Blog

Introduction: A Promising Concept Undermined by Misuse

Biostimulants, hailed globally as an eco-friendly and sustainable input for agriculture, have been sold in India for over two decades. Initially welcomed for their potential to enhance crop productivity, stress tolerance, and soil health, the concept has unfortunately been diluted over time. Instead of promoting scientific innovation and plant-based research, the Indian biostimulant market has largely evolved into a grey, unregulated space exploited by unscrupulous traders and formulators.

The Rise of an Unregulated Market Dominated by Chinese Imports

One of the most pressing concerns is the near-monopoly of Chinese-origin materials in the Indian market—estimated to account for nearly 70% of the products currently being sold. Many of these imports are in the form of black flakes, often claimed to be humic acid-based, but actually designed to mask unidentified or undeclared active ingredients. This widespread practice hides the true composition of the product, making it virtually impossible to determine its efficacy or safety.

Further, some materials falsely marketed as high-value seaweed extracts (like Ascophyllum nodosum from Europe or Canada) may in fact be inexpensive, lower-quality sources such as Sargassum or Salicornia. This deception has flourished due to the lack of a robust testing and certification infrastructure, allowing small-scale manufacturers to capture market share without accountability or quality control.

Bio-Stimulant Marketing Ecosystem – The Hidden agenda is not addressed

The current bio-stimulant marketing ecosystem in India operates through a complex chain involving over 10,000 formulators and 8 lakh distributors, embedded in a highly competitive agri-input market. Unlike regulated pesticides and fertilizers that offer limited profit margins of 5–10%, bio-stimulants remain unregulated in pricing, allowing players to earn 40–70% margins by selling products priced anywhere between Rs. 200 to Rs. 10,000. Many of these products are formulated at the lowest cost and designed to deliver a quick greening effect within 2–3 days—a visual cue that convinces farmers of efficacy, despite lacking long-term agronomic benefits. Farmers, often unable to assess bioefficacy or cost-benefit, are misled by this superficial response, making bio-stimulants a tool for recovering lost profits in other agri-inputs.

This ecosystem has fostered a widespread market of visually impactful but technically weak formulations, driven by profit incentives rather than scientific validation or farmer benefit. It has created a distorted value chain where even retailers customize product choices and prices to suit profit targets, undermining the credibility of genuine, research-backed biostimulant technologies. Unless this unregulated system is addressed through price oversight, mandatory bioefficacy validation, and farmer education, it risks long-term damage to both agricultural productivity and industry integrity.

Government’s Attempt at Streamlining: The G2 License and Gazette Notifications

To address this situation, the Government of India took a commendable step by introducing a dedicated regulatory pathway for biostimulants—namely the “G2” license under the Fertiliser (Control) Order (FCO). This led to the submission of over 38,000 products for consideration, revealing the overwhelming scale of the market.

“The June 2025 Gazette Notification has partially eased the compliance burden by allowing simplified test methods for routine analysis. However, high-end validation for mode of action still lacks institutional capacity.”

Subsequently, the government issued three Gazette Notifications, progressively narrowing down the field to approximately 45 products with temporary selling permissions. However, the prescribed methodologies for registration—requiring detailed studies on analytical chemistry, bio-efficacy, and packaging—proved to be a significant hurdle, especially for micro and small enterprises. The total cost for full compliance can range from ₹8 to ₹20 lakh per product, deterring genuine but resource-constrained companies from participating in the formal registration process.

The Real Issue: Avoidance of R&D and Lack of Scientific Infrastructure

The high cost and complexity of registration have exposed an uncomfortable truth: much of the Indian biostimulant industry has been thriving without any real investment in R&D or scientific validation. Very few companies are willing to undertake studies that establish the product’s mechanism of action, crop-specific efficacy, or impact on phenology and physiology.

Moreover, many agricultural universities and public institutions still rely on outdated protocols to evaluate biostimulants, without access to advanced instrumentation in analytical chemistry, plant physiology, or biochemistry. Crucial modern research tools—such as omics technologies and molecular markers—remain out of reach for most individual companies, further hampering innovation and validation.

In several press statements (e.g., PIB releases), senior officials from the Ministry of Agriculture emphasized (i) the need to “clean the biostimulant market” from spurious inputs. (ii) Support for genuine companies via “Make in India” and “Ease of Doing Business”. While the Ministry has reiterated its commitment to encouraging innovation and ethical marketing, practical support such as subsidized trials or government CRO partnerships remains absent.”

We recommend setting up “National Biostimulant Testing and Validation Centres” under ICAR or in PPP mode. The aligning biostimulant policy with national organic/natural farming initiatives to ensure adoption.

Global Perspective: Aligning with International Best Practices

Leading regulatory frameworks across developed nations adopt a science-driven, functional-claims-based approach to biostimulant classification. Regardless of composition, a product is recognized as a biostimulant if it demonstrates one or more of the following validated effects:

1. Mitigation of abiotic stress
2. Enhancement of nutrient use efficiency
3. Improvement in crop quality (e.g., yield, taste, visual appeal)
4. Stimulation of plant defense mechanisms against pests and diseases

These systems mandate the exclusion of pesticides, heavy metals, and toxic contaminants. India, however, currently emphasizes compositional classification, dividing biostimulants into Bioactives (e.g., proteins, polysaccharides, polyphenols, PGRs) and Nutrients (e.g., N, P, K, Zn, Mg) typically present in trace amounts.

Emerging studies show that even low levels of bioactives can trigger genetic and metabolic pathways responsible for morphological and physiological changes. This complex mode of action demands advanced analytical tools such as LC-MS, HPLC, FTIR, and transcriptomics—facilities that are largely absent in agricultural universities.

India must reorient its regulatory and academic protocols. Conventional pesticide/fertilizer evaluation methods relying solely on morphological bio-efficacy assessments are inadequate for biostimulants. To establish scientific validity and regulatory clarity, integrative studies encompassing plant physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology must be mandated—at least for foundational categories like seaweed extracts, protein hydrolysates, and humic substances—across a minimum of five representative crops.

Need for Industry-Led Scientific Infrastructure

Given the financial and technical limitations of individual companies, it is crucial for industry associations to take collective responsibility. These associations must:

• Establish or sponsor GLP-compliant Contract Research Organizations (CROs)
• Negotiate reduced data generation costs with public and private laboratories
• The data generation cost must be negotiated by Industry giving bulk order on behalf of hundreds of industry to CRO and Universities
• Facilitate access to modern scientific tools for standardized testing

This collective action will enable fair competition, maintain product credibility, and encourage compliance among small and mid-sized enterprises.

Bridging the Knowledge Gap: Role of Universities and Farmer Education

Universities must reform their evaluation protocols and invest in infrastructure to accurately test biostimulant products. Furthermore, extension departments should be trained to educate farmers on the functional benefits of biostimulants using the four pillars framework.

Farmers, who often cannot distinguish between genuine and spurious products, typically expect immediate and visible effects. However, biostimulants usually require multiple applications and manifest long-term benefits. This knowledge gap must be bridged through consistent and region-specific awareness programs.

Cleansing the Market: Industry Vigilance and Ethical Practices

The industry must actively identify and reject spurious formulators and traders. These actors not only mislead farmers but also jeopardize the long-term credibility and viability of the biostimulant sector. Associations should maintain a blacklist of violators and share this with regulatory bodies to prevent further abuse.

A Consortium-Based Registration Model

The Indian biostimulant industry stands at a critical juncture. On one hand, there is immense potential for scientific growth, sustainable agriculture, and global competitiveness. On the other, unregulated practices and reluctance to invest in R&D threaten to derail the credibility of the sector.

Government must simplify regulations for products that are free from harmful substances and To ease the regulatory burden while maintaining scientific rigor, a consortium-based registration model should be adopted. Under this model:

• A group of 10–15 companies can jointly invest in data generation for a common product.
• Each company can market the registered product under different brand names.
• This reduces the cost per company significantly, while maintaining the integrity of the registration process.
• MNC :Multinationals wants exclusivity and always keep high margin profits.
• The CIB has a good system of protecting MNC and Indian innovator companies and encourage them to invest in innovation.
• Bio-Stimulant Act should honour and create Special protection period of 3 years on the basis of Innovation and new technology.

This collaborative strategy would promote standardization, reduce duplication of efforts, and make R&D more inclusive and affordable.

Only through this shared responsibility can biostimulants in India realize their true promise: as nature’s gift to agriculture—not as a loophole for commercial exploitation.

“India can emerge as a global biostimulant leader—if science, policy, and industry walk together.”

From the desk of
Anurag Bhatnagar
Director
Lead Agri Venture