CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

Item

Title
CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA
extracted text
DILEEP KUMAR A D

April 2015

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT
USE IN INDIA

1 5 U-A
OM C
JS oPH

CONTACT

PAN INDIA

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India

Vilangottil House
House No. 104
Prayaga, Warriam Road
Thalore P.O. Thrissur.
Kerala, India
PIN-680306
admin@pan-india.org
www.pan-india.org

I

SOCHARA
Community Health
Library and Information Centre (CLIC)
Community Health Cell
85/2, 1st Main, Maruthi Nagar,
Madiwala, Bengaluru - 560 068.
Tel : 080-25531518
email: clic@sochara.org / chc@sochara.org
www.sochara.org

Frontpage A farmer with a hand operated sprayer (West Bengal). Often paraquat and other pesticides are applied
with this kind of sprayer.

IMPRINT Author Dileep Kumar A. D. I Edited by Sreedevi Lakshmikutty I Photos Dileep Kumar A. D.: Frontpage,

page 17, 25; Kondala Reddy: page 5, 30; IUF: page 7, 9, 29 I Design Karin Hutter

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 3

FOREWORD BY THE EDITORS

Agriculture is the most important sector of the Indian
economy providing employment and livelihood to nearly
70 % of the total population. The industrialization of agri­
culture has favoured the use of plenty of agrochemicals
including fertilisers, pesticides, micro nutrients and plant
growth regulators in the agricultural fields. According to
recent data from the Central Insecticide Board and Regis­
tration Committee (CIBRC), 256 pesticides are registered
for use in India (as of December 31, 2014). Among this,
nearly half are insecticides, followed by fungicides and
herbicides. According to the CIBRC list of registered pes­
ticides in India (dated October 1, 2014). 54 herbicides and
13 combination herbicides are approved for use in the
country.
Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal are the
states where the herbicide consumption is high in India.
Though herbicides were widely used in the plantation sec­
tor for a long lime, now it is becoming widely accepted in
most agricultural landscapes such as horticulture, cereals,
vegetables and floriculture. About three fourths of the
available herbicides in India are still used in plantation
crops. At present herbicide use is common in major crops
like sugarcane, wheat, rice, maize and vegetables. Data
from a few studies on herbicide consumption shows that
they are being used in approximately 20 million hectares,
which constitutes about 10 per cent of the total cropped
area. In general, herbicides are being used where the eco­
nomic stakes for farmers are high, and/or where choices
are limited. In 2013-14 (as on December 18, 2014), the
volume of herbicides consumed in India was 5000 metric
tonne technical grade.
The implications of using pesticides, including herbi­
cides, are increasingly being experienced in the form of
hazardous health effects. Several studies across the globe
reveal that pesticides can cause severe health hazards in­
cluding infertility and sub-fertility, abnormal develop­
ment, birth defects, hormonal disorders, immune suppres­
sion, diminished intelligence and cancers.
Herbicides are extremely toxic to other organisms and
soil life. Persistence in soil, pollution of environment and
ground water, toxic residues in food, feed, fodder, develop­
ment of herbicide resistant weeds and adverse effect on
non-target organisms and biodiversity, etc. are other nega­
tive impacts of herbicide use. The potential of herbicides
contaminating ground water has gained considerable at­
tention in recent years.
Butachlor, 2,4-D, isoproturon, glyphosate, anilophos,
paraquat dichloride, pretilachlor, and atrazin are the most
commonly used herbicides in India. Among these, para­
quat dichloride has received global attention over the past

couple of years due to its high acute toxicity and ability to
cause severe short term and long term health effects among
users.
For many years, International Union of Food and Al­
lied Workers (IUF), Pesticide Action Network and the
Berne Declaration have been asking governments for a
global ban on paraquat and also calling on industry to stop
production and sale of this highly hazardous pesticide.
The product is already banned in many countries all over
the world, including African and Asian nations, the Euro­
pean Union and Switzerland, the home country of Syngen­
ta, the main producer of paraquat. In countries like the
United States and China the use of paraquat is restricted.
Nevertheless, paraquat is still one of the most used herbi­
cides globally, especially in developing countries, where
its use leads to countless poisoning episodes of workers
and farmers.
This led us to do a study on Conditions of Paraquat
Use in India. We did the study across six states where
paraquat use is high. The objective was to understand and
document the use of paraquat, the reasons thereof, the
knowledge about its impacts among farmers and workers.
the use of personal protective measures and the adherence
to regulations by the users. The study has established that
the use of paraquat in India clearly violates the Interna­
tional Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management of the
World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Food and Agri­
culture Organisation (F/\O). The manufacturers and the
state have a responsibility to change this untenable situa­
tion. The Government of India also needs to act and en­
sure that the use of herbicides and pesticides is within the
legal frame work of India and international commitments
of India.
We believe that this report shows the need for national­
level policy decisions on the regulation of pesticides and
in this case on paraquat specifically. Regulations should be
based on evaluation and assessment of impact of the in­
trinsic hazards of and anticipated exposure of users to
these hazardous chemicals.
The editors would like to thank the main author.
Dileep Kumar A D. the team of PAN India and all the others
who have contributed to this study. The team has collected
a lot of new information about the use of paraquat in India.
We believe that this report will be helpful for the decision
makers in India to align Indian regulations with interna­
tional policies, so that harm to people and the planet can
be minimized, if not removed completely.

C. Jayaknmar and Dr. D. Narasimha Reddv
(Pesticide Action Network India)

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 4

TABLE OF CONTENT

Foreword by the editors 3
Acknowledgment 5
Executive summary 6
Policy recommendation 7

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

OBJECTIVES

3.

METHODOLOGY

4.

STUDY AREA

5.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

LIST OF TABLES

1

Recommendation of paraquat dichloride by state
agriculture departments and other institutions 14
3 Variations in approved use and recommended use of
paraquat dichloride in India 15
4 Percentage of paraquat dichloride to the total herbicide
consumption 16

2

8

9

10

5

11

State wise consumption data for paraquat dichloride
obtained through RTI Act 17
7 Classification of respondents 18

12

Legal framework

5.2.
5.3.

Consumption of paraquat dichloride in India
Findings of the field study 18

8
9

12

16

5.3.1. Information and awareness on paraquat use and
safety measures 22
5.3.2. Information and awareness

23

1

Agricultural and environmental impacts

27

2
3
4
5
6

Report based on information obtained from agriculture
extension officers and retailers 28
5.5. Paraquat use in tea plantations 29
5.6. Other weed management methods 29
6.
7.

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

30

31

Dispersal of paraquat with other materials 19
Quantity of paraquat used and the addition of other
materials 20

LIST OF CHARTS

on personal protective equipments (PPE)
5.3.3. Use of safety measures 24
5.3.4. Poisoning and health effects 26
5.3.5. Disposal of containers 27

5.4.

Commercial names of paraquat dichloride reported
from field 16

6

5.1.

5.3.6.

Details on the approved use of paraquat dichloride 24 SL
in India as on October 2014 13

7

8
9

10
11
12

Consumption of paraquat dichloride and total
herbicide consumption in India 16
Reasons for using paraquat 19
Type of sprayers used-farmers 21
Working in sprayed fields-farmers 21
Source of information and advice on paraquat use 22
Responses to questions related to label and
instructions among farmers 23
Responses regarding training on use of PPE and
pesticide application 24
Use of Personal Protective Equipment 24
Personal protective equipment used by workers 25
Health effects reported by farmers 26
Health effects reported by farm workers 27
Container disposal method-farmers 27

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

PAN India is grateful to Thanal for facilitating, supporting
and guiding the research. We thank Berne declaration. Pes­
ticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP) and
IUF (International Union of Food and Allied Workers) for
their support and partnering in this effort to bring knowl­
edge for decision making.
I am indebted to Sri. C.Jayakumar and Dr. Narasimha
Reddy (Directors. Pesticide Action Network India) for pro­
viding me the opportunity to take up this study; their sup­
port, encouragement and guidance for the successful com­
pletion of this work. 1 would like to express my gratitude
for the effort taken by Ms. Usha. Dr Sharadini Rath and Dr
Adithya Pradyumna (members, steering committee of PAN
India) for their guidance, suggestions and cooperation which
helped us to take the work forward.
1 would like to express sincere thanks to Mr. Francois
Mcienberg (Campaign Diretor, Berne Dcclarartion), Ms. Sarojcni Rengam (Executive Director. PAN AP), Ms. Sue
Longely (IUF International), for conceiving the research
idea, support and guidance throughout the study.
I owe my deep sense of gratitude to Dr P. K. Prasadan

Collecting data from Pesticide retailer in Telagana state.

(Associate Professor. Research department of Zoology.
Mary Matha zXrts and Science College. Wayanad. Kerala)
for his support, guidance in research and motivation
throughout the work. I express sincere thanks to Ms.
Sreedevi Lakshmikutty for editing the report. I thank Adv.
Harish Vasudevan for his help and advice to collect data
from various Government sources through the provisions
of the Right To Information Act.
Special thanks to Dr. Anupam Paul. Dr. Namita Lungchang. Dr. Sheelawati Monlai. Ms. Shruti Patidar. Ms. Timitha Mungyak, Ms. Konchiva Namchoom. Mr. Ashokdas. Mr.
Alauddin Ahamed, Mr. Amitabh Kumar Singh. Mr. Budhi
Singh and Mr. Kondala Reddy for facilitating and supporting
to gather field data. I thank all the respondents for providing
the information, their patience and co-operation during the
data collection. 1 also thank Ms. T. Chitra for compiling sec­
ondary data and Ms. Nihala for helping with data analysis.
I am grateful to my colleagues and friends for their con­
stant support and encouragement.

Dileep Kumar A D.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report presents the findings of a field study conducted
to document the use of paraquat dichloride in India and its
health impacts. Paraquat dichloride has high acute toxici­
ty. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International includes
paraquat dichloridc in its list of highly hazardous pesti­
cides. Paraquat dichloride 24 % SL is the only formulation
registered in India and is approved for weed control in
nine crops.
The field study was carried out in eleven study areas
across six States (Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh. As­
sam. Madhya Pradesh. Telangana and West Bengal) in In­
dia, where paraquat use was observed in a preliminary ex­
ploration in 20 areas across 10 States. The field data was
collected through purposive sampling with the help of
questionnaires from farmers and farm workers including
paraquat/pesticide applicators. In addition agriculture ex­
tension officers as well as pesticide retailers were also in­
terviewed. Secondary data was collected through applica­
tions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from State
Agriculture Departments as well as from the web sites of
respective departments or institutions.
Farmers use paraquat in their fields for controlling
weeds. A total of 14 commercial names of paraquat dichlo­
ride have been found to be sold in the study sites. It is be­
ing used in about 25 crops (in the study area) including
cereals, pulses, oil seeds, vegetables and cash crops while
the Central Insecticide Board & Registration Committee
(CIBRC) has approved its use in only nine crops. Signifi­
cant variation was noted between the use approved by CI­
BRC and the recommendations by the various State agri­
culture departments and commodity boards such as the
coffee board. Further, manufacturers of paraquat have rec­
ommended the use of paraquat in crops not approved by
the CIBRC. Syngenta, for instance, has recommended the
use of paraquat on 12 crops. Recommendations beyond
what is approved by the CIBRC is a violation of the Indian
Insecticides Act.
Farmers buy and use paraquat in an unsafe manner. It
was found that paraquat is sold in plastic carry bags to
farmers who demand 100ml or 200ml of the product. Nei­
ther the retailers recommend personal protective measures
while handling paraquat nor do the farmers adopt them.
Particularly, when it is sold in plastic carry bags the risk of
exposure and poisoning is higher through spillage, inhala­
tion as well as contact.
A considerable proportion of the respondents said that
they neither read nor follow the instructions on the label of
the paraquat containers, many of the respondents includ­
ing farmers and agricultural workers reported that the font
size of instructions given in the leaflet is too small to read
or do not understand what is written. Ninety percent of the

respondents reported that they get information and advice
either from pesticide retailers or agents of distributors.
Awareness and training about how to use paraquat as
well as other pesticides and taking personal protective
measures is lacking among most of the respondents, which
included farmers and agricultural workers.
Neither proper information nor training on the use of
paraquat and personal protective equipment (PPE) are pro­
vided by agriculture offices or pesticide retailers. There­
fore use of paraquat is occurring under unsafe conditions.
None of the respondents were using the recommended
protective equipment. Seventy six percent of the respon­
dents reported that they are not using any protective mea­
sures while handling paraquat, only 24% of the respon­
dents reported that they use some sort of protective
measures among the following-cap. gloves, mask or face
cover, full sleeved shirt, trousers and shoes. Eighty six per­
cent of the respondents reported that the sprayers they
used leaked sometimes, and most said that they did not get
it repaired immediately. Paraquat is applied mostly before
planting and for controlling weeds in standing crops. It is
applied on weeds along the inter rows, ridges, furrows as
well as field bunds and boundaries of crops. Twenty six
percent of the respondents reported that they disperse
paraquat mixed with fertilizers, sand and common salt in
their fields. All the respondents spray paraquat on weeds
and 18% said they mix shampoo, salt, urea or kerosene,
2,4-D etc. to enhance the efficiency of the herbicide. Fifty
four percent of the respondents reported that thej' contin­
ue to work in sprayed fields or enter a sprayed field imme­
diately after spraying, for work, without wearing protec­
tive equipment. Most respondents reported that they
dispose containers of paraquat by throwing them away,
while some reported that they bury or burn them, some
others reported selling them to scrap dealers and a few re­
spondents said that they use the containers in toilets.
Farmers and workers were aware that paraquat is acutely
toxic, but because of labour problems they felt compelled to
use these chemicals. Lack of skilled labourers, non availabil­
ity of labourers during critical periods of work, increased la­
bour cost etc. were the major reasons reported for using para­
quat. In addition, farmers claimed that paraquat is cheaper
and weeds can be controlled with lesser effort. Some respon­
dents reported that they occasionally do manual weeding.
The farmers and workers reported numerous adverse
health effects caused by paraquat such as irritation, itch­
ing, headache, vomiting, burning sensation, breathing dif­
ficulty. muscle pain, abdominal discomfort, lethargy, skin
allergj’ and colour change, tiredness, nausea, giddiness,
fever, eye burn, dizziness, diarrhoea, throat drying, shiver
ing, sneezing and change in heart beat rate. Some respoi:

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 7

POLICY
RECOMMENDATION

dents reported that domestic animals were also adversely
impacted by paraquat (death of a cow and a goat after graz­
ing in paraquat sprayed fields; unconsciousness, stomach
enlargement, diarrhoea and tiredness among goats and
cows after grazing; hens and ducks not taking food for a
couple of days after foraging in paraquat sprayed fields).
The actual practices at field level indicate the lack of an
effective regulatory and monitoring system. And because
of this, misuse, unsafe use and violations are happening in
the country with regard to paraquat use.

WE THEREFORE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT,

> The Government of India and State government author­
ities immediately stop the violations of the Indian In­
secticides Act, and enforce the prohibition of paraquat
use in crops where the use is not approved.
> The government urgently addresses the issues and take
necessary steps towards a progressive ban of paraquat in
India in a lime bound manner.
> The government convenes a national working group for
coming up with a package of practices for non chemical
approaches, options and methods for weed management.

THE STUDY FINDS,
>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Significant variations between the crops on which the use
of paraquat dichloride is approved by the Central Insecticide
Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) and the crops
recommended by State Agriculture Departments or Agricul­
ture Universities as well as commodity boards.
Paraquat dichloride is being used for 25 crops in India,
whereas it is approved for use in only nine crops by
the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee.
This is in violation of the Indian Insecticides Act.
The manufacturers have recommended the use of paraquat
for crops other than those approved by the CIBRC. This is
clearly illegal and a violation of the Indian Insecticides
Act by the manufacturers. CIBRC should take action against
manufacturers and ensure immediate cessation of these
illegal recommendations.
Often farmers and workers do not read or understand the
label on the paraquat container and instruction leaflet
properly. They normally follow oral instructions of dealers
and retailers and their field staff.
In villages, retailers sell paraquat in plastic carry bags and
refill bottles. Again this is a violation of the Insecticides Act
and an illegal activity and a gross failure of regulation.
Majority of the farmers and workers are not trained in the use
of paraquat, do not have access to information about the use
of paraquat dichloride, are not aware of appropriate safety
instructions and do not use personal protective equipments.
Paraquat is mixed with some other old dangerous herbicides,
such as 2,4-D and additives such as kerosene, shampoo, salt
and fertilizers.
The use of paraquat dichloride is causing immense harm to
farmers and agriculture workers, which are not documented
as we do not have systems in place to do so. The data
collected shows that farmers and farm workers are suffering
adverse health impacts due to exposure to paraquat.
In addition, secondary literature shows that paraquat has
been used for suicides in various parts of the country and has
a high mortality rate.
The conditions of use of paraquat in India violate the Interna­
tional Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management. Also, other
conventions are violated, such as the Chemicals Convention,
1990 and the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001.

A farmworker on a tea garden prepares pesticide
knapsack sprayers. The study found workers are
usually not trained to handle pesticides nor are they
provided with proper personal protective clothing.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 8

1. INTRODUCTION

Paraquat dichloride (CAS No. 1910-42-5) is a widely used
and highly toxic herbicide. It is a broad-spectrum (non-selective) contact herbicide and a powerful desiccant. Paraquat is
the third most widely used herbicide in the world. It is used
to control broad-leaved weeds and grasses, in a wide range of
agricultural applications and for general weed control; it is
less effective on deep rooted plants. Paraquat is increasingly
used to destroy weeds in preparing land for planting in com­
bination with no-till agricultural practices that minimize
ploughing, thus the herbicide is widely promoted for no-till
and minimum-till agriculture use. Paraquat is commercially
produced and sold as dichloride salt and available as di­
methyl sulphate as well. (FAO 2003; Watts M, 2011).
Chemically, it belongs to the group of bipyridilium her­
bicides. This chemical group is called quaternary ammoni­
um salts and generally known as quats. It destroys plant
tissue by disrupting photosynthesis and rupturing cell
membranes, which allows water to escape leading to rapid
desiccation of foliage. It is a fast-acting herbicide and gener­
ally affects all exposed green parts of plants and kills them
in one to three days time (Neumeister L. Isenring R 2011).
The World Health Organisation (WHO) categorizes para­
quat as a Class Il-moderately hazardous pesticide. Although
the WHO has listed it as moderately hazardous, it has been
listed among most hazardous pesticides in wide use in the
world today. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International
has categorized it as a highly hazardous pesticide and it
shows high acute toxicity. Besides, paraquat has qualified as
a PAN bad actor as well as a PAN dirty dozen pesticide. The
Toxicological Data Network (ToxNet) and the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS) of the Unites States Environ­
mental Protection Agency (US EPA) have classified it as a
probable human carcinogenic chemical (Class C). Paraquat
is also reported to have links to reproductive problems and
Parkinson’s disease (FAO 2003; WHO 2009; Watts M. 2011;
PAN Pesticide Database)
Paraquat is known to injure farmers, agricultural work­
ers and community members as a result of occupational and
accidental exposure. The skin can absorb it. especially if
the skin has been damaged through exposure to the chemi­
cal. Acute poisoning may occur (through skin, eyes or when
inhaled), but symptoms are often delayed. The outcome can
be fatal and in these cases, death results from respiratory
failure. Localized skin damage or dermatitis, eye injury and
nosebleed occur frequently among paraquat users. Long­
term exposure to low doses of paraquat is linked to changes
in the lung and appears to be connected with chronic bron­
chitis and shortness of breath. Recent studies also link oc­
cupational and community exposure to paraquat to in­
creased incidence of Parkinson’s disease (Weinberg J, 2009).

Paraquat is used in more than 130 countries. However,
paraquat is banned or its use is disallowed in at least 32
countries including members of the European Union due
to its adverse health effects. In Switzerland, the home
country of Syngenta, the main producer of paraquat, it is
banned since 1989 due to its high acute toxicity for hu­
mans. In addition, many labelling organisations such as
the Fair Trade International (FTI). the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), the Rainforest Alliance, and food corpora­
tions like Dole. Chiquita and retailers like Marks & Spen­
cer have voluntarily banned paraquat (Watts M. 2011; Neu­
meister L, Isenring R 2011).
Paraquat dichloride (24% SL) is registered in India with
the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee
(CIBRC). This is the only formulation registered in India.
CIBRC has categorised paraquat dichloride as highly toxic.
Although CIBRC has not provided any recommendations, it
has approved the use of this herbicide in nine crops. An­
other formulation, paraquat dimethyl sulfate was banned
in India in 1993 (CIBRC 2014). Paraquat dichloride is one
among the twenty most commonly used and recommended
pesticides in the country (Chandra Bhushan et al., 2013),
although it is not the most used herbicide.
Paraquat is one of the pesticides most frequently used to
commit suicide. There is no antidote for paraquat. The
mortality rate for paraquat suicide attempts is comparative­
ly high, at 42 to 80%. The number of suicides using para­
quat throughout the world is estimated to be several tens of
thousands per year (Berne Declaration). Paraquat poisoning
has been reported from various parts of India ranging from
the northern Slates to the southern Stales and northeast
States (Khosya S and Gothwal S V. 2012; Pavan M, 2013;
Narendra S et al.. 2013; Raina S, 2008; Saravu K et al., 2013;
Sandhu JS et al., 2003; Raghu K et al., 2013; Banday T II et
al., 2014; Khan S U. 1975;Tayade S, 2013; Sarojini T, 2007).
Paraquat distribution, sale and use was stoped in Kerala
(a southern State in India) since 2011 along with 16 other
pesticides including endosulfan, due to their being highly
hazardous and having the potential to cause severe health
implications (Kerala Government order, 2011); and current­
ly, paraquat is not being used in Kerala as per the data ob­
tained through the Right To information Act.
Although paraquat is known to cause severe health
hazards and deaths among farmers, workers and communi­
ty around the globe, only meagre data is available from In­
dia. Besides, there is no ground level data available on the
application of paraquat in the fields, poisoning, etc. There­
fore. the aim of this study was to document the actual prac­
tices of paraquat use and associated health and environ­
mental impacts from India.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 9

2. OBJECTIVES

The principal objective of the study was to document the
use of paraquat dichloride in India and associated health
and environmental impacts caused by its use. Thus the
study was to learn and document the actual practices of use
of paraquat in agricultural fields, the level of information
and awareness among users, and the extent of use of protec­
tive measures among farmers and farm workers while han­
dling or applying paraquat. The study was also intended to
show the conditions that could lead to exposure to para­
quat and consequent poisoning, and to highlight the health
effects and symptoms manifested as a result of exposure. In
addition, the study was also meant to record any environ­

mental impacts that farmers themselves had identified as a
result of the use of paraquat. An attempt was also made to
collect information on the recommendations, safety in­
structions provided, training given on the use of personal
protective measures and application of paraquat from agri­
culture extension officers and pesticide retailers. There
were some unofficial reports stating that the use of paraquat
has been slopped by farmers in some places in India. There­
fore. as part of the study an attempt was also made to docu­
ment information related to this. The recommended use of
paraquat in India and national level consumption data
were also collected as part of the study.

Workers in a tea garden spay pesticides without proper personal protective clothing.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 10

3. METHODOLOGY

A preliminary exploration was done to identify the areas
where paraquat is being widely used. Ten States were
identified (Andhra Pradesh. Arunachal Pradesh. Assam.
Chhattisgarh. Gujarat. Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh.
Telangana. Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) based on the crops
for which paraquat is approved for use in the country. The
Stales were selected considering the area under cultivation
for the crops for which paraquat use is approved. Within
these States 20 districts were identified for the study'. In
these districts, interactions were carried out with pesticide
distributors, retailers and farmers to find out whether they
use paraquat in the area. This preliminary exploration re­
vealed that paraquat was in use in eight districts across six
States. From the 12 districts across the remaining four
States it was reported that farmers had not been using
paraquat recently. Then it was decided to go with purpo­
sive sampling and the data was collected from the eight
study sites (districts) across six Slates. The data was anal­
ysed both through quantitative and qualitative methods.

SAMPLING

Purposive sampling was done to identify the respondents.
The data collection was especially focussed on farmers us­
ing paraquat in their farms. The farm workers were identi­
fied from the same areas. For the study, data was collected
from 82 respondents comprising of 50 farmers, 23 workers
(including eight paraquat/pesticide applicators), five pesti­
cide retailers and four agriculture extension officers.

COLLECTION OF FIELD DATA

The field data for the study was collected from farmers,
farm/plantation workers including paraquat applicators,
pesticide retailers and agriculture extension officers with
the help of survey questionnaires filled up through person­
al interviews. Separate questionnaires were developed for
each category of respondents with an emphasis on para­
quat use, safetv measures used and recommendations, in­
structions provided, information and awareness on safety
measures and trainings.

SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data on consumption of paraquat in India, poi­
soning cases reported and other relevant data was also
collected as part of the study. The consumption data was

collected from the office of the Directorate of Plant Protec­
tion, Quarantine and Storage under the Ministry of Agri­
culture, Government of India, and the web sites of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of
India, and the Central Insecticides Board and Registration
Committee (C1BRC). Attempts were also made to collect
data through the provisions of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act and from various government (both Central and
State government) agriculture departments and institu­
tions. For this, RTI applications were filed addressed to
agriculture departments in all the Stales in India as well
as to the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation.
Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage.
CIBRC, and the Department of Chemicals & Petrochemi­
cals. However, only limited data from a couple of States
was received by the time the report was prepared.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

> Period of study: Data collection and field observations
were carried out for only four months-December 2014 to
March 2015. The period was not enough to cover a siz­
able number of plantation workers/farm workers/farmers
due to the seasonal nature of their jobs.
> Due to the limited number of respondents, the study has
not drawn generalizations about the pattern of use of
paraquat all over India. Nevertheless, it does provide a
realistic picture of how paraquat is used today in India
as the interviews were done at various sites in differ­
ent States, and a number of practices and problems ob­
served were common in all the sites.
> Size of data: Availability of secondary data on paraquat
use and poisoning in India is limited. State wise data
on consumption of paraquat dichloride could not be
obtained except for some States of India. Therefore, it
was difficult to do a deeper analysis of the usage, health
impacts and other problems.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

Aocil 2015 // 11

4. STUDY AREA-STATE PROFILES

For the study, field data was collected from the eight iden­
tified districts in six States. The areas were selected based
on selected crops such as tea, rice, potato, cotton, maize,
wheat and vegetables (in which paraquat is reportedly be­
ing used). A short agricultural profile of the States from
which the data was collected is given below.

The Slate of Arunachal Pradesh is located in the north-eastein region of India. The major crops grown in Arunachal
Pradesh include rice, wheat, pulses, tea, cereals, maize,
gram, oilseeds, sugarcane, vegetables, potatoes, apples, or­
anges pineapples, etc. More than half of the population in
Arunachal Pradesh depends on agriculture and allied sec­
tors for its livelihood.
Assam, located in north-eastern India, is predominantly

rural and the economy is primarily agrarian in nature. Al­
most 70% of the population is directly dependent on agri­
culture and another 15% on allied activities for its living.
The major crops cultivated in Assam include rice, tea, jute,
sugarcane, fruits, pulses, coconut, cotton, areca nut, pota­
toes and other vegetables.
Andhra Pradesh is situated in the south eastern coast of

India. The State's economy is mainly based on agriculture
and livestock rearing. Farming is the main occupation of
the people in the State and 60% of the population is en­
gaged in agriculture and related activities. The major crops
are rice, cotton, wheat, sorghum, pearl millet, maize, many
varieties of pulses, oil seeds, sugarcane, vegetables and oil
crops such as peanuts and sunflower. (Telangana is a new­
ly formed State, which was part of the Andhra Pradesh,
therefore the profile for Andhra Pradesh is also applicable
to Telangana.)

• Indicate Study area-States
Source: http://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=24868&lang=en

Madhya Pradesh is the second largest State in India, locat­
ed in central India, and known as the heart of the nation.
The economy of the State mainly depends on agriculture
with more than 70% of the population involved in agricul­
tural activities. The major crops grown in Madhya Pradesh
include cereals such as paddy, wheat, maize and sorghum.
pulses such as green gram, black gram, horse gram, oil­
seeds such as soybean, groundnut and mustard. Cash crops
like cotton and sugarcane are also grown in few districts of
the State.

West Bengal is located in the eastern part of India and is

the nation’s fourth-most populous State. Agriculture is the
leading occupation of the people in West Bengal. Rice is
the principal food crop in the State and other major crops
are potato, jute, sugarcane, wheat and oil seeds. Tea is also
produced commercially in the northern districts.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 201S // 12

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Various government agencies are involved in the regula­
tion of pesticides in India. The Ministry of Agriculture reg­
ulates the manufacture, sale, transport and distribution.
export, import and use of pesticides through the Insecti­
cides Act. 1968 and the rules framed there under. The reg­
ulation of pesticides is governed by two different bodies:
the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee
(CIBRC) and the Food Safely and Standards Authority of
India (FSSAI). CIBRC was established, in 1968. under the
Department of Agriculture and Co-operation of the Minis­
try of Agriculture.
The CIBRC is responsible for advising the central and
State governments on technical issues related to manufac­
ture. use and safety of pesticides. Its responsibilities also
include recommending uses of various types of pesticides
depending on their toxicity and suitability, determining
the shelf life of pesticides and recommending a minimum
gap between the pesticide application and harvest of crops
(waiting period).
The other part of the CIBRC. the Registration Commit­
tee (RC), is responsible for registering pesticides after veri­
fying the claims of the manufacturers or importers related
to the efficacy and safety of the pesticides concerned. The
approval of the use of pesticides and new formulations to
tackle pest problems in various crops is also given by the
Registration Committee. 11 is the Food Safety and Stan­
dards Authority of India that is responsible for recom­
mending tolerance limits of various pesticides in food
commodities (Bhushan C et al., 2013).
The State Agriculture Departments (SADs), State Agri­
culture Universities (SAUs) and other institutions such as
the National Horticultural Board (NHB) and various com­
modity boards make recommendations for agricultural
practices including use of pesticides. The SAUs, SADs,
NHB and commodity boards have their own extension de­
partments to reach out to farmers. The farmers of India
have a conventional understanding of agriculture; they
lack the technical understanding of pesticides, their uses
and safety aspects. This makes them vulnerable to mis­
guidance and increases the chances of unnecessary and
inappropriate use of pesticides (Bhushan C et al.. 2013).
Approved use of paraquat as per CIBRC

The Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee
(CIBRC) has approved the use of paraquat dichloride to
control weeds in nine crops-apple, cotton, grapes, maize.
potato, tea, rice, rubber and wheat. The dosage approved
for different crops varies widely from 800ml —2000 ml to

4250 ml. with an average 2072 ml per hectare (around
830 ml per acre). Along with the approved uses the waiting
period between the last application and harvest are also
given. Surprisingly, for food crops such as grapes, maize,
potato and wheat, the waiting period is 90 days, 90-120
days. 100 days and 120-150 days respectively. But it can
be observed that the waiting period has not been given for
apple, tea and rice. The waiting period for cotton is given
as 150-180 days.
Recommendation of paraquat dichloride by State
Agriculture Departments or Agriculture Universities as
well as commodity boards in India

The recommendation data for paraquat dichloride has
been collected from the package of practices recommended
by various State agriculture departments or agriculture
universities (SAD/AU) as well as commodity boards like
the coffee board, rubber board, tea board, etc. These have
been collected from the websites of the respective depart­
ments or institutions. Through this method, data for only
12 States could be obtained. In addition, attempts were
also made to collect the same data through the Right to
Information (RTI) Act from all the 28 States in India, but
again responses have been received only from a few States.
From the compilation of the above said data it has
been observed that paraquat dichloride has been recom­
mended for weed control in 17 crops. This is based on
incomplete data as confirmation about the recommenda­
tion for use of paraquat is awaited from more States. The
table below provides the details of the recommendations
and the source. Again, this has to be compared against the
CIBRC approval for use of paraquat in only nine crops.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA
April 201S // 13

TABLE 1

SL
NO

DETAILS ON THE APPROVED USE OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE 24% SL IN INDIA las ot October 2014)
DOSAGE/HA
FORMULATION IN
(ML/LITRE)

DILUTION
IN WATER
(LITREl/HA

POST-HARVEST
INTERVAL BETWEEN
LAST APPLICATION
& HARVEST (DAYS)

APPROVED CROPS

WEED SPECIES

1

Apple
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application at
2-3 leaf stage of weeds)

Rosa moschata,
Rosa eglantaria,
Rubus ellipticus

3.25 L

700-1000

N.A.

2

Cotton
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application at
2-3 leaf stage of weeds)

Digera arvensis,
Cyperus iria, Trianthema
monogyna, Corchorus
spp., Leucas aspera.
Euphorbia spp.

1.25-2.0 L

500

150-180

3

Grapes
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application at
2-3 leaf stage of weeds)

Cyperus rotundas,
Cynodon dactylon,
Convolvulus sp.,
Portulaca sp., Tridax sp.

2.0 L

500

90

4

Maize
(pre-plant (minimum
tillage] before sowing)

Cyperus rotundus,
Commelina benghalensis,
Trianthema monogyna,
Amaranthus sp.,
Echinochloa sp

0.8-2.0 L

500

90-120

Maize
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application
at 2-3 leaf stage of
weeds)

Cyperus iria,
Cyperus rotundus,
Commelina benghalensis,
Amaranthus sp.,
Echinochloa sp,
Trianthema monogyna

0.8-2.0 L

500

90-120

5

Potato
(Post-emergence overall/
inter-row application
at 5-10% emergence)

Chenopodium sp.,
Angallis arvensis,
Trianthema monogyna,
Cyperus rotundus,
Fumeria parviflora

2.0 L

500

100

6

Tea
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application at
2-3 leaf stage of weeds)

Imperata
setaria sp.,
Commelina benghalensis,
Boerraria hispida,
Paspalum conjugatum

0.8-4.25 L
(For season long weed
control, use 2.5-5.0
litres for initial applica­
tion. For subsequent
repeat spot application
use 1 litre)

200-400

Not Necessary
(For season-long
weed control, use 2.5
to 5 litres for initial
application. For
subsequent repeat spot
application use 1 litre)

7

Rice
(pre-plant [minimum
tillage] before sowing/
transplanting for
controlling standing
weeds)

Echinochloa crusgalli,
Cyperus iria,
Ageratum conyzides,
Commelina benghalensis,
Marsilea quadriofoliata.
Brachia ria m utica

1.25-3.5 L

500

N.A.

8

Rubber
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application at
2-3 leaf stage of weeds)

Digitaria sp.,
Eragrostis sp.,
Fimbristylis sp.

1.5-2.5 L

600

N.A.

9

Wheat
(pre-plant (minimum
tillage] before sowing)

Grassy & Broad leaf weeds

4.25 L

500

120-150

Source: CIBRC http://cibrc.nic.in/muph2012.doc

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 14

TABLE 2 RECOMMENDATION OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE BY STATE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENTS

AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

SL
NO

CROPS

_________________

DOSAGE PER HA

SAD/AU OR BOARDS,STATE

Gramoxone 1000ml
in 2000 L water

www.yspuniversity.ac.in,
Himachal Pradesh State

1

Apple

2

Areca nut

Department of Agriculture,
Goa State

3

Banana

Tamil Nadu Agriculture University,
Kerala Agriculture University

4

Cane sugar

Indian Council of Agriculture Research
(ICAR)-Karnol,
Agriculture Department of Assam,
Uttarakhand and Goa States

5

Cashew

Department of Agriculture,
Goa State

6

Cherry

Gramoxone 2000 ml/h

www.yspuniversity.ac.in,
Himachal Pradesh State

7

Coffee

-

Coffee board, Tamil Nadu Agriculture
University (TNAU), Tamil Nadu

8

Cotton

9

Jasmine

-

ICAR-Goa

10

Jowar

Paraquat 1500ml/ha

Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Department

11

Maize

Paraquat 0.5kg with
Atrazine 1.0kg/ha

Agriculture Departments of Madhya Pradesh
and Andhra Pradesh States

12

Oil Palm

13

Pineapple

14

Potato

15

Rice

-

Agriculture Departments of Kerala
and Assam States

16

Rubber

Paraquat 0.5kg +
2,4-D 1.25 kg

Rubber board and Department of Agriculture,
Kerala State

17

Tea

REMARKS

Assam Agriculture Depart­
ment recommended
2,4-D (amine-salt)
1.0 kg a.i/ha+ paraquat
0.5 kg a.i/ha in mixture

Agriculture Departments of Odisha,
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh States

Tamil Nadu Agriculture University,
Tamil Nadu

-

Kerala Agriculture University
*,
Kerala
Agriculture Departments of Uttarakhand
and Punjab States

Assam: Pre-harvest
treatment on standing crop
for better grainquality.

TNAU, Tea Research Association
and Tea Research Foundation

Source: Compiled from package of practices published by agriculture departments, agriculture universities, commodity boards and their respective web
sites as well as through the Right to Information Act.
* Paraquat dichloride is stopped in Kerala since 2011

Recommendation for use-manufacturer advice

In order to get a picture about the industry practice on the
recommendation for use of paraquat, the instruction leaflet
provided along with Gramoxone, a product of Syngenta
and Kataar, a product of Canary Agrochemicals were ana­

lyzed. As per the leaflet provided with Gramoxone, Syn­
genta has recommended the product for weed control in 12
crops and for aquatic weed control as well. Canary Agro­
chemicals has recommended their product Kataar for 11
crops and aquatic weeds.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

Variations in approved use and recommended use
of paraquat dichloride in India

The data from CIBRC, State agriculture departments or agri­
culture universities (SAD/AU) and commodity boards, in­
dustry recommendation as well as use reported from the
field shows plenty of variations and violations. The CIBRC
has approved paraquat for use in nine crops, while the avail­
able data shows that the SADs/AUs and commodity boards
have recommended paraquat for use in 17 crops. Over and
above this, data from the six States covered in the study in­
dicates that paraquat is being used in a total of 25 crops.

In the list of 17 crops proposed by the SAD/AU, paraquat
is recommended for use by the CIBRC only in seven
crops-apple, cotton, maize, potato, rice, rubber and lea.
The CIBRC has not approved the use of paraquat for the
remaining 10 crops. This shows that these bodies have rec­
ommended paraquat in violation of the directive by the
CIBRC, demonstrating the lax approach towards national
regulation. This is a problem which is also found with oth­
er pesticides as shown by Bhushan C el al., 2013.

April 2015 // IS

A wide range of variation has been observed in the field
data. As evident from the study, paraquat is being used for
weed control in about 25 crops across six States. Among
this 25. usage on only six crops (cotton, maize, potato, rice,
tea and wheat) has been approved by the CIBRC. Thus, the
use of paraquat for the remaining 19 crops is in violation of
the directive of the CIBRC. Among these 19 crops that vio­
late the CIBRC directive, one crop-banana-has been rec­
ommended by an agriculture university (again in violation
of CIBRC directive).
The manufacturers have also violated the directive for
approved use by the CIBRC. as evident from the Table 3.
The recommendation by Syngenta includes all the nine
crops approved by the CIBRC. three other crops (coffee,
sugarcane, and sunflower) and for aquatic weed control.
which are not approved by the CIBRC. In the same way, of
the 11 crops recommended by Canary Agrochemicals,
only seven were approved by CIBRC for paraquat use. The
use of paraquat on the remaining four crops (coffee, sugar­
cane. tapioca, sunflower and for aquatic weeds) is not ap­
proved.

TABLE 3: VARIATIONS IN APPROVED USE AND RECOMMENDED USE OFPARAQUAT DICHLORIDE IN INDIA
1.
CIBRC APPROVED
USAGE

1. Apple
2. Cotton
3. Grape
4. Maize
5. Potato
6. Rice
7. Rubber
8. Tea
9. Wheat

2.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY
SAD/AU/COMMODITY
BOARDS

1. Apple
*
2. Areca nut
3. Banana
4. Cane sugar

5. Cashew
6. Cherry
7. Coffee
8. Cotton
*
9. Jasmine
10. Jower

11. Maize
*
12. Oil palm
13. Pineapple
14. Potato
*
15. Rice
*
16. Rubber
*
17. Tea
*

3.
RECOMMENDATION BY
MANUFACTURERS

4.
DATA FROM THE FIELD
ON CROPS FOR WHICH
PARAQUAT IS USED

1. Apple’
2. Coffee
3. Cotton
*
4. Grapes
*
5. Maize
*
6. Potato
*
7. Rice
*
8. Rubber
*
9. Sugarcane
10. Sunflower
11. Tea
*
12. Wheat
*
13. Aquatic weed control

1. Banana
2. Bottle gourd
3. Brinjal
4. Carrot
5. Chilly
6. Cotton
*
7. Ground nut
8. Jute
9. Kakrol
10. Maize
*
11. Marigold
12. Mustard
13. Okra
14. Onion
15. Orange
16. Parble
17. Potato
*
18. Pumpkin
19. Rice
*
20. Sesame
21. Soybean
22. Sunflower
23. Tea
*
24. Tomato
25. Wheat
*

Source: Compiled from Tables 1 and 2, and recommendation given in the leaflet/label of commercial products of paraquat and field data.
* Crops approved by the CIBRC

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 201S II 16

5.2. CONSUMPTION OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE
IN INDIA

The chart given below shows the consumption data of
paraquat dichloride and total herbicide consumption in
India for the period between 2007-08 and 2013-14 (as on
December 18, 2014). The data reveals that the volume of
paraquat consumed is much less when compared to the
total herbicide consumption in the country. However, in
spite of paraquat not being the herbicide used in the largest
quantities in comparison with other herbicides in India, its
conditions of use are dangerous with many opportunities
for serious exposure and risks to human health to farmers.
agricultural workers, and others who handle paraquat,
such as applicators and retailers.

CHART 1 CONSUMPTION OF PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE AND TOTAL HERBICIDE
CONSUMPTION IN INDIA
in metric tonne (MT) technical grade

Commercial names of paraquat dichloride
reported from the study sites

From the study sites across six States 14 commercial prod­
ucts. manufactured by different firms, of paraquat dichlo­
ride were used for weed control.

TABLE 5 COMMERCIAL NAMES OF PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE REPORTED FROM FIELD

SL
NO.

COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS

MANUFACTURER

1

All quit

Crystal

2

Finish

Total Agricare

3

Gramex

Crop Chemicals India

4

Gramo

Canary

5

Gramoxone

Syngenta

6

Herbucsone

Ankar Industries

7

Kapiq

Krishirasayan

8

Kataar

Canary

9

Milquat

Insecticides India

10

Paranex

Makhateshim-Agan India

11

Paraxzone

National Pesticides and
chemicals

12

Uniquat

United Phosphorous

13

Parachlor 24

-

14

Ozone

Dhanuka Agritech limited

Source: Compiled from field data obtained through the study

Year

Source: Compiled using the data obtained from the Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine and Storage and CIBRC

I TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE TO THE TOTAL HERBICIDE CONSUMPTION
YEAR

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Percent of
paraquat dichloride
consumed

3.63

3.48

5.36

2.52

2.58

4.01

4.98

Source: Compiled using the data obtained from Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage and CIBRC

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 17

Various Trademarks for paraquat sold in India: Gramo (manufacturer Canary), Gramoxone (Syngenta),
Kataar (Canary), Milquat (Insecticides India)

State wise consumption of paraquat dichloride

The consumption data for paraquat dichloride was collect­
ed through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Below are
the responses received from four States. State wise con­
sumption dala of paraquat dichloride for the four States in

India-Punjab. Goa, Maharashtra and Kerala-reveals that
it continues to be used in fairly large volume in three of the
States except Kerala, where paraquat was stopped since
2011. mainly because of health concerns.

I TABLE 6 STATE WISE CONSUMPTION DATA FOR PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE OBTAINED THROUGH RTI ACT 1
Punjab

Goa

Maharashtra

Kerala *

PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE 24 SL
IN LITRES

GRAMOXONE,
PARACHLORE AND
ALL QUIT; IN LITRES

PARAQUAT DICH­
LORIDE TECHNICAL
GRADE IN MT

PARAQUAT DICH­
LORIDE TECHNICAL
GRADE IN MT

2004-05

-

-

12

-

2005-06

275532

2500

12

12.415

2006-07

276715

2500

11

13.629

2007-08

296379

2500

09

48.336

2008-09

299550

3000

10

61.817

2009-10

286111

3000

47

33.017

2010-11

305214

3200

156

37.2

2011-12

311450

3000

120

-

2012-13

319237

3000

96

-

2013-14

323952

4200

92

-

2014-15

231448

4000 (up to Jan 2015)

-

-

Year

Source: Compiled using data obtained from the agriculture departments of respective States.
Note: State wise consumption data is incomplete as data from only four States was obtained.
Paraquat is stopped (distribution, sale and use) in the State of Kerala since 2011, as per the Kerala Government order dated 07.05 2011

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

5.3.

April 201S // 10

FINDINGS OF THE FIELD STUDY

Field data for the present study was collected from 82 re­
spondents including farmers, farm and plantation workers
(including pesticide applicators), pesticide retailers and
agriculture extension officers from eight study sites in six
States in India. The data was analysed separately for farm­
ers, farm workers as well as applicators, and the survey
results were compiled separately for agriculture extension
officers and pesticide retailers.

bitter gourd, etc. All the farmers use chemical fertilizers and
pesticides including herbicides. Some farmers also use farm­
yard manure, oil cakes and green manure in their farm.
All the farmers employ weed management practices
such as manual hand weeding, mechanical weeding by
cattle plough as well as by tractors and chemical weed
control using herbicides. The herbicides commonly found
in use in the study area include glyphosate, paraquat, pretilachlor. quizalofop ethyl. 2,4-D and butachlor.
Demographic details of workers

Classification of respondents

The respondents included 59 men and 14 women, excluding
retailers and agriculture extension officers. Their education­
al qualification ranges from secondary school to post gradu­
ation. except for a few who arc illiterate. For most of these
respondents, agriculture is the major source of livelihood.

TABLE 7: CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
FARM WORKER­
APPLICATORS2

FARM
WORKERS1

FARMERS

PLANTATION
AGRICULTURE
WORKEREXTENSION
PESTICIDE
APPLICATORS3 OFFICERS
RETAILERS
3

4

5

TOTAL

82

Demographic details of farmers

Sixty percent of the farmers included in the study have
been using paraquat for up to five years; 24 % have been
using paraquat between five and ten years and the remain­
ing 8% have been using paraquat for more than ten years,
the remaining respondents have not furnished any details.
The respondents consist of marginal farmers, small-scale
farmers as well as large-scale farmers. The land holding of
the farmer respondents ranges from half an acre to a maxi­
mum of 56 acres. A few farmers have taken land on lease for
cultivation in addition to farming on their own land. The
number of respondents holding land between half an acre
up to 15 acres is 40 (80%). The remaining 20% of the re­
spondents hold land ranging from 15 acres to 56 acres.
The major crops grown by the respondents include pad­
dy, wheat, mustard, jute, ground nut. sunflower, maize, cot­
ton, tea, sesame, banana, sugarcane and vegetables such as
chilly, onion, potato, tomato, okra, brinjal, pumpkin, kakrol
and parble (both are cucurbitaceous vegetables), bottle gourd.

z\s part of the study, data on the use of paraquat, informa­
tion and awareness about safety measures and health ef­
fects were collected from farm workers in addition to farm­
ers. A total of 23 respondents were interviewed and
included 15 workers from the States of Arunachal Pradesh
and Andhra Pradesh. The respondents from Arunachal
Pradesh are daily labourers working in small scale tea gar­
dens in Namsai district. Most of the respondents from
Andhra Pradesh are also daily labourers working in cotton.
paddy, and vegetable farms. Ten of them are women work­
ers and five of them are male workers. All the respondents
are working in farms where paraquat is used. Almost all
the workers are involved in all the activities in a farm, in­
cluding fertilizer application, watering plants, weeding,
harvesting, processing and also washing equipment used
for application of paraquat and pesticides (40% of them
claimed that they have occasionally been involved in ei­
ther mixing or applying paraquat).
The remaining eight respondents are farm workers (re­
ferred to as applicators) mainly involved in applying pesti­
cides including paraquat. Among them, five are farm work­
er-applicators from the study area in four States- Andhra
Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Telangana. West Bengal and
three arc plantation worker-applicators from a commercial
tea plantation in z\ssam. All of them are males and they
have been involved in spraying paraquat and other herbi­
cides. insecticides and fungicides. They also do other work
in the farm apart from spraying. On an average they spend
about 2-3 hours for one spraying and reported that in a
year they spray paraquat 10-15 times. Two applicators
said they have been spraying paraquat since two to four
years, five applicators slated they have been applying para­
quat for about six to eight years and one applicator said that
he has been applying paraquat since 12 years.
Reasons for using paraquat

Respondents reported that paraquat helps to kill weeds ef­
fectively within a short time period, therefore, they feel
that using paraquat is an easy method to control weeds. In
addition, weed control with paraquat and with other herbi­
cides is less expensive compared to the cost incurred for

1 Farm worker: hired workers working in agricultural fields, they normally do not spray pesticides but are exposed while working in fields where these
are used. They are sometimes involved in mixing these chemicals for spraying.
2 Farm worker-applicator: Workers hired by farmers specifically for application of pesticides and herbicides
3 Plantation worker-applicator: Daily wageworkers working in commercial tea plantations, who usually do the spraying of pesticides and herbicides in

the plantation.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

manual weeding. In addition, the spraying is comparative­
ly a less labour intensive operation which takes less time as
well. Sixty percenl of the respondents reported that labour
problem is the major reason for not doing manual weeding.
Twenty eight percent of the respondents reported that para­
quat is cheaper than other herbicides and 44% of the re­
spondents reported paraquat is effective and burns weeds
quickly. Lack of availability of skilled labourers, non avail­
ability of labourers during critical periods, increased la­
bour costs, are the major problems faced by farmers due to
which they have moved to using herbicides. Lack of skilled
workers to run and manage the cattle plough, lack of avail­
ability of sufficient number of cattle ploughs and increased
cost of rental has reduced the use of cattle plough in weed­
ing. Among all the respondents the chemical weed manage­
ment method has become widely accepted.

«or*l 2015 // 19

pulses and vegetables. Paraquat is applied in the field
about 15-20 days before the planting date, followed by
field preparation once the weeds are burnt and then the
crop is sown or planted. Paraquat is applied for weed con­
trol in standing crops as well. Fifty eight percent of the
respondents reported that they apply paraquat for con­
trolling weeds in spaces between the rows, ridges and fur­
rows, as well as field bunds and boundaries of crops such
as paddy, wheat and vegetables.
Paraquat is applied in two ways, one is by dispersion
and the other is through spraying. The CIBRC data shows
that paraquat is approved only for spraying. In addition,
information obtained from the leaflet of Gramoxone, the
manufacturer (Syngenta) only recommends use through
spraying. But field data shows that farmers are using it by
dispersion as well, ignoring the label, which is not recom­
mended. Both the methods-dispersion and sprayingwere observed in the study area and are described below.

CHART 2 REASONS FOR USING PARAQUAT
Application of paraquat by dispersion

Source: Based on field data

A few respondents especially from zXndhra Pradesh and
Telengana reported this type of application. Here paraquat
is mixed with either sand, fertilisers or salt and the mix­
ture is dispersed by hand. Twenty six percent of the farm­
ers interviewed, reported this practice. Chilly, cotton.
maize and paddy are the crops for which farmers disperse
paraquat for weed control. Eighteen percent of the respon­
dents (farmers) reported having applied paraquat in paddy.
6% in chilly as well as cotton, and 4% in maize. The arti­
cles used as carrier substances were sand (18% respon­
dents). fertilizer especially urea (16% respondents) and
salt (6% respondents). The average volume of paraquat
used per acre was about 1000 ml with a minimum of 100
ml to a maximum of 1500ml. The other materials added
ranged from five kilograms to 75 kilograms. None of them
reported the use of personal protective equipment while
mixing or dispersing paraquat.

Crops in which paraquat is used (Based an data collected from
the field during the survey)

TABLE 8: DISPERSAL OF PARAQUAT

As per the data collected during the survey the crops for
which paraquat is used includes cereals, pulses, oil seeds,
vegetables and in horticulture. Farmers use paraquat for
controlling weeds in 25 crops (the list is given in Table 3).
As of now. there is no mechanism in India to monitor and
ensure that paraquat (and other pesticides as well) is used
only on crops for which it is legally approved. There is also
no mechanism to prevent the illegal use (use in crops other
than approved) of paraquat and other such chemicals.

WITH OTHER MATERIALS

Paraquat application in the field

Source: Compiled from field data

Paraquat is applied in the field mainly during pre-plant­
ing, pre-sowing, seedling or vegetative stage as a pre-emergence measure as well as applied for post-emergent weed
control. Pre-planting or pre-sowing application is reported
by 70% ol the respondents. This is a common practice ob­
served in all the study areas. The pre-sowing or pre-plant­
ing application was observed for crops such as cereals.

CROPS
Cotton
Maize
Rice
Chilly

PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE

Average
about 1000ml
per acre

OTHER
MATERIALS
ADDED

Common salt
Sand
Fertilizers
(urea)

% OF RES­
PONDENTS

26

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 201S // 20

ommended by the retailers or the agents of distributors.
The practice of adding such substances has not been rec­
ommended by the C1BRC. agriculture departments, agri­
culture officers or the manufacturers. But field data shows
that farmers are doing this under the advice from retailers
or agents of distributors. It was observed that the retailers
or the agents of distributors have more reach in the rural
community than agriculture officers and are able to influ­
ence the practices. Also most of the farmers interviewed
were not using personal protective equipment (PPE) to
protect themselves.

Application of paraquat by spraying

Spraying is the more widely practiced method of using
paraquat observed in the study areas. All the respondents
reported that they apply paraquat by spraying. For cotton.
maize and potato, the dosage used was more than what is
recommended. Eighteen percent of the respondents report­
ed that while mixing paraquat for spraying they add 2.4-D
(another herbicide) and other materials such as salt, kero­
sene. shampoo and adhesives. Farmers said that these ma­
terials are added to improve the effectiveness and to burn
the weeds quickly. They added that such practices are rec­

1 TABLE 9 QUANTITY OF PARAQUAT USED AND THE ADDITION OF OTHER MATERIALS

CROPS

PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE (ML)
USED PER ACRE
(AVERAGE)

Cotton *

CIBRC APPROVED
DOSE (ML/ACRE)

VOLUME WATER
(IN LITRES) USED
FOR DILUTION
(AVERAGE)

% OF
RESPONDENTS

887

500-800

203

2

Jute

1000

r

200

4

*
Maize

1175

320-800

183

8

Mustard

1100

-

160

2

*
Rice

905

500-1200

207

24

Soybean

600

-

125

4

*
Tea

812

320-1700

200

8

*
Wheat

914

1700

143

14

Vegetables
and others

964

800 ml
(only for potato
*)

197

38

Source’ Compiled from field data and Table 1

I

OTHER
MATERIALS
ADDED

18% respondents
■ reported that they
add other materials
such as common
■ salt, shampoo,
kerosene, 2,4-D as
well as some
- adhesive while
mixing

• Crops approved by CIBRC

Some respondents reported that they have had to increase
the volume;of paraquat used over the years. Fifty percent
of the respondents reported having increased the volume
of paraquat used, over what they used previously, to en­
sure that weeds are burnt as quickly as possible. A couple
of farmers said that they mostly decide the volume of para­
quat to be used without consulting any authority.
It was observed that paraquat application is mostly
done by farmers themselves in their fields. Seventy six per­
cent of the farmers interviewed reported that they apply
paraquat in their fields and the remaining 24% said that
they hire workers to apply paraquat and other pesticides in
their fields.
Application of paraquat by farm workers

The farm worker-applicators reported that generally para­
quat is spraved before sowing or planting as well as in the
inter row spaces and ridges or boundaries of standing crops.
The frequency of paraquat application varies among differ­
ent crops depending on weed growth. In tea plantations
paraquat is sprayed four to eight times a season, for cotton

paraquat is applied three times, for vegetables one to two
limes and for paddy once in a season. Data obtained from
farm worker applicators shows that the average volume of
paraquat used is 955 ml per acre and is diluted on average
with 220 litres of water. Plantation worker applicators re­
ported that 750-800 ml of paraquat is used per acre and the
volume of water used is 200 litres. In addition they also said
that if weed intensity was severe, sometimes they added 500
gm of 2,4-D as well. Two farm worker-applicators reported
that in the recent past they had been applying paraquat in
higher doses compared to what they used earlier.
Frequency of paraquat usage

The frequency of application ranged from once in two
weeks to once in a year. Those who apply paraquat once in
a year or once in a season usually do the application before
planting crops such as maize, cotton, paddy, wheat and
vegetables. Other responses included twice a season/year,
three to four times and five to eight times in a season/year.
and once or twice a month. Farmers said that there is no
spraying calendar, but whenever weed intensity is found

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

Type of sprayers used and problems

The study revealed that farmers use different types of
sprayers for applying paraquat. The most popularly used
one is a backpack or knapsack sprayer, which is used by
60 % of the respondents. Another type of sprayer used by
24 percent of the farmers interviewed is a simple hand op­
erated sprayer popular among farmers especially in West
Bengal. Most of the farmers in the region are marginal, and
this type of hand sprayer is the only one they can afford as
it costs around 250 rupees. These sprayers are not closed
systems and therefore the risk of spillage is higher. A few
respondents (12% of the farmers interviewed) reported the
use of power sprayers operated by diesel motors. Most re­
spondents reported that they spray during the forenoon.
especially during the morning and a few reported that
spraying is done in the afternoon and evening.
All the applicators interviewed for the study were us­
ing backpack sprayers except one farm worker applicator.
who was using a hand sprayer. All the applicators except
one stated that the spraying was generally done during the
forenoon. The remaining farm worker applicator said that
he did spraying in the evening. All the applicators report­
ed that they considered the direction of wind and always
sprayed only along the direction of the wind.

56% of the farmers knew to repair a leaking or damaged
sprayer, and almost half of the respondents (44%) were
incapable of doing the repairs themselves.
The three plantation worker-applicators and three of the
five farm worker-applicators reported that the sprayer leaks
happened sometimes and the remaining one farm worker­
applicator reported the sprayer had never leaked. Four ap­
plicators (three plantation workers and one farm worker
applicator) reported that they could repair a leaking spraj'er
and they usually repair the sprayer immediately after noting
the leak or after the spray or before the next spray.
Working in sprayed fields- farmers

Most of the respondents reported that they continue to
work in the field (where paraquat is sprayed) immediately
after the spray. They said that they work on the same day if
some work is pending in the farm. Fifty four percent of the
respondents said that they re-enter the field immediately
after the spray. Two percent of the respondents said that
they enter the field the next day after the spray. Eighteen
percent of the respondents reported that they usually wait
for two days after the spray, and eight percent of the re­
spondents reported that they enter the field after one week
of the spray. However, if there is some pending work or
urgent work like harvesting or fertilizer application or pes­
ticide spray, farmers generally enter the field without wait­
ing for a gap after spraying.

7U0J O'

to reach problematic levels paraquat is applied. They add­
ed that during rainy season repeated applications are
required. Usually spraying of paraquat kills weeds imme­
diately but weeds regenerate in 10-15 days; therefore re­
peated application becomes essential especially for crops
that require continuous management in terms of irrigation.
fertilizer application, harvest, etc. Mostly such repeated
applications were noted in vegetables and tea.

«prll 201S // 21

CHART 3 TYPE OF SPRAYERS USED-FARMERS
70

Source: Based on field data

When asked about whether leaks occurred in the sprayer.
majority of the respondents (86%) reported that leaks had
happened, the rest reported no leaks. From the responses
provided it is evident that out of the total respondents only

The plantation worker-applicators reported that workers
were allowed to enter an area sprayed with paraquat only
after 24 hours after the spray. Three of the five farm worker
applicators and 10 out of the 15 agriculture workers report­
ed that they enter the fields (where paraquat is sprayed)
immediately after the spray for fertilizer application or har­
vesting. One farm worker-applicator stated that he works in
a paraquat sprayed field only after two days; whereas an­
other farm worker applicator and four agriculture workers
said that they work in a sprayed field only after a wee'

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 22

The available data shows that neither the C1BRC nor
other government agencies or manufacturers have given
instructions to farmers about the re-entry period while
working in a sprayed field. However, the CIBRC has pro­
vided a waiting period (period between last application
and harvest) for most of the crops for which the use of
paraquat is approved. This waiting period for various
crops ranges from 90 days to 180 days.

5.3.1. INFORMATION AND AWARENESS
ON PARAQUAT USE AND SAFETY MEASURES
Information and advice on the use of paraquat
dichloride among farmers

Agriculture extension officers, pesticide retailers, agents of
pesticide distributors as well as neighbouring farmers are
the major sources from where farmers get information on
herbicides including paraquat and on insecticides and fun­
gicides. In the present study, it was observed that 90% of
the farmers interviewed got information and advice on
paraquat dichloride from pesticide retailers. Some of the
respondents also reported that they get information from
neighbouring farmers as well. Among the respondents eight
percent said that they have also sought information and de­
tails on paraquat and its use from agriculture officers. An
exceptional case was noted from Arunachal Pradesh, where
a farmer reported that he gets information on all plant pro­
tection chemicals from the tea factor)', located in the neigh­
bouring State of Assam, to which he supplies his harvest.

CHART 5 SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE
ON PARAQUAT USE

90
80

70
60

50

*

o

40

30
8

Pesticide retailer

Others

Source: Based on field data

Thus, it is evident that farmers are mainly dependent on
pesticide retailers for information and advice on paraquat
use. One of the major reasons for this is that in most cases
the agriculture office or agriculture development office is
quite far and therefore not always accessible to farmers in
rural areas. The reality is also such that the pesticide dis­
tributors and retailers have roots in the villages or are from
neighbouring areas, making them easily accessible to farm­

ers in remote as well as rural areas. They also have a great­
er influence on farmers than agriculture officers. The farm­
ers could only buy paraquat from pesticide retailers.
Information obtained from agriculture offices in the study
areas revealed that the agriculture department is not dis­
tributing or supplying paraquat dichloride.
The information from the field shows that retailors and
agents of distributors, especially those in the study area in
West Bengal, advise farmers to use 2.4-D (a herbicide) or
kerosene or shampoo and or adhesives along with paraquat
in order to increase the efficiency of weed control. This is
totally against the conditions of approved use and use rec­
ommended by manufacturers. In addition, selling paraquat
in repacked containers and in plastic carry bags, as evident
from the field study area, can pass a wrong message to
farmers that paraquat can be handled without taking much
care. It is relevant to note that eight percent of the farmers
interviewed were illiterate and most of them were from
West Bengal.
In addition the possibility of stating more claims in fa­
vour of a product by retailers to increase sale cannot be
ignored. The present study shows 90 percent of the farm­
ers depend on retailers and or agents of distributors for
information and advice on the use of paraquat. Thus, with
the available data, it can be stated that retailers and the
agents are not providing good advice. This promotes im­
proper use and the consequent possibility of increased risk
to the users cannot be ignored.
Awareness on instructions on the labels
among farmers

It was noted that about half of the total number of respon­
dents bought paraquat without label and instructions either in bottles brought by the farmer or provided by the
retailer or in plastic carry bags. Twenty four out of the total
50 farmer reported that they have bought paraquat without
the product label (some of them have bought paraquat in
its original container with label as well, but have also
bought it without label) many times. Further investigation
revealed that paraquat is sold not only in its original con­
tainer but also in refill containers. This practice clearly
shows that paraquat is not used according to the law laid
down and the practices are in violation of the Indian Insec­
ticides Act. In addition, such practices augment the risk of
adverse health effects among users.
It was observed that especially in West Bengal, farmers
buy paraquat in smaller volumes such as 100 ml or 200 ml
from the retailers either in plastic carry bags or other bottles/containers. This handling of paraquat, especially when
purchased in plastic carry bags, is dangerous for both re­
tailers and farmers. It is also in clear violation of the Inter­
national Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, as is
the lack of labels, and use of refill containers.
Information and awareness on use of paraquat
among workers

All the three plantation worker-applicators and four of the
five farm worker- applicators have reported that they have

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 201S // 23

not read the instructions provided along with paraquat.
The plantation worker-applicators reported that they are
illiterate and have never seen the instructions or labels of
any pesticides used in the plantation as they get paraquat
and all other herbicides and pesticides in ready to mix
condition or mixed in tanks and ready to spray. Mostly
mixing is done by other workers.
Three of the five farm worker-applicators reported that
they were aware that the instructions were on the product
label and written in English, Hindi and some local lan­
guages and the remaining two farm worker-applicators
said that they did not know in which language the instruc­
tions were given. Only two farm worker-applicators report­
ed that they were able to read and understand the instruc­
tions. One of the remaining three farm worker-applicators
reported that the text in the instruction leaflet was printed
in too small a font for him to go through, the second person
reported that he was illiterate. The remaining one did not
give any response.
Use of information on product label and leaflets
among farmers

When asked about whether they read the instructions or
label given along with the product, 60% of the farmer re­
spondents responded in the affirmative while the remain­
ing 40% in the negative. It was observed that the label on
the containers of some brands provides some instructions
on usage and safety precautions. In most cases these in­
structions were written mainly in English and Hindi. In
some cases it was observed that information was also writ­
ten in other languages such as Kannada, Telugu. Bengali,
etc. A bottle of paraquat, Allquit-a product of Crystal,
sold in West Bengal, examined by the researcher, had in­
formation written on the product label only in English and
Hindi. But the farmers in the study area were unable to
read these two languages; obviously they could not under­
stand what was written on the label on the container. In
West Bengal, some other products such as Paranex and
Gramo contained information in a few more languages
(other than English and Hindi) including Bengali on the
product label.

CHART 6 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RELATED
TO LABEL AND INSTRUCTIONS AMONG FARMERS

In addition to the product label pasted on the container,
we observed that Syngenta had provided a leaflet along
with its product, Gramoxone. This leaflet contained infor­
mation in twelve Indian languages on use. dose, crops and
weeds, safety instructions, symptoms of poisoning and
first aid. These instructions are printed in a tiny font size
and quite difficult to read and understand.
Fifteen farmers interviewed in the study (30%) report­
ed that they were able to read the instructions provided
along with various trademarks of paraquat dichloride,
while 20% reported that they were unable to read the in­
structions due to the small font size. In addition, another
eight percent were unable to read the label because they
are illiterate.
Information on safety measures among farmers

The survey revealed that farmers were not at all concerned
about their safety, and handle paraquat and other pesti­
cides negligently. The survey revealed that none of the re­
spondents were using complete personal protective mea­
sures while handling (mixing and spraying) paraquat
dichloride. At least some sort of protective measures were
being used by only 12 respondents (24%).
When asked about storage of paraquat, 78 % of the re­
spondents reported that they store paraquat inside their
homes, mostly in the general store room and veranda or
along the lower edges of the roofing of the house. Only
18 % of farmers reported that they store paraquat in the
farm shed and four percent responded that they store it in
their cattle sheds. It was observed that at some level most
of the respondents were aware that chemical pesticides in­
cluding paraquat are not harmless. Ninety two percent of
the 50 farmers said that they keep paraquat inaccessible to
children. But the remaining 8% reported that they do not
take this precaution. Seventy eight percent of the respon­
dents reported that they are aware that these chemicals are
not good and are poisonous, a couple of respondents re­
ported that they know paraquat can cause problems such
as vomiting, irritation, allergy, head ache. etc.
When asked whether they understand the toxicity/hazard level of a chemical from the colour code on the label
most respondents from Arunachal Pradesh and West Ben­
gal reported that they do not understand the meaning of
colour code. There is no data on this from the other sites.
Such a scenario from the ground reveals that the informa­
tion provided to create awareness among the farmers or
users is not reaching them effectively. Consequently, peo­
ple on the ground are unable to decipher the labels proper­
ly and remain oblivious of safety information.

5.3 2. INFORMATION AND AWARENESS
ON PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENTS (PPE)
Buying paraquat
without label

Reading label/
instructions

■Yes "No

Source: Based on field data

Able tr ,iJ and
under:'jnd label/
,g st ruction

No data

Fol'c.’.inj instructions

Information and awareness on PPE among farmers

Awareness on the availability of PPE is lacking amongst ma­
jority of the respondents. Sixty eight percent of the respon­
dents did not know from where they could buy PPF

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

AocJl 2015 // 24

where it was available. And 32 % of the respondents report­
ed that they knew where PPE was available in their village
or district. Only 10% of the respondents said that they have
asked retailers or company representatives about the avail­
ability of PPEs. They reported that the retailer and company
agents promised them that they will get PPE the next lime
they visit the village, but so far they have not received any
kind of PPE from them. The remaining 90% of the respon­
dents said they have not asked for PPE to anybody.
Training on use of paraquat and PPE among farmers

It is also pertinent to note that only 40% of the respon­
dents have said that they received some sort of training on
pesticide application. The trainings were organized or giv­
en by agriculture offices as well as pesticide retailers and
agents. Regarding the use of PPE 82% of the respondents
said that they have not received anj' sort of training and
only 2 % of the respondents reported that they attended
training given by the agriculture extension officer on PPE
use. Sixteen percent of the respondents have not given any
response to this question.

5.3.3. USE OF SAFETY MEASURES
Use of safety measures among farmers

Safety measures are an inevitable component that has to be
considered in all the discussions on pesticide use. Unfor­
tunately. adoption of required safety measures is not found
at the field level. The data obtained in the current study is
also not different. When asked about what they use to pro­
tect themselves while using paraquat, seventy six percent
of the respondents reported that they did not use any addi­
tional personal protective equipment apart from their dai­
ly clothes to avoid exposure to paraquat or other pesti­
cides. Among them a few respondents reported that they
do not even use foot wear while spraying paraquat or
working in paraquat sprayed fields.
Six percent of the respondents reported that they use
plastic sheets like an apron. Eighteen percent of the re­
spondents reported they either wash their hands after
paraquat application, or occasionally use gloves, full
sleeved shirts, or cover their mouth as well as nose with a
cloth and wear long trousers and shoes to avoid contact
with the paraquat spray.

CHART 7 RESPONSES REGARDING TRAINING ON
CHART8 USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

USE OF PPE AND PESTICIDE APPLICATION

■Pesticide
Application

•Yes

■Use of PPE

■No data

■No

Source: Based on Feld data

Source: Based on field data

Training on use of paraquat and PPE among

farm workers

All the three plantation worker-applicators and two of the
fifteen agriculture workers reported that they received
training on pesticide and herbicide application as well as
on how to use PPE. The remaining (all the five farm worker
applicators and 13 farm workers) said that they have not
received any training on working with pesticides includ­
ing paraquat, working in sprayed fields or on the use of
PPE. The respondents from tea plantations reported that
they were instructed on the use of PPE and plantation offi­
cials frequently monitor them while they spray pesticides
and herbicides to ensure that they are following the recom­
mended practices. Seventy eight percent ol all the 23
workers reported that they know paraquat and other pesti­
cides are harmful and can cause illness.

As a safety measure to avoid exposure to spray mist most
of the respondents claimed that they consider wind direc­
tion while spraying. Eighty six percent of the respondents
reported that they consider the direction of the wind and
always spray along the direction of the wind. They saidthat
otherwise the spray mist falls on their body and they think
that it is not good. Eight percent of the respondents said
that they were not concerned about the wind direction.
While handling paraquat, none of the farmers who re­
ported dispersing paraquat by hand used gloves and other
personal protective equipment while mixing or dispersing
paraquat with fertilizers, sand or salt.
Use of PPE while mixing, spraying and washing
sprayers among farmers

During mixing paraquat, four percent of the respondents
used head covers such as a cap or cloth and a cloth to cover
their mouth or nose, six percent used eye care equipment

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 2015 // 25

Farmer showing paraquat bought in plastic carry bag.

such as spectacles, four percent used some body cover, ei­
ther a full sleeved shirt or a plastic apron. Ten percent used
gloves to protect their hands and eight percent used long
trousers to protect their legs.

CHART 9 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
USED BY FARMERS

_______________

where it was shown that, in India only around 20% of pes­
ticide users wear three protective items during spraying
(Matthews 2008).
When the farmers were asked about the use of PPE by
workers who spray in their fields, the former reported that
they usually advice the workers to avoid exposure, touch­
ing and inhalation of spray. However, almost all the work­
ers were found not to have used any type of PPE.

(those who apply paraquat themselves in their own fields)

Use of personal protective measures by workers

Source: Based on field data

While spraying, ten percent of the respondents used a head
cover such as a cap or cloth, hand care equipment like
gloves and leg covering such as long trousers or shoes.
Fourteen percent of the respondents took care of their face
by covering the mouth and nose with a cloth. 12 % ensured
protection of the eyes by using spectacles and 6 % covered
their body with full sleeved shirt or plastic apron.
During washing the sprayers and containers, only two
percent of the respondents used equipment for face or eye
care, six percent of the respondents used body cover (full
sleeved shirt or apron) and leg can- (long trousers and or
shoes), and only four percent used hand care (gloves).
These results are more or less in line with industry figures

Most of the applicators were handling paraquat without
using any safety measures. All the five farm worker-appli­
cators reported that they do not use personal protective
equipment while spraying or mixing paraquat. Only the
three plantation worker applicators reported that they use
some sort of safety measures such as face care (cover mouth
and nose with a cloth), eye care (glass), hand care (gloves)
and leg care (long trousers and shoes). All the farm worker­
applicators said that they did not know where they could
get PPE in their village or district.
Six of the 15 agriculture workers (they do not usually
apply herbicides or pesticides but work in farms where
paraquat and other herbicides and pesticides are used) re­
ported that occasionally they help to mix or spray paraquat
and other pesticides in the farm and some of them use some
personal protective equipment such as a face cover with
cloth, gloves and spectacles on such occasions. Eleven of
the 15 agriculture workers reported that they have not used
any PPE when working in paraquat sprayed fields and the
remaining four agriculture workers reported that they used
some safety measures such as glass, face cover with cloth,
and gloves while working in paraquat sprayed fields.
Recommended personal protective equipment (PPE)

Personal protective equipment means any clothes, materi­
als or devices that provide protection from pesticide expo­
sure during handling and application. In the con!

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Manage­
ment. it includes both specifically designed protective
equipment and clothing reserved for pesticide application
and handling (FAO and WHO. 2014). For manual spray­
ing. the most essential items are boots or covered shoes, a
long-sleeved upper garment and garment that cover the
legs, and a hat (if spraying high crops). Gloves and eye
protection must be worn when pouring, mixing or loading
pesticides. And there may be additional items required in
certain circumstances (Whittle B. 2010).

«pcil 2015 // 26

Forty percent of the respondents (including people
who claimed not having been exposed) reported that they
experienced ill effects after working with paraquat. Nu­
merous adverse health effects and symptoms were report­
ed by the respondents. Those include the following: head­
ache. burning sensation, itching and irritation, lethargy,
breathing difficulty, toe nail damage, muscle pain, vomit­
ing, nausea, tiredness and discomfort, abdominal discom­
fort. pain and stomach upset, giddiness, fever, eyes burn­
ing. dizziness and skin allergy. These ill effects, which
show exposure, could also lead to chronic health effects.

PPE recommended by the manufacturers

Details of the recommended personal protective equip­
ment were compiled from the leaflet provided along with
Gramoxone (product of Syngenta) and labels of Paranex
(product of Makhateshim-agan, India) and Kataar (product
of Canary Agrochemicals). It showed that Syngenta recom­
mended eye protection (wearing at least glasses) and wear­
ing rubber gloves while mixing, whereas, for spraying they
have recommended almost nothing. The statement on the
leaflet says “avoid contact with the spray as much as you
can”. However, the two other manufacturers. Makhateshimagan India and Canary Agrochemicals have respectively
stated the following “wear full protective clothing while
mixing and spraying” and "wear full protective clothing
while broadcasting" on the label. Thus, the manufacturers
have not specified what is “full protective clothing" re­
quired while using paraquat.
From the study, it can be observed that less than 15 %
of the farmers and a few farm workers were using protec­
tive equipment. The PPE include some or all of the follow­
ing: hat. gloves, eye glasses, plastic apron or long sleeved
shirts, long pants or trousers, shoes etc. Some of the re­
spondents claimed that they cover their mouth and nose
with a cloth. It can be seen that none of the respondents
use a face mask or respirator or overalls while mixing or
applying paraquat. It can be concluded from the observa­
tions in the study area that majority of the farmers and
farm workers use either partial or incomplete PPE or do
not use PPE at all. It could also be that farmers and farm
workers may not be aware of the complete PPE required to
be worn while handling paraquat. In addition, it needs to
be verified, whether, even the government authorities, in­
dustry and retailers are aware about the International Code
of Conduct on Pesticide Management, on the use of PPE
and the need to convey such information to the users.

5.3.4. POISONING AND HEALTH EFFECTS
Exposure, poisoning and health effects among farmers

The study has also attempted to document the acute ill ef­
fects caused by the use of paraquat dichloride. Thirty four
percent of the respondents reported that they were ex­
posed to paraquat while handling it. whereas 54 % report­
ed they were not exposed to paraquat. Four percent report­
ed that they do not know whether they were exposed or
not and eight percent have furnished no information.

CHART 10: HEALTH EFFECTS REPORTED BY
FARMERS (N=50)

Source: Based on field data

When asked a question to confirm how sure they were that
the symptoms and ill effects they experienced were caused
by paraquat dichloride, out of the farmers who reported
symptoms and ill effects. 25% responded that they were
extremely or very sure that these were caused by paraquat,
15 % were rather sure and 30 % reported a little sure.
Exposure, poisoning and health effects among workers

Regarding exposure and poisoning with paraquat, one
plantation worker applicator and one farm worker applica­
tor and a couple of agriculture workers said that they had
not been exposed to paraquat while spraying or mixing or
working in sprayed field. Two of the remaining plantation
worker-applicators said that they did not know whether
they had been exposed or not. Five of the 15 agriculture
workers and four of the five farm worker-applicators stated
that they were exposed to paraquat while mixing or spray­
ing paraquat, or inhaled spray mist when working in the
field where paraquat was being sprayed or in a nearby field.
Six applicators (two plantation worker-applicators and four
farm worker applicators) and all the 15 agriculture workers
reported many symptoms they experienced after working
with paraquat or after working in sprayed fields. Breathing
difficulties, headache, vomiting, skin irritation, stomach
upset, diarrhoea, muscle pain, irritation, skin burns and al­
lergy. burning sensation on face and mouth and colour
changes on fingers were the major symptoms reported.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

CHART 11: HEALTH EFFECTS REPORTED BY FARM
WORKERS (N=23)__________________

April 201S // 27

CHART 12 CONTAINER DISPOSAL METHOD-FARMERS

■Thrown in open field

■ Burred

"Burnt
■others

Source: Based on field data

Source: Based on field data

Twenty one out of the 23 workers reported having experi­
enced ill effects, one respondent said that he was very
sure, another one said that he was rather sure, and eight
respondents responded that they are a little sure that the
symptoms were caused by paraquat. Whereas, nine re­
spondents slated that they were not sure and two respon­
dents said that they did not know whether the symptoms
were caused due to exposure to paraquat. Only one re­
spondent reported that a worker in the village became ill
(vomiting and tiredness) after being exposed while mixing
paraquat for spraying. Nine respondents claimed that they
had observed domestic animals and birds getting poisoned
or dying after they grazed or foraged in paraquat sprayed
fields.

5.3.5

DISPOSAL OF CONTAINERS

A common practice observed from all the study areas is
that it was quite common for the farmers to throw the emp­
ty containers and bottles into the fields in the neighbour­
ing area. Among farmers, this type of disposal was report­
ed by 74% of the respondents. Other practices of disposal
reported were burying (10% respondents), burning (8%
respondents), and others (8% respondents). Some of them
said that they sold the containers to scrap dealers. Those
who said that they disposed the containers by other meth­
ods explained some dangerous practices. Some of them
reported that they used such hollies and containers in toi­
lets as well as bath rooms as vessels. One respondent said
that occasional!}' ice cream vendors who came to the vil­
lages collected the empty bottles. Some respondents said
they used the containers for buying pesticides and herbi­
cides from the retailers.

Regarding the workers, it wras observed that farm work­
er-applicators treated the empty containers carelessly.
They reported that the containers were either thrown into
the open fields (2 respondents), buried (1 respondent) or
sold to scrap dealers (2 respondents). There is no data for
the three plantation worker-applicators.

5.3.6. AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The respondents were asked whether they have noted any
effects on the crop, soil, biodiversity or other effects due
to the application of paraquat. A considerable percentage
(48%) of the farmers interviewed reported that they noted
positive effects such as growth enhancement and 44%
said they noted yield improvement, while negative effects
such as growth retardation was reported by 24% of the re­
spondents and decreased yields were reported by 22%.
The remaining respondents did not furnish answer to the
question.
Regarding pest infestations. 22 % of the respondents re­
sponded and the remaining respondents did not furnish
answers. Thirteen percent of the respondents reported that
pest and or disease infestation had decreased. Two percent
of the respondents said that an increase in pest numbers
was noted. In the same way, two percent respondents
claimed that occurrences of some diseases were noted.
With regard to cost of cultivation, four percent of the
respondents claimed the expenditure had increased while
54% of the respondents claimed they experienced lower
cultivation costs.
Thirty percent of the respondents reported that soil fertil­
ity diminished after they started using paraquat and other
herbicides and more fertilizers had to be applied to get favour­
able yields. The remaining did not respond to this question.
About the impacts on biodiversity, most of the respon­
dents did not answer except a few who claimed that some
effects were noted, but they were unable to furnish further
details.
Some respondents from West Bengal reported that they
observed certain impacts on their domestic animals such as
cows, goats and ducks due to paraquat exposure. Two re­
spondents informed that a cow and a goat died in the vil­
lages after feeding on grass from a paraquat sprayed fi1 '

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

Five respondents reported that diarrhoea, unconscious­
ness, stomach enlargement and tiredness were noted in
their cow and goat, which accidently grazed on a paraquat
sprayed field. Two respondents reported that their ducks
and hens did not eat for a couple of days after they foraged
in a paraquat sprayed field. Such incidents were not report­
ed from other study areas.

5.4. REPORT BASED ON INFORMATION
OBTAINED FROM AGRICULTURE EXTENSION
OFFICERS AND RETAILERS

As part of the study an attempt was made to collect data on
paraquat use and recommended safety measures from agri­
culture extension officers (AEOs) and retailers. We could
interact with four agriculture extension officers and five
pesticide retailers.
Agriculture Extension Officers:

All the four /\EOs reported that manual, mechanical and
chemical weed management are practiced in their respec­
tive areas. Weed control using herbicides has become
widely accepted since the last eight to nine years. It is
much easier and application of herbicides requires less la­
bour costs compared to manual weeding Two AEOs said
that manual weeding could be a better option if resources
were available —labourers as well as sound financial back­
ground, but herbicides are cheaper and so farmers are in­
clined to use herbicides.
The AEO from one study area said that they recom­
mend paraquat for weed control in rice, but most farmers
in the area follow manual weeding methods. In all other
areas AEOs reported that agriculture department has not
been recommending paraquat. AEOs from the study sites
in North Eastern Indian States reported that paraquat is
widely used in tea plantations. They also said paraquat use
is a common practice in paddy fields as well as vegetable
fields. All the AEOs claimed that they have given training
to farmers on pesticide application, however, none of the
trainings were specifically for paraquat dichloride. A few
of them also claimed that they advice farmers to use per­
sonal protective equipment while handling pesticides to
avoid exposure and poisoning. Three AEOs reported that
they have neither provided training on the use of PPE nor
helped farmers to get PPE. Only one AEO said that they
gave training to farmers about the use of PPE and help
farmers to get PPE on request All the AEOs informed that
PPE is not available in their offices.
One AEO reported that there was a recent poisoning
case with paraquat where a worker was exposed to the
spray mist, and developed head ache and irritation.
Provision of safety equipment and awareness creation
on the importance of using PPE has not happened in any of
the study areas. The department of agriculture has to take
a much more responsible role to create awareness among
farmers as well as farm workers. In addition, information
about the ill effects of paraquat should be shared and farm­

April 201S // 28

ers should be encouraged to practice non chemical weed
management.
Pesticide Retailers:

In order to document the practices followed by pesticide
retailers and to find out about the availability of PPE, inter­
views were conducted with retailers in five study areas.
Five retailers from four States were interviewed. The retail­
ers selling many herbicides such as glyphosate, paraquat,
2.4-D. pretilachlor and so on. All the retailers were selling
paraquat, often more than one commercial brand.
According to the retailers, the major crops for which
farmers demand paraquat are okra, potato, paddy, onion,
ground nut, tea and vegetables. In addition farmers de­
mand paraquat for burning weeds in fallow lands. The
dose recommended by retailers ranged from 400ml to
1000ml diluted with 100 L to 200 L water per acre, which
is in line with the dose approved by the CIBRC.
The retailers stated that they get the products from dis­
tributors and usually PPE is not supplied. Two retailers
claimed that PPE kits were available in their shop, which
includes gloves, mask and spectacles; the cost per kit rang­
es from rupees 250 to 300. Three retailers said that they
usually advise farmers to wear protective clothing while
handling paraquat as well as other pesticides to avoid ex­
posure from spillage or spray mist.
Some retailers said that they get some promotional gifts
from distributors if they attain sales targets for paraquat. In
which case, they sell those formulations for which promo­
tional gifts are offered. Promotional gifts that encourage
the use of pesticides are in violation of the International
Code of Conduct of Pesticide Management.
Two retailers said that they attended trainings organised
by agriculture development office or pesticide distributors in
their region. The trainings were not specific Io the paraquat
dichloride, but generally focused on chemical pesticides.
An important observation from the State of West Bengal
was that paraquat was sold in plastic carry bags as well as
in empty bottles of other pesticides. Most marginal farmers
buy paraquat in smaller volumes such as 100 ml or 200ml.
Consequently retailers sell the highly hazardous paraquat
dichloride in plastic carry bags and other bottles without
following any safety measures. It was observed that para­
quat smear had spread around the opening of the contain­
ers. Consequently, it is more than probable that the retail­
ers and farmers have contact with and are inhaling paraquat
increasing the risk of poisoning. Ironically none of the re­
tailers use protective measures when refilling into contain­
ers or plastic carry bags.

5.5.

PARAQUAT USE IN TEA PLANTATIONS

As part of the study to document the use and associated impacts of paraquat dichloride in India, we attempted to collect
data from large-scale tea plantations in South India as well
as in North East India. In south India we interacted with a
member of rhe United Planters' Association of Southern In~

April 201S // 29

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

dia (UPASI) and an official of a tea plantation in the Nilgiris.
According to them, the use of paraquat dichloride has large­
ly been replaced by glyphosate in many plantations.
In North East India we tried to gather data with the help
of officials of the International Union of Food and Allied
Workers (IUF) India as well as from a tea garden in Dibrugarh district in Assam. The IUF India coordinator shared
secondary data from larger tea plantations in Assam. We
had an interaction with a senior official from a tea planta­
tion in Dibrugarh. The details obtained are described below.
The senior official from a tea plantation in Dibrugargh
explained that paraquat dichloride is in use in the estate
since a long time and is used at the rate of 750-800 ml
diluted in 200 litres of water. Usually 6-8 rounds of spray­
ing is done in a year. Paraquat is normally not applied in
younger tea gardens as it impacts growth adversely. If ap­
plication becomes necessary in younger gardens, plant
guards (a type of protective covering) are used to cover the
plants to avoid contact with the spray.
When intensive growth of weeds or tough weeds are
found 2,4-D is mixed at the rate of 250-500 gms along
with 750-800 ml paraquat in 200 litres of water.Usually
paraquat is sprayed on sunny or drj' days, during the
morning hours and is done by members in the spraying
gangs who are trained on pesticide application and the use
of PPE. According to the official, the pesticide/herbicide
applicators are provided with safety equipments along
with a small flag of cloth to find the direction of wind so
that they can spray along the direction of wind.
The senior officer in the plantation said that though
they ensure that workers are using the PPE given to them, it
is not always followed. He informed that he himself found
a few workers applying paraquat without wearing any PPE.
He said that so far neither poisoning incidents nor any
symptoms have been reported. But two out of the three
plantation worker-applicators interviewed reported that

Workers prepare to go to spray pesticides in a tea garden.

ey have no proper personal protective clothing.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION
The Plantations Labour (Amendment) Act, 2010 requires
18 A. Safety.
(1) In every plantation, effective arrangements shall be made
by the employer to provide for the safety of workers in
connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of
insecticides, chemicals and toxic substances.
(4) Every employer shall ensure that every worker in plantation
employed for handling, mixing, blending and applying
insecticides, chemicals and toxic substances, is trained about
the hazards involved in different operations in which he is
engaged, the various safety measures and safe work practices
to be adopted in emergencies arising from spillage of such
insecticides chemicals and toxic substances and such other
matters as may be prescribed by the State Government.

The International Labour Organisation's Convention 184 on
occupational health and safety in agriculture requires govern­
ments to ensure that there are preventive and protective
measures for the use of chemicals and handling of chemical
waste at the level of the undertaking covering:
- the preparation, handling, application, storage and transporta­
tion of chemicals;
- agricultural activities leading to the dispersion of chemicals;
- the maintenance, repair and cleaning of equipment and
containers for chemicals; and
- the disposal of empty containers and the treatment and
disposal of chemical waste and obsolete chemicals.

they experienced head ache and breathing difficulties. The
secondary data obtained from the IUF India shows numer­
ous adverse health effects that have been reported due to
paraquat use from tea plantations in Assam such as skin
burns, fever, and dizziness, loss of consciousness, breathing
difficulties, vision trouble and vomiting.

5.6.

OTHER WEED MANAGEMENT METHODS

Farmers interviewed for the study reported that before herbi­
cides became popular and available they practiced manual
weeding and mechanical weeding employing cattle ploughs.
These methods of weed management other than application
of paraquat or herbicides are still being practiced in all the
study areas-manual hand weeding and mechanical weed­
ing using cattle plough. Cultural practices such as mulching
is also reported to have helped farmers to prevent the growth
of weeds. Sixty six percent of the farmers interviewed
claimed that they do manual weeding (hand weeding) as
well as with cattle plough at favourable occasions.
Another 22 % of the farmers, especially from Andhra
Pradesh and Telangana said that they used cattle plough
for weeding for some crops such as cotton, pulses and veg­
etables, mostly during earlier stages of the crop.
Seventy two percent of the farmers reported that they
know other weed management practices apart from using
chemical herbicides. From the responses, it seems like
farmers are aware that manual weeding is a good option.
However, duo to labour problems and increased cost of la­
bour. farmers are resorting to chemical methods.

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

April 201S // 30

6. CONCLUSION

The study found that paraquat dichloride, a herbicide, is
used for controlling weeds in at least 25 crops in India (as
per information from the study areas) whereas the Central
Insecticide Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) has
approved it only for nine crops. This means that many of
the uses of paraquat are in violation of the laws in India
regarding pesticides. The State Agriculture Departments
and/or Agriculture Universities and the various commodi­
ty boards are in violation of the law as they have recom­
mended paraquat for crops other than those approved by
the CIBRC. Similarly, Syngenta, one of the major suppliers
of paraquat, has recommended the use of its product
Gramoxone in 12 crops and another manufacturer Canary
has recommended the use of Kataar for 11 crops, again
over riding the CIBRC.
It is evident from the interviews that farmers are not ful­
ly aware of the crops on which paraquat use is approved.
Though farmers are aware that paraquat and other pesti­
cides are poison, they lacked information about its proper
use. Most of the workers interviewed were also not aware
of the same and lacked the required PPE, thereby, increas­
ing the risk of exposure and poisoning. This clearly indi­
cates the failure of the agriculture departments and other
concerned government agencies in providing adequate in­
formation about the use of paraquat and the PPE.

Data collection from farmer in Telangana state.

Interestingly farmers seek and get advice not from the
concerned government departments but from the retailers
or the agents of companies or distributors. This has con­
tributed to insufficient information and improper use of
the herbicide. In West Bengal paraquat was being sold in
plastic carry bags, further increasing the risk of spillage,
exposure, and poisoning.
The study found the use of paraquat dichloride is hap­
pening in violation of the Indian Insecticides Act. In addi­
tion to the violation of the International Code of Conduct
on Pesticide Management, the conditions of use of para­
quat in India also violate international conventions such
as the Chemicals Convention of 1990 and the Safely and
Health in Agriculture Convention of 2001. The actual prac­
tices in the field indicate the absence of an effective regu­
latory as well as monitoring system which in turn pro­
motes misuse and illegal practices. Paraquat is being used
in unsafe and dangerous conditions at the retailer, farmer
and worker level. All this is happening while numerous
adverse health effects have been reported from farmers and
workers due to exposure to paraquat. All these demon­
strate the need to take necessary steps towards a progres­
sive ban of paraquat in India.

flpril 2015 // 31

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA

7. REFERENCES

Agriculture Statistics at a Glance. 2013. Directorate of Economics and

Statistics. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of
Agriculture. Government of India.
Approved uses of registered herbicides (as on October 1. 2014). Central
Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine and Storage. Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of IndiaDownloaded from http://cibrc.nic.in/muph2012.docon December 18, 2014.
Berne Declaration. Paraquat and other pesticides with acutely toxic
effects are repeatedly abused as means of suicide. Web link accessed
on February 26, 2015. www.berncdeclaration.ch/conipaniesinslitiitions/svngenta/paraquat/suicides/
Bhushan C, Bhardwaj A and Misra S S. 2013. State of Pesticide
Regulations in India, Centre for Science and Environment. New
Delhi.

UK. PAN Asia and the Pacific. Downloaded from www.evb.ch/file
admin/files/documents/Svngenta/Paraquat/Paraquat Unacceptable

HealthRisk 3rdEdition 2011 mb print.pdf on November 16. 2014
PAN list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides. June 2014. Pesticide Action
Network (PAN) International. Downloaded from www. pan-german v.

org/download/PAN HHP List 140527 F on Novembcrl6. 2014

Paraquat Chemical watch factsheet. Beyond pesticides. Downloaded
from www.bevondpcsticides.org/pesticidcs/factsheets/Paraquat.pdf
on December 12, 2014.
Pavan M. 2013. Acute Kidney Injury Following Paraquat Poisoning in

India; Iranian Journal of Kidney Diseases: Volume 7.
Pesticide Database (On chemical identification, toxicity, use. water
pollution potential, ecological toxicity and regulatory information)

Pesticide Action Network (PAN). Web link (www pesticideinfo.org/
Detail Chemical.jsp?Rec Id=PC33358) accessed on February 12. 2015.

Consumption of Chemical Pesticides In Various States/Union
Territories during 2007-08 to 2011-12. Data obtained from http://
agricoop. nic.in/imagcdefault/Pesticidc-Bio-posticidc% 20Data.doc

Pesticide wise consumption of indigenous pesticides during 2011-12
to 2013-14 (as on December 18. 2014). Directorate of Plant

downloaded on November 16. 2014.
Crop production guide 2012, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University.

Cooperation. Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India.
Pesticides and formulations registered for use in the country under

www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/pdf/20l3/CPG%202012.pdf downloaded on

Protection. Quarantine and Storage. Department of Agriculture and

the insecticides act 1968. (as on December 31. 2014). Central

December 22, 2014.
Crop Production Techniques of Horticultural Crops. 2013. Horticultural

Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine and Storage. Department of Agriculture and

college and research institute Tamil Nadu agricultural university.
www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/pdf/2013/cpg horti 2013.pdf downloaded

Cooperation. Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India. Down­
loaded from www.cibrc.nic.in/pesticides.doc on January 15. 2014
Raghu K, Mahesh V, Sasidhar P, Reddy P R, Venkataramaniah V and

on December 22, 2014.

FAO. 2005. The international Code of Conduct on the distribution and use
of pesticides. Revised version. Food Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, www.fao.org/docrep/018/a0220e/a0220e00.pdf
FAO and WHO. 2014. The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide
Management. World Health Organization and Food and /Xgriculture
Organization of the United Nations, www.fao.org/filcadmin/

tern plates/agphome/docu ments/Pests Pesticides/Code/CODE _
2014Scp ENG.pdf
Insecticides/Pesticides Registered under section 9(3) of the Insecti­
cides Act 1968 for use in the India (December 31, 2014. Central
Insecticide Board and Registration Committee. Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine and Storage. Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India Down­
loaded from http://cibrc.nic.in/reg prochicts.doc on January 15. 2014.
Kerala Government order. 2011. G.O No. 116/2011/AGRI Dated:

7.5.201 I. Downloaded from www.koralaagriculture.gov.in/GO

MS 116.. A.pdf on December 12, 2014.
Khan S U. 1975. Determination of paraquat residues in food crops by gas

chromatography, Bull Environ Contain Toxicol. 14(6):745-9.
Khosya S and Gothwal S. 2012. Two Cases of Paraquat Poisoning from

Kota. Rajasthan, INDIA, Case Reports in Critical Caro.
List of pesticides which are banned, refused registration and restricted

in use in India, dated January 1, 2014. Department of Agri< ulture
and Cooperation. Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India.
http7/cibrc.nic.in/ibr2012.doc Downloaded on Novi;mber 15. 2014.
Manual on agricultural production technology-kharif. 2008. Directorate
of Agriculture. Odisha. www.agriorissa.org/Din-ctorate Agri/pdf/
Kharif Mannual-2008.pdf Downloaded on August 23. 2013

Matthews G A. 2008. Attitudes and behaviours regarding use of crop
protection products-A survey of more than 8500 smallholders in 26
countries. Crop Protection (27):834-846.

Narendra S S and Vinaykumar S. 2013. Paraqr
Serios in South India; International |o.

■

Research

(IJSR): 2319-7064.
Neumeister L and Isenring R. 2011. Paraquat. ■
.Hable health risks
for users. 3rd Edition. Berne Declaration, P -sticido Action Network

Agrawal A. 2013. Paraquat poisoning: A case report and review of
literature; Journal of Community and Family Medic.20(3): 198-200.

Raina S, Kumar V, Kaushal S S and Gupta D. 2008. Two Cases of
Paraquat Poisoning from Himachal Pradesh: JI ACM: 9(2): 130-2.
Sandhu J S, Dhiman A. Mahajan R and Sandhu P. 2003. Outcome of

paraquat poisoning-a five year study; Indian J Nephrol. 13: 64-68.
Saravu K, Sekhar S, Pai A, Barkur A S, Rajesh V and Earla J R. 2013.
Paraquat-A deadly poison: Report of a case and review.Indian J Crit

Caro Mod. 17(3): 182-184.
Specifications and evaluations for agricultural pesticides-Paraquat.
2003. Food and Agriculture Organisation evaluation reports.

www-lao.org/lilcadmin/templates/agphome/documcnts/Pests
Pesticidcs/Spcc.s/Paraquat08.pdf downloaded on November 16. 2014.
Tamuli Sarojini M, Baruah Gautam K and Tamuli Madan K. 2007.
Pathology of chronic paraquat toxicity in calves; Indian Journal of

Veterinary Pathology; 31(2): 130-134
Banday T H, Bhat Sadaf B and Bhat Sabreen B. 2014. Manifestation.
complications and clinical outcome in paraquat poison: A hospital
based study in a rural area of Karnataka;! Environ Occup Sci. 3(1):
21-24.

Tayade S, Patel Z P, Mutkule D S and Kakde A M. 2013. Pesticide

Contamination in Food: A Review lOSR Journal of Agriculture and

Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS; 6 (1): PP 07-11.
Watts M. 2011. Paraquat Monograph. Pesticide Action Network Asia &the
Pacific (PAN AP).

Weinberg J. 2009. An NGO Guide to Hazardous Pesticides and SAICM: A
Framework for Action to Protect Human Health and the Environment
from Hazardous Pesticides. IPEN. P 22-36. www.ipen.org/sites/
defauit/files/documents/ngo guide hazpest saicm-en.pdf

Whittle B. 2010. Communities in peril: Asian regional report on

community monitoring of highly hazardous pesticide use. Pesticide
Action network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific
World Health Organisation. 2009. WHO recommended classification of
pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification: 2009.

w.im Iumilorg/documcnts/pds/pdsother/class 2009.pdf down!«•:ded on_November 16. 2014.
Media
15414.pdf

Position: 1800 (5 views)