Why is India still using a toxic pesticide banned or restricted in 28 nations?

Benfuracarb, a pesticide and nematicide that has been restricted or banned in several countries, continues to be available for use in India, raising questions over pesticide regulation, environmental safety and public health concerns.

In Short

• Benfuracarb pesticide banned in 28 countries but widely used in India
• Critics say India serves as market for pesticides banned elsewhere
• Regulatory delays raise concerns over public health versus corporate interests

When scientists sitting in well-funded laboratories across Europe conclude that a chemical poses serious risks to human health and the environment, governments in 28 countries move swiftly to keep it out of their borders. Yet when the same chemical enters India, many of those concerns appear to receive far less attention. This raises a difficult question: Are the lives of Indian farmers and consumers valued less than those in countries that have already prohibited such substances?

The debate centres on Benfuracarb, a highly controversial pesticide. Its story is not merely about a single agrochemical. It reflects a larger conflict involving corporate interests, regulatory delays and concerns over public health. Benfuracarb is an insecticide and nematicide that not only kills harmful pests but can also affect beneficial organisms. Experts argue that it is highly toxic to the nervous system and poses significant environmental and health risks.

INDIA A MARKET FOR BANNED CHEMICALS?

Developed by Japan-based Otsuka Chemical in 1981, Benfuracarb has been banned or restricted across large parts of the world. According to critics, 28 countries, including members of the European Union and the United Kingdom, have prohibited its use to safeguard future generations from potential health and environmental hazards.

Those who oppose the pesticide argue that as developed markets shut their doors to such chemicals, multinational agrochemical firms and their local partners increasingly turn to countries where regulations remain less restrictive. They contend that India has become a lucrative destination for products that face tighter scrutiny elsewhere.

A BAN THAT NEVER MATERIALISED

In 2020, the Indian government appeared ready to act. Based on recommendations made by the Anupam Verma Committee, the Agriculture Ministry issued a draft notification proposing a ban on 27 highly hazardous pesticides, including Benfuracarb.

Government records cited concerns over carcinogenic impurities, high toxicity through inhalation, harmful effects observed in animal studies, and the chemical's potential to contaminate groundwater. The draft reflected growing concern among experts about the long-term consequences of continued use.

However, critics say the proposal became entangled in prolonged reviews, consultations and industry lobbying. Agrochemical companies reportedly argued that a ban would affect investments and employment.

When the final Insecticides Prohibition Order, 2023 was issued, Benfuracarb was excluded from the list of banned pesticides and was instead retained for further review, while only four pesticides -- Dicofol, Dinocap, Methomyl and Monocrotophos -- were prohibited.

For critics, this outcome raised uncomfortable questions about whether commercial interests were being prioritised over public health.

THE FOOD SECURITY ARGUMENT

Whenever calls are made to prohibit hazardous pesticides, regulators and industry representatives often point to food security concerns. Their argument is that inexpensive pesticides remain essential for protecting crops from destructive pests and ensuring affordable food production.

India's Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) has approved Benfuracarb for use in paddy cultivation. However, critics allege that farmers often use it beyond its registered applications, including on sugarcane, maize, chilli, potato and brinjal crops to control nematodes and other pests. They argue that adequate safety data may not exist for many such uses.

At the same time, campaigners point out that less toxic and biological alternatives are increasingly available. They contend that governments have been slow to promote these options through subsidies and extension programmes.

THE CARBOFURAN CONCERN

One of the strongest criticisms of Benfuracarb relates to what happens after it is applied. The chemical breaks down into Carbofuran, a metabolite considered significantly more toxic than the parent compound.

Carbofuran has a controversial history worldwide. Reports from countries including the United States and Kenya have linked it to mass bird deaths after birds consumed treated granules. Predatory birds that fed on poisoned carcasses were also affected. Concerns over such incidents contributed to regulatory action against Carbofuran in several countries, including the United States.

Medical and forensic literature has also documented cases where Carbofuran poisoning has been associated with suicides and criminal poisoning incidents in parts of Asia and the developing world due to its extreme toxicity.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST

India has witnessed major pesticide-related controversies before. The Endosulfan tragedy in Kerala and concerns over groundwater contamination linked to excessive pesticide use in Punjab's Malwa region remain part of the country's environmental and public health discourse.

Activists argue that these experiences should serve as warnings about the risks of continuing to rely on highly hazardous chemicals. Yet Benfuracarb remains legally available in many parts of the country.

LARGER REGULATORY QUESTION

Supporters of stricter regulation often point to the precautionary principle adopted by many developed countries: if credible evidence suggests a chemical may cause serious harm, restrictions are imposed before irreversible damage occurs.

Critics argue that India's regulatory system often moves more slowly, waiting for overwhelming evidence or visible crises before taking decisive action. In their view, the continued legal status of Benfuracarb reflects broader weaknesses in pesticide regulation rather than a single administrative failure.

The central question remains unresolved: if international scientific assessments have led many countries to ban or restrict Benfuracarb, what evidence justifies its continued use in India? As the debate intensifies, the answer will shape not only public confidence in regulators but also the broader discussion on balancing agricultural productivity, corporate interests and public health.

- Ends