By Rich Bowden:
WWF Australia has called on the country’s pesticide regulator to follow the lead of the United States and ban the controversial toxic pesticide endosulfan.
The environmental group pointed out in a statement last week that endosulfan remains approved for use in Australia, despite being banned in around 65 countries throughout the world, including the European Union and several Asian and African countries.
The use of endosulfan — an organochlorine compound in use since the 1950s — has been criticised by environmental organizations because of its high toxicity and potential for ecological disruption. It is used in some areas of Australian agriculture such as cotton, macadamia and some horticultural crops, and was recently implicated in fish deformities in a Noosa River fish hatchery,* said WWF Australia in a June 10 press release.
In a clear hint that it thinks regulatory body the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is not doing its job adequately, WWF spokesperson Nick Heath said despite the fact that endosulfan being considered for a global ban under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, APVMA had declared the pesticide as being safe for Australian agricultural purposes.
However renewed pressure is mounting in the country to ban the controversial chemical in the wake of a decision to phase out the chemical by the US Environmental Protection Authority, who said earlier this week that endosulfan “… can pose unacceptable neurological and reproductive risks to farmworkers and wildlife and can persist in the environment.”
The removal from use of the pesticide was based on new research from the agency which had given a better assessment of the ecological and worker risks from endosulfan, EPA said in a June 9 press release.
In a move welcomed by environmental groups, EPA said it was “…currently working out the details of the decision that will eliminate all endosulfan uses, while incorporating consideration of the needs for growers to timely move to lower-risk pest control practices.” The Authority said the chemical was in current use in the country’s cotton, potato, tomato, and apple crops.
Mr Heath said the delay in action from the Australian regulator in banning the chemical was risking the health of both Australian farmers and the environment adding that Australian farmers had not been adequately advised of the risks of using the pesticide.
“Australian farmers have not been adequately informed of the risks associated with endosulfan and other toxic pesticides,” he said, “Australia has to urgently catch up with the rest of the world and ban this highly toxic chemical.”
However the APVMA have claimed the pesticide has been under tight control since 2005 and gave a hint they would review their earlier decisions. “There’s been some quite significant research in recent times,” the APVMA’s Simon Cubit told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Rural News.
For a more regional example of how to deal with regulating endosulfan, the country’s regulators need look no further than across the Tasman where neighbor New Zealand has banned the pesticide since January 2009 after a concerted and sustained campaign by environmental groups and the country’s Green Party.
*The APVMA has ruled out endosulfan as the cause of the deformities found in the Noosa River hatchery after an investigation.
Share on Facebook
very nice post, i actually love this web site, carry on it
"Dave Hackenberg" is a fraud. This is obviously Ganesan from the Indian Chemicals Council or someone else closely associated with the Indian endosulfan industry. He's using the same BS arguments–almost verbatim–from the penintl.org website and ICC press releases. What's most disgusting is that he's posing as Dave Hackenberg–the beekeeper who first recognized CCD. Shame on you.
Kiwi, if what I mention here is untrue, all I ask is to prove me wrong. I am not regular blogger but your angst is not clear! I have worked on farms in hot summers. You cannot work without pesticides and IPM practices are a must to balance farm environment. All this storm in the tea cup! I know that endosulfan is used in Tea farms in India. Can you check if they have any deformities? I would like to know. I use it on my citrus – my Dad used it as well. We have had no physical problems. I have 4 kids and my Dad had 6! There is a lot of mindset built by campaigners who are inspired by Erin Brockovich! But sometimes stories are reversed! Our mistakes with DDT costs African children their lives – they lose as much as 360-400 kids to Malaria! So much for the environmentalists – they saved the bald eagles and killed the bald africans! Dave
Dear Kiwi. I also think Dave has strongly overreacted. However I myself am involved in IPM and from scientific point of view Endosulfan is as dangerous as Dimethoate (the last one still in active use in EU). You can check yourself the comparison of both.
I'd like to draw your attention to one thing. Please kindly inform me and all the publicity when did the critics on Endosulfan start? Well it started in the moment when EU was not anymore able to compete in pricing with countries like China and India. Before that EU countries were manufacturing and using Endosulfan very widely. Note that not even one incident was notified within these almost 60 years.
EU sponsored making fraud report on Endosulfan. Scientifically not acceptable data are circulating in internet for people who have no knowledge and just behave like activists blindly following monopolies like EU.
APVMA did their job. The moment EPA said that Endosulfan MIGHT be dangerous, APVMA conducted study to check this, applied restrictions so that farmers can use Endosulfan safety for them and environment.
See Kiwi I'm not saying Endosulfan can be drunk like milk. It's pesticide. It's aim is to kill. But this is the only pesticide that is not killing honey bee for example. Honey bee guarantees you 1/3 of global food. New insecticides that were suppose to replace Endosulfan – the neonicotinoids – caused more harm than you can imagine. I think that every country should have freedom to decide on their own. And not be forced to ban molecules. If you will follow nicely the official statements, you will find out that the most reason for banning Endosulfan in different countries was not its haphazardness but the fact that it is not in use in EU.
And it's true what Dave said. Endosulfan is not banned in EU. It's in the same situation as thousands other molecules, which were not protected by the manufacturers due to the small market possibilities. If you will check the pesticides data base of EU will see that Endosulfan is just NOT INCLUDED into ANNEX 1.
I hope this will give you a different angle of perspective on this topic.
Firstly, EU has NOT banned Endosulfan. Italy used it on hazel nuts just few months ago. In USA too the declaration by Makhteshim Agan to not register endosulfan (citing reasons of costs for research compared to lower market size) has been accepted by EPA. Makhteshim and EPA stand by the merits of the endosulfan and I think the writer has not read the EPA’s 135 paged report. By pinning the action, having attributed effects of endosulfan to health of farmworkers, is USEPA willing to ban all chemicals in farmers and manufacturing units? I wait to hear them! I can imagine USEPA being concerned about health of farmworkers but as a user of Endosulfan I am not certain about the reasons for eliminating its use. Clearly, there is no reason to ban! EU too has not included the endosulfan in annex I which means once there is fresh reseach and data any manufacture will be able to register endosulfan in EU.
It is not a mystery to see how EU is movtivated commercially to restrict or eliminate endosulfan only after Bayer decided to stop making it (citing its low costs being an off patent and low profit margins!). Bayer did not register endosulfan and eventually the pesticide was out of EU. It has nothing to do with the merits of product.
New Zealand’s decision to eliminate endosulfan has risen from the export restrictions it was facing from EU countries. To save the trouble Kiwis stopped use of endosulfan. It was nothing to do with endosulfan’s mal effects!
By eliminating Endosulfan we are now using the same peacemeal wisdom handed by USA and EU when evaluation DDT! Thanks Dave.
Rubbish!
And I'll detail why in a bit. But this dribble from Hackenberg can be dismissed. If Hackenberg wants to poison himself and produce deformed children, that's his business. But his decision to inject this poison into the environment and affect the rest of us is irresponsible in the extreme. It is astonishing that someone with such sociopathic tendencies is allowed to walk free on the earth.
More detail on the looming demise of Endosulfan to come, including correction to Heckenberg's lies above.
Kiwi
Dear Kiwi,
Thanks for your contribution to the \”Calls for Endosulfan Ban\” article. With regard to your comments, I note that you have some expertise on the issue and would like to offer you space on theangle.org to write an opinion piece on the subject if you are interested.
If you have time to take me up on the offer, please let me know at this address and we can discuss further details of the article. We are unable of offer compensation at this stage of our development unfortunately but would be more than willing to publicise any articles/books/websites that you wish.
Looking forward to your reply.
Best wishes
Rich Bowden
Co-founder, editor
theangle.org