TREND OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS

BY
PESTICIDE LABORATORIES

Presented by
U.S. Madan
The main object of drawal of pesticide samples under the
Insecticides Act, 1968 is to improve and maintain the
quality of the pesticides for the benefit of the Farming
Community .
 
India is still in the growing phase in Agricultural production
which is evident from per hectare yield:-

CROP CHINA INDIA

Paddy 90 quintals 30 quintals

Quality pesticides will play important role.

As per Fifth & final Report dated 04.10.2006 of National Commission
on Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi

“Pesticides: The triple alliance of pests, pathogens and weeds causes

crop losses ranging from 10 to 30 per cent every year. The development,
introduction and diffusion of environmentally safe and effective
pesticides should be given priority. There is need for incorporating the
use of chemical pesticides in an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
system. Farmers need training in crop care and IPM. Suitable quality
control, safety evaluation and other regulatory systems should be
strengthened. The sale of spurious and sub-standard pesticides
should be prevented. Botanic pesticides should be promoted. In each
block, breeders, farmers, pesticide manufacturers and extension
personnel could form a Crop Care Consortium”.
The question is how far we have been able to achieve the main object by
drawal of pesticide samples and their analysis ?

Answer : We are not successful in achieving the main object.

Why ?
Repeatedly the samples are drawn and declared misbranded by a few
laboratories of reputed National / Multinational manufactures having ISO
9001, 14000 certifications and their products are even well accepted in
the International markets without any quality issues.

Rarely the samples are drawn from small manufactures / fly by night
operators and declared misbranded .
Most of the laboratories are doing very good job but due to
following reasons there is problem in few labs which requires
immediate attention:-

 Frequent transfer of Analysts.

 Few labs does not have proper facility for analysis.

 Availability of latest analytical methods with up to date

amendments.
 STATEMENT SHOWING THE STATISTICS OF THE ANALYSIS OF
PESTICIDE SAMPLES FOR QUALITY CONTROL IN
STATE PESTICIDES TESTING LABORATORIES (SPTLs) DURING 2001-02 to 2005-06
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
S.
Name of the States/ Uts Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis-
No. (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded
1 Andhra Pradesh 4972 125 2.51 4277 68 1.59 5012 90 1.8 6425 147 2.28 4568 70 1.53
2 Assam 6 0 0.00 19 0 0.00 11 0 0.00 8 0 0.00 83 0 0
3 Bihar 10 1 10.00 - - - NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
4 Gujrat 2398 141 5.88 2271 117 5.15 1593 81 5.08 2608 67 2.56 1671 0 0
5 Haryana 428 32 7.48 1765 157 8.89 1699 133 7.8 1587 150 0.94 1159 115 9.92
6 Himachal Pradesh - - - 26 0 0.00 100 0 0.00 170 11 6.47 94 0 0
7 Jammu & Kashmir - - - 380 26 6.84 NR NR NR 292 11 3.76 596 38 6.38
8 Karnataka 2956 91 3.08 4496 95 2.11 3056 58 1.89 4775 78 1.64 3454 74 2.14
9 Kerala 1591 3 0.19 1235 2 0.16 1539 10 0.65 1449 13 0.89 1152 25 2.17
10 Madhya Pradesh 395 139 35.19 9 93 12.95 868 107 12.30 799 59 7.38 970 62 6.39
11 Maharashtra 3286 92 2.80 3386 181 5.35 4269 161 3.77 3081 106 3.44 4331 62 1.43
12 Manipur - - - - - - 21 0 0.00 41 0 0.00 21 0 0.00
13 Orissa 630 0 0.00 763 0 0.00 774 0 0.00 900 1 0.11 791 3 0.38
14 Pondicherry 405 6 1.48 450 4 0.89 400 3 0.75 350 0 0.00 260 0 0.00
15 Punjab 3302 124 3.76 4005 150 3.75 3930 202 5.1 3993 132 3.33 2614 104 3.97
16 Rajasthan 1604 88 5.49 1411 113 8.00 1306 85 6.50 905 92 10.16 1172 172 14.6
17 Tamilnadu 16296 55 0.34 16260 71 0.44 12917 78 0.60 10214 59 0.57 11032 85 0.77
18 Uttar Pradesh 1740 154 8.85 2578 474 18.39 2415 431 17.80 2676 489 18.27 2999 412 13.73
19 West Bengal - - - 264 7 2.65 264 7 2.65 344 26 7.55 282 4 1.41
Grand Total 40019 1051 2.63 43595 1558 3.57 40174 1446 3.59 40617 1441 3.54 37249 1226 3.29
 QUALITY CONTROL STATISTICS OF SAMPLES ANALYSED AT CENTRAL INSECTICIDE
LABORATORY (CIL), FARIDABAD DURING 2001-02 to 2005-06
Sl. Nam e of the States/ Uts 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
No. Sam ples Mis- (%) Sam ples Mis- (%) Sam ples Mis- (%) Sam ples Mis- (%) Sam ples Mis- (%)
analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded
1 Andhra Pradesh 129 32 24.81 91 30 32.97 91 42 46.15 75 40 53.3 110 55 50.00
2 Arunachal Pradesh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 Assam - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 Bihar - - - - - - - - - 1 1 100.00 1 0 0.00
5 Chhatisgarh - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6 Goa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 Gujrat 28 7 25.00 19 9 47.37 26 12 46.15 14 8 57.14 36 28 77.78
8 Hary ana 166 23 13.86 105 29 27.62 107 39 36.45 61 24 39.34 151 76 50.33
9 Himachal Pradesh - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 2 25.00
10 Jammu & Kashmir 2 2 100.00 - - - 1 1 100.00 - - - 1 1 100.00
11 Jharkhand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12 Karnataka 103 35 33.98 104 35 33.65 76 27 35.53 30 32 45.7 104 50 48.08
13 Kerala - - - - - - - - - 1 1
14 Madhy a Pradesh 6 3 50.00 7 1 14.29 1 1 100.00 4 1 100 7 1 14.28
15 Maharashtra 41 12 29.27 74 29 39.19 99 38 38.38 54 23 42.6 55 28 50.91
16 Manipur - - - - - - - - - - - -
17 Meghalay a - - - - - - - - - - - -
18 Mizoram - - - 1 0 0 - - - - - -
19 Nagaland - - - - - - - - - - - -
20 New Delhi - - - - - - - - - 3 - -
21 Orissa - - - - - - 2 1 50.00 - - - 1 1 100
22 Punjab 127 43 33.86 153 53 34.64 207 81 39.13 141 59 41.84 159 77 48.43
23 Rajasthan 100 56 56.00 120 50 41.67 105 51 48.57 92 42 45.5 180 85 47.22
24 Sikkim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
25 Tamilnadu 6 0 0.00 5 3 60.00 8 8 100.00 9 3 33.3 8 2 25.0
 QUALITY CONTROL STATISTICS OF SAMPLES ANALYSED AT CENTRAL INSECTICIDE
LABORATORY (CIL), FARIDABAD DURING 2001-02 to 2005-06

Sl. Nam e of the States/ Uts 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
No. Samples Mis- (%) Samples Mis- (%) Sam ples Mis- (%) Sam ples Mis- (%) Samples Mis- (%)
analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded analysed branded

26 Tripura - - - - - - - - - - - -
27 Uttranchal - - - 14 5 35.71 7 3 42.86 13 5 38.5 3 1 33.33
28 Uttar Pradesh 91 40 43.96 164 59 35.98 157 53 33.76 180 74 41.1 201 87 43.28
29 West Bengal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30 Andaman & Nikobar Islands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
31 Chandigarh - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 1 50.00
32 Dadra & Nagar Hav eli - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
33 Delhi 14 4 28.57 13 7 53.85 3 2 66.66 - - - 1 1 100.00
34 Daman & diu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
35 Lakshadweep - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
36 Pondicherry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Grand To tal 813 257 31.61 870 310 35.63 890 359 40.34 718 313 43.59 1028 496 48.25
 STATEMENT SHOWING STATISTICS OF PESTICIDES SAMPLES FOR QUALITY CONTROL IN REGIONAL
PESTICIDES TESTING LABORATORIES (RPTLs) DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

S.
Name of the States/ Uts Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis-
No. (% ) (% ) (% ) (% ) (% )
Analysed branded Analysed branded Analysed branded Analysed branded Analysed branded
1 Andhra Pradesh 171 35 20.46 70 14 20.0 121 18 14.87 213 20 9.38 385 37 9.6
2 Arunachal Pradesh 3 1 33.3 1 - - - - - 8 3 37.5 17 2 11.6
3 Assam 4 - - 3 - - - - - 5 1 20 4 1 25.0
4 Bihar 9 1 11.1 7 - - 20.0 6 30.0 9 1 11.10 108 21 19.4
5 Chandigarh - - - - - - 4 2 50.0 1 - - - - -
6 Chhatisgarh 179 41 22.90 104 23 22.1 179 24 13.40 337 39 11.57 931 157 16.86
7 Delhi 86 14 16.27 131 16 12.21 60 11 18.33 42 2 4.76 76 6 7.88
8 Gujrat 73 13 17.80 51 13 25.49 36 4 11.11 43 5 11.6 46 8 17.39
9 Goa 1 - - 24 5 20.85 2 - - 6 1 16.66 2 - -
10 Haryana 165 24 14.54 153 46 30.06 249 23 9.23 230 35 15.21 340 28 8.2
11 Himachal Pradesh 25 3 12.0 18 3 16.66 19 2 10.52 18 2 11.1 48 6 12.5
12 Jammu & Kashmir 204 48 23.52 47 8 17.02 91 9 9.89 82 10 12.2 183 19 10.38
13 Jharkhand - - - - - - 2 1 50.0 65 16 24.6 9 - -
14 Karnataka 11 4 36.36 2 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - -
15 Kerala 8 1 12.5 10 - - 3 - - 6 - - 12 1 8.3
16 Madhya Pradesh 475 146 30.73 464 147 31.68 475 102 21.47 713 144 20.1 1089 218 20.01
17 Manipur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18 Maharashtra 9 - - 1 - - 2 1 50.0 - - - 2 - -
19 Meghalaya 3 - - 17 1 5.88 4 1 25.0 - - - 11 1 9.09
20 Mizoram - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
STATEMENT SHOWING STATISTICS OF PESTICIDES SAMPLES FOR QUALITY CONTROL IN REGIONAL
PESTICIDES TESTING LABORATORIES (RPTLs) DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

S.
Name of the States/ Uts Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis- Samples Mis-
No. (% ) (% ) (% ) (% ) (% )
Analysed branded Analysed branded Analysed branded Analysed branded Analysed branded
21 Nagaland 6 3 50.0 1 - - 5 - - 8 3 37.5 - - -
22 Orissa 32 7 21.87 20 2 10.00 20 1 50.0 7 - - 34 6 17.6
23 Punjab 73 9 12.32 102 10 9.80 122 15 12.29 119 14 11.76 120 156 12.5
24 Pondicherry 6 1 16.66 11 3 27.22 12 4 33.33 1 - - 6 1 16.6
25 Rajasthan 87 20 22.98 77 13 16.88 46 5 10.86 35 10 28.57 81 15 18.5
26 Sikkim - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - -
27 Tamilnadu 8 - - 2 1 50.0 10 - - 12 1 8.33 7 1 14.3
28 Tripura 6 - - 39 1 2.56 29 5 17.24 15 - - 8 - -
29 Uttranchal 64 7 10.93 114 24 21.05 169 33 19.52 150 19 12.66 250 25 10.0
30 Uttar Pradesh 44 10 22.72 5 3 60.0 9 - - 1 - - 34 9 26.4
31 West Bengal 108 24 22.22 77 16 20.77 116 22 18.96 50 7 14.0 109 11 10.1
32 Andaman & Nikobar Islands 12 9 75.0 1 - - - - - - - - 38 13 34.2
33 Dadra & Nagar Haveli - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
34 Daman & diu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
35 Lakshadweep - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
36 CIL 46 20 43.47 229 48 20.96 112 15 13.39 97 21 21.64 286 23 8.1
37 Misc 6 2 33.33 2 - - 8 2 25.0 5 - - - - -
Grand Total 1924 443 23.02 1783 397 22.26 1926 306 15.57 2281 354 15.51 4238 624 14.7
On the basis of data's provided in Zonal Conference
held at New Delhi and also the information received
by us from few of the States under “Right to
Information Act”

we have prepared a critical comparative analysis of

two States.
 COMPARATIVE YEARWISE FAILURE
PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES IN TWO STATES

YEAR STATE A STATE B

SAMPLE DRAWN PASSED MISBRANDED %AGE SAMPLE DRAWN PASSED MISBRANDED %AGE
2002-03 1108 1029 79 7.13 1335 1159 176 13.18
2003-05 1358 1290 68 5.01 1555 1274 281 18.07
2004-05 1228 1135 93 7.57 2497 1931 566 22.67
2005-06 651 584 67 10.29 2539 2091 448 17.64
Total 4345 4038 307 7.07 7926 6455 1471 18.56
 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT
Data of State A from 2002-03 to 2005-06 Data of State B from 2002-03 to 2005-06

S. No. Name of Company Samples Samples % of Sub- Samples Samples % of Sub-

Samples Samples
Reported Reported standard Reported Reported standard
Analysed Analysed
Standard Substandard Samples Standard Substandard Samples
1 Bayer Crop Science Ltd. 139 139 0 0.00 119 92 27 22.69
2 BASF 59 58 1 1.69 231 199 32 13.85
3 Bharat Insecticides Ltd. 117 115 2 1.71 129 106 23 17.83
4 Cheminova India Ltd. 55 55 0 0.00 38 34 4 10.53
5 Crop Health Products Ltd. 55 54 1 1.82 89 76 13 14.61
6 De-Nocil Ltd. 66 65 1 1.52 40 32 8 20.00
7 E. I. Dupont 5 5 0 0.00 38 34 4 10.53
8 Excel Industries 229 227 2 0.87 389 366 23 5.91
9 Gharda Chemicals 32 32 0 0.00 96 80 16 16.67
10 Hindustan Insecticide Ltd. 22 20 2 9.09 38 34 4 10.53
11 Hyderabad Chemicals & Supplies 18 15 3 16.67 9 6 3 33.33
12 Indofil Chemicals 27 26 1 3.70 229 214 15 6.55
13 Isagro (Asia) Chemicals 78 76 2 2.56 98 92 6 6.12
14 Kanoria Chemicals 18 18 0 0.00 68 60 8 11.76
15 Monsanto Ltd. 13 13 0 0.00 51 44 7 13.73
16 Nagarjuna Agro Chem 34 32 2 5.88 92 83 9 9.78
17 Northern Minerals Limited 282 279 3 1.06 273 213 60 21.98
18 P. I. Industries Ltd. 254 253 1 0.39 159 135 24 15.09
19 Rallis India Ltd. 133 126 7 5.26 309 283 26 8.41
20 Shri Ram Ferilizer & Chemicals 23 22 1 4.35 76 63 13 17.11
21 Sudharshan Chemicals Industires 17 17 0 0.00 79 58 21 26.58
22 Sulphur Mills Ltd, Mumbai 8 8 0 0.00 47 29 18 38.30
23 Syngenta 53 53 0 0.00 125 116 9 7.20
24 United Phosphorus Ltd. 95 93 2 2.11 309 265 44 14.24
25 Wockhardt Life Sciences 10 10 0 0.00 42 37 5 11.90
1842 1811 31 1.68 3173 2751 422 13.30
On critical analysis of samples drawn by State A and
State B

It has emerged that time and again most of the samples are
drawn from the reputed National / Multinational Companies

Rarely samples are drawn from the local manufacturers / fly by

night operators.

On an average the State A has reported approximately 01.68%

sample failures whereas State B has reported approximately
13.3% sample failures of the same companies.
 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT

Data of State A from 2002-03 to 2005-06 Data of State B from 2002-03 to 2005-06
S. Samples Samples % of Sub- Samples Samples % of Sub-
Name of Company Samples Samples
No. Reported Reported standard Reported Reported standard
Analysed Analysed
Standard Substandard Samples Standard Substandard Samples
1 Bayer Crop Science Ltd. 139 139 0 0.00 119 92 27 22.69
2 Cheminova India Ltd. 55 55 0 0.00 38 34 4 10.53
3 E. I. Dupont 5 5 0 0.00 38 34 4 10.53
4 Gharda Chemicals 32 32 0 0.00 96 80 16 16.67
5 Kanoria Chemicals 18 18 0 0.00 68 60 8 11.76
6 Monsanto Ltd. 13 13 0 0.00 51 44 7 13.73
7 Sudharshan Chemicals Industires 17 17 0 0.00 79 58 21 26.58
8 Sulphur Mills Ltd, Mumbai 8 8 0 0.00 47 29 18 38.30
9 Syngenta 53 53 0 0.00 125 116 9 7.20
10 Wockhardt Life Sciences 10 10 0 0.00 42 37 5 11.90
350 350 0 0.00 703 584 119 16.93
From the analysis of data of Ten (10) National Level
Companies
It has emerged that State A has reported 0% sample
failure
Whereas State B has reported approximately 17% sample
failure for the same companies during the period 2002-03
to 2005-06.
 There is lack of transparency and accountability in the
working of a few laboratories coupled with very low
level of competency among the staff and lack of proper
facilities.

Transparency may be brought in the system so that

there remains no secret about the working of the
laboratories.
SUGGESTIONS

There should be proper control on the working of

the laboratories by way of periodical inspection by
a team consisting of Senior Experienced Officers of
the Central / State Governments & Universities.

Every Test Report must be accompanied by

Chromatogram generated (wherever applicable) as
per the test protocol. This would ensure
transparency and prevent manipulation of results
by unscrupulous laboratory staff to some extent.
Each pesticide testing lab. must strive urgently to get
ISO 17025 accreditation, i.e. accreditation from the
National Accreditation Board for Testing & Calibration
Laboratories (NABL) New Delhi.

This will ensure that the laboratory complies with

requirements of Good Laboratory Practices including
systematic record keeping, analytical systems,
instrumentation calibrations etc.

Regular Training and updating of the Analysts / Chemists

is a must.
Two or three days annual training programme must
be conducted for Analysts /Chemists especially for
new molecules.The industry is ready to cooperate
and provide every possible support.

A Standing Committee be constituted with

knowledgeable persons in chemical analysis,
industry and independent quality lab/ Universities,
IICT, IARI & ICAR representatives who should
make visits to the laboratories for ensuring the
quality performance by their Staff.
In recently held Zonal conference

We suggested that Central Government

may appoint one Expert committee to
render help to all laboratories in getting
NABL Accreditation.
In the end on behalf of the Crop Care Federation of
India, Crop Life India and Pesticides Manufacturers
& Formulators Association of India

I would convey my thanks to the Joint Secretary

(Plant Protection), Government of India and also to
the Director, Central Insecticide Laboratory for
giving us an opportunity to place before you this
presentation.
THANKS