THE ENDOSULFAN "LOVING"GOVERNMENT!-ACTION WITHOUT CONSCIENCE!

Does the Government of India love the ominous pesticide Endosulfan so much that it seems to have lost its conscience, when the Supreme Court was told that this pesticide is "unlikely" to cause any health hazard in spite of 72 countries in the world banning it out right because of its role in many health disorders?. Alternately the powerful Endosulfan lobby has been able to make the government impotent due to considerations other than technical. One must recall that Dr Achutan Commission in August 2001 categorically concluded that an entire population in a district in Kerala suffered from Endosulfan induced health disorders based on evidence collected by spending time among the affected population. It appears that the present team being led by the DG of ICMR has come to a different conclusion in suggesting that the health disorders in that district must be due to congenital factors which should be investigated by the sate government, in stead of blaming the "innocent" Endosulfan! Having agreed to ban this much hated chemical at the Stockholm Convention, does GOI has any conscience left to plead in the Supreme Court to lift the temporary ban which is in place to day? Adding insult to injury, the Endosulfan manufacturers have engaged a senior lawyer of the ruling party for defending its indefensible stand, clearly pointing out its anti-people stance when it comes to lobbyists and power brokers!.

"Maintaining that Endosulfan is unlikely to cause any public health concern or hazard, the Centre has urged the Supreme Court to lift the ban imposed on its production and sale in May this year. In its response to a petition filed by the Democratic Youth Federation of India, the Centre said that long-term use of the pesticide was unlikely to present public health concern. The Centre made it clear that Endosulfan was not the reason behind health problems in Kasaragod in Kerala. On May 13, the court, while banning its use all over India, directed the statutory authorities to freeze the production licences granted to the manufacturers of Endosulfan till further orders. The Court also formed an expert committee to go into all aspects of Endosulfan and asked the Centre to submit a report. Enclosing the report, the Centre, in its affidavit, said: "There is an overall weight of evidence from in-vitro and in-vivo screening tests that Endosulfan is not an endocrine disruptor. It is reported that Endosulfan is either carcinogenic or mutagenic. There is no evidence to suggest that Endosulfan bioaccumulates." Further "it is noteworthy that a number of countries that have banned this chemical have done so as a precautionary measure due to suspected long-term effects on human health. Use of Endosulfan has been put on hold in Kerala also as a precautionary measure. The tragedy in Kasaragod was due to aerial spraying of Endosulfan. A number of countries that have banned Endosulfan have done so as they have very low level of agricultural activities."

What is more interesting is that GOI cited studies published in 2006 for supporting its stand while world has traveled a lot during the last 5 years. If the world community has taken a decision in 2011 to ban this pesticide based on scientific evidence, GOI cannot claim that it is only right in saying there is no safety problem and allowing the use of the chemical in India. Do the Indian citizens have no right to live in a safe environment, compared to those in other countries where the pesticide has been banned? Are they second class denizens in this planet with their lives being dispensable? If the argument of GOI is to be believed, compared to India, other countries banning this pesticide have low agricultural activities! What does this mean? This stand reinforces the need to discontinue use of this chemical immediately in the country because of greater chance for damage among population. Further it has the cheek to say that Endosulfan is not an endocrine disruptor, in spite of massive evidence contradicting this stand! One can only hope that Supreme Court will see through the real intention of GOI, that is to support the pesticide industry and protect the honest citizens of this country from such government supported practices of slow poisoning .

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE PESTICIDE "TUSSLE"-IMPACT ON FOOD FRONT

Insecticides and pesticides, thousands in number evoke bitter feeling amongst many consumer activists who feel that these are slow poisons affecting adversely the health of billions of people on this planet. The gruesome tragedy of Bhopal is still fresh in the memory of many people in India and there are hundreds of such cases where pesticides have caused heavy damages to the agriculturists, consumers and people exposed to these deadly chemicals. Of course mankind is pulled between the necessity to increase food production and freedom from health hazards and use of chemicals as crop protectants is supposed to be based on an analysis of cost, benefits and risks. Unfortunately when most of the pesticides were approved for use, the science of nutrition, health, analytical techniques etc were some what primitive and it is only to day that these aspects are better understood. The birth of organic food industry can be attributed to the inherent dangers of using pesticides and if this industry is growing at a phenomenal pace thanks are due to the indiscriminate use of pesticides and the dangers pose by them.

"Environmentalists are once again taking aim at our nation's food supply in the debate over pesticide use.

And if those groups are victorious, up to 80 percent of Washington's farmland could be affected. The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Environmental Protection Agency in January, alleging that the EPA failed to demonstrate due diligence in consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service about new pesticides. Farmers are concerned, to say the least. The lawsuit could jettison the use of 380 pesticides used in 49 states, said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. That's a problem. Pesticides are used to, well, control pests of all manner -- bugs, weeds, fungus and more. The use of pesticides increases crop production, decreases back-breaking weed-pulling by workers and creates more appealing produce free of scars left by hungry bugs. Without pesticides, food would cost more, and there would be less of it. Millions of workers would be needed to pull weeds that threaten to overtake crops. Insects could wipe out entire crops for the season. No one wants to trade the health of our rivers and lakes for the health of our agricultural industry, but it's possible to marry responsible stewardship with modern farming practices".

Nearer home the fierce fight between the Central Government at Delhi and some State Governments for banning Endosulfan, one of the cheapest pesticides available, is assuming international dimension with the recent Stockholm Convention recommending its ban once for all. The Government of Kerala which is in the forefront in campaigning for the ban of this chemical has graphic accounts of population in one of the districts with predominant cashew plantations suffering from a multitude of health problems, some of them proving to be fatal. While banning use of chemical pesticides is fraught with tremendous future implications vis-a-vis global food security, mankind has no other alternative but to look for alternative options as being done by the fossil fuel industry facing future energy insecurity.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com