Manufacturing untested pesticides is a ‘scam’ permitted by law in India
licensed until recently under section 9(3) whereas no less than 170 parties are registered under section 9(4).
To get a license under section 9(3), a person has to plough through multiple field trials and scientific research at three different locations for no less than two crop seasons whereas registration under section 9(4) is offered on a platter without adhering to any scientific protocol. What an applicant has to do is to simply approach the Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee submitting he too (read “Me too”) would follow the same formulation and procedure as followed by the person to whom the licence has originally been granted under section 9(3). In nutshell, it offers the “self-proclaiming” manufacturers a safe passage to flee from the scientific scrutiny of their pesticides in terms of safety, efficacy and environmentfriendliness.
In an agri-based country like India, no risk of using an “untested” pesticide can be taken as its efficacy depends not only on the quality, genuineness and percentile of the technical grade material (active ingredient) but also on the quality and source of the inert matter and also the manufacturing process.
It is precisely this legally manipulative provision wrapped in section 9(4) which is playing havoc.
It is a pity that highly toxic pesticides are freely being manufactured and traded without any monitoring.
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY This provision was recently examined by the Punjab & Haryana High Court where it was conceded by the CIB & RC that the registration under section 9(4) was granted on extremely relaxed criteria i.e. merely on the basis of certain statutory documents without any technical data. The registration had, therefore, over the years become prone to mischief. The high court held that a product brought through different processes may not necessarily have the same safety or efficacy. There may be impurities in one process which may not be there in another insecticide tested before registration under section 9(3).
ADVERSE EFFECTS
The World Health Organisation and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year about three million workers in agriculture sector in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides. Although developing countries use only 25% of the pesticides produced worldwide, they experience 99% of the deaths due to weaker regulatory mechanism.
The environmental catastrophe is further compounded because over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides are reaching destinations other than the target species. Consequently, all the forms of life, whether human, aquatic, fauna, flora or avian, are racing to extinction which necessitates immediate introspection if the cascading effect on life and environment is to be annulled.
WAY FORWARD
To rid the negativity, the pesticides ought to be made degradable and alternatives explored. These may include methods of organic cultivation, application of composted yard waste, biological pest controls, genetic engineering, and crop rotation, among others. Sweden, Indonesia and Florida have halved the consumption of pesticides without compromising the productivity and demonstrated to the world that alternatives to pesticides too can be effective. However, in India, it would be a challenge to wean the farmers away and habituate them into the alternatives.
The government should consider making seed treatment compulsory to minimise the occurrence of crop diseases, thereby reducing the consumption of pesticides. Section 9(4) should either be annulled or, in the alternative, its patent misuse be made culpable with stringent safeguards. All registered pesticides should be reviewed every 10 years as is being done in the US. Further, the government should ensure the introduction of the Pesticides Management Bill, 2008 which comprehensively addresses many of the major gaps from previous regulations to keep the habitability of the Mother Earth intact. Sooner the better!