All pesticides are dangerous to some degree or other. But the question is why Endosulphan being specially singled out to be banned? Here are some facts:
1. The European Union controls 75% of the global pesticide market and they funded the Centre for Science & Environment (CS&E) to do a research study that started the whole hysteria about Endosulphan leading to its temporary ban by the Supreme Court. Some of the same NGOs who cried crocodile tears during the Anna movement however do not treat this as a clear case of conflict of interest.
2. So what does this EU funded CSE study find?
a. Endosulfan residues of 9.91 ppm (parts per million) were found in filtered water samples taken from Padre village.Conclusion: This is a scientific impossibility with Endosulfan’s water solubility being 0.32 ppm.
b. 115.19 ppm of Endosulfan residues were detected in a blood sample from Dr. Mohan Kumar, an activist associated with Pesticides Action Network (PAN).
Conclusion: Lethal concentration of Endosulfan human blood is 0.86 ppm. This means either of the two possibilities:i. Dr Mohan Kumar is an alien, possibly Superman from Planet Krypton as lethal concentration of Endosulphan in blood has no effect.ii. Dr. Mohan Kumar is human, a living testimony that proves Endosulphan is non lethal.The pro-Endosulphan lobby in this country should produce Dr Mohan Kumar as material witness to the Supreme Court to clinch their case3. All the pesticides banned globally starting from DDT so far demonstrate a distinctive pattern - they are all off-patent. Not a single on-patent pesticide has been banned to-date. The alternatives to Endosulphan are not only very expensive but they are so new, its long term impact is unknown and yet the foreign funded NGOs in the country makes only Endosulphan a subject of their ire and campaign.
4. India controls 70% of the Endosulphan global market. It is cheap and as long as it is in the market it undercuts EU's products.
5. Endosulphan has been used all over the world for over 60 years but there is no Kasargod anywhere in the world or within the country or within Kerala itself. Kerala occupies one of the least consuming states of Endosulphan. The high consuming states of Endosulphan shows no Kasargod symptoms. It is dumbfounding that charges of its harmful effects were brought to light only recently
6. Aerial spraying of Endosulphan has been extended as a cause for Kasargod. But Palghat, 100 kms was similarly aerially sprayed but shows no Kasargod symptoms.7. The individuals most regularly exposed at high concentration to Endosulphan are workers of the Hindustan Insecticide Ltd. 300 workers from the Hindustan Insecticides Limited plant manufacturing Endosulfan near Kochi at Kerala demand their blood samples to be tested. But so far NGOs including CS&E refuses to do so.
If Endosulphan were to be an on-patent pesticide of the European Union, it is evident it won’t have attracted the ire of our so called “Greens” in this country. It’s only fault it is off-patent and against the economic interests of the European Union.It is extremely distressing that our leading NGOs willingly permit themselves to be the disguised arm of the European Union to launch a trade war on our country. This comes apparently at extremely low cost for the European Union. They reportedly bought Sunita Narain and CS&E for as little as Rs 50,000. That was the costs of the research study.
The real tragedy of NGOs and environmentalism is that it has been hijacked by science illiterates evoking the precautionary principle. Originating in 1960s Germany as Vorsorgeprinzip (literally foresight planning) it has been increasingly seized upon by green activists and other romantics since the 1970s as an unanswerable credo – when considering technological innovation, exercise caution with regard to its potential consequences.
In itself the precautionary principle sounds harmless enough. We all have the right to be protected against unscrupulous applications of late twentieth century scientific advances – especially those which threaten our environment and our lives. But the principle goes much further than seeking to protect us from known or suspected risks. It argues that we should also refrain from developments which have no demonstrable risks, or which have risks that are so small that they are outweighed, empirically, by the potential benefits that would result. In the most recent application of the doctrine it is proposed that innovation should be prevented even when there is just a perception of a risk among some unspecified people.
So through bogus studies like those of CSE, and unleashing a disinformation campaign, the precautionary principle was advocated to ban Endosulphan by NGOs. The CSE is yet to withdraw their research publication. The Supreme Court unfortunately ruled an interim ban in line with the precautionary principle. For a permanent ban, it will be based on scientific evidence to be provided by a committee headed by the director general, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). That is where it stands legally.