Source: https://issuu.com/erklaerungvbern/docs/evb_paraquat_en_4-15_v04?e=3524425/12444816
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 18:25:55
Document Index: 6664333

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART\u20091', 'ART 2', 'ART 3', 'ART 4', 'ART 5', 'ART 6', 'ART 7', 'ART\u20098', 'ART 9', 'ART 10', 'ART 11', 'ART\u200912']

CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA by Public Eye - issuu
A DUSE IN INDIAAprilApril
// 1CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT
USE IN INDIACONTACTSPesticide Action Network (PAN) India
Vilangottil House
House No. 104
Prayaga, Warriam Road
Thalore P.O. Thrissur,
PIN-680306IUF/UITA
8 Rampe du pont rouge,
Phone +41 22 793 2233
Fax +41 22 793 2238
www.iuf.orgadmin@pan-india.org
www.pan-india.orgPAN Asia and the Pacific
Phone 604-6570271 or 604-6560381
Fax 604-6583960
www.panap.netBerne Declaration
Phone +41 44 277 70 00
Fax +41 44 277 70 01
www.evb.chFrontpage 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. | Edited by Sreedevi Lakshmikutty | Photos Dileep Kumar A. D.: Frontpage,
page 17, 25; Kondala Reddy: page 5, 30; IUF: page 7, 9, 29 | Design Karin HutterCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 3FOREWORD BY THE EDITORSFor many years, 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 the production and sale of this highly hazardous
pesticide. The product is already banned in many countries around the world, including African and Asian countries, the European Union, and Switzerland, the home
country of Syngenta, the main producer of paraquat. In
countries like the US and China, its use is restricted. Nevertheless, paraquat is still one of the world’s most widely
used herbicides, especially in developing countries,
where its use leads to the poisoning of thousands of workers and farmers.
Because of the different regulation of paraquat among
countries and the different enforcement mechanisms, the
inclusion of paraquat in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention would be extremely helpful. First of all, it would
facilitate information exchange about its characteristics,
and this would be a prerequisite to making an informed
decision at the national level regarding the importation of
paraquat. A proposal forwarded by Burkina Faso to include a severely hazardous paraquat formulation in the
PIC procedure was supported by the recommendation of
the Chemical Review Committee, and by nearly all of the
154 parties to the Rotterdam Convention in 2013. But the
required consensus was at that time blocked by India and
Since there was little information available on the use
of Paraquat in India, the editors decided to have a closer
look at this issue. The results of the study are – although
not surprising – still shocking.
Paraquat is widely used under high-risk conditions in
India. Problems of poverty are exacerbated by the exposure to this highly hazardous pesticide, as users have no
means to protect themselves or obtain relevant information. In some places paraquat is sold in plastic carrying
bags; many users can’t read the label; it is mixed with other ingredients that are not recommended; it is sprayed
with leaking knapsack sprayers; and it is applied on crops
for which its use has not been approved. This study shows
again that “safe use” of highly hazardous pesticides in
daily practice, in developing countries and countries in
transition, is an illusion. The study also shows that the
use of paraquat in India violates the International Code of
Conduct on Pesticide Management, and that the manufacturers, distributors and relevant authorities in India have
a duty to rectify this situation.
We believe this report shows that national decisions on
the regulation of pesticides – and in this case on paraquat
specifically – should be based on an evaluation of their in-trinsic hazards and a realistic assessment of the common
The editors would like to thank the main author, Dileep
Kumar A. D., the whole 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 hope that these findings will make their way
back to the decision makers.April 2015
Sue Longley, IUF
Sarojeni Rengam, PAN AP
Sri. C. Jayakumar, PAN India
François Meienberg, Berne DeclarationCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 4TABLE OF CONTENTForeword by the editors 3
Acknowledgment 5
Executive summary 6
Policy recommendation 7
1. INTRODUCTION 8
2. OBJECTIVES 9
3. METHODOLOGY 10
4. STUDY AREA 11
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
5.1. Legal framework 12
5.2. Consumption of paraquat dichloride in India 16
5.3. Findings of the field study 18
5.3.1. Information and awareness on paraquat use and
safety measures 22
5.3.2. Information and awareness
on personal protective equipments (PPE) 23
5.3.3. Use of safety measures 24
5.3.4. Poisoning and health effects 26
5.3.5. Disposal of containers 27
5.3.6. Agricultural and environmental impacts 27
5.4. 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. CONCLUSION 30
7. REFERENCES 31LIST OF TABLES
1	Details on the approved use of paraquat dichloride 24 SL
in India as on October 2014 13	2	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	5	Commercial names of paraquat dichloride reported
from field 16	6	State wise consumption data for paraquat dichloride
obtained through RTI Act 17	7	Classification of respondents 18	8	Dispersal of paraquat with other materials 19	9	Quantity of paraquat used and the addition of other
materials 20
1	Consumption of paraquat dichloride and total
herbicide consumption in India 16	2	Reasons for using paraquat 19	3	Type of sprayers used – farmers 21	4	Working in sprayed fields – farmers 21	5	Source of information and advice on paraquat use 22	6	Responses to questions related to label and
instructions among farmers 23	7	Responses regarding training on use of PPE and
pesticide application 24	8	Use of Personal Protective Equipment 24	9	Personal protective equipment used by workers 25	10	Health effects reported by farmers 26	11	Health effects reported by farm workers 27	12	Container disposal method-farmers 27CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 5ACKNOWLEDGEMENTPAN India is grateful to Thanal for facilitating, supporting
and guiding the research. We thank Berne declaration, Pesticide 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 knowledge for decision making.
I am indebted to Sri. C. Jayakumar and Dr. Narasimha
Reddy (Directors, Pesticide Action Network India) for providing me the opportunity to take up this study; their support, encouragement and guidance for the successful completion of this work. I 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.
I would like to express sincere thanks to Mr. François
Meienberg (Campaign Diretor, Berne Declarartion), Ms. Sarojeni 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. PrasadanCollecting data from Pesticide retailer in Telagana state.(Associate Professor, Research department of Zoology,
Mary Matha Arts 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
Special thanks to Dr. Anupam Paul, Dr. Namita Lung­
chang, 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. I also thank Ms. T. Chitra for compiling secondary data and Ms. Nihala for helping with data analysis.
I am grateful to my colleagues and friends for their constant support and encouragement.
Dileep Kumar A D.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 6EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe 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 toxicity. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International includes
paraquat dichloride in its list of highly hazardous pesticides. 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, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and West Bengal) in India, where paraquat use was observed in a preliminary exploration 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 extension officers as well as pesticide retailers were also interviewed. Secondary data was collected through applications 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 dichloride have been found to be sold in the study sites. It is being 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. Significant variation was noted between the use approved by CIBRC and the recommendations by the various State agriculture departments and commodity boards such as the
coffee board. Further, manufacturers of paraquat have recommended 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. Neither 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, inhalation 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 including 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 therespondents 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 provided by agriculture offices or pesticide retailers. Therefore use of paraquat is occurring under unsafe conditions.
None of the respondents were using the recommended
protective equipment. Seventy six percent of the respondents reported that they are not using any protective measures while handling paraquat, only 24 % of the respondents 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 percent 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 they continue to work in sprayed fields or enter a sprayed field immediately after spraying, for work, without wearing protective 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 respondents 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 availability of labourers during critical periods of work, increased labour cost etc. were the major reasons reported for using paraquat. In addition, farmers claimed that paraquat is cheaper
and weeds can be controlled with lesser effort. Some respondents reported that they occasionally do manual weeding.
The farmers and workers reported numerous adverse
health effects caused by paraquat such as irritation, itching, headache, vomiting, burning sensation, breathing difficulty, muscle pain, abdominal discomfort, lethargy, skin
allergy and colour change, tiredness, nausea, giddiness,
fever, eye burn, dizziness, diarrhoea, throat drying, shivering, sneezing and change in heart beat rate. Some respon-CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 7POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONdents reported that domestic animals were also adversely
impacted by paraquat (death of a cow and a goat after grazing 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 authorities immediately stop the violations of the Indian Insecticides 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 time 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 Agriculture 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
manu足facturers 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
>	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 International 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 INDIAApril 2015// 81. INTRODUCTIONParaquat 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 combination 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 dimethyl sulphate as well. (FAO 2003; Watts M, 2011).
Chemically, it belongs to the group of bipyridilium herbicides. This chemical group is called quaternary ammonium 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 generally 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 paraquat as a Class II-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 Environmental 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 workers 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 chemical. 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. Longterm exposure to low doses of paraquat is linked to changes
in the lung and appears to be connected with chronic bronchitis and shortness of breath. Recent studies also link occupational and community exposure to paraquat to increased 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 humans. In addition, many labelling organisations such as
the Fair Trade International (FTI), the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC), the Rainforest Alliance, and food corporations like Dole, Chiquita and retailers like Marks & Spencer have voluntarily banned paraquat (Watts M, 2011; Neumeister 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. Another 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 comparatively high, at 42 to 80 %. The number of suicides using paraquat 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 States to the southern States 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 H 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 currently, paraquat is not being used in Kerala as per the data obtained through the Right To information Act.
Although paraquat is known to cause severe health
hazards and deaths among farmers, workers and community around the globe, only meagre data is available from India. Besides, there is no ground level data available on the
application of paraquat in the fields, poisoning, etc. Therefore, the aim of this study was to document the actual practices of paraquat use and associated health and environmental impacts from India.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 92. OBJECTIVESThe 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 protective measures among farmers and farm workers while handling or applying paraquat. The study was also intended to
show the conditions that could lead to exposure to paraquat 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 instructions provided, training given on the use of personal
protective measures and application of paraquat from agriculture extension officers and pesticide retailers. There
were some unofficial reports stating that the use of paraquat
has been stopped by farmers in some places in India. Therefore, as part of the study an attempt was also made to document 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 INDIAApril 2015// 103. METHODOLOGYA 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
States 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 revealed 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 purposive sampling and the data was collected from the eight
study sites (districts) across six States. The data was analysed both through quantitative and qualitative methods.SAMPLINGPurposive sampling was done to identify the respondents.
The data collection was especially focussed on farmers using paraquat in their farms. The farm workers were identified 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 pesticide retailers and four agriculture extension officers.COLLECTION OF FIELD DATAThe 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 personal interviews. Separate questionnaires were developed for
each category of respondents with an emphasis on paraquat use, safety measures used and recommendations, instructions provided, information and awareness on safety
measures and trainings.SECONDARY DATASecondary data on consumption of paraquat in India, poisoning cases reported and other relevant data was also
collected as part of the study. The consumption data wascollected from the office of the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage under the Ministry of Agriculture, 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 (CIBRC). 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 institutions. For this, RTI applications were filed addressed to
agriculture departments in all the States in India as well
as to the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,
CIBRC, and the Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals. 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 sizable 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 different States, and a number of practices and problems observed 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 INDIAApril 2015// 114. STUDY AREA – STATE PROFILESFor the study, field data was collected from the eight identified 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 being used). A short agricultural profile of the States from
which the data was collected is given below.The State of Arunachal Pradesh is located in the north-eastern region of India. The major crops grown in Arunachal
Pradesh include rice, wheat, pulses, tea, cereals, maize,
gram, oilseeds, sugarcane, vegetables, potatoes, apples, oranges pineapples, etc. More than half of the population in
Arunachal Pradesh depends on agriculture and allied sectors for its livelihood.
Assam, located in north-eastern India, is predominantly
rural and the economy is primarily agrarian in nature. Almost 70 % of the population is directly dependent on agriculture 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, potatoes and other vegetables.Arunachal Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh Indicate Study area-States
Source: http://d-maps.com/carte.php?num_car=24868&lang=enAndhra 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 engaged 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 newly formed State, which was part of the Andhra Pradesh,
therefore the profile for Andhra Pradesh is also applicable
to Telangana.)
Madhya Pradesh is the second largest State in India, located 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 agricultural 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, oilseeds such as soybean, groundnut and mustard. Cash crops
like cotton and sugarcane are also grown in few districts of
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 INDIAApril 2015// 125. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION5.1. LEGAL FRAMEWORKVarious government agencies are involved in the regulation of pesticides in India. The Ministry of Agriculture regulates the manufacture, sale, transport and distribution,
export, import and use of pesticides through the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the rules framed there under. The regulation of pesticides is governed by two different bodies:
the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee
(CIBRC) and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India (FSSAI). CIBRC was established, in 1968, under the
Department of Agriculture and Co-operation of the Ministry of Agriculture.
The CIBRC is responsible for advising the central and
State governments on technical issues related to manufacture, 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
The other part of the CIBRC, the Registration Committee (RC), is responsible for registering pesticides after verifying 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. It is the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India that is responsible for recommending tolerance limits of various pesticides in food
commodities (Bhushan C et al., 2013).
The State Agriculture Departments (SADs), State Agriculture Universities (SAUs) and other institutions such as
the National Horticultural Board (NHB) and various commodity boards make recommendations for agricultural
practices including use of pesticides. The SAUs, SADs,
NHB and commodity boards have their own extension departments 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 misguidance and increases the chances of unnecessary and
inappropriate use of pesticides (Bhushan C et al., 2013).
Approved use of paraquat as per CIBRC
(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 to4250 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 departments 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 recommended for weed control in 17 crops. This is based on
incomplete data as confirmation about the recommendation 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 INDIAApril 2015// 13TABLE 1: DETAILS ON THE APPROVED USE OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE 24 % SL IN INDIA (as of October 2014)SL
NO1AppleRosa moschata,
Rosa eglantaria,
Rubus ellipticus3.25 L700 –1000N.A.Digera arvensis,
Cyperus iria, Trianthema
monogyna, Corchorus
spp., Leucas aspera,
Euphorbia spp.1.25 – 2.0 L500150 –180Cyperus rotundus,
Convolvulus sp.,
Portulaca sp., Tridax sp.2.0 L50090Cyperus rotundus,
Trianthema monogyna,
Amaranthus sp.,
Echinochloa sp0.8 – 2.0 L50090 –120Cyperus iria,
Trianthema monogyna0.8 – 2.0 L50090 –120Chenopodium sp.,
Fumeria parviflora2.0 L500100Imperata
setaria sp.,
Boerraria hispida,
Paspalum conjugatum0.8 – 4.25 L
(For season long weed
control, use 2.5 – 5.0
litres for initial application. For subsequent
repeat spot application
use 1 litre)200 – 400Not Necessary
(For season-long
weed control, use 2.5
to 5 litres for initial
subsequent repeat spot
application use 1 litre)Echinochloa crusgalli,
Ageratum conyzides,
Marsilea quadriofoliata,
Brachiaria mutica1.25 – 3.5 L500N.A.Digitaria sp.,
Eragrostis sp.,
Fimbristylis sp.1.5-2.5 L600N.A.Grassy & Broad leaf weeds4.25 L500120 –150CottonGrapes
(Post-emergence directed
inter row application at
2 – 3 leaf stage of weeds)4Maize
(pre-plant [minimum
tillage] before sowing)Maize
inter row application
at 2 – 3 leaf stage of
weeds)5Potato
(Post-emergence overall/
inter-row application
at 5 –10 % emergence)6Tea
2 – 3 leaf stage of weeds)7Rice
tillage] before sowing/
transplanting for
controlling standing
weeds)8Rubber
2 – 3 leaf stage of weeds)9POST-HARVEST
& HARVEST (DAYS)WEED SPECIES(Post-emergence directed
2 – 3 leaf stage of weeds)3DILUTION
(LITRE)/HAAPPROVED CROPS
2 – 3 leaf stage of weeds)2DOSAGE/HA
(ML/LITRE)Wheat
tillage] before sowing)Source: CIBRC http://cibrc.nic.in/muph2012.docCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 14TABLE 2: RECOMMENDATION OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE BY STATE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENTS
NOCROPSDOSAGE PER HASAD/AU OR BOARDS, STATE1AppleGramoxone 1000 ml
in 2000 L waterwww.yspuniversity.ac.in,
Himachal Pradesh State2Areca nutDepartment of Agriculture,
Goa State3BananaTamil Nadu Agriculture University,
Kerala Agriculture University4Cane sugar5Cashew6CherryGramoxone 2000 ml/hwww.yspuniversity.ac.in,
Himachal Pradesh State7Coffee–Coffee board, Tamil Nadu Agriculture
University (TNAU), Tamil Nadu8Cotton9Jasmine–ICAR-Goa10JowarParaquat 1500 ml/haMadhya Pradesh Agriculture Department11MaizeParaquat 0.5 kg with
Atrazine 1.0 kg/haAgriculture Departments of Madhya Pradesh
and Andhra Pradesh States12Oil Palm13Pineapple14Potato15Rice–Agriculture Departments of Kerala
and Assam States16RubberParaquat 0.5 kg +
2,4–D 1.25 kgRubber board and Department of Agriculture,
Kerala State17Tea–Indian Council of Agriculture Research
(ICAR)-Karnol,
Agriculture Department of Assam,
Uttarakhand and Goa StatesREMARKSAssam Agriculture Department recommended
2,4-D (amine-salt)
1.0 kg a.i/ha+ paraquat
0.5 kg a.i/ha in mixtureDepartment of Agriculture,
Goa StateAgriculture Departments of Odisha,
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh StatesTamil Nadu Agriculture University,
–Kerala Agriculture University*,
Agriculture Departments of Uttarakhand
and Punjab States
Assam: Pre-harvest
treatment on standing crop
for better grainquality.TNAU, Tea Research Association
and Tea Research FoundationSource: 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 2011Recommendation 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, Syngenta has recommended the product for weed control in 12
crops and for aquatic weed control as well. Canary Agrochemicals has recommended their product Kataar for 11
crops and aquatic weeds.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAVariations in approved use and recommended use
of paraquat dichloride in India
The data from CIBRC, State agriculture departments or agriculture universities (SAD/AU) and commodity boards, industry 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 available 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 indicates 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 tea.
The CIBRC has not approved the use of paraquat for the
remaining 10 crops. This shows that these bodies have recommended 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 other pesticides as shown by Bhushan C et al., 2013.April 2015// 15A 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 violate the CIBRC directive, one crop – banana – has been recommended 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, sugarcane, tapioca, sunflower and for aquatic weeds) is not approved.TABLE 3: VARIATIONS IN APPROVED USE AND RECOMMENDED USE OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE IN INDIA
CIBRC APPROVED
SAD/AU/COMMODITY
BOARDS3.
MANUFACTURERS4.
ON CROPS FOR WHICH
PARAQUAT IS USED	1.	Apple*
2.	Areca nut
4.	Cane sugar
8.	Cotton*
9.	Jasmine
10.	Jower
11.	Maize*
12.	Oil palm
14.	Potato*
15.	Rice*
16.	Rubber*
17.	Tea*	1.	Apple*
3.	Cotton*
4.	Grapes*
5.	Maize*
6.	Potato*
7.	Rice*
8.	Rubber*
9.	Sugarcane
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
16.	Parble
17.	Potato*
19.	Rice*
20.	Sesame
21.	Soybean
22.	Sunflower
23.	Tea*
24.	Tomato
25.	Wheat*1.	Apple
3.	Grape
7.	Rubber
9.	WheatSource: 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 CIBRCCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 20155.2. CONSUMPTION OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE
IN INDIAThe 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
in metric tonne (MT) technical grade8000
2007-­‐0
Commercial names of paraquat dichloride
reported from the study sites
From the study sites across six States 14 commercial products, manufactured by different firms, of paraquat dichloride were used for weed control.TABLE 5: COMMERCIAL NAMES OF PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE REPORTED FROM FIELD
NO.COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTSMANUFACTURER1All quitCrystal2FinishTotal Agricare3GramexCrop Chemicals India4GramoCanary5GramoxoneSyngenta6HerbucsoneAnkar Industries7KapiqKrishirasayanKataarCanaryMilquatInsecticides IndiaParanexMakhateshim-Agan India11ParaxzoneNational Pesticides and
chemicals12UniquatUnited Phosphorous13Parachlor 24–14OzoneDhanuka Agritech limitedParaquat 8
2011-­‐12 147
2011-­‐12 2012-­‐13
// 16Source: Compiled from field data obtained through the studyYear
Source: Compiled using the data obtained from the Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarantine and Storage and CIBRCTABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE TO THE TOTAL HERBICIDE CONSUMPTION
YEAR2007– 082008 – 092009 – 1 02010 – 1 12011 – 1 22012 – 1 32013 – 1 4Percent of
consumed3.633.485.362.522.584.014.98Source: Compiled using the data obtained from Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage and CIBRCCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 17Various 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 collected through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Below are
the responses received from four States. State wise consumption data of paraquat dichloride for the four States inIndia – 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.TABLE 6: STATE WISE CONSUMPTION DATA FOR PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE OBTAINED THROUGH RTI ACTYearPunjabGoaMaharashtraKerala *PARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE 24 SL
IN LITRESGRAMOXONE,
PARACHLORE AND
ALL QUIT; IN LITRESPARAQUAT DICH­
LORIDE TECHNICAL
GRADE IN MTPARAQUAT DICH­
GRADE IN MT2004-05––12–2005-0627553225001212.4152006-0727671525001113.6292007-0829637925000948.3362008-0929955030001061.8172009-1028611130004733.0172010-11305214320015637.22011-123114503000120–2012-13319237300096–2013-14323952420092–2014-152314484000 (up to Jan 2015)––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 07.05.2011CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 20155.3. FINDINGS OF THE FIELD STUDYField data for the present study was collected from 82 respondents 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 farmers, farm workers as well as applicators, and the survey
results were compiled separately for agriculture extension
officers and pesticide retailers.
The respondents included 59 men and 14 women, excluding
retailers and agriculture extension officers. Their educational qualification ranges from secondary school to post graduation, except for a few who are illiterate. For most of these
respondents, agriculture is the major source of livelihood.
TABLE 7: CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTSFARMERSFARM
WORKERS 1FARM WORKERAPPLICATORS 250155PLANTATION AGRICULTURE
WORKEREXTENSION
APPLICATORS 3 OFFICERS
RETAILERSTOTAL38245Demographic 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 remaining 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 maximum 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 respondents hold land ranging from 15 acres to 56 acres.
The major crops grown by the respondents include paddy, wheat, mustard, jute, ground nut, sunflower, maize, cotton, tea, sesame, banana, sugarcane and vegetables such as
chilly, onion, potato, tomato, okra, brinjal, pumpkin, kakrol
and parble (both are cucurbitaceous vegetables), bottle gourd,// 18bitter gourd, etc. All the farmers use chemical fertilizers and
pesticides including herbicides. Some farmers also use farmyard 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
As part of the study, data on the use of paraquat, information and awareness about safety measures and health effects were collected from farm workers in addition to farmers. 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 gardens 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 workers 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, including 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 either mixing or applying paraquat).
The remaining eight respondents are farm workers (referred to as applicators) mainly involved in applying pesticides including paraquat. Among them, five are farm worker-applicators from the study area in four States – Andhra
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, West Bengal and
three are plantation worker – applicators from a commercial
tea plantation in Assam. All of them are males and they
have been involved in spraying paraquat and other herbicides, 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 stated they have been applying paraquat 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 effectively 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 herbicides is less expensive compared to the cost incurred for1	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 INDIAApril 2015manual weeding. In addition, the spraying is comparatively a less labour intensive operation which takes less time as
well. Sixty percent of the respondents reported that labour
problem is the major reason for not doing manual weeding.
Twenty eight percent of the respondents reported that paraquat is cheaper than other herbicides and 44 % of the respondents reported paraquat is effective and burns weeds
quickly. Lack of availability of skilled labourers, non availability of labourers during critical periods, increased labour 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 availability of sufficient number of cattle ploughs and increased
cost of rental has reduced the use of cattle plough in weeding. Among all the respondents the chemical weed management method has become widely accepted.// 19pulses 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 control in standing crops as well. Fifty eight percent of the
respondents reported that they apply paraquat for controlling weeds in spaces between the rows, ridges and furrows, 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 recommended. Both the methods – dispersion and spraying – were observed in the study area and are described below.CHART 2: REASONS FOR USING PARAQUAT
Cheaper than More eﬀec9ve Labour other than other problems
Less weeding cost
No data Source: Based on field dataCrops in which paraquat is usedApplication of paraquat by dispersion
A few respondents especially from Andhra Pradesh and
Telengana reported this type of application. Here paraquat
is mixed with either sand, fertilisers or salt and the mixture is dispersed by hand. Twenty six percent of the farmers interviewed, reported this practice. Chilly, cotton,
maize and paddy are the crops for which farmers disperse
paraquat for weed control. Eighteen percent of the respondents (farmers) reported having applied paraquat in paddy,
6 % in chilly as well as cotton, and 4 % in maize. The articles used as carrier substances were sand (18 % respondents), 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.(Based on data collected fromthe field during the survey)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.
Paraquat application in the field
Paraquat is applied in the field mainly during pre-planting, 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 % of the respondents. This is a common practice observed in all the study areas. The pre-sowing or pre-planting application was observed for crops such as cereals,TABLE 8: DISPERSAL OF PARAQUAT
WITH OTHER MATERIALSCROPSCotton
ChillyPARAQUAT
about 1000 ml
per acreSource: Compiled from field dataOTHER
(urea)% OF RESPONDENTS26CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015Application 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 reported that while mixing paraquat for spraying they add 2,4-D
(another herbicide) and other materials such as salt, kerosene, shampoo and adhesives. Farmers said that these materials are added to improve the effectiveness and to burn
the weeds quickly. They added that such practices are rec-// 20ommended by the retailers or the agents of distributors.
The practice of adding such substances has not been recommended by the CIBRC, agriculture departments, agriculture 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 influence the practices. Also most of the farmers interviewed
were not using personal protective equipment (PPE) to
protect themselves.TABLE 9: QUANTITY OF PARAQUAT USED AND THE ADDITION OF OTHER MATERIALSCROPSPARAQUAT
DICHLORIDE (ML)
(AVERAGE)Cotton *CIBRC APPROVED
DOSE (ML/ACRE)VOLUME WATER
(IN LITRES) USED
(AVERAGE)% OF
RESPONDENTS887500 – 8002032Jute1000–2004Maize*1175320 – 8001838Mustard1100–1602Rice*905500 –120020724Soybean600–1254Tea*812320 –17002008Wheat*914170014314Vegetables
and others964800 ml
(only for potato*)19738OTHER
18 % respondents
such as common
salt, shampoo,
kerosene, 2,4-D as
adhesive while
mixingSource: Compiled from field data and Table 1 | * Crops approved by CIBRCSome 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 ensure that weeds are burnt as quickly as possible. A couple
of farmers said that they mostly decide the volume of paraquat to be used without consulting any authority.
It was observed that paraquat application is mostly
done by farmers themselves in their fields. Seventy six percent 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
Application of paraquat by farm workers
The farm worker-applicators reported that generally paraquat is sprayed 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 different crops depending on weed growth. In tea plantations
paraquat is sprayed four to eight times a season, for cottonparaquat is applied three times, for vegetables one to two
times 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 reported 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 foundCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015Type 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 operated 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 respondents 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 using 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 reported that they considered the direction of wind and always
sprayed only along the direction of the wind.CHART 3: TYPE OF SPRAYERS USED – FARMERS
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 workerapplicator reported the sprayer had never leaked. Four applicators (three plantation workers and one farm worker
applicator) reported that they could repair a leaking sprayer
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 respondents 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 pesticide spray, farmers generally enter the field without waiting for a gap after spraying.CHART 4: WORKING IN SPRAYED FIELDS – FARMERS
% of respondents to reach problematic levels paraquat is applied. They added that during rainy season repeated applications are
required. Usually spraying of paraquat kills weeds immediately but weeds regenerate in 10 – 15 days; therefore repeated 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.// 2140
Immediately a3er applica7on
A3er two days
A3er a Week
10-­‐15 days
Source: Based on field data10
Source: Based on field dataWhen 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 onlyThe 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 reported that they enter the fields (where paraquat is sprayed)
immediately after the spray for fertilizer application or harvesting. One farm worker-applicator stated that he works in
a paraquat sprayed field only after two days; whereas another farm worker applicator and four agriculture workers
said that they work in a sprayed field only after a week.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015The available data shows that neither the CIBRC 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 provided 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 MEASURESInformation 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 fungicides. 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 details 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 protection chemicals from the tea factory, located in the neighbouring State of Assam, to which he supplies his harvest.CHART 5: SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND ADVICE
ON PARAQUAT USE
Agriculture oﬃce
Pes:cide retailer
Source: Based on field dataThus, 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 distributors and retailers have roots in the villages or are from
neighbouring areas, making them easily accessible to farm-// 22ers in remote as well as rural areas. They also have a greater influence on farmers than agriculture officers. The farmers could only buy paraquat from pesticide retailers.
Information obtained from agriculture offices in the study
areas revealed that the agriculture department is not distributing or supplying paraquat dichloride.
The information from the field shows that retailers 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 recommended 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
In addition the possibility of stating more claims in favour of a product by retailers to increase sale cannot be
ignored. The present study shows 90 percent of the farmers 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 improper use and the consequent possibility of increased risk
to the users cannot be ignored.
Awareness on instructions on the labels
It was noted that about half of the total number of respondents 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 container 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 Insecticides 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 retailers and farmers. It is also in clear violation of the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, as is
the lack of labels, and use of refill containers.
Information and awareness on use of paraquat
All the three plantation worker-applicators and four of the
five farm worker- applicators have reported that they haveCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015not 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 languages and the remaining two farm worker-applicators
said that they did not know in which language the instructions were given. Only two farm worker-applicators reported that they were able to read and understand the instructions. 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
When asked about whether they read the instructions or
label given along with the product, 60 % of the farmer respondents responded in the affirmative while the remaining 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 instructions were written mainly in English and Hindi. In
some cases it was observed that information was also written 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 information 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 understand 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.% of respondents
CHART 6: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RELATED
TO LABEL AND INSTRUCTIONS AMONG FARMERS80
Buying paraquat Buying paraquat without label
Reading label/
instrucBons instrucBons Source: Based on field dataIn 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 information 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 %) reported 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 instructions due to the small font size. In addition, another
eight percent were unable to read the label because they
Information on safety measures among farmers
The survey revealed that farmers were not at all concerned
about their safety, and handle paraquat and other pesticides negligently. The survey revealed that none of the respondents were using complete personal protective measures 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 respondents 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 including 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 respondents reported that they are aware that these chemicals are
not good and are poisonous, a couple of respondents reported 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 Bengal 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 information provided to create awareness among the farmers or
users is not reaching them effectively. Consequently, people on the ground are unable to decipher the labels properly and remain oblivious of safety information.24
Able to read and Following instrucBons
Following instrucBons
Able to read and understand label/
understand label/
instrucBon
ON PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENTS (PPE)Information and awareness on PPE among farmers
Awareness on the availability of PPE is lacking amongst majority of the respondents. Sixty eight percent of the respondents did not know from where they could buy PPE orCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015where it was available. And 32 % of the respondents reported 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 availability of PPEs. They reported that the retailer and company
agents promised them that they will get PPE the next time
they visit the village, but so far they have not received any
kind of PPE from them. The remaining 90 % of the respondents 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 respondents have said that they received some sort of training on
pesticide application. The trainings were organized or given 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 any 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.CHART 7: RESPONSES REGARDING TRAINING ON
USE OF PPE AND PESTICIDE APPLICATION// 245.3.3. USE OF SAFETY MEASURESUse of safety measures among farmers
Safety measures are an inevitable component that has to be
considered in all the discussions on pesticide use. Unfortunately, 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 protect themselves while using paraquat, seventy six percent
of the respondents reported that they did not use any additional personal protective equipment apart from their daily clothes to avoid exposure to paraquat or other pesticides. 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 respondents 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 8: USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT90
Pes;cide Applica;on
Source: Based on field dataSource: Based on field dataTraining on use of paraquat and PPE among
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 including 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 officials frequently monitor them while they spray pesticides
and herbicides to ensure that they are following the recommended practices. Seventy eight percent of all the 23
workers reported that they know paraquat and other pesticides 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 direction 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 reported 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 equipmentCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 25Farmer showing paraquat bought in plastic carry bag.such as spectacles, four percent used some body cover, either 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 FARMERSwhere it was shown that, in India only around 20 % of pesticide 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, touching and inhalation of spray. However, almost all the workers were found not to have used any type of PPE.(those who apply paraquat themselves in their own fields)
Source: Based on field dataWhile 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 care (long trousers and or
shoes), and only four percent used hand care (gloves).
These results are more or less in line with industry figuresUse of personal protective measures by workers
Most of the applicators were handling paraquat without
using any safety measures. All the five farm worker-applicators 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 workerapplicators 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) reported 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.
Personal protective equipment means any clothes, materials or devices that provide protection from pesticide exposure during handling and application. In the context ofCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA5.3.4. POISONING AND HEALTH EFFECTSExposure, poisoning and health effects among farmers
The study has also attempted to document the acute ill effects caused by the use of paraquat dichloride. Thirty four
percent of the respondents reported that they were exposed to paraquat while handling it, whereas 54 % reported they were not exposed to paraquat. Four percent reported that they do not know whether they were exposed or
not and eight percent have furnished no information.Forty percent of the respondents (including people
who claimed not having been exposed) reported that they
experienced ill effects after working with paraquat. Numerous adverse health effects and symptoms were reported by the respondents. Those include the following: headache, burning sensation, itching and irritation, lethargy,
breathing difficulty, toe nail damage, muscle pain, vomiting, nausea, tiredness and discomfort, abdominal discomfort, pain and stomach upset, giddiness, fever, eyes burning, dizziness and skin allergy. These ill effects, which
show exposure, could also lead to chronic health effects.CHART 10: HEALTH EFFECTS REPORTED BY
FARMERS (N=50)
PPE recommended by the manufacturers
Details of the recommended personal protective equipment 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 recommended eye protection (wearing at least glasses) and wearing 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” required while using paraquat.
From the study, it can be observed that less than 15 %
of the farmers and a few farm workers were using protective equipment. The PPE include some or all of the following: hat, gloves, eye glasses, plastic apron or long sleeved
shirts, long pants or trousers, shoes etc. Some of the respondents 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 observations 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, industry 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.// 2625
Br nal ea di
Bu hing com
rn d fo
in iﬃ rt
g s cu
en lty
sa Di =on
zz Ey ine
He din ad es
a Irr che
ita Le =on
M ltc y
us hin
co N pain
lo au ur se
To T han e ire ge
na d il d ne
the International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, it includes both specifically designed protective
equipment and clothing reserved for pesticide application
and handling (FAO and WHO, 2014). For manual spraying, 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).April 2015Source: Based on field dataWhen 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 applicator 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 spraying 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 allergy, burning sensation on face and mouth and colour
changes on fingers were the major symptoms reported.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIACHART 11: HEALTH EFFECTS REPORTED BY FARM
WORKERS (N=23)April 2015// 27CHART 12: CONTAINER DISPOSAL METHOD-FARMERS6
Thrown in open ﬁeld
BBu ngg dd
CCh urrnn iiﬃﬃ
haa iinn ccuu
nng gg s ll99
gee see ees
ss i nns s
inn saa9
hhe 9oo
eaa nn
rrtt DDi bbeea
iaarr att
DDi ooeeaa
izzzz iinn
EEy eessss
yee HHe bbuu
eaa rrnn
IIrr cchhee
MM iittaa9 uus 9oo
sccl nn
SShh paaiinn
iivve SSkk erri
iinn inngg
aa lllee
SStt SSnne rggyy
oom eee ma zzi
TTh chh uu gg
hrro pp
oaa ssee
tt d tt
VVo yiinngg
omm ii99
Source: Based on field dataTwenty one out of the 23 workers reported having experienced 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 respondents stated that they were not sure and two respondents said that they did not know whether the symptoms
were caused due to exposure to paraquat. Only one respondent 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 CONTAINERSA common practice observed from all the study areas is
that it was quite common for the farmers to throw the empty containers and bottles into the fields in the neighbouring area. Among farmers, this type of disposal was reported 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 methods explained some dangerous practices. Some of them
reported that they used such bottles and containers in toilets as well as bath rooms as vessels. One respondent said
that occasionally ice cream vendors who came to the villages collected the empty bottles. Some respondents said
they used the containers for buying pesticides and herbicides from the retailers.Source: Based on field dataRegarding the workers, it was observed that farm worker-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 IMPACTSThe 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 respondents and decreased yields were reported by 22 %.
The remaining respondents did not furnish answer to the
Regarding pest infestations, 22 % of the respondents responded 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 fertility diminished after they started using paraquat and other
herbicides and more fertilizers had to be applied to get favourable yields. The remaining did not respond to this question.
About the impacts on biodiversity, most of the respondents did not answer except a few who claimed that some
effects were noted, but they were unable to furnish further
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 respondents informed that a cow and a goat died in the villages after feeding on grass from a paraquat sprayed field.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAFive respondents reported that diarrhoea, unconsciousness, 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 reported from other study areas.5.4. REPORT BASED ON INFORMATION
OBTAINED FROM AGRICULTURE EXTENSION
OFFICERS AND RETAILERSAs part of the study an attempt was made to collect data on
paraquat use and recommended safety measures from agriculture extension officers (AEOs) and retailers. We could
interact with four agriculture extension officers and five
pesticide retailers.
All the four AEOs reported that manual, mechanical and
chemical weed management are practiced in their respective 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 labour 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 background, but herbicides are cheaper and so farmers are inclined to use herbicides.
The AEO from one study area said that they recommend 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 personal 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 2015// 28ers should be encouraged to practice non chemical weed
Pesticide Retailers:
In order to document the practices followed by pesticide
retailers and to find out about the availability of PPE, interviews were conducted with retailers in five study areas.
Five retailers from four States were interviewed. The retailers 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 demand 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 distributors 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 ranges 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 exposure 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 promotional 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 to 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 paraquat smear had spread around the opening of the containers. Consequently, it is more than probable that the retailers and farmers have contact with and are inhaling paraquat
increasing the risk of poisoning. Ironically none of the retailers use protective measures when refilling into containers or plastic carry bags.5.5. PARAQUAT USE IN TEA PLANTATIONSAs 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 The United Planters’ Association of Southern In-CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 29OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATIONdia (UPASI) and an official of a tea plantation in the Nilgiris.
According to them, the use of paraquat dichloride has largely 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 plantation 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 spraying is done in a year. Paraquat is normally not applied in
younger tea gardens as it impacts growth adversely. If application 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 dry 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 that5.6. OTHER WEED MANAGEMENT METHODSWorkers prepare to go to spray pesticides in a tea garden.
They have no proper personal protective clothing.Farmers interviewed for the study reported that before herbicides 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 weeding 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 vegetables, 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, due to labour problems and increased cost of labour, farmers are resorting to chemical methods.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 governments 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 transportation 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 numerous 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.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 306. CONCLUSIONThe 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 commodity boards are in violation of the law as they have recommended 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 fully aware of the crops on which paraquat use is approved.
Though farmers are aware that paraquat and other pesticides 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, increasing the risk of exposure and poisoning. This clearly indicates the failure of the agriculture departments and other
concerned government agencies in providing adequate information about the use of paraquat and the PPE.Data collection from farmer in Telengana 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 contributed 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 happening in violation of the Indian Insecticides Act. In addition to the violation of the International Code of Conduct
on Pesticide Management, the conditions of use of paraquat in India also violate international conventions such
as the Chemicals Convention of 1990 and the Safety and
Health in Agriculture Convention of 2001. The actual practices in the field indicate the absence of an effective regulatory as well as monitoring system which in turn promotes 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 demonstrate the need to take necessary steps towards a progressive ban of paraquat in India.CONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIAApril 2015// 317. REFERENCESAgriculture 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 IndiaDown­
loaded from http://cibrc.nic.in/muph2012.doc on 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.bernedeclaration.ch/companiesinstitutions/syngenta/paraquat/suicides/
Bhushan C, Bhardwaj A and Misra S S. 2013. State of Pesticide
Regulations in India, Centre for Science and Environment, New
Consumption of Chemical Pesticides In Various States/Union
Territories during 2007 – 08 to 2011 – 12. Data obtained from http://
agricoop.nic.in/imagedefault/Pesticide-Bio-pesticide%20Data.doc
downloaded on November 16, 2014.
Crop production guide 2012, Tamil Nadu Agriculture University.
www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/pdf/2013/CPG%202012.pdf downloaded on
Crop Production Techniques of Horticultural Crops. 2013. Horti­cultural
college and research institute Tamil Nadu agricultural university.
www.agritech.tnau.ac.in/pdf/2013/cpg_horti_2013.pdf downloaded
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 Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/fileadmin/
templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/CODE_
2014Sep_ENG.pdf
Insecticides/Pesticides Registered under section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act 1968 for use in the India (December 31, 2014. Central
Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Downloaded from http://cibrc.nic.in/reg_products.doc on January 15, 2014.
Kerala Government order. 2011. G.O No: 116/2011/AGRI Dated:
7.5.2011. Downloaded from www.keralaagriculture.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 Contam Toxicol. 14(6):745-9.
Khosya S and Gothwal S. 2012. Two Cases of Paraquat Poisoning from
Kota, Rajasthan, INDIA; Case Reports in Critical Care.
List of pesticides which are banned, refused registration and restricted
in use in India, dated January 1, 2014. Department of Agriculture
and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
http://cibrc.nic.in/ibr2012.doc Downloaded on November 15, 2014.
Manual on agricultural production technology – kharif. 2008. Directorate
of Agriculture, Odisha. www.agriorissa.org/Directorate_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. Paraquat Poisoning: A Case
Series in South India; International Journal of Science and Research
(IJSR): 2319-7064.
Neumeister L and Isenring R. 2011. Paraquat. Unacceptable health risks
for users. 3rd Edition. Berne Declaration, Pesticide Action NetworkUK, PAN Asia and the Pacific. Downloaded from www.evb.ch/file
admin/files/documents/Syngenta/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-germany.
org/download/PAN_HHP_List_140527_F on November16, 2014.
Paraquat Chemical watch factsheet. Beyond pesticides. Downloaded
from www.beyondpesticides.org/pesticides/factsheets/Paraquat.pdf
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.
Pesticide wise consumption of indigenous pesticides during 2011 – 12
to 2013 – 14 (as on December 18, 2014). Directorate of Plant
Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
Pesticides and formulations registered for use in the country under
the insecticides act 1968. (as on December 31, 2014). Central
Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Downloaded from www.cibrc.nic.in/pesticides.doc on January 15, 2014.
Raghu K, Mahesh V, Sasidhar P, Reddy P R, Venkataramaniah V and
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; JIACM; 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
Care Med. 17(3): 182–184.
Specifications and evaluations for agricultural pesticides – Paraquat.
2003. Food and Agriculture Organisation evaluation reports.
www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_
Pesticides/Specs/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;J 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 IOSR Journal of Agriculture and
Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS; 6 (1): PP 07–11.
Watts M. 2011. Paraquat Monograph. Pesticide Action Network Asia & the
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/
default/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.
www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pdsother/class_2009.pdf downloaded on November 16, 2014.All pages:2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031InfoSaveLikeShareDownloadMoreCONDITIONS OF PARAQUAT USE IN INDIA Published on Apr 22, 2015 This report shows that the herbicide paraquat is widely used under high–risk conditions in India. The report finds that rules and recommenda...See MoreerklaerungvbernFollowRead moreRead moreSimilar toPopular nowJust for youGo explore