4.1. Biosafety and Regulations in India

Regulations in India apply to the development, import, use, research, and release of GE organisms as well as to the goods created using these organisms are governed by the rules notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (Ministry of Environment, Forests [MoEF]; now the MoEF and Climate Change or MoEF&CC), Government of India, on December 5, 1989, under the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). The experimental data including comparative toxicity, allergenicity, and feeding studies are required for obtaining approval from GEAC in accordance with the rules and regulations for the development, use, import, export, and storage of hazardous microorganisms, genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 and Revised Guidelines for Research in Transgenic Plants and Guidelines for Toxicity and Allergenicity Evaluation of Transgenic Seeds, Plants and Plant parts - 1998. These legislations and regulations, often called “Rules 1989,” regulate research as well as extensive uses of GE organisms and the products derived from them across India. The DBT, Ministry of Science and Technology, and MoEF&CC are the regulatory bodies responsible for enforcing the Rules 1989 through six competent authorities as tabulated in Table 3.

Table 3: Regulatory authorities in India.

To protect the interests of farmers and environmentalists, the Government of India has very strict guidelines for testing and evaluating the agronomic value of GM crops. The guidelines are drafted to address all biosafety concerns related to GM crops. Still, India has gone through several setbacks with GM technology in crops. In 2005, ICAR launched a “Network Project on Transgenic in Crops” (presently as “Network Project on Functional Genomics and Genetic Modification in Crops”) to promote the innovation and development of GM Crops. Pigeon pea, chickpea, sorghum, potato, brinjal, tomato and banana are in different stages of development and case-by-case testing. In 2012, the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture asked the Indian Government to discontinue field trials and ban GM crops. The committee stated that there are insignificant socio-economic benefits to farmers and raised issues such as ethical dimensions of transgenics and long-term impact on health and the environment. Notably, the National Institution for Transforming India Aayog released a statement in 2016, “As a part of its strategy to bring a Second Green Revolution, India must return to permitting proven and well tested GM technologies with adequate safeguards.” This statement supports allowing GM crops in agriculture.

On August 25, 2017, the Parliamentary Standing Committee submitted its report to Parliament on “Genetically modified crops and its impact on the environment” recommending the introduction of GM crops after critical scientific evaluation for benefits and biosafety, and restructuring of the regulatory framework for unbiased assessment of GM crops. As per the advice of GEAC, the safety assessment data for the GM mustard (Dhara Mustard Hybrid 11; DMH11) has been generated. Biosafety Research Level I (BRL I) field trial for two new transgenic indigenous Bt Brinjal varieties was conducted in three locations, Jalna, Guntur, and Varanasi, in 2009–2010. In 2020, the GEAC allowed biosafety research (BRL II) field trials of Bt Brinjal in eight states (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal) during 2020–2023, only after receiving NOC from the concerned states and confirming that an isolated land area is available for this purpose. The Bt Brinjal varieties, namely, Janak and BSS-793, are indigenously developed by the ICAR. It has CryFa1-Event 142 to resist attacks of fruit and shoot borer.

4.2. India Limits Global Appeal for GMO

Political dynamics play a crucial role in GMO policy. Various political parties have adopted anti-GMO stances due to public pressure and electoral considerations. For example, the current government has faced criticism for its handling of agricultural biotechnology, impacting its approach to GMOs [21]. The adoption of GMOs is feared to disproportionately benefit large agribusinesses while marginalizing smallholder farmers. Advocacy groups argue that GMOs could lead to increased dependency on multinational corporations for seeds [22]. Environmentalists argue that GMOs pose risks to biodiversity and traditional crop varieties. India’s rich agricultural diversity is considered a national asset, and there are fears that introducing GMOs could jeopardize this genetic heritage [23].

4.3. India’s 2022 Policy Shift on GM Crops

In 2022, India announced significant policy changes regarding the approval and regulation of GM crops. India’s 2022 policy shift towards embracing biotechnology in agriculture reflects a strategic government response to several pressing agricultural challenges. Concurrently, the persistence of unapproved GM crop adoption presents a complex challenge that must be addressed to ensure safe and sustainable agricultural practices moving forward. The Central Government aimed to bolster domestic agricultural productivity and food security through advancements in biotechnology. On March 30, 2022, a new rule was issued as an office memorandum by the MoEF&CC CS-III Biosafety Division to exempt the SDN1 and SDN2 genome-edited plants from biosafety assessment in accordance with the rule 20 of the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export, and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms/Genetically engineered Organisms or Cells Rules 1989. These changes are followed by the recommendations from the DBT (Ministry of Science and Technology), and the Department of Agriculture, Research and Education (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare). However, the process of developing genome-edited plants has to be carried out under containment, and regulated by Institutional Biosafety Committees under information to the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation.

Despite the stringent regulatory framework, field data indicate that unapproved GM crops, particularly Bt cotton and other Varieties, have been adopted informally by a segment of Indian farmers. These illicit cultivations often arise from farmers’ perceptions of increased yields and pest resistance associated with these crops. Reports suggest that farmers have access to unofficial seeds, and their utilization can lead to significant economic benefits, although it poses risks related to biodiversity and environmental safety [24]. In certain regions, studies have documented that farmers planting unapproved GM varieties observed improved resilience to climatic stresses, further motivating their adoption despite legal risks. These trends highlight a gap between regulatory frameworks and on-the-ground practices, as farmers prioritize immediate agricultural challenges over compliance with formal regulations [25].

The policy revamp was particularly influenced by the challenges posed by climate change and the necessity for sustainable agricultural practices [26]. The government sought to promote innovation while maintaining safety protocols, ensuring that any GM crop introduced undergoes rigorous testing to assess environmental and health impacts [27]. This shift included the introduction of a more streamlined approval process for GM crops, emphasizing the need for governmental support in deploying technologies that improve crop yields and resistance to pests and diseases. This shows India’s evolving stance on GM crops and the reality of farmer behavior in the face of regulation. Safety assessment and Screening of GM crops and/or derived foods.

Generally, GM foods are derived from GM crops/plants. GM crop/plant variety is derived from its conventional variety, having manipulated gene(s) that leads to changes in protein(s) and associated metabolite(s) [Figure 5]. The health risks associated with GM crops are basically due to proteins expressed in GM crops from the engineered gene(s) to impart desired trait(s). These expressed proteins could be allergenic or toxic, which may be challenging for the environment along human health. A multi-factorial food safety assessment paradigm has to be utilized for every individual GM crop/food (from its first generation) and its non-GM counterpart, for substantial equivalence. In general, the safety assessment of GM crops and/or derived foods is primarily based on the concept of substantial equivalence or comparative safety assessment (CSA). The CSA is considered the first step for the safety assessment of GM crops and/or derived foods to identify similarities and differences between the foods derived from GM crops and their conventional counterpart (having a long history of safe use). The differences are subjected to further scientific analyses to identify the change in nutrients, toxins, and allergens present in GM crops and/or derived foods through wet lab experiments, bioinformatics tools, in vitro studies, and statistical interpretations. The strategy to access food safety was initially proposed by the WHO [28]. Then, several recommendations were published for food safety and risk associated with GM crops from several organizations like the food and agriculture organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Life Sciences Institute, the International Society for Biosafety Research, the European Commission (EC) and the European Food Safety Authority. The guidelines for legal and regulatory frameworks for food safety have been provided by Codex Alimentarius Commission as “Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant DNA Plants (CXG 45–2003)” (CAC, 2003; https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/guidelines/en/assessed October on 28, 2021). Due to the complexity of food constituents, food safety has to be considered a multifaceted concept. Food safety must be ensured in the light of science, keeping the risk to an absolute minimum. A science-based evaluation system for screening GM crops and derived food has been supported by FAO. This may include genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics studies.

Figure 5: The illustration shows the steps involved in the development, assessment, analysis, and approval for the release of GM crops. [Click here to view]

5.1. Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT)

DNA is chemically identical regardless of its source and is considered a harmless component of most foods that we eat. Every food that is derived from life forms contains DNA, either intact or in small fragments. Since antiquity, humans have consumed DNA from foods (whole/processed). It is estimated that about 0.1–1.0 g of DNA is being consumed daily by humans [31]. In the case of GM food, the transgenic DNA (rDNA) would be estimated to be <0.0001% of total DNA. There is no confirmation that any bacterial or plant genes are regularly incorporated into the human genome [32].

GM crops have genes conferring antibiotic resistance (AR) as selectable markers. The AR gene encodes for resistance to those antibiotics that are not widely used in medicine because of widespread resistance. Commonly used safe selectable markers are the nptII gene (confer resistance to neomycin and kanamycin) and the aad3 gene (confer resistance to streptomycin and spectinomycin [2]. Such genes are available in the environment naturally, including gut bacteria [33].

The HGT is a frequent event in gut microbiota, facilitated by the process of conjugation and transduction in the lower GI tract [34-36]. The increased use of probiotics and other fermented food preparations has a mass of microbes that may act as donors or recipients of certain AR genes in the human GI tract [37]. Juricova et al. reported that out of 259 isolates of gut microbes, 124 contain at least one gene encoding AR in poultry [38]. Baumgartner et al. found that resident microbes suppress the growth and prevent the evolution of AR of individual species [39]. The possibility of AR gene transfer in bacteria may compromise the effectiveness of antibiotics and adversely impact the anti-microbial therapy. Bacterial gene flow is an established naturally occurring phenomenon [40]. It would be extremely improbable for a plant to transfer genes to a bacterial species because (i) the gene has to be excised precisely and intact from the plant chromosome, (ii) survive intact in the consumer’s gut environment, and (iii) be acquired by the bacterium in intact form through a transformation-competent bacterium [33]. Still, the progressive development in modern biotechnology could replace or remove the utilization of AR genes in the future. Research on the bacterial communities in the rhizosphere provides important information on how GM crops affect the environment. According to this study, growing GM maize has little effect on the rhizosphere bacterial population and has little effect on the environment, especially on soil microorganisms [41].

The fate of recombinant DNA (transgene/cisgene) for HGT has been assessed in vitro in gastric, intestinal, and complete digestive tracts or body fluids in cattle, poultry, and humans. Several studies suggested the risk of HGT is insignificant in the human/animal genome. Nevertheless, the incorporation of such a transgene into the germ cells is even lower, making the inheritance of such a transgene to the following generation insignificant [42-44].

5.2. Health Concerns

The rapid digestion of the transgene or its derived proteins confirmed the absence of the transgene in GM-fed cattle and poultry in most cases. However, small pieces of DNA have been found in a few studies [45]. Agodi et al. reported that short pieces of the transgenes were reported in milk as possible contaminants of fecal/airborne material in feed [46]. DNA of the M13 virus, GFP, and Rubisco genes was discovered in the blood and tissue of ingested animals [47,48]. In studies on cows fed with transgenic crops such as maize and soybeans, the recombinant DNA has only been detected in the ruminal solid phase and duodenal digesta of cattle, but not in ruminal liquid and duodenal phases, milk, blood, muscle, liver, spleen, kidney, and feces [49-52].

Several studies have found contrary to such findings. In any organ or tissue sample taken from GM-fed animals, no traces of recombinant DNA or novel proteins have been discovered [53,54]. In studies on transgenic maize-fed poultry, no recombinant DNA was detected in muscle, liver, spleen, kidney, and eggs [49]. In addition, no significant differences in nutritional value and safety of feed derived from GM plants and their non-GM counterparts [55,56].

The GMO-derived proteins are degraded along with any other proteins in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Most dietary proteins are digested by proteases and pepsin in the GI tract, limit exposure to allergenic reactions. However, some studies have reported that the correlation between protein digestion and loss of allergenicity is limited [57,58]. Hence, comprehensive studies related to allergenicity should be carried out precisely. Food allergies are also associated with common foods such as milk, eggs, nuts, wheat, legumes, fish, crustaceans, and molluscs [59]. The presence of allergens is reported in some GM crops, like 2S albumin isoforms from Brazil nut, which were found in transgenic soybeans [53], Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase Enzyme (PAT) protein in GM maize, and cod proteins (such as Gadc1) in transgenic potatoes [60]. The reported scientific data by researchers on the consumption of GM crops/food indicate the harmful effects on health, contradicting the studies conducted by the biotechnology-based corporate companies [61]. Abnormal young sperm has been reported in rats and mice fed transgenic potatoes and soya. The transgenic crops (such as Corn and Cotton) grazing livestock were found to have reproductive disorders or even life-threatening [62].

The safety test of GM soybeans claimed “substantially equivalent” to the conventional variety, but significant differences between the two were recorded [63,64]. Several peer-reviewed scientific reports indicate the nutritional equivalence of GMOs and their conventional counterparts. Venneria et al. compared the nutritional content and reported variations in the composition of fatty acid content, phenols, polyphenols, carotenoids, Vitamin C, and mineral composition in GM and conventional samples of wheat, tomato, and corn [65]. The FAO and the WHO reported that GMO foods have no allergenic effects, after being evaluated for allergenicity [66]. A meta-analysis of 21 years of field data supports the cultivation of GE maize [67].

Dunn et al. have reviewed 83 studies on GM crops and associated allergenicity. They reported that no human or animal was evident to show increased allergenicity of GM crops in comparison to their conventional counterparts in 80 reported studies [68]. While rest three studies have shown increased sensitization; according to the IgE-mediated mast cell reactivity. Two studies report an increase in specific IgE, eosinophil, and T-helper cell type 2 cytokines with exposure to GM corn compared with its conventional counterpart, but of no clinical significance. The study has concluded that the use of GM products and the risk of food allergies are not linked. They reported that consumption of GM proteins causes allergy in individuals who are allergic at baseline. Bt toxin Cry1Ac has been reported as a potent antigen delivered oral/nasal [69]. Even some farmworkers have IgE-mediated skin sensitization when exposed to Bacillus thuringiensis-based pesticides [70]. Aris and Leblanc claim the presence of Bt toxin in maternal blood [71]. Notably, the toxin is inactive in an acidic environment (as in the stomach of humans), and active in an alkaline environment (as in an insect’s gut). There is no Bt toxin receptor in humans. Nelson suggests that the crystal-like proteins produced by the B. thuringiensis have no effects on mammals [72].

5.3. Socio-economic Concerns

There is a lot of disagreement around GM crops, which is being echoed continuously. Even, consumers have a strong perception that foods with a long history of safe use are safe for consumption. Controversies are associated with GM crops, involving farmers, consumers, government, NGOs, and environmentalists. Consumers’ concerns for the quality of food were known before the advent of food derived from GM crops. GM crops may have an impact on the health of consumers that might be risky. Consumer acceptance is associated with socio-economic determinants [73], such as price premiums, option values, willingness to pay, age, gender, and educational level.

Usually, consumers consider conventional foods safe for consumption. Conventional foods have an established record of consumption for decades/centuries. The genetic manipulations and altered expression may have beneficial or detrimental effects in comparison to conventional. Therefore, evaluation and risk assessment of GMOs and GM foods should be conducted as per the Codex guidelines for allergenicity, toxicity, loss of biodiversity, gene transfer, and outcrossing (migration of genes from GM to feral and wild relatives).

The major traits gained with genetic modifications are disease and pest resistance. This makes farmers happy to cultivate their crops for more economic gain with minimal yield loss. However, the widespread release and cultivation of such GM crops at a commercial scale may pose a strong selection-for-survival pressure. This selective pressure is strong enough to be the reason behind the evolution of resistant pests, like superbugs. This may cause the failure of such GM crops in a few years, leading to controversy over the use of biotechnology, such as the Monarch Butterfly Controversy (1999) and the Seralini Affair (2012). The controversies related to safety concerns are being raised for GM crops/food on several levels by consumers, farmers, policymakers, regulatory bodies, and the government. The concern for the modern biotechnology needed for sustainable agriculture to address the scarcity of food, feed, and fodder; is safe for the health and the environment? is required to be addressed.

Developing countries like India have small and marginal farmers. Farmers cite that the high cost of weeding considerably goes down by growing HtBt cotton and using glyphosate against weeds. As claimed, cultivation of Bt Brinjal reduces the total production cost by reducing the use of pesticides. Large-scale sowing of unapproved GM crops such as HTBt cotton and Bt Brinjal, is being reported in several states of India, such as Maharashtra and Haryana. A few farmers are arrested and charged for sowing unapproved GM variants with a jail term of 5 years and a fine of Rs 1 Lakh under the Environmental Protection Act, 1989 [74]. The right to environmental information was recently emphasized by the Indian Supreme Court in a divided decision over the release of GM mustard. One of the two judges on the court argued against the crop’s release, pointing to a lack of adequate evaluation of its health effects, while the other referred to the conditional clearance as progressive. It is suggested that consumers’ knowledge be used as a control variable in future studies [75]. In July 2024, the court ordered the government to engage with every relevant stakeholder, including states, independent experts, and farmers’ organizations, to draft a national policy on GMOs. The action highlights how important it is for policy to be informed by both scientific data and societal demands and expectations. It demonstrates the importance of broader public involvement in synthetic biology (SynBio) interventions [76]. Small farmers’ willingness to engage in collaborative GM crop farming is favorably influenced by their expectations of GM technology’s profitability as well as their sense of their market adaptability [77].

The seeds are expensive in comparison to local non-GM varieties; farmers must purchase new seeds every sowing season as seeds cannot be reused. BT cotton is resistant to a specific type of cotton pest, not all pests of cotton. However, regular and prolonged spraying of herbicides/insecticides may cause the evolution of tolerant/resistant weeds/insects due to strong selective pressure in a given habitat [78,79]. Pests are developing resistance against Bt Cotton, making the GM-based strategy for pest control unsustainable [80]. To prevent this, certain crop management strategies that limit the growth of pest populations that have surmounted crop resistance mechanisms might be used. The use of GM crops with a high level of Bt gene expression and the simultaneous deployment of a refuge made up of non-GM, pest-susceptible crops constitute the most widely used resistance management technique for Bt crops, known as the high dose/refuge strategy. This strategy is based on the assumption that insects that are resistant to Bt endotoxins evolve as a result of recessive mutations that have only a low allele frequency in the population of insects. Only the extremely uncommon insects homozygous for the mutant allele will survive on the GM crops due to the high amount of Bt endotoxin expression in those crops. By planting refuge non-GM crops near the GM crop region, it should be ensured that the rare mutant homozygous resistant insects living in the GM crop area mate with non-mutant, susceptible insects from the refuge. As a result, their offspring will carry the mutant allele heterozygously and be prone to the GM crop.

It is suggested that refuges comprise 20–50% of the area that is planted with the GM crop, depending on the crop and the conditions of the area. Mathematical simulations and actual experience suggest that implementing this strategy as part of an integrated framework of pest management could prevent the emergence of resistant pests for decades [81,82]. However, the deployment of refuges may not be financially feasible or may be disregarded owing to ignorance, particularly in the case of small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing nations [16]. Therefore, it is suggested that analyses of the emergence of resistant insect populations and compliance with refuge suggestions be incorporated into post-release monitoring programs. This might ensure that refuge suggestions are followed and that the value of GM crops that express pest resistance characteristics is maintained.

5.4. Consumer Concerns

The public debate, attitude, and expression for acceptance or rejection make several non-governmental organizations work on issues related to GMOs with explicit interests. Most research assesses people’s attitudes toward GM food consumption by conducting a surveys, opinion polls, or product feedback on national and international levels [83]. The most prominent ethical concern raised with GMOs is that “tampering with nature may lead to unintended and unpredictable effects” [84].

An interesting case of GMO corn, StarLink (approved for animal feeding), that happened in 2000, was popularized when the corn was recalled. The StarLink corn has the gene for a Bt toxin (Cry9C), which selectively kills destructive insect larvae. The USFDA did not find any association between Cry9C and allergic reactions [85].

A study conducted in Spain concluded that the consumers demanded GM foods accompanied by strict policies; to confirm the safety of consumers, decreasing the consumer-perceived risk dealing with health-related concerns [86]. In 2011, studies related to the variables influencing consumers’ decisions to choose GM-free foods were conducted in the European cities of Drama, Kavala, and Xanthi as field interviews of 337 consumers. The principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to identify the factors that influence customers. To prefer GM-free products are (i) product labeling and certification – as GM-free or organic, (ii) label to claim environmental protection, a label of nutritional value, marketing issues, price, and quality. The consumers are further categorized into two: (i) influenced by elements including product cost, quality, and marketing and (ii) interested in environmental preservation and product certification [87].

Snell et al. conducted long-term and multigenerational studies on the effects of GM feed containing GM varieties of maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. This involves 12 long-term studies for a duration of 90 days to 2 years, and 12 multigenerational studies involving 2–5 generations. They examined the parameters such as biochemical, histological, hematology, and transgenic DNA detection. They found small differences that are not statistically significant and hence have no biological or toxicological importance. The study can be concluded as GM plants could be utilized as safe food and feed because they have the same nutritional value as their non-GM counterparts [88].

6.1. Biosafety

Moreover, GM crops have some changes in protein and other dependent components for the beneficial trait; which may lead to the associated risk(s) related to health and the environment. The advancement of technologies with ever-evolving science makes it easier to elucidate nutritional profiles (nutrigenomics) and toxicological profiles (toxicogenomics) without going through in vitro studies on animals. In addition, the global biosafety cooperation and governance have to be improved for enhanced defense capability in global biosecurity situations by (i) improving the real-time monitoring plan and early warning systems, (ii) improving the identification, prevention, and control strategies, and (iii) improving the technological management as countermeasures in emergencies.

Even though GM foods are safe, assessment and clarification of current risks and lifelong effects are required. The involvement of a panelist, including scientists, entomologists, activists, environmentalists, and others, is needed for environmental impact assessment. The cultivation of GM has to be in a confined area with a buffer zone, and the fields are far away from a biodiversity-rich region. Address scientific lacunae, precise clarity on benefits to operators, ensure labeling, and demonstrate sustainable farming with biodiversity conservation. The well-being of farmers, consumers, and the environment should be confirmed by task forces and expert committees. Current methods are constantly being improved and developed to enhance the assessment and detection of unintended consequences [89]. It is important to compare the introduced protein’s structure with the structures of all known allergens. Experimental analysis of potential allergenicity has to be performed by examining the same during post-marketing monitoring of random consumers.

Food consumption is somewhat associated with culture, geography, and economy. In the future, research should use an open-ended questionnaire that allows respondents to provide extensive responses addressing all potential answers. Future studies on GM food consumption behavior should use qualitative research to capture the in-depth nuances [75]. The risk may also be associated with contamination, which is considered unavoidable. The consequences of contamination should also be taken care of before commercial approval. Food labeling regulations in the majority of nations are designed to assist people in making safe food choices when they buy and use goods [90]. Mandatory labeling of GMOs and segregation is much needed as the consumers’ trust in labels for verifying the food quality and credence attributes [91]. The label should have the ingredients with potential allergens/toxins in GM food. The risk of allergies could be reduced through comprehensive evaluation for market approval testing, food safety monitoring, and adequate/appropriate labeling. For the development, production, and trade of GM foods have been established and implemented in several countries-initiatives are being/shall be taken for traceability, labeling, and authorization of GMOs in food and feed.

On the contrary, we should rely on GMOs to address the challenges associated with food and nutritional security. This could be used to make plant resistance/tolerance against biotic and abiotic stresses, reduce/remove allergens and toxins, etc. These achievements show preliminary success and may be considered to believe that the development of GMOs is the only possible solution to address agricultural loss and improve nutritional quality. As of now, no solid evidence is reported that GMOs are allergenic and/or toxic in comparison to their non-GMO counterparts.

6.2. Global Market

The use of GM crops, in particular, has led to significant sustainability breakthroughs in agriculture over the past 30 years, which have accelerated the shift from intensive tillage to almost complete elimination of tillage techniques [92]. Through increased fertilizer and water use efficiency, the use of gene-editing technology shows the potential to further contribute to improved agricultural production sustainability. Because there is less need for fertilizers when nutrient use efficiency is increased, there is less chance that nutrients will flow from cropland into nearby watersheds [93,94]. Crops that use water more efficiently can tolerate periods of lower precipitation without suffering appreciable production losses. Improvements in the efficiency of these components’ utilization would significantly lessen the negative effects of agricultural production on biodiversity while also increasing yields [95]. For any advancement to have a lasting impact on our productivity, time, money, and effort are required [90].

Government initiatives for GM food, the expansion of emerging markets, and the rising need for animal feed are all responsible for the increase throughout this historic period. The market for GM crops has expanded significantly in recent years. At a cumulative annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%, it will increase from $23.41 billion in 2024 to $24.77 billion in 2025. The growing populations, food waste, technological advancements, and the growing demand for biofuels are all contributing factors to the growth during the period of forecasting. Investing in gene stacking, focusing on utilizing cutting-edge CRISPR technologies, researching and developing nitrogen-fixing crops, investing in haploid induction techniques, and developing products that shorten the time needed for crop production, and focusing on forming partnerships with both established businesses and research institutions are some of the major trends for the period of forecasting. The market for GM crops is anticipated to develop significantly over the coming years. It will increase at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.9% to reach $32.35 billion in 2029 (https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/genetically-modified-crops-global-market-report; accessed on July 02, 2025).

Recent studies have revealed shifting consumer attitudes towards GM crops, with increased awareness regarding sustainability and health impacts. Research indicates that consumers are more likely to trust GM crops when transparency in labeling and production processes is prioritized [96]. A growing segment of the population exhibits a preference for eco-friendly agriculture, influencing their purchasing decisions; hence, marketing strategies for GM products need to highlight environmental benefits [97].

Advanced technologies such as remote sensing and soil health monitoring are being utilized to assess the environmental impact of GM crops, enhancing real-time data collection [98]. Studies indicate that GM crops can contribute to reduced pesticide use and lower carbon footprints, thus aligning with broader climate change goals [99]. Continuous environmental monitoring is vital to detect any unforeseen ecological consequences associated with GM crop cultivation and to ensure adherence to regulatory standards [100]. Integrating consumer feedback mechanisms with environmental monitoring data can enhance public confidence in GM crops and drive more sustainable agricultural practices. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders – including farmers, environmental scientists, and policymakers – are essential to develop guidelines that consider both consumer insights and ecological footprints of GM agriculture [101].

Of note in all advancements in agriculture, GM crops are a way to increase food production while reducing the negative environmental effects of conventional farming methods. This is consistent with another study that was carried out over 20 years (1999–2020) and found that using GM insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant seed technology reduced pesticide use by 7.2% (748.6 million kg) [102,103].

6.3. Cross-country Comparisons

The cross-country comparisons for GMO crops help to understand the broader implications of GMO adoption, which involves analyzing the adoption, regulation, economic impact, and public perception of GMOs in different nations. Understanding these complex dynamics (influenced by regulatory, economic, and social factors) can inform better agricultural policies and practices, ensuring that the benefits of biotechnology are maximized while addressing public concerns. Economic benefits arising from GMO crops include increased yields, reduced pesticide use, and potentially lower production costs. A comparative study found that countries adopting GM technology, such as Argentina, experience notable economic advantages in agriculture [104]. The environmental impact of GMO crops, including biodiversity effects and sustainable practices, is a critical aspect of cross-country comparisons. Some studies indicate that GMO crops can lead to reductions in pesticide use, while others raise concerns about potential long-term ecological effects [105].

Countries have different regulatory approaches to GMOs, affecting their market access and consumer acceptance. For example, the U.S. has a more deregulated environment compared to the European Union, where stringent risk assessments and labeling requirements are in place [106]. The adoption of GMO crops varies significantly among countries. The United States and Brazil are the largest adopters, with a significant percentage of their soybean, corn, and cotton crops being GM. In contrast, many European countries exhibit lower adoption rates due to stringent regulations and public skepticism [107]. In addition, the trade policies regarding GMOs significantly affect agricultural exports. Countries that embrace GMO crops have seen an increase in exports, while those that impose bans or strict regulations face challenges in accessing international markets [108].

Public acceptance of GMO crops varies widely, influenced by cultural, social, and economic factors, and even gender. In countries such as India and China, public opinion is generally more favorable as the focus is on food security, while Western nations often exhibit more resistance due to health and environmental concerns [109]. In a cross-country survey by the Pew Research Centre, majority thinks that eating foods containing GM is unsafe. About 37% says they don’t know enough about these foods to make a statement. About 70% of Russian, Polish, and Italians believe that eating GM food is unsafe. 31% of Australians believe GM foods are safe, and those who believe they are unsafe are also 31%. The percentage of people who say they do not know enough to say is typically higher in areas where GM foods are more regulated. Compared to men, women are more prone to believe that eating foods containing GM products is unsafe. Interestingly, people with higher levels of education, especially those who studied science, are more likely to believe that these foods are safe to consume in many of these populations [110].