Is India’s largest fertilizer manufacturer misleading farmers and society using dubious plant and soil science?

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims The accessibility and relatively low cost of nitrogen (N) fertilizers have been a gift to humankind and made it possible to feed the exponentially growing world population. The excessive use of N, in combination with a poor N use efficiency (NUE) in crop production, is associated with severe environmental impacts, and the scientific community has repeatedly warned that the safe operating space for N within the planetary boundaries has been exceeded. In the light of these considerations, a global player and India’s largest fertilizer manufacturer, the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative (IFFCO), has recently developed and patented a nanotechnology-based fertilizer marketed as Nano Urea (liquid). Strikingly, the producers state that it is now possible to replace a 45 kg bag of conventional urea, containing 21 kg N, by foliar application of just 20 g N in the form of nano urea (NU). If so, N from this novel high-tech fertilizer product should be able to increase the NUE of crops more than 1000 times compared to conventional urea. This year, the Indian government and IFFCO announced plans to massively boost production by building 10 new factories, with an annual production capacity of 440 million bottles NU by 2025 and to expand export of the product to another 25 countries, mainly situated in Asia, Africa and South-America. In the marketing of NU, IFFCO states that there is scientific evidence for distinct beneficial properties in terms of higher crop yields and reduced negative environmental impacts. Similar ambitions have recently been presented for Nano Zinc, Nano Copper, and Nano Di-Ammonium-Phosphate, a product that entered the market in March 2023. Methods In this Opinion Paper, we compare the claims made by IFFCO scientists to the existing scientific evidence in the field of foliar nanofertilizers. Results We observe that NU is a poorly described product with no scientifically proven effects. The product is marketed with misleading and wrong statements about its fertilizer efficiency, the underlying plant uptake pathways, and the environmental friendliness. Conclusion The expectations raised by IFFCO are far from reality and may lead to large-scale yield losses with serious consequences for food security and the livelihood of farmers. At the same time, the confidence in innovative sustainable products as well as the science behind them may be threatened. Based on the IFFCO case, and considering the booming emergence of novel nano based fertilizers appearing all over the world these years, it is clear that much more priority should be given to scientifically prove their efficacy and mode of action, before they are launched on the markets.