The poison pill in India’s search for cheap food

Nearly a decade ago, the Indian government ruled out a ban on the production and use of monocrotophos, the highly toxic pesticide that killed 23 children this month in a village school providing free lunches under a government-sponsored program.
Despite being labelled highly hazardous by the World Health Organization (WHO), a panel of government experts was persuaded by manufacturers that monocrotophos was cheaper than alternatives and more effective in controlling pests that decimate crop output.
India, which has more hungry mouths to feed than any other country in the world, continues to use monocrotophos and other highly toxic pesticides that rich and poor nations alike, including China, are banning on health grounds.
Although the government argues the benefits of strong pesticides outweigh the hazards if properly managed, the school food poisoning tragedy underlined criticism such controls are virtually ignored on the ground.
According to the minutes, the 2004 meeting conducted by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, the Indian government body that regulates pesticide use, concluded that: “The data submitted by the industry satisfies the concerns raised...Therefore, there is no need to recommend the ban of this product.”
Government scientists continue to defend the pesticide, and insist the decision to not ban it remains good.
Just weeks before the school tragedy in Bihar state, the Indian government advised farmers via text message to use monocrotophos to kill borer pests in mandarin fruits and rice, records on the agricultural meteorology division’s web site show.
“It is cost effective and it is known for its efficacy ... some even call it a benevolent pesticide,” said T. P. Rajendran, assistant director general for plant protection at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
“I can say that pesticides currently permitted in the country are safe provided they are used as per specifications and guidelines. We have exhaustive and detailed guidelines. They need to be followed.”
A senior official directly involved in the decision-making on pesticide use said: “You have got to understand that all pesticides are toxic but they are essential for maintaining or increasing agricultural production.
“Can we afford to lose 15-25 percent of output? One cannot afford to lose such a large percentage of agricultural produce. The answer lies in judicious use.”
The official declined to be identified.
The WHO has cited a 2007 study that about 76,000 people die each year in India from pesticide poisoning. Many of the deaths are suicides made easy by the wide availability of toxic pesticides.
In the school tragedy, police suspect the children’s lunch was cooked in oil that was stored in a used container of monocrotophos.
The Indian government has issued 15 pages of regulations that need to be followed when handling pesticides — including wearing protective clothing and using a respirator when spraying. Pesticide containers should be broken when empty and not left outside in order to prevent them being re-used.
But in a nation where a quarter of the 1.2 billion population is illiterate and vast numbers live in far-flung rural districts, implementation is almost impossible. For instance, monocrotophos is banned for use on vegetable crops, but there is no way to ensure the rule is followed.
According to the WHO, swallowing 1,200 milligrams — less than a teaspoon — of monocrotophos can be fatal to humans. In 2009, it called for India to ban the product because of its extreme toxicity.
Indian government officials refuse to address the WHO’s findings directly.
“We have to take decisions depending on our need, our priorities, and our requirements. No one knows these things better than us,” said the government source.
For India, providing more food to its people is a national priority. According to the World Bank, nearly 400 million people in the country live on less than $1.25 per day.
According to government officials and manufacturers, monocrotophos is cheap and is also a broad spectrum pesticide that can only be replaced by four or five crop- or pest-specific pesticides. Even similar pesticides are much more expensive.
A 500 ml monocrotophos bottle sold by Godrej Agrovet, a subsidiary of Godrej Industries, is priced at 225 rupees ($3.75), while an alternative, Imidacloprid, in a bottle of 500 ml produced by Bayer, costs 1,271 rupees.
Monocrotophos is banned by many countries, including the United States, the European Union nations, China, and, among India’s neighbors, Pakistan. Sri Lanka only allows monocrotophos use for coconut cultivation.
One of the two companies that argued against the ban on monocrotophos in 2004 halted production five years later under pressure from the public in its home country, Denmark.
Cheminova, a unit of Auriga Industries, said it stopped producing monocrotophos in India in 2009 and converted its plant to produce a low-toxic fungicide.
“We decided to phase out monocrotophos because with many alternative products, we could not see any reason to have such a toxic product in a country like India,” Lars-Erik Pedersen, vice-president of Auriga Industries, told Reuters in Copenhagen.
“It was a big decision because it is one of the best-selling products in India,” he added.
Historically, India appears reluctant to ban pesticides. Monocrotophos isn’t the most toxic pesticide used in the country, according to the WHO’s classifications. Phorate, methyl parathion, bromadiolone and phosphamidon, all classified as extremely hazardous, are likewise registered for use.