Faced with widespread complaints about the quality of agricultural pesticides, the government is said to be contemplating replacement of the Agriculture Pesticide Ordinance, 1971, with a new law. As a report appearing in this paper the other day disclosed, towards that end, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock has already decided to hold a meeting with different stakeholders, including representatives of the pesticide industry and farmers.
Such a participatory approach can prove to be productive indeed, since it would place a responsibility on the industry to try and improve the situation. As it is, industry representatives tend to take a defence position, insisting that only a small fraction, about 3.4 percent, of those in the business are involved in making adulterated or fake pesticides.
The general problem, they say, is of the products being substandard, which they blame on temperature variations, exposure to light and, in general, poor handling.
Some of these excuses may be valid, but there is no denying that quality control is a serious problem in this country whether it concerns life-saving drugs, food products, or toiletries; hence there is no reason why the pesticides sector should be any different.
Under active consideration of the Federal Agriculture Ministry are said to be proposals that include transferring, from its own purview to provincial or district governments, of its power to check the quality and formulation standards of pesticides; and authorising provincial governments' inspectors to examine the premises of pesticides formulation units.
Penalties for different categories of offenders are also to be enhanced. Sceptics, however, may want to point out that most of those marketing adulterated or fake pesticides do so in collusion with government officials.
Therefore, merely enhancing prescribed punishments may not achieve anything. In fact, the existing law provides for punishments from 3 to 10 years. Yet hardly anyone has ever been handed a prison term for marketing substandard or even fake pesticides.
Formulation companies are also to inform the concerned authorities about their official dealers, who, in case of consumer complaints, would be required to produce the record of dealership and products sold. As per another good proposal, the government is to increase the number of pesticides testing laboratories and also improve their standards.
When the various stakeholders meet to deliberate upon all these proposals, it is hoped they will be able to come up with additional ideas that will pressure the sector to work in accordance with international standards and formulas. One important aspect of pesticide formulation/packaging activity, that is missing from the present proposals, is that of environmental pollution, which poses serious hazards to human health.
A recent study carried out by the Environmental Technology Programme for Industry reveals that although only 15 out of 48 or so industries registered under the Agricultural Pesticides Act are pesticide formulating units, and the rest are merely packaging pre-formulated pesticides, almost all of them produce a variety of highly toxic pollutants.
The standard practice for them is to dump everything, solid waste as well as effluents, into the ground. Experts warn against the dangers of disposing of waste chemicals, liquid as well as solid, into the ground or a water body. The safest disposal method for such toxic chemicals, they emphasise, is incineration.
The smaller units find it too expensive to adopt. Still, what they can do about the problem is to put in place shared facilities. Needless to say, it is just as important for the industry to embrace socially responsible attitudes as it is to ensure product quality.