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 France
With limited financial resources to purchase pesticides, cultivators in India India
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
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Farmers Know Best
The typical Indian farmer is a small and marginal farmer with land holdings between 1 and 5 hectares. For farmers like these, agriculture is barely a business—at least, not a profitable one. Most of these farmers are involved in sustenance farming and toil for a hand-to-mouth existence. They can afford to pay very little for crop-protection and cannot bear losses caused by sub-standard, ineffective products. That is why they prefer Endosulfan, which is extremely affordable, effective and can be used on a large variety of crops.
Since farmers spend their days on the fields, they are fully aware of the dangers and benefits of all their farm inputs. They recognise the services provided by pollinators like honeybees as well as beneficial insects like ladybird beetle that devour on pests that harm crops. Since these insects appear at the same time as pests, they have to be dealt with differently. Endosulfan is the only in-use pesticide that is soft on pollinators and beneficial insects. Since they are unharmed with the use of Endosulfan and can continue regulating harmful pests, still lesser pesticide can be used. This bodes well for Indian farmers that are frugal with pesticide use.
So, when we decide that Endosulfan is bad for farmers, we take away their right to choose. We disregard their experience of Endosulfan use and impose our prejudices on their operating economies. Unfortunately, most of our farmers are distant from popular media and are unaware of the fate befalling them. It is, therefore, up to us—folks like you and me to direct their voices to where it will matter most—and save them from heading to the brink of survival.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Media Becomes Fuel for Endosulfan Fire
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it — Adolf Hitler
On February 21, 2001, CSE head Sunita Narain and Dr Padma S Vankar organised a press meet in Delhi
· In her report, Dr Vankar claimed to have found 9.19 parts per million (ppm) of Endosulfan in water samples. Endosulfan’s water solubility is 0.32 ppm. The figure claimed by her is nearly 30 times higher than the known solubility of Endosulfan and exceeds the water solubility of Endosulfan by over 2,800%.
· A lethal concentration of Endosulfan in human blood is 0.86 ppm. But, 115.19 ppm of Endosulfan residue was found in the blood samples of one Dr Mohan Kumar (an activist associated with Pesticide Action Network-PAN).
What can only be described as a move to create a media stir did just that. Newspapers soon flashed claims that ‘alarmingly high levels’ of Endosulfan residues had been found in samples of filtered water, milk, fruits and blood samples collected from Padre village in Kasargod district, Kerala. Since then, several claims alleging that the pesticide has been ‘suspected’ of ‘killing’ 400 persons and harming countless more have been made. Most comments featured in the articles are purely hearsay and have simply no scientific support.
Similarly, the Congress polity in Kerala has created a furore against Mr CD Mayee and his report dismissing the Kasargod claims. No one has scientifically contested the findings of his committee. Yet, increasing pressure is being mounted on the state and central governments to accede to his resignation and a total ban on Endosulfan in India
Why Only Kerala?
Endosulfan is widely used in quantities exceeding 1,000 KL in the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal . Kerala has traditionally used very little Endosulfan, in comparison only a reported 550 litres. Yet, no health incidences have been reported in the former listed regions. Even in Kerala, the Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK) stopped aerial-spraying way back in 2000. When it was practiced, it was done one to two times a year by spraying the equivalent of 300 ml—just about a glassful of the pesticide per acre.
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Fraud NIOH report
In 2002, National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), Ahmedabad published a study titled, “Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre Village of Kasargode district (N. Kerala)”. It was followed by another study made by the NIOH titled, “Effect of Endosulfan on Male Reproductive Development.” Both of these studies have become available on internet for public access. During thorough readings of these reports, scientists and experts have noted that the studies have several serious scientific errors relating to the residue analysis of Endosulfan.
Analytical Errors in the NIOH report
The NIOH report named ‘Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre village, of Kasargode district (N. Kerala),’ had fundamental inconsistencies as was observed by scientists and experts.
Chemical residue analyses are performed on a sophisticated analytical instrument known as Gas Chromatography (GC) fitted with an Electron Capture Detector (ECD). Each GC-ECD has a lower limit for the minimum amount of a chemical that it can detect. This is expressed as Instrument Detection Limit (IDL). For the study under question, the NIOH had used GC-ECD (HP Model 6890) with the minimum IDL of 1 part per billion (1 ppb) for Endosulfan. In other words, the instrument used by the NIOH could not detect Endosulfan residues lower than 1 ppb. Yet, the NIOH report carries residue findings as low as 0.4 ppb and 0.5 ppb. Simply put, the residue levels reported by the NIOH fall below the minimum detection limit of the instrument used. These findings are scientifically indemonstrable, and are false and incorrect claims.
Since, the raw data recorded by the NIOH for generating Endosulfan residue data in water, soil and blood samples were fundamentally flawed, its subsequent analysis is even more peculiar. For instance, the table no. 4 in the report shows the total Endosulfan (ppb) in six samples as 0.030 ± 0.18. Annexure -8 shows ß Endosulfan residues as 0.0005± 0.001. It may be observed here is that the standard deviation goes beyond the mean (average) by up to 500 per cent.
The Most Clinching Evidence: Modern GC-ECDs are fitted with computers that process the data gathered from the detectors into chromatograms and finally produce an easy-to-view report. Normal practices of a residue-testing laboratory require that copies of chromatograms of analysed samples are retained and stored in the laboratory/computer for future reference in case of any dispute. Therefore, letters were sent to NIOH under Right to Information Act (RTI Act) seeking copies of chromatograms relevant to this study. NIOH did not respond to requests for parting with raw data until the intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner. The case was heard at the Information Commission and it took three hearings and two orders by the Chief Information Commissioner for NIOH’s appellate authority to finally handover the 1,700 pages of raw data. The varying and inconsistent excuses given by the NIOH while refusing required information under the RTI Act were revealing signs of a cover-up. On examining the data, experts learned that the analysis conducted by NIOH had sure laboratory failings. The conclusions drawn did not corroborate with the raw data and the complete analysis is now being believed to be forged.
Many erroneous reports emerged after the NIOH study that was proved to be fundamentally flawed. Among these was another noted NIOH report, ‘Effect of Endosulfan on Male Reproductive Development.’ Kasargod-based NGO Thanal, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) and National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmadabad (NIOH) have all produced reports linking Endosulfan to adverse health problems including cancer, infertility, birth defects and neurotic disorder. There were numerous scientific flaws in these reports too. For instance, CSE found Endosulfan residues of 9.91 ppm (parts per million) in filtered water samples taken from Padre village. The dissolved chemical concentration in water cannot exceed the solubility of the chemical. Endosulfan’s water solubility is 0.32 ppm. The analytical methodology used by CSE for estimation of Endosulfan residue was scientifically incorrect and inconsistent. CSE’s claim of 9.19 ppm is scientifically implausible. It violates the basic laws of chemistry.
Supported internationally by PAN, EJF (Environment Justice Foundation) and I-PEN (International POP’s Elimination Network) NGOs with vested interests have effectively used media to generate a negative public perception of Endosulfan. Despite the inconsistencies, international conventions and regulatory authorities worldwide have referenced the NIOH report while reviewing Endosulfan, including the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions. Recently, the National Human Rights Commission has pressed the Central Government for a nation-wide ban on Endosulfan based on the same report.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Farmers address their plight to the Prime Minister, India
This letter is a prove to all the people who believe endosulfan to be harmful.The farmers, end users of this molecule dare to address the Prime Minister of India and make him aware about the orchestrated activities conducted in Kerala to ban endosulfan.
These are the Real Endosulfan Victims!!
For food security. For Farmers Welfare. Save Endosulfan
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60088018@N02/5496913562/
These are the Real Endosulfan Victims!!
For food security. For Farmers Welfare. Save Endosulfan
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60088018@N02/5496913562/
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Do we really have alternatives to Endosulfan?
In India, the use of Endosulfan is much more critical. It is the most widely used generic pesticide in India with significant use in crops such as cotton, pulses, tea, mango, vegetables and oilseeds. It is the only pesticide which is soft on pollinating insects such as honeybees and beneficial insects such as ladybird beetles and chrysoperla, among others. In fact, Endosulfan is widely recommended for use during pollination and in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Insect Resistance Management (IRM) programs globally. Farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh are the largest users of Endosulfan in India, each using more than a million liters of the generic contact pesticide. They will stand to lose most of all in case of a move to ban the nation-wide use of Endosulfan. The alternatives available to them are expensive, and not nearly as effective on precious cash-crops.
Cost Comparison: Endosulfan and its Alternatives
| Product | MRP per Lt or Kg | Cost per acre | ||
Cotton | Veg | Paddy | ||
| Endosulfan 35% EC | 286 | 114 | 46 | 69 |
| Flubendiamide 39.35 SC | 13800 | 690 | 276 | |
| Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC | 12280 | 737 | 246 | 737 |
| Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG | 8400 | 739 | 672 | |
| Flubendiamide 20% WG | 7434 | 743 | 372 | |
| Thiamethoxam actera | 4010 | 321 | 321 | 160 |
| Indoxacarb 14.5 SC | 3400 | 680 | 544 |
India’s premier agricultural university, Punjab Agricultural University, which in 2007 compared bio-efficacy of all contemporary insecticides, ranked Endosulfan as the best and most ideal for use in cotton crops.
Performance of various insecticides against insect pests and safety to natural enemies of cotton
| Insecticides | Insect Pests | Natural enemies | Remarks | |||||
| J | W | PBW/SBW | ABW | TC | ||||
| Young | Grown up | |||||||
| Endosulfan | Good | Good | Good | Good | Poor | Very good | Safe | Safer to the natural enemies, low resistance to ABW early in the season |
| Synthetic pyrethroids | ||||||||
| Poor | Poor | Very poor | Poor | Poor | Poor | Toxic | Excessive use can cause resurgence of whitefly and ABW, high level of resistance to ABW | |
J= Jassid; W= Whitefly; SBW= Spotted bollworm; PBW= Pink bollworm; ABW= American bollworm; TC= Tobacco caterpillar
Source: Punjab Agricultural University, India
Source: Punjab Agricultural University, India
Monday, February 28, 2011
For people who feel NIOH study is the final report on Endosulfan
In response to claims connecting Endosulfan with human disorders in Kerala and Dakshina Kannada, six committees and expert groups including representatives from health, environment and agriculture departments were set up by the Govt of Kerala, Govt of India and the Govt of Karnataka to investigate into the reported linkage of Endosulfan with the various incidences of adverse health effects. Each committee has concluded that none of the alleged victims were proven to be affected by Endosulfan. The findings of these committees have been methodically dismissed and barely presented in the media.
Many NGOs have produced reports linking Endosulfan to adverse health problems including cancer, infertility, birth defects and neurotic disorder. These reports were based on the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) report which is proved to have been flawed. Despite this, international conventions and regulatory authorities worldwide have referenced this report while reviewing Endosulfan in both, the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Recently, the National Human Rights Commission has also demanded a nationwide ban on Endosulfan based on this faulty report. Media, polity and other vested interests are also pressuring the government into discontinuing the studies on Endosulfan as they are already aware of what the results would be.
NIOH Errors: The NIOH report of 2002 titled ‘Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre village, of Kasargode district (N. Kerala),’ had fundamental inconsistencies as was observed by scientists and experts.
Chemical residue analyses are performed on a sophisticated analytical instrument known as Gas Chromatography (GC) fitted with an Electron Capture Detector (ECD). Each GC-ECD has a lower limit for the minimum amount of a chemical that it can detect. This is expressed as Instrument Detection Limit (IDL). For the study under question, the NIOH had used GC-ECD (HP Model 6890) with the minimum IDL of 1 part per billion (1 ppb) for Endosulfan. In other words, the instrument used by the NIOH could not detect Endosulfan residues lower than 1 ppb. Yet, the NIOH report carries residue findings as low as 0.4 ppb and 0.5 ppb. Simply put, the residue levels reported by the NIOH fall below the minimum detection limit of the instrument used. These findings are scientifically indemonstrable, and are false and incorrect claims.
Since, the raw data recorded by the NIOH for generating Endosulfan residue data in water, soil and blood samples were fundamentally flawed, its subsequent analysis is even more peculiar. For instance, the table no. 4 in the report shows the total Endosulfan (ppb) in six samples as 0.030 ± 0.18. Annexure -8 shows β Endosulfan residues as 0.0005± 0.001. It may be observed here is that the standard deviation goes beyond the mean (average) by up to 500 per cent.
Modern GC-ECDs are fitted with computers that process the data gathered from the detectors into chromatograms and finally produce an easy-to-view report. Normal practices of a residue-testing laboratory require that copies of chromatograms of analysed samples are retained and stored in the laboratory/computer for future reference in case of any dispute. Therefore, letters were sent to NIOH under Right to Information Act (RTI Act) seeking copies of chromatograms relevant to this study. NIOH did not respond to requests for parting with raw data until the intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner. The case was heard at the Information Commission and it took three hearings and two orders by the Chief Information Commissioner for NIOH’s appellate authority to finally handover the 1,700 pages of raw data. The varying and inconsistent excuses given by the NIOH while refusing required information under the RTI Act were revealing signs of a cover-up. On examining the data, experts learned that the analysis conducted by NIOH had sure laboratory failings. The conclusions drawn did not corroborate with the raw data and the complete analysis is now being believed to be forged.
Source: http://whybanendosulfan.org/facts-vs-myths.htm
Many NGOs have produced reports linking Endosulfan to adverse health problems including cancer, infertility, birth defects and neurotic disorder. These reports were based on the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) report which is proved to have been flawed. Despite this, international conventions and regulatory authorities worldwide have referenced this report while reviewing Endosulfan in both, the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions. Recently, the National Human Rights Commission has also demanded a nationwide ban on Endosulfan based on this faulty report. Media, polity and other vested interests are also pressuring the government into discontinuing the studies on Endosulfan as they are already aware of what the results would be.
NIOH Errors: The NIOH report of 2002 titled ‘Report of the investigations of unusual illnesses allegedly produced by Endosulfan exposure in Padre village, of Kasargode district (N. Kerala),’ had fundamental inconsistencies as was observed by scientists and experts.
Chemical residue analyses are performed on a sophisticated analytical instrument known as Gas Chromatography (GC) fitted with an Electron Capture Detector (ECD). Each GC-ECD has a lower limit for the minimum amount of a chemical that it can detect. This is expressed as Instrument Detection Limit (IDL). For the study under question, the NIOH had used GC-ECD (HP Model 6890) with the minimum IDL of 1 part per billion (1 ppb) for Endosulfan. In other words, the instrument used by the NIOH could not detect Endosulfan residues lower than 1 ppb. Yet, the NIOH report carries residue findings as low as 0.4 ppb and 0.5 ppb. Simply put, the residue levels reported by the NIOH fall below the minimum detection limit of the instrument used. These findings are scientifically indemonstrable, and are false and incorrect claims.
Since, the raw data recorded by the NIOH for generating Endosulfan residue data in water, soil and blood samples were fundamentally flawed, its subsequent analysis is even more peculiar. For instance, the table no. 4 in the report shows the total Endosulfan (ppb) in six samples as 0.030 ± 0.18. Annexure -8 shows β Endosulfan residues as 0.0005± 0.001. It may be observed here is that the standard deviation goes beyond the mean (average) by up to 500 per cent.
Modern GC-ECDs are fitted with computers that process the data gathered from the detectors into chromatograms and finally produce an easy-to-view report. Normal practices of a residue-testing laboratory require that copies of chromatograms of analysed samples are retained and stored in the laboratory/computer for future reference in case of any dispute. Therefore, letters were sent to NIOH under Right to Information Act (RTI Act) seeking copies of chromatograms relevant to this study. NIOH did not respond to requests for parting with raw data until the intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner. The case was heard at the Information Commission and it took three hearings and two orders by the Chief Information Commissioner for NIOH’s appellate authority to finally handover the 1,700 pages of raw data. The varying and inconsistent excuses given by the NIOH while refusing required information under the RTI Act were revealing signs of a cover-up. On examining the data, experts learned that the analysis conducted by NIOH had sure laboratory failings. The conclusions drawn did not corroborate with the raw data and the complete analysis is now being believed to be forged.
Source: http://whybanendosulfan.org/facts-vs-myths.htm
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Endosulfan is Safe!
Since Endosulfan is a contact insecticide as opposed to a systemic one, it is not absorbed into crops or the food chain. It cannot bio-accumulate in the human body as it is continually degraded by metabolism to a lesser state of hazard.
- The Endosulfan evaluations conducted in 1998 by World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues have recorded that no genotoxic activity was observed in an adequate battery of tests for mutagenecity and clastogenecity. This study categorically mentioned that no evidence was found to prove estrogenic activity involving Endosulfan.
- Endosulfan has been certified by WHO and FAO to not cause cancer, birth defects or any hormonal imbalance on contact.
- It is the opinion of the UN Environment Programme, International Labour Organisation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) and California Department of Pesticide Registration, that Endosulfan has no carcinogenic potential.
- In 2007, US-EPA established that Endosulfan is not an anti-androgen, i.e. it does not affect sperm production, sperm count, motility, and the like.
- A peer review by Silva and Gammon (2009) declared that Endosulfan is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant or an endocrine disruptor.
- The WHO has classified Endosulfan as a Class II–moderately hazardous insecticide.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Effects of Endosulfan on Pollinators and Beneficials
Pollination determines the life of flowers, fruits and crops. It is estimated that every third morsel we consume is a result of pollination. The honey bee is among the most effective pollinators. 90 per cent of pollination in cross-pollinated crops like oil-seeds, vegetables, fruits and cereals is aided by honey bees alone. According to the National Bee Board, Government of India, honey bees help increase yields of fruits like pear, litchi and apple, to the extent of 240–6,014%, 4,538–10,246% and 180–6,950% respectively. So, honey bee pollination is paramount in the cultivation of food crops. Similarly, certain insects such as ladybird beetle, chrysoperla and trichograma are beneficial to crops. Being naturally available, these insects are vital farming inputs available to farmers at no cost. However, they face a real threat of eradication by most insecticides used in fields today.
Farmers in warm and tropical countries generally experience pest attack and honey bee pollination at around the same time. However, the use of pesticides such as neonecotinoids aimed at the former, works by eliminating both. If used at the flowering stage, this results in drastically reduced yields. An ideal pesticide is characterised by effectiveness against target pests, but softness towards pollinators and beneficials. One of the few pesticides with this virtue is Endosulfan. Endosulfan is comparable only to neem in terms of its softness on honey bees.
Endosulfan in IPM systems: Endosulfan is an excellent tool for precision farming. While being soft on beneficial insects, it eliminates 60 kinds of pests that attack 29 crops including cereals, legumes, oilseeds, fruit, nuts, vegetables, cotton and ornamental plants...http://www.whybanendosulfan.org/pollinators-and-beneficials.htm
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
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.
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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)