By Himanshu Jaiswal
India is one of the major agricultural countries — the world’s largest producer of pulses, spices, and milk, and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, fruits, and vegetables. In 2024-25, it achieved record foodgrain production of 357.7 million metric tonnes, a significant increase over the previous year. India’s agricultural exports stood at $51.1 billion in 2024-25, up from $34.5 billion in 2019-20. This motivated India to set an ambitious target for agri-exports worth $100 billion by 2030. Though it seems like a big target, it is achievable with careful planning. A critical factor is the quality and standards of agri-goods.
Recently, Japan rejected India’s mango consignments due to improper fumigation at our plants. China rejected India’s chilli shipments due to excessive levels of methamidophos, a pesticide linked to nervous system disorders. Nepal also flagged non-compliance with several measures in case of Indian mangoes. This is not a new phenomenon. In 2024, five countries had either banned, recalled, or initiated investigations into Indian spices due to the excessive presence of ethylene oxide (EtO) — a carcinogenic substance.
The EU is the biggest market for Indian agricultural exports, accounting for 12-13%. However, perennial scrutiny of the quality of India’s shipments is a major concern. According to the Rapid Alert System For Food database, 2,028 Indian shipments to the EU have been flagged for potential risk from 2020 till date. India is second, after Türkiye, to receive notifications on this scale. Of the 2,028 consignments, 1,001 were rejected at the border, and for 608 shipments an alert notification was issued. Herbs and spices, and nuts and seeds are the major product groups that have been broadly rejected, together occupying 50% share of the total, followed by cereals and bakery products at 17%. Of all alert-notified shipments, 573 were found to breach the maximum residue limits (MRL) of EtO, and 136 breached the MRL for aflatoxins, among others. And this is the fact sheet for the EU, let alone other importing countries.
One reason behind the high rejection rates is the divergence in prevailing MRLs and policy gaps. Each country follows its own maximum tolerable limit for any residue, and this may differ across products. In the EU and the UK, the MRL of EtO for spices and herbs is 0.1 mg/kg, while in Japan, it is 0.01 mg/kg. The US and Canada allow a higher MRL of 7 mg/kg, well above the European standard. For sesame seeds and oilseeds, the MRL in the EU and the UK is 0.05 mg/kg, reflecting an effective ban. This gap in MRLs across India’s different export markets is quite significant.
Besides, there are structural policy gaps too. A pesticide level that complies with domestic regulations may exceed permissible limits in the EU or Japan where food safety standards are among the most stringent worldwide. EtO has been a prohibited substance in plant protection products in the EU since 1991. Further, its use as a biocide or fumigant for food and feed is also prohibited, meaning it is no longer permitted for products like spices. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s 2024 order superseded the 2022 order and set a default MRL of 0.1 mg/kg, up from the earlier 0.01 mg/kg for pesticides not registered with the Central Insecticide Board. Since EtO is not registered as a pesticide in India, it is generally interpreted that this default limit applies to EtO residues in food products — which creates barriers to entry in foreign markets. Recently, at the twelfth conference of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, India stymied the global ban on the use of chlorpyrifos — a substance responsible for neurodevelopmental harm. This reflects India’s policy divergence from global norms.
Another reason could be the insufficient availability of testing laboratories in India for export consignments. The number of Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority-recognised labs — responsible for testing a variety of goods and pesticide residues therein — varies starkly across states and is heavily clustered in Maharashtra, where 33 labs are functional. Only four testing labs are operational in Uttar Pradesh, and three in West Bengal also covering the Northeast region. States like Odisha and Bihar do not have any certified testing lab. However, export rejections cannot be attributed solely to a lack of testing labs. The bigger bottlenecks may lie earlier in the value chain. Excessive use of pesticide at the farm level, inadequate farmer training, weak traceability, and fragmented post-harvest handling may be equally to blame.
An export shipment rejection results in a loss not only of monetary value but also of trade trust. The next phase of agricultural growth will be driven by quality, standards, and trust. To actualise the $100-billion ambition, India should not think in silos. Export food quality should be no different from domestic food quality. An integrated domestic policy for the rational use of pesticides in food products will automatically reflect in India’s export shipments. Second, nodal agencies must establish or certify more labs. Third, India must strive to align its regulatory governance with global best practices.
The author is a consultant at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position of Financial Express.
