Skip to main content

It's not an outright ban; why are other highly hazardous pesticides left out?: PAN India

Counterview Desk 

Even as welcoming the recent Government of India (GoI) ban on four highly hazardous pesticides, the advocacy group Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India has regretted that the latest order has not banned outright, but qualified the ban with conditions. Government of India gives a window period of one year for farmers to move towards alternatives, PAN India said in a statement.
Pointing out that the ban notification only says that “sale, distribution or use of Monocrotophos 36% SL shall be allowed only for clearance of existing stock till its expiry period”, the advocacy group underlined, “There is ambiguity in this language which can be used to build stocks in this window period of 1 year, enabling the continued use of Monocrotophos beyond the 1 year period and until the stocks are cleared.”
Insisting that a specific line banning manufacture of Monocrotophos (all its formulations) is required, it said, field information on pesticide poisoning and exposures reinforce the demand for outright ban of other identified pesticides as well. The Agriculture Ministry has to explain why 16 pesticides, declared as highly hazardous, have still been left out.

Text:

India has banned four insecticides -- Dicofol, Dinocap, Methomyl and Monocrotophos – through a Gazette Notification dated 29th September, 2023, but published on 6th October, 2023[1]. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India welcomes the ban on these four pesticides, especially the addition of monocrotophos, as we represented for its inclusion in the ban list, subsequent to the draft order published in February, 2023.
Dr. Narasimha Reddy, public policy expert says that “this ban almost coincides with the recently concluded negotiations at the Fifth International Convention on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) in Bonn, and the emergence of Global Framework of Chemicals, and the target to eliminate Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) by 2035, among others”.
Monocrotophos has been named in several pesticide poisoning cases across India, including in the infamous Yavatmal pesticide poisoning episode, in 2017. Maharashtra Association of Pesticide Poisoned Persons (MAPPP) has been advocating for a ban on this and other pesticides involved in deaths and injuries to farmers and farm labour. In fact, Maharashtra government has written a letter to the Union Government of India to ban this and 4 other pesticides. There was no response from the government of India to that letter.
Even the latest order has not banned outright, but qualified the ban with conditions. Government of India gives a window period of one year, for farmers to move towards alternatives. It also says, “sale, distribution or use of Monocrotophos 36% SL shall be allowed only for clearance of existing stock till its expiry period.” There is ambiguity in this language which can be used to build stocks in this window period of 1 year, enabling the continued use of Monocrotophos beyond the 1 year period and until the stocks are cleared. A specific line banning manufacture of Monocrotophos (all its formulations) is required.
Additional Comments and observations from the ban notification:
1. Reference to Carbofuran in this notification is interesting, puzzling and is a cause of consternation. In fact, no change or restriction is brought in the case of Carbofuran even though it is mentioned on the top of the list. It clearly states that “All other formulations of Carbofuran, except Carbofuran three percent Encapsulated granule (CG) along with the crop labels, may be stopped from use.” This means Carbofuran three percent Encapsulated granule (CG) is not banned. Interestingly, Carbofuran 3% CG formulation is the only formulation registered in India. No other formulation is registered in India. We need Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC) to clarify on this.
2. The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare should have re-issued the previous notification or approved the draft notification dated 18th May 2020, without modifications. Instead, it has reformulated and reduced the number of pesticides to be banned to three, qualified ban on one and allowed restricted usage of other seven pesticides. Earlier in July, The honorable Supreme Court made observations while hearing a PIL related to pesticide bans in India, that the Center has been constituting committees after committees to review the the proposal of banning 27 pesticides in 2020, so as to get a favorable response.
3. Banning three HHPs is right and welcome. But this is not enough. Expert Committee Report and the field information on pesticide poisoning and exposures reinforce the demand for outright ban of other identified pesticides as well.
4. The remaining 16 pesticides, out of the 27 pesticides in the previous draft notification, do not find any mention. The Agriculture Ministry has to explain why these 16 pesticides have been left out.
Process of watering down regulatory outcomes to satisfy profit motive of agrochemical industry continues
5. Malathion was restricted long back to be used only for public health purposes and banned from usage on food crops. However, this draft notification allows its usage on two vegetable crops, namely Paddy and Cabbage. The Agriculture Ministry has in fact extended its usage, from the previous restriction. Since it has been recommended for ban given its hazard potential, especially on food crops, Centre cannot justify continued usage of this highly hazardous pesticide. Malathion has been found in food residues across the country.
6. Surprisingly, seven pesticides were not proposed for an outright ban. These are currently being notified for restricted use on certain crops. This means they are banned for usage on specific crops, which were listed in the original registration. These seven HHPs are notified for amendment in the label claim. Pesticide companies that are manufacturing and marketing these pesticides have to change the labels, wherein the crops on which they can be used are mentioned.
“There is no rational for label change, and not outright ban as represented by us and recommended by the Expert Committee. Label change is merely a technical matter which does not have any implications in the field use, given that many pesticides in the country have been recommended beyond the approved use of pesticides in the country by Agriculture Universities and Commodity Boards, and actual field use is happening on many more crops as well as non approved pesticides have been detected among agriculture commodities in residues analysis”, says A. D. Dileep Kumar, CEO of Pesticide Action Network India.
While, PAN India appreciate the efforts of Government of India on banning some pesticides, it feels that the recent developments of appointing committees after committees, following the 2020 Draft ban notification  to review regulatory decisions is a process of watering down the regulatory outcomes to satisfy the profit motive of the agrochemical industry, undermining public health and environmental well being.
PAN India urges Government of India to urgently ban the remaining pesticides listed in the 2020 draft order that proposed banning of 27 pesticides since the Expert Committee and the Registration Committee found that their use is likely to involve risk to human being and animals.
---
[1] S.O. 4294(E) Notification, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare), New Delhi, 29th September, 2023, published on 6th October, 2023, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 read with section 28 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968). Click here for PAN India's information note on the ban

Comments

TRENDING

From algorithms to exploitation: New report exposes plight of India's gig workers

By Jag Jivan   The recent report, "State of Finance in India Report 2024-25," released by a coalition including the Centre for Financial Accountability, Focus on the Global South, and other organizations, paints a stark picture of India's burgeoning digital economy, particularly highlighting the exploitation faced by gig workers on platform-based services. 

'Condonation of war crimes against women and children’: IPSN on Trump’s Gaza Board

By A Representative   The India-Palestine Solidarity Network (IPSN) has strongly condemned the announcement of a proposed “Board of Peace” for Gaza and Palestine by former US President Donald J. Trump, calling it an initiative that “condones war crimes against children and women” and “rubs salt in Palestinian wounds.”

Gig workers hold online strike on republic day; nationwide protests planned on February 3

By A Representative   Gig and platform service workers across the country observed a nationwide online strike on Republic Day, responding to a call given by the Gig & Platform Service Workers Union (GIPSWU) to protest what it described as exploitation, insecurity and denial of basic worker rights in the platform economy. The union said women gig workers led the January 26 action by switching off their work apps as a mark of protest.

India’s road to sustainability: Why alternative fuels matter beyond electric vehicles

By Suyash Gupta*  India’s worsening air quality makes the shift towards clean mobility urgent. However, while electric vehicles (EVs) are central to India’s strategy, they alone cannot address the country’s diverse pollution and energy challenges.

Jayanthi Natarajan "never stood by tribals' rights" in MNC Vedanta's move to mine Niyamigiri Hills in Odisha

By A Representative The Odisha Chapter of the Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), which played a vital role in the struggle for the enactment of historic Forest Rights Act, 2006 has blamed former Union environment minister Jaynaynthi Natarjan for failing to play any vital role to defend the tribals' rights in the forest areas during her tenure under the former UPA government. Countering her recent statement that she rejected environmental clearance to Vendanta, the top UK-based NMC, despite tremendous pressure from her colleagues in Cabinet and huge criticism from industry, and the claim that her decision was “upheld by the Supreme Court”, the CSD said this is simply not true, and actually she "disrespected" FRA.

Stands 'exposed': Cavalier attitude towards rushed construction of Char Dham project

By Bharat Dogra*  The nation heaved a big sigh of relief when the 41 workers trapped in the under-construction Silkyara-Barkot tunnel (Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand) were finally rescued on November 28 after a 17-day rescue effort. All those involved in the rescue effort deserve a big thanks of the entire country. The government deserves appreciation for providing all-round support.

Whither space for the marginalised in Kerala's privately-driven townships after landslides?

By Ipshita Basu, Sudheesh R.C.  In the early hours of July 30 2024, a landslide in the Wayanad district of Kerala state, India, killed 400 people. The Punjirimattom, Mundakkai, Vellarimala and Chooralmala villages in the Western Ghats mountain range turned into a dystopian rubble of uprooted trees and debris.

Fragmented opposition and identity politics shaping Tamil Nadu’s 2026 election battle

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  Tamil Nadu is set to go to the polls in April 2026, and the political battle lines are beginning to take shape. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the state on January 23, 2026, marked the formal launch of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s campaign against the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Addressing multiple public meetings, the Prime Minister accused the DMK government of corruption, criminality, and dynastic politics, and called for Tamil Nadu to be “freed from DMK’s chains.” PM Modi alleged that the DMK had turned Tamil Nadu into a drug-ridden state and betrayed public trust by governing through what he described as “Corruption, Mafia and Crime,” derisively terming it “CMC rule.” He claimed that despite making numerous promises, the DMK had failed to deliver meaningful development. He also targeted what he described as the party’s dynastic character, arguing that the government functioned primarily for the benefit of a single family a...

Over 40% of gig workers earn below ₹15,000 a month: Economic Survey

By A Representative   The Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, while reviewing the Economic Survey in Parliament on Tuesday, highlighted the rapid growth of gig and platform workers in India. According to the Survey, the number of gig workers has increased from 7.7 million to around 12 million, marking a growth of about 55 percent. Their share in the overall workforce is projected to rise from 2 percent to 6.7 percent, with gig workers expected to contribute approximately ₹2.35 lakh crore to the GDP by 2030. The Survey also noted that over 40 percent of gig workers earn less than ₹15,000 per month.