Shortage to scam: Fake fertilisers, pesticides flood farms - how much is China to blame?

Government authorities in Uttar Pradesh, one of the major producers of agricultural commodities like wheat, rice, maize, sugarcane, pulses, and mangoes, have recently seized more than 100,000 bags of counterfeit fertiliser. In Rajasthan, more than 10,000 raids have been conducted in various districts to crack down on fake fertiliser. Meanwhile, in Madhya Pradesh, another key agricultural state in the country, the use of spurious pesticides has damaged thousands of acres of soybean crops. Apple growers in Himachal have also reported lower yields due to fake agri inputs. These incidents are just a few examples of a much larger problem facing India’s agri-dependent economy, the fourth largest in the world.

The consequences of these events extend far beyond agricultural fields. Counterfeit fertiliser threatens India’s food security and the livelihoods of its farmers, and it contributes to ecological instability. According to experts and stakeholders, the rapid increase in the use of fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, biopesticides, and other agrochemical inputs in recent years has inadvertently created opportunities for counterfeit products to infiltrate the market.

Although the issue has long existed, some argue that recent import restrictions on agricultural inputs, particularly fertiliser shipments from China, have exacerbated it. The ban resulted in supply shortages and price hikes, which subsequently fuelled the rise of counterfeit products, says Rajib Chakraborty, President, Soluble Fertilizer Industry Association (SFIA). In such circumstances, farmers are often compelled to opt for cheaper alternatives, he notes. “Over the past 5-7 years, we have seen counterfeit products severely impacting the soluble fertiliser segment. Based on my estimates of dealer-level entries across different regions, in the case of a water-soluble fertiliser, Triple-19, spurious products now account for nearly 20-30% of the total market,” he says.
For context, China had imposed restrictions on fertiliser exports to India since early 2023, leading to reported shortages of key inputs such as di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) and urea. However, recent reports suggest that these curbs have now been lifted, as New Delhi and Beijing seek to enhance trade relations amid global trade uncertainty triggered by tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

India depends on imports from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Oman, China, and Morocco, apart from China, to address its fertiliser shortfall. In 2024-25, India’s total fertiliser imports amounted to $8.29 billion, a decrease from $8.92 billion in 2023-24 and $15.32 billion in 2022-23. This decline is primarily attributed to lower international prices.

Global supply chain disruptions triggered by recent geopolitical tensions and export restrictions, such as those imposed by China, often create shortages in the Indian market, says Rahul Mirchandani, Chairman, Aries Agro. These factors, along with the limited purchasing power of Indian farmers, which restricts their ability to afford imported fertilisers, unfortunately create conditions that encourage adulteration by unscrupulous players, he notes. “Common examples include zinc sulphate diluted with magnesium sulphate or calcium nitrate granules substituted with urea granules sprayed with quicklime.”

As of August 1, 2025, there has been a significant decrease in India’s fertiliser stock. Urea stocks decreased to 37.2 lakh tonnes (LT), down from 86.4 LT a year prior. Similarly, Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) stocks fell to 13.9 LT from 15.8 LT, complexes dropped to 35 LT from 47 LT, and Muriate of Potassium (MOP) declined to 6.3 LT from 8 LT. The sole exception was single super phosphate (SSP), which recorded a slight increase to 20.7 LT.

In India, non-genuine or spurious agri-inputs are products that lack registration with the relevant government authorities, contain low or incorrect active ingredients that undermine their effectiveness, include substances banned by Indian regulations, violate trademarks of legitimate brands, use misleading labelling or branding to deceive consumers, and often misrepresent chemicals or toxic solvents as natural or bio-products.

Ashok Kumar, Director, Farm Prosperity, Transform Rural India (TRI), concurs with others, stating that China’s restrictions on fertiliser exports have indirectly fuelled the circulation of counterfeits in India by worsening shortages and driving up prices. “High prices (for example, DAP fertiliser rose by 50-100%) encouraged illicit networks to flood the market with fakes, including re-labelled Chinese-origin products found in counterfeit herbicides.”

“China remains the top source of global counterfeits, including agrochemicals, with fake pesticides and fertilisers often smuggled or manufactured using Chinese ingredients. This has worsened India’s fake input problem,” Kumar adds.

Feeling the Heat
The menace of spurious pesticides and fertilisers has become a “serious concern for farmers”, says Sunil Chauhan, 47, an apple grower from Kotkhai in the Shimla district. “We have been losing fruit harvests after spraying counterfeit pesticides in our orchards, yet the government has failed to take meaningful action.”
It’s not just spurious pesticides and fertilisers; cases of fungal infections in orchards are also on the rise, despite the use of multiple fungicides, informs Harish Chauhan, Convener, Himachal Pradesh Kisan Samyukt Manch. “This clearly indicates duplicity in the fungicides being supplied. A large number of agrochemicals sold are duplicates and continue to be sold unchecked,” he notes.

And the impact of counterfeit agrochemicals is alarming. A recent FICCI study estimates that a 25% prevalence of non-genuine products could reduce crop yields by 4%, resulting in a loss of nearly 10.6 million tonnes of food production in that year.

The story is the same for other states as well. Anil Ghanwat, President, Maharashtra-based farmers’ union Shetkari Sanghatana, acknowledges that spurious pesticides, weedicides, and fertilisers have also become a major challenge for farmers in the state. “Bribery and corruption are seen as key factors behind the continued circulation of substandard pesticides and fertilisers in India, even when these products fail laboratory tests,” says Ghanwat.

In Shrigonda tehsil of Maharashtra’s Ahmednagar district, known for large-scale cultivation of grapes, guavas, and pomegranates, authorities recently raided a small illegal unit supplying fake agri-medicines. “However, little action was taken beyond the raid, as is often the case. Most counterfeit producers manage to escape with only monetary penalties, exploiting loopholes in the system to avoid stricter punishment,” says Ghanwat.

One of the major problems is the availability of data, which makes it difficult to tackle the issue efficiently, say experts. Kumar of TRI notes that “direct causal data is limited,” although the impact is visible on the ground.

Amid the reports of a rise in fake agri-inputs causing damage, Union Minister of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare Shivraj Singh Chouhan recently came down heavily on the sale of counterfeit fertilisers and pesticides. “Strict action will be taken against companies involved in manufacturing fake pesticides, fertilisers, and seeds,” he says while assessing the damage caused to soybean crops due to the spraying of spurious chemicals in Madhya Pradesh. He also urged chief ministers of all states to take immediate action against fake and sub-standard agri-inputs.

Acting on this, the Rajasthan government in August suspended the manufacturing licence of HPM Chemicals & Fertilizers, whose herbicide Chlorimuron Ethyl 25% WP was found to be misbranded. Between April 1 and August 8, 2025, Rajasthan conducted 10,423 raids to crack down on sub-standard fertilisers. Recently, Chouhan convened a meeting with officials from the Agriculture Department and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), instructing them to take strict action against the spurious farm inputs.

Meanwhile, state agriculture officials told ET Digital that they are taking various measures to curb the spread of counterfeit agri inputs. However, they refuse to share specific data on the scale of the problem in their respective areas.

Spurious Agri Inputs
India’s organised domestic crop protection chemicals market is currently valued at around Rs 24,000-25,000 crore, as per industry estimates. Kalyan Goswami, Director General, Agro Chem Federation of India (ACFI), states that counterfeit and misbranded agrochemicals account for an estimated 15-25% of that market, depending on the region. A FICCI study identifies Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Haryana, and Karnataka as among the most severely affected states in the country.

“Applying the 25% counterfeit estimate to a combined agri-input market—approximately Rs 32,800 crore (fertilisers: Rs 24,200 crore; pesticides: Rs 670 crore; and seeds: Rs 7,925 crore)—the counterfeit segment could be around $55.5 billion (Rs 8,200 crore) annually,” Kumar estimates. “For pesticides alone, counterfeit products are valued at around Rs 6,000-7,000 crore and are growing at a rate of 20% per year. These numbers highlight a pervasive issue, with thousands of substandard inputs identified in 2023-24,” he adds.
Notably, under the existing provisions, the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO), 1985, specifies the technical standards for all fertilisers approved for farm use and prohibits the sale of any agrochemicals that fail to meet these requirements. At present, however, the sale of substandard, fake, or adulterated fertilisers is punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The industry estimates indicate nearly one-fourth of India’s pesticide market is counterfeit. Government data from 2023-24 revealed that 2.7% of seeds, 4.9% of fertilisers, and 2.75% of pesticide samples tested were found to be substandard or spurious. “In UP alone, authorities recently seized over 100,000 bags of fake fertiliser, enough to impact farmers across 22 districts,” says Preet Sandhuu, Founder & MD, AVPL International.

Similarly, Ajay Kakra, Leader, Food and Agriculture, GIDAS, Forvis Mazars (India), says studies suggest that nearly 25–30% of pesticides sold in India are spurious or sub-standard, representing an illegal market of roughly Rs 3,475 crore annually. "In the seed sector, for instance, banned HTBt cotton seeds account for about Rs 600 crore, or 15% of the total cotton seed market."

Stricter Regulations, Harsher Penalties: The Way Forward
Mohali-based agriculture expert Devinder Sharma observes that the counterfeit agri-input market is hardly new and has been thriving for decades. “Typically, NPK fertilisers are prone to adulteration…while urea is not because of its manufacturing process. This business is well known, yet little has changed on the ground over the years. The law itself is stringent, and if implemented properly, it could bring real change. The real issue lies in intent. Testing labs are few, poorly equipped, and understaffed, while flawed sampling procedures further weaken the accuracy and credibility of results,” says Sharma.

“There is also a lack of policy clarity. For instance, the use of Glyphosate-K salt is officially permitted only for weed control in tea plantations and adjoining non-plantation areas. Yet, in Punjab, field trials are already underway for two varieties of genetically modified (GM) maize. Why so? This only makes the matters complex,” notes Sharma.

Suresh Kumar Chaudhari, Director General, Fertiliser Association of India (FAI), agrees with Sharma that the rise in counterfeit fertilisers cannot be attributed solely to China’s export restrictions, noting that the problem has always existed.

In India, fertilisers are governed by the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO), where grades are approved under strict rules and regulations, with strong penal provisions for violations. “Once a product enters a state, it falls under the jurisdiction of local inspectors, who are empowered to act against offenders. However, given the scale of the country with over three lakh retailers and more than 600,000 villages, it is nearly impossible to collect samples from every corner,” he says. “While the government is working on the ground, monitoring remains a daunting challenge,” adds Chaudhari, who earlier served with ICAR in various capacities.

According to experts, NPK varieties are especially prone to adulteration and are often sold under false labels or mixed with substandard materials. A common malpractice involves replacing costly NPK formulations with cheaper substitutes like calcium sulphate, which closely resembles genuine fertiliser in both colour and granule size. These spurious products are then repackaged into bags of reputed brands, thereby misleading farmers.
But how can one identify counterfeits? “The cost-based analysis is a reliable indicator for identifying spurious products across most fertiliser types. For example, a bag of genuine 19:19:19 water-soluble fertiliser cannot be sold for less than Rs 2,200. So, any product offered to dealers in the Rs 900-1,500 range must be counterfeit,” says Chakraborty.

Naresh Deshmukh, Chief Operating Officer (COO), Crop Nutrient Business, Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation, says that counterfeit fertilisers can be curbed through stricter regulation, digital tracking, and stronger market vigilance. “Stricter penalties, licensing reforms, and faster legal processes are needed to deter offenders, while tamper-proof QR codes and barcodes on fertiliser bags, already being used by some players, allow farmers to instantly verify authenticity.”

Farmer awareness is equally critical, Deshmukh adds. “Awareness drives through Krishi Vigyan Kendras, FPOs, and agri-extension agencies can educate farmers on identifying genuine products, while mobile alerts can deliver real-time updates on approved prices and authorised sellers.”

Shalander Kumar, Deputy Global Research Program Director, Enabling Systems Transformation Program, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), says that although adequate regulations exist, weak enforcement has allowed the counterfeit trade to flourish. Simply adding more rules or inspections will not solve the problem, he adds.

“Supply chains must be digitally secured by embedding barcodes, QR codes, or RFID tags on every pack of seed, fertiliser, and pesticide, linked to a government-supervised platform. This would enable farmers to instantly verify authenticity with a simple mobile scan. Hotlines and feedback portals can empower them to act as frontline watchdogs of the input market. Every failed sample or farmer complaint should trigger immediate investigation and swift penalties,” notes Kumar.

Stakeholders also recommend the creation of a multi-departmental central task force to inspect factories and manufacturing sites, with immediate licence revocation for non-compliant units, similar to the pharma sector, where licences are cancelled on the spot following audits.

Meanwhile, Neeraj Kedia, Banking Committee Chairman and former President, Federation of Indian Micro and Small & Medium Enterprises (FISME), highlights concerns regarding the need for clarity and effectiveness in regulatory frameworks to address the issue of counterfeit fertilisers. “The Fertiliser Control Order lacks clear definitions for ‘sub-standard’ and ‘adulterated’ fertilisers, leading to confusion in many cases. A product can be deemed sub-standard due to factors like storage or transport conditions, rather than intentional adulteration.

Kedia also mentions that post-raid data on infringements is not publicly available, making it difficult to assess the nature of violations. He advocates for a comprehensive Fertiliser Act to effectively curb counterfeiting and ensure quality control.

Deshmukh says that penalties remain inadequate, court proceedings are prolonged, and cases are often delayed as officers fail to appear for hearings. “The lack of fast-track courts further undermines deterrence. Fertiliser sales licences are also frequently reissued under different family names, enabling repeat offenders to stay in business,” adds Deshmukh.

Updated Anti-counterfeiting Technologies
Experts assert that anti-counterfeiting technologies such as tamper-evident seals, QR codes, and holograms indeed raise the bar; however, each has its own set of limitations, underscoring the need for further advancement in solutions.

Goswami explains: “Physical markers, such as holograms, are easily replicated by increasingly sophisticated counterfeiters, rendering them ineffective against the most determined criminals. On the other hand, digital solutions like QR codes rely heavily on consumer awareness and infrastructure for verification, leaving gaps where consumers lack the knowledge or tools to authenticate products.”

India already has several laws in place empowering state agriculture departments to conduct inspections and seize non-standard products to tackle this problem. These include the Insecticides Act (1968), the Seed Act (1966), and the Fertiliser Control Order (1985). In fact, the central government has also indicated plans to introduce stricter legislation to curb counterfeit seeds, pesticides, and fertilisers amid the rise in counterfeit cases. In addition to all these measures mentioned above, Kakra emphasises the necessity for a more robust role for ICAR in addressing this challenge.