[Reader-list] pesticide - endosulphan stakes

[Ravi Agarwal]

*Mail Today*

*20 April, 2011
*

*
*

*High financial stakes dictate agenda*

by Ravi Agarwal


 WHEN Sharad Pawar, India’s powerful agricultural minister, recently spoke
in defence of endosulfan in Parliament, it was a first of sorts. Probably,
never before had a mere chemical attracted the interest of such a
highprofile minister.

However, endosulfan is no mere chemical.

It is one whose recent history has been written in guile, intrigue and
politics.

Endosulfan is arguably one of the most toxic pesticides being used on the
planet today. The international scientific community has formally
recommended it for a global ban in the upcoming 172- nation meeting of the
Stockholm Convention, an international legally binding UN treaty dealing
with the most toxic chemicals in use.

Endosulfan currently tops this notorious list, with 21 already having been
acted upon previously. The pesticide can cause severe health impacts
including deformities in limbs, loss of motor control, brain damage, delayed
puberty and cancer. It persists in the environment for a long time,
circulates globally and passes on from the mother to the child, causing
intergenerational health effects. On all these counts, banning it should be
an open and shut case, as has already been done by over 60 countries in
order to prevent harm to their citizens and the environment.

In India, there is a twist to the tale. We produce about ` 4500 crore worth
of the pesticide annually, which is over 70 per cent of the world’s supply,
and consume almost half of it for our horticulture, pulses, cashew, cotton
and other plantations.

Two Indian companies are the largest global manufacturers, one of them being
a public sector company, Hindustan Insecticides Ltd.

It is no wonder then that with such huge economic stakes, the Union
government has blatantly resisted any attempt to talk science regarding
endosulfan’s toxicity ever since the debate became international four years
ago. It has not only cocked a snook at global research, stating it
inapplicable to the tropics ( are Indian bodies so different?), but has made
valiant ( though seemingly futile) efforts to disrupt the process without
presenting any research to back its claims.

Government delegates to the International Science Review Committee have,
invariably accompanied by representatives of the companies, attempted to
block any discussion. Often company representatives have made official
statements on behalf of the government.

It has been international diplomacy at its worst and the Indian behaviour
has been whispered about in the UN corridors.

Activists and even academics from reputed institutions such as IIT Kanpur or
the National Institute of Occupational Health, who dared to speak on the
issue, have been publicly maligned, served legal notices or had criminal
cases filed against them by the industry. Despite this, Kerala banned the
use of endosulfan in 2002. The pesticide was widely used for aerial spraying
on cashew crops in the state. The Karnataka government followed suit in
2010. A recent ban in Australia cited the health impacts in Kerala’s
Kasaragod as one of the reasons for the ban.

Ironically, our very vociferous environment minister Jairam Ramesh chided
the Kerala government for “ politicising the issue” and stated that a ban
would have “ national implications”. Farmer leader Sharad Joshi has spoken
against the proposed ban, fearing its impact on farmers and imputing motives
on the EU to capture the market with new chemicals instead.

In fact, many alternative non- chemical approaches exist and have been
documented. Simultaneously, the industry lobbying machinery is in full swing
as the convention meeting draws closer.

Its representatives can be seen stalking the corridors of the environment
and agriculture ministries. They should be less cocky, since India can be
isolated in a global meeting.

Ravi Agarwal is director, Toxics Link