The inclusion of 146 biostimulant products under the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO) 1985 marks a defining milestone for India’s agricultural input sector. For the first time, the Government of India has formally acknowledged the pivotal role biostimulants can play in driving sustainable agriculture. This recognition is not just a regulatory tick-box—it reflects a broader policy vision that positions India as a future hub for biostimulant production and exports.
As someone deeply engaged in this sector, I believe this is a moment of both celebration and caution. The inclusion strengthens investor and farmer confidence, yet several anomalies in the notification threaten to dilute its impact. Unless addressed quickly, these could compromise farmer trust, global competitiveness, and the very integrity of India’s biostimulant movement.
India’s Market at a Crossroads
The growth trajectory of biostimulants in India is impressive. According to Fortune Business Insights, the domestic market, valued at USD 355.53 million in 2024, is projected to cross USD 1.14 billion by 2032, growing at a robust CAGR of 15.64%. Similarly, Mordor Intelligence places India’s biostimulant market at USD 210.4 million in 2025, with growth expected to reach USD 343 million by 2030.
Clearly, demand is rising, and global interest in India’s production capacity is equally strong. Export-import platforms such as Seair Exim reflect increasing trade volumes in this segment, signaling that India is already becoming part of the global biostimulant value chain.
But growth, without robust regulation, risks creating an unbalanced and exploitative ecosystem.
Three Anomalies Hindering Progress
- Chemistry-wise Inconsistencies
Several product specifications included in the August 2025 notification remain scientifically flawed. Chemistry-wise anomalies in formulations not only confuse manufacturers but also burden regulators and field officers tasked with enforcement.
NBIF had already submitted a detailed dossier to the Ministry in September 2024, outlining global best practices and highlighting these technical errors. Unfortunately, many of these inconsistencies were repeated in the latest notification.
Left unchecked, these errors will:
-
Allow sub-standard or mislabelled products to enter the market.
-
Damage India’s credibility as a reliable exporter.
-
Place honest manufacturers at a disadvantage, while enabling regulatory manipulation.
- Repetitive Product Entries
The list of 146 products includes multiple duplications—formulations that are essentially identical but presented under slightly different descriptors.
This repetition is not just a clerical oversight. It creates regulatory clutter, artificially inflates the list, and forces manufacturers to make redundant applications. Worse, it can be misused in the market:
-
Farmers may be misled into believing they are using different solutions when they are not.
-
Companies may manipulate prices by selling the same product under multiple labels.
When the Ministry itself has emphasized that “Farmers are annadata and cannot be cheated”, such lapses undermine trust in regulatory institutions.
- Misuse of Sub-Clause 8 under FCO 1985
Perhaps the most concerning anomaly is the misuse of Sub-Clause 8.
In Gazette No. 882, Sub-Clause 8 mandated disclosure of manufacturer or importer names. But in Gazette No. 1870 (8 May 2025), this clause was omitted. The omission weakens transparency and opens the door for monopolistic practices.
Yet, despite this omission, the same notification allowed the product “Carrabiitol (Kappaphycus alverizii) 80% Powder” to be published with a registered brand name directly within the specification—a clear violation of FCO norms, which are meant to list only generic product categories.
A similar inconsistency is seen in the case of Humic Acid. In the specifications, it is described as “Potassium Humate obtained from Leonardite mineral source.” This again restricts the raw material base by tying the product to a specific geological source—Leonardite.
Leonardite is a soft, waxy, black or brown, vitreous mineraloid that is easily soluble in alkaline solutions. It is an oxidation product of lignite, associated with near-surface mining, and is a rich source of humic acid . It was named after A. G. Leonard, the first director of the North Dakota Geological Survey, in recognition of his work on these Lignite deposits.
By restricting Humic Acid to Leonardite-derived Potassium Humate, the notification not only narrows the scope of innovation but also risks unfairly privileging certain suppliers while excluding other legitimate humic acid sources. This mirrors the same structural flaw evident in the Kappaphycus example.
This lapse is dangerous for several reasons:
-
It grants state-backed endorsement to a private brand or restricted source.
-
It risks creating monopolies over naturally derived resources like seaweeds or humates.
-
It undermines MSMEs and favors select domestic or multinational players.
-
It sets a precedent for future notifications to be skewed in favor of branded or narrowly defined entities.
Instead of plugging loopholes, the regulatory framework is inadvertently creating new ones—something that could destabilize the sector at a critical stage of its growth.
A Call for Course Correction
India’s ambition to be a global leader in biostimulants cannot rest on recognition alone; it requires regulatory credibility. I call upon the Ministry of Agriculture, the INM Division, and other stakeholders to urgently:
-
Rectify the chemistry-based classification errors, using NBIF’s dossier as a ready reference.
-
Eliminate repetitive product entries to reduce confusion and administrative burden.
-
Reinstate Sub-Clause 8 and ensure that no proprietary brand names are embedded within specifications.
-
Create a transparent, farmer-centric framework that encourages MSME participation and supports India’s export goals.
Conclusion
The inclusion of 146 products is indeed a watershed moment—but it must be seen as the beginning of a journey, not the end. Robust regulation is not just about paperwork; it is about protecting farmers, empowering genuine manufacturers, and ensuring India’s rightful place in the global biostimulant marketplace.
As federation, National Biostimulant Industry Federation, we remain optimistic but vigilant. With constructive collaboration between the government, industry, and scientific institutions, we can turn this recognition into a sustainable, farmer-first, globally competitive success story.
