India is looking to update its pesticide laws with a new draft bill, aiming to replace a law from 1968. The country’s pesticide industry has grown significantly, becoming a multi-billion-rupee sector. However, this growth has also raised serious concerns about health, the environment, and the safety of our food.
Experts who have reviewed the draft bill are worried. They believe it may weaken important safety measures. Some also feel it gives too much power to central authorities and reduces accountability. Critics suggest the bill might be prioritising the ease of doing business over the public’s well-being.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare released the draft Pesticides Management Bill. Its goal is to bring India’s pesticide rules up to date. But many experts think the proposed law doesn’t do enough to protect health, safety, and the environment.
Since pesticide production started in India in 1952, the industry has expanded a lot. By 2023, India was producing around 258,000 metric tonnes of pesticides, with the industry valued at about ₹500 billion. With this expansion, worries about its impact have also grown.
Data from research shows that between 2018 and 2023, pesticide residues were found in about 28% of the food samples tested. India has also faced severe health problems due to pesticide exposure. A notable case in Kerala linked to endosulfan use has been compared to the Bhopal gas tragedy.
At the same time, pests, weeds, and diseases cause an estimated 20-30% loss in potential crop production in India. This highlights the difficult balance between protecting crops and ensuring safety.
Experts agree that the current law is outdated. It doesn’t fully address modern issues like farmer safety, environmental pollution, and pesticide residues in food. Efforts to create a new law have been ongoing for years. The government has released revised drafts and sought public feedback multiple times.
G.V. Ramanjaneyulu from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture points out that laws should reflect current understanding. “The knowledge base in the 1960s was very different from what we have now,” he stated. “Yet our laws are not being updated based on current understanding.”
The draft bill proposes creating a Central Pesticides Board. This board will advise the government and states, suggest pesticides for approval, and guide standards for manufacturing, pest control, recalls, disposal, testing, worker safety, and advertising.
A Registration Committee will be formed to approve pesticides, set conditions for registration, review safety, and cancel registrations if needed. It will also maintain a digital record of all registered pesticides.
To ensure fairness, the bill suggests a three-year ‘cooling-off’ period for board and committee members after they leave their posts. During this time, they cannot join the pesticide industry in key roles or on company boards.
A.D. Dileep Kumar of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India notes that the draft encourages the use of biopesticides and traditional methods. It also suggests standard medical care for poisoning cases and supports research into safer alternatives.
However, Kumar also feels the structure of the new board and committee is similar to the old law, possibly weakening safety measures. The bill states its aim is to “ensure supply of quality pesticides for farmers and to decriminalise petty offences, thereby promoting ease of living as well as ease of doing business.” Critics, however, argue that the bill strongly favours business interests over stricter regulation.
One major point of concern is the pesticide registration process. The draft requires the Registration Committee to decide on applications within 18 months. If no decision is made for generic pesticides within this time, they are automatically considered registered. Ramanjaneyulu disagrees with this approach, saying, “We first need to accept that pesticides are harmful and pose serious health risks. The objective should be to minimise their use. Regulation must focus on controlling pesticides, not promoting the industry. But the bill reads as if its primary purpose is to facilitate business.”
Some government reports suggest a push for higher pesticide use. However, experts like Ramanjaneyulu argue that this view is misleading. He points out that while overall usage might seem low, a smaller percentage of farms use pesticides excessively. “Nearly 20-30% of farms use three to four times more pesticides than the average, while 50-60% of farms do not use pesticides at all. The issue is not low overall consumption, but excessive use by a smaller section.”
Another significant issue is how pesticides are applied in India. Unlike developed countries where machines are often used, manual spraying is common in India. This increases the risk of exposure for farmers, workers, and livestock grazing in fields.
The bill also includes a clause that provides legal protection to government officials and regulatory bodies for actions taken in good faith. Kumar warns that this could reduce accountability, potentially shielding individuals from responsibility for regulatory failures and opening the door to corruption.
While the draft proposes penalties for manufacturing or importing unregistered pesticides, some violations can be settled through ‘compounding,’ where offenders pay a fine instead of facing prosecution. Critics argue this weakens deterrence.
Furthermore, state governments have limited power to regulate harmful pesticides under the draft. The central authority remains strong, which critics feel goes against cooperative federalism and ignores the role of states in public health and agriculture.
Experts believe India needs pesticide laws based on current science, public health protection, and environmental care. While the draft has some positive aspects, many feel its underlying focus still favours the industry over safety.