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.

Source: http://whybanendosulfan.org/endosulfan-in-india.htm#niohreport

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/

Unknown facts about Endosulfan

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

‘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.

Source: http://expressbuzz.com/cities/hyderabad/%E2%80%98move-to-ban-endosulfan-will-hit-indian-farmers%E2%80%99/246486.html

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

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.

http://www.whybanendosulfan.org

Fabricated False Evidence against Endosulfan

Activists have created stories and have fabricated false evidence against Endosulfan. Obviously they were funded for carrying out campaigns against Endosulfan. 

Many useful products like Endosulfan have become off-patent today, in due course of time. As anyone can manufacture these products, there is competition in the market. Consequently, these products have become available at an affordable price, and poor consumers are benefited. But some companies launch a campaign against such off-patent products through activists, with a view to prejudice people and impose a ban on such products. The result will be that, the off-patent products will be off-market. On one hand, the consumers will suffer as they will have to pay high price for patented products, and on the other hand, the small industry will also suffer, as the off-patent products which they manufacture will be banned with the help of activists.