Background: Pesticide self-poisoning is a common means of suicide in India. Banning highly hazardous pesticides from agricultural use has been successful in reducing total suicide numbers in several South Asian countries without affecting agricultural output. Here, we describe national and state-level regulation of highly hazardous pesticides and explore how they might relate to suicide rates across India. Methods: Information on pesticide regulation was collated from agriculture departments of the central government and all 29 state governments (excluding union territories). National and state-level data on suicides from 1995 to 2015 were obtained from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). We used joinpoint analysis and negative binomial regression to investigate the trends in suicide rates nationally and in Kerala, in view of the robust measures Kerala has taken to restrict a number of HHPs, to identify any effect on suicides. Results: As of October 2019, 318 pesticides were registered for use in India, of which 18 were extremely (Class Ia) or highly (Class Ib) hazardous according to World Health Organization toxicity criteria. Despite many highly hazardous pesticides still being available, several bans have been implemented during the period studied. In our quantitative analyses we focused on the permanent bans in Kerala in 2005 (of endosulfan) and 2011 (of 14 other pesticides); and nationally in 2011 (of endosulfan). NCRB data indicate that pesticides were used in 441,918 reported suicides in India from 1995 to 2015, 90.3% of which occurred in 11 of the 29 states. There was statistical evidence of lower than expected rates of pesticide suicides (rate ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.49-0.54) and total suicides nationally by 2014 (0.90, 0.87-0.93) after the 2011 endosulfan ban. In Kerala, there was a lower than expected rate of pesticide suicides (0.45, 0.42-0.49), but no change to the already decreasing trend in total suicides (1.02, 1.00-1.05) after the 2011 ban of 14 pesticides. The 2005 ban on endosulfan showed a similar effectlower than expected pesticide suicides (0.79, 0.64-0.99), but no change to the decreasing trend of total suicides (0.97, 0.93-1.02) in 2010. There was no evidence of a decline in agricultural outputs following the bans. Conclusion: Highly hazardous pesticides continue to be used in India and pesticide suicide remains a serious public health problem. However, some pesticide bans do appear to have impacted previous trends in the rates of both pesticide suicides and all suicides. Comprehensive national bans of highly hazardous pesticides could lead to a reduction in suicides across India, in addition to reduced occupational poisoning, with minimal effects on agricultural yield.

Background Pesticide self-poisoning is a common means of suicide in India. Banning highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) from agricultural use has been successful in reducing suicides in several Asian countries without affecting agricultural output. Here, we describe national and state-level regulation of HHPs and explore how they might relate to suicide rates across India.Methods Information on pesticide regulation was collated from agriculture departments of the central and state governments. National and state-level data on suicides from 1995 to 2015 were obtained from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). We used joinpoint analysis and negative binomial regression to investigate any effects on trends in suicide rates nationally and in Kerala.Results As of October 2019, 318 pesticides were registered for use in India, of which 18 were extremely (Class Ia) or highly (Class Ib) hazardous according to World Health Organization criteria. Despite many HHPs still being available, several bans have been implemented during the period studied. In our quantitative analyses we focused on the permanent bans in Kerala in 2005 (of endosulfan) and 2011 (of 14 other pesticides); and nationally in 2011 (of endosulfan). NCRB data indicate that pesticides were used in 441,918 reported suicides in India from 1995-2015, 90.3% of which occurred in 11 of the 29 states. There was statistical evidence of lower than expected rates of pesticide suicides (rate ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.49-0.54) and total suicides nationally by 2014 (0.90, 0.87-0.93) after the 2011 endosulfan ban. In Kerala, there was a lower than expected pesticide suicide rate (0.45, 0.42-0.49), but no change to the already decreasing trend in total suicides after the 2011 ban of 14 pesticides. The 2005 ban on endosulfan showed a similar effect. Agricultural outputs continued growing following the bans.Discussion Highly hazardous pesticides continue to be used in India and pesticide suicide remains a serious public health problem. However, some pesticide bans do appear to have impacted previous trends in the rates of both pesticide suicides and all suicides. Comprehensive national bans of HHPs could lead to a reduction in suicides across India, in addition to reduced occupational poisoning, with minimal effects on agricultural yield.

Stigma and discrimination constitute one of the greatest barriers to dealing effectively with the HIV epidemic, underlying a range of human rights violations and hindering access to prevention, care, treatment and support. There is some existing protection against HIV-based discrimination under international law, but the extent of states' obligations to address such discrimination has not been comprehensively addressed in an international instrument.The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force in May 2008. As countries ratify the convention, they are required to amend national laws and policies to give greater protection to the human rights of people with disabilities, including abolishing disability-based discrimination by the state and protecting persons against such discrimination by others. The Disability Convention addresses many of the issues faced by people living with HIV (PLHIV) but does not explicitly include HIV or AIDS within its open-ended definition of "disability".Therefore, the advent of the Disability Convention prompts us to consider the links between HIV and disability and, specifically, to consider the opportunities it and other legal mechanisms, international or domestic, may afford for advancing the human rights of PLHIV facing human rights infringements. We do so in the belief that the movement for human rights is stronger when constituencies with so many common and overlapping interests are united, and that respectful and strategic collaboration ultimately strengthens both the disability rights and the AIDS movements.In this article, we first examine the links between HIV and disability. We then provide a brief overview of how international human rights law has treated both disability and HIV/AIDS. We note some of the different ways in which national anti-discrimination laws have reflected the links between HIV and disability, illustrated with representative examples from a number of countries. Finally, we offer some conclusions and recommendations about ways forward for collaboration between HIV and disability rights advocates in advancing human rights at the international level, including the use of the new tool that is the Disability Convention. We hope these reflections will promote further discussion across movements, ultimately to the benefit of all persons with disabilities and/or HIV.

A small proportion of the thousands of pesticides on the market today are associated with a disproportionately high incidence of severe acute pesticide poisoning and suicide. Paraquat stands out as one of the most lethal pesticides in common use, frequently involved in fatal incidents due to suicides or accidental exposure. Even though paraquat has been banned in over 67 countries, it is still widely used in many others, particularly in Asia and Latin America. Based on a literature review and consultations, this paper identifies options for replacing paraquat and distils practical lessons from numerous successes around the world. Our aim is to support regulators, policymakers, agronomists and the supply chain sector with practical information related to phasing out paraquat. Production data consistently failed to show any negative effects of banning paraquat on agricultural productivity. A wide range of alternative approaches to weed management and crop defoliation are available, many of which do not rely on herbicides. Over 1.25 million farmers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) successfully produce a range of crops for private voluntary standards (PVS) in food and fiber supply chains which prohibit paraquat use. We conclude from the findings of this study that eliminating paraquat will save lives without reducing agricultural productivity. Less hazardous and more sustainable alternatives exist. To enhance successful adoption and uptake of these methods on a wide scale, farmers require training and support within an enabling policy environment.

Stigma and discrimination constitute one of the greatest barriers to dealing effectively with the HIV epidemic, underlying a range of human rights violations and hindering access to prevention, care, treatment and support. There is some existing protection against HIV-based discrimination under international law, but the extent of states' obligations to address such discrimination has not been comprehensively addressed in an international instrument.The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force in May 2008. As countries ratify the convention, they are required to amend national laws and policies to give greater protection to the human rights of people with disabilities, including abolishing disability-based discrimination by the state and protecting persons against such discrimination by others. The Disability Convention addresses many of the issues faced by people living with HIV (PLHIV) but does not explicitly include HIV or AIDS within its open-ended definition of "disability".Therefore, the advent of the Disability Convention prompts us to consider the links between HIV and disability and, specifically, to consider the opportunities it and other legal mechanisms, international or domestic, may afford for advancing the human rights of PLHIV facing human rights infringements. We do so in the belief that the movement for human rights is stronger when constituencies with so many common and overlapping interests are united, and that respectful and strategic collaboration ultimately strengthens both the disability rights and the AIDS movements.In this article, we first examine the links between HIV and disability. We then provide a brief overview of how international human rights law has treated both disability and HIV/AIDS. We note some of the different ways in which national anti-discrimination laws have reflected the links between HIV and disability, illustrated with representative examples from a number of countries. Finally, we offer some conclusions and recommendations about ways forward for collaboration between HIV and disability rights advocates in advancing human rights at the international level, including the use of the new tool that is the Disability Convention. We hope these reflections will promote further discussion across movements, ultimately to the benefit of all persons with disabilities and/or HIV.