Villagers win temporary reprieve against endosulfan spraying

People in Kasaragod living within the range of a cashew nut plantation regularly sprayed with endosulfan have suffered appalling health effects for years. Usha Jayakumar reports.

In the Southern Indian State of Kerala, some communities suffering severe health problems trace these to endosulfan exposure, and have campaigned for an end to the spraying. The relief was palpable when the government of Kerala banned its use in the state in August 2001. But in March 2002 the government lifted the ban, quoting Section 27 of the Indian Insecticide Act, that the state has no power to ban a chemical beyond 90 days. In August 2002 Kerala courts granted a temporary temporary stay.
    The government order lifting the ban on endosulfan was based on the recommendation of a committee it appointed in March 2001. Dr. Achyuthan, convenor of this committee, was the Director of Agriculture and in charge of plant protection activities in the Kerala. Other members were scientists from Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), who had recommended the use of endosulfan, and a pathologist from the Calicut Medical College. The people of Kasaragod were concerned with both the constitution of the committee and with its terms of reference, which were biased towards proving that endosulfan was not the cause of their health problems. These concerns were swept aside, and the enquiry began in September 2001. The agrochemical industry, and particularly Excel which is the main endosulfan manufacturer in India, actively lobbied for reinstatement of use.
    During the investigation, six study teams visited Padre village: one from the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE); two from KAU; one from Dr Achyuthan’s committee; and one from the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) under the Indian Council for Medical Research. A sixth study by the Frederick Institute of Plant Protection and Toxicology, Chennai (FIPPAT) submitted a report for the Plantation Corporation of Kerala (PCK), the company spraying endosulfan.
    The CSE study, carried out one month after the last aerial spraying of endosulfan, revealed high levels of endosulfan in blood samples – up to 189 parts per million (ppm). Environmental samples also showed endosulfan. However mainstream scientists rejected the results, believing it impossible to survive with this level of endosulfan in the blood.
    The KAU study was carried one month later. Their samples only found traces of endosulfan in water and cashew leaves. The local Endosulfan Spray Protest Action Committee (ESPAC) have released a report detailing their concerns with its findings. The FIPPAT study was carried out three months after the last spraying and found no endosulfan residue in blood samples. 
    Dr Achyuthan`s Committee did not take samples, but visited two villages and held a public hearing in Kasaragod town, 35 km from the most affected village. The Committee rejected the CSE study, but accepted the KAU and FIPPAT studies. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the absence of proof could not be taken as proof that the chemical was absent. It recommended a five-year pesticide moratorium for one village (Padre), but accepted the need for application of other chemicals. It suggested a need for more studies. The NIOH study was undertaken at the request of the National Human Rights Commission took blood samples from both adults and children 10 months after the last endosulfan spray. All still showed traces of endosulfan. 
    Citing only the Achyuthan Committee report, the Agriculture Secretary lifted the blanket ban on endosulfan in plantations and crops in Kerala. The people of Kasargod felt extremely let down by this order. They are supported by environmental and human rights activists in their right, and that of their children, for a healthy environment. 
    Villagers welcomed an order of the High Court of Kerala in August which substantially supported their case. Although stressing this was a precautionary measure, the Court ruled that "the use of ENDOSULFAN, or any of its formulations under any of the trade names, shall not be permitted within the State …"1 The order is, however, made pending further decision by the central government.

1. The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, O.P. Nos. 20716/2002, 17026/2002, 16300/2002 and 29371 of 2001, 12 August, 2002.

Thanal Conservation Action and Information Network, thanal@md4.vsnl.net.in

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 57, September 2002, page 7]