Pesticide use is rising not just in volume but also intensity, posing major threats to ecologically important species as well as to human health. And this pesticide toxicity is driven by just four countries: India, China, Brazil and the US. These are the results of a February 5 study published by researchers with the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Germany in the journal Science.
The paper reviewed 625 pesticides used globally to understand progress in the goal to halve pesticide risks by 2030 (relative to 2010-20 levels). This goal was adopted at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2022, under the Global Biodiversity Framework. The study uses “total applied toxicity” (TAT), a metric adopted at CBD’s COP16 in 2025, to gauge the reduction goal. TAT weighs the amount of pesticide used against how harmful each chemical is to different species groups. By this measure, India, Brazil, China and the US contribute 53-68 per cent of global pesticide toxicity.
The study says that of the 65 countries with national data—representing 79.4 per cent of global crop acreage—only Chile appears on track for the 2030 goal. China, Japan and Venezuela are also moving closer. However, Thailand, Denmark, Ecuador and Guatemala are moving away from the target, with at least one indicator doubling within the past 15 years. In many cases, toxicity trends have become entrenched and reversing them would require “systematic transformation” of agriculture, including integrated biological solutions, precision technologies, informed farmer practices and supportive policies.
The study analyses pesticide use between 2013 and 2019 across 201 countries and its impact on eight species groups. It found that even in countries where total volume of pesticides appears stable or rising gradually, ecological impact is intensifying for six groups—pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, fish, soil organisms and terrestrial arthropods and plants. Terrestrial arthropods, including insects, show the steepest global rise at 6.4 per cent per year, followed by soil organisms at 4.6 per cent.
It also shows that only 20 highly toxic pesticides (of 511 analysed) dominate over 90 per cent of a country’s total toxicity burden. Organophosphates and pyrethroids dominate toxicity for aquatic invertebrates, fish and terrestrial arthropods and neonicotinoids account for the bulk of pollinator toxicity. Herbicides contribute heavily to plant toxicity. “High-volume herbicides, such as acetochlor (~54,000 metric tons per year), paraquat (~44,000 tons per year), and glyphosate (~518,000 tons per year), belong to these classes and have been linked to environmental and human health risks,” says the study. Similarly, fungicides significantly affect soil organisms.
According to the Union government’s Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage, chemical pesticide use in India increased about 20 per cent from 57,353 tonnes in 2014-15 to 67,221 tonnes by 2024-25. The Science study says that as India has one of the world’s largest agricultural areas, pesticide use also has a large cumulative ecological burden.
Some areas also show an increase in per-hectare intensity, with toxicity levels above global average across the Indo-Gangetic plains and in intensively cultivated regions like Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana and Karnataka. The maps also indicate accelerating toxicity in 2013-19 across large parts of India and South Asia.
In terms of toxicity by crop type, India’s burden is closely linked to staple cereals like rice, cotton and sugarcane. In particular, cotton has a high toxicity contribution, though occupies a smaller share of farmland compared to rice.
Narasimha Reddy Donthi, a public policy expert and consultant at Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India, says the study highlights how pesticide management in India does not factor in biodiversity harm.
On January 7, the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare released a draft of the Pesticide Management Bill, 2025, to replace the Insecticide Act, 1988. The Bill aims to “strive to minimise risk to human beings, animals, living organisms other than pests, and the environment”. However, organisations such as PAN India say this language is weak.
According to Donthi, “The Pesticide Management Bill, 2025, and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, sit in separate legislative silos, administered by separate ministries, with no formal connection between them. The TAT framework makes that separation indefensible.” He emphasises that India adopt the TAT framework and include the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) in pesticide regulation. “Pesticide registration, renewal and phase-out decisions must carry a mandatory biodiversity impact assessment conducted by the NBA,” Donthi says.
“The Bill is on the table. The Biodiversity Act is in force. What is missing is the political will to treat biodiversity loss as a consequence of pesticide approval,” adds Donthi.
This article was originally published in the March 16-31, 2026 print edition of Down To Earth