• Users Online: 590
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
CORRESPONDENCE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 317-318

Removing highly hazardous pesticides from Indian agriculture will reduce suicides


Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Date of Web Publication24-Jun-2019

Correspondence Address:
Leah Utyasheva
QMRI E3.20, 47 Little France Cres, Edindurgh EH16 4TJ
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-258X.261186


How to cite this article:
Utyasheva L, Eddleston M. Removing highly hazardous pesticides from Indian agriculture will reduce suicides. Natl Med J India 2018;31:317-8

How to cite this URL:
Utyasheva L, Eddleston M. Removing highly hazardous pesticides from Indian agriculture will reduce suicides. Natl Med J India [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Jul 22];31:317-8. Available from: http://www.nmji.in/text.asp?2018/31/5/317/261186



We read with interest Dr Jacob’s article on suicide in India.[1] We agree with his holistic public health and socioeconomic view of the reasons for suicide. However, we believe that there is one key approach that will rapidly reduce the number of suicides occurring in India, i.e. to regulate sale and distribution of pesticides by removing highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) from Indian agriculture.

Pesticide self-poisoning is a major issue in India. According to official statistics, 10.9% (14 352) of 131 666 suicides in 2014 were due to insecticide poisoning.[2] This is likely to be an underestimate of poisoning with any pesticide—a national survey estimated that 38.8% (72 500) of 187 000 Indian suicides in 2010 resulted from ingestion of pesticides.[3]

Restricting supply of pesticides is an effective approach to suicide prevention.[4] Implementation of legislation to limit the use of HHPs has been highly successful in reducing overall suicide numbers in countries such as Sri Lanka, South Korea and Bangladesh, where small-scale farming is common.[5]

The best evidence comes from Sri Lanka. After the introduction of HHPs into small-scale rural agricultural practice in the 1960s, the suicide rate among those above 8 years of age increased from 5/100 000 in the 1960s to 57/100 000 population in 1995.[6] The pesticide registrar started banning HHPs (parathion and methyl parathion) in 1984 and in 1995 all WHO Class I toxicity pesticides were banned.[7] There was a sudden, rapid fall in numbers of total suicides [Figure 1]. Subsequent ban in 1998 of the WHO Toxicity Class II pesticides such as endosulfan, dimethoate, fenthion and paraquat (in 2008-2011) led to major reductions in case fatality for pesticide poisoning and suicides.[8],[9],[10] The present overall suicide rate is 17/100 000—a 70% reduction over 20 years—and continues to fall.
Figure 1: Incidence of all suicides in Sri Lanka, 1880-2015. The arrows indicate the timing of pesticide bans (1984: parathion, methyl parathion; 1995: all remaining WHO Class I toxicity pesticides, including methamidophos and monocrotophos; 1998: endosulfan; 2008: dimethoate, fenthion and paraquat). Data obtained from police records.[6]

Click here to view


Pesticide self-poisoning has become safer in Sri Lanka by allowing people to survive impulsive episodes of self-poisoning and offering psychosocial, economic or medical support they need. A few have switched to other lethal means, such as hanging, but the increase has been small and has not compensated for the major fall in the number of suicides due to pesticides.[8] This reduction has been obtained without any apparent effect on agricultural output[11] and at modest direct cost to the government (about US$ 50 per life saved).[6]

India has instituted extensive measures such as regulation of pesticides and banning multiple HHPs; but their effect is not yet visible. It is essential to urgently identify the pesticides that are causing most deaths across India as well as their effect on agricultural output. This will help in reviewing the effectiveness of the regulation.

As described by Dr Jacob, effective suicide prevention requires a comprehensive strategy that works at the patient, community and national levels. Pesticide regulations and improved health and mental healthcare need to be accompanied by measures such as protection from discrimination, efforts aimed at greater gender and social justice and ethical news reporting. The government needs to recognize the issue of suicides to protect the right to life and right to health of its population. This will help India achieve its Sustainable Development Goals.

Conflicts of interest. None declared



 
  References Top

1.
Jacob KS. Suicide in India: Part perceptions, partial insights, and inadequate solutions. Natl Med J India 2017;30:155-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
National Crime Records Bureau. Accidental deaths and suicides in India: 2014. New Delhi:Ministry of Home Affairs; 2015.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Patel V, Ramasundarahettige C, Vijayakumar L, Thakur JS, Gajalakshmi V, Gururaj G, et al. Suicide mortality in India: A nationally representative survey. Lancet 2012;379:2343-51.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Fleischmann A, Arensman E, Berman A, Carli V, De Leo D, Hadlaczky G, et al. Overview evidence on interventions for population suicide with an eye to identifying best-supported strategies for LMICs. Glob Ment Health (Camb) 2016;3:e5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Gunnell D, Knipe D, Chang SS, Pearson M, Konradsen F, Lee WJ, et al. Prevention of suicide with regulations aimed at restricting access to highly hazardous pesticides: A systematic review of the international evidence. Lancet Glob Health 2017;5: e1026-37.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Knipe DW, Gunnell D, Eddleston M. Preventing deaths from pesticide self-poisoning- learning from Sri Lanka’s success. Lancet Glob Health 2017;5:e651-2.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Pearson M, Zwi AB, Buckley NA, Manuweera G, Fernando R, Dawson AH, et al. Policymaking ‘under the radar’: A case study of pesticide regulation to prevent intentional poisoning in Sri Lanka. Health Policy Plan 2015;30:56-67.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gunnell D, Fernando R, Hewagama M, Priyangika WD, Konradsen F, Eddleston M, et al. The impact of pesticide regulations on suicide in Sri Lanka. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:1235-42.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Knipe DW, Chang SS, Dawson A, Eddleston M, Konradsen F, Metcalfe C, et al. Suicide prevention through means restriction: Impact of the 2008-2011 pesticide restrictions on suicide in Sri Lanka. PLoS One 2017;12:e0172893.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Roberts DM, Karunarathna A, Buckley NA, Manuweera G, Sheriff MH, Eddleston M, et al. Influence of pesticide regulation on acute poisoning deaths in Sri Lanka. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:789-98.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Manuweera G, Eddleston M, Egodage S, Buckley NA. Do targeted bans of insecticides to prevent deaths from self-poisoning result in reduced agricultural output? Environ Health Perspect 2008;116:492-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed69    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]