Why would EU want to press for a global ban on a pesticide that it has invented, sold and used over half a century? Was it because the pesticide was harmful or simply because it did not profit Europe anymore?
Why did the health problems not occur anywhere but in Kerala? Kerala did not even use substantial amounts of Endosulfan, which has been used in over 60% of the world’s arable land.
Did it want to eliminate competition from this pesticide, which had gone off-patent and was manufactured and exported in large quantities by a competitor—a developing nation—India?
By targeting Endosulfan, is the EU trying to eliminate competition and free up the market for its new, patented and unaffordable inventions?
If the European Commission had ordered its member nations to stop using Endosulfan as early as 2005, why did the European multinational continue to sell it to the rest of the world until 2010? If it was really harmful, would that not be a morally repugnant thing to do—or is the law different for European and non-European countries?
Why would the Italian Ministry of Health issue an order allowing Endosulfan to be used for 120 days to save Italy’s hazelnut crop which was being attacked by weevils if it was harmful? Does it not care for its people? Is the value of crops requiring Endosulfan greater in Italy than in India?
Does that mean that the suggested alternatives of Endosulfan were not effective in protecting the crop? What would the world do in case of such a disaster after a ban on Endosulfan is imposed?