Indian agriculture is standing at a turning point: one we can no longer ignore. For decades, the country has carried a double burden: feeding its own 1.4 billion people and supplying food to global markets. In many ways, India has succeeded. Year after year, we have produced more food crops than ever before.
But beneath the success lies a problem that is slowly eating away at the foundation of our farming system.
To keep crops alive and yield high, farmers have relied on chemical inputs like fertilisers, pesticides, and fungicides. What began as support has slowly become dependence. Climate change has only made this worse. Unpredictable rain, extreme heat, and rapidly declining soil health now push farmers to use even more chemicals just to ensure that their crop survives till harvest.
But now the world on the other side of the farm gate is changing. Buyers, especially in Europe, want cleaner, safer produce. Their residue standards are becoming stricter each year. Shipments from India that once entered easily are now being rejected for having chemical residues far above global limits. That leaves farmers trapped between two fires: they need chemicals to protect their crops, but those same chemicals can shut them out of export markets. Getting shut out of the export market means a significant drop in their income.
So what should Indian farmers do? And are they really using chemicals at a scale that threatens our exports? The numbers tell a complicated story.
Behind the rising numbers, what’s actually happening on Indian farms?
India has achieved significant progress in food security. But this success is built on a system heavily dependent on chemical fertilisers. In 2023, India applied about 199 kg of fertiliser per hectare—far higher than the world average of 153.7 kg/ha. Total fertiliser use in 2024–25 touched nearly 70 million tonnes, most of it urea and DAP. Yet yields remain far below potential. The large “Yield Gap II,” which measures the difference between what a crop can produce and what farmers actually harvest, shows that piling more chemicals does not guarantee better results.
And this chemical-heavy system is damaging the very soil it depends on. About 33 percent of India’s land is now degraded. Nitrogen fertilisers push nitrates deep into groundwater. Bad irrigation leads to waterlogging and salinity. In many regions, the soil is losing its ability to breathe.
The pesticide picture is even more alarming, but in a very Indian way. India’s average pesticide use looks small on paper—just 0.37 to 0.5 kg per hectare. But this low average hides the real crisis. Pesticides in India are not evenly used. They are heavily concentrated in a few states like Punjab, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. And what is used is often extremely toxic.
As of 2024, 250 highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) were banned or not approved for use in the EU in 2022. Meanwhile, Indian farms continue to use 81 registered HHPs, which are banned or unapproved in several regions, including the EU. But according to private sources, like PAN India, around 120 HHPs are still in use on Indian farms. These are chemicals known to cause severe health impacts, and they are commonly used in Indian fields. That is why India records an estimated 145 million cases of pesticide poisoning every year, and around 10,000 accidental deaths. Chronic exposure is linked to neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, asthma, and musculoskeletal illnesses among farm workers.
And these are the same chemicals that export markets have zero tolerance for. This brings us to the MRL crisis.
Difference in farming standards now, trade barrier for India tomorrow
There seems to be a growing gap between India’s domestic residue limits and the limits set by countries that buy our produce. An okra shipment that passes Indian standards can still be rejected by Europe because their limit for Monocrotophos is forty times lower than ours. India permits Malathion residues in apples and grapes at levels up to 200 times higher than in the UK.
Rather than small gaps that can be easily addressed, the differences in standards are cliffs for the Indian farming system, because every rejected shipment signals collapse of India’s agricultural model is beginning to collide with global rules. Agricultural exports are a major source of income for India. But this advantage is becoming fragile.
Meanwhile, the European Green Deal is creating a new world order in agricultural trade—one that demands cleaner inputs, strong traceability, and strict sustainability checks. Wherein other countries are preparing, India is still sitting unaware of its larger impact on the millions of smallholder farmers.
Why a Full Organic Shift Isn’t the Solution for Indian Farms?
Some say the solution is organic farming. But that is not realistic for a country of India’s size. Studies show organic farmers lose 12–18 percent of yield, especially in irrigated regions, and the transition period of three to five years can be economically devastating for farmers. Input costs do fall in organic farming, but the time needed to rebuild soil health is long, and India cannot afford a nationwide yield drop.
What India needs is a middle path: a hybrid model that keeps yields stable while reducing chemical dependence. And here, China and Japan offer two lessons worth studying.
China focused on technology and scale. In 2015, it set a national target of zero growth in fertiliser and pesticide use by 2020. It pushed drones for precision spraying, soil testing, IoT sensors, and farmer advisories. It invested heavily in biopesticides, registering more than 4,200 of them by 2015. China has already slowed its chemical use, even while increasing farm output.
Meanwhile, Japan focused on safety and discipline. Its “Positive List System” enforces residue limits for every single chemical used in agriculture. If no limit exists, the default allowed residue is close to zero. Japan updates these limits every five years and aligns them with global standards. Exporters around the world treat Japanese rules as non-negotiable. Even American celery has been rejected for violating Japanese MRLs.
China shows how to upgrade farming at scale.
Japan shows how to enforce strict standards without compromising quality.
India needs both.
The Time to Save Indian Agriculture Was Yesterday. The Next Best Time Is Now!
While India has tried agricultural reforms before, because of the pervasive problem of Indian administration, that is, academic policies that lack practical planning and trouble implementing programmes on the ground, has not let our agricultural system evolve even one bit. For instance, Integrated Pest Management was promoted, but training was weak, follow-up was poor, and chemical inputs remained subsidised. Farmers were told to use fewer pesticides but were not given affordable alternatives.
Today, the gap between global expectations and Indian realities is becoming too wide to ignore. If we want to protect farmer incomes, keep our export markets open, and safeguard soil and public health, we need a national plan that is more than a policy note. We need real money, real institutions, real capacity on the ground.
India must invest in biopesticides, precision farming tools, farmer advisories, and strict chemical regulation. We must phase out Highly Hazardous Pesticides, enforce residue standards, and create a system where farmers are not punished for trying to meet global norms.
This transition will be slow, difficult, and expensive. But delaying it will cost India far more—in lost markets, poisoned soils, and weakened public health. If India wants to stay credible as a global food supplier, the shift to cleaner, safer, smarter farming cannot wait. This is the moment to bring in experts, empower research institutions, welcome foreign investment, and enforce rules with real teeth. Anything less, and India risks watching its agricultural strength unravel in real time.
