Well known public policy expert Dr. Narasimha Reddy Donthi has formally approached the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC), urging urgent intervention to address what he describes as serious loopholes and enforcement failures in India’s ban on the highly toxic pesticide monocrotophos .
In a detailed representation addressed to the Secretary of the CIB&RC, Dr. Donthi has flagged the continued availability, recommendation and use of monocrotophos across agricultural markets and advisory systems, despite its prohibition under the Insecticides (Prohibition) Order, 2023. The ban, notified in the Gazette on September 29, 2023 and published on October 6 the same year, was intended to eliminate a pesticide classified as extremely hazardous and linked to repeated incidents of acute poisoning. However, according to the letter, ambiguous wording in the notification has allowed manufacturers, dealers and advisory institutions to continue operating in ways that defeat the spirit of the prohibition.
Monocrotophos, an organophosphate insecticide banned in at least 112 countries, has been associated with severe health and environmental impacts. In India, it is most infamously linked to the deaths of 35 farmers in Yavatmal district of Maharashtra in October 2017, along with numerous other poisoning cases reported from different states over the years. Dr. Donthi argues that, despite these well-documented risks, monocrotophos continues to be sold and recommended to farmers, exposing them to grave danger and undermining food safety, environmental protection and India’s agricultural sustainability commitments.
A central concern raised in the letter is the language in the 2023 prohibition order that permits the sale, distribution or use of monocrotophos 36% SL “only for clearance of existing stock till its expiry period.” According to Dr. Donthi, this clause creates multiple loopholes by failing to explicitly ban manufacture, allowing stockpiling during the transition period, limiting the ban to a single formulation rather than all forms of the chemical, and leaving the concept of “expiry period” undefined. He contends that such ambiguity enables continued production and use for years after the formal ban, effectively rendering the prohibition meaningless on the ground.
Beyond regulatory wording, the letter places strong emphasis on what it describes as a systemic communication failure. Dr. Donthi points out that agricultural universities, research institutions, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, state and district agriculture departments, extension officers, pesticide dealers and private consultants continue to function as key sources of pest management advice to farmers. In the absence of mandatory, continuous and updated communication from regulators, many of these institutions allegedly continue to recommend monocrotophos based on outdated guidelines, curricula and spray schedules. The result, he argues, is that bans remain confined to official notifications while farmers on the ground continue to receive advice that puts their health and livelihoods at risk.
The representation calls for a comprehensive enforcement response, including cancellation of manufacturing licences, recall and destruction of existing stocks, surprise inspections of pesticide outlets, criminal prosecution for violations under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and nationwide awareness campaigns to inform farmers about the ban and safer alternatives. It also urges the creation of a centralized digital database of banned and restricted pesticides, accessible in real time to all stakeholders, and the introduction of legal liability for institutions and individuals who recommend prohibited chemicals.
Dr. Donthi situates the monocrotophos issue within a broader policy and governance context, warning that continued tolerance of such loopholes could harm India’s export prospects due to zero-tolerance residue standards in many importing countries. He also notes that ongoing use of highly hazardous pesticides runs counter to India’s international commitments, including targets agreed at the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management to phase out highly hazardous pesticides by 2035. The letter further questions the influence of agrochemical industry interests on regulatory decisions, citing the recommendations of the T.P. Rajendran committee, which proposed relaxing bans on a majority of pesticides previously identified for prohibition.
In a strongly worded conclusion, the communication characterizes the current monocrotophos ban as a “regulatory failure masked as action,” arguing that the absence of clarity, enforcement and communication has allowed a chemical responsible for documented farmer deaths to remain in circulation. Dr. Donthi has called on the Central Insecticides Board to decisively close these gaps and demonstrate that farmer lives and public health take precedence over commercial interests. Copies of the letter have also been marked to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, underscoring the demand for coordinated and immediate action at the highest policy levels.
Comments