The Lift Line
“The study’s findings are a clear demonstration of farmer acceptance of HT technology. For cotton growers, this isn’t about ideology.” (The Indian Express, editorial)
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
This unsigned editorial in The Indian Express, published on 13 October 2026 under the headline “Unregulated use of GM: A cautionary tale”, reacts to a study on unauthorised herbicide-tolerant Bt (HTBt) cotton. The paper’s case is blunt: farmers are already growing genetically modified (GM) cotton that the regulator has not approved, and the blame “lies solely with the government”.
Read it with one fact in mind: the study was 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), two seed-industry bodies; the editorial itself calls it “a seed industry-commissioned study”. Every number below is the study’s, unless an official source is named.
For background, Ashok Gulati’s column of 12 October on the next farm revolution recalls the 2002 approval of Bt cotton, and our editorial on why Indian research can shape the world, published last week, sets out where GEAC sits. This piece adds the herbicide-tolerance question, the illegal seed market and the regulatory chain that is meant to stop it.
GS Paper 3: Major crops and cropping patterns; issues of technology in agriculture; awareness in biotechnology. GS Paper 2: Government policies and interventions; statutory and regulatory bodies. GS Paper 4: Rule of law and its legitimacy when a rule is widely ignored.
In the news: a seed industry-backed study says a quarter or more of India’s cotton area grows unapproved herbicide-tolerant and next-generation Bt hybrids from illegal seed; the editorial blames the government’s block on GM field trials.
Background and Context
Key terms first
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| GM crop | A crop carrying a gene inserted from another organism (a transgene) |
| Bt | Genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis; the Bt genes in the approved hybrids are Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab |
| HT (herbicide-tolerant) | A plant that survives sprays of a weed killer such as glyphosate, so weeds can be killed chemically instead of by hand |
| HTBt | Cotton that stacks herbicide tolerance with Bt insect resistance |
| Vip3A | Another Bt gene from the same soil bacterium, with a different mode of action; not approved in India |
| Introgression | Crossing a trait into other seed lines; the editorial says traders and breeders have done this “bypassing the government’s biosafety and regulatory approval system” |
| Quadruple stack | A seed carrying four transgenes |
What the study found
The study, titled Unauthorised Cultivation of HTBt Cotton in India: Extent, Drivers & Implications, was released in New Delhi on 7 October 2026. Its findings, as reported, are the context for the editorial:
| Measure | The study’s figure |
|---|---|
| Area under unauthorised HTBt cotton, Kharif 2025-26 | 65 to 72 lakh acres, between 24 and 30 per cent of India’s cotton area |
| Samples with at least one GM trait | 98.2 per cent |
| Samples with unapproved HT and next-generation Bt genes | over half, from farmers’ fields in 16 districts of Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan (the editorial’s summary) |
| “quadruple stacks” (four transgenes, including Vip3A) | nearly 42 per cent of samples |
| Adoption by State | Maharashtra 58 per cent (Yavatmal 76 per cent); Telangana 66 per cent; Andhra Pradesh 49 per cent; Rajasthan little HTBt so far, but rising demand for illegal BG-III seed to fight pink bollworm |
| Legal Bt hybrid seed sold | 59.6 million packets (2022-23) to 46.3 million (2025-26), a fall of about 22 per cent |
| Unauthorised HT-Bt seed market | an estimated 8.2-8.8 million packets |
Two numbers are easy to confuse. 98.2 per cent of samples carried some GM trait, approved or not; the unapproved genes turned up in over half.
Which cotton traits are approved
| Trait | Gene | Status in India |
|---|---|---|
| First Bt cotton | Cry1Ac | GEAC gave conditional clearance to three Bt hybrids, MECH 162, MECH 184 and MECH 12, “for a period of three years from April 2002 to March 2005” (Environment Ministry, Rajya Sabha, December 2002) |
| Bollgard II | Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab | “introduced in 2006”, in the words of a Monsanto statement |
| Herbicide tolerance | glyphosate tolerance | “Herbicide Tolerant (HT) cotton is not approved by the GEAC” (Agriculture Ministry, Lok Sabha, July 2021) |
| Bollgard II Roundup Ready Flex (HTBt) | Bt plus HT | in 2023 GEAC asked the developer, Mahyco, to submit a new dossier; the study now asks for its approval to be fast-tracked |
| Vip3A | Vip3A | “an insect-resistance gene that has never received approval in India” (the study, as reported) |
In July 2022 the Government told the Lok Sabha that Bt cotton is “the only GM crop which has been approved for commercial cultivation in India”.
Why the old traits stopped working
The pink bollworm is at the heart of the story. In the 2009 crop, the companies reported to GEAC that pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac “was confirmed in four districts in Gujarat”. A 2025 study in Scientific Reports (Kumar et al.) found that the pest reached an “establishment phase” in 2014, “confirmed by the equal presence of pink boll worm in BG-II and non-Bt” cotton, and that it “poses a substantial threat to the sustainability of BG-II cultivation in India”. That is why farmers want Vip3A, which the editorial says works “even against the pink bollworm”.
Who regulates GM crops and seed
| Layer | What it does |
|---|---|
| Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 | The parent law |
| Rules, 1989 (on hazardous micro-organisms and genetically engineered organisms) | Framed under the 1986 Act |
| Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), Environment Ministry | The statutory committee under the 1989 Rules; its clearance “is mandatory for the environmental release of Genetically Modified (GM) crops” |
| State/UT Biotechnology Coordination Committees and district-level committees | Monitor “instances of illegal cultivation of GM crops” and act under the 1986 Act |
| State/UT government | Its NOC is required for confined field trials |
| Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seed Control Order | Govern seed quality and sale; the study says the illegal seed “sits entirely outside” both |
| Draft Seeds Bill, 2025 | A Department of Agriculture draft for comment; clause 48(1) says “The Seeds Act, 1966 is hereby repealed”, and its definition of seed includes a “transgenic variety”. It is only a draft: PRS’s lists of Bills for Parliament’s 2026 Budget and Monsoon Sessions do not include it |
The 2002 release spells the body “Genetic Engineering Approval Committee”; its current name is the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee.
Is India a net importer of cotton?
The editorial says GM policy “has turned India from a leading producer and exporter to a net importer of cotton”. The trade half of that can be checked against the Cotton Association of India (CAI), whose season runs October to September and counts bales of 170 kg:
| Season | Imports (CAI estimate) | Exports (CAI estimate) |
|---|---|---|
| 2024-25 | 41 lakh bales | 18 lakh bales |
| 2025-26 | 62 lakh bales (raised from 60 lakh) | 15 lakh bales |
On these estimates imports exceeded exports in both seasons. The Ministry of Textiles told the Rajya Sabha in July 2026 that production was 290.91 lakh bales in 2025-26 against 352.48 lakh bales in 2020-21, on 114.82 lakh hectares against 132.85 lakh hectares, and that the variation is “primarily attributable to changes in cotton acreage”. It said imports “are undertaken whenever required”, and, for context, the 11 per cent import duty on cotton is exempted from 1 June 2026 to 31 October 2026. The editorial’s “leading producer and exporter” is its own description of the past.
The Analysis
1. Farmers have already decided. The editorial’s core point is economic, not ideological. Manual weeding, “even when labour is available”, costs Rs 12,000-15,000 per acre, against Rs 750-850 for 2-3 rounds of glyphosate application. The approved Bt hybrids carry no gene for herbicide tolerance and no longer give control against pink bollworm. A farmer facing both problems will plant the seed that solves them, legal or not.
2. The approved technology has aged. Approved Bt cotton rests on traits from 2002 and 2006. The pest those traits were meant to control learnt to survive Cry1Ac by 2009 and established itself in Bollgard II fields by 2014. The newer genes farmers want, herbicide tolerance and Vip3A, have never been authorised for commercial cultivation, and the HTBt application was sent back for a fresh dossier in 2023.
3. Illegal seed carries no guarantee. The editorial names two losers. The organised seed industry loses sales: legal Bt seed fell from 59.6 million to 46.3 million packets in three years, by the study’s count. The bigger loser is the farmer, who buys from “fly-by-night operators” instead of “genuine research-backed seed companies”. Seed that sits outside the Seeds Act and the Seed Control Order offers no recourse if it fails, and traits introgressed by traders have never passed a biosafety review.
4. Enforcement has failed too. The law already assigns the job of catching illegal GM cultivation to State and district committees under the Environment (Protection) Act. If the study is even roughly right, a quarter of the cotton area has slipped past them. The regulator can neither stop the technology nor bring it into a legal frame, which is the worst of both outcomes: no approval, no control.
5. Who is to blame? The editorial says the blame “lies solely with the government”, which has blocked “commercialisation and field trials of GM crops, based more on ideological positions than empirical regulatory science”. Two cautions apply. The study was produced with the support of seed-industry bodies, whose members lose sales to illegal seed, so its figures need independent confirmation. And the Government’s own account ties lower cotton output primarily to falling acreage. The stronger form of the argument does not need either claim: a regulator that sits on applications for years, while farmers adopt the trait anyway, has lost the benefit of regulating at all.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
The regulator:
- GEAC: Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, Environment Ministry; statutory committee under the Rules, 1989.
- Rules, 1989 are framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- GEAC clearance is mandatory for the environmental release of a GM crop.
- Illegal GM cultivation is watched by State/UT Biotechnology Coordination Committees and district-level committees.
- Confined field trials need a no-objection certificate from the State or UT government.
The crop:
- Bt cotton: first cleared in 2002; the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India (Lok Sabha reply, July 2022).
- First clearance: three Bt hybrids, MECH 162, MECH 184 and MECH 12, for three years, April 2002 to March 2005.
- Bollgard II: two Bt proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab; introduced in 2006, per its developer.
- Not approved: herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton, and the Vip3A gene.
- Pink bollworm: resistance to Cry1Ac confirmed in four Gujarat districts in the 2009 crop.
The study (SABC, with FSII and NSAI support):
- Area: 65 to 72 lakh acres of unauthorised HTBt cotton in Kharif 2025-26, 24 to 30 per cent of the cotton area.
- Legal Bt seed: 59.6 million packets (2022-23) to 46.3 million (2025-26); illegal HT-Bt seed 8.2-8.8 million packets.
Seed law and trade:
- Seeds Act, 1966, and the Seed Control Order. The draft Seeds Bill, 2025 would repeal the 1966 Act.
- Cotton trade, CAI estimates: 2025-26 imports 62 lakh bales, exports 15 lakh bales; a bale is 170 kg.
⚠️ Watch the trap: 98.2 per cent of samples carried a GM trait, approved or not; the unapproved genes were found in over half. Bt cotton was first cleared in 2002; 2006 is the introduction of Bollgard II. GEAC is the Appraisal Committee today, though the 2002 record says Approval Committee. HT cotton is not approved; in 2023 GEAC asked for a fresh dossier on the HTBt hybrid.
The Debate
| For approving the new traits | The cautions |
|---|---|
| Farmers have adopted them anyway; regulation that is ignored protects no one | The adoption figures come from an industry-backed study and need independent checks |
| Weeding labour is scarce and costly; glyphosate cuts the cost sharply | Herbicide tolerance raises biosafety questions, such as its effect on herbicide use, that trials exist to test |
| Approved Bt hybrids no longer control pink bollworm | A failing trait is a reason to test new ones properly, not to wave them through |
| Legal seed comes with quality control and accountability | The seed-industry bodies behind the study stand to gain from approval |
| A clear decision restores the rule of law in the seed market | The Government ties lower cotton output mainly to falling acreage, not to GM policy |
How to Think About This
Split the problem into three questions. Is the technology safe and useful? That is GEAC’s job, and it needs field trials to answer. Is the regulator deciding? A request for a new dossier in 2023, and an industry still asking in October 2026 for approval to be fast-tracked, point to delay. Is the law enforced? A quarter of the cotton area under illegal seed says it is not. A strong Mains answer shows that the failure is on all three fronts, and that the farmer bears the cost of each.
For GS4, this is a case of a rule widely ignored. When most people in a field break a law because obeying it is ruinous, the state can enforce harder, change the rule, or decide faster. Keep the keywords handy: biosafety, evidence-based regulation, regulatory delay, illegal seed market, herbicide tolerance, pink bollworm and the precautionary principle.
Diagram-in-Words
Why unapproved GM cotton spreads
The farmer’s choice, its costs, and the editorial’s verdict.
Takeaway Box
- The argument: farmers are already growing unapproved herbicide-tolerant and next-generation Bt cotton; the editorial blames the government’s block on GM field trials.
- The scale: 24 to 30 per cent of the cotton area in Kharif 2025-26, by an industry-backed study.
- The law: GEAC, under the Rules, 1989 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, must clear any GM crop; State and district committees police illegal cultivation.
- The status: Bt cotton (2002) is the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation (Lok Sabha, July 2022); HT cotton and Vip3A are not approved.
- The balance: decide on evidence and on time, enforce against spurious seed, and bring traited seed under a modern seed law.
Revision Flowchart
Unregulated Use of GM: Illegal HTBt Cotton and GEAC Rules
Covers the terms, Prelims pointers and traps, Mains pointers, the way forward and a practice question.
Sources: The Indian Express, editorial, “Unregulated use of GM: A cautionary tale”, 13 October 2026; PIB, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Rajya Sabha reply on Bt cotton (13 December 2002); Ministry of Environment, Lok Sabha reply on GM crops (July 2022); Ministry of Agriculture, Lok Sabha reply on HT cotton (July 2021); Ministry of Textiles, Rajya Sabha reply on cotton output (July 2026); Cotton Association of India crop estimates (2026); Kumar et al., Scientific Reports, 2025; draft Seeds Bill, 2025.
Source: Unregulated Use of GM: Illegal HTBt Cotton and GEAC Rules — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
