Peppered with inconsistencies
| Peppered with inconsistencies The panel has made contrasting deductions without scrutinising vital facts | |
| INVESTIGATION | INFERENCE |
| • An analysis of animal studies that were conducted earlier indicated the pesticide’s adverse effects. | • “Specific evidence showing deleterious effects of endosulfan on human beings ... not available”. |
| • The panel took into consideration studies conducted well after the aerial spraying was halted. Consequently, the residue analysis reported very low values. | • Despite using this dated data, the panel sought to probe the impact of endosulfan to establish a cause and effect relationship. |
| • On the carcinogenic nature of endosulfan, the report mentioned one study that suggested a positive correlation and two others that ruled out the same. | • Of the two that showed a negative trend and guided findings, one was a “flawed” bioassay and the other was conducted by a multinational company. |
| • The committee acknowledged the uncertainty factor in scientific studies. | • At the same time, it postulated that effects of endosulfan were totally dose and species dependent. |