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.
No comments:
Post a Comment