Banning 27 hazardous pesticides wouldn't impact food security: PAN India tells govt

Counterview Desk
The Government of India has made a U turn by banning only three out of 27 hazardous pesticides it had proposed in 2020, PAN India, a public interest, non-profit, research and advocacy organisation working to eliminate human and environmental harm caused by pesticides and uphold agroecology, has said.
In a note on letter it submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, it said, the recent draft Insecticides (Prohibition) Order, 2023 proposes to prohibit only two insecticides and a fungicide namely dicofol, methomyl and dinocap respectively.
About three years ago, by a notification issued on 18th May 2020, the Union Agriculture Ministry had proposed banning of 27 pesticides, including the above three, after considering the recommendations of the review committee, it added.
The NGO said, with the current draft order, the Ministry has actually taken a U turn, undermining its own earlier assessment -- ‘being satisfied with the fact that the use of twenty seven insecticides are likely to involve risk to human being and animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate action’.

Text:

The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, issued a draft Insecticides (Prohibition) Order 2023, proposing to prohibit manufacture, registration, formulation, import, transport, sale and use of three pesticides in the country. The notification issued on 15th February in the Gazette of India proposed prohibition of two insecticides and a fungicide namely dicofol, methomyl and dinocap respectively.

The 2020 draft ban order proposed banning of 27 pesticides

Nearly three years ago, by considering the recommendations of the review committee headed by Dr. Anupam Verma, the Agriculture Ministry had proposed banning of 27 pesticides, including the above three, by a notification issued on 18th May 2020.
The expert committee was constituted by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation on 8th July 2013 and further expanded on 19th August 2013 for reviewing and examining 66 pesticides, which were banned, restricted or withdrawn in other countries but continued to be used in India.

Subsequently, the Central government had banned 18 pesticides in August 2018, 12 were banned with immediate effect, while the ban on 6 more was to kick in by December 31, 2020. Later in May 2020, again considering the recommendations of the review committee and status of submission of recommended studies and safety data by the industry, another 27 pesticides were notified to be banned, as their use is likely to involve risk to human being and animals.

Registration Committee decision on 22nd December, 2015

As per the decision of Registration Committee (22nd December, 2015), the Certificate of Registration of technical and its formulation shall be deemed to be invalid for all the 27 pesticides (listed in 2020 draft notification) w.e.f. from 1st January, 2018, if studies as recommended by the Expert Committee is not submitted by December, 2017. This date has passed by 5 years back.

Worrying development on pesticide regulation in India

With the current draft order, the Ministry has actually taken a U turn, undermining its own earlier assessment, - ‘being satisfied with the fact that the use of twenty seven insecticides are likely to involve risk to human being and animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate action’.

But even after about three years from publishing the notification, the new draft order has come out that proposed to ban only three, leaving the remaining 24 pesticides to be allowed for use. Among these 24, 19 are Highly Hazardous Pesticides.

The 27 pesticides constitute less than 10% of pesticides used. Banning these would not impact food security and agriculture production

It was clearly mentioned in the 2020 draft order that “the use of twenty-seven insecticides as specified in the schedule to the Notification is likely to involve risk to human being and animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate action”.

It is really a worrying development in the country that the government is silently allowing continued use of great majority of the hazardous pesticides, (that too banned in one or more other countries) that identified to cause adverse effects to human being, other animals and environment by the review committee appointed by the government.
Instead of limiting the prohibition to three pesticides now, the government should have issued final notification of the draft dated 18th May 2020. PAN India strongly recommends the Agriculture Ministry to ban all the 27 pesticides as recommended and as notified on 18th May, 2020, for the following reasons:
1. Anupam Verma Committee report
2. Registration Committee decision in 2015
3. Among 27, 16 pesticides have bypassed mandatory scrutiny, as per law
4. Some States like Maharashtra and Kerala have recommended ban on some of these 27 pesticides
5. Residues of some of these 27 pesticides were frequently found at high levels, across the country, in vegetables and other food items
6. 22 of the 27 have been identified as highly hazardous pesticides at international level
7. These 27 pesticides (11 insecticides, nine fungicides and 7 weedicides) constitute less than 10 percent of pesticides used. Banning these 27 pesticides would not impact food security and agriculture production in the country.
---

Comments submitted by PAN India to the Ministry of Agriculture can be accessed here

Comments

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha* This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor* This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

Concerns raised over move to rename MGNREGA, critics call it politically motivated

By A Representative Concerns have been raised over the Union government’s reported move to rename the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), with critics describing it as a politically motivated step rather than an administrative reform. They argue that the proposed change undermines the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi and seeks to appropriate credit for a programme whose relevance has been repeatedly demonstrated, particularly during times of crisis.

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.

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.

From jobless to ‘job-loss’ growth: Experts critique gig economy and fintech risks

By A Representative Leading economists and social activists gathered in the capital on Friday to launch the third edition of the State of Finance in India Report 2024-25 , issuing a stark warning that the rapid digitalization of the Indian economy is eroding welfare systems and entrenching "digital dystopia."

Search This Blog