Orientation of the Bill: Is the approach to pesticide regulation through food-security not old fashioned?

Similar to the 1968 Act, issues of food security and the pesticide prowess in vector control primarily drive the bill. The other major considerations are insufficiency of the past Act in many areas of description and regulation, food safety and the National Policy for Farmers, 2007. This is broadly the scenario in the whole of Asia where pesticide regulation is a subject of Ministry of Agriculture; possibly because a) there is a substantial agricultural contribution to GDP (10 to 40 per cent), and b) pesticides are principally (about 80-90 per cent of all) used in agriculture/ allied sectors.

However, things have changed globally now. For example, in Brazil, which has taken over the top position from the US in pesticide consumption in 2008, the pesticide governance was a subject of the Federal Government Area for Agriculture till ’30s while after ’90s it became a shared activity among the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Health Surveillance Agency. In the US the transition from 1947 to 1992 was in fact a transfer of pesticide regulatory responsibilities from the States Department of Agriculture to the Environmental Protection Agency. In many other countries including Canada, Australia and Israel the approach to regulate pesticide regime has changed with shifted emphasis to protection of the environment and public health.

Should we not learn from this and equip our Environment and Health ministries with greater and decentralised governing authorities in regulating the pesticide industry in the country?

Pesticide – what is included, what not

Although the proposed definition of pesticide is broader than that of insecticide under the 1968 Act, it is restrictive and crop-specific. Household pesticide is defined separately to prohibit their field applications and also to enable delicensing of their retail sale for easy availability to the consumer. However, as the market for toxic household pesticide is growing while increasing the pollution load multifold, delicensing retail for easy availability to consumer can be deadly. The proposed draft is completely silent about users adventure into overuse or misuse of pesticides. Comparatively in the US only a few pesticides are available to the general public. Most pesticides are considered too hazardous for general use, and are restricted to certified applicators only. Further, how this definition addresses the inbuilt genetic pesticides in crops such as Bt is a question worth exploring.

Board Bureaucracy

Central government is mulling over a Pesticide Board that will have 34 members / representatives, all bureaucrats. This is about 60 per cent more in comparison to 1968 Act but still various stakeholders and experts are not on board. The suggestions made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture 2008-2009 for inclusion of two farmer representatives, a male and a female, and overall thinning of the board is welcome and should be considered. The board now has two additional roles to play - look for safer alternatives and dispose of obsolete, date-expired and banned pesticides. However, the board’s authority remains advisory as before.

Registration, licensing and inspection: will they be rituals again?

To ensure food safety pesticide registration is expected to take about two-and-a-half years time (one year more than previous registration). This is only if the Center ignores the Standing Committee’s recommendation of one year limit for issuing registration certificate. However, all registrations will be final and may pose administrative hiccups in rechecking performance as ‘time-to time’ clause for evaluation as suggested in the draft which is quite subjective. Apparently therefore in many countries including China, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Australia and even US the registration process is subdivided into three steps; a) provisional b) temporary and c) permanent. Are we ready for the change?

Two years provisional registration for the new formulae is a carry- forward clause from the earlier Act. However, it is doubtful if this time span is sufficient for generating enough health information as the period implies only two agricultural seasons (most pesticides are crop and pest specific). Moreover registration under 1968 Act still stands. This clause needs a re-look and the idea of checking MRLs for older formulae (Standing Committee on Agriculture 2008-2009) needs to be considered.

There is another worrisome clause (Chapter III, 12(13)). It suggests speedy registration in case of National exigency; urgency and/or public interest. This clause may be misused.

As far as licensing is concerned, there are good safety provisions such as revoking of license and heavy penalties but the new regime seems to provide the defaulter too many ‘chances’. Further, provisions of heavy penalties for trespassers and compensation for the affected users are welcome steps but this might lead to another set of bureaucratic problems. The Standing Committee rightly suggests that no compounding should be allowed except the first one and advises penalties for the authorities (licensor and inspector) in case of violation.

This is an issue where every citizen is a stakeholder. It is, therefore, hoped that before the present bill is finalised, a wide range of consultations should follow, including sharing of global experiences so that we move towards a safer and healthier regime.

{xtypo_info}By Rajeev Betne, Piyush Mohapatra{/xtypo_info}