Cotton and the Cost that Comes with it: The Case of Brazil and India

Human Rights Research Center
4 days ago
14 min read

May 7, 2025

View the interactive visual report here on Tableau.

Overview

The global cotton market is growing annually and is projected to reach $53 billion by 2033. However, this growth comes at a cost, with significant human rights challenges in key producing nations. This report examines the role of large corporations in contributing to human rights abuses in two major cotton producers: India and Brazil. While their farming systems differ, both countries illustrate how weak regulations and government inaction allow corporations to exploit vulnerable communities. In Brazil, large agribusinesses dominate cotton production and have been accused of land grabbing and forcibly displacing local populations. In India, where small-scale farmers dominate the sector, corporations have promoted genetically modified Bt cotton seeds, making farmers dependent and exposing them to health and environmental risks.

Cotton Market Analysis

India is the second-largest cotton producer, following China. However, it has the largest area, 11,800 thousand hectares, dedicated to cotton farming. Despite this vast land, its cotton yield is among the lowest, meaning a lot of land is wasted. Most of the cotton is used domestically, as India doesn't export much cotton.

Brazil, the third-largest producer, has a smaller area for cotton farming but achieves a much higher yield. Unlike India, Brazil exports most of its cotton, making it the world's top exporter. A significant portion goes to Asia, where it's used for textiles and other products. While India focuses on local production with vast land and lower yield, Brazil is more efficient with smaller land and high export production.

The Case of India: Hybrid Bt Cotton, Small Farmers, and Economic Struggles

In the early 2000s, India adopted hybrid Bt cotton, a genetically modified variety designed to produce its own insecticide against pests like the pink bollworm. It was introduced by private companies, Mahyco and Monsanto. Initially, this innovation was met with optimism, as it reduced pesticide use and promised higher yields due to improved pest resistance. However, these gains were temporary.

Over time, pink bollworms developed resistance to Bt cotton, leading to renewed infestations. Additionally, eliminating the pink bollworm disrupted the ecosystem, allowing other pests to thrive, which forced farmers to use more pesticides. Moreover, the costs of Bt seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides increased, creating financial distress for farmers.

In 2009, Monsanto admitted that its Bt cotton seeds were failing in India, though the company called it a natural process. Monsanto pushed farmers to buy a new, more expensive generation of seeds. This approach was seen as a business strategy. They were constantly promoting new technologies rather than solving the real issues, which were degraded land and a system not designed for small farmers. (India Today, 2010).

While Bt cotton was intended to boost productivity, yields in India have largely stagnated despite its near-total adoption. The dominance of Bt cotton has also encouraged monoculture farming, contributing to soil depletion, pest resistance, and reliance on chemical fertilizers. Today, Bt cotton accounts for 94% of India’s cotton cultivation, yet yields remain comparable to those of the early 2000s (Gutierrez et al. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2015).

Bt Cotton's Failure in India Can Be Attributed to Several Key Factors

According to Suman Sahai, a geneticist and Convener of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Gene Campaign, Bt cotton was developed for large, subsidized farms in temperate regions like the U.S., making it unsuitable for India's small-scale farms and tropical climate. While Bt cotton primarily targets bollworms, it does not address the wide variety of cotton pests in India, meaning pesticide use must continue. Moreover, Monsanto requires farmers to allocate 20% of their land to non-Bt cotton to slow pest resistance, a demand impractical for small Indian farmers with limited land. Under the Ministry of Environment, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has acknowledged that Bt cotton was not recommended for small farmers, and yet it was still approved. Bt cotton adoption has primarily benefited Monsanto, often at the expense of farmers. By 2016, Monsanto controlled 90% of the cottonseed market in India. (Global Justice Now, 2016). Other core issues raised by Sahai are poor seed quality, fake pesticides, unstable pricing, and inconsistent government policies that remain unresolved (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy "What is Wrong with BT Cotton").

Andrew Gutierrez, a systems ecology biological control researcher with the Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management (ESPM), reinforces these concerns. While Bt seeds help large, irrigated farms, they hurt small, rain-fed farms because the seeds are expensive and farmers often borrow money to buy them. Over time, industrial farming has made farmers dependent on costly fertilizers, pesticides, and loans, leaving them vulnerable when rains fail or cotton prices drop (Gutierrez et al. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2015).

The Struggles of Cotton Farmers

Despite Bt cotton not meeting expectations for higher productivity, India remains the second-largest producer globally. Due to the country’s low yield, a vast amount of land is needed to produce cotton, which puts immense pressure on farmers and can result in difficult working conditions. Transparentem is an American non-profit focused on getting companies to mitigate abuses from the places where they source their products. Between June 2022 and March 2023, they investigated labor conditions on 90 cotton farms in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, which revealed multiple serious violations.

Transparentem found child labor on 40 out of 90 farms, with some children as young as six. Children working on cotton farms are often exposed to harmful pesticides, leading to health issues like respiratory problems and skin irritation. Many work to help their families repay debts caused by high seed and fertilizer costs, crop failures, illness, or low wages.

Exposure to toxic pesticides, both directly and indirectly, presents significant health threats, including long-term illnesses like cancer and neurological damage. The absence of safety measures on farms, such as no protective gear for mixing pesticides, make these risks even more dangerous. Each year, approximately 5.8 million pesticide poisonings occur, affecting both children and adults.

Workers are trapped in cycles of debt, taking advances or loans from farm owners to cover urgent needs. This is a practice known as debt bondage, a form of modern slavery. To repay these loans, they work under difficult conditions, sometimes bringing their children to help.

Many earn below the legal minimum wage, with some having their wages delayed or withheld. Some are told they will only be paid after the cotton is sold. This makes it nearly impossible to escape poverty and repay their debts. Minimum wages vary by state. In Madhya Pradesh, for example, the daily wage is just 246 rupees ($2.88), far below what farmers say is needed for basic expenses. Transparentem estimates that a living wage should be at least 535 rupees per day ($6.22) for a six-day workweek to cover basic needs. With many farms being small or medium-sized and located in remote areas, government oversight is rare or nonexistent (Transparentem, "From Field to Fabric," 2025).

Organic & Regenerative Cotton: A Long-Term Solution?

By avoiding harmful pesticides and fertilizers, organic cotton farming can improve soil health and reduce exposure to toxic chemicals for workers and the environment. For example, it uses compost and a natural fertilizer made from plant dung and cow urine. However, transitioning to organic farming can be difficult since it has strict standards, and it is difficult to provide enough production to respond to the demand.

Regenerative cotton farming is becoming a preferred approach for many farmers as it helps restore degraded ecosystems. Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers, controlling irrigation, and promoting crop rotation maintain soil health. Supported by the NGO Regen, the "Regenagri program" helps farms transition to this approach. In India, the program already supports 170,000 farms, contributing to more sustainable agriculture by improving soil health, enhancing biodiversity, increasing water efficiency, and reducing health risks for farmers (Regenagri, "Impact Report," 2023).

The Case of Brazil: Agribusinesses, Deforestation, and Displacement in the Cerrado

The Cerrado, Brazil’s second-largest biome, covers about 2 million km across 11 states (Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Maranhão, Piauí, Bahia, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Paraná, and the Federal District). Covering over 20% of Brazil’s territory, the Cerrado plays a crucial ecological role but faces severe deforestation. Brazil’s favorable climate and advanced agricultural technologies have made it a global agricultural powerhouse. The Cerrado is central to this expansion, particularly in Bahia, where agribusiness giants like SLC Agrícola and the Horita Group dominate the cotton industry. However, this growth has been accompanied by land-grabbing and violence against traditional communities. Only 7.5% of the region is a legally protected public area, despite being home to over 80 Indigenous groups and traditional communities, including the Quilombolas and Geraizeiros, who rely on sustainable practices to preserve their biodiversity (World Economic Forum "The Cerrado: Production and Protection," 2024 & Climate and Land Use Alliance, 2016).

The roots of land grabbing in Bahia trace back to the 1970s, when Brazil’s military dictatorship encouraged agricultural development, and traditional lands were fraudulently acquired by land grabbers. The Forest Code requires landowners in the Cerrado to set aside about 20% of their land as a Legal Reserve to protect biodiversity. However, agribusinesses are exploiting loopholes in the code, which allows Legal Reserves to be established outside their property, as long as the land has remained untouched since July 2008. To comply with the law without sacrificing their farmland, some agribusinesses grab community lands, often far from their farms, and designate them as Legal Reserves. The Forest Code was intended to set aside 20% of agricultural land, not community lands. This practice, known as green land grabbing, allows businesses to meet environmental requirements while displacing communities. In Bahia, this practice has resulted in violent conflicts, which have led to an increase in armed patrols and attacks on local communities (Earthsight, "Fashion Crimes," 2024).

Estimates suggest that, currently, the Horita Group manages 140,000 hectares in Bahia, with approximately 100,000 hectares in Estrondo. SLC Agrícola operates across 230,000 hectares in the Cerrado, including 44,000 hectares of cotton plantations in western Bahia (Mongabay, "Brazil Investigates Agribusiness Bribes to Judges for Favorable Land Rulings," 2019).

Agribusiness Fuels Violence in Cerrado

The Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) is a part of the Brazil Fund, a non-profit activist-led foundation set on strengthening civil society organizations in the fight for human rights. They publish an annual report on rural conflicts in Brazil, analyzing the number and type of registered disputes. In 2023, conflicts affected 950,847 people, with 59.5 million hectares of land under dispute. Bahia in Cerrado recorded the highest number of conflicts, mostly involving landowners and business members. The report also highlighted the most frequent forms of violence, with pesticide contamination and death threats being the most prevalent.

Estrondo and The Geraizeiros

In 1980, 400,000 hectares of land belonging to the traditional Geraizeira communities in Bahia were acquired fraudulently, creating what is now known as "Estrondo." Estrondo is a vast agribusiness hub in Bahia, Cerrado. Today, many agribusinesses own plantations in Estrondo. While the initial illegal acquisition was a major issue, the situation worsened a decade ago when the Geraizeiro communities began facing violence, intimidation, and restricted access to their land. Armed checkpoints, house searches, and constant threats forced many families to flee. The goal was not simply to grab more land for farming. Agribusinesses sought to claim the traditional territories of the Geraizeiro communities as “legal reserves” to comply with environmental laws. According to EarthSight, a British non-profit organisation that investigates environmental and social crime, the Horita Group owns 22,000 hectares of legal reserves in Estrondo, some of which overlaps with traditional community land (Earthsight, "Fashion Crimes," 2024).

A Web of Corruption

Due to the weak protections in the Cerrado, land-grabbing and corruption are common. These issues prompted the Brazilian Federal Police to begin “Operation Far West.” This investigation exposed judges, lawyers, and farmers in Bahia as being guilty of conspiring to secure court rulings that permit the illegal grabbing of 800,000 hectares of land from local communities. (Earthsight, "Fashion Crimes," 2024). The case involves agribusiness figure Walter Horita of the Horita Group, who, despite denying the allegations, is said to have paid millions in bribes to influence court decisions (Mongabay "Brazil investigates agribusiness bribes to judges for favorable land rulings," 2019).

Deforestation in the Cerrado continues, often with the complicity of the state and the powerful influence of agribusinesses. Securing land rights, exposing bribery, and enforcing trade restrictions are crucial to combat displacement and protect these territories. Organizations like Central do Cerrado and the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) are working to protect small farmers, landless people, and displaced communities. For example, the CPT offers guidance to displaced communities, ensuring they receive support in times of need.

Exposing Flaws in Cotton Certification

Earthsight investigated cotton production in Brazil and found that between 2014 and 2023, at least 816,000 tonnes of cotton from the Horita Group and SLC Agrícola were exported worldwide under the "Better Cotton" certification. This label is meant to ensure that production respects human rights and the environment. However, both agribusinesses have been linked to numerous scandals involving land grabbing and community displacement, exposing significant gaps in their oversight and raising serious questions about how they were ever certified as "Better Cotton" (Earthsight, "Fashion Crimes," 2024).

Conclusion

India and Brazil are among the world’s top cotton producers, but corporate influence and weak government oversight have left small farmers and local communities vulnerable.

In Brazil, large agribusinesses exploit legal loopholes to clear forests and displace Indigenous and local communities in the Cerrado. These communities face violence from businesses, ranging from pesticide contamination to death threats aimed at forcing them out. Corruption makes it nearly impossible for them to reclaim their land or seek justice. With significant influence, agribusinesses operate with little government intervention.

In India, companies like Monsanto have monopolized the market, treating millions of small farmers as a lucrative opportunity. Hybrid Bt cotton seeds were promoted as a solution for higher yields and incomes, but instead, soil degradation and stagnating yields left many farmers trapped in debt. Authorities approved hybrid Bt seeds without proper oversight. Economic insecurity persists, and child labor and low wages remain widespread in cotton farming. The Indian Government has yet to take action to protect those most vulnerable to these issues.

Stronger regulations must hold businesses accountable. Governments need to enforce laws that protect farmers and local communities. Greater transparency, stricter labor protections, and the development of sustainable initiatives like the Regenagri programme, which helps restore the land, could shift the industry toward fairness and sustainability. Without real action from the governments, corporate interests will continue to take priority over the rights and livelihoods of those most at risk.

Downloadable version below.

Glossary

Agribusiness: The various businesses that relate to producing, preparing, and selling farm products.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt): A natural bacterium found in soil that produces proteins toxic to insect larvae. It is used as a natural pesticide in farming.
Bale: A bale of cotton is a compressed bundle of harvested cotton fibers, typically weighing around 480 pounds (220 kg), used for storage and transport.
Better Cotton: It is a global not-for-profit organisation and a global sustainability initiative for cotton production. All certification decisions are made by independent third-party verifiers. Better Cotton follows six principles: effective farm management, sustainable use of natural resources, crop protection, fibre quality, decent work, and sustainable livelihoods. The initiative also emphasizes two cross-cutting priorities: climate change mitigation and adaptation, and gender equality. To be certified, producers must respect the six principles and address climate and gender issues.
Brazil Fund: A nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting human rights initiatives in Brazil. It connects donors with causes in need of assistance, provides resources, fosters collaboration, and supports projects that promote social justice, equality, and community empowerment.
Central do Cerrado: A cooperative in Brazil that brings together community organizations to sustainably manage Cerrado biodiversity. It aims to generate income and improve local communities' lives by helping them sell and showcase their traditional products.
Debt Bondage: Also known as bonded labor or debt slavery, workers are told they can pay off a loan of their own or of a family member by working it off.
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management (ESPM): An academic department typically found within universities that focuses on the study and research of environmental issues.
Dictator: A leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people.
Earthsight: Earthsight is a non-profit organisation that uses in-depth investigations to expose environmental and social crime, injustice, and the links to global consumption.
Gene Campaign: Founded in 1993 by Dr. Suman Sahai, it is a research and advocacy organization protecting farmers' rights, biodiversity, and rural livelihoods against threats to genetic resources and traditional knowledge in India.
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC): It is under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), and it is responsible for the approval of genetically modified crops, including cotton.
Genetically modified seeds: Seeds that have been modified to contain specific characteristics such as resistance to herbicides or resistance to pests.
Green Land Grabbing: A form of land grabbing, but the motive is for environmental reasons.
Horita Group: A Brazilian agribusiness conglomerate, established in 1984, specializing in the cultivation of soybeans, corn, and cotton. It operates primarily in the western region of Bahia, Brazil.
Hybrid bt Cotton: A type of cotton created by crossing two cotton varieties and adding genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium, which makes it resistant to certain pests.
Indigenous: Used to refer to, or relating to, the people who originally lived in a place, rather than people who moved there from somewhere else.
Inheritance: Money or objects that someone gives you when they die.
Institute Society, Population and Nature (ISPN): A non-profit civil society organization based in Brasília, with an office in Santa Inês (Maranhão). Since 1990, the organization has been dedicated to promoting socially equitable and environmentally sustainable development.
International Poverty Line: A monetary threshold under which an individual is considered to be living in poverty. It is calculated by taking the poverty threshold from each country, given the value of the goods needed to sustain one adult, and converting it into dollars. The current international poverty line is $2.15 per person per day.
Land Grab: The act of taking an area of land by force, for military or economic reasons.
Mahyco: Mahyco is an agricultural seed company in India.
Monsanto: Monsanto was an American agricultural and agrochemical company. It was acquired by Bayer in 2018 and does not currently exist as a company.
Pastoral Land Commission (CPT): Founded in 1975 to address social justice and human rights in rural areas. It provides advice and support to small farmers and landless individuals, focusing on issues such as unequal land distribution and violence.
Pink Bollworm: A moth caterpillar that attacks the cotton boll.
Regenagri (Regen): Registered in the U.K. as a Community Interest Company (C.i.C.), Regenagri is an international regenerative agriculture program focused on securing the health of the land and the prosperity of those who depend on it. As a C.i.C., it remains accountable to its stakeholders, including beneficiaries, funders, and the wider community.
Regenagri Programme: A global initiative helping over 230,000 farms adopt regenerative practices through certification and data tools.
SLC Agrícola: Founded in 1977 and controlled by the Logemann family, SLC Agrícola is one of Brazil’s largest agricultural producers, specializing in large-scale farming of cotton, soybeans, and corn.
Traditional territories: It is the geographic area identified by a First Nation as the land they and/or their ancestors traditionally occupied and used.
Transparentem: A nonprofit investigative organization that exposes labor and environmental abuses in global supply chains.