Illogical ban

Govt should review its proposal on agro-chem products

The agriculture ministry’s proposal to ban 27 commonly used plant protection chemicals is ill-timed and economically untenable. The plan, triggered by disputable environmental and health concerns, has evoked sharp criticism from all stakeholders in the agro-chemicals sector, including the industry and farmers. Agricultural scientists have also decried the move, which, they fear, might gravely hurt the farm sector, which has stood out as a silver lining in the coronavirus-battered economy. Only environmental activists have welcomed it, though without offering credible reasons for that. These 27 products, accounting for some 20 per cent of the country’s agro-chemicals output, include many broad-spectrum molecules that are used extensively to control a variety of pests, diseases, and weeds. Many of them have been in use for decades without causing any perceptible harm to the environment, biodiversity, or human and animal health. They also constitute a sizeable part of the agro-chemicals exports, which are worth around Rs 21,000 crore a year. The domestic industry is likely to take a hit of Rs 8,000-9,000 crore.

Significantly, the farmers and their organisations are backing the industry in contesting this proposal because most of the identified products are generic pesticides and, therefore, far cheaper than their patented alternatives. The average cost of plant protection operations, estimated now at Rs 250-300 per acre, might double with the use of expensive substitutes, thereby, further eroding the profitability of agriculture. Technically, only a few of these 27 products are said to fall in the “red” (most bio-hazardous) category of chemicals. Others are planned to be abandoned either because they have been junked in certain other countries or because they lack adequate safety data, disregarding the wide-ranging ramifications of their withdrawal. No lesson seems to have been learnt from the past experience of discarding versatile and cheap pesticides just to imitate the other countries. Discarding the highly useful and inexpensive pesticide, DDT, can be a case in point. The malaria-eradication programme, which had made considerable headway in controlling mosquitoes, had collapsed due to this hasty and ill-judged step. Its cost-effective replacement has been elusive to date. The net result is the resurgence of mosquitoes and malaria and, more importantly, the emergence of several other vector-borne diseases like dengue and chikungunya, which were almost unheard of earlier. 

The proposed phasing out of the versatile pesticide Malathion can potentially have a similar wide-ranging impact on the agricultural sector. Of particular concern in this case is the ongoing battle against the dreaded locusts, which, coming from mostly Pakistan and Iran, have penetrated right up to Madhya Pradesh and the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra after playing havoc with vegetation in parts of Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Malathion is the key chemical for its control. Interestingly, the agriculture ministry itself is procuring large quantities of Malathion for the locust control programme even after deciding to ban it. Thus, Krishi Bhawan would do well to revisit its plan to proscribe so many agro-chemicals without properly weighing the pros and cons of this move. No doubt, the truly hazardous molecules, carrying the red tag, should be abandoned straightaway. But the others need to be retained till their cost-effective and equally efficient generic substitutes are available. The need is to strike a balance between the economic and environmental concerns.