A series of disruptions to global food supply chains is accelerating the adoption of genetically modified grains across emerging markets, as governments seek to bolster food security and reduce reliance on volatile imports. As countries like China and Russia increasingly soften their stance on GMOs, others are following suit.
For decades, GMOs have remained one of the most contentious issues in global agriculture, often fueling public debate over food safety and corporate control of seed markets. Despite years of scrutiny, no conclusive evidence has emerged that approved GMO crops cause direct harm to human health, while major scientific bodies have generally found them to be as safe as conventional alternatives when properly regulated.
What is changing now is the economic backdrop. Repeated shocks — from wars and droughts to freight bottlenecks and export curbs — are forcing governments to reassess whether long-standing resistance to biotechnology can be sustained when food affordability and supply security are at stake.
China: GMO corn production set to double
China is at the forefront of the Asian transition toward GMOs, rapidly expanding planting to meet ambitious food security needs.
The planting area under genetically modified corn, estimated at 30 million mu, is expected to double to 60 million mu in 2026, said Li Jijun, an analyst with Jifeng Seed Industry.
In Chinese agriculture, a mu is a traditional unit of land area measurement that is still the standard, with 15 mu roughly equal to one hectare.
Although genetically modified corn in some areas has not met growers’ expectations due to “exaggerated advertising by companies and insufficient maturity of varieties,” its core advantages remain explicit, Jijun said.
The key advantage is that it secures yields that are on average 5.6%-11.6% higher than those of similar non-GMO varieties and exhibits better yield stability under extreme weather conditions.
Natural factors drive Chinese farmers to expand their GMO planting.
For example, the Huang-Huai-Hai region, a prominent agricultural area, last year experienced extreme weather conditions, including drought, high temperatures, floods and 40 consecutive days of rain, which together significantly hampered grain production, Jijun said.
In fields planted with GMO grain, the damage to the harvest proved less severe.
In recent years, the weather has become far less predictable in China, which often incurs huge losses to farmers, according to Jijun.
However, the key rationale behind the switch to GMOs is rooted in the desire to become less dependent on external shocks.
The recent conflict in the Middle East has exposed the Chinese food supply chain’s vulnerability to external shocks.
In particular, the cost of shipping soybeans from Latin America to China, previously estimated at around $100 per metric ton, at some point jumped to as much as $300-$400 per metric ton. Given that China imports 86.3% of the soybeans needed to sustain its vast livestock sector, local analysts warned that such increases risk triggering a chain reaction across the industry.
Russia allows a loophole in the ban
China is not the only example of a country pursuing major GMO liberalization following years of adhering to a strict stance on this issue.
Russia, one of the most conservative countries when it comes to biotechnologies in agriculture, has also recently softened its stance on GMO soybeans.
In March 2026, the Russian Agricultural Ministry proposed to extend the regulation allowing imports of GMO soybeans for processing and further exports. The ministry permitted the importation and processing of six varieties of GMO soybeans in July 2025 for one year, while keeping restrictions on their planting and use in force.
Russia banned the cultivation and commercial use of GMOs in food production in 2016, positioning the move as part of a broader strategy to protect public health and preserve what officials described as the country’s natural agricultural advantages.
Since then, senior government figures have repeatedly criticized Western farming models in which GMO crops are widely used, arguing that the long-term effects on human health and the environment remain insufficiently understood. Moscow has often contrasted its approach with that of the United States and parts of Europe, presenting Russia as a producer of “clean” and traditional food products.
However, GMOs still exist in Russia, in the form of illegal planting, according to Arkady Zlochevskiy, president of the Russian Grain Union.
Zlochevskiy is among the Russian analysts and business organizations who advocate for the liberalization of rules related to GMO planting in Russia.
“The only way to bring order to the GMO trade is to officially permit Russian farmers to sow GM crops, while strictly zoning GM seed crops, as is done in Brazil, for example,” Zlochevskiy said.
Observers say Russia is cautiously softening its stance on GMOs, although widespread adoption in the feed industry in the coming years remains unlikely.
As another sign of this gradual shift, Russia’s veterinary authority Rosselhoznadzor eased certain requirements for the state registration of feed additives containing GMOs in September 2025. Under the updated rules, such additives can now be registered and brought to market through a simplified procedure.
“We estimate that this move expands business opportunities for GMO-containing feed additives in the Russian market. However, it’s premature to speak about a ‘wide-open’ door,” said Sergey Mikhnyuk, executive director of the National Feed Union.
One of the factors Russia is not considering approving wide GMO planting is that the country believes it can expand grain production by 30 million to 40 million metric tons through the end of the decade using its vast territory without use of advanced biotechnologies.
Asia weighs in on benefits
Several Asian countries are also moving in the same direction, gradually easing restrictions on GM crops. Policymakers across the region are increasingly weighing the potential of biotechnology to boost domestic output, improve crop resilience and reduce dependence on costly imports amid heightened volatility in agricultural trade.
For example, the Vietnamese Agricultural Ministry has recently proposed amendments to the decree on GMO biosafety.
A key feature is the introduction of a self-declaration process that exempts certain gene-edited organisms from strict GMO regulatory requirements, while also shortening approval timelines for GMO food and feed applications.
GMOs can also soon find their way to India, another very conservative market when it comes to biotechnologies in agriculture.
While India has historically resisted GM food, it is currently considering allowing imports of GM soybean and corn to ease trade tensions with the U.S. and address domestic shortages.
In 2025, poultry farmers in India have called on the government to consider opening the market to U.S. imports of GM products in an effort to bolster the reeling industry’s profitability, said Ricky Thaper, joint secretary of the Poultry Federation of India.
According to Thaper, the Indian poultry industry regularly faces shortages of feed grains, and allowing GM soybeans and maize into the market could significantly reduce the burden on producers.
However, GMOs in India still face stiff resistance from environmental protection groups, who warn that such a move would harm India’s food security and undermine public trust, as existing veterinary regulations would make it difficult to impose strict control over the turnover of GM grain in the market.
The idea of allowing GMOs has become a bit more popular in India after Pakistan, the Indian key rival, withdrew a ban on GMO imports in 2024 to aid the poultry sector.
The Pakistan Poultry Association welcomed the move, describing it as crucial for maintaining steady protein supplies, especially after a prolonged ban on GMO soybean imports.
As governments confront increasingly frequent supply shocks, maintaining affordable food markets is becoming harder without expanding the range of policy tools available. Events such as a potential blockade of the Strait of Hormuz proved their potential to fuel food inflation far beyond the conflict zone.
In such circumstances, countries often turn to higher-yielding and more resilient GMO crops as a practical response. The more often these global shocks occur, the more likely regulators are to continue liberalizing biotechnology rules.
For key exporters, the impact of the wider GMO acceptance in emerging markets can be complex. In theory, a gradual softening of GMO restrictions in major import-dependent regions could eventually reduce their reliance on imports of corn and soybeans from traditional suppliers such as the United States and Brazil, potentially reshaping established trade flows over time.
However, given that global demand for feed grains is expected to continue rising faster than productivity gains and regulatory acceptance of GMOs is likely to remain gradual, any downward pressure on export demand is unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future.
