HYDERABAD: The unchecked unauthorised cultivation of herbicide-tolerant Bt (HTBt) cotton has prompted seed companies to call for the technology’s immediate legalisation. But experts caution that any move to regularise its use must be preceded by mandatory studies assessing its benefits, risks and long-term implications.
A study titled Unauthorised Cultivation of HTBt Cotton in India: Extent, Drivers & Implications, conducted by the South Asia Biotechnology Centre (SABC) with support from the Federation of Seed Industry of India (FSII) and the National Seed Association of India (NSAI), found that 66% of farmers in Telangana were using the seeds.
The spread of HTBt cotton is also driving glyphosate use, as the herbicide controls weeds without harming cotton plants engineered to tolerate it.
The study found that 98.2% of field samples contained at least one genetically modified (GM) trait. Some 72.7% tested positive for CP4EPSPS, the protein conferring glyphosate tolerance, while 53.7% contained Vip3A, a next-generation insecticidal protein that has never been approved.
With HTBt cotton accounting for an estimated 24% to 30% of the cotton area, the study flagged a parallel, unauthorised seed market valued at `820 crore to `880 crore. SABC said the findings revealed a significant disconnect between farmers’ technological needs, the country’s innovation pipeline and the regulatory system.
The technology’s growing appeal stems from the pressures faced by farmers, including acute labour shortages, rising weeding costs, persistent weed pressure and devastating pink bollworm infestations. Many farmers surveyed reported savings of 60% to 80% in weeding costs through herbicide-tolerant cotton systems.
However, agriculture scientist GV Ramanjaneyulu, executive director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, argues in a recent analysis that adoption reflects demand, not necessarily technological success.
“Herbicide tolerance is not inherently a yield-enhancing trait. It only allows a crop to withstand an associated herbicide, potentially simplifying weed management. Any yield benefit depends on weed pressure, management, costs and agronomic conditions. A technology may be commercially attractive in the short term while carrying costs or risks not reflected in its purchase price,” he said.
Concerns over glyphosate add another dimension to the debate. Dr Sathish Narayana Chowdhary, president of Doctors Against Paraquat Poison, which led a sustained campaign against the herbicide until its ban, called for further research before glyphosate was released in the market.
“IARC (World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer) declared glyphosate a Group 2A probable carcinogen in 2015, citing limited human evidence, sufficient animal evidence, and strong indicators of genotoxicity and oxidative stress,” he said.
Beyond questions of safety and effectiveness, the agriculture scientist has questioned the government’s response to the spread of unauthorised HTBt cotton.
The Union government had acknowledged complaints of illegal cultivation in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat and Maharashtra and confirmed the establishment of a Field Inspection and Scientific Evaluation Committee (FISEC) in 2018.
Ramanjaneyulu questioned why authorities failed to contain unapproved traits across the seed supply chain and identify those responsible for their spread. He also flagged a lack of transparency in testing and enforcement, poor coordination among regulatory agencies, and inadequate protection for farmers buying unapproved seeds, including compensation for crop failure.
The regulatory debate has a longer history. In 2013, a Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee examining genetically engineered crops, including herbicide-tolerant varieties, recommended against field trials and the release of such crops in India. It cited concerns about sustainable agriculture, rural livelihoods and the environment. The recommendation was recorded in the Supreme Court’s July 2024 judgment.
Policy analyst Donthi Narasimha Reddy also questioned the transparency surrounding the government’s response and the division of responsibility between the Centre and States.
“After forming a committee to study this issue, the report was kept under wraps. The Centre asked the States to take action. But the Seeds Act and Environment Protection Act are central legislations,” he said.
Donthi Narasimha added that HTBt technology was owned by multinational companies and its use was expanding the market for glyphosate, to which the cotton is tolerant. Glyphosate was banned in Telangana for three consecutive years, from 2018 to 2020, he said, adding that the State had recommended a ban on HTBt cotton seeds.
For experts, a comprehensive assessment must also consider alternatives to herbicide-tolerant cotton. Ramanjaneyulu called for comparisons with mechanical weeders, small-farm machinery, inter-row cultivation, mulching, cover crops, crop rotation and integrated weed management, assessing their costs, effectiveness and long-term ecological impact across different farm sizes.
He also sought an independent probe into complaints, laboratory findings and regulatory decisions, along with seed supply-chain accountability and national genetic surveillance. Other recommendations included protecting farmers from illegal seed suppliers, ensuring access to affordable alternatives and adopting a precautionary approach before wider use of the technology.
When TNIE contacted Telangana agriculture officials for their response, there was no reply.