In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Satyajit Hange of Two Brothers Organic Farms explains why glyphosate-free verification marks a decisive shift from process-led certification to outcome-based proof in India’s evolving food safety landscape

Satyajit Hange argues that India must move from “organic by practice” to “clean by proof,” where finished-product testing strengthens consumer trust. He explains how voluntary glyphosate-free standards can fill regulatory gaps while encouraging accountability across the supply chain. The conversation explores how routine residue testing reshapes farmer incentives, cost structures, and market competition by shifting the focus from claims to verification. Ultimately, Hange positions glyphosate-free certification as a transparency tool that could influence future regulation, trade norms, and the broader definition of safe food in India.

From “Organic by Practice” to “Clean by Proof”

You’ve framed this shift as moving from organic intent to evidence-led verification. Do you see this as an implicit critique of India’s current organic certification regime, and where do you believe that system falls short on consumer-relevant food safety outcomes?

This is not an indictment of India’s organic movement, but an evolution of it. Organic certification in India has largely focused on inputs and intent, what farmers should or shouldn’t use. However, consumers ultimately experience food through outcomes, not processes. Environmental residue, water contamination, drift from neighbouring farms, and post-harvest handling can all impact food safety despite correct on-farm practices.

This gap is where outcome-based verification becomes relevant. International certifications like The Detox Project’s Glyphosate Residue Free standard focus on finished-product testing rather than assumptions, using independent accredited laboratories and strict detection thresholds. ‘Clean by proof’ builds on organic principles by validating what actually reaches the consumer’s plate, strengthening trust through evidence rather than intent alone.

Voluntary Standards vs. Regulatory Gaps

Glyphosate lacks defined MRLs for many Indian crops. In the absence of clear regulatory benchmarks, how should consumers, regulators, and courts interpret voluntary glyphosate-free certifications—are they filling a policy vacuum or creating parallel standards?

The truth is that regulation often moves slower than science and lived experience. Farmers and consumers operate in real time. In the absence of clear glyphosate MRLs for many crops, voluntary standards become a form of ethical responsibility. They are not parallel systems, but early-warning mechanisms, signals that something needs closer attention. From a farmer’s perspective, glyphosate-free verification is less about compliance and more about accountability: being willing to put your food under a microscope when the law doesn’t yet require you to.

Science, Detection Limits, and Risk Communication

Your certification tests down to 10 ppb. How do you balance scientific rigor with responsible risk communication, ensuring consumers understand what “non-detectable” means without amplifying fear around trace-level exposure?

Testing to 10 ppb reflects scientific rigor, not fear-based positioning. ‘Non-detectable’ simply means residues fall below the most sensitive limits that current laboratory science can reliably measure. The Detox Project, which administers the Glyphosate Residue Free certification, is an independent international organisation that requires finished-product testing through accredited laboratories, rather than relying on self-declared practices or process audits.

Its standards are intentionally conservative, with strict protocols around sampling, repeat testing, and verification, making the result about what is actually present in the food, not what is assumed to be absent. This is why communication becomes as important as testing. The goal is not to create anxiety around trace-level exposure, but to help consumers understand long-term dietary exposure, especially in foods eaten every day, using clarity and proportion rather than fear.

Staples as the New Food Safety Frontier

Atta, jaggery, and amlaprash are daily-consumed foods often assumed to be safe due to tradition. Does focusing on staples fundamentally change how we should think about cumulative chemical exposure in Indian diets?

Staples are where modern food safety conversations need to begin. Atta, jaggery, or amlaprash are not indulgences, they are habits. They are consumed daily, often across age groups, including children and the elderly. Tradition has taught us to trust these foods, but modern agriculture has altered the context in which they are grown. When consumption is frequent, even low-level residues matter. Looking at staples through a cumulative exposure lens fundamentally changes how we define ‘safe food’ in India.

Supply Chain Implications and Cost Structures

What operational or cost pressures does routine residue testing introduce across farming, sourcing, and processing—and how scalable is this model for Indian food companies operating on thin margins?

Residue testing is not cheap, and it is not easy, especially for farmer-led organisations. It requires tighter sourcing, batch-level accountability, and a willingness to reject produce that doesn’t meet standards. But it also creates discipline. Over time, it reduces guesswork and hidden risks. Since we are farmers ourselves, we see this not as a cost, but as an investment in resilience, both ecological and economic. When systems are designed thoughtfully, the costs stabilize and trust compounds.

Market Signaling and Competitive Pressure

By adopting an internationally recognized certification, are you attempting to set a new market norm that could force competitors to respond, and do you anticipate resistance from within the organic or conventional food industry?

Adopting internationally recognised glyphosate-free certification is a deliberate signal, not of superiority, but of accountability. It sets a benchmark that shifts competition from claims to proof. Resistance is expected, particularly from parts of the industry that rely on ambiguity or minimum compliance. However, transparency tends to create upward pressure rather than exclusion. As consumers begin to ask better questions, the market will naturally reward verifiable standards.

Farmer Incentives and Agricultural Practices

How does glyphosate-free verification translate back to on-farm behavior, especially in a landscape where off-label herbicide use is common and enforcement is weak? Does certification meaningfully change farmer incentives?

From the field, change only happens when incentives align with effort. Glyphosate is popular because it saves time and labour, not because farmers enjoy using it. Certification changes behaviour when it creates stable demand for cleaner practices. When farmers see tangible demand for residue-free produce and understand the long-term soil and health benefits, practice change becomes voluntary, durable, and knowledge-driven rather than compliance-led.

Long-Term Food System Transformation

Do you see glyphosate-free certification as a transitional transparency tool, or as the foundation for a broader redefinition of “safe food” in India—potentially influencing future regulation, trade standards, and public procurement?

Glyphosate-free certification, for us, is a starting point, not an endpoint. It is a transparency tool that helps rebuild trust in a fragmented food system. Over time, such verification can influence regulation, export norms, and public procurement by demonstrating what is possible at scale. If India is to redefine ‘safe food’ for the next generation, it must move beyond assumptions and toward evidence, without losing sight of farmers, soil, and long-term ecological health.

— Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agropsectrumindia.com)