Minister’s Journey From Cabinet to Endosulfan

According to a report in the newspaper “The Hindu”, the former Karnataka Minister for Rural Development Ms. Shobha Karandlaje was forced to resign from the Karnataka Cabinet. http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article76803.ece

She has taken up a new role as a leader of a campaign for a nationwide ban on endosulfan. According to the newspaper, Ms. Shobha Karandlaje said that people in the Puttur and Belthangdi taluks were suffering from cancer, diseases affecting the central nervous system, skin diseases, respiratory disorders, eye problems and impotency, all of which could be linked to the use of the pesticide.

Endosulfan is neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic. In fact there is an evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans and hence Endosulfan is classified under Class-E by US Environment Protection Agency (US EPA).

Endosulfan is being used in many countries including Australia, India and USA. This is because it is soft to bees and beneficial insects and it is important in integrated pest management. It is also effective in resistance management. Moreover, Endosulfan is an off-patent generic molecule available to farmer at an affordable price.

Evaluation of Suggestions

Endosulfan is an off-patent, generic pesticide available to farmers at an affordable price. Since the product is off-patent, there cannot be any monopoly, as a result of which it is available to farmers at a low price.

Endosulfan is a molecule effective on target pests and at the same time, it is soft to non-target beneficial insects and bees. It is also useful in pesticide resistance management and very useful in IPM programmes. This has made Endosulfan very popular among farmers. Those who have used it in an “appropriate manner” are benefited.

No other molecule exhibits all advantages of Endosulfan, considering effectiveness and economic feasibility.

If Endosulfan is not available, farmers will have to use more than one products, and that too in larger proportion to achieve an equivalent effectiveness. Moreover, since the other products will have to be used in a comparatively much larger proportion, it will in fact add to environmental load.

The activists who propose to ban Endosulfan have not evaluated effectiveness and economic feasibility of alternatives. They simply say that there are alternatives to Endosulfan, but they have not even evaluated them.

Activists also suggest that we can do without any pesticide. This is not feasible at the scale required to be handled. If this was possible, farmers would not have used pesticides as it only adds to cost. Needless to say, what number of people are to be provided with adequate food?

Activists are benefited by giving such suggestions. There are companies/organizations which provide funds for such activities. All done at the cost of farmers and those who struggle for food.