Discuss the role of harmonising food standards with Codex in protecting India's agri-export competitiveness, using tea as an example.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →In this answer
Codex Alimentarius, the FAO/WHO food-standards body, sets science-based Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) that serve as the global reference under the WTO SPS Agreement. FSSAI's October 2026 draft MRLs for tea are Acetamiprid at 20 mg/kg and Imidacloprid at 50 mg/kg, the latter set with reference to Codex [1]. They show that harmonising with Codex is necessary for export competitiveness, but not sufficient on its own.
Role of Codex harmonisation in protecting competitiveness
- One benchmark for the value chain: clear limits guide growers, processors, labs and enforcers, and build confidence in Indian tea [1].
- Credible yet workable limits: India's Acetamiprid MRL (20 ppm) is stricter than Japan's (30 ppm) and the USA's (50 ppm) [1]. This signals safety without giving up pest control.
- "Safe-origin" branding: India uses <0.5 kg/ha of pesticide, against a global average of 2.38 kg/ha [1].
- Trade-diplomacy leverage: at the WTO SPS Committee, India called EU MRL policies more trade-restrictive than necessary and urged reviews based on risk assessment and Codex [4]. Following Codex at home keeps this stance consistent.
Codex MRL → FSSAI notification → GAP in garden → lab testing → export acceptance
Fig: Harmonisation works only if every link holds
Limits of harmonisation
- Hazard-based markets: EU limits are hazard-based and often stricter than FSSAI's [3]. The EU has been moving neonicotinoid MRLs towards 0.01 mg/kg or the limit of detection [5], so Codex-compliant tea can still be rejected at EU ports.
- Field compliance: safety depends on Good Agricultural Practice and the gap between spraying and plucking. FSSAI had to train Small Tea Growers on this at Coonoor [2].
- Testing gaps: a 2017 CAG audit found some state labs could not test for pesticide residues [6].
Way forward
- Publish the residue and dietary-exposure data behind the draft limits [1]. This strengthens India's risk-based case at the WTO.
- The Tea Board and the Commerce Ministry should give growers advisories for each export market, especially EU-bound ones.
- Link pesticide registration to notified MRLs, as the Pesticide Management Bill, 2020 proposes [7], and expand residue labs in tea states.
Harmonising with Codex gives Indian tea a scientific passport into risk-based markets and strengthens India's negotiating position. Paired with farm-level GAP, testing capacity and market-specific compliance, it can turn food safety into a lasting export advantage, in line with SDG 12 (responsible production) and consumer health.
Sources
- 1PIB: FSSAI Proposes Science-Based Pesticide Residue Limits for Tea (Oct 2026)draft MRLs, Codex reference, Japan/USA comparison, <0.5 kg/ha usage, benefits for the value chain
- 2PIB: FSSAI Interactive Session & Capacity Building on MRL of Pesticides in Tea with Small Tea Growers (Mar 2024)Coonoor training on the spraying–plucking gap
- 3Department of Commerce: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2057, 11.03.2025EU MRLs are hazard-based and stricter than FSSAI's
- 4WTO SPS Specific Trade Concerns database: EU MRL policies (IMS ID 448)India's objection to trade-restrictive EU MRL policies
- 5FAO Intergovernmental Group on Tea: Implications of MRLs on Tea TradeEU neonicotinoid MRLs moving towards 0.01 mg/kg or the limit of detection
- 6PRS: Report Summary – Implementation of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (CAG)state labs lacking pesticide-testing facilities
- 7PRS Legislative Brief: The Pesticide Management Bill, 2020no registration without an MRL specified under the FSS Act