 |
RULES
AND RENEGADES
Pesticide regulations in India are lax. The industry has
exploited the loopholes to corrupt the system. And the government has turned a blind eye
to the problem |
Pesticides are regulated under the Insecticides Act of 1968 and Insecticides
Rules of 1971. In May 2000, the Insecticide (Amendment) Bill 2000, was passed under the
shadow of suicide deaths of farmers because of spurious pesticides. This amendment made
the punishment for adulterated pesticides more stringent. But it did little to clean up
the regulations to register pesticides and to monitor this poison industry. The
insecticide act regulates the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and the
use of insecticides to prevent any risk to people and animals. The registration committee,
constituted under Section 5 of the act, registers an insecticide after verifying its
efficacy and safety to human beings, animals and the environment. The Central Insecticides
Board (CIB) based in Faridabad, Haryana, advises the Union and state governments on
technical matters. In 2001, a total of 2,718 applications were received for registration,
of which 1,439 were approved, according to the government.
Basically, there are two
types of registration under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act — primary and
secondary. When a new molecule is registered in India it gets a primary registration.
Subsequent applications for the same molecule get the secondary registration. Registering
a new molecule requires the generation of studies — environment dependent data
conducted under Indian agro-climatic conditions and environment independent data.
Environment independent
data can be straightaway lifted from existing data elsewhere in the world. But generating
environment-dependent data usually takes around 4-5 years. Data sets on various subjects
including toxicology and phyto-toxicology need to be generated to register any new
molecule. Once a primary registrant exists, others applying for fresh registration are
given a secondary registration.
Of course, these are just
rules prescribed by the government. These are rarely followed.
Pest-infested system
The first step to register a new pesticide is the generation of data. This is also the
first step where corruption can creep in. A company has the option of either going to a
government lab or a government-approved private commercial labs. "Companies usually
prefer government-approved commercial labs as they can generate the desired results. And
quickly. Bureaucratic hurdles in government labs can cause long delays," says N G
Waghle, former vice-president, Pest Control India Limited. Private labs are primed to
cater to the industry’s demands, he adds. Where everything comes at a price.
 |
| Laws need to be tightened. Governments must put
people’s health above anything else. Otherwise, this industry of death will become
even more deadly in the years to come |
"Indian registration
procedures are hopeless. It is a big tamasha," says P D Deshmukh, a senior
pesticide industry insider. With an experience of 30 years with the industry, Deshmukh has
amazing tales to narrate. "I know of one lab which promised to generate toxicological
data for a product within a day. Generating this data usually takes one to one and a half
years. The head of the lab told me that he would prepone the exchange of letters by one
year — making it look as if the application was filed a year ago. Many multinational
and Indian companies are a part of this racket," alleges Deshmukh. "It is scary
to imagine how many dangerous pesticides would have made it to the farms without proper
testing," fears Waghle.
Recounting his 35 years
of experience in the industry, Waghle, recounts shocking tales of how companies have
corrupted even top officials in pesticide registration bodies. "Companies are wary of
directly approaching CIB officials, so they use the services of a broker," he says.
Agents act as a liaison between the industry and CIB. Bribing of junior and senior
officials at CIB takes place through these designated agents. The industry has developed
the bribing of officials into an art form. And the agent is an integral part of this
racket. |
Ugly interface
The broker is usually a regular face at the CIB, says Waghle. So even
officials feel comfortable interacting with him. Industry pays this agent for all
the dirty work that they want to get done — registration of a new molecule or
stealing data for already registered molecule or even bribing the registration committee
members to influence decision-making at the top level. But the bribe is not always money.
Many top CIB officials,
including the registration committee members, regularly receive junket invitations, says
Waghle. The company pays for all the expenses — air tickets, five-star hotel
accommodation and even shopping expenses. Again there is no direct involvement of the
industry. It is done through the agent. "The official simply has to inform the agent,
who then gets in touch with the company. The company pays the agent for all the dirty
work," he adds. Waghle has given Down To Earth names of a few of the legendary
agents and their clients.
The laws itself are
geared to protect the industry. The endosulfan establishment has used these loopholes to
great advantage. For example, the PCK violated many regulations while conducting aerial
spraying. The insecticides act makes it mandatory for a company to inform people about
aerial spraying of pesticides. All waterbodies in the area must also be covered during
spraying. But this was not done by the PCK. "The CIB has prescribed that the
endosulfan spraying should be undertaken at a height of not more than 2-3 metres above the
foliage. But even this was always violated in the PCK plantations," says L
Sundaresan, former director, department of agriculture, Kerala.
"Aerial spraying of
endosulfan was never allowed by the CIB after 1993. The CIB had given approval for aerial
spraying of endosulfan to the PCK only till December 1992. But the department of
agriculture in Kerala and the district collector have been issuing aerial spraying
directives even till January 2001," alleges Jayakumar.
The Union government made
some tired efforts to make pesticide use "safe". It appointed committees. These
committees allowed the use of endosulfan with a word of caution: pesticides must be used
very carefully and specified areas where they must not be used. In 1991, the Union
government appointed a committee headed by S N Banerjee, former plant protection advisor
to the government, to review whether some pesticides, including endosulfan, should be used
in India. The committee said that the registration committee of CIB should not allow the
use of endosulfan near rivers, lakes, sea and ponds. The committee also recommended a
warning must be displayed on all labels and leaflets of containers. As far as other
warnings are concerned, companies display them in such small point size that it is
unreadable (see Farmer education on this page).
Another committee headed
by R B Singh, made similar recommendations in 1999. It reinforced the fact that labelling
should be made mandatory in bold letters to avoid use of endosulfan near water sources.
The 195th meeting of registration committee of CIB, held in December 1999, agreed to
implement the recommendations. But they were never actually implemented. The CIB
has chosen to sit on these recommendations. Endosulfan is still used indiscriminately, as
the Kasaragod tragedy shows.
The pesticide industry
does not like the regulations of the insecticide act saying that the cumbersome procedures
for registration are strangling growth. But, seeing the way the industry has sidestepped,
indeed, trampled over all procedures and norms of decency in the endosulfan case, it is
clear that this "dirty" business needs more, not less, controls. But this time
it needs monitors who will have public accountability. Otherwise, this industry of death
will become even more deadly in the years to come.
<<FIRST PAGE
|
