Can we think on this its killing all riverine life in Brhamaputra as gardens are not stoping to use banned pesticides.
ravi 25 pesticides banned in India, others face partial curb New Delhi : Some 25 pesticides are banned for manufacture, import and use in India. Two other pesticides and formulations are banned for use in the country but their manufacture is allowed for export, it has been revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. As India grapples with this complex issue at the intersection of agricultural productivity and environmental safety, the government has also acknowledged that there are four pesticide formulations banned for "import, manufacture and use" and another seven pesticides on the "withdrawn" list. Another 18 pesticides have been "refused registration" . In some cases, the pesticide industry has failed to submit "complete data" about their products, officials said. In an RTI application reply to information campaigner Harikumar P. of Kasargod in Kerala, the ministry of agriculture' s secretary S. Kulshrestha said the "main reason for banning" pesticides was that some "involved a health hazard to human beings, animals and damage to the environment" . Kulshrestha added that others had been placed in the "withdrawn" list, as "these are likely to cause risk to human beings and animals as their safety cannot be fully established for want of complete data asked for from the pesticide industry". Thirty-seven pesticides are on the list "under review" for their "continued use or otherwise" in the country. Included here are organophosphate insecticide monocrotophos, seen in the West as acutely toxic to birds and banned in the US and elsewhere. Large bird kills, especially of Swainson's Hawks from the prairies and grasslands of western North America, have been reported allegedly from the use of monocrotophos. On the 'banned' pesticides and formulations list are aldrin, benzene hexachloride, calcium cyanide, chlordane, copper acetoarsenite, cibromochloropropan e, endrin, ethel mercury chloride, ethyl parathion, heptachlor, menzaone, nitrofen, paraquat dimethyl suplhate, pentachlorophenol, phenyl mercury acetate, sodium methane arsonate, tetradifon, toxafen, aldicarb, chlorobenzilate, dieldrine, maleic hydrazide, ethylene dibromide, and TCA (trichloro acetic acid). India has currently banned for use two pesticides and formulations - the suspected neurotoxicant nicotin sulfate and the Bangalore-manufactu red broad-spectrum protective contact fungicide captafol 80 percent powder - but their manufacture is allowed for export. Pesticides - substances used for preventing, destroying, repelling or lessening the damage of pests - are known to have an impact on the environment, on farmers and on consumers. Pesticide residues in food have also been a cause for concern. Used since before 2,500 BCE, the first known pesticide was elemental sulfur dusting used in Sumeria about 4,500 years ago. By the 15th century, toxic chemicals such as arsenic, mercury and lead were being applied to crops to kill pests. In the 17th century, nicotine sulfate was extracted from tobacco leaves for use as an insecticide. The 19th century saw the introduction of two more natural pesticides, pyrethrum, which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenonem, derived from the roots of tropical vegetables. In 1939, Paul Müller discovered that DDT was a very effective insecticide. By the 1960s, DDT was found to be preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing, threatening biodiversity. DDT is now banned in at least 86 countries, but it is still used in parts of the world, seen as needed to prevent malaria and other tropical diseases by killing mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects. Figures available indicate that global pesticide use has increased 50-fold since 1950, and 2.5 million tonnes of industrial pesticides are now used each year worldwide. Currently, India has 203 pesticides registered under Section 9(3) of the Insecticide Act 1968. Heiligendamm, Germany, June 8 -- The G8 leaders today promised an increase in investment in programs to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but the $60 billion total will still be only one-third of what the UN says is needed over the next five years. Together, these diseases kill about 16,000 people a day. "We will have to watch the G8 carefully to see they keep their promises," said Dr. Paul Zeitz, Executive Director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "But even if they do keep them, the funding falls far short of what is needed. In addition, their promise to provide this money 'over the coming years' is outrageously vague." "A plan to really defeat AIDS, TB and malaria is still missing, yet that's what we must keep demanding of these leaders," he said. "This is not an issue of 'more money is always needed when it comes to poverty.' Rather, the full amount is needed so that we can actually get ahead of these health crises, which pose a global threat." Half of the total is a US contribution of $30 billion on AIDS and tuberculosis, but the US was already on course to provide this even before President Bush's announcement last week. The Bush proposal was greeted with great fanfare in the press, but this obscured the fact that it would keep spending at about current levels for the next five years, despite the rapid spread of health crises like drug resistant TB. The G8's promise of $60 billion is for "over the coming years." But, UN estimates show that $192 billion is needed to address AIDS, TB and malaria during from 2008 to 2012, mostly for HIV/AIDS, plus even more would be needed to improve health systems. Of this $192 billion, $134 billion is needed for AIDS, $37 billion to fight TB (including extremely drug resistant TB), and $21 billion to address malaria, a major killer of children and expecting mothers. "To give the world a chance to reach basic goals, the G8 should speed up the delivery of this $60 billion by 2010, not spread it out over five years," said Zeitz. The declaration reaffirms grant making by the Global Fund at a level of $6 to 8 billion per year, however, the leaders made no specific financial commitments themselves regarding contributions to the Fund. The Global Fund is a cost-effective, demand-driven financing mechanism based in Geneva, which addresses AIDS, TB and malaria. Each year for the past five years President Bush has proposed a large cut in the US contribution, and the US Congress is on course to provide only two-thirds of what the Fund needs from the US in 2008. There was a risk that the leaders would fail to recommit themselves to the goal of universal access to HIV/AIDS services for 2010, including AIDS treatment, but in the end they reaffirmed this goal. Right now only about 2 million people are receiving this treatment, while 6 million need it to survive. By 2010, 11 million people will need it (7 million in Africa), and the world is not at present on course to provide full access. Universal access to AIDS treatment is defined by UN as 80% coverage. "It is good news that global epidemics remain as high a political priority at the G8 as they have in years past," said Zeitz. "Peaceful protests, massive petitions and concerts again made a difference by putting a spotlight on the imperative of the G8 keeping its promises. Without the mobilization, we would not have made the gains that we did." The G8's statement also included important and welcome statements on the need for pediatric HIV/AIDS treatment and greater action to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the HIV virus. They recognized the important role of access to basic education in bolstering HIV prevention. The G8 also acknowledged the need for reproductive and sexual health services, as well as effective programs to end violence against women, as essential parts of the response to AIDS.
