India is building a gene-editing superpower, and it's a different model from China's

India and China are racing to gene-edit their way to food security. Both countries face similar pressures, including rising heat, unpredictable rainfall and the need to feed enormous populations with limited farmland. Yet they are taking almost opposite paths to get there. One country is consolidating control in the hands of a few state-backed companies, while the other is spreading responsibility across public institutions and smallholder farmers. That difference tells you a lot about how each country plans to compete in agricultural biotechnology over the next decade.

All you need to know about what India is building

In July 2026, India's policy think tank NITI Aayog proposed AgriBio 2.0, a flagship biotechnology mission focused on deploying CRISPR-based gene editing, biofertilisers and biopesticides to develop climate-resilient crops. This also reduces dependence on chemical fertilisers, which expose consumers to potentially hazardous chemicals.

The plan is expected to be jointly led by India's Department of Biotechnology, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, keeping the mission rooted in public institutions rather than a small set of private firms.

The financial backing behind the mission is substantial. A proposed BioEconomy Growth Fund worth roughly ₹50,000 crore is set to run from 2026 through 2035 to help finance the broader mission. According to the roadmap published by NITI Aayog, India's Bio Agriculture segment is projected to grow from roughly $51 billion in 2030⁴ to $90 billion by 2035, with gene-edited crops cited as one of the primary drivers behind that growth.

China's approach favours consolidation

China has taken a more centralised route to the same goal. Under its 15th Five-Year Plan, released in mid-2026, Beijing formally designated gene editing as a core agricultural technology, calling for faster progress in high-efficiency gene editing.

Rather than spreading resources across the country's many regional seed companies, Chinese regulators selected a small group of national champions. Research from GRAIN's analysis of China's agribusiness expansion describes how the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs designated 69 companies as national crop seed teams, granting them privileged access to capital, with the core structure built around state-linked giants such as CITIC-Longping and Sinochem-Syngenta.

This consolidation is deliberate and extends beyond China's borders, as the country works to ensure that crops imported back into China are increasingly grown using Chinese-developed seed genetics.

Analysts have started treating this buildout as a national security issue rather than a purely commercial one. A recent policy assessment from the Center for European Policy Analysis described gene-edited agriculture as a matter of supply chain sovereignty on par with semiconductors and missile technology.

Why the smallholder focus matters

India's farming base looks structurally different from China's, and that difference shapes the entire policy approach. Marginal farmers, those cultivating less than one hectare of land, account for close to 69% of India's farm households, even though their holdings cover only about a quarter of the country's cultivable land.

This fragmentation drives most agricultural policy decisions in the country, since any technology or programme that fails to reach small landholders effectively misses most of India's farmers. Drought and heat stress tend to hit smaller operations hardest, since these farms have fewer resources to absorb a bad season, which is part of why AgriBio 2.0 places heavy emphasis on stress-tolerant crop varieties.

The same public research foundation shows strong potential even for crops outside the formal scope of AgriBio 2.0. India produces the vast majority of the world's castor seed, a crop valued for its wide industrial applications, from biodegradable plastics to bio-based lubricants. Castor oil's chemical properties give it commercial relevance across a range of industries. Further gene-editing work on yield and pest resistance could extend the advantage India already holds globally.

India is betting on trust over speed

India's strategy centres on regulatory clarity and public research capacity, with smallholder farmers positioned as the intended first beneficiaries rather than an afterthought. Reports show that only 35% of small farmers have access to high-quality seeds and fertilisers, a shortfall that limits how quickly new technology reaches the farmers who need it most.

India has already shown a willingness to adjust regulation specifically to unlock gene editing. In March 2022, the government exempted genome-edited plants without foreign genes from the stricter regulatory pathway used for transgenic GMOs. That decision helped clear the way for India's first genome-edited rice varieties, approved years later. It opened the door for CRISPR-based crop development to move faster domestically without triggering the kind of public backlash associated with older-generation GMOs, such as Bt cotton.

What this means for investors and emerging markets

If you're an investor eyeing entry points, it's important to acknowledge that India's model is unlikely to scale as quickly as China's. Decentralised, institution-led systems rarely move at the same pace as centralised ones backed by a handful of state-anchored companies. However, India's approach may prove more exportable to other developing economies that share its demographic profile, including large numbers of smallholder farmers, uneven infrastructure and public wariness toward large-scale biotech.

For Western investors evaluating where agricultural biotech innovation is likely to take root next, that distinction carries real weight. China's model favours partnerships with a small number of state-anchored giants, which creates higher barriers to entry but potentially faster commercialisation once inside the system. India's model may offer more accessible entry points through public research collaborations, agri-biotech startups and export-oriented commodity chains, such as castor, though likely at a slower pace tied to regulatory maturity and public trust building.

A dynamic, cutting-edge sector

India and China are pursuing the same goal through very different means. China is betting on speed and control through a small number of state-backed companies. India is betting on trust and public institutions, with smallholder farmers at the centre of the strategy. Both approaches carry real financial backing and real ambition, and both remain works in progress. How each model performs in the years ahead will likely influence which path other countries choose as gene-edited agriculture takes on a larger role in global food production.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.