[Reader-list] Marketing poison

[SJabbar]

Published on Down To Earth (http://www.downtoearth.org.in)
New endosulfan ploy

Author(s): 
Latha Jishnu
Issue Date: 
2011-3-15

Industry is sidestepping issues by pitching the proposed UN ban on
endosulfan as the battle between generics and patented pesticides

In David and Goliath stand-offs public sympathy‹and cheering‹is always
reserved for the heroic small man who takes on the big bad guy. The David
usually represents valour in the face of heavy odds. That is how the Indian
pharmaceuticals industry projected itself when it began producing generics
medicine at a fraction of the cost of patented drugs from the multinational
companies. So when the issue of patent rights of the innovator companies
came up, there was huge support for the generics companies turning out
life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs from patient groups, lawyers, health activists
and politicians.

Now the pesticides industry is positing an imminent ban on endosulfan by the
UN¹s Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) as a
dubious battle over intellectual property rights (IPR) being waged by the
European Commission on behalf of its global pesticides manufacturing giants.

The Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI),
whose leading lights are among the top producers of endosulfan, claims it is
a move to deprive farmers of this cheap generic insecticide so that European
multinationals can move in with their expensive new pesticides. The new
chemicals, according to the association, cost 10 times as much and ³will be
damaging to the farm ecosystem as most of these are known to be harmful to
pollinators such has honeybees².

So why is no one cheering the domestic industry? You would expect that
farmers, keeling over from high costs of inputs, would be out there on the
streets screaming for their endosulfan. Not so. In parts of the country
where aerial spraying of this toxic pesticide has probably been the cause
for cases of illness, deformities and deaths, the use of this insecticide is
banned‹as is in 60 countries. Regular readers of this magazine do not need
to be reminded of the harrowing chronicles of Kasaragod in Kerala and
Dakshina Kannada in Karnataka. But the Government of India is firmly with
the pesticides manufacturer in seeking to thwart the global ban.

The Stockholm Convention is a global treaty to protect human health and the
environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long
periods, and in October last year, the POP Review Committee finalised a
recommendation to the Conference of the Parties (CoP) that endosulfan should
be considered for listing in Annex A of the Convention because ³it is highly
toxic to humans and many other animals and has been found in the
environment, including the Arctic.² The proposal was placed before the UNEP
in November 2007 and a decision by CoP is expected during its meetings which
start on April 25 this year.

Since the recommendation, PMFAI has been on a public relations overdrive,
holding media briefings or buying space in the pink press, which has been
publishing its handouts as ŒAnnouncement/Corporate¹. In all these instances,
it is something called the International Stewardship Centre (ISC) which has
been extolling the benefits of the generic endosulfan and the role of the
Indian manufacturers in providing farmers with cheap pesticides solution.
The spokesperson for the centre, which calls itself a non-profit for safe
use of pesticides but is actually an organisation of pesticides
manufacturers, is its chairperson R Hariharan.

In a report published in Business Standard on February 18, 2011, Hariharan
is quoted as saying: ³Indian companies account for over 70 per cent of this
market which has come at the cost of the European manufacturers. The
replacement value of endosulfan by patented alternative is estimated to be
in excess of US $1 billion. As a result, endosulfan is today in the eye of
the storm in the battle of Œpatented¹ versus Œgeneric¹ pesticides.²
Hariharan, incidentally, is vice-president, international business, with
Excel Crop Care, one of the largest manufacturers of endosulfan.

The EU ploy, according to the ISC boss, is to bleed Indian farmers by
getting this pesticide out of the market. Endosul fan costs Rs 270 per
litre, while ³alternative chemicals like imida chloropid are sold at more
than Rs 1,800 per litre². To reinforce the benefits of endosulfan, Hariharan
claims ³the alternatives are not a broad solution like endosulfan. So a
farmer will be forced to buy several high-priced patented pesticides.²

Even if this were true, there is little resonance to this campaign. Is it
because PMFAI is not really a David? IPR battles may be fought on
ideological grounds but only if a strong legal case can be made out. Both
are missing here. And although the endosulfan lobby has roped in retired
agriculture officials to sing its praises, particularly for tea cultivation,
PMFAI sidesteps one important issue. The European Union has stipulated the
maximum residue limit of endosulfan in tea should be 0.01 ppm.

So whether endosulfan is banned or not, India¹s tea exports to one of its
large markets are doomed unless plantations switch to something less
harmful. That much is patently clear.

Source URL: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/new-endosulfan-ploy