When Indian agricultural products are rejected in export markets, who is the real culprit? Should we blame the farmer—or ask where the system failed and how it can be prevented from happening again?
Indian agricultural products such as rice, mangoes, spices, vegetables and other commodities occasionally face rejection in international markets because they fail to meet the required standards. One of the major concerns can be pesticide or fungicide residues exceeding the permitted limits.
Recently, at a public function, a guest stated that such export rejections are mainly the result of farming practices and the excessive use of chemicals by farmers.
This raises an important question:
Are farmers really the only ones responsible?
There is no doubt that farmers have an important responsibility. They must use pesticides and fungicides only when necessary, follow the recommended dosage, use products approved for the particular crop and observe the required waiting period between application and harvest.
But there is another side of the story that deserves equal attention.
What happens after the produce leaves the farm?
The farmer is only the first link in a long agricultural supply chain.
In many cases, produce passes through traders, commission agents, aggregators, processors, storage facilities, packers, transporters and exporters before reaching an international buyer.
During this journey, produce from different farms may also be collected and mixed into a common lot.
Therefore, when an export consignment is rejected because of pesticide residues or another quality problem, should we immediately conclude that the farmer is responsible?
The answer requires investigation.
Trace the product before pointing the finger
If an export consignment is rejected, a proper traceability-based investigation should ask:
- Where was the produce originally cultivated?
- Which farms contributed to the consignment?
- What pesticides or fungicides were used?
- Were those chemicals approved for that particular crop?
- Was the recommended dosage followed?
- Was the required pre-harvest interval maintained?
- Was the produce harvested at the appropriate time?
- Who purchased and collected the produce?
- Was produce from different farms mixed together?
- Was the produce stored for a prolonged period?
- Was it washed, treated, processed or otherwise handled after procurement?
- Were any chemicals or treatments used during storage or processing?
- Was the consignment tested before export?
- What sampling procedure was followed?
- Who was responsible for the final quality verification?
Only after answering such questions can we identify where the problem actually originated.
A residue found in an export container tells us that the consignment failed a particular requirement. It does not automatically tell us at which stage the failure occurred.
That distinction is extremely important.
Farmers need education—not simply blame:
Farmers are the first link in the food chain, but they are certainly not the only link.
Simply telling farmers, “You are using too many chemicals,” does not solve the problem.
Farmers need practical, crop-specific information:
Which product should be used?
How much should be used?
When should it be applied?
How many applications are permitted?
What is the waiting period before harvest?
Is the product approved for that particular crop and pest or disease?
These are not minor details. They directly influence residue levels and food safety.
At the same time, traders, aggregators, processors, storage operators and exporters also need to understand residue management, traceability and international quality requirements.
Export quality is a chain responsibility:
If one link fails, the entire chain can suffer.
The bigger problem: knowledge is available, but is it reaching the farmer?
This is perhaps an even more important question.
India has agricultural universities, research institutes, extension departments and scientists who have generated enormous amounts of information on the safe and scientific use of pesticides, fungicides and other agricultural inputs.
Information about recommended doses, application methods, waiting periods, pest and disease management and integrated pest management is available.
But the critical question is:
How much of this information is actually reaching the farmer in a practical and understandable form?
There is a huge difference between having information and delivering information to the field at the right time.
A research recommendation sitting in a research paper, laboratory, university library or institutional website does not automatically reach a farmer standing in his field.
This is where agricultural extension becomes extremely important.
If scientific information does not reach farmers effectively, a vacuum is created.
And into that vacuum can enter half-truths, unverified advice, commercial promotions, social-media messages and misleading information.
Why does harmful information spread faster than precautionary information?
Consider the example of Endosulfan.
The harmful effects and tragic consequences associated with Endosulfan exposure in affected areas received enormous public attention. Many people came to know about the dangers associated with the chemical.
But a broader question remains:
Did the same level of attention reach farmers regarding safe pesticide practices, correct dosage, protective equipment, waiting periods, alternatives and the scientific reasons behind those precautions?
This illustrates a larger problem.
Bad news often travels quickly.
A sensational message can reach thousands of people through social media within hours. But a scientific recommendation may remain buried in a technical document.
Therefore, strengthening agricultural extension is not simply a matter of giving farmers more information.
It is about giving the right information, in the right language, at the right time, through the right person.
Is every farmer actually a trained farmer?
There is another social reality that we should honestly acknowledge.
In our country, farming knowledge is often assumed to be something that anyone can acquire simply by entering agriculture.
But farming is a technical profession.
Knowing how to grow a crop involves understanding soil, water, weather, plant nutrition, pests, diseases, pesticides, fungicides, harvesting, post-harvest handling and markets.
A person who owns agricultural land may legally be a farmer, but that does not necessarily mean that he has received formal training in modern scientific agriculture.
In that sense, one could say:
Owning farmland does not automatically make a person an agricultural expert.
This is one reason why scientific agricultural extension is so important.
Farmers should not be expected to learn everything through trial and error.
The responsibility of the agricultural industry:
Responsibility should not stop with farmers. Manufacturers and dealers of agricultural inputs also have a role in ensuring that product labels, recommendations and safety instructions are clear and properly communicated.
Traders and aggregators should maintain proper records and avoid indiscriminate mixing of produce when traceability is required.
Processors and storage operators should follow appropriate food-safety practices.
Exporters should conduct proper testing and maintain traceability before sending consignments to international markets.
Testing laboratories should follow reliable sampling and analytical procedures.
Government agencies should strengthen extension, surveillance, testing infrastructure and traceability systems.
And farmers must follow scientifically recommended practices.
Every link has a responsibility.
Export quality is a shared responsibility:
An agricultural product reaching an international market represents much more than an individual farmer.
It represents the image of Indian agriculture.
If an export consignment fails to meet international standards, the consequences can extend beyond that single shipment. Buyers may become more cautious about products from a particular supplier, region or country.
Ultimately, farmers themselves may suffer through lower demand, stricter requirements or reduced market access.
Therefore, this should not become a simple “farmer versus trader” debate.
The real objective should be:
Find the source of the problem. Correct it. Prevent its recurrence. Protect the farmer and protect the reputation of Indian agriculture.
Farmers also want safe food and better markets:
Farmers are consumers too. They grow food for their own families, and they have a direct interest in producing safe and quality agricultural products.
They also want better prices and access to international markets.
But for this to happen, they need:
- Reliable scientific guidance
- Strong agricultural extension services
- Crop-specific pesticide recommendations
- Easy access to trained experts
- Reliable residue-testing facilities
- Transparent procurement systems
- Proper traceability
- Awareness of export standards
- Practical training in safe pesticide use
Instead of merely blaming farmers after a problem occurs, we should build a system that prevents the problem from occurring in the first place.
Before blaming the farmer, investigate the entire chain:
When pesticide residues or another quality problem are detected in an export consignment, let us not immediately point a finger at the farmer.
Let us investigate the entire journey of that product:
Farm → Collection → Aggregation → Storage → Processing → Packaging → Testing → Transportation → Export
At each stage, there should be accountability and traceability.
The question should not simply be:
“Who is the culprit — farmer or trader?”
The more useful question is:
“At which stage did the quality requirement fail, and who was responsible at that stage?”
That is the question that can lead us towards a real solution.
Agriculture cannot become safe, competitive and export-oriented by blaming one section of the chain.
Scientific knowledge must reach the field.
Farmers must follow recommended practices.
The supply chain must maintain traceability.
Testing must be reliable.
Exporters must take responsibility for quality.
Only then can we move from blame to accountability, from assumption to evidence, and from rejection to prevention.
Because the goal should not be to find someone to blame. The goal should be to find where the system failed—and make sure it does not fail again.
