The overarching policy for the federal government regulation of GM foods was set in 1986 during the Reagan administration, in a document by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy called the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. The document concluded that foods made with genetic engineering techniques are not fundamentally different from conventional foods in terms of overall composition, so there was no need for legislation specifically dealing with GM foods.

The regulation of GM foods in the U.S. is enacted by multiple agencies. Although companies submit different types of data to each agency, common principles unite the various regulatory processes. Regulations are based on the GM foods and how they are used, rather than the genetic engineering technologies that produced them. Additionally, it is relatively easy for companies to receive exemptions from the regulatory processes—particularly, FDA premarket approval and USDA regulations.

In general, Americans' perception of food is more utilitarian and less aesthetic than Europeans'. In contrast to a humanistic or aesthetic bias, Americans' think of food in nutritional terms linked to science and sustenance, with quantity often preferred to quality. In addition, Americans have thought of themselves as both a democratic and scientific culture, with a
special mission for human development and improvement.

Compared to the U.S., the EU imposes strict regulations on GM foods. The European Commission, the executive cabinet of the EU, established its general policy for GM food regulation in 2002. All GM foods are regulated because they are made with processes different from those used to produce conventional foods. In the EU, all GM food products must go through a centralized process for premarket approval and follow labeling guidelines

In addition to public concern regarding the food safety crises of the 1990s, the EU’s tradition of risk-averse regulation in other areas meant that the precautionary principle became the central tenet for GM food regulation: since potential risks of GM foods are not completely known, regulatory decisions err on the side of caution and require a high burden of proof for product safety. New EU legislation passed in 2015 allows individual countries greater freedom in approving GM foods; specifically, the countries’ approval decisions can be based on factors beyond health risks

The European traditions of an aesthetic appreciation for food, a skepticism toward science wrought of destruction by military and Fascist technology, and a protection of domestic markets, stand in marked contrast to scientific and utilitarian attitudes toward food, a scientific optimism unscarred by war, and general support for free markets and trade in the US.

The inclusion of genetically modified maize in food aid shipments to Southern Africa during the 2002 food crisis rekindled debates over agricultural biotechnology. As the region edged ever closer to famine – putting the lives to some 14 million Africans at risk – corporate pundits, government officials and biotech
s critics debated the health and environmental dangers posed by the new technology.

Heavily dependent on trade with the United States under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), Swaziland raised no objections to the GM aid. Lesotho, also dependant on AGOA, requested that food aid be milled before distribution but quickly backed down on its request and accepted unmilled food aid.

Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, however, were far more cautious. All four challenged the inclusion of genetically modified maize which had not received regulatory approval in the region in US food aid shipments. The concerns articulated by recipients of GM food aid in Southern Africa centered on three key areas: (1) the potential health impact of GM food on recipients; (2) the impact of GM food on domestic agricultural biodiversity; and (3) the impact of GM food on their ability to export agricultural commodities in the future.

Africa has followed Europe’s lead in its regulatory approach to this technology. African countries export a lot of agricultural products to Europe, and they conclude that if European consumers don’t want to purchase these products, it’s safer not to plant them at all. Also, European governments play a prominent role in the United Nations, and they have shaped U.N. treaties like the 2003 Cartagena Protocol, to give expression to a highly precautionary European approach to GMOs. The United States, which often turns its back on these U.N. special agencies, has left the field wide open for European influence. governments in Africa deeply appreciate the one-country-one-vote ethic that prevails in the United Nations General Assembly, and they depend heavily on U.N. agencies for opportunities to express themselves in international fora.

In truth, debates about whether GM crops or any single technology are “good for the poor” or can “feed the world” are becoming tired. They tend to discuss GM technologies as if they can be isolated from the wider socioeconomic and political context.

The main reasons other countries haven’t followed suit are political and economic. The negative attitude to GM crops found in Europe, where they import GM crops such as soybeans for animal feed but do not allow their own farmers to plant it, has had a strong influence on African politicians. The reluctance of so many African countries to GMOs is also attributed to fears about the impact it would have on trade with other countries, particularly Europe where a number of countries have banned GM imports.

In developing nations across the globe, governments are grappling with questions of what role, if any, genetically modified organisms should play in helping address a range of agriculture, nutrition, and climate challenges.

Concerns have been raised over the environmental and health impacts of GMOs, as well as their impact on traditional farming methods and issues around seed patents, and farmers having to be dependent on corporations.

Governments of developing countries are responding to those concerns in a variety of ways with some banning GMOs outright, some embracing them, and others attempting to find balance between the concerns and needs of all sides.

African nations in particular have become central to the debate as many parts of the continent are susceptible to drought or civil conflict that can lead to famine or near-famine conditions. But until recently only four African nations — Burkina Faso, Egypt, Sudan, and South Africa — permitted GMOs to be used in commercial agricultural production. South Africa is the only one to allow GMO food, while the remaining three permit GMO cotton.

In Nigeria, development donors and large corporations have joined forces to invest in GMO advancements for the country. The GMO variety of cowpea was developed as a collaboration between the Network for Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the African Agricultural Technology Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The GMO sorghum project is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United States Agency for International Development, and DuPont Pioneer. Monsanto is the key investor in GMO varieties of cotton and maize.

Kenya, too, is seeing corporate and public interests in GMO research intersect with a rapid increase, and commercialization of production is expected — and this despite banning all GMO foods and imports for health concerns in 2012.

In September last year, the Uganda’s President H.E. Yoweri Museveni spoke at an agricultural science conference about his openness to technology supporting food security — including GMOs Less than a month later, the Ugandan parliament passed the National Biotechnology and Biosafety Bill, 2017, allowing for commercialization of GMOs — but in January, the bill was sent back by the president with concerns over the impacts to the environment and indigenous communities.

For African nations in particular, the European Union has an outsized impact on local economies. For Central African nations, the EU was the number one trade destination in 2016, accounting for more than a quarter of all exports. Since the EU has strict regulations for approvals and imports of GMOs, including labelling standards, the economic and political impacts of investing in GMO commercialization with an eye toward export could prove costly.
But in countries where the key economic partners are the U.S. and China — which have fewer regulatory restrictions on the import of GMOs — introducing such crops could potentially increase economic opportunities.

The Philippines is often used as an example of how adoption of GMOs can improve the income of farmers within a developing country. “The benefits of biotech corn to Filipino farmers’ livelihood, income, and health, and to the environment have been well studied and documented,” ISAAA reported in 2015. “Overall, the four studies that examined net farm income, as well as other indicators, consistently confirmed the positive impact of biotech corn on small and resource-poor farmers and corn producers generally in the Philippines.”

The adoption and progress of GMOs has been driven by economic value rather than responding to a localized agricultural problem, such as pest or disease, but it has not been without controversy. In December 2015, a Supreme Court decision stopped field trials of genetically modified eggplant and voided existing biotechnology regulations. The decision was based on constitutional rights to health and a balanced ecology and a lack of scientific consensus on the health and environmental impacts of genetically modified eggplant. While the decision was overturned just six months later, it forced the government to implement new GMO regulations that provided more consideration to socioeconomic issues and environmental impacts.

In Brazil, in April 2003, the president signed an executive order requiring packed food and feed containing more than 1 percent of GMOs to be labelled, informing consumers about its biotech content. This was followed with Brazil’s ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and by 2005 they had introduced legislation establishing the regulatory framework to produce and market GMO crops within the country. In the intervening years, the government has shown a keenness to partner with large corporations. Bayer, BASF, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta all have seeds approved for growth in the country.

According to a recent study on the economic impact of GM crops, GMOs have delivered financial benefit to farmers in Brazil.
But this has not stopped alternative methods of sustainable agriculture from developing in the country.

The government of Cambodia, in particular, has been pushing back on GMOs for more than a decade. “If we export organic products to the EU, we will re­ceive higher prices than by ex­porting chemical-produced foods to other countries,” Siphana said. Cambodia has introduced a regulatory framework relating to the control and management of GMOs as part of their responsibility as signatories of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety