Endosulfan banned, conditionally

India agrees to ban the hazardous pesticide globally, asks for exemptions at home
Endosulfan banned, conditionally
Published on



IN A tactical shift in position, India agreed to a global consensus to ban endosulfan at the recent Stockholm Convention, but asked for exemptions to continue using the pesticide at home for at least five years. So far India had been resisting the ban on the grounds that scientific evidence was insufficient to prove that the pesticide was hazardous. It is the largest producer and consumer of endosulfan in the world.



The decision was taken on April 29 at the fifth Conference of Parties (COP-5) of the UN-backed convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) in Geneva. Even at this convention, observers say, India tried to circulate a draft statement on behalf of Asia Pacific countries suggesting the pesticide has no health hazards. Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan opposed it. China, also a major producer, supported a conditional ban. Later India began stressing on a consensus decision, fearing it risked being isolated if the matter was put to vote.

So far, 81 countries have banned or phasing out the pesticide, known to be an endocrine disruptor and neurotoxin; 12 others do not allow its use. In India, it is banned only in Kerala and Karnataka following health impacts in Kasaragod and Dakshin Kannada districts where endosulfan was aerially sprayed on cashew plantations for over 20 years. Activists and political leaders have welcomed India’s decision at the convention.

Exempted crops
 
  Cotton, tea, jute, onion, potatoes, lady’s finger, brinjal, gram, pigeon pea, maize, chilly, groundnut, mustard, rice, wheat and mango  
 
 
Why not immediate ban?
 
  The Supreme Court has admitted a petition by the Democratic Youth Federation of India seeking a ban on the production, sale and use of endosulfan across the country.

Hearing the petition on May 2, the bench, comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia, Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Justice Swatanter Kumar, asked the Centre to explain why there should not be an immediate ban on the pesticide against which there have been proven records of consequences on human health.

The bench has directed Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium to present the Centre’s response at the next hearing on May 11.
 
 
 

Related Stories

No stories found.
Down To Earth
www.downtoearth.org.in