Endosulfan is a non systemic insecticide with acaricidal properties that has been in commercial use for over 50 years. It is recommended and used for control of insects, pests and mites on fruits, vegetables, coffee, tea, spices, flowers, forage crops and non food crops such as cotton & tobacco. In addition to it’s agricultural use, Endosulfan has recently been allowed in USA (since year 2006) as a veterinary insecticide -- to be used as ear tag in both lactating and beef cattle for control of ecto-parasites.

Current global usage of Endosulfan is estimated to be in the range of 35 million litres – bringing it the position of top five generic ‘off-patent’ agricultural insecticides in the world. Countries such as China, India, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Israel, Nigeria and Sudan which account for more than 50% of world's arable area -- relay on Endosulfan for protecting their agriculture produce.

Addressing world population needs for food grains and optimize existing farms – contain arable land and conserve forests – we need effective use of our natural resources to strike this balance. Knowledge sharing and implementation of integrated crop management is necessary. Routine crop care includes pest management and this is imperative for maintaining the quality of farm produce. However, lack of knowledge with regards to usage and the applications has created a lot of confusion amongst people in general. The literature that has been published against Endosulfan lacks truth. Numerous stories related to Endosulfan which found origin in Kerala are not true. Other regions such as Punjab, Gujarat or Maharashtra in India or countries as such as USA, China, Australia, Nigeria, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico have used Endosulfan without any reports of ill effects. Endosulfan has been in use for over 50 years and as agriculturists we understand the properties of this pesticide. Based on studies conducted on Endosulfan and experience of half a decade we have arrived at some strong facts which are listed here.

TRUTH: WHO classifies Endosulfan under Class II (Moderately hazardous). Other pesticides that belong the same class include Copper Sulphate, Deltamethrin, Cypermethrin, Imidachlorpid, Propoxur, Permethrin etc.

World Health Organization (WHO) classifies pesticides into the following categories based on their intrinsic hazard.

TRUTH: Endosulfan is currently sprayed in crop fields across China, India, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Sudan, Israel and Nigeria etc. These countries have more than 50% of world's arable land. It must be mentioned that use of a particular pesticide in a country / region is crop & pest specific. Presence or absence of target crop / pest often make the difference between registration and de-registration of pesticides. No pesticide is registered / used universally in all the countries around the world. This is applicable to traditional as well as latest pesticide compounds. For example, recently introduced pesticide compounds such as Imidaclorpid and other neo-necotinoids have already been banned / restricted in several countries. Endosulfan, with an estimated consumption of 35 Million liters, ranks among the top 5 generic insecticides in the world.

TRUTH: Endosulfan is not a typical Organochlorine pesticide. In fact in 1988, WHO reclassified Endosulfan as "sulfurous ester of a chlorinated cyclic diol". In the hand book of International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the Chemical Abstracts (CA), Endosulfan is designated as a dioxathiepin.

Unlike conventional organochlorine pesticides, Endosulfan, neither persists for long nor significantly bio-accumulates in human beings and animals.

TRUTH: In a study conducted by T.S. Kathpal of Haryana Agricultural University, India – it was found that dissipation of Endosulfan occurred in the soil to an extent of 92-97% in the first four weeks following the application (Pesticide Science, 1997, 50 21-27) Endosulfan does not persist for long in the environment. In tropical and subtropical environment degradation of Endosulfan is rather faster. It is degraded by the following process.

TRUTH: One significant property of Endosulfan is that it quickly leaves the body and does not bio-accumulate. As recently as 2006, WHO had observed "Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate do not bio-accumulate in organisms due to the extensive metabolism with enzymatic hydrolysis of Endosulfan and Endosulfan Sulfate forming more polar metabolites.

TRUTH: Endosulfan is not a carcinogen (cancer causing agent). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, a body of WHO) does not classify Endosulfan to be a carcinogen. United States - Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) also supports this conclusion. Several other research publications also confirm this.

TRUTH: Evaluations by WHO / FAO / JMPR, 1998 on Endosulfan have placed on record that “no genotoxic activity was observed in an adequate battery of tests for mutagenecity and clastogenecity.” Birth defects are triggered by substances that have following characteristics:

TRUTH: WHO / FAO / JMPR, 1998 had categorically stated that there was no evidence to estrogenic activity involving Endosulfan. Besides, US- EPA, in the year 2007, concluded that Endosulfan is not an anti-androgen, i.e. it does not affect sperm production, sperm count, motility etc

TRUTH: Further to the reports that surfaced about mal effects of Endosulfan in Kerala - investigations have revealed that the incidents were particularly generated and propagated by Center for Science & Environment (CSE), an environmental NGO that receives heavy funds from Europe. As per CSE's claims -- alarming levels of Endosulfan was found in blood samples of people. It was a scientific fraud hatched by CSE. The team at CSE alleged that an activist - Dr. Mohan Kumar's blood sample had shown Endosulfan residues to the level of 119 ppm -- it is scientifically impossible as 0.86 ppm of Endosulfan residues in blood can prove very fatal. Mohan Kumar continues to live healthy life. When an explanation was demanded to support their theory and prove their case the CSE was silent.