Skip to main content

Drone spraying pesticides 'catastrophic' for humans, agriculture, ecology, wildlife

By Jag Jivan
Narasimha Reddy Donthi, former board member of IFOAM-Asia, which is part of the Germany-based International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), a pioneering organization on organic farming across the world, in a letter to the secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers, taking strong exception to the Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) released for aerial spraying of pesticides, has said that the move contradicts the Insecticide Act.
Pointing out that he had brought this to the notice of the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC), Dhonti says, allowing aerial spraying, using drones and unmanned, remote controlled vehicles can be catastrophic to humans, agriculture, farmers, ecology and wildlife.
Currently adjunct professor, Padala Rama Reddy Law College, and member, Research Advisory Committee, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, Dhonti insists on the withdrawal of the interim approval for drone application of pesticides, SOP for drone application of pesticides, and blanket approval for drone application of pesticides.
Regretting that his view was ignored, Dhonti says, instead the Ministry has developed an SOP for drone applications of pesticides. He adds, “SOP falls far short of expectations and technical content. Consequently, it lacked imagination on establishing standards. The language is vague and non-binding.” Further, there is a failure to “integrate science, ecological and environmental factors into the SOP.”
Attaching a detailed set of comments along with his letter, Dhonti says, the document allowing aerial spraying of pesticides “seems to have been done in a hurry, without proper assessment of possible impacts and wider consultation”, pointing out, “While CIBRC took more than two years to arrive at this draft, the window period given for public comments was only 30 days.”
Stating that “the industry, which benefits directly from this was made part of the consultation process, from the beginning”, the letter regrets, “Other stakeholders did not get to participate in this process on par with manufacturers of drones and pesticides”, which “violates” the principle of public participation being “part and parcel of public policy making.”
Says Dhonti, “The constant urge to share data from the drone operators, both in the SOP and the interim approval, indicates that this Ministry was not working on field data and practical experiences. Its approvals appear to be ad hoc and unscientific. Alarmingly, these approvals are about aerial spraying of highly hazardous agrochemicals which can be fatal for life, even in minuscule doses.”
He adds, “It appears that the Ministry and CIBRC failed to realise that drones can spray copious amounts of these agrochemicals. Since pesticides are hazardous products, using them aerially should be regulated strictly for public and environment safety. In a further mis-step, the CIBRC has gone ahead with an interim approval of application of pesticide formulations through drones on 12th April, 2022, without referring to a particular legal clause, under which this was given.”
Asserting that pesticide registration is “based on data generated through surface level application”, the letter says, “However, CIBRC extends its approval for usage already approved pesticide formulations for aerial application, based on representation from pesticide industry lobby”, ignoring “detailed, considered, researched approval.” It adds, the approval “is not based on biosafety parameters and also ignores the well laid principle of caution.”

Comments

The data you've given is helpful on the grounds that it gives an abundance of information that will be exceptionally valuable to me. Much thanks to you for sharing that. Keep doing awesome. drone agriculture market

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.