Not since Big Tobacco flatly denied the link between lung cancer and smoking has there been such cynical disregard for public health, twisting of “science” and ruthless exercise of political clout by the corporate sector. Endosulfan, the toxic pesticide banned in 81 countries, has become a cause célèbre for Indian pesticide manufacturers. With the full backing of the union government, they have launched a concerted campaign against the proposed global ban on the pesticide.

As the Stockholm Convention began its deliberations on April 25, preparatory to taking a final call on banning Endosulfan worldwide, India was adamant that it did not regard the “Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP)” as a threat to public health. A position seemingly unaffected by the anguish of thousands of Endosulfan victims.

By not acknowledging the link between aerial spraying of Endosulfan on government-run cashew plantations in Kerala and Karnataka and deformities in children in the targeted areas, the government belittles their suffering. It also sends the message that in a stand-off between profit-seeking big business and the common man, it will side with the former.

The infamous visual of a wailing hydrocephalic baby, born to an Endosulfan-affected mother in Kasargod, Kerala, has moved millions of people to tears and outrage since it was first flashed a decade ago. Union minister for agriculture Sharad Pawar is clearly not one of them.

Nor is A C Shroff of Excel Crop Care, manufacturer of Endosulfan, spokesperson for the Indian pesticide lobby and a true Jekyll and Hyde. For Shroff, when he is not producing pesticides, promotes organic agriculture, or pesticide-free farming through his “social enterprise”, Agrocel Industries Limited.

The four-point defence put forth by Shroff and his ilk is predicated on the safety and indispensability of the pesticide: the studies showing that Endosulfan hurts human health are rubbish; there is in fact a study to show that it does not; Endosulfan is more ecologically benign than other pesticides; farmers cannot do without it.

This is precisely how DDT was promoted back in the 1950s – as a “safe”, effective and environmentally neutral pesticide. A lie for which we are still paying the price, decades after its use in agriculture has been banned. DDT is fed to newborns in their mothers’ milk and induces lifelong harmful hormonal effects.

Like DDT, Endosulfan has a tendency to bio accumulate. It builds up in the ecosystem and gets increasingly concentrated in plant and human tissues. Long after its use has been discontinued, Endosulfan will continue to haunt us.

India has stood firm against global pressure for a ban, which intensified after Endosulfan residues in garments made from raw cotton exported from India, allegedly caused itching and irritation.

The cold-blooded willingness to obfuscate facts has been a tendency of pesticide manufacturers worldwide. They were, after all, originally purveyors of materials used in chemical warfare: mustard gas, sarin gas, Agent Orange.

Indian manufacturers have proved equally ruthless. Unable to silence environmental activist Sunita Narain, they published obscene cartoons to vilify her. When Karnataka minister Shobha Karandlaje launched a campaign that led to a ban on Endosulfan in her state, she said tremendous pressure was brought on her by the industry.

The government stance is built on two pillars: the states want Endosulfan and there is no evidence that it is harmful. The first is not true – no state has yet opposed the ban on Endosulfan. In fact, 87-year-old Kerala chief minister V S Achuthanandan sat on fast to protest against it.

As for the safety aspect, there is enough prima facie evidence to indict Endosulfan. Even if there were not, pesticides must be treated as hazardous until proved otherwise, instead of the other way around.

Medicine, unfortunately, has always lagged behind chemistry. Thalidomide was cleared for use by pregnant mothers in the 1950s. Its teratogenicity was discovered only when deformed babies were born. Drugs cleared for use have been banned after a couple of decades (and enormous profits for pharma companies) when side-effects become known. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or “vanaspati ghee” was promoted as a healthy alternative to clarified butter, before it was found to be heart toxic.

If drugs and food items can prove to be so dicey, surely far greater caution is called for in clearing pesticides for use. After all, pesticides are designed to kill.