Mounika Bhukya, CPSP’s project and policy officer, encourages India to align its pesticide policies with global health standards by supporting the chlorpyrifos ban under the Stockholm Convention, highlighting that true leadership is choosing science and long-term responsibility over outdated chemicals.
Credit: Heshani Sothiraj EddlestonAt the 2025 meeting of the Stockholm Convention, countries around the world came together to take strong action against chlorpyrifos – a pesticide that poses serious, long-lasting risks to people’s health and the environment.
The scientific evidence presented was clear and overwhelming—chlorpyrifos meets all four criteria of a persistent organic pollutant: persistence, bioaccumulation, long-range environmental transport, and adverse effects.
In response, the Convention recommended that it be added to the list of globally banned substances under Annex A.
Yet, despite the growing international consensus and strong support from over 100 participating countries, India objected to the listing, effectively blocking global action on a pesticide already banned or heavily restricted in most of the world.
This opposition is deeply concerning – not only because it undermines the Convention’s purpose, but because it signals an alarming divergence from India’s commitment to public health, environmental protection, and science-based policy-making.
Chlorpyrifos has been banned or severely restricted in more than 40 countries, including the United States, European Union member states, and Canada, due to its well-documented risks to human health.
Many scientific studies have shown that chlorpyrifos can harm brain development in children, affect fertility, and interfere with hormones in the body.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, after years of scientific review, concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to chlorpyrifos, particularly for infants and pregnant women.
Yet, India – despite being a signatory to the Stockholm Convention – continues to manufacture, use, and export chlorpyrifos, raising serious ethical and regulatory concerns.
A farmer spraying chemicals: Credit: Unsplash
India’s rationale for its position appears to be rooted in economic and agricultural arguments: the chemical is still widely used by Indian farmers as a broad-spectrum insecticide, and its domestic production supports export revenues.
However, this stance neglects the cumulative health costs, environmental damage, and global reputational harm India may incur by failing to act in line with evolving scientific consensus and international norms.
The Stockholm Convention exists to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that, by their very nature, travel across borders and accumulate in ecosystems and bodies over time.
India’s objection contradicts the Convention’s core principle: that collective action is necessary to prevent long-term, global harm from persistent chemicals.
When India blocks consensus, it does not just delay a ban – it weakens the multilateral foundation on which global chemical safety is built.
India has made significant progress in agricultural innovation and sustainability in recent years.
Its global leadership in natural farming, digital agriculture, and climate-resilient practices positions it as a forward-thinking nation.
But retaining support for obsolete and harmful chemicals like chlorpyrifos is inconsistent with that vision.
More importantly, it sends a message that short-term industrial and economic considerations can override scientific evidence, health equity, and international cooperation.
A growing number of scientists, public health experts, and civil society organisations in India are urging the government to align with global standards.
In 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture proposed a ban on 27 hazardous pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, citing human and environmental risks.
However, that proposal was subsequently withdrawn due to vested economic interests
Now, in 2025, India stands at a crossroads.
By voluntarily supporting the listing of chlorpyrifos under the Stockholm Convention, India can reclaim its role as a responsible stakeholder in global health governance.
It can demonstrate that economic progress does not have to come at the cost of the environment or the next generation’s wellbeing. And above all, it can reaffirm its constitutional duty to safeguard the health of its citizens.
The Ministry of Agriculture, in collaboration with allied regulatory bodies such as the Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee (CIBRC) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, is encouraged to consider a thorough re-evaluation of the domestic registration and use of chlorpyrifos.
At the same time, it is paramount to support Indian farmers through safe, affordable, and effective alternatives, in alignment with international commitments to transparency and the principle of prior informed consent.
India’s leadership in global forums will ring hollow if it continues to defend chemicals the world has recognized as toxic and obsolete.
India has the capacity and indeed the responsibility to lead with science, integrity, and foresight.