore, courtesy the vested interests of multinationals, especially from the European Union.

Are you making any representations to the Central government to cease such registrations?
As per existing regulations, the pesticide industry needs to obtain clearance from the Central and State regulatory authorities before commencing production. All products need to be scrutinised and registered by CIB, and companies are required to submit various data and dossiers to the authorities, which is not the case at present. Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators’ Association of India (PMFAI), comprising 210 members – including ….http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ltbgtqampaltbgt-pradip-dave-president-pmfai/425109/

Withdraw erroneous report on endosulfan, Centre urged

The Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators' Association of India (PMFAI), on the radar of some environmentalists and business lobbies, on Friday demanded the Central government to withdraw the “erroneous” report of the Ahmedabad-based National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) declaring endosulfan as a health hazard.

Describing the opponents of the insecticide as the agents of some European chemical manufacturers, the PMFAI claimed that imported substitutes to endosulfan would cost the Indian farmers dearly.

Pointing out at a media conference that the NIOH report had become an alibi for some non-governmental organisations working for an environmental cause and business lobbies to raise the anti-endosulfan propaganda, the PMFAI claimed that there was nothing to suggest that endosulfan was harmful to human health in any way.

‘Genetic disorder'

The six committees set up by the Centre earlier had also concluded that endosulfan was not the reason for the alleged ill-health of the people at Padre village in Kasaragod district of Kerala, where the farmers had been using the insecticide for many years.

The diseases were found to be caused by some inherited genetic disorders that obtained even before endosulfan came to be used, PMFAI president Pradip Dave said. He alleged that the basic issue involved was “to protect the business interests of European chemicals manufacturers at the cost of the Indian farmers under the garb of environmental and health issues for which the NIOH report has come in handy.”

S. Ganesan, Chairman, International Treaties Experts' Committee, said that these European chemical giants had decided to phase out endosulfan in 2001 as it was no longer profitable to them. Chemicals including pesticides and insecticides were the second largest traded commodity in the world, after fuel, in which the manufacturers of the European Union countries enjoyed a 60 per cent share in 2009. A ban on endosulfan to be substituted by other imported pesticides would immensely benefit these manufacturers, he alleged.

‘Largest manufacturer'

According to R. Hariharan, a representative of the International Stewardship Centre, India is the world's largest manufacturer of endosulfan and has a 70 per cent market share of endosulfan business globally with exports worth Rs.180 crore annually. Gujarat alone produced about 55 per cent of the world's requirements - of 40 million litres worth Rs.1,350 crore, while its imported substitute would cost the Indian farmers over Rs.4,500 crores, he claimed.

A farmer from Amreli district in Gujarat, Nayan Visavalya, claimed that he had been using endosulfan for many years and it had not caused health problem to his family or anyone in the village.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1447725.ece

Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala: Dr. S. K. Handa

At a media briefing held by the PMFAI, speakers questioned the flawed study conducted and published by National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad. The study titled “The Final Report of the investigation of unusual illness allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre Village of Kasargod district (N. Kerala)”, has been the root cause for the demand for a ban on the pesticide Endosulfan. An expert panel examined the unscientific and implausible aspects of the NIOH’s study which has been under scanner for the last one year. The flaws have been exposed through the RTI and the masked raw data has evoked public outrage when ten thousand people drew a rally in Gujarat to seek withdrawal of the flawed report. Similar agitation was led by thousand workers in Kochi to demand justice for the unfairly stigmatized workers at the government run HIL plant.
As per the international norms prescribed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), it is mandatory for residues to be reported as identified only after performing “confirmatory test” of each sample. “Different chemicals may appear in the same peak due to similar retention time leading to wrong reporting. However, in the NIOH study in Padre Village in Kerala no confirmatory data was generated, thus NIOH report on Endosulfan is incorrect and misleading. No decisions can be taken based on his report.” said Dr S K Handa, Fellow of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences. He further added “since there was no confirmation referring to presence of Endosulfan in the report made by scientists at NIOH, Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala.” Dr. S K Handa pointed out that Endosulfan is a safe molecule and as per World Health Organisation (WHO) does not possess properties to cause cancer or diseases as reported in Kasargod, Kerala.
Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/endosulfan-cannot-be-blamed-for-diseases-in-kerala-dr-s-k-handa/424070/

Proxy battle over endosulfan

Strange is the interplay of money power, business interests and NGO politics. In most cases, farmers turn out to be victims. A recent notification of the Kerala government is a good instance. The State Government recently issued guidelines which render sale of pesticides illegal , unless supported by a prescription from an appropriate agricultural officer.

Behind this apparently innocuous notification lies a complex interplay of various interests. The ostensible object of the notification is to ensure a proactive remedy against health hazards caused by certain pesticides. The real purpose is to effectively proscribe a particular pesticide, viz. endosulfan blamed for certain incidents of congenital abnormalities, cancer and other diseases.

DEBATE OVER ENDOSULFAN

Endosulfan has been the subject of intense debate and controversy. Sixty nations have banned it — 27 belong to the European Union; the 21 African countries that have banned it have substantial trade with Europe known for its reservations against GM foods and pesticides in agricultural produce.

India accounts for about 70 per cent of the world production of this pesticide — about 12 million litres annually, valued at Rs 4,500 crore. The controversy is very similar to that concerning GM foods. European Union countries do not favour GM food items as they harm European pesticide interests. They also oppose pesticides that have ceased to interest them.

On the other hand, endosulfan is used on a very large scale by Indian farmers, particularly in horticulture and pulses. It is considered to be soft on pollinators such as honeybees and other beneficial insects such as ladybird beetles, though effective as a pest killer, acting through the digestive system. It is used for aerial sprays in the cashew plantations in Kasargode district of Kerala.

In the incidents reported from certain villages in Kasargode district , no conclusive evidence has been produced to show that the diseases were linked causally to endosulfan and nothing else. An independent study demonstrates that the symptoms in reported cases correspond to those of handi godu, attributed to chronic inbreeding in the region. Kasargode district represents a peculiar topography that is not ideal for aerial sprays. Endosulfan by itself applied locally might have produced no adverse effects of the alleged type.

The timing of the Kerala notification is ominous. A group of 172 nations is scheduled to meet in April 2011, under the auspices of the Stockholm Convention, to take a final decision on declaring endosulfan as a persistent organic pollutant (POP). India is opposed to such listing…http://bit.ly/proxybattle

Ban on Endosulfan is meaningless

The ban on Endosulfan is meaningless. There is either very little or no agricultural activity in counties where Endosulfan is banned, or the use of Endosulfan in those countries was negligible. For example, in Europe only 201 tonnes of Endosulfan was used when it was banned.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-76-06-669/EN/KS-76-06-669-EN.PDF In all other countries where it is banned, the land used for agriculture is very insignificant. In some of the counties like Singapore, there is practically no agricultural activity. In countries like Bahrain, Belize, St. Lucia etc., where Endosulfan is banned, the irrigated land is hardly 30-40 sq. km. In six other countries it is 130-750 sq km. In four countries it is 1k to 9k sq km and in one country it is 16k sq km.
Therefore there was nothing to lose in banning Endosulfan in those countries when the activists published wrongful information on Endosulfan. The authorities did not find it necessary to verify the statements made by activists as it was not going to make any difference in those countries!
US EPA has classified Endosulfan under the class of non-carcinogenic substances i.e., class-E. The activists created stories stating Endosulfan as "cancer causing substance" to draw attention of public.
In fact Endosulfan is very important substance as there are no viable alternatives for many of its uses.

http://www.whybanendosulfan.org