Pesticide Practices: Need For Policy Action

Recently, this newspaper carried a worrisome headline, “From Orchard to Oncology: How Pesticides Are Fuelling Kashmir’s Cancer Epidemic”. Last week, a very similar story appeared in a national daily. The pesticide issue is a perennial one in the horticultural circles of Kashmir but of late conversations have been replaced by concern among stakeholders.

The issue -- widespread and often unsafe use of hazardous agrochemicals in apple farming -- is neither new nor entirely hidden, but its scale and implications have not received the attention these deserve. Indeed, a quiet crisis, one that affects the health of our farmers, the safety of our food, and the sustainability of our environment, is ripening in the orchards.

In recent years, studies and reports have raised concerns about the increasing incidence of chronic illnesses among farmers in apple-growing belts. A growing number of cases involving respiratory disorders, neurological issues, and even cancers have been reported from districts like Shopian, Pulwama, and Baramulla, which are the areas where chemical spraying is most intense during the fruit growing seasons.

The problem is multifaceted. First, the common use of such chemicals in the Valley which are either banned or heavily regulated in the European Union and the United States. A chemical, for instance, which is banned in the U.S. due to its proven negative impact on brain development in children, continues to be sold and sprayed widely in Kashmir.

Worse still is that many such chemicals are a prescribed part of the standard package of practices issued by local horticulture department. This is not just ignorance but complete apathy of the government. Farmers often rely on these guidelines unquestioningly, and the lack of timely updates and reforms to these recommendations means obsolete and unsafe products persist in the supply chain.

Second, there is a complete lack of awareness and enforcement when it comes to safety protocols. Most farmers do not use protective gear while spraying pesticides. It is a common sight to find farmers spraying without gloves, masks, or even shirts. Many even consume food immediately after spraying, leading to chronic ingestion of harmful residues. Studies in similar agrarian regions have shown that dermal exposure accounts for over 60 per cent of a farmer’s pesticide load, especially when basic hygiene and safety measures are ignored.

The regulatory framework for pesticides, governed by the Insecticides Act of 1968 and the Insecticides Rules of 1971, is woefully outdated and incapable of addressing the modern-day challenges requires comprehensive reforms. It lacks provisions for periodic review of registered pesticides based on emerging toxicological data. Over the past three decades, the indiscriminate use of pesticides has surged, often driven by aggressive marketing strategies that portray chemical inputs as indispensable for high crop yields. State governments can impose only temporary bans on hazardous pesticides, typically lasting 60 days, exposing vulnerable communities to ongoing risks.

The Pesticide Management Bill (PMB) 2020 introduced to replace outdated legislation, doesn’t protect farmers from hazardous exposure. It neglects the safety of small-scale farmers, who often lack access to affordable, climate-appropriate personal protective equipment. Nor does it penalise the producer. Indeed, there is no redressal mechanism. The first policy measure should be to create accessible grievance redressal systems. Farmers and agricultural workers exposed to pesticides face prohibitive costs and lengthy procedures when seeking justice.

These regulatory policy changes must be accompanied by business policy changes and institutional reform. The horticulture extension system urgently needs modernisation. Dynamic, evidence-based advisories tailored to real-time weather and pest incidence data should replace static seasonal calendars. Government incentives should be reoriented to promote safer, certified low-toxicity products, while simultaneously phasing out access to hazardous chemicals.

Equally important is the introduction of rigorous traceability systems, from orchards to consumers. As global consumers demand chemical-residue-free produce, traceability will become a competitive advantage. Farmers and exporters alike must be empowered with the tools and digital infrastructure to certify and verify their produce against global safety standards.

These short- and medium-term policy initiatives must be supplemented by long term structural solutions. The dilemma runs deeper.

While organic farming is often proposed as the ideal solution, it is neither scalable nor economically viable on a large scale for commercial apple producers at present. Given the Valley’s output of approximately 2 million metric tonnes of apples annually, a complete shift to organic would drastically impact yields and economic returns, especially without systemic support in the form of subsidies, training, and market access for organic produce.

Therefore, the answer lies not in a disruptive policy change but in a scientifically informed transition towards green chemistry and the use of biopesticides, low-residue formulations, and integrated pest management (IPM) techniques that minimize harm to humans and the environment.

The inherited design of traditional apple orchards, with their large tree canopies and dense foliage, worsens the problem. Without access to high-efficiency mist sprayers and appropriate mechanisation, farmers are forced to spray manually and often over-apply chemicals to ensure coverage. As a result, application rates in traditional orchards are often two to three times higher than necessary, leading to significant chemical runoff into soil and water sources. The obvious solution is to move towards scientifically laid out orchards as is being currently done.

There needs to be investment in the research and development of pest- and disease-resistant apple varieties. This is an area where India lags global benchmarks. While countries like New Zealand, US, Japan etc., have released multiple resistant cultivars over the past 10 years, Indian orchards still rely heavily on traditional varieties that are susceptible to scab, aphids, and borers, necessitating frequent chemical intervention.

At the local level there should be focussed Research & Development on adapting to apple farming the nationally produced neem-based and microbial biopesticides which are showing promising results in tea and rice cultivation.

Above all, there has to be a societal reckoning about Kashmir’s most iconic produce, the apple, which supports 7 lakh families and generates incomes of Rs 8,000 to 10,000 crores directly. The value that it has for our economy and society must be reflected in the care and concern with which we grow it. Beyond the price it realises, the true cost of the apples that are proudly exported and passionately consumed must be known. The price of apples of Rs 80 per kg in the market is no reflection of the cost; it does not include the burden borne by the farmer who inhaled unsafe sprays, or the child who drank from a pesticide-contaminated stream.

Sustainable horticulture, indeed, sustainability, is not just about profit; it is about people and the planet. It is time to act otherwise the social and environmental costs will far outweigh the financial profits making this business environmentally unsustainable.

The author is Contributing Editor Greater Kashmir