Researchers from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Fuzhou university have argued in a new study that China’s current regulatory framework sits in an awkward intermediate state. It is trapped between the EU’s strict process-based model and the more flexible product-based models seen in the US and Argentina.
The definition dilemma between GMOs and gene editing
The heart of the issue lies in how different countries define a genetically modified organism or GMO. Traditional genetic modification involves inserting foreign DNA into a plant’s genome to achieve a desired trait, such as pest resistance. In contrast, gene editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas typically involve making precise, minor changes to a plant’s own DNA without leaving any foreign genetic material behind.
The study highlighted that while countries like Argentina and Brazil have created fast-track exemptions for these “non-foreign DNA” crops, China still largely treated them through the lens of traditional GMO safety rules. This path dependency means that even low-risk gene-edited crops face a marathon of administrative hurdles before they can be planted in farmers’ fields.
Bridging the gap between academic research and commercial reality
One of the most pressing challenges for the Chinese seed industry is the disconnect between academia and the private sector. The research reveals a startling disparity in research and development investment. While global giants like Bayer Crop Science or Corteva Agriscience spend billions of dollars annually on breeding innovation, China’s leading seed companies operate with much smaller budgets.
Currently, over 70% of soybean variety rights applications in China come from universities and public research institutes rather than corporations. This structure creates a ‘laboratory-to-market’ blockage, where high-end research results sit on shelves in academic journals instead of being transformed into scalable commercial products that meet actual market demand.
The study pointed out that the evaluation system for scientific achievements in China was partly to blame for this stagnation. Most academic researchers are rewarded based on how many papers they publish or patents they are granted, instead of their varieties’ commercial success or market adoption.
This has led to a cycle of ‘technological sedimentation’, where innovations are disconnected from the needs of the industrial chain. Without a robust mechanism for benefit-sharing and industry-academia-research collaboration, the latest scientific breakthroughs would struggle to find their way into the hands of seed distributors and farmers.
Streamlining approval processes to reduce development costs
Beyond the laboratory and the boardroom, the approval process itself remains a major bottleneck. The average time from discovering a new genetically modified trait to reaching commercial approval can take over 16 years, with regulatory compliance eating up nearly 40% of the total development cost.
The researchers noted that if gene-edited crops continued to be regulated exactly like traditional GMOs, their development cycle could extend to 14 years. However, if China were to adopt a more differentiated, risk-proportionate review pathway for low-risk crops, that cycle could be slashed to just five years. This decade of difference is vital for companies trying to respond to rapid shifts in climate conditions and pest pressures.
Strengthening intellectual property rights and enforcement
Intellectual property protection was another area where the study called for urgent reform. Although China’s newly amended Seed Law has introduced higher punitive damages for infringement, enforcement at the grassroots level remains weak. In many provinces, seed management agencies lack the molecular testing equipment and professional staff needed to identify ‘copycat’ varieties.
For innovative companies, the high cost of gathering evidence compared to the relatively low damages awarded in court creates a negative incentive. When it is cheaper to imitate than to innovate, the entire industry’s drive toward original research is stifled, leaving the market saturated with homogenised, low-quality seeds.
Navigating consumer perception and labelling reforms
Consumer perception and the current labelling regime represent the final hurdle in the industrialisation chain. China currently uses a ‘qualitative labelling’ system, which is essentially a binary “yes or no” indicator for the presence of GMO ingredients.
This approach, which has not been updated in years, often acts as a warning label that triggers public anxiety. The researchers suggested that the rise of organised disinformation and a general trust deficit regarding biotechnology had stigmatised gene-edited products. They pushed for a shift toward a quantitative threshold system, similar to the 0.9% limit used in the EU or 5% limit in the US, which would allow for more nuanced risk communication.
Building a full chain guarantee system for the future
To resolve these systemic issues, the study proposed a full-chain optimisation strategy. This would include strengthening the Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) rules to protect original breeders and introducing a “one-time submission, multi-department parallel review” model to speed up administrative licensing.
By creating a more predictable and transparent regulatory environment, China can encourage social capital to flow back into cutting-edge breeding projects.
Ultimately, NBT governance is not just a scientific debate but a matter of national agricultural competitiveness. The researchers concluded: “Emerging economies such as China should, while safeguarding biosafety and social stability, adopt risk-proportionate regulatory arrangements and effective innovation incentive structures to create a clear and predictable institutional pathway for NBTs.
“This issue will significantly influence the relative position of relevant countries in the global bioeconomy for an extended period, and constitutes an enduring practical challenge that China must address in its pursuit of becoming a biotechnology powerhouse.”
Source: National Center for Biotechnology Information
“From lab to market: industrialization barriers and regulation optimization for new breeding technologies in China”
https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2025.2610592
Authors: Yu Qin, et al.
