GMOs, Food Sovereignty, and the Risk of “Food as a Service” in Developing Countries
The global debate on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has taken on new urgency in developing countries, where food insecurity intersects with rising corporate influence over agriculture. While GMOs promise higher yields, climate resilience, and enhanced nutrition, critics argue that the economic model behind their deployment risks turning food into a commodified service — Food as a Service (FaaS) — controlled by a few multinational corporations.
We interrogate these fears, analyse the implications for food sovereignty, and propose policy frameworks to ensure that developing countries harness biotechnology without ceding control of their agricultural futures. The central policy challenge is not whether GMOs should exist, but under what ownership, governance, and access models they should be deployed.
Over 70 countries have adopted Genetically modified with the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, India, and China leading production. They have demonstrated benefits in yield, pest resistance, and reduced pesticide use. However, access is often governed by intellectual property (IP) regimes that limit seed saving and impose annual licensing costs.
There is an imminent fear that it is only a matter of time before we are subjected to agriculture being run as “Food as a Service.” Our experience with the early days of software, you paid and owned it. However, the industry introduced “Software as a Service” (SaaS), shifting control from ownership to subscription. Critics fear (and rightly so) and argue that GMOs may turn food into FaaS, where farmers no longer own their means of production (seeds), but rent them under corporate terms.
In developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, who face the persistent food insecurity, technological solutions appear very attractive. Matters are not helped by the fact that regulatory and bargaining capacity against multinational corporations is limited. Seed-saving and communal agriculture is central to rural livelihoods, and geopolitical pressures allow trade deals that often include hidden clauses on Intellectual Property, seed imports, or biotech standards.
The key fears driving opposition the GMOs are:
i. Farmers believe (and rightly true) that they will lose autonomy and be forced to purchase patented seeds yearly, which undermines centuries old practices of seed saving.
ii. The giants of agribusiness – Bayer-Monsanto, Corteva, Syngenta and others) could dictate pricing, supply, and farming practices, creating dependency.
iii. Indigenous seed varieties could be gene-modified, patented, and sold back to communities who originally developed them (biopiracy).
iv. There is also the concerns on biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and long-term ecosystem disruptions.
v. Wealthier farmers and countries (as are now) may adopt GMOs more readily, leaving poorer farmers locked out or forced into exploitative contracts.
The world is already witnesses to how wealthier nations have treated the resources of African countries; there is palpable fear that there is an agenda to foist famine on developing countries.
We can also argue that there are some potential benefits to GMO foods:
i. Crops engineered for higher yield or drought tolerance could stabilise supply in regions facing climate shocks.
ii. Biofortified crops (e.g., Golden Rice, iron-rich beans) address malnutrition at scale.
iii. Pest-resistant crops may reduce pesticide use, lowering costs and environmental damage.
iv. GMO adoption could increase export potential and strengthen rural economies.
The long-term goal of the promoters of GMO is Food as a Service, and with will foist a shift in agricultural power structures, where:
i. Seeds become a licensed product, not a renewable resource.
ii. Farmers become users, not owners.
iii. Corporations become gatekeepers of food access.
This model will lead to further risks:
i. Creating long-term debt traps for smallholder farmers.
ii. Undermining national food security strategies.
iii. Eroding traditional knowledge systems that sustain biodiversity.
Whilst we cannot recommend outright rejection of GMO foods in drought-stricken regions, we will seek to ensure that:
i. Seed Rights Legislation guarantee farmers’ rights to save, share, and replant seeds, even when using GMOs.
ii. Community Seed Banks are set up to invest in preserving indigenous seeds as a hedge against corporate dependency.
iii. Universities and regional organisations (e.g., African Union, ASEAN, MERCOSUR) should fund publicly owned GMOs free from exploitative patents, making biotechnology open source.
iv. Countries in the southern hemisphere should pool resources to reduce reliance on multinationals.
The regulatory frameworks in all countries should ensure:
i. Transparent Licensing: Contracts with seed companies must be publicly accessible and farmer friendly.
ii. Anti-Monopoly Safeguards: Competition authorities should monitor market concentration in the seed sector.
iii. Mandatory Labelling: Give consumers the right to choose between GMO and non-GMO products.
There is also the need to have inclusive Access Models that ensure:
i. Tiered Pricing or Subsidies: Prevent pricing structures that exclude smallholders.
ii. Farmer Cooperatives: Strengthen bargaining power by pooling demand for seeds and negotiating collectively.
iii. Public–Private Partnerships: Encourage collaboration, but under strict sovereignty clauses.
Governments and NGOs should ensure that the public access enough Knowledge & Education by investing in:
i. Public Awareness Campaigns: Counter misinformation with evidence-based communication.
ii. Farmer Training: Equip farmers with knowledge to evaluate both risks and benefits of GMOs.
There are several Case Studies to assist us in formulating policies that will ensure we do not create further food insecurity while investing in GMO:
i. India: Bt Cotton improved yields but sparked debt crises for smallholders due to high seed costs.
ii. Brazil: Widespread adoption of GM soy boosted exports but increased dependence on foreign IP.
iii. Philippines: Biofortified rice projects showed potential for nutrition gains but faced civil society resistance over sovereignty concerns.
In conclusion the GMO debate in developing countries is not a binary choice between rejection and embrace. It is about the political economy of food: who controls it, who benefits, and who bears the risks. The metaphor of Food as a Service (FaaS) is instructive, highlighting how food could become a subscription model under corporate dominance.
Developing countries must craft policies that embrace the scientific potential of GMOs while fiercely protecting sovereignty, biodiversity, and farmer rights. By investing in public biotech, seed sovereignty, and regional cooperation, governments can ensure that GMOs serve as tools of empowerment and not instruments of dependency.
Our experience with the exploitation of the natural resources in developing nations does not speak for anything hopeful with the deployment of GMO in Africa.
Dr. EK Gwuru writes from Nkolo Ikembe.
