Industry body flags concern over proposed pesticides Bill

What is the Pesticides Management Bill?

• The Pesticides Management Bill, 2025 is proposed to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Insecticides Rules, 1971, which currently regulate pesticides in India.
• The objective is to create a modern legal framework for regulating pesticides from manufacture to final disposal and to address issues such as fake pesticides, weak monitoring, and lack of digital traceability.
• The Bill covers the manufacture, import, export, transport, storage, sale, distribution, use, and disposal of pesticides.
• It provides that no pesticide can be manufactured, imported, or sold unless it is registered under the law.
• For this purpose, it establishes a Central Pesticides Board as the apex scientific and advisory body and a Registration Committee responsible for registration, review, suspension, and cancellation of pesticides.

Why the Existing Law Needs Replacement

• The Insecticides Act of 1968 was framed when India’s agricultural and technological realities were very different.
• It primarily focused on regulating insecticides and did not fully account for modern crop protection chemicals, new pest threats, digital traceability, or environmental concerns.
• Over the years, agriculture has become more complex due to climate change, pest resistance, changing cropping patterns, and export-linked food safety standards. The old law is not fully equipped to deal with these realities.
• Farmers today require faster access to newer molecules that are lower-dose, more targeted, and environmentally safer.
• Therefore, replacing the 1968 law has become necessary for both agricultural productivity and sustainable farming.

Industry Concerns Regarding the Draft Bill

• CropLife India has stated that while the proposed Bill is a positive reform, the current draft still leaves major policy gaps that discourage innovation.
• The industry argues that India faces a serious innovation lag because new crop protection technologies take too long to enter the market. This pushes farmers toward excessive use of older pesticides that are less efficient and often more harmful.
• According to the industry, the absence of a clear incentive structure for innovation discourages companies from introducing advanced molecules in India quickly.

This affects:

• pest resistance management
  • residue control for exports
  • environmental sustainability
  • farmer productivity
  • long-term crop resilience

The industry is therefore demanding a more predictable and time-bound regulatory framework.

Protection of Regulatory Data (PRD) Debate

The most important issue raised by CropLife India is the need for Protection of Regulatory Data (PRD), also known as Data Exclusivity.

• When a company develops a new pesticide molecule, it spends large amounts of money on safety studies, toxicity testing, field trials, and environmental impact assessments. This proprietary data is submitted to the regulator for market approval.
• PRD prevents competitors from immediately using that same data to obtain approval for generic versions of the product for a limited period.
• The industry has proposed a five-year PRD period from the date of first registration. This would allow innovators temporary protection while still permitting competition later.
• Without PRD, companies fear “free-riding,” where competitors benefit from expensive research without making the same investment. This reduces incentives for innovation.

PRD vs Patent: Important Difference

• A patent protects the invention itself, such as a chemical compound or manufacturing process. It generally lasts for 20 years.
• Protection of Regulatory Data protects only the test data submitted for regulatory approval, not the invention itself. It usually lasts for 5–10 years depending on the country.
• Even if a patent expires, PRD may still provide temporary market exclusivity because competitors cannot rely on the innovator’s safety and efficacy data.
• Thus, PRD acts as a second layer of innovation protection, especially in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals.

Importance of Faster Access to New Crop Protection Technologies

Modern crop protection technologies are far more advanced than older pesticide formulations. They are often:

• lower-dose
  • more targeted
  • safer for beneficial insects
  • less harmful for soil and water
  • better for export residue compliance
  • more effective against resistant pests

Delayed access to such technologies forces Indian farmers to overuse outdated chemicals, increasing production costs and pest resistance.

This is especially important in high-value crops like fruits, vegetables, cotton, and export-oriented agriculture where international residue standards are strict.

Faster access to newer solutions improves both productivity and competitiveness.

Key Features of the Draft Pesticides Management Bill

• The Bill proposes the creation of a Central Pesticides Board to provide scientific advice and policy guidance.
• A Registration Committee will act as the executive authority for approving, suspending, or cancelling pesticide registrations.
• Digital licensing and a national registry are proposed to improve monitoring and reduce fake pesticide sales.
• Specific timelines of around 12 to 18 months are proposed for registration decisions so that approval delays can be reduced.
• The Bill also introduces stronger penalties for manufacturing or selling unregistered and spurious pesticides.
• It improves safety standards related to labeling, packaging, protective equipment, and worker training.
• These provisions aim to improve accountability across the pesticide supply chain.

Challenges in India’s Pesticide Regulation

• India faces multiple problems in pesticide governance.
• Spurious and counterfeit pesticides remain a major issue, harming both farmers and crop productivity.
• Regulatory approvals are often slow and unpredictable, discouraging innovation and reducing investor confidence.
• Awareness among farmers regarding safe pesticide use, dosage, and protective gear remains limited, leading to health risks.
• Overuse of chemical pesticides has created environmental problems such as soil degradation, water contamination, and biodiversity loss.
• Balancing innovation incentives with affordability for farmers remains a major policy challenge. Too much exclusivity can raise prices, while too little protection can discourage new technologies.

Way Forward

India needs a balanced Pesticides Management Bill that protects both farmer interests and innovation incentives.

A limited and time-bound PRD framework should be considered so that companies are encouraged to introduce safer technologies while competition is still ensured after the exclusivity period ends.

Regulatory approvals must be faster, transparent, and science-based to reduce delays in introducing modern crop protection solutions. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) should be promoted so that pesticide use remains efficient and environmentally sustainable rather than excessive. Farmer education on safe pesticide usage, protective equipment, and resistance management must be strengthened through extension systems.

The final law should support productivity without compromising environmental and health safeguards.

Conclusion

The debate over the Pesticides Management Bill is not only about industry interests—it is about the future of Indian agriculture. Farmers need access to safer and more effective technologies, but this must be balanced with affordability, public health, and environmental sustainability.

A modern law replacing the outdated Insecticides Act, 1968 is necessary, but its success will depend on how well it balances innovation with regulation. If designed properly, the Bill can strengthen food security, export competitiveness, and sustainable agricultural growth.