This document is a letter to the editor of Business Standard newspaper condemning a full-page advertorial published by the newspaper that made personal attacks against individuals and organizations working on the harmful effects of pesticides. The letter argues that the advertorial violates the newspaper's code of conduct and ethics. It demands that the newspaper print a rebuttal from those attacked, review its policy on advertorial content, contribute the revenue towards pesticide-free farming, and clearly mark the original advertorial as retracted with an apology on its website.

1. 1 | P a g e
To
The Editor,
Business Standard,
New Delhi.
Re: The disgraceful advertorial published in the Business Standard on 29/7/2020
We strongly condemn the disgraceful and slanderous full-page advertorial published in your
newspaper on 29/7/2020 (Page 11) sponsored by Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI), which
is the pesticide industry’s lobbying group.
We are outraged that Business Standard chose to publish such malicious and scurrilous
personal attacks against a range of individuals under the garb of an “advertorial”. It is very
clear that its publication does not meet your newspaper’s code of conduct nor the code or
standards of ASCI or PCI, regarding content, and completely negates the high ethical code that
the newspaper likes to take credit for. The small paragraph published the next day which says,
“Business Standard regrets the publication of the allegations and dissociates itself from them,”
is a highly insufficient response for the full-page advertorial. It even appears to be a pre-
planned strategy.
We place on record the following points before your newspaper and before the public so that
we counter to some degree the malicious advertorial by CCFI, which would have paid lakhs of
rupees to Business Standard.
1. The advertorial is an unethical, dishonest and misleading attack by the pesticide industry
body that maligns a wide range of individuals and institutions – all chosen for their
common ‘crime’ of having worked to study and educate society and policy makers about the
harmful effects of pesticides. This is reminiscent of the vicious attacks used by the tobacco
industry when the harmful effects of tobacco were exposed. Those attacked in the
advertorial include widely respected social and environmental activists like Kavitha
Kuruganti, Sunita Narain and Umendra Dutt, as well as scientists and doctors from a range
of eminent institutions such as IIT Kanpur, National Institute of Nutrition, JNU, Public
Health Foundation of India, and several state universities.
Many of us are votaries of ecological agriculture, an environment free of pollution and
better practice of science and research in the interest of consumers, farmers, farm workers
and the environment. Through this advertorial, a large community of solution-bearers are
under attack.
2. Business Standard cannot escape responsibility and culpability for this libelous and
irresponsible attack, which went to the extent of publishing unauthorized pictures of two
persons, both women, while maligning their integrity. The newspaper should give equal
space to those attacked to place their rejoinder. The newspaper should stop publishing such
advertorials which give license to wealthy companies or individuals to spread
misinformation and mislead the readers by appearing like news.
3. We the members of civil society and academia, stand with Kavitha Kuruganti and the other
activists and academics, whose names and work have been unfairly tarnished. We have

2. 2 | P a g e
known Kavitha Kuruganti for many years and she is well regarded across India for her
outstanding work with farmers and sustainable agriculture for the past 25 years. It defies
reason that the advertorial claims she is working to malign Indian agriculture while in
reality, she is a person who has provided her energy and leadership to farmers’ movements
across the country, and has worked for the welfare of the most disadvantaged sections of
the farming community including women farmers, adivasis, dryland farmers and tenant
farmers. She has also been a member of several government committees. Kavitha is
primarily associated with Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) which is
a nationwide network, not a registered NGO, and her living doesn’t come from any foreign
funds.
4. The allegation that all the studies that are critical of the impact of pesticides are driven by
foreign donors to undermine agriculture is preposterous. This shows the level of intolerance
from the pesticide industry to accept critical scientific studies. CCFI is implying that there is
a huge conspiracy cutting across social activists and scientists at the best academic
institutions to malign pesticides – whereas the simple fact is that India and the entire world
have become highly concerned about toxins in our environment, food and water systems.
Even the Prime Minister of India has spoken on Independence Day about Mother Earth
being poisoned by pesticides.
5. While the advertorial seems most concerned about agriculture exports, the fact is that our
exports are being rejected not because of Indian studies but because of actual pesticide
residues being found. In fact, our trade security has been compromised in numerous
instances due to pesticide residues in export consignments and consequent rejections. More
importantly, most of India’s agricultural produce is consumed in India. The concern of
environmental activists is about the health of Indian consumers, agricultural workers and
farmers who are vulnerable to pesticide toxicity, and about the long-term productivity and
sustainability of Indian farms.
6. The advertorial contains several false statements such as claiming half-truths about
Indonesia’s pesticide ban, and the cancer incidence in Punjab being one of the lowest in
India. It also makes meaningless allegations such as the one about obtaining a copy of a Bill
before it is placed in the Parliament. There is no wrong-doing in an M.P. sharing contents of
a Bill with civil society groups, and it is in the interests of democracy that all Bills should be
widely shared and debated, and inputs provided to the Parliament before the Bill is passed.
We, the undersigned, demand that Business Standard should
• Print the rebuttal by the people named and maligned in the advertorial, giving equal
space and prominence
• Make public and review the paper's policy on advertorial content and approval
• Contribute the revenue from the advertorial towards public good such as pesticide-free
farming
• Ensure that the website has “Retracted with Apology” boldly printed and super imposed
on the original advertorial with a link to the responses from the people named in the
advertorial.
Yours sincerely,