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

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.
http://www.whybanendosulfan.org/what-is-endosulfan.htm

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.
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/

Monday, February 14, 2011

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.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

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/

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

‘Move to ban Endosulfan will hit Indian farmers’


The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) expressed concern over European Union’s proposal to categorize Endosulfan as a persistent organic pollutant (POP).
According to PMFAI, EU’s proposed move to launch new, patented, expensive products in the Indian market will be against the interests of the farming community.
Currently, farmers use generic pesticides which are available at affordable prices. Interestingly, Anil Kakkar, director, Crop Care Federation of India, said in countries such as India where small acre farming and sustainable farming was widely prevalent, a ban on Endosulfan would deprive the Indian farmer access to an affordable and effective crop protection solution and alternatives are likely to be harmful to the farm ecosystem and destroy pollinators and beneficials.
“The European Union’s proposal to list Endosulfan as POP is against the interests of Indian farmers as they will be forced to buy patented pesticides at high prices,” said R Hariharan, chairman, International Stewardship Centre Inc (ISC). For instance, Imidachloride, a product touted as a replacement to Endosulfan costs `2,000 per litre, while other alternative pesticides such as Thiamethoxam costs `3,200 per litre and Coregen `700 a litre while Endosulfan is only `200 per litre.
According to estimates, the global crop protection industry is worth $40 billion and the top three companies alone account for over 50 per cent. “There is a strong motivation for the European multinationals to replace widely used, generic and low-priced pesticides with their high-priced patented alternatives,” said Pradip Dave, president, PMFAI.
Endosulfan is the third largest selling generic insecticide worldwide with global market in excess of 40 million liters valued at over $300 million with replacement cost of alternative estimated to be in excess of $1 billion. India’s share in global Endosulfan market is over 70 percent. Similarly, exports of Endosulfan from India are valued at $40 million.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

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

Monday, February 7, 2011

Trade body opposes ban on Endosulfan

The killer pesticide Endosulfan is in news again. With `1,300-crore market in the country, Endosulfan has been facing the wrath of environmentalists and NGOs who are demanding a ban on the pesticide. But a trade body representing pesticide manufacturers has opposed the ban, saying the chemical was not responsible for the deaths it is accused of.

The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) on Friday said Endosulfan was not responsible for the deaths and sufferings of people in Kerala’s Kasaragod. Talking to the media here, president of PMFAI Pradeep Dave alleged the environmental groups campaigning against Endosulfan were funded by the multinationals in Europe who wanted to ensure a ban on the affordable and generic pesticide to push their patented and expensive alternatives.

However, he said several expert committees were set up by the Union Government and all of them concluded that there was ‘no link established’ between Endosulfan and the alleged reports of health problems in Kasargod. Dave blamed the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) study, which was the root cause of demand for ban on Endosulfan, but it contained “unscientific and implausible” aspects.

He said, “Endosulfan was cheap at `250 a litre compared to the cost of patented alternatives that ranged from `2,000 to `8,000 a litre.”

However, India produces over 80 per cent of global production and uses 12 million litre of this pesticide. It also exported 18 million litres of this pesticide last year.

In a related development, MP and environmentalist Maneka Gandhi has urged all the State Governments to ban the pesticide. She said recently at Hubli that the use of Endosulfan has proved fatal in many cases. “It is causing huge damage to soil fertility and crops, besides severely affecting the health of people who consume crops sprayed with endosulfan,” she remarked.

SK Handa, fellow of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, said as per international norms prescribed by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), it was mandatory for residues to be reported as identified only after performing ‘confirmatory test of each sample’.

“Endosulfan cannot be blamed for diseases in Kerala. It is due to other reasons. Genetic variations in certain groups of people in Kerala could be responsible for these diseases. There are such health problems reported in other parts of Kerala where Endosulfan is not used,'” he claimed.

However, R Hariharan, chairman of Washington-based International Stewardship Centre, said the proposed listing of Endosulfan as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) was to serve European trade interest. “If generics are banned through regulatory mechanisms it becomes easier for patented molecules to expand their market share. These contentions are being exploited by the vested interest,” he alleged. 


Sunday, February 6, 2011

NIOH failed to verify the final analysis of Endosulfan residues


PMFAI defends Indian government’s position on Endosulfan
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. The flaws have been exposed through the RTI query and the masked raw data evoked public outrage when ten thousand people drew a rally in Gujarat seeking withdrawal of the flawed report. Over thousand workers in Kochi held a rally recently to seek justice for the unfairly stigmatized staff at the government run HIL plant in Kerala.
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 this report.” said Dr S K Handa. 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) and does not possess properties to cause cancer or diseases as reported in Kasargod, Kerala. Dr Handa is a Fellow of National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, has over 35 years of research experience in pesticide residues and was former WHO consultant, Ministry of Health, Government of India. He was All India Coordinator for pesticide residues, has authored several books on pesticide residue analysis and has published 120 research papers.
Mr. Pradip Dave, President, Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) indicated that several expert committees were set up by the Government of India and all of them concluded that there is no link established between Endosulfan and the alleged reports of health problems in Kasargod, Kerala. He added, “Even Government of Karnataka constituted an expert committee of very senior scientists. A detailed report was submitted in October 2004 stating that the use of Endosulfan was not responsible for the reported health problems. The report was table in the Karnataka Assembly on April 14, 2005 and accepted.”
Based on a proposal by the European Union, Endosulfan is being considered at the Stockholm Convention, to be listed as a Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP). India has rejected listing of Endosulfan as a POP due to lapse in proceedings, gaps in scientific data and lack of transparency which have been observed, reported and protested by India and other member countries. Endosulfan was invented in Europe and was manufactured and used across the entire region for over 55 years.
Clarifying the status of Endosulfan in USA, Mr. Charles Hanson – Executive Director, International Stewardship Centre clarified that “Endosulfan is not banned in the USA. It was a voluntary withdrawal by the manufacturer and sole registrants and a fall out of a congressional mandate to conduct cost prohibitive product testing for over 64 chemicals, one of which is Endosulfan. Citing small user market in USA, huge investment in research, mounting pressure and uncertainty at the international conventions, the manufacturer chose to avoid any further studies and opted for a voluntary withdrawal of Endosulfan.” There is concern amongst the farmers as USA has not found alternatives for all uses of Endosulfan. While various alternatives have been suggested as a possible replacement, many of these are known carcinogens, toxic to pollinators such as honey bees and are banned in countries like Germany and France.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

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.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Funds for Anti-Endosulfan Campaign


Thanal Conservation Action And Information Network has received a grant of $5,000/- from Global Green Grants Fund 
( www.greengrants.org.pdf/2001_report.pdf please see page 19 ) to support medical and educational efforts to 'protect' people in kerala from continued exposure to Endosulfan and other pesticides. Under pretense of such "protection", activists are launching anti-ecdosulfan campaigns for misleading innocent people.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

EU’s move to ban Endosulfan to benefit European Crop Protection Industry


The Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) held a press conference today and invited speakers who pointed to European Union’s (EU) role in steering proceedings at international chemical conventions. The Stockholm Convention has been exploited by European Commission to further its trade interests as world market leader in crop protection chemicals. A push for elimination of the generic pesticide Endosulfan will directly promote the use of patented alternatives and benefit European multinationals.
The meeting was addressed by senior members from the International Stewardship Centre Inc. (ISC) – a non-profit organization registered in Washington D.C. that holds an observer status at these conventions. Along with ISC there was participation from Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) which is focused on advancing the cause of Indian farmers through better crop protection. The speakers shared their experiences and highlighted the current status of Endosulfan and the proceedings that are likely to impact India and its agriculture in the months ahead.
Speaking to the press, Mr. Pradip Dave, President – Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) gave an overview of the international chemical trade. “Europe is a leader in the international chemicals trade which includes crop protection chemicals. The global crop protection market is valued at over US$ 40 billion. The top three companies which dominate this business are all European and account for over 50% of the global market. This market share has been built with a strong focus on patented and proprietary crop protection chemicals supported by strong regulations, driven by the European standards.” “This has been the motivation for European multinationals to replace “low priced generics” with their “expensive patented alternatives”, added Mr. Dave.
The European Union (EU) has been pushing for a global ban on Endosulfan by proposing its inclusion in the Stockholm Convention as a Persistent Organic Pollutant. As an observer at the Stockholm Convention, Mr. Charles Hanson - Executive Director of International Stewardship Centre Inc. shared that, “Aggressive campaigning by the EU and environmental NGO’s supported and funded by the EU, has resulted in a number of countries announcing a ban on Endosulfan.” Echoing the EU call, the Chemical Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention recommended the listing of Endosulfan as a Persistent Organic Pollutant despite significant data gaps and without a clear consensus on the decision.
Endosulfan is the third largest selling insecticide worldwide. Invented in Germany over 55 years ago, today it accounts for a global market in excess of 40 million liters valued at over US$ 300 million. Mr. R. Hariharan – Chairman, International Stewardship Centre Inc. (ISC) shared, “Indian companies account for over 70% 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 “patented” versus “generic” pesticides.”
 Source: Business Standard http://bit.ly/endosulfantruth