|
KEY SIGNAL
39,654 registered small growers
|
KEY SIGNAL
Industry estimate near 50,000 growers
|
KEY SIGNAL
Reported test cost around ₹8,000
|
The landed-cost question
International buyers should ask how smallholder inclusion and residue assurance operate together. A supplier that simply drops small farmers may reduce immediate risk but weaken supply resilience and social performance. A supplier with a credible aggregation system can protect both market access and livelihoods.
Build the cost tree
What sits behind the number
The food-safety objective is necessary, but the implementation model can decide whether compliance works. Most affected growers hold less than two acres and sell perishable leaf daily. Requiring each farmer to commission frequent individual laboratory tests can be financially and logistically impossible, especially when accredited facilities are limited.
A more scalable control system would combine approved-input programmes, extension, collection-centre records, risk-based pooled sampling and clear rules for tracing a failure back to contributing farms. Pooling cannot become a way to hide non-compliance; it must be designed so a failed batch can be isolated and corrective action verified.
Rates and charges to monitor
A collection centre groups leaf by village, date and grower declaration, then manufactures separate lots and tests them before sale. If one lot fails, the centre investigates a defined supplier group instead of losing traceability across thousands of farmers. The cost is shared, but accountability remains visible.
