Ideological biases shouldn’t build pressure on agriculture

The government’s decision to withdraw approval for the sale of 11 biostimulants derived from animal sources is not just unfortunate, but also portends towards an unhealthy policy predilection—taking ideological biases into account. Biostimulants are substances or microorganisms, or combinations thereof that stimulate plant processes.

They are different from fertilisers because they do not supply nutrients directly to plants. Also, they are not pesticides. According to the European Union, “Biostimulants help the plant resist stresses such as high temperatures, drought, soil salinity, which can support growth and productivity even in sub-optimal conditions.”

The Indian biostimulants market has been estimated at $355.53 million (2024) and projected to grow to around $1.14 billion by 2032.

Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) Director-General Mangi Lal Jat told a newspaper that “to avoid ethical issues and conflict with religious and dietary restrictions, biostimulants having protein hydrolysates derived from animal sources… were withheld till proper pre-harvest interval data (time between spraying and harvesting) is generated…”

It may be pointed out here that Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has frequently expressed concern over the proliferation of unregulated biostimulants. This concern is valid and does warrant action, but that action must be guided by empirical evidence and expert advice, not the ideological beliefs of certain elements of the ruling dispensation.

In the instant case, however, government action seems to have emanated from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s prejudice against meat consumption. The RSS’ imprint could be seen in government policies on GM crops, slaughterhouses, beef bans, resistance to including eggs in school midday meals, etc.

The sidelining of animal-derived biostimulants on ideological grounds sets a troubling precedent. If religious sentiments begin to determine what is “acceptable” in agricultural inputs, science-driven policymaking will be permanently compromised.

One could easily imagine similar arguments being extended to other domains: Should dairy-based biostimulants be banned because of vegan objections? Should microbial solutions be restricted because they involve living organisms? Once ideology enters the regulatory framework, the door is opened to arbitrary decision-making that undermines scientific credibility.

For farmers, the consequences are immediate. Denying them access to effective inputs reduces their ability to deal with climate stresses, lowers productivity, and ultimately affects incomes. At a time when Indian agriculture is already under severe strain, such decisions amount to handicapping the very people the government claims to champion.

For the biostimulants industry, the message is equally discouraging. Investment in research and innovation depends on a predictable regulatory environment. If approvals are guided by ideology rather than science, private players will hesitate to invest, and India risks missing out on a booming global industry.

The government must distinguish between legitimate regulatory oversight and ideological interference. If the concern is about safety, then the pathway is clear: require rigorous scientific testing, demand transparent data on pre-harvest intervals, and enforce compliance. If the concern is about spurious products, then strengthen the enforcement machinery, penalise violators, and ensure farmers are not cheated.

But to cloak ideological biases in the garb of regulation is neither fair nor sustainable. It hurts farmers, stifles innovation, and erodes confidence in policymaking.

India can’t afford to let agricultural science become a casualty of cultural politics. The country’s food security, farmer welfare, and global competitiveness depend on decisions rooted in empirical evidence and expert guidance. Agriculture should not become a victim of cultural experiments.