October 2008. Geneva, Switzerland. It's the final day of the fourth meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee to the Stockholm Convention, and delegates have just returned from their lunch break. They are prepared to again take up the one issue still outstanding: does the pesticide endosulfan meet the preliminary criteria spelled out in the convention text? Should they spend the next year determining whether the risks from endosulfan, both to human health and the environment, warrant a global ban? Consensus had eluded the delegates throughout the week, and some participants had concluded that the only solution would be to postpone consideration of endosulfan until the following year's meeting. Yet, after lunch there's a palpable change in the mood of the room. Several members have returned to the meeting resolved to turn to an until-then-unused provision of the convention— that a decision is to be taken by a two-thirds majority vote “if all efforts at consensus have been exhausted.” This strategic move prompts discussion both procedural and philosophical: can one vote on whether scientific criteria have been met? The expert members of the committee debate whether such a precedent-setting step should be taken. In the final moments, all eyes are on the table of experts: a vote will indeed go ahead. Observers and administrators stand up to get a better view of the hands being raised to signal support for moving the review process forward.