| P |
akistan’s food safety and export safeguards are under siege. In March 2025, the National Food Security and Research Ministry and the newly established National Agri-Trade and Food Security Authority quietly banned methyl bromide (MeBr) fumigation at Pakistani ports.
The fumigation helps prevent losses through pests, such as insects, nematodes, fungi and weeds in the high-value agricultural produce and timber imported into the country or exported out of it. On the pretext of environmental protection compliance, officials have ordered that incoming shipments of lentils, cotton, soybeans and betel nuts should receive no MeBr fumigation on arrival.
Simultaneously, a separate decision has halted MeBr fumigation of rice exports. The twin actions amount to a self-inflicted wound to Pakistan’s food security. MeBr is a critical quarantine fumigant, permitted internationally, and there is no viable large-scale alternative available at our ports. This rash change of policy will allow invasive pests, imperil exports and ultimately erode agricultural productivity and public health.
The authorities claim to be aligning with the Montreal Protocol, which limits MeBr use in general. However, it allows explicit exemption for its use for “quarantine and pre-shipment purposes where no viable alternatives exist.” Article 2H of the Protocol says MeBr must be allowed for fumigation treatments on traded commodities to eliminate pests before shipment. Put simply, the protocol requires that MeBr be used for quarantine needs when no substitute works. In disallowing MeBr use, the government is ignoring scientific reality and sowing confusion among Pakistan’s trading partners.
What about alternatives? The ministry has hinted that Pakistan will switch to other treatments like phosphine, heat or irradiation. But these fixes are largely unworkable at scale. Our own phytosanitary regulations show the stark difference. An IPPC document notes that phosphine fumigation must run 96 hours at prescribed concentrations, versus just 48 hours with MeBr. In practice, that means containers would be tied up for four days instead of two. Phosphine also struggles against many tropical pests, as recent European interceptions attest.
Heat treatments require expensive equipment (insulated chambers and fuel for prolonged heating) and are slow and uneven for bulk cargo. Irradiation is prohibitively costly and nearly non-existent in Pakistan’s trade infrastructure. (There is only one modern fruit-irradiation facility in Lahore.) Put bluntly, no port in Pakistan today has the capacity to heat or irradiate tens of thousands of tonnes of imports each year. It took even countries like Australia and the US several years (and huge investments) to roll out MeBr alternatives.
The risks of an MeBr ban are immediate and dire. Without MeBr fumigation at ports, exotic pests will slip through and establish here, threatening crops and storage. Consider our rice exports. The grain stalk borer Khapra beetle has twice triggered bans on Pakistani rice: Mexico banned imports in 2013 after finding Khapra, and Russia slapped a ban on all grain after intercepting Khapra in fumigated consignments in 2019. That ban ended only recently.
Pakistan has lost an estimated $1 billion from rice rejections by trading partners. This shows how costly pest invasions can be even with MeBr; without it, the danger multiplies. European authorities have already reported rice shipments infestation despite treatment, suggesting pests like the red flour beetle are surviving common fumigants. Malaysia and the EU use aluminium phosphide and heat treatments because they have invested in compliance; Pakistan has not. If the imported grains and stored goods arrive untreated, Ghana fly, beetles, mites and fungus may spread in our warehouses and fields.
There’s also the risk of an export shock. In the name of competitiveness, it has been argued that skipping MeBr fumigation could “lower export price.” But killing quarantine fumigation at the port could actually raise costs. Exporters have already warned that non-fumigated cargoes will be turned away. Pakistan cannot replace MeBr on a whim only to find its goods refused at the border. In 2019, the now defunct Department of Plant Protection had demanded MeBr fumigation on yellow corn exports — then halted it, a move that exporters said “almost hampered the export” of a bumper crop. Such erratic policy management plays havoc for traders.
The latest MeBr ban is the latest example of a dangerous pattern in policy making. Exporters have suffered through successive crises: repeated EU rejections of our Basmati and Super-Kharif rice for pesticide residues; and the ongoing controversy over poultry feed imports of GM soyabean meal. In 2020, importers warned that arbitrary DPP restrictions on MeBr had led to acute shortages at home. The sum of it is a loss of confidence: can we trust the authorities to manage quarantine without undermining food supplies?
Contrast this with South Asian peers. Bangladesh and Nepal have maintained quarantine regimes using MeBr. No country has spontaneously dumped MeBr overnight. Even Afghanistan has insisted on it. If Pakistan were to bar MeBr, it would become a regional outlier. We would be the only country punishing its farmers and traders.
The policy flip-flop must be reversed immediately. The ministry and the NAFSA should rescind the MeBr ban at ports and restore access to MeBr for legitimate quarantine and pre-shipment fumigation as allowed under international rules. Genuine environmental concerns about pesticides should be addressed by targeting only unsustainable non-fumigation uses. The rash decision to halt MeBr fumigation of rice exports should be overturned. If there is a problem of pesticide residue, it should be fixed through better inspection.
We must also overhaul our institutions themselves. A credible, science-based technical committee is needed to take such decisions. Quarantine protocols should be aligned with global standards and with the agreements Pakistan has signed (IPPC/Codex rules), as experts have long urged. Lawmakers and the media should investigate how the MeBr ban was approved on short notice, without stakeholder input. Reforms must be transparent and consistent, not knee-jerk moves that generate crises.
The writer is a communications strategist with extensive experience in the development sector