CropLife India urges reforms to widen crop protection choices

Indian farmers have access to about 380 active ingredients in crop-protection products, compared with roughly 1,200 available globally, according to CropLife India, which represents 17 leading companies. The release gives no comparison date or counting method, so the size of the gap remains an industry estimate rather than a settled measurement.

CropLife India estimates that pests and diseases cause Indian farmers to lose 10% to 35% of crops annually, a burden it puts at about Rs 2 lakh crore. The release provides no crop-by-crop breakdown or calculation period for that estimate, leaving the loss range broad and unverified.

What changes if existing molecules are restricted?

Any restriction on an existing molecule should rest on established scientific literature, including safety, health and efficacy in its local context, and on the effect on farmers. CropLife warns that restricting current products before better alternatives arrive could deal growers a double blow by leaving them fewer tools against pests and diseases.

Rahul Dhanuka, managing director of Dhanuka Agritech Ltd., said: “Factors such as El Nino, and climate change are making pest pressures even more dynamic and troublesome for farmers.” He wants better science, innovation and technology-backed products admitted as pest patterns change and says data protection could streamline registration, speed technology entry and support evidence-based phase-out.

CropLife supports tighter rules in principle, but says restrictions should follow scientific review and arrive with usable replacements.

What does five years of data protection change?

CropLife’s second proposal is five-year Regulatory Data Protection, or RDP, for data required to register a new product in India. That data includes safety, health and efficacy studies conducted in Indian conditions. The group says the current lack of protection discourages investment because companies fear unfair copying, slowing the arrival of safer and more efficient technology from other markets.

CropLife compares its proposal with these stated limits:

• China, Indonesia and Malaysia provide up to six years of protection.
• The United States, European Union, Canada, Thailand, Brazil and Colombia provide up to 10 years.
• Australia, Taiwan and the Philippines provide up to eight years.

The release’s general benchmark for the EU is up to 10 years. Separately, Boppana says the EU provides up to 13 years for green molecules. Because the release does not explain whether those figures cover different product categories or legal provisions, they should not be treated as one harmonized standard.

Mohan Babu Boppana, CropLife India vice chairman and chief operating officer of Bayer CropScience Ltd., said: “A time-bound RDP regime has globally proven to foster innovation and fair competition.” He said India could expand farmers’ choices, reduce reliance on a narrow set of options and move domestic manufacturers higher in the global value chain.

He called RDP a win-win: farmers would gain better solutions, government would support safer food production and industry would have an incentive to bring new technology.

Boppana said new and “green” molecules are more selective, limit unintended damage to flora and fauna, and require lower application doses. He considered them more economical for farmers and safer for the environment, but the release gives no product-level dose, input-price, commodity-basis or farm-margin data to test that claim.

A five-year protection period could attract registrations, but farmers will benefit only if new products arrive at workable prices and deliver measurable pest control.

How could export and online-sales rules change?

The association links access to newer technology with export requirements as rules in high-value markets, particularly the EU, become more stringent. It highlights the maximal residual limits applied to existing crop-protection molecules. Better registered products could help farmers and exporters meet those standards, although the release names no specific crops, markets or compliance costs.

CropLife also wants crop-protection sales on e-commerce platforms brought under regulation, with licensing obligations and digital traceability to prevent unauthorized products from moving through those channels. The release describes these as proposals and provides no enforcement timetable or estimate of compliance costs.

Giridhar Ranuva, business director of BASF Agricultural Solutions, India, said a holistic framework with robust, science-based guardrails and time-bound RDP could encourage newer and improved technologies. He linked that approach to lower pest losses, stronger farm productivity and incomes, and India’s Viksit Bharat 2047 goals, without providing adoption, cost or income estimates.

CropLife India also says it supports farmers, promotes best practices and contributes to sustainable agriculture.

For farmers, the export and online-sales arguments turn on two practical tests: whether products meet residue rules and whether unauthorized purchases can be traced.

What comes next?

The immediate policy choice is whether the Indian government adopts the three elements: science-based review of restrictions, a five-year RDP regime, and licensing and traceability for online sales. CropLife argues that acting quickly is necessary as climate change and El Niño make pest pressure more dynamic and difficult for farmers to manage.

The next test is whether these rules turn CropLife’s 380-ingredient basket into a broader, safer and more economical range without shifting compliance costs onto growers; any claim of better farm margins will depend on product prices, application rates and verified pest-loss data.