‘Multinational companies think they are above the law’

Pesticides are designed to cause harm, merely on contact, unlike other chemicals, which might lead to problems when inhaled or consumed. Most pesticides are contact poisons. The second is that they are used openly in the environment. Though they are sprayed on the crop or on the pest, at least 97 to 99 per cent goes into non-target areas and into the environment. Apart from that, most pesticides are systemic poison, causing problems once they enter the human body or biodiversity. They kill the enzymes or inhibit some of the body functions. That is another feature of pesticides.

Rotterdam Convention has helped developing countries that do not have scientific capacity to test pesticides. But these treaties are only looking at identification and notification. There is not much international regulation beyond that. We need to go beyond that. This is where the Global Framework on Chemicals [adopted in September 2023 to protect the planet and human health, advocating for strong governance mechanisms and enforcing international standards] is being talked about. Pesticides have been damaging biodiversity. Honeybees are vanishing. Frogs are vanishing. Aquatic life is being affected. The harmful impacts of pesticides on biodiversity are becoming clearer with time. That is the reason people are now calling for more regulation.

Also, pesticides trade is not regulated. Even the World Trade Organization does not look at this. A regulation across the country is being harmonised. There is a lot of pressure on India to accept the US norms of pesticide regulation. Basically, they are saying that they have tested and approved a pesticide in the US, and so India also needs to automatically approve it. This kind of harmonisation pressure is there. So, in that sense, I think we need an international regulatory framework.

In the US, there is regulation, accountability and liability, which enable people to get compensation. But if the same American company comes to India, it does not face any liability. A victim suffering from injury in India cannot file a case against a US company or a multinational company. We found in Yavatmal [in Maharashtra], there are a lot of pesticide poisoning cases. One problem is that there is no jurisdiction because the company is not producing the chemical. The company licenses its product to a company in India, which then produces it. In return, the company gets royalty out of it.

But for a victim, establishing all this at an international level is a big exercise. There are several issues. How do you bring liability when your trade has gone beyond the borders? People want multinationals to operate. They bring in food security, which is the reason they cite for using pesticides. So the liability has to be brought in for all the companies, not just against domestic ones.

India also exports pesticides, and we also do not acknowledge liability for damaging biodiversity or people’s lives in Africa, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, for example. So this is a general problem where the regulatory frameworks are not on par, especially in terms of liability. These multinational companies are larger than some of the countries and they feel like they are above the law.

There are different levels of trade that include raw materials, the basic pesticide and then the formulation. All these three involve a lot of chemicals and that knowledge is not known to everyone. That is where this international expertise will come in handy. Another problem is the secretive way trade happens, including the production and manufacturing and distribution. These are not open to international scrutiny.

There is one issue. Companies do not do bio-safety tests periodically, but rather, just once at the time of registration or licensing. We need to continuously test for bio-safety to eliminate hazardous chemicals once they are proven to be ineffective, and are causing more harm than good.

Even in the US or EU, companies introduce a pesticide saying that it has been extensively researched and will work on certain pests. But only when we use it practically, we see how effective it is or harmful it could be on the environment. Take the case of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). Its harmful effects became known only after they were introduced. So it is better to follow the precautionary principle. This means regulation at international level and at national level must be continuous. We must keep monitoring the chemicals. Sharing of knowledge and expertise is also important.

Local research on bio-safety must happen. We have a different set of conditions in India. We have a live interaction with agriculture, unlike in the US or other countries, where they do not often go to the field. Doing bio-safety on isolated farms in the US is different from in India. If we are giving a licence to a company based on the data collected from conditions elsewhere, it might not be very applicable in India since we have a different set of conditions of agriculture and our spraying practices are also different. We have very small farmers who buy pesticides in sachets because they do not require them in litres. Decanting is not allowed as per pesticide regulation by UN Food and Agriculture Organization. But in India, we decant pesticides. The approval process must take this into consideration.

In India, the law is very lax. We have the Insecticide Act, 1968. The government tried to amend the law, but made it more diluted. We have been asking for periodic review of its effectiveness or harm potential. You just cannot license and forget. The government needs to collect local research data before approving a pesticide. After that, they need to monitor it more closely for the next two-three years and then review it.