Cotton Productivity Mission Explained: Bt Cotton, Yield Gap and the GM Policy Debate

Structure and objectives: The Mission is a five-year, central-sector scheme (2026-27 to 2030-31) under the Ministry of Textiles, with an outlay of about Rs 5,659 crore. It seeks to address the bottlenecks, declining growth and quality issues in India's cotton sector and to make the country self-reliant in cotton while strengthening textile competitiveness, in line with the government's 5F vision (Farm-Fibre-Factory-Fashion-Foreign).

What it promises: The headline targets are 498 lakh bales of cotton by 2031 and lint productivity of 755 kg/ha (against the current ~440 kg/ha). The Mission also pushes high-yielding, climate-resilient and pest-resistant seeds, modern farming practices, Kasturi Cotton Bharat for traceability/certification, trash reduction below 2%, ginning and processing upgrades, and the promotion of natural fibres such as flax, ramie, sisal, milkweed, bamboo and banana.

The yield gap: India has the largest cotton acreage in the world (~11 mha) but among the lowest yields (~441 kg/ha). For triennium-ending 2025-26, the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) reports yields of about 2,340 kg/ha in Australia, 2,311 in China, 1,943 in Brazil and 974 in the US. The gap is, in effect, a measure of the gap in seed technology, agronomy, mechanisation and R&D.

The supply-demand squeeze: Production has declined at about 2% per year since 2014-15, and India — once a net cotton exporter — has become a net importer, with about 4 million bales imported in 2025-26. With domestic demand projected to reach 450 lakh bales by 2030-31, the gap could widen sharply without intervention.

The science: Bt cotton is a genetically modified (GM) cotton that carries genes (such as cry1Ac and cry2Ab) from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which produce proteins toxic to certain caterpillar pests — most importantly the bollworm complex — without conventional insecticides.

The Indian story: After the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) approved Bt cotton in 2002, and Bollgard II in 2006, Indian cotton output rose from about 13.6 million bales in 2002-03 to ~39.8 million bales in 2013-14, area expanded from about 7.6 mha to 11.9 mha, and yields nearly doubled. Today, Bt cotton accounts for roughly 95% of India's cotton area.

The regulator: The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) operates under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and is the apex body for approving environmental release (large-scale use and commercial cultivation) of GM organisms in India.

The legal framework: GEAC works under the Rules for Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms / Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells, 1989, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with supporting Recombinant DNA Safety Guidelines (1990, 1994). India is also a party to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and its Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) handle research-stage clearances, while the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) institutes lead public-sector R&D.

The price-regulation story: In 2006, Andhra Pradesh capped Bt cotton seed prices at Rs 750 a packet, with Maharashtra and Gujarat following. The Centre formalised this in the Cotton Seed Price (Control) Order, 2015 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which cut the "trait fee" (paid to the technology developer) by about 74% (from ~Rs 187 to ~Rs 49 per packet); the retail price was lowered to ~Rs 740 in 2018, and the trait fee was abolished in 2020.

Two competing views: One view, articulated by some agricultural economists, is that price controls eroded the commercial case for seed innovation, leading developers to withdraw next-generation traits (such as Bollgard II RRF and Bollgard III) and chilling private R&D. The other view holds that monopoly pricing of essential farm inputs needed to be reined in to protect smallholder farmers, and that the real solution lies in strengthening public-sector R&D through ICAR and the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR). The episode also features prominent litigation between Monsanto-Mahyco and Indian seed companies on trait-fee/patent rights.

What's new globally: Major cotton producers now plant stacked-trait, herbicide-tolerant (HT) cotton — e.g., three-gene caterpillar protection combined with tolerance to multiple herbicides — which simplifies weed control and helps manage evolving pest resistance.

India's specific challenge: India is largely still on a two-gene Bollgard II technology, while pink bollworm has developed resistance to cry1Ac and cry2Ab in many parts of India, eroding the original Bt advantage. Unapproved, "illegal" Herbicide-Tolerant Bt (HTBt) cotton has spread — estimated by industry bodies (such as the Federation of Seed Industry of India) to cover about 15% of cotton area — driven by farmers' desire to cut weeding labour costs.

The arguments on both sides: For legalising HTBt / approving new traits: pest-resistance management, weed control, lower costs, halting the spurious-seed black market and reducing yield gaps with global peers. Against or with caution: concerns over the carcinogenicity classification of glyphosate (IARC 2A — "probably carcinogenic to humans"), risks of herbicide resistance and "superweeds", biodiversity and non-target effects, dependence on proprietary hybrid seed (farmers cannot save seed) and broader seed-sovereignty concerns. The final call on environmental release lies with GEAC under MoEF&CC.

Agronomy and farm practices: Important non-seed levers include High-Density Planting Systems (HDPS), drip irrigation and fertigation, integrated pest management (IPM) (including pheromone traps and rigorous refuge crop compliance to delay resistance), mechanisation (especially mechanical picking) and improved post-harvest handling/ginning.

Markets, extension and value addition: A productivity push also needs minimum support price (MSP) operations through the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), Kasturi Cotton Bharat for branding and traceability, stronger extension services, and better integration with the textile value chain — all of which are reflected in the Mission's design.

The Cotton Productivity Mission is a welcome consolidation of effort, but, on its own, money will not close the technology gap. India needs to sharply scale up public-sector R&D through ICAR, CICR and DBT-supported institutions on new Bt and non-Bt traits, drought tolerance and high-density varieties suited to Indian conditions. The GEAC-led biosafety process for next-generation traits (including any HTBt review) should remain rigorous and science-based, with transparent risk assessment and safeguards, so that decisions reflect both innovation and precaution. The policy framework for seed prices and IPR must be re-examined to balance affordability for farmers with reasonable returns for innovators, while curbing the spurious-seed black market. Finally, productivity will hinge on agronomy at the field level — HDPS, irrigation, IPM, refuge compliance and mechanisation — alongside stronger extension, market support and value addition to make cotton farming both higher-yielding and more remunerative.