What are GM crops and why they are a point of concern in US trade deal?

The India-US trade deal has revived debate over genetically modified crops, as New Delhi offers limited farm market access while keeping its most sensitive agricultural sectors protected

The India–US trade deal has brought agriculture back into the policy spotlight after New Delhi agreed to grant zero-duty or sharply reduced-duty access to a set of American farm and food products, while reiterating that its “sensitive” farm sectors remain protected.

 

Items such as dried distillers’ grains (DDGS), red sorghum, soybean oil, and select fruits and nuts have drawn particular attention because they sit close to US agricultural supply chains dominated by genetically modified crops.

 

The development has revived the debate around what genetically modified crops are, and why India remains deeply cautious about importing them, especially from the US, where GM farming is the norm.

   

What are GM crops?

 

Genetically modified crops are plants whose DNA has been altered using modern biotechnology to introduce specific traits, such as insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, with greater precision than conventional cross-breeding.

 

The World Health Organisation (WHO) notes that GM foods currently available internationally have undergone safety assessments and are “not likely to present risks for human health”, while also stressing that safety is assessed on a case-by-case basis and on national regulations.

 

In practice, GM traits are designed to help farmers manage pests, weeds, or climate stress. This technology differs from traditional breeding, which mixes genes within a crop’s broader family over several generations.

 

Why is the US central to the GM crops debate?

 

The US is among the world’s largest producers and exporters of GM crops. According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, more than 90 per cent of corn, upland cotton and soybeans in the US are produced using genetically engineered varieties.

 

This matters for India–US trade because the American agricultural export basket is dominated by corn- and soybean-linked products, including animal feed inputs and processed derivatives. Even when the final product is not a GM seed or grain, the upstream supply chain often is.

 

What did the India-US trade deal change, and what did it not?

 

According to the joint statement on the trade deal, India has not opened the door to the most politically sensitive farm imports, such as US corn and soybeans, while offering zero-duty or reduced-duty access on select other items.

 

Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has stressed that India’s agriculture and dairy sensitivities have been safeguarded, even as the agreement seeks to address broader trade barriers and expand market access.

 

The controversy lies in the fact that some of the newly emphasised zero-duty items, particularly dried distillers’ grains, are typically derived from US corn, which is predominantly genetically engineered.

 

Why does India resist importing GM farm products?

 

India’s resistance to importing GM-linked farm products reflects a mix of regulatory caution, political economy considerations, environmental risk assessment and trade strategy, rather than a blanket rejection of biotechnology.

 

At the regulatory level, India follows a precautionary biosafety framework. While GM crops approved internationally are assessed by bodies such as the WHO and Codex Alimentarius as safe for consumption, India requires prior domestic approval for every genetically engineered organism entering the food chain.

 

At present, commercial cultivation is permitted only for Bt cotton, a non-food crop, and no GM food crop has received full clearance for unrestricted use. A draft notification issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in November 2022 proposed mandatory labelling for foods containing one per cent or more GM content and required import consignments to certify non-GM status.

 

Political economy concerns also play a key role. Agriculture continues to support a large share of India’s population, dominated by small and marginal farmers. Policymakers have long feared that opening the market to large-scale imports of GM-linked crops from the US, where farming is highly mechanised and subsidised, could depress domestic prices and disrupt rural livelihoods.

 

Environmental and biosafety concerns add another layer of caution. India is a centre of origin and genetic diversity for several crops, and regulators have repeatedly cited risks related to gene flow, biodiversity loss and long-term ecological impact. Experiences with Bt cotton, where initial gains were later offset in some regions by pest resistance, have reinforced official scepticism about treating GM technology as a permanent solution.

 

Traceability and enforcement challenges further complicate imports. Raw grains and feed ingredients are difficult to segregate and certify as non-GM once they enter bulk commodity supply chains. With over 90 per cent of US corn and soybeans genetically engineered, ensuring compliance at scale could prove costly and prone to leakages.

 

Why does the GM versus non-GM distinction matter in trade?

 

In global commodity markets, GM and non-GM supply chains can coexist, but only with segregation, testing and documentation. For importers, the issue is not just whether a product contains GM material, but whether it can be reliably certified under domestic rules.

 

This is why zero-duty access for items such as dried distillers’ grains and soybean oil has become contentious. Even if these products are not meant for direct human consumption, they influence the farm economy by affecting animal feed costs and edible oil prices. Policymakers face a trade-off between cheaper inputs and the political risk of appearing to dilute India’s GM stance.

 

How have farmer groups and political parties reacted?

 

Farmer groups and opposition parties have described the trade deal as a potential “backdoor entry” for GM-linked products and have sought greater clarity from the government.

 

The Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) said New Delhi must clearly spell out its position on US farm products commonly derived from genetically modified crops and used as animal feed. BKS general secretary Mohini Mohan Mishra said such products should not be allowed into the country “under any circumstances, under any name, or condition”.

 

The Samyukta Kisan Morcha warned that duty-free imports of dried distillers’ grains, soybean oil, red sorghum for animal feed, tree nuts, and fresh and processed fruits could hurt Indian farmers.

 

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh raised concerns over the joint statement’s reference to “additional products” that were not specified, calling it “far too open-ended” and questioning whether it implied easing restrictions on GM crops and dairy products.

 

For now, the government maintains that the trade deal does not dilute India’s long-standing position on GM crops or open the door to unrestricted farm imports. However, as talks move towards a broader agreement and zero-duty access expands for select products, the distinction between processed inputs and GM-linked supply chains is likely to face closer scrutiny.