Rejected Abroad, Consumed at Home

Pesticides used within approved limits are generally safe; the real risk comes from excessive, frequent, or prolonged exposure.

Two years ago, Hong Kong, Singapore, and five other countries rejected consignments of certain Indian spice brands. More recently, Japan rejected Indian mangoes, and last week China turned back a shipment of Indian chillies. The reasons were either pesticide residues exceeding permissible limits or deficiencies in pest-control treatment procedures.

These incidents raise an important question. If export-grade products, subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny and testing, fail to meet international standards, what is the condition of food reaching ordinary Indian consumers? Beyond affecting India's reputation in global markets, these developments cast serious doubts on the country's pesticide regulatory system and whether food available domestically is safe.

Indian farmers continue to use several pesticides banned in many developed countries because of their harmful effects. These include chlorpyrifos, profenofos, paraquat, and monocrotophos. Many agricultural universities and extension services still recommend these chemicals without adequately considering their international regulatory status. Moreover, nearly 40 per cent of pesticides in circulation are estimated to be counterfeit or unregistered, leaving their exact composition and potential toxicity unknown.

Food safety in India is overseen by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), while pesticide registration falls under the Central Insecticides Board and state agencies. However, coordination among these institutions remains inadequate. Enforcement is further weakened by the outdated Insecticides Act, 1968, under which authorities have only 60 days to file a court case after a sample fails quality testing. If the deadline is missed, the case automatically closes, significantly weakening regulatory action.

India's pesticide industry is highly organised and influential. Industry pressure has reportedly weakened national monitoring initiatives such as the All India Network Project on Pesticide Residues (AINPPR). The extent of this influence is reflected in the government's 2020 proposal to ban 27 hazardous pesticides—a move that was later shelved.

The risk posed by pesticide residues depends on what we eat, how much we eat, and how often. Leafy vegetables such as spinach, fenugreek, and coriander are among the highest-risk foods because they are often heavily sprayed before harvest and have no protective peel. Okra, brinjal (eggplant), and tomatoes also fall into this category.

Among fruits, grapes, strawberries, and plums, which are commonly eaten without peeling, may pose a greater risk than fruits whose skins are discarded. Spices have consistently recorded some of the highest pesticide residue levels, leading to export rejections by Singapore, Hong Kong, and China. Yet domestic consumers have no practical way of knowing the contamination levels in the spices they purchase.

To safeguard public health, the government must prioritise three critical policy measures.

First, all major food categories should undergo large-scale testing through independent laboratories, and the results should be released promptly and made publicly available. Unless consumers know the level of pesticide residues present in the food they eat, meaningful reform will remain impossible.

Second, highly hazardous chemicals such as monocrotophos, paraquat, and chlorpyrifos should be phased out and eventually banned. Farmers should receive financial incentives, technical support, and access to safer alternatives. At the same time, counterfeit pesticides must be removed from the market.

Third, responsibility for food safety and pesticide monitoring remains fragmented across multiple agencies. India needs a strong, unified institution capable of overseeing the entire chain—from pesticide registration and distribution to the safety of food sold in the marketplace. The proposed Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, could provide an important opportunity to strengthen this framework.

It is important to note that pesticides are generally regarded as safe when used within limits established by food safety authorities. The real concern arises from excessive, frequent, or long-term exposure, particularly when combined with diets high in processed foods.

Such exposure can contribute to a range of health problems. Since everything we eat first passes through the digestive system, certain chemicals and highly processed foods can disrupt beneficial gut bacteria, leading to bloating, acidity, indigestion, constipation, or diarrhoea.

The unnecessary use of antibiotics in poultry and livestock farming is another serious public health concern. It contributes to the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance, making future infections more difficult to treat.

The liver also processes everything we consume as part of its normal physiological function. However, prolonged exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the risk of fatty liver disease and other metabolic disorders.

Ultimately, food safety is not merely an issue of agricultural productivity or export competitiveness—it is a fundamental public health imperative. Protecting consumers from excessive pesticide exposure requires stronger regulation, transparent monitoring, scientific accountability, and a coordinated institutional framework that places public health above commercial interests.

(The writer is a columnist and assistant professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kanpur Institute of Technology, Kanpur. Views personal.)