India's farmers are resisting a US trade deal that demands access to GM crops, threatening their seed sovereignty and rural livelihoods.
As negotiations intensify, India's refusal to bow to US pressure is a stand for food security and agricultural independence, echoing past protests against GM crops and foreign influence in the food system.
With the clock ticking toward a fresh round of US tariff letters, India and the United States are racing to finalise what’s officially being called a “mini trade deal”. But while officials frame it as technical, Donald Trump insists it’s a “very big one”. As Washington pushes hard for access to India’s vast food and feed markets, trade negotiators on both sides are working overtime to close the agreement.
This time, it’s not just about tariffs or textiles—it’s about who controls India’s food system and if India bows to US pressure on GM corn, soy, or dairy access, it won’t be a quiet concession. It will be a declaration of war on its own farmers.
The US has made it no secret: they want India to open its markets to GM soy and corn—key ingredients in American animal feed and processed food chains. But India, so far, hasn’t formally agreed or denied. That ambiguity is dangerous.
India currently allows only one GM crop for cultivation: Bt cotton. Past attempts to introduce GM brinjal (2010) were halted through an indefinite moratorium following public opposition and ecological concerns, while GM mustard (approved in 2022) remains under judicial review after legal challenges and protests.
Parliament’s Standing Committee (2012) flagged India’s poor regulatory capacity, citing glaring gaps in biosafety studies, health risk assessments, and the absence of any nationwide infrastructure for labelling or tracking GM foods. And yet, by not clearly ruling out GM imports in this deal, India risks opening floodgates.
If GM soy or corn is allowed even for animal feed, it would give multinational corporations a backdoor into Indian agriculture—forcing small holders to rely on expensive, patented seeds, destroying the centuries-old practice of seed saving, and shifting power away from the field and into boardrooms.
If India can decisively say no to genetically modified (GM) corn and soy imports, and to opening its dairy sector to US exporters. That refusal isn’t about stubborn nationalism or outdated protectionism. It’s a deliberate, farmer-led stance—one rooted in food security, seed sovereignty, and rural dignity.
Donald Trump’s tariff threat is part of his usual pressure tactic. The bilateral trade agreement may resemble those the US has pursued with the UK and China. Trump’s major concern with India is to minimise the trade deficit the United States recorded last year.
Indo-US trade reached $131.84 billion in FY 2024–25, with India exporting $87.4 billion worth of goods to the US and importing $41.8 billion. The US goods trade deficit with India was approximately $45.7 billion.
In April 2025, President Trump imposed a 10 per cent tariff. A 26 per cent tariff was paused for 90 days—originally until July 9 but extended to August 1—creating pressure to finalise a trade deal. This means, in the absence of a trade deal by the new deadline, Indian exports to the US could be subjected to tariffs as high as 26 per cent.
The US has been aggressively pushing India to allow GM soy and corn—used in animal feed and processed foods—into its supply chains. But India pushed back.
But beyond the paperwork, it’s the farmer who refuses to surrender control of the seed. GM crops would tie smallholders—85 per cent of Indian farmers—to multinational patents, eliminating centuries-old practices of seed saving and reuse. And in this case, the seed is power.
US dairy corporations have long eyed India’s massive market. But India has held firm against opening the sector, particularly to dairy products from animals fed with ruminant-derived feed (blood meal, bone meal), which violates both religious sentiments and safety norms.
India’s refusal isn’t just about belief—it’s about economics: The Indian dairy industry contributes nearly five per cent to national GDP and ranks first in milk production, contributing nearly 25 per cent of global milk production. It supports 80 million rural households, many led by women. The supply chain is decentralised and co-operative-driven—not corporate-controlled.
Opening the floodgates to subsidised US dairy would devastate local pricing, wipe out small producers, and destabilise one of India’s most successful rural livelihoods.
Even as the US refuses to certify feed compliance, India’s stance sends a message: trade can’t bulldoze over culture or community economies.
This assertive position isn’t new. It echoes the legacy of the 2020-21 farmers’ protest, when lakhs of farmers occupied Delhi’s borders to oppose three contentious farm laws.
That movement wasn’t just a protest—it was a pivot. It showed that rural India could shape national discourse. Today, that influence is playing out in diplomatic negotiations: Farmer unions have publicly opposed GM crop imports. Political parties across the spectrum are wary of triggering a rural backlash. No government can afford to antagonise the farming base.
In effect, India’s agri-trade red lines are not bureaucratic—they are democratically reinforced.
But the US side continues to lobby hard behind closed doors. And with the tariff deadline—originally July 9—now extended to August 1, India is under renewed pressure to compromise.
Trump’s administration has already issued 26 per cent tariff threats to 22 countries. India was excluded from that initial list—an intentional carrot, not coincidence. Delhi’s leverage is real, but temporary.
If it gives in by August, the headlines will focus on tariff relief—but the real cost will be borne in the fields.
India exported $3.46 billion worth of agricultural products to the United States in 2023-24, with key exports including frozen shrimp, basmati and non-basmati rice, honey, and guar gum—all of which currently face zero or low tariffs in the US.
In contrast, India imported around $1.5 billion worth of agri-products from the US, primarily almonds, pistachios, and ethanol. This trade reflects a favourable but fragile balance. If retaliatory tariffs are imposed, India’s export margins could shrink. And if genetically modified (GM) crops are allowed in through backdoor concessions, the cost won’t just be economic—it could compromise sovereignty over food and seed systems.
But that risk is worth taking if the alternative is opening the floodgates to GMO grains and subsidised dairy.
President Trump issued new tariff letters to 22 countries, but India has been excluded from the initial list, giving New Delhi more leverage in ongoing negotiations. US officials privately acknowledge that India’s firm stance on agriculture—backed by domestic political pressure—is unlikely to shift before the August 1 final tariff deadline.
India isn’t saying ‘no’ to trade. It’s saying ‘no’ to asymmetric trade that risks destroying rural livelihoods.
Refusing GMOs and US dairy is just the first step. The next is preparing farmers for global competitiveness without crutches.
India can’t hide behind high tariffs forever. But it can use this window to build a farm economy that exports value, not just commodities.
India isn’t alone in resisting GM foods. Countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, and Kenya have either banned or strictly regulated GM crop cultivation.
And while the US pushes for fast-track approvals and ‘science-based’ deregulation, India’s cautious approach aligns with global norms on environmental protection, ethical food systems, and indigenous seed rights.
This is not a Luddite impulse. It’s a strategic stand: trade yes, dependence no.
India has not yet signed off on GM imports or US dairy. That’s the good news. But silence is not a strategy—it’s a liability. Without a public commitment to reject these proposals, the government risks being seen as selling out its own rural base.
If India wants fair trade, it must draw the line where it matters: at the seed, the soil, and the co-operative.
Because if the farmer isn’t at the table, they’ll end up on the chopping block.
If this deal is finalised, it will grab headlines for tariffs avoided and products exchanged. But its real story lies in what was kept off the table: the farmer, the seed, the village co-operative and the food system that still feeds a billion people.
Abhijay A is a policy analyst and independent researcher specialising in international relations, public policy, and global politics.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth