[ad_1]
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (MoAFW) has constituted two experts teams to assess the impact and scale of the damage caused by the tea mosquito bug (Helopeltis Theivora) and evaluate the tea planters’ request to use some other restricted pesticides in addition to Dimethoate which was on the ban list earlier. According to tea planters, the Dimethoate pesticide is cheaper and more effective than conventional pesticides.
The committees will visit South India and North East India – country’s major tea-producing regions – and submit a report by next month. According to planters, they have lost millions of kilograms of tea in the past year due to this bug, especially in the south. Conventional pesticides are costlier so it has pushed up the cost of production.
“A large quantity of conventional pesticides is required to control this bug, but it has increased our cost of production and finally reduced our competitiveness in the international market,” says Rajan Sanjith, Head-Commodities at United Planters Association of Southern India (UPASI).
According to the UPASI, the pest attack has reduced tea production from 24 million kg to 13 million kg in the Anaimalai region of Tamil Nadu. JP Singh, Plant Protection Advisor at MoAFW, constituted the team last week after tea planters made an appeal that conventional pesticides are ineffective. Along with technical experts, the team will include representation from plantation associations.
On April 12, Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee has allowed ad-hoc approval of Dimethoate for a year. It also directed UPASI and others to submit the residue data as per the guidelines of CIB& RC expeditiously.
Dr Anupam Varma Committee, constituted by MoAFW in 2013, which first recommended its ban along with 26 other pesticides in the absence of biosafety data, was considered ‘highly toxic’ for birds, honey bees and freshwater invertebrates. It continued to remain on the ban list of different review committees.
NEW DELHI: The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (MoAFW) has constituted two experts teams to assess the impact and scale of the damage caused by the tea mosquito bug (Helopeltis Theivora) and evaluate the tea planters’ request to use some other restricted pesticides in addition to Dimethoate which was on the ban list earlier. According to tea planters, the Dimethoate pesticide is cheaper and more effective than conventional pesticides.
The committees will visit South India and North East India – country’s major tea-producing regions – and submit a report by next month. According to planters, they have lost millions of kilograms of tea in the past year due to this bug, especially in the south. Conventional pesticides are costlier so it has pushed up the cost of production.
“A large quantity of conventional pesticides is required to control this bug, but it has increased our cost of production and finally reduced our competitiveness in the international market,” says Rajan Sanjith, Head-Commodities at United Planters Association of Southern India (UPASI).googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
According to the UPASI, the pest attack has reduced tea production from 24 million kg to 13 million kg in the Anaimalai region of Tamil Nadu. JP Singh, Plant Protection Advisor at MoAFW, constituted the team last week after tea planters made an appeal that conventional pesticides are ineffective. Along with technical experts, the team will include representation from plantation associations.
On April 12, Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee has allowed ad-hoc approval of Dimethoate for a year. It also directed UPASI and others to submit the residue data as per the guidelines of CIB& RC expeditiously.
Dr Anupam Varma Committee, constituted by MoAFW in 2013, which first recommended its ban along with 26 other pesticides in the absence of biosafety data, was considered ‘highly toxic’ for birds, honey bees and freshwater invertebrates. It continued to remain on the ban list of different review committees.
[ad_2]
Source link