Pesticide Use, Regulation, and Policies in Indian Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 7, review the scientific names because they are not written correctly, nor in italics.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Table 7, review the scientific names because they are not written correctly, nor in italics.

Answer: Thank you for pointing it out. The scientific names are now corrected all over the manuscript and written in italics

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The formatting and graphics are confusing, which makes me no longer interested in the content. The format of references should be consistent. This is a review article, but it only refers to 37 literatures, which is enough to show that the author's analysis and summary of the research work in this field is not deep enough.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing needs improvement

Author Response

The formatting and graphics are confusing, which makes me no longer interested in the content. The format of references should be consistent. This is a review article, but only refers to 37 literatures, which is enough to show that the author’s analysis and summary of the research work in this field is not deep enough.

The graphs and tables are improved for more clarity. Format of references mad as per the journal standards. This is not a review article, it is based on the secondary data collected and analyzed from various government sources, however, we have included additional latest literature and also kept all the data sources as references.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The use of pesticides has effectively combated the occurrence of pests and diseases on the one hand, ensuring the production of food crops and the like. However, at the same time, the misuse of pesticides and the like has also caused many negative impacts today. This article carefully studies the evolution of pesticide application trends globally and within India, and explores the dynamics of changes between different states and crop varieties. It aims to optimize the regulatory framework for the utilization of pesticides, while reducing harmful effects on human health and the environment through regulations, and proposing effective measures to reduce the precise use of pesticides, promoting sustainable agricultural development.

As far as I can judge, this article exists the following problems:

 

1.The author mentions the development trend of pesticide use globally and in India in the text, but in fact, more data is domestic to India, so the focus should be on the pesticide use within India, and the relevant data and statements on a global scale should be removed.

 

2.The first time an abbreviation appears in the text, the full name of the abbreviation should be listed, such as FAOSTAT.

 

3.The author lists many detailed data in the text, reflecting the situation of pesticide use in India, but the author rarely expresses his own views on the current situation of pesticide use in India. It is necessary to clearly give suggestions on reducing the application and increasing the efficiency of pesticides.

Author Response

The use of pesticides has effectively combated the occurrence of pests and diseases on the one hand, ensuring the production of food-crops and the like. However, at the same time, the misuse of pesticides and the like has also caused many negative impacts today. This article carefully studies the evolution of pesticide application trends globally and within India, and explores the dynamics of changes between different states and crop varieties. It aims to optimize the regulatory framework for the utilization of pesticides, while reducing harmful effects on human health and the environment through regulations, and proposing effective measures to reduce the precise use of pesticides, promoting sustainable agricultural development.

As far as I can judge, this article exists the following problems:

1. The author mentions the development trend of pesticide use globally and in India in the text, but in fact, more data is domestic in India, so the focus should be on the pesticides use within India, and the relevant data and statements on a global scale should be removed.

Answer: Thank you for your observation. However, our aim was to have a funnel approach where we first compared the global and Indian scenario of pesticide use and then focused mainly on India. We have now reframed abstract as well as introduction to make this more evident.

2. The first time an abbreviation appears in the text, the full name of the abbreviation should be listed, such as FAOSTAT.

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now incorporated the full forms of abbreviations. E.g. GDP (line 28), FAOSTAT (line 53), FSSAI, DPPQS (line 59-60), etc.

3. The author lists many detailed data in the text, reflecting the situation of pesticide use in India, but the author rarely expresses his own views on the current situation of pesticide use in India. It is necessary to clearly give suggestions on reducing the application and increasing the efficiency of pesticides.

Answer: We have now changed the discussion and conclusion accordingly.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the subject of this paper is very interesting. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this paper cannot be accepted without a completely revised introduction that leads the reader to the problematic and shows the state of the art in the subject. Also the discussion and the conclusions should be completely revised. A scientific paper it is not only a sum of results.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The english used is very difficult to read and has many mistakes, words missing, etc. As an example, I corrected lines 30-33:

However, since the beginning of green revolution in the 1960s, there has been a steep increase in pesticides’ use across the world. Also in India, the application of these chemicals increased more than hundred times and causing tremendous losses to environment and human health[7]. About 3.39 million tons of pesticides were used in agriculture all over the world in year 2020, while the same figure is 61,702 tons in India[8].

So, an extensive editing of english language is necessary.

Author Response

I think the subject of this paper is very interesting. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this paper cannot be accepted without a completely revised introduction that leads the reader to the problematic and shows the state of the art in the subject. Also, the discussion and the conclusions should be completely revised. A scientific paper it is not only a sum of results.

Answer: We thank you for your encouraging words. We have now made major revisions throughout the manuscript, especially in Introduction and Discussion. We hope the reviewer finds it suitable for publication in its current form.

Comments on the quality of English language    

The English used is very difficult to read has many mistakes, words missing, etc. As an example, I corrected lines 30-33:

However, since the beginning of green revolution in the 1960s, there has been a step increase in pesticides’ use across the world. Also in India, the application of these chemicals increased more than hundred times and causing tremendous losses to environment and human health [7]. About 3,39 million tons of pesticides were used in agriculture all over the world in year 2020, while the same figure is 61,702 tons in India [8].

So, an extensive editing of English language is necessary.

Answer: Thank you for the correction. We have now changed the Introduction substantially in accordance with your first comment and as per your example of the sentence correction done by you. We have ensured that we improve English language substantially throughout the manuscript, and also got the manuscript reviewed an Assistant Professor in English.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors give a description of the Indian situation on pesticides. As paper doesn't give novelty, it ie a summary. It can be considered useful as internal report not for international publication.

Pg 6 line 115-124 indicate fig 3 and the reference of the years.

The authors consider the source 2016-17, is there more recent source?

Figure 5 - the authors give 2044-2005 and 2021-2022 but the source is 2016-2017, please clarify.

Table 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 please in G.

Pg 17 line 310 what mean fiscal? It can be delete and substitute only with year. 

Line 320 as line 310.

pg 18 line 321 figure 11 not figure 3.

pg 22 Table 10 - The author consider data of 1968. Is there more recent data?

 

Author Response

The authors give a description of the Indian situation on pesticides. As paper does not give novelty, it is a summary. it can be considered useful as internal report not international publication.

Answer: We have now made major changes in the manuscript, including its title. We hope the reviewer finds it suitable for publication in its current form.

• Pg 6 line 115-124 indicate fig 3 and the reference of the years.

For all figures, correct references are added

• The authors consider the source 2016-17, is there more recent source?

All the latest available data is now included throughout the manuscript

• Figure 5 –the authors give 2044-2005 and 2021- 2022 but the source is 2016-2017, please clarify.

This is now corrected. Thank you

• Table 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 please in G

This is done as suggested

• Pg 17 line 310 what mean fiscal? it can be delete and substitute only with year.
• This is done as suggested
• Line 320 as line 310.

This is changed as per the modified manuscript

• Pg 18 line 321 figure 11 not figure 3.

Yes, corrected, all the figures have been arranged in proper order

• Pg 22 table 10 – The author considers data of 1968. Is there more recent data?

All the figures and tables are updated with the latest data

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The format of the article needs further review and modification

Author Response

Thank you for your positive response. We reframed the introduction, methodology and conclusion of our manuscript to describe our research in a more structured manner. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still have some issues in what concerns this paper. The paper has been really improvedand the corrections in English language has made the paper much easier to read. Nevertheless, I have a major coner, which I think the authors should answer.

The paper has no objective or methodology. A scientific paper does not have as objective "to examine the trend of pesticides usage over the years across49
different regions, crop types, and both irrigated and unirrigated areas in India. The paper also examined the policy issues related to Pesticides Act, including provisions for proper and optimal use of pesticides, ban of harmful pesticides and the effectiveness of their implementation."

The examination of trends is not an objective per se. Why do you want to examine the trends?

Additionnaly, you don't have a methodology. You examine the trends without a statistical analysis! How do you know if the trend is significant or not? Do we know the trend by just looking to the graphs? there is not, at least, a trend line...

as minor aspects, I found some errors:

In the end of line 288 there is a sentence that just states "Table IPM techniques."

In the end of line 341, in should be In.

I don't understand table 5. In the previous version the table was right: You have the total (production + imports), you have the consumption, and the export was the difference between the total and the consumption. Now, I think the table is wrong. For instnace, in 2021-2022 (and the same happens in other years) the sum of production with imports is 432 (1000 tons). The consumption is 63. How can India export 630 (1000 tons). If the remaining,after consumption, is 369 (1000 tons) wher does the other 261 (1000 tons) come from?

Also, table 7 and table 8 have the same title but different content, which is not possible. Table 8 is not referred in the text and I think both tables should be unified in just one table.

Also in line 444 there is a mistake: "pesticides, The top 10 formulations" should be "pesticides, the top 10 formulations".

Finally, the conclusions still need revision, but they should answer the objectives, that you don't have.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is now ok.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive response and comments. We appreciate your critical review which helped our manuscript to become better. Please find our responses to your comments:

The paper has been really improved and the corrections in English language has made the paper much easier to read.

Thank you for your encouraging words.

Nevertheless, I have a major concern, which I think the authors should answer.

The paper has no objective or methodology. A scientific paper does not have as objective "to examine the trend of pesticides usage over the years across49
different regions, crop types, and both irrigated and unirrigated areas in India. The paper also examined the policy issues related to Pesticides Act, including provisions for proper and optimal use of pesticides, ban of harmful pesticides and the effectiveness of their implementation."

The examination of trends is not an objective per se. Why do you want to examine the trends?

We have now reframed the aim and objectives so as to explain them more clearly. Please see lines 49-60.

Additionally, you don't have a methodology. You examine the trends without a statistical analysis! How do you know if the trend is significant or not? Do we know the trend by just looking to the graphs? there is not, at least, a trend line...

We have now reframed the methodology in accordance with your comment. Please see lines 60-83.

as minor aspects, I found some errors:

In the end of line 288 there is a sentence that just states "Table IPM techniques."

This is now changed to Table 4. Thank you for pointing it out

In the end of line 341, in should be In.

This is corrected now.

I don't understand table 5. In the previous version the table was right: You have the total (production + imports), you have the consumption, and the export was the difference between the total and the consumption. Now, I think the table is wrong. For instance, in 2021-2022 (and the same happens in other years) the sum of production with imports is 432 (1000 tons). The consumption is 63. How can India export 630 (1000 tons). If the remaining, after consumption, is 369 (1000 tons) where does the other 261 (1000 tons) come from?

Thank you. Replaced with old table (corrected)

Also, table 7 and table 8 have the same title but different content, which is not possible. Table 8 is not referred in the text and I think both tables should be unified in just one table.

Now, titles of the both table 7 and 8 are changed to indicate the different pesticides categories in each table. Table 7 deals with major pesticide groups like insecticides, fungicides and weedicides, table 8 is about minor pesticides. If we include all in one table, it is becoming too big.

Also in line 444 there is a mistake: "pesticides, The top 10 formulations" should be "pesticides, the top 10 formulations".

This is now corrected.

Finally, the conclusions still need revision, but they should answer the objectives, that you don't have.

We have now reframed the conclusion to answer the objectives that have now been incorporated.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is good now.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive response.