About a month ago at a United Nations meeting in Geneva, scientists voted to draw up a risk management evaluation for endosulfan. This is the last step before putting endosulfan before a vote on a global ban under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs treaty). The treaty addresses chemicals that are known to strongly affect and easily accumulate in humans. The ban, if enacted, could take place as soon as 2011.
But Professor Ivan Kennedy, from the University of Sydney, says a ban could cause problems. Endosulfan is used in northern Australia to control insect pests in horticulture, but it is also linked to human health problems. “I’ve spoken to some chemical companies about possible candidates to replace endosulfan where it is used, and it’s not that clear what the replacements would be,” he says. “The danger is that they would therefore need to use higher levels of other chemicals which could actually be worse as far as the environment and human health is concerned”. The National Toxics Network say endosulfan poses unnecessary health risks and Australia should follow other countries in banning its use.
The opposition stems from the deep difference of opinion on pesticides and toxicity between the developing world and the wealthy economies of the West. India’s opposition is perhaps the most concerning as they use more endosulfan than any other country and Indian chemical companies also export the substance. The government of India, influenced by strong agricultural interests, has long opposed an endosulfan ban, arguing that the pesticide can be used safely and that a ban would discriminate against Indian agriculture. Agricultural interests in the U.S., Australia and Brazil all oppose the ban, but governments of those countries have not expressed the same public opposition as that of India.
The pesticide, a brown or cream colored powder which is sprayed on crops by airplanes and by workers on the ground, is popular for a wide range of crop usage, including cotton, cocoa, cashews, potatoes, cabbage, coffee and soybeans. The substance kills most types of insect pests and Farmers like endosulfan because it’s cheap and does not tend to create resistance.
Unfortunately, endosulfan appears to kill many other things, as well. Environmental groups have alleged poisonings from improper use of the stuff has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of agricultural workers, primarily in the developing world. In the Kerala incident, the government acknowledged that endosulfan had killed at least 135 workers.
Exposure to endosulfan in humans can impact the central nervous system and cause hyperactivity, nausea, dizziness, convulsions and, in case of high exposure, rapid death. Longer-term exposure likely damages the kidneys, reproductive organs, nervous system and the immune system.
Scientists also believe that thanks to aerial spraying of endosulfan on crop fields in California they are contributing to mysterious and terrifying frog die-offs in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In Australia, researchers have tentatively connected endosulfan with malformations of fish, including fish that have two or three heads, according to newspaper The Land.
India is clearly poised to become an economic powerhouse with its enormous population, emerging technology sector and rapidly growing economy. Along with Russia, China and Brazil, India will have a much greater say in global matters in the next decade and beyond.
If we, in Europe continue to import clothing material, most notably cotton from India and other developing countries, where chemicals such as endosulfan will be used with such scant regard of delicate ecosystems and human life, the clothing and fashion industry will never have a clear conscious and will be, as a whole accountable for the suffering of hundreds of thousands. If however, clothes manufacturers were to source their cotton locally and from environmentally friendly and sustainable sources, the demand for chemically rid cotton from developing countries would ease and the use of endosulfan would decline. Fashions change and ultimatley fashion must become eco fashion, and the textiles industry must go green and support eco clothing.
It is of course ridiculous to simply take away such an important economic resource away from countries such as India. An alternative is quite literally a matter of life and death. Without an alternative crop the suffering would only increase. However it would be an error of monumental proportions to replace something like cotton with another crop that will require the intensive use of chemicals. Thankfully there are crops which fulfill the requirements, such as hemp, which was highlighted very recently.
There are serious procedural lapses in the proceedings of the Stockholm Convention Secretariat. Disruptive conflicts of interest are involved in the risk evaluation process. Data from tropical countries has been ignored. Comments on the risk profile have been dismissed on frivolous grounds, and in discriminatory manner.
Endosulfan can be used safely. Its toxicology is not unique. Any pesticide can be abused. However, the interests of farmers should not be relegated to extraneous ones.