Biotechnology in agriculture from first-generation transgenic crops (Bt, herbicide tolerance) to the new wave of gene-editing (CRISPR and related New Genomic Techniques, NGTs) has reshaped how societies think about productivity, food security and seed systems. Globally, a concentrated but expanding set of countries and crops have adopted biotech traits at scale, producing tangible agronomic and commercial benefits in particular contexts. At the same time, rapidly evolving science and deeply political social concerns have produced regulatory fragmentation, trade frictions, and vociferous public debate. India’s experience typifies that tension: it embraced Bt cotton widely and yet remains broadly resistant to commercializing most GM food crops a stance driven by equity concerns, biodiversity protection, governance deficits and political economy factors. This article explains the global trends, unpacks the science, analyzes India’s mixed record, and proposes practical, governance-centered policy directions that can reconcile innovation with public legitimacy.
The global landscape: who grows what, and why it matters
Since the mid-1990s, adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops has followed a concentrated pattern: a small number of crops (soybean, maize, cotton, canola) and a small group of countries (chiefly the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, and India for cotton) account for the bulk of global acreage. Over the last decade, however, two shifts are notable. First, adoption has slowly broadened geographically more countries now have approvals for cultivation or importation, and ISAAA’s tracking shows more than thirty countries granting cultivation approvals by late 2024, reflecting steady diffusion in developing regions. Second, new genomic techniques (NGTs) are changing the technological landscape by enabling targeted edits that often mimic conventional variation a fact prompting many jurisdictions to rethink whether all gene-edited products should be regulated under classical GMO rules. Both dynamics matter because they determine where private and public research investment flows, which crops can be commercialized quickly, and how international trade will adapt to asynchronous approvals.
Why farmers and firms adopt biotech: pragmatic drivers
Farmers and seed companies adopt biotech seeds for fundamentally practical reasons. In markets where a specific pest or production constraint imposes large costs, targeted traits (e.g., Bt insect resistance for cotton) can reduce crop losses and pesticide use, at least initially. Herbicide-tolerant varieties can simplify weed control and labor management. For multinational and national seed firms, scale economies in R&D make commodity markets where traits can be widely sold particularly attractive. Importantly, market acceptance in major commodity-importing regions (for animal feed, fibre and biofuel) lowers the trade risk for adopters, making biotech a rational choice for many commercial farmers. Yet these drivers are highly context-dependent: agronomic fit, local seed-system integrity, extension services and stewardship rules strongly affect realized benefits.
The science evolution: from transgenics to gene editing (NGTs)
The arrival of CRISPR and related gene-editing tools is the most important recent scientific change. Unlike classical transgenesis, which typically inserts foreign DNA, many gene edits alter existing genes (single-base changes, small deletions or targeted insertions). Because such changes can be indistinguishable from naturally occurring or conventionally bred variation, they have prompted a global regulatory debate: should regulation be driven by the process (how a plant was modified) or the product (what traits it possesses and their risks)?
The United States has moved toward a more product-focused regime (APHIS’s SECURE-era revisions and subsequent exemptions), streamlining oversight for some edited plants; the European Union is actively debating a tiered NGT framework that would treat certain low-change NGT plants as equivalent to conventional varieties; China is accelerating approvals of both GM and gene-edited crops to advance domestic self-sufficiency; and many other countries are updating rules to account for technical realities. These divergent approaches will strongly influence where developers invest and how rapidly new varieties reach farmers.
Regulatory fragmentation: consequences beyond the lab
Regulatory divergence on whether to regulate by process or product and on how to classify NGT outcomes has three major practical consequences. First, it routes innovation: developers prioritize predictable, proportionate regulatory environments; fragmented rules raise costs and delay deployment. Second, it creates asynchronous approvals that can trigger trade friction when unapproved events appear in shipments, forcing exporters to build expensive segregation and testing systems. Third, it exacerbates public mistrust in places where approvals appear opaque or rushed, fueling legal challenges and political pushback. Thus biotechnology’s future depends as much on law, trade policy and public legitimacy as on scientific capacity.
The Indian paradox: Bt cotton’s success and the food-crop impasse
Bt cotton: measurable gains, evolving challenges
India’s adoption of Bt cotton (beginning in the early 2000s) is one of the most consequential agricultural technology stories of recent decades. Empirical studies and national statistics document dramatic initial adoption and significant aggregate gains: reductions in targeted pesticide use, rapid increases in area planted with Bt hybrids, and notable contributions to national cotton output in the 2000s–2010s. Yet the Bt cotton narrative is complex: long-run analyses show heterogeneity in outcomes across states and years, rising concerns about secondary pests, resistance management, counterfeit or poor-quality seed, and growing dependence on hybrid seed systems and purchased inputs.
Several rigorous reviews and field-studies point to strong initial benefits that required continuous stewardship refuges, resistance monitoring and public research to sustain performance and highlight cases where poor seed quality or poor agronomic practice reduced expected gains. The lessons are clear: a powerful technological tool can deliver large net benefits, but only if governance, seed quality, extension and stewardship keep pace.
GM mustard DMH-11: symbol, science and political contestation
The environmental-release approval (conditional) of the GM mustard hybrid DMH-11 (Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11) became a flashpoint for public and legal debate in India. As the first high-profile approval for a GM food crop, DMH-11 exposed deep mistrust about approval procedures, the transparency of trial data, and possible socio-economic impacts (seed control, contamination of well-established landraces, market reactions). The approval triggered petitions and a split Supreme Court verdict in 2024, leaving the matter in judicial limbo into 2025. DMH-11’s trajectory demonstrates that first-mover food-crop approvals are inherently political in India: they raise symbolic stakes about the direction of agricultural policy, ignite questions about regulatory rigor, and mobilize civil-society opposition that can stall commercialization regardless of technical merits.
Why India resists: a layered explanation
India’s hesitancy toward GM food crops is not purely anti-science; it is rooted in tangible social, political and ecological considerations.
Agrarian structure and equity: Indian agriculture is dominated by smallholders who rely on informal seed systems and limited market access. Proprietary seed models and recurrent seed purchases can create financial stress and dependence an acute political concern in a country with visible agrarian distress.
Biodiversity and cultural value: India’s large repository of landraces and locally adapted varieties is culturally cherished. Fears that transgenes could introgress into wild relatives or contaminate heritage varieties motivate strong calls for seed sovereignty and protection of in-situ diversity.
Regulatory trust deficit: Recurrent controversies (e.g., concerns about the transparency of trial data for DMH-11) have stoked perceptions of regulatory capture and insufficient independent testing. Demand for open data, independent replication and public consultation is widespread among civil society and many scientists.
Federal political dynamics: States matter in Indian agricultural governance; several have declared themselves GMO-free or restricted trials, complicating national rollouts and increasing political salience for parties seeking electoral advantage.
Perception of irreversible risk: Environmental risks such as gene flow and resistance evolution have asymmetric consequences; once a transgene spreads into a wild population or local landrace, remedies may be effectively impossible, supporting a precautionary social stance.
Taken together, social equity, cultural identity, governance credibility and federation politics create a high bar for public acceptance of GM food crops a bar that many approvals to date have not convincingly cleared.
Science versus perception: what the evidence actually shows
Three important scientific conclusions help frame policy:
Benefits are trait- and context-specific. Bt cotton delivered substantial targeted pest control where bollworm pressure was high; other traits will produce different returns depending on local agroecology, management and complementary inputs.
Ecological risks are real, measurable and manageable if governance and stewardship are robust. Gene flow, non-target effects and insect resistance are observed phenomena; carefully designed refuge strategies, integrated pest management and monitoring can mitigate many risks. Research also shows that failure to manage refuge and resistance can undermine benefits quickly.
NGTs blur the prior dichotomy. Many gene edits produce outcomes indistinguishable from conventional mutations, which could imply lower ecological novelty and, thus, lower regulatory burden; however, issues of traceability, intellectual property and social impact (seed control, farmer choice) remain independent of the molecular technique and require policy attention.
Globally, most technical experts now advocate nuanced, risk-tiered regulation and robust stewardship rather than absolute acceptance or rejection. The debate in India is therefore less about whether science exists to support safe adoption and more about whether institutions, transparency and public engagement are sufficient to make adoption socially legitimate.
International lessons India can use (without copying wholesale)
A review of comparative experience yields pragmatic lessons:
Clarity matters. Jurisdictions with predictable, proportionate regulatory pathways attract R&D and reduce uncertainty for developers. The U.S. product-focus reforms and China’s targeted approvals demonstrate this dynamic.
Stewardship sustains benefits. Long-term success of Bt traits often depends on mandatory refuge policies, monitoring systems and extension measures that should be designed with smallholder realities in mind.
Public-sector breeding reduces monopoly risk. Investing national public research institutions to develop and disseminate publicly licensed traits can allay fears of corporate capture.
Transparency builds trust. Open trial data, third-party replication and participatory trials involving farmer groups and civil society reduce mistrust and pre-empt legal challenges.
These lessons suggest that India’s path need not be binary; a hybrid approach that combines risk-tiered regulation, strong public science, and participatory governance can harness biotech benefits while respecting social priorities.
Trade, markets and the cost of segmentation
Commercializing GM food crops in India entails trade-offs with export markets. Some premium markets and consumers (notably certain EU buyers and organic/niche channels) remain sensitive to GM presence. Asynchronous approvals between large trading partners can lead to shipment rejections and commodity losses, compelling exporters to build identity-preservation and testing systems at substantial cost. Conversely, for large-scale feed and industrial markets that accept GM commodities, domestic adoption could lower import bills and raise competitiveness. Any national decision about GM crop commercialization should therefore incorporate explicit trade strategy analysis and cost estimates for segregation, testing and certification systems where needed.
A pragmatic, governance-first roadmap for India
Given the scientific possibilities and socio-political realities, India should pursue a calibrated strategy that builds institutional trust and protects public interest. Key elements include:
Adopt a risk-tiered regulatory framework that differentiates NGT products similar to conventional varieties from novel transgenic constructs; link regulatory stringency to plausible environmental and food-safety risks rather than process alone.
Mandate open data and independent replication for environmental releases and food-safety dossiers; create a public portal where trial data, protocols and results are accessible and easily interpretable.
Strengthen independent biosafety capacity by funding laboratories and expert panels that are institutionally separate from applicants and that include state agricultural universities for multisite replication.
Build a public-sector trait pipeline under fair licensing terms to supply farmers affordable, non-monopolistic access to priority traits (drought tolerance, disease resistance, nutrient-enhanced varieties).
Enforce seed quality and anti-fraud measures to prevent poor-quality or counterfeit seeds from undermining farmer trust; ensure swift legal remedies for affected farmers.
Require stewardship and extension as licence conditions (refuge strategies, resistance monitoring), with public funding for farmer training and long-term post-release surveillance.
Plan trade contingencies in advance: determine which markets need segregation and invest where strategic trade access merits the cost.
This governance-first orientation places legitimacy and farmer protection at the center while allowing science to be responsibly deployed.
Three scenarios and their likely outcomes
To clarify choices, consider three stylized policy pathways:
Conservative precautionism: Stricter limits on GM food crops, with emphasis on public breeding and protective policies. Likely outcomes: strong protection of biodiversity and traditional markets but slower productivity gains and continued import reliance for some commodities.
Managed adoption (recommended): Risk-tiered regulation, strong public-sector breeding, transparency and mandated stewardship. Likely outcomes: captured productivity gains for suitable traits, lower political friction, and a protected space for smallholders.
Rapid commercialization: Accelerated approvals with lighter procedural safeguards. Likely outcomes: faster technology diffusion and possible short-term productivity gains but higher risk of public backlash, litigation, biodiversity concerns and seed-market concentration.
India’s political economy and social priorities make the middle path the most workable: it reconciles innovation with legitimacy, protecting both farmers and biodiversity while permitting beneficial technology adoption on well-governed terms.
Conclusion: Balancing promise and precaution
Biotechnology holds genuine promise: targeted pest resistance, improved nutrition, climate resilience and reduced chemical use are achievable outcomes in specific contexts. But modern gene technologies also raise questions about seed systems, corporate power, biodiversity and regulatory legitimacy that are not purely technical. India’s hybrid experience rapid adoption and large gains for Bt cotton, combined with deep skepticism and legal friction over food crops reflects the country’s complex social fabric: millions of smallholders, rich agrobiodiversity, an active civil society, and state-level politics. A governance-centered strategy that provides transparency, strengthens public-sector breeding, mandates stewardship, and explicitly handles trade implications offers a realistic way forward. It protects public interests while enabling India to access the tools needed to face a volatile climate and growing food demands.