At a recent meeting in Rohtak, the Haryana State Committee of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) drew attention to what it described as a “drastic decline” in cotton cultivation across the state's cotton-growing belt. Among the factors identified, AIKS National Vice-President Inderjit Singh pointed to severe infestations of pink bollworm that have devastated Bt cotton farms, despite the seeds having been marketed as pest-resistant. Farmers, he noted, were subsequently encouraged to purchase large quantities of pesticides, which also failed to control the infestations effectively. Similar declines in cotton cultivation have been reported from neighbouring Punjab and Rajasthan.
According to figures cited by AIKS, the area under cotton cultivation in Haryana declined from 0.72 million hectares in 2019–20 to 0.40 million hectares in 2024–25. More recent estimates reported by Smart Information Services suggest an even steeper decline—from 0.80 million hectares in 2019–20 to just 0.28 million hectares in 2025–26, representing a fall of about 65 percent.
At the national level too, cotton cultivation has reportedly declined, although less dramatically. At the same time, concerns about the impacts of Bt cotton cultivation continue to grow. A UNDP report titled “Cotton Has Become a Headache” documents experiences from tribal villages in Odisha's Rayagada district, where the spread of chemical-intensive Bt cotton monoculture has reportedly harmed health, deepened indebtedness, eroded indigenous agricultural knowledge, and increased vulnerability to climate-related risks.
The report contrasts this with the region's traditional farming systems, which were based on diverse food crops, provided greater food security, and were more resilient to climatic variations. When asked why farmers did not simply return to these traditional systems, one farmer reportedly explained that indebtedness had tied them to a cycle in which moneylenders were willing to provide credit only for cotton cultivation.
Thus, the issue is not merely one of shrinking cotton acreage. In many areas where Bt cotton continues to be cultivated, farmers report increasing production challenges. Yet advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops often interpret these difficulties differently, arguing that the solution lies in introducing newer GM varieties. Critics contend that such an approach risks deepening existing problems rather than resolving them.
Over the past two decades, the experience of India's more than seven million cotton-growing farmers has changed dramatically. Traditional cotton varieties have been displaced to the extent that genetically engineered Bt cotton varieties, such as Bollgard I and Bollgard II, now account for well over 90 percent of cotton cultivation. These varieties were promoted by powerful seed companies as a technological breakthrough that would reduce pest damage, particularly from pink bollworm, lower pesticide use, increase yields, and improve farm profitability.
However, the experience of many farmers has diverged sharply from these expectations.
A paper titled “Long-term Impacts of Bt Cotton in India” by K.R. Kranthi and Glenn Davis Stone, published in Nature Plants on March 13, 2020, concluded that cotton farmers today spend more on pesticides than they did before the introduction of Bt cotton. The authors further warned that available evidence suggested the situation was likely to deteriorate further. Significantly, Kranthi has been closely associated with cotton research and policy in India at the highest levels.
Another important study, published in Nature on February 7, 2022, by Katharina Najork, Jonathan Friedrich and Markus Keck, examined the resurgence of pink bollworm infestations in Telangana. The authors observed that after Bt cotton lost much of its effectiveness against target pests in several central and southern Indian states, pink bollworm infestations returned with considerable force, creating new vulnerabilities for farmers.
Based on survey data from major cotton-producing districts in Telangana, the researchers found that pink bollworm infestations caused substantial losses in yield and income. They argued that the technology's declining effectiveness disproportionately affected resource-poor households while creating opportunities for profit accumulation elsewhere in the agricultural economy. The study concluded that earlier claims portraying Bt cotton as a pro-poor technology were deeply flawed.
The study found that 80 percent of surveyed farmers had experienced pink bollworm infestations in their Bt cotton fields during the preceding five years. Among these farmers, 96 percent reported that the pest had appeared for the first time during that same period. Small and marginal farmers were particularly affected, often being forced to take additional loans and accumulate greater debt in order to continue cultivation.
While these findings initially emerged from southern and central India, similar concerns have increasingly surfaced in northern cotton-growing regions. Farmers across large areas of Punjab and parts of Haryana have expressed frustration over repeated crop losses caused by pink bollworm, even as memories of earlier pest outbreaks remain vivid.
A report noted that farmers remained deeply concerned because of the devastating whitefly outbreak of 2015, which had caused damage to more than 60 percent of Punjab's cotton crop. The report observed that pink bollworm infestations had reached unprecedented levels in parts of Punjab, following earlier outbreaks in Gujarat and Maharashtra.
According to the report, Bathinda and Mansa districts were among the worst affected, although significant damage was also reported elsewhere. The Tribune reported on October 9, 2021, that cotton crops across approximately 1,500 acres in 85 villages of Sangrur district had come under pink bollworm attack. In Barnala district, repeated insecticide applications reportedly failed to halt the spread of the pest, prompting concern among farmers and agricultural officials alike.
Yet the dominant response has often remained increased pesticide use. As another Times of India report noted, then Punjab Chief Minister Charanjit Singh Channi, during a visit to affected villages, instructed officials to deploy the best available insecticides and pesticides to save standing crops.
The experience was similar in Maharashtra, where extensive pink bollworm damage was reported during the 2017–18 season. Writing in The Economic Times on January 21, 2018, G. Sethuraman reported that nearly 80 percent of Maharashtra's cotton-growing area had been affected. The article observed that Bt cotton was India's only commercially cultivated GM crop and accounted for over 90 percent of the country's cotton acreage.
The report argued that the scale of pink bollworm infestation had raised serious questions about the long-term sustainability of GM cotton cultivation. It also documented the rapid spread of Bt cotton following the introduction of Bollgard I in 2002 and Bollgard II in 2006. By the mid-2010s, reports had begun emerging that pink bollworm populations were developing resistance even to Bollgard II. At the same time, concerns were raised regarding the widespread illegal sale of herbicide-tolerant Bt cotton seeds.
Given the rising costs of cultivation and growing pest resistance, the report concluded that the economic viability of Bt cotton could no longer be taken for granted.
The claims regarding higher yields from Bt cotton have also been challenged by several independent experts. Dr. Jack A. Heinemann of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, has argued that the Bt trait itself does not increase yield. According to him, higher yields are often associated with improved hybrid varieties that happen to contain the Bt trait, rather than with the genetic modification itself.
Heinemann argues that the yield advantage frequently attributed to Bt cotton reflects the concentration of seed ownership among a small number of corporations that market their best-performing hybrids primarily as GM varieties. This view was echoed by P.V. Satheesh, former Convener of the South Against Genetic Engineering network, who argued that the disappearance of non-Bt cotton seed options was accelerated by the growing dominance of large seed companies.
Heinemann has also questioned whether adequate comparative research exists between high-yielding non-GM cotton varieties grown under agroecological and integrated pest management systems and GM varieties. In his view, such evidence remains limited, while concerns about the impacts of GM agriculture continue to accumulate.
In some regions, cotton yields did rise during the early years of Bt cotton expansion. However, critics argue that these gains were influenced by favourable weather conditions, expanded irrigation, and increased public and private investment directed toward cotton cultivation during that period.
Drawing on the experience of the United States, Heinemann notes that Bt cotton has not consistently delivered higher or more sustainable yields than well-managed non-GM cotton varieties. He also points to the higher cost of genetically engineered seeds as a significant source of financial risk for farmers.
He concludes that if India wishes to maintain control over its agricultural future, greater attention should be devoted to agroecological approaches and sustainable farming systems rather than increasing dependence on proprietary seed technologies.
Evidence from the early years of Bt cotton cultivation in India also raised concerns. A study conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Department of Agriculture during the first year of commercial Bt cotton cultivation (2002–03), involving 3,709 farmers, found that 71 percent reported lower-than-expected yields. Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, average cotton yields reportedly declined from 612.7 kg per hectare during 1996–2002, before the introduction of Bt cotton, to 518.3 kg per hectare during the subsequent six years.
These cotton-specific concerns should also be viewed alongside broader debates regarding GM crops. Critics argue that the environmental, economic and social risks associated with GM agriculture make it difficult to regard such systems as genuinely sustainable over the long term. They contend that while short-term gains may occur, these are often followed by increasing pest resistance, higher pesticide use, rising seed costs and greater farmer indebtedness.
Long-term reviews, they argue, reveal patterns in which small and marginal farmers bear a disproportionate share of the risks, while profits accrue largely to seed companies, pesticide manufacturers, moneylenders and other powerful actors within the agricultural economy. In many cotton-growing regions, farming systems have become highly dependent on a small number of seed suppliers with considerable market power.
This development is particularly striking in a country with a rich historical legacy of cotton cultivation and an extraordinary diversity of indigenous cotton varieties. Much of that diversity has disappeared within a relatively short period. Reversing this trend and rebuilding resilient, farmer-centred cotton production systems will require significant changes in future agricultural policy and cotton sector development.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener of the Campaign to Save Earth Now. His books include Man over Machine, 14 Questions About GM Crops, its Hindi edition, and India's Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food. His website is bharatdogra.in and his YouTube channel is Bharat Dogra Save Earth Campaign
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor