The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India faces scrutiny over its pesticide regulatory framework. Experts said a disconnect exists between regulatory intent and ground reality. FSSAI lacks direct access to farm-level data, forcing reliance on secondary benchmarks. This gap makes setting safe, practical residue limits difficult for many farmers.
A more scientific and practical pesticide regulatory framework is needed
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is increasingly under scrutiny for what industry experts describe as a disconnect between regulatory intent and ground reality. FSSAI is mandated to establish science-based standards and regulate and monitor the food chain to ensure safe food for consumers. Consumer groups and environmental advocates demand stringent safety norms, while exporters and domestic producers seek feasible and globally competitive standards. At the same time, the regulator needs to function with limited available domestic research data on pesticide residues. The Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) framework largely depends on pesticide registration, CIB&RC (Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee) decisions, residue data generation and international practices.
The data gap problem
A major structural limitation lies in the division of regulatory responsibilities. Agricultural practices fall under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW), while food safety is overseen by FSSAI. Therefore, FSSAI does not have direct access to farm-level data where pesticides are applied. FSSAI also does not have a direct role or control of use of pesticides and enforcement at the point of use. As a result, the regulator often relies on secondary data, international benchmarks, or limited studies, which may not accurately represent diverse Indian agricultural conditions. It is often seen that pesticides approved for use on one crop may also be used on other crops for which they are not specifically approved. Lack of primary data leads to conservative assumptions in establishing Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for common pesticides, sometimes without fully capturing real-world use patterns or cumulative exposure from multiple food sources. For example, in tea, 20 pesticides were banned by FSSAI and a default value was fixed for six off-label pesticides. In reality, one of the banned pesticides, monocrotophos, is heavily relied upon by various growers and the chemical is available in the e-commerce channels/shelves.
The 'default limit' dilemma
FSSAI has established residue limits for only a limited number of pesticide and crop combinations, even though many more pesticides are approved for use across crops in the country. Where a crop-pesticide-specific MRL is not fixed, a default tolerance limit of 0.01 mg/kg applies. Applying this default as a compliance threshold, without adequate crop-specific residue and risk data, becomes a major challenge for the farmers. The default limit is too stringent to achieve under practical farming conditions and does not account for actual pesticide usage and possible extraneous contamination. In sectors, such as tea and spices, where only a limited number of pesticides are formally approved, this approach creates significant compliance difficulties, particularly when residue data has not been generated or submitted. The scientifically approved process is that MRL fixation starts from field trials and involves pesticide registration, CIB&RC (Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee) decisions, residue data generation followed by final fixation of limits which need to be aligned with global standards to the extent possible. Hence complying with the global standards is more rational whenever a gap exists.
India's regulatory framework with default MRLs can sometimes appear more stringent than those fixed by major international food regulators, such as EU, USFDA, FSANZ and Codex, where residue limits are generally based on extensive field data and risk assessments. This creates a paradox for Indian exporters, who must navigate both strict domestic defaults and separate international standards At times, the importing countries though having less stringent MRLs, want the imported commodities to comply with their own country regulator's MRLs, if they are more stringent, resulting in rejections.
Ground reality
Farmers often lack access to clear and practical guidance on approved pesticide usage. The availability of cheaper, unapproved or banned chemicals further complicates the situation. Farmers, therefore are left to make decisions based on cost, availability, and immediate effectiveness rather than regulatory compliance, placing them at the centre of a system that is not fully aligned. Application of uniform default limit in final products can lead to rejection of entire farm produce. Instead of this, applying more realistic detection limits using a scientific approach will help better compliance and food safety, while helping farmers transition to better practices.
The need for institutional coordination
A more effective regulatory framework will depend on closer collaboration between FSSAI, MoA&FW, MoH&FW, MoFPI and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Joint efforts to study actual pesticide usage patterns at the grassroots level and effect of processing on pesticide residues can help generate reliable data for setting realistic residue limits. Such coordination would also enable better alignment between pesticide approvals, field practices, and food safety standards.
The writer is Director, National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM), Kundli