top of page

By:

Rishabh Mishra

25 October 2024 at 4:23:56 am

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...

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 Enforcement is further weakened by the outdated Insecticides Act, 1968, under which authorities have only 60 days to file a court case after a sample fails quality testing.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.)

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page