India Weighs Restricting Carbosulfan as Pesticide Crackdown Gathers Pace

India's Agriculture Ministry is expected to deliver a final ruling on Carbosulfan by the close of August 2026, according to sources familiar with the process. The potential restriction comes just weeks after the government issued a draft order on July 14 proposing a complete ban on Paraquat Dichloride — a move that targets the manufacture, import, sale, and distribution of the widely used herbicide.

Together, the two actions mark an unmistakable acceleration in India's regulatory approach to high-toxicity crop-protection chemicals. The Paraquat notification gave stakeholders 30 days — until August 12 — to submit feedback before the ban is formalised. A similar process is now expected for Carbosulfan, though the precise form of restrictions has yet to be announced.

The Agriculture Ministry, which has long classified Carbosulfan as "highly toxic", began formal work on a restricted-use proposal only after receiving a recommendation from the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIB&RC).

At its meeting on June 29, the Registration Committee reviewed the report of an expert review committee covering both Paraquat Dichloride and Carbosulfan, deliberating the findings under Section 27(2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

The minutes of that meeting record: "RC decided to communicate its recommendations separately to the Government of India for its consideration and taking a final appropriate view in the matter. The final decision taken by the Government of India shall be implemented by the RC accordingly."

A key trigger for the referral was Carbosulfan's addition to the Rotterdam Convention, which obliges all signatory countries to formally notify trading partners when importing the formulation — raising the chemical's international regulatory profile even before domestic health concerns were formally tabled.

Currently, FMC India markets Carbosulfan in India under its Marshal brand as a 25% Emulsifiable Concentrate. The company positions it as a broad-spectrum insecticide that works through dual contact and stomach-poison action against chewing and sucking pests in cotton, paddy, and vegetables.

However, FMC India's future in the Indian market is already in transition. In May 2026, FMC Corporation signed a definitive agreement to sell its India commercial business to Crystal Crop Protection for $252 million. Crystal will acquire FMC India's crop-protection commercial operations, licences for FMC brands sold in India, a preferred supply agreement for certain active ingredients and formulated products, and preferred access to FMC's pipeline of crop-protection products in India.

Although Carbosulfan's patent has expired and it is manufactured by FMC or its licensees in India, the brand equity built by Marshal over decades means any regulatory restriction will have immediate market implications for both the outgoing and incoming commercial entities.

Industry sources note that unlike Paraquat — where acute human and animal toxicity is the central concern — Carbosulfan's domestic regulatory review is less about immediate health risks and more about trade and international compliance.

The sharpest exposure lies with export crops. Experts working with farmers growing cumin, where Marshal is routinely sprayed, flag that Carbosulfan residues present a serious barrier to European Union markets. The EU enforces a maximum residue level (MRL) of 0.01 mg/kg for Carbosulfan — an exceptionally low threshold.

India's food regulator FSSAI currently sets different MRLs by crop:

• Rice: 0.2 mg/kg
• Chilli: 2 mg/kg
• Dried chilli: 20 mg/kg
• Other crops: No specification

The absence of FSSAI specifications for crops such as cumin, combined with the EU's near-zero tolerance, leaves Indian exporters vulnerable to consignment rejections. A formal restriction on Carbosulfan use could, paradoxically, improve India's agri-export credibility in regulated markets.

Once the government places Carbosulfan in the restricted-use category, industry sources indicate a range of regulatory instruments could follow. These may include prescription-only dispensing, crop-specific use limits, application-window restrictions, or mandatory protective-equipment requirements — though the final scope will hinge on the government's formal gazette notification.

For farmers currently purchasing and applying Marshal freely based on dealer or agronomist advice, any shift to a restricted regime will require adaptation in sourcing and record-keeping. Agri-retailers and distributors will face compliance obligations as well.

Policymakers and trade observers should note that both the Carbosulfan and Paraquat reviews were initiated through the CIB&RC's expert committee process — suggesting the institutional pipeline for reviewing other high-toxicity molecules is already active. Further announcements in this space should not be ruled out before the end of the current crop season.