It appears that the data with WHO informs a different angle! WHO classifies Endosulfan as a Class II (Class I to Class III, Class I being extremely toxic).To cite an example Endosulfan is as safe as (or for that matter, as toxic as!) our household pesticide like allethrin which we use as mosquito repellent. This is beyond pure logic that it can be a very dangerous molecule. The respected regulator – US-EPA is supposed to be an authentic source of information, and it classifies Endosulfan as moderately toxic.
Drinking a pesticide can kill as pesticides are supposed to be toxic and hence harmful!. Even if you eat ½ kg of common salt we will die. Taking our of the shelves drugs like Paracetamol in large quantities will also cause similar effects. So what are we talking! This molecule prevalent for the last 5 decades where we have seen maximum and manifold increase of world population. I do not see any connection that smaller testicle, lower sperm production would contribute to this increase

EPA has been very cautious about this molecule and they have done thorough studies for the said (RED Document EPA 2002). After they have completed their studies they have come to the conclusion that its exposure to children and lactating mothers is negligible and minimal. There are no reports wherein such exposures had problems unless and otherwise rampant and intentional use of the said has resulted for the same.
Any chemical causing the kind of effects mentioned should be sent out of this planet! However it shoud be based on sound scientific investigation, which it appears to have done on Endosulfan. This pesticide does not persist in water and hence it gets degraded very soon. Studies by EPA and other organizations have confirmed that this molecule is friendly to bees and pollinators and other beneficial insects. This insecticide thus is beneficial to ecosystem unlike pesticides like neonicotinoides like imidacloprid which is more harmful to bees (Ex France problems of bee death in France 2006-07) and other beneficial insects which is massively use in EU and other parts of the world. I failed to understand single targeting on Endosulfan in spite of such incidences. Why do not PAN take up a stance to banned these groups?
As stated earlier, in the last 5 decades we have increased the world population. I fail to see how it is connected to minimal benefits when farmers have a broad spectrum insecticide which does not infer resistance to insects and helps beneficial insects and bees. It is beyond comprehension that why should we have many different pesticides and have the same result as one pesticide which is also cheaper?
It is also interesting to note that all almost all the countries that are banning endosulfan are the ones have significant trade relationship with EU or should I say extremely dependent on EU for their country economy. These countries at one point of time were colonies of EU countries and significant hold of EU is still prevalent. These countries are also insignificant agriculture producers in the world. The stark coincidence would not have been better!
In reality I would say U.S. being a democratic having sound knowledge of scientific studies rather than propagated myths have come to a very mature decision on the subject. In recent studies also the Artic contamination as stated was insignificant. Is this a well fabricated strategy for creating fear psychosis?
Are the evidences that say this product is problematic authentic and put facts on the table. Are they really palatable?
To conclude I would like to put certain things also. Do we say that bread is not eaten in China as it is not their staple food and many parts of the world so it should be banned? Should we say we should not eat antibiotics because it causes resistance problems and pose a health hazard developing new resistance strains? Should we say we should stop using mobile phones because it is carcinogenic? Should we stop drinking coke as it is carbonated water and drinking it in large quantities may result in death?