India is the largest producer, consumer, and exporter of turmeric in the world, accounting for more than 62 per cent of the global trade. From being a staple in Indian kitchens to a key ingredient in traditional medicine and rituals, turmeric holds deep economic and cultural significance. With annual exports valued at around Rs 2,000 crore, the Government of India has set an ambitious target of increasing this to Rs 8,000 crore by 2030. To support this goal, it has established the National Turmeric Board (NTB) as a dedicated institution to oversee the development and promotion of the sector.
Despite India’s dominance in turmeric production, several structural challenges must be addressed to realise the full potential of this sector.
A critical issue is turmeric adulteration, with research-based evidence indicating contamination levels up to 200 times above permissible food safety guidelines. Such practices severely affect export prospects and pose a serious health risk to domestic consumers. Therefore, the focus on enhancing quality control systems at the farm and processing levels is essential. Strengthening cluster-based capacity building programs for turmeric producers with scientific knowledge and post-harvest best practices should be prioritised to curb such problems.
As of now, India has five Geographical Indications (GIs) registered for turmeric, namely, Lakadong, Erode, Sangli, Vasmat, and Waigaon. However, as per the information available on GI registry site, the number of registered GI users, is just 102, despite some of these GIs being in existence for more than a decade. This points to a disconnect between GI registrations and the actual participation of producers. The effectiveness of a GI depends not only on registration but also on broad-based adoption by growers. In some instances, the GI application has been filed by a horticulture department or similar institutional body, which under GI law is obligated to ensure that all producers cultivating the product benefit from the registration. The extremely low count of registered GI users fails to reflect the true number of producers and undermines the larger objective of increasing export potential through GI-led branding.
There is also a conceptual gap in how varieties are chosen for GI registration. While research institutions often advocate for GI protection of in-house developed scientific varieties, the GI framework was primarily designed to protect products that are deeply linked to a specific geography and cultivated over a significant period of time, sometimes by generations. Research varieties are already eligible for protection under the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001. Therefore, the initial focus for GI protection should be on traditional varieties that are cultivated across a defined famer’s field and exhibit distinct characteristics due to agro-climatic conditions. This approach aligns more closely with the foundational principles of the GI regime, which is meant to recognise and protect the geographical uniqueness of a product rather than just its scientific attributes.
That said, research-based varieties that are already protected under the PPV&FR Act can still be considered for GI registration, provided they meet the necessary criteria of uniqueness linked to geography and widespread cultivation. This dual-layer protection — PPV&FR for safeguarding producer’s rights and GI for protecting market identity would offer comprehensive benefits to growers. It would ensure that their planting material is not illegally duplicated while also enhancing their access to better prices through certified branding. Considering that around 17,000 plant varieties have already been registered under the PPV&FR Act, there is a significant opportunity to evaluate these varieties for GI suitability. If done systematically, this strategy could not only protect producers’ rights but also accelerate the government’s target of registering 10,000 GIs.
Firstly, the involvement of self-help groups/farmers producer organisations/farmer producer companies, and cooperatives should be augmented with active support from non-profits and various development agencies to offset the lack of access to organised marketing channels, proper storage and quality testing infrastructure especially smallholders. These groups can help aggregate produce, implement quality standards, and develop collective branding strategies that emphasise GI certification or high curcumin content to make producers more assured about the quality of produce.
Secondly, there is an urgent need to create a centralised database of turmeric growers, which can be essential for digital traceability systems and further technologies like block chain can be used to track the journey of turmeric from farm to market, enhancing buyer confidence and ensuring transparency. This will also assist the NTB in identifying and addressing gaps in the value chain and targeting support programs more effectively.
Thirdly, the NTB should also consider diversifying the portfolio of turmeric varieties promoted at the national level. This includes recognising both traditional and improved varieties, provided they meet the standards required for GI or export certification. Public-Private Partnership models can be explored to attract investment in turmeric processing, branding, and infrastructure. This approach would allow the Board to operate on self-sustaining lines while expanding its outreach and impact.
Fourth, in terms of export development, the government must also focus on securing new markets, especially in developed countries. Achieving this would require not just meeting international quality and safety standards but also building brand India around turmeric. Emphasising traceable, GI-tagged, and organic-certified turmeric can help Indian exporters fetch a higher premium and secure long-term demand.
For India to truly lead the global turmeric value chain, there must be a shift from volume to value. This will require legal clarity in varietal protection, inclusive GI frameworks, scientific rigor in production, and active engagement of institutions and producers at every level. With the right mix of regulation, incentives, and institutional support, India can turn turmeric into a symbol of rural prosperity and global excellence.
Mohit Sharma is Assistant Professor at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa
Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth