University of Sydney Professor in Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry Ivan Kennedy says a ban of the chemical is right in the long-term, but first an alternative has to be found.

“A ban in sub-tropical and tropical climates such as Australia and India would be premature, reducing farmers’ output and sending some food prices skyrocketing,” Prof Kennedy says, adding that if used in accordance with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s (APVMA) conditions for registration, endosulfan is reasonably safe for a restricted range of crops.

In the medium term, he says the focus needs to be on responsible usage of the chemical.

“For now, the authority needs to continue acting in accordance with its charter: minimising pesticide residues in food and the environment while encouraging farmers’ access to effective pest control,” Prof Kennedy says.

The renewed focus on endosulfan comes after a recent meeting of the international Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) review committee which drew up a risk management evaluation for the insecticide, the last step necessary before possibly recommending a ban when it meets again in 2011.

The banning of endosulfan in Australia would not now be the calamity for farmers that it would have been 20 years ago, according to Prof Kennedy.

“Endosulfan was used in great quantities 20 years ago but it has now largely been superseded by more expensive alternatives or better technologies,” Professor Kennedy says.

“The cotton industry, for instance, used to be a major user but cotton farmers now tend to grow genetically modified (GM) cotton containing natural insecticides and requiring less than 10pc of the endosulfan used before GM was introduced.

However, he says Australia’s tropical and sub-tropical farmers still are under insect pressures unknown to farmers in cooler climates.

“Regions with temperate climates and lower insect pest pressure – such as New Zealand and northern Europe – can afford to ban endosulfan," he says.

"It’s irresponsible to expect those at greater risk from insects to follow suit when no suitable alternative exists.”