The Indian government has put forth a new draft for the Pesticide Management Bill, 2025. This is the fifth version of this proposed law, which aims to replace the older Insecticides Act, 1968. Despite many attempts over 17 years, experts believe this latest Bill still falls short of protecting farmers and the public.
Pesticides are a major cost for farmers today. However, they haven’t really improved crop yields as much as expected. Instead, they have become a big financial and health problem for farmers and their families. The pesticide industry often uses clever marketing to convince farmers that these chemicals are necessary, even when they might not be.
The current law, the Insecticides Act, 1968, has been in place for 57 years. For 17 of those years, there have been efforts to bring in a new Bill. But many serious issues remain unresolved. These issues include pesticide poisoning, which harms farmers and the environment, and the contamination of our air, water, and soil.
Here are some key areas where the Bill is considered weak:
**1. Manufacturer Liability:** The Bill doesn’t clearly make manufacturers responsible if their products cause harm. Even though thousands of people die each year from pesticide poisoning, companies don’t face criminal charges. This lack of accountability allows profits to be put ahead of people’s lives.
**2. Comprehensive Licensing:** The Bill needs to ensure that everyone in the pesticide supply chain is licensed. This includes manufacturers, distributors, and sellers. It should also cover agricultural advisers who recommend pesticides. The advice given by these officials needs to be recorded and checked to prevent misuse. Sometimes, extension workers act like salespeople for pesticides, so their recommendations must be overseen.
**3. Emergency Management:** The Bill lacks strong provisions for dealing with emergencies like pesticide factory fires, spills, or accidents involving pesticide transport. Local authorities like panchayats and fire services need to be involved in planning and responding to such disasters. Communities should be informed about the chemicals being used or stored in their areas and how to react in an emergency.
**4. Resistance Liability:** Pesticides can lead to resistance in pests, making them harder to control. This can create new public health threats and disrupt natural ecosystems. The Bill should make manufacturers responsible for these long-term consequences, as they profit from pesticide sales.
**5. Price Regulation:** The Bill does not include any rules for controlling pesticide prices. This allows companies to charge high prices, especially from struggling farmers. If prices were linked to how effective and safe the products are, it could help reduce overuse and protect farmers’ money.
**6. State Powers:** State governments should have more power to regulate, restrict, or even ban pesticides based on local conditions and health concerns. A one-size-fits-all approach from the centre may not work for the diverse agricultural systems across India.
**International Commitments:** India is part of international agreements like the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The Bill should clearly include these commitments and make sure domestic laws match international standards.
**Emerging Technologies:** New technologies like drones for applying pesticides increase the risk of exposure to non-target species, including bees, birds, and humans. The Bill needs to address how these technologies are used and ensure accountability.
**Other Impacts Ignored:** The Bill also fails to address how pesticides contribute to farmer debt, climate change, and declining crop yields due to soil degradation and harm to beneficial insects. Pesticide use is pushing many farmers into unsustainable debt, and its role in climate change through emissions is also overlooked.
While any step towards regulating pesticides is welcome, the Pesticide Management Bill, 2025, needs significant changes to truly protect farmers, consumers, and the environment. Without addressing these critical omissions, the Bill risks continuing the current crisis rather than solving it.