Chemical use in farming and environmental health in South Asia: evidence, impacts, and policy pathways

1 Background

Much of Asia entered the 60s with significant food security and nutritional challenges. The policy focus had been on accelerating agricultural productivity to improve food availability. Productivity improvements largely stemmed from innovations developed during the Green Revolution, which began in the mid-1960s. It is worth noting that while food security challenges have been prevalent throughout Asia across various time periods, the dissemination of productivity-boosting technology and overall adoption rates have not been uniform throughout all of Asia or within individual countries in Asia. South Asia, in particular, has lagged behind East and Southeast Asia. However, by the 1990s, the region had witnessed sustained adoption of technology across. This is primarily due to the widespread adoption of irrigation, especially groundwater, which is a prerequisite for the intensive use of chemical inputs. However, among farmers, smallholder farmers were slow to adopt these technologies during the initial stages, though their adoption levels have increased substantially over the years due to the improved access to and affordability of inputs, including water and market inputs.

While chemical intensification is central to green revolution technologies that have boosted land productivity and helped reducing hunger and improving food security, they are now proving to be detrimental to farm production. Excessive and unrestrained use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has not only resulted in exposure related health impacts but also led to food contamination. Furthermore, absence of effective extension services coupled with insufficient availability and access to personel protective equipment (PPE) and safe application technologies have aggravated the harmful impacts of chemical use on a massive scale. The immediate and medium-term effects of such exposure were largely overlooked, but its long-term health impacts are now proving to be debilitating and life-threatening, with increasing statistical evidence (1). Over-application of fertilizers and pesticides is also resulting in the long-term deterioration of both land (soil) and water resources, as well as the environment (2). Thus, excessive and unsafe application of farm chemicals not only impacts the farm populations directly (exposure and use), but also impcts non-farm populations indirectly through water and food contamination (3). Excessive and imbalanced use of agrochemicals is now undoing some of the productivity gains, apart from increasing cost of production. This is one of the main reasons for the declining viability of agriculture in the South Asian countries.

Despite the severe impacts of chemical farming on various dimensions of livelihoods across South Asian countries, it is yet to receive due attention at the policy level. Countries continue to promote the adoption of green revolution technologies along with non-chemical farming methods. For instance, India is promoting sustainable farm practices/natural farming while Sri Lanka has adopted organic farming in a big way to address fertilizer shortages (4). However, the adoption of these practices is slow due to a lag in the benefit flows and the absence of buy-in from farming communities in the case of India (5) and a drastic drop in food production in Sri Lanka (4). This is mainly due to the checkered policy direction and priorities.

This paper aims to build policy awareness across South Asian countries regarding the negative externalities associated with excessive and imbalanced use of chemicals in farming. Specific objectives include: i) understanding the manifestation of health impacts through chemical farming, ii) analyzing the extent and intensity of impact in five selected countries in South Asia, iii) examining the potential and feasibility of non-chemical approaches or safe intensification, and iv) suggesting future policy direction. The research is based on an extensive review of micro-studies conducted in selected countries. The selected countries include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan. While the selection of the first four countries is based on their farm intensification practices, Bhutan is selected due to its policy of adopting sustainable farm practices. The review covers the period from 1990 till the latest year for which studies are available. The paper is organized into five sections. After setting the background and objectives in Section 1, Section 2 discusses the anatomy of health impacts due to chemical farming. A review of evidence from the five selected countries is presented in Section Three, while the potential and constraints of safe intensification are examined in Section Four. The final section, based on the preceding discussion, draws some policy implications.

2 Manifestation of health impacts under chemical farming

The adverse effects of the continued exploitation of green revolution technologies are particularly visible in the developing nations of South Asia, as a result of their ongoing struggle with food sufficiency and availability. Food costs are kept accessible by ensuring sufficient supply through adequate production levels. This allows for a sufficient cushion of subsidization for economically weaker populations in these countries. However, the consumption of food with pesticide residues is adversely impacting both consumers (including farmers) and livestock health. Degradation of soil, water, and other biotic factors is associated with imbalanced agrochemical use and results in declining land productivity, biodiversity, and other environmental issues. This results in a vicious cycle, as farmers then compensate for declining land productivity by applying even more fertilizers. In the case of pesticides, pests develop resistance to these chemicals, prompting farmers to use greater quantities and stronger pesticides to protect their crops (Figure 1). Industrial effluents also contribute to this vicious cycle in peri-urban areas across developing countries (6). The downstream impact of these externalities constitutes environmental health impacts.

The primary challenge in studying the health impacts of agrochemicals is that the linkages between exposure and health outcomes are not well-established. This is due to the complex nature of these interactions, and health outcomes being a result of a multitude of external factors—not just exposure to chemicals. Despite this difficulty in establishing a direct line between these externalities and health outcomes, an understanding of what, how much, and how to use (chemical inputs) can serve as a good starting point for understanding these linkages (Figure 2). Climate change can act as a catalyst for these effects. Climatic conditions are directly linked to the extent and intensity with which green revolution technologies are adopted. Fundamental activities, such as the timing of harvest and the nature of processing, can also impact the nutritional value of produce/food. The nature and characteristics of hydrogeology contribute directly to groundwater contamination. The impacts also vary based on the pathway of exposure. While shallow aquifers can lead to the faster transmission of contaminants to drinking water, deeper aquifers can result in soil contamination, particularly in contexts where groundwater is heavily relied upon for irrigation. The costs associated with these negative externalities could be substantial, long-term, and potentially cause irreversible damage to soil and life. The costs associated with exposure can be measured in terms of the incidence of adverse health outcomes. Health impacts are typically measured in terms of the number of people affected, the duration of illness, the frequency of doctor visits, and hospitalizations, among other metrics. The impact of sickness from exposure is felt across a broad scale. Not only is the financial security of the impacted families threatened by medical costs, but it can also be further exacerbated by loss of income, or in the most extreme cases, permanent disability or even death.

The impact of agrochemicals on farmer and farm worker health was initially observed as simple health problems like skin and eye irritations, and mild respiratory system problems (cough and cold). Over the years, both the intensity of application and the strength of chemical pesticides used have continued to grow. This is due to a greater incidence of pests, plant diseases, and increasing pesticide resistance. Thus, what started off as relatively simple health issues has now escalated into chronic problems and is now giving rise to more complex and life-threatening health issues like asthma, chronic kidney disease, heart problems, and cancer. Studies have established that these health complications are medically linked to intensive use of and exposure to agrochemicals. Furthermore, food analysis in several countries has confirmed that chemical residue levels in produce exceed the maximum residue level (MRL). This is directly affecting consumers and has an adverse impact on their health as well (7). Between 2006 and 2018 an estimated 385 million farmers were impacted by chemical poisoning annually across 141 countries which is a whoofing 44 percent of the total farming population and 11, 000 farmers lost their lives (8),. However, the fatality rates are reported to be much higher at 300, 000 workers per year (9).

These linkages are further cemented through a review of outcomes in developed nations. The severity of the diseases appears to be higher in developed countries, with long-term exposure to agrochemicals. The human health impacts of pesticides range from discomfort to severe illness and death. Chronic and serious health impacts include cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive problems. Farm workers are the first and most impacted raising concerns about worker well-being (10–13). A study found that, over a nine-year period in the US, the incidence rate of exposure-related illnesses was higher among individuals living on, near, or working at farms (14). Other studies in France, Norway, and the USA have found a positive relationship between pesticide use and the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoid malignancies, as well as an increased risk of prostate cancer (15, 16). Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is found among farmers and workers exposed to pesticides in crop production in developed and developing countries like America, India, and Sri Lanka (17). Studies have also observed that neurological disorders like Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease are associated with pesticide use (18).

The indirect impacts of agrochemicals primarily manifest through water, soil, and food. Water contamination is the first and most conspicuous. Soil contamination occurs both directly and indirectly (through exposure to contaminated water). Excessive use of agrochemicals also impacts soil quality. Eutrophication of soils is common in dry regions that rely on groundwater (19). Pesticide residues are also found in groundwater, drinking water, and air apart from food products (20). Contaminated and eutrophied soil in turn contaminates produce from the excessive use of agrochemicals as they deposit residues in grains, fruits, and vegetables beyond permissible limits. This, in turn, affects the health of the consumers. Vegetables like okra, tomatoes, and eggplants have residues exceeding maximum residue levels (21). Water contamination is a common issue in regions with intensive agrochemical farming. Most surface and groundwater resources are contaminated with agrochemicals beyond permissible limits (22). Pesticide associated environmental pollution is reported from more than 20 percent of the countries across the world. Further, pesticides impact bio-diversity and ecosystem services through their adverse impact on beneficial insects. And the loss of beneficial insects impacts production and profits at the farm level (8). Further, nitrogen fertilizers are a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climatic change.

Smallholder farmers are the first and worst victims of chemical intensification in farming, despite being among the last to benefit from it, as they are at the end of the green revolution adoption curve. It is worth noting that smallholders account for 80–90 percent of agrochemical users and are characterized by higher rates of use, while being at a greater risk of improper use. Smallholders depend on the advice of salesmen who are incentivized by sales, pushing for larger quantities and more dangerous combinations. This relationship is further complicated by the tendency for spurious or expired chemicals to be sold to uninformed farmers. Smallholders also tend to use cheaper, and in turn, less effective inputs instead of more expensive, complex fertilisers like dry ammonia phosphate (DAP) and murate of potash (MP), due to their financial constraints. More importantly, smallholders are directly involved in farm activities, such as spraying, unlike large holders who employ wage labor. Unfortunately, while hired workers have a choice of not taking on the dangerous jobs, smallholders don't, leading to a higher incidence among them than among workers or those on larger farms, despite the larger area being worked on. Larger farms also tend to have these effects distributed among farm labor, leading to less intense health outcomes, simply due to higher labor engagement, as opposed to smallholder farms, where most of the farm work is managed by family labor.

3 Evidence from selected countries

The selected countries of South Asia are at different levels of chemical use in farming. Fertiliser use per hectare ranges from 276 kg in Bangladesh to 14 kg in Bhutan, with an Asian average of 187 kg (Table 1). India and Bangladesh are using more than the Asian average. While Bhutan uses the lowest fertiliser per hectare, Pakistan and Sri Lanka also apply lower doses when compared to the rest of Asia. In terms of balanced use, all countries use more than 50 percent of Nitrogen in total fertilizer use, which far exceeds the norm, and Pakistan and India use an even higher share of nitrogen. In the case of pesticide use, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka use much higher doses compared to India, Pakistan, and Bhutan (4, 23). In comparision with Asia Bagladesh and India have higher average use of fertilizers and in the case of pesticides only Bangladesh has higher average use (Table 1). While the biological and economic efficiency of nitrogen use varies from crop to crop and soil to soil, its imbalanced use certainly results in negative health externalities, affecting humans, livestock, soils, and ecosystem services.

Table 1. Use of chemicals in farming across selected countries and Asia during 2020.

Source: FAO (23).

3.1 India

Unfettered intensification has resulted in a decline in human, livestock, and soil health in India (24). India ranks 12th globally in pesticide use and 3rd in Asia. Within India, Punjab has the highest per-acre consumption of pesticides (0.74 kg), followed by Haryana (0.62 kg) and Maharashtra (0.57 kg) during 2016–17 (25). The impact of excessive pesticide use is becoming increasingly evident across states of India. A study of three districts in Assam found that the use of hazardous pesticides on rice and vegetable crops is leading to asthma among 77 percent of farmers who are involved in spraying the pesticides (26). Similar impacts are also observed in West Bengal (27). Chronic kidney disease is also reported among farmworkers who are exposed to pesticides during crop production in certain areas (17).

In a cross-sectional study of 631 farmers in South India, it was observed that 68.6 percent of the sample farmers sprayed pesticides themselves and were thus directly exposed. More than 75 percent used moderately or highly hazardous pesticides, and 88 percent did not use any protection while handling them. Retailers were the source of information about pesticides for 56 percent of the farmers. Farmers reported excessive sweating (36.5 percent), burning/stinging/itching of eyes (35.7 percent), dry/sore throat (25.5 percent), and excessive salivation (14.1 percent). All these impacts are more prevalent among sprayers (28). Various studies have revealed that blood samples and breast milk are found with pesticide residue in 18.7 percent of samples and unapproved pesticide residues were found in 12.5 percent of samples and the residues are above the maximum residue level (MRL) in vegetables, cereals, pulses, egg, fish, meat, spices, tea, milk and surface water collected from market and at farm gate (26).

Due to widespread adoption, the cost of inputs is now rising, while yield rates from intensification are either stagnating or growing only marginally (4, 29). Excessive use of agrochemicals washes into the surface water bodies and groundwater systems through run-off and seepage. This results in nutrient pollution and related eutrophication. Contamination of water bodies is now a major concern—nitrate concentrations in irrigation water are climbing thanks to continuous intensification. Farmers are not equipped with the right information to avoid over-application of chemical agents. Forced to operate blind, farmers ramp up intensification in the face of diminishing returns, compounding the eutrophication of food and water (19).

3.2 Pakistan

Major health impacts are associated with the use of pesticides in crops such as vegetables and cotton. Unapproved pesticides, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and ethylene dichloride (ED), which are extremely hazardous to human health and the environment, are commonly used in Pakistan. Studies have found that those farmers who sprayed pesticides had higher levels of organochlorine residues in their blood than the other groups, with mean concentrations of 1.13, 0.92, 0.68, and 1.96 ng mL⁻¹ for pp-DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, and endosulfan, respectively (30, 31). Smallholder farmers are the primary victims of the health impacts of pesticide exposure.

Numerous studies have observed that the extensive and intensive use of pesticides in vegetable production has resulted in severe health problems among farm laborers and consumers, as well as impacts on the environment. It was observed that most farmers frequently experienced health issues such as cough, flu, and skin irritations. Meanwhile, 75.3 percent of workers reported these problems, with 51.3 percent of workers having confirmed medical reports. About 41 percent of workers were experiencing a cough problem, and 60 percent had the flu. Additionally, 15 percent of participants were experiencing severe skin allergies and rashes (32). Thus, extreme application of pesticides may result in chronic diseases. Another study in the cotton-growing area of Pakistan observed that more than 60 percent of the women cotton pickers reported one or more health impacts, although these impacts are on the lower side in the case of Bt-cotton (33). Reported health impacts included skin problems, headaches, coughs, flu-like symptoms, eye irritation, and sleeplessness. The health costs were estimated at US$5.74 per household per season in the case of non-Bt. cotton and US$2.91 in the case of Bt. Cotton (34). The health costs of pesticide exposure for vegetable crops were estimated at US $3.60 per farmer per season in 2019 (31). Another study found a strong link between pesticide exposure and damage to DNA, specifically that exposure to toxic substances can cause DNA methylation (35).

3.3 Bangladesh

Given the high chemical input use, especially pesticides, farmers are increasingly experiencing detrimental health outcomes as a result of exposure to pesticides and unbalanced fertilizer use. Excessive use of pesticides, as well as fertilizers, has direct and indirect impacts on producers (farming communities) and consumers. Farmers using pesticides are directly exposed and impacted. Kobir et al. (36) found that farmworkers spraying pesticides experienced illnesses such as vomiting, nausea, skin irritation, fatigue, and eye irritation after using the pesticides in the field. Another study carried out in the Comilla district of Bangladesh found that farmers were suffering from at least one kind of health problem related to their skin or eyes. Headache and nausea affected 52 percent and 53 percent of farmers, respectively, with these numbers showing a steady increase over the years (26).

In a study of vegetable consumers and farmers in Burichong sub-district, Bangladesh, 98 percent of the farmers reported that the incidence of cancer is on the rise in their area, and they believe that pesticide use has a causal link with it (14). This was endorsed by Dr. A.M.M. Shariful Alam, former director of National Cancer and Research Institute and Hospital, Bangladesh, “pesticide is a type of poison and plays a significant role in developing cancer in the human body if it enters the body through the nose, mouth, ear, eye, skin etc.,”. Most of the pesticides found in use in the study area are emulsifying concentrates, which tend to vaporize and can be quickly mixed with air during spraying, leading to various gastrointestinal and cardiac problems due to inhalation (37). Another study in an intensive vegetable-growing area of Jamalpur district in Bangladesh found that the majority of vegetable growers suffer from toxicity symptoms during pesticide application. Vomiting and headaches are the most frequent symptoms (38). Studies have observed residue levels beyond recommended levels in eggplant, tomato, cauliflower, country bean, and long yard bean in Norshindi and Gazipur districts (39, 40).

Often, agrochemicals get washed into rivers and ponds, which are the main sources of drinking water in both rural and urban areas. In Bangladesh, studies have found higher concentrations of pesticide residues in water. In a study covering urban and rural areas, water is mostly contaminated by pesticides. Some sources of surface water were found to have higher concentrations of pesticide residues, which are specifically used for potato cultivation (41). Nitrification and sodicity are common consequences of soil degradation resulting from the excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. It was assessed that using one kilogram of pesticide per hectare spoils the topsoil up to a depth of 30 cm (21). Another study on the impact of pesticide and fertilizer use in rice fields in Jhinaidaha and Kushtia districts of Bangladesh observed that excessive fertilizer and pesticide use significantly decreased the nitrogen and carbon content of the rice fields (42). This study is supported by similar research indicating that pesticides can affect the nitrogen quality of paddy soil, as well as the beneficial soil bacteria in paddy fields (43).

3.4 Sri Lanka

The prevalence of chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) is receiving considerable attention across countries. Sri Lanka is one of the worst-affected countries, as 10 out of 25 districts have been identified where CKDu prevalence is high (10–20 percent of the kidney cases) (44). A large-scale cross-sectional study covering paddy farms (PF), sugarcane farms (SF), and fruit and vegetable farms (VF) farmers, as well as non-farming (NF) households, used medical examinations (health status and medical history) and clinical tests (urine analysis) to assess kidney functioning. The study observed that the prevalence of CKDu among PF, SF, and VF is significantly higher compared to NF. It established the susceptibility of farming communities to CKDu, which is linked to exposure to agrochemicals. Among all crops, sugarcane farming has the highest association with CKDu prevalence (45). Epidemiological studies showed that chronic dehydration and heat stress could lead to chronic kidney disease and renal failure. Nephrologists and toxicologists observed that heavy metals, such as nickel and cobalt, could also be the culprits; however, a bigger concern was the widespread use of pesticides, including paraquat and glyphosate (44, 46). Another study identified potential causes that include heat stress-related factors associated with increased ambient temperatures, as well as exposure to agrochemicals and/or pesticides (47).

Research in Sri Lanka has indicated that excess levels of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables are associated with an elevated usage of agrochemicals. Commonly detected pesticides include chlorpyrifos and profenofos, which have the highest concentrations. Leafy vegetables were particularly susceptible to pesticide contamination. About 44.3 percent of pennywort samples and 43.3 percent of joy weed samples were contaminated with at least one pesticide residue. Among 2355 evaluated fruit and vegetable samples, profenofos had the highest contamination (8.8 percent) and exceeded maximum residue levels (MRL) (7.9 percent), followed by chlorpyrifos, highlighting the highest contamination from organophosphates. Investigations have emphasized the importance of continuous monitoring, stringent regulations, statistically sound studies, enforcing national maximum residue limits (MRLs), and promoting Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) (48).

In a study on farm-level technical efficiency, a comparative analysis was carried out between two groups of farmers exposed to pesticides. One group was non-hospitalized farmers who perceived that their ill-health was due to exposure to pesticides and obtained treatment, but are not hospitalized. Another group is hospitalized farmers, those whose ill health has been treated in a hospital due to exposure to pesticides. The results showed that hospitalised farmers have higher levels of inefficiency. Pesticide-induced health problems also increase farm-level inefficiency (49).

3.5 Bhutan

Bhutan has the lowest incidence of health impacts among South Asian countries, mainly due to its sustainable farming practices, including a low intensity of agrochemicals. Unlike in the case of other countries, not many research studies have focused on the health impacts of agrochemicals. A study covering 399 farmers in selected sites in Bhutan observed that 21 percent of the farmers exposed to pesticides had severe enzyme inhibition (a slowdown in cell activity) of above 30 percent. Bhutan has always prioritized the sustainability and conservation of natural resources above all else—it has been at the forefront of adopting environmentally conscious practices (50). This has meant that intensification practices, which are primarily characterized by the widespread and intense use of chemical inputs, have not been adopted to the same extent as in other South Asian developing nations. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the most prevalent health impacts from exposure to these chemicals are still in the early phases of relatively simpler illnesses. The most common health symptoms include headaches and neurological problems, such as forgetfulness, lack of concentration, and increased tiredness, which are associated with enzyme inhibition (51). There is also a lack of sufficient supportive infrastructure for farmers who are interested in intensifying their agriculture, resulting in their reliance on informal sources of information on intensification practices, which run the risk of being outdated or inaccurate (51).

4 Sustainable intensification—practices and potential

Despite the risks and pitfalls of continued intensification, it is challenging for developing nations to migrate away from intensification rapidly. The immediate food needs of these countries must be supported by intensification practices to at least reach a baseline level of food security and sufficiency. However, a gradual tapering off from these damaging practices is critical to ensuring that agriculture remains sustainable and viable even without chemical intensification practices. Thus, it is imperative to effectively disseminate technology and information that can ensure safe and sustainable intensification.

At the outset, it is essential to raise broad awareness among both producers and consumers about the potential negative consequences of intensification in the absence of proper safeguards. Farmers need to be trained in the safe handling of these chemicals to safeguard both their own health and that of their communities (52, 53). Safety equipment must be made more widely available and at a subsidized cost to improve access to critical life-preserving apparatuses. Policy plays a pivotal role in regulating the sale of agricultural inputs and creating an official channel of information for farmers. Governments can shift the responsibility for safe and effective use away from dealers and retailers, while empowering farmers to actively engage in decision-making.

Most countries in South Asia are still promoting green revolution technologies through fertilizer subsidies. These subsidies also result in an imbalanced use of fertilizers, as nitrogen is made relatively cheaper compared to complex fertilizers. In this regard, fertilizer price policies need to be designed to ensure the balanced use of fertilizers. Agriculture extension is on the decline in most countries, which is critical for promoting sustainable farming practices. Policy should focus on strengthening agricultural extension services in these countries. Policy can also help enforce safety regulations. Prohibiting the sale of harmful chemicals without sufficient proof of ownership and the use of safety equipment can help rapidly boost the adoption rates of safety equipment among producers. Such policies can also help monitor the levels of wear (and thus the effectiveness) of safety equipment in use, encouraging timely replacement to better protect producers. Infrastructure and expertise must be established at the grassroots level to proactively assist farmers in monitoring nutrient levels, pest rates, and intervention applications, thereby avoiding over-application or abuse. It is also important to build guardrails around consumers. Rural populations who rely on groundwater adjacent to agricultural fields must be made aware of the risks of contamination and empowered to purify and decontaminate their water sources. Establishing sufficient monitoring and purification infrastructure is critical in controlling the risk of contamination. However, a greater awareness of the potential impact of consuming contaminated produce must be normalized in order for consumers to make better-informed choices.

These measures can only help control some of the risks associated with intensification and mitigate some of the more detrimental long-term impacts. However, in the long run, the cost of maintaining such infrastructure will begin to outpace the benefits, as prolonged intensification risks reaching a point where there is insufficient infrastructure to safeguard all stakeholders. Thus, it is essential to gradually transition away from some of the more aggressive intensification practices toward more sustainable productivity-boosting methods. In this context, it would be interesting to examine the alternative farming methods being promoted at the national level in India. Zero-budget natural farming is a flagship programme with high policy priority.

4.1 Zero budget natural farming (ZBNF)¹

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) integrates sustainable farm intensification practices with a focus on minimising costs. It originated in the state of Maharashtra, India, in the early 2000s, initiated by Mr. Subhash Palekar through his on-farm experiments. Zero budget means zero cost, i.e., ‘no need for market-based or chemical inputs'. It is argued that all soils contain the necessary nutrients, though often in forms that are not readily available. These nutrients can be transformed to accessible forms through the action of micro-organisms. Thus, it is suggested that the micro-organism levels in the soil can be increased with the application of desi (country) cow dung, and hence, no fertiliser or pesticide is needed. ZBNF is based on four principles or a package of farming practices that aim to increase soil health and crop yields with zero external inputs or costs. These include: (i) Jiwamrita (life tonic); (ii) Bijamrita (seed protection tonic); (iii). Acchadana (mulching) and (iv). Waaphasa (soil aeration/ moisture); (54–58). Jivamrita acts as a catalytic agent that enlivens the soil, increasing microbial activity and organic matter. Jivamrita also helps to prevent fungal and bacterial growth and increases earthworm activity. Bijamrita protects seedlings from seed- or soil-borne diseases, as well as young roots from fungus. Acchadana enhances decomposition and humus formation through the activity of the soil biota activated by jivamrita (55). Whapasa (moisture) is the condition in which there are both air molecules and water molecules present in the soil. ZBNF encourages reducing irrigation and recommends irrigating only at noon in alternate furrows. There are also several pest management measures, such as neemastra, agniastra, and brahmastra², which are homemade preparations used for insect and pest control (54).

While the scientific validity of ZBNF is still being promoted, assessments of ZBNF impacts in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (AP) states (India) are positive (59, 60). In AP, it was observed that yields of various crops have increased, ranging from 9 percent (paddy) to 40 percent (ragi); net incomes have also increased substantially, ranging from 25 percent (ragi) to 135 percent (groundnut) (61, 62). As is the case with most sustainable practices, the spread of ZBNF is slow. If the claims of increased yields at reduced (or even nil) costs are true, ZBNF should have spread as quickly as green revolution technologies, where high yields are often associated with high costs. Sustainable practices indeed need support and promotion, especially when environmental or/and social benefits outweigh immediate economic benefits. The promotional strategies need to be designed accordingly rather than based on false expectations. The strategies should integrate policies and institutions at both the central and state levels. The success of green revolution technologies lies in such coordinated efforts, such as input supply chains fostered with input subsidies and promotional activities. Moreover, the benefits (impacts) of adaption are dramatic in the case of green revolution technologies, setting an effective demonstration effect. This may not be the case with ZBNF, as the process of realising the impacts is slow and hence would require direct support in terms of demonstration, awareness building, market infrastructure, etc.

A systematic study of assessing the impact of ZBNF at the farm level, using extensive discussions and data from farmers, officials, scientists, and NGOs, in Andhra Pradesh state (India) has revealed the potential constraints associated with it (5). The study revealed that while the environmental benefits of ZBNF are clear at the farm level, its economic benefits fall short of the claims. However, reduced costs remain the only consistently reported benefit from adopters. ZBNF is not a magic bullet either—yields decline during the initial years after transitioning away from chemical intensification, taking up to 3 years for yields to return to normal. The lack of a price advantage means that net farm incomes are unlikely to be sufficient even when yields return to normal levels. Furthermore, the survival until yields normalize is also a challenge, as losses during the low-yield years further threaten financial stability. As a result, farmers are quick to abandon ZBNF, as they are ill-equipped to weather the short-term turbulence of transitioning away from green revolution techniques. In this context, promoting sustainable farm practices in these countries, which have more than 80 percent of smallholders, is a long process that requires an appropriate policy strategy and policy environment.

In the context of environmental health ZBNF has the potential to mitigate the adverse health and environmental impacts. In the light of zero chemical inputs and the use of natural inputs does not cause any exposure related health adversities. Natural inputs neither affect soils and water nor leave any residues in the farm produce. On the contrary, over time natural inputs help rejuvenate the soil health, bio-diversity, eco-system sercies and improve the nutrition quality of the food. Though the economic performance (low productivity) of ZBNF is low in the short run, its environmental and health benefits are substantial. It is expected that land productivity is likely to increase over time, though the gestation lag is high. Thus, a gradual shift toward natural or organic farming, starting with precision or residue-free practices, could provide a practical middle ground between organic and chemical-intensive farming.

5 Policy implications

Food security and sufficiency continue to be significant challenges for developing nations to address decisively and effectively. As the world's food needs grow, the need for pathways to sustainable expansion of production and productivity continues to escalate. As of today, unfortunately, the techniques pioneered during the Green Revolution still continue to lead the pack in terms of accessibility, cost, and time frame for results. The global push for these technologies, primarily motivated by the dramatic and no lag improvement in yields, helped these inputs and technologies scale up, boosting supply, access and reducing costs. The newer and more sustainable practices being developed do not yet benefit from the same level of maturity in adoption and access. They are also hampered by longer timelines and less assured returns on investment. In short, the economics of agriculture still favor the widespread use of the green revolution intensification techniques and technologies. The policy environment continues to be biased in favour of chemical intensification, despite mounting evidence against it.

However, it is now becoming evident that by incorporating the wider effects of these practices, particularly in economies with weaker supportive infrastructure, a much worse picture emerges for the future. When accounting for the mounting costs of healthcare and life, especially in developing nations where these practices are adopted, in the absence of an appropriate monitoring and evaluation infrastructure, the economic argument for the continued promotion of these techniques is significantly weakened. Lack of awareness about proper usage and safety protocols introduces significant costs in terms of health and wellbeing, which cascade far down the supply chain to the consumer level as well. While intensification may be regarded as a necessary compromise in the short term, it is imperative to establish the requisite infrastructure to safeguard both producers and consumers from the severe health and environmental externalities associated with agrochemical intensification. This lack of systems resulted in a vicious cycle over the years, whereby contaminants were fed through the soil and water in a cyclical manner, potentially destroying the very production base (natural system).

Policy is the most important lever in ensuring the right outcomes from the adoption of any process at scale. Even the most novel and beneficial methodologies can be stymied by poor policy and implementation. In the landscape of poor regulation of agrichemicals, smallholders are the first victims of these externalities. Here important shrort and long term policy interventions are discussed:

5.1 Short run

• Incentivise balanced use of fertiliser by removing the price distortions. These include higher subsidies on nitrozen when compared to complex fertilizers. At the same time encourage use of non-chemical ferlizers like farm yard manure by removing supply constraints and price incentives.
• Use of safety equipment should be made mandatory. Strict adherence need to be ensured with regular inspections and advisories.
• In this regrad strengthen the extension systems would be necessary. Further extension systems help farmers to initiate the adoption of sustainable farm practices and make informed input use decisions.
• Sales of spurious inputs, along with dubious guidelines and advice on their use, need to be halted.
• Establishment of improved healthcare systems targeted to address the specific excencies of chemical exposure is necessary to reduce the severity of the impacts.

5.2 Long run

• Public investments should be enhanced towards promoting the adoption of technologies that reduce the intensity and exposure to agrichemicals.
• Grassroots-level monitoring and evaluation systems must be established to empower smallholder producers to make informed choices, ensuring safety for both producers and end consumers.
• Educating producer communities on the proper storage and handling of these toxic chemicals will yield significant results in reducing the more severe health outcomes from overexposure and overapplication.
• Policy must gear up to make the gradual adoption of more sustainable practices sufficiently incentivized and made economically viable—essentially shepherding the transition away from detrimental but necessary intensification practices into more sustainable practices, such as Natural Farming or Zero-Budget Natural Farming. A decoupling of pricing from protectionist policies can also aid in this transition, as the economic viability of agriculture is expected to improve from these changes
• Policy also establishes the terms of engagement for all stakeholders involved in the sustainable intensification pipeline. Effective policies to adopt and regulate such practices can help manage costs, control usage, and enable the supply chains to make better-informed decisions.

To conclude, while intensification has been the name of the game for global agriculture and food security for decades, its sustainability (both from a resource and economic perspective) is under threat as detrimental health and productivity outcomes now come to light. This paper draws the policy attention towards addressing the adverse impacts of chemical intensification and move towards sustainable intensification. While there are some immediate concerns that need policy attention, this paper provides a base for future research on alternatives to intensive chemical farming in South Asia. The alternative approaches need a progressive and cautious approach in order to address the trade-offs between production (food security) and human as well as resource health. While it is not practical to abandon intensification activities carte blanche, alternative approaches need significant capital investments and governance to foster widespread adoption. In this regard, financiers, policymakers and the supply chains must be supported in a smooth and steady transition, likely in phases, to safer and more sustainable production methods. This roadmap is expected to benefit all stakeholders involved, including farmers, consumers, policymakers, regulators, and healthcare providers. While countries like India strive to be at the forefront of adopting these policies, more can be done to unlock the potential of novel sustainable agriculture processes at the national and regional levels.

Correction Note

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Sasho Stoleski, Saints Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, North Macedonia

Reviewed by: Amanda Firmansyah, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar, Indonesia

Eka Rosanti, Universitas Darussalam Gontor, Indonesia

Footnotes

¹This section draws from the foundational work, which is available at number of online sources, apart from the sources quoted here.

²Neemastra is an organic pesticide made from neem leaves, cow dung and cow urine. Agniastra is an organic pesticide made from cow urine, tobacco, green chillies, and local garlic. And Arahmastra is an organic pesticide made from cow urine, neem leaves, karanj leaves, custard apple, castor leaves, dhatura leaves and bael leaves.