More than a decade after repeated attempts to pass legislation allowing the import and trade of genetically modified crops fell through, a new push emerged several months ago. This time, the effort appears different, and more likely to succeed, because of a factor absent from previous rounds: the Future of Egypt for Sustainable Development Authority. Government and parliamentary sources say that a coalition is currently taking shape, led by the Future of Egypt authority and several multinational corporations, foremost among them the German agrochemical giant, Bayer. The coalition is working to legalize the production and commercial use of genetically modified seeds in Egypt in the coming months. The authority held a series of meetings in March and April, including one attended by a high-level delegation from Bayer, representatives of the Agricultural Research Center and officials from several relevant ministries and state bodies. Discussions focused on contentious issues related to the legal and executive frameworks governing the use of genetic engineering technologies in agriculture. According to a government source and a parliamentarian who spoke separately to Mada Masr, Future of Egypt supports expanding the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering in agriculture and food production, in line with presidential directives aimed at boosting agricultural output and reducing production costs. Permitting the commercial use of genetically modified seeds in Egypt would pave the way for Future of Egypt to establish a genetically modified seed production facility in partnership with international companies, including Bayer, a second government source tells Mada Masr. It would also grant the authority privileges in seed imports, similar to the powers it recently acquired over wheat and other strategic commodities, the import responsibilities of which were transferred from the General Authority for Supply Commodities, according to the source. Public resistance, fueled by fears over the health and environmental risks of genetically modified crops, was one of the reasons previous legislative efforts repeatedly stalled. In March 2012, then-Agriculture Minister Reda Ismail suspended the registration of genetically modified corn, halted its cultivation on reclaimed land in 10 governorates and banned its trade. The crop had originally been approved for import in 2008 from Monsanto, the global seed and agrochemical giant that produced much of the world’s genetically modified seed stock and held intellectual property rights over a growing share of commercial seeds worldwide. Monsanto was acquired by Bayer in 2018. The following year, Egyptians joined a global campaign against the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production. The movement drew hundreds of thousands of participants worldwide, particularly after the United States passed a law that effectively shielded Monsanto from legal liability, including compensation claims in cases where its products were found to have caused environmental damage or physical harm. The 2012 ban on genetically modified crops remained in place and was reaffirmed in 2021 when then-Agriculture Minister Al-Sayed al-Quseir issued the executive regulations of Egypt’s organic agriculture law. The regulations included several provisions prohibiting the use of genetically modified organisms and products derived from or produced using them, as well as cloned or genetically hybridized animals, genetically modified seeds, plant parts and genetically modified microorganisms such as viruses, bacteria and fungi. Efforts to pass legislation authorizing the use of genetic engineering technologies in agriculture nevertheless continued, most recently in February 2025. But each attempt ultimately failed. Now, however, this may change. Whatever the scientific disagreements over the health risks of genetically modified crops, environmental and agricultural experts agree that the technology holds enormous potential for humanity. Yet when control over that technology and the infrastructure of agricultural production is concentrated in the hands of a small number of corporations, the consequences can include declining biodiversity, degraded farmland and growing dependence of farmers, as well as national food security more broadly, on foreign companies that control seeds as well as the pesticides and fertilizers tied to them. *** During a February 2023 meeting attended by Prime Minister Mostafa Madbuly, the agriculture minister, the head of the Future of Egypt and other officials, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi instructed the government to expand the use of modern agricultural technologies and genetic engineering and make greater use of scientific research to increase productivity and reduce costs. Sisi cited the “positive impact this could have for livestock producers and farmers […] in support of the intensive efforts to achieve food security in Egypt,” according to the presidency statement. A source at the Agriculture Ministry tells Mada Masr that Agriculture Minister Alaa Farouk has held a series of meetings since the beginning of this year in line with Sisi’s directives, with representatives of several multinational companies in preparation for the commercial registration of genetically modified seeds. One such meeting took place in February and brought together the minister and representatives of Bayer. The German company dropped the infamous Monsanto name after acquiring the agribusiness giant in a deal worth around US$63 billion, one of the biggest deals in the global chemicals and agriculture industries. The move was seen as an attempt to distance itself from Monsanto’s negative reputation, particularly regarding pesticides and GMOs. Bayer is now awaiting the legislation needed to register and market its seed products in Egypt. According to a statement issued by the Agriculture Ministry, the meeting involved discussions on a package of proposals aimed at deepening technical cooperation. These included support for research programs on breeding and improving commercial crop varieties, particularly corn and other summer crops, to boost productivity and adapt to climate change; testing Bayer’s latest technologies and products under Egyptian environmental conditions to assess their safety and effectiveness; and the role of the Agricultural Research Center as a scientific reference body capable of providing data and field studies to support Egypt’s position in international negotiations over agricultural criteria. Bayer also expressed during the meeting its readiness to establish a genetically modified seed production facility in Egypt as soon as the necessary legislative and executive framework is in place, the ministry source says. The source adds that Bayer’s delegation raised the issue in meetings with officials from Future of Egypt, the Agricultural Research Center and members of the House of Representatives, stressing the importance of issuing the legal and executive framework needed to allow the commercial circulation of genetically modified seeds. Several weeks later, on April 4, House Speaker Hesham Badawy referred a draft law submitted by Justice Party parliamentary committee head Mohamed Fouad and a group of lawmakers to a joint committee comprising the energy and environment, education, agriculture and constitutional and legislative affairs committees. The bill, titled “regulation of access to biological resources and the fair sharing of benefits arising from their use,” proposes the establishment of a national authority for biological resources and traditional knowledge. Affiliated with the prime minister’s office and chaired by the environment minister, the authority would be granted a wide range of powers, most notably the power to issue licenses for the use of biological resources, traditional sector-specific knowledge and biodiversity-related innovations, including the development of new technologies or the improvement of existing ones. The draft law establishes five categories of licenses, distinguishing between non-commercial and academic research on the one hand and commercial activities on the other. Licensing fees would be capped at LE200,000, while academic research and certain non-commercial use carried out within local communities could qualify for exemptions or reduced fees. Geneticist and Sinai’s Plant Protection Museum director Sayed al-Neshiwy, speaking to Mada Masr, argues that research activities should have been exempted from licensing fees outright in the draft law, rather than left subject to separate decisions. The referral marks the third time since 2016 that the House’s lower chamber has sent legislation dealing with the same issue to its committees for review. The current draft closely resembles earlier proposals submitted by the government. The first was introduced in 2016 under the title “biosafety in the handling of genetically modified products.” After amendments the government introduced in January 2017, the legislation was resubmitted under the same title now carried by Fouad’s proposal. The House referred it to the Energy and Environment Committee, which began discussing it in late 2018, but the process ultimately led nowhere. In March 2021, the government submitted a third version of the bill to the Senate. The upper chamber approved it in October of that year after introducing several amendments, before returning it to the House’s Energy and Environment Committee, which continued studying the proposal through last year. In the previous drafts, the government defined the law’s purpose as “protecting Egypt’s biological and genetic resources, genetic assets and traditional knowledge, preventing their appropriation by others without compensation and ensuring the sharing of benefits derived from their development and use by others.” It also framed the legislation as a safeguard against the risks associated with genetically modified foods and products. Fouad’s bill departs from earlier versions in one important aspect: it directly addresses the domestic cultivation of genetically modified crops. Its explanatory memorandum argues that if Egypt already allows the import of genetically modified agricultural crops such as corn and soybeans, it should also establish a legal framework governing the cultivation of genetically modified crops and the import of the seeds needed to grow them. In the memorandum, Fouad argues that “the concerns and pressures used by some to block this legislation and to raise fears about the cultivation of crops developed through genetic engineering — which halted discussion of the bill after it was presented to the Senate in the previous parliamentary term — have not stopped many investors from exploiting these products. Import data shows that a very large share of the crops entering Egypt are already products and foods whose genetic makeup has been modified in laboratories.” Fouad explains that Egypt currently imports hundreds of food products containing genetically modified ingredients while continuing to prohibit the import and cultivation of genetically modified seeds. He points to Egypt’s annual imports of between 10-11 million tons of yellow corn and between 4.5-6 million tons of soybeans from countries such as the US and Brazil that rely on genetic engineering technologies in agriculture. These imports supply Egypt’s feed market for poultry, livestock and aquaculture industries, while benefiting a small group of investors who control much of the trade in those crops. Ahmed Mansour al-Zoheiry, a professor of genetics and biotechnology at Zagazig University, agrees that Egypt needs a clear position on GMOs. In his view, the absence of a legal framework has created a state of chaos. “There are no rules at all and everyone is doing whatever they want,” Zoheiry tells Mada Masr. “If someone decides to import genetically engineered seeds, there is nothing stopping them. Oils produced from genetically modified crops are already on the market and nobody prevents their sale.” Zoheiry adds that although Egypt has prohibited the import, commercial distribution and cultivation of genetically modified seeds since 2012, the absence of oversight has made everything permissible, leaving nothing to deter companies from bringing such seeds into the country and using them to produce crops consumed domestically. Several academic studies support his assessment. A study by four researchers at the University of Sadat City’s Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Research Institute detected genetically modified potato varieties circulating in the Egyptian market without any indication that they had been genetically engineered. The researchers noted that Egyptian import inspection systems focus on testing for mycotoxins and nutritional content, without applying GMO labeling standards. The National Food Safety Authority moved in January to address part of that gap by issuing regulations governing the import and circulation of genetically modified foods. The rules require products to carry labels identifying genetically modified ingredients and mandate the submission of safety documentation. However, they are yet to be enforced. According to the study published in the Egyptian Journal of Genetics and Cytology in 2018, researchers examined 26 potato varieties obtained from the Egyptian market and cultivated at a research farm affiliated with University of Sadat City’s institute. After conducting molecular and morphological analysis, the researchers identified insect-resistance genetic modifications in 12 varieties, fungal-resistance traits in 10 others and viral promoter sequences, a genetic code used to activate the introduced traits, in the majority of the samples tested. Genetically modified crops appear to have made their way into official institutions as well, without permission from the law. The source at the Agriculture Ministry pointed to an April 2022 announcement by Egypt’s Atomic Energy Authority declaring the successful development of new wheat strains capable of tolerating salinity and water scarcity while producing yields around one ton higher than conventional varieties. The authority also said the new strains required only 140 days from planting to harvest. No formal Agriculture Ministry decree approving the registration of the energy authority’s wheat varieties has been issued or published in the Official Gazette. But in an August 2025 broadcast on Al-Qahera Wal Nas TV channel, a presenter announced that the ministry had approved the registration of two varieties developed by the authority: Taqa 4 durum wheat and Taqa 152 bread wheat. In April, New Valley Governorate reported successful cultivation trials of both varieties on a local farm. What the atomic energy authority did not publicly say, according to the ministry source, is that these new wheat strains are themselves genetically modified. The classification has been confirmed by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. The varieties have already been distributed for cultivation and consumed domestically, the source says, producing favorable trial results that were presented to state institutions and received the green light to remove any obstacles for wider use. Despite the reality on the ground, every attempt to pass legislation regulating genetically modified crops over the past decade has failed. According to a source at the House’s General Secretariat, who spoke to Mada Masr on condition of anonymity, the primary obstacle has been the influence of a small group of lawmakers who are also investors. The source describes a network of interests led by major agricultural exporters to Europe, alongside large importers of conventional seeds and traders importing yellow corn and soybeans from countries sponsoring genetically engineered agriculture, such as the US. These actors have opposed legislation that would permit use of genetic engineering technologies in Egyptian agriculture. And at the heart of their concern is Europe, the main destination for Egyptian agricultural exports. Zoheiry explains that European countries maintain strict policies toward genetically modified crops and products. Under European regulations, any genetically modified material cannot exceed 0.9 percent of a product’s composition, and even then, its presence is only permitted when it is accidental and technically unavoidable. European authorities use PCR tests in some exporting countries and at European ports to verify compliance. Shipments found to exceed the threshold are turned back. Even exporters who fully comply with European requirements remain vulnerable to contamination through cross-pollination from neighboring fields planted with genetically modified crops. A single farmer using genetically modified seeds can introduce modified genetic material into surrounding conventional crops, causing export shipments to fail European inspections. Rebuilding trust with European importers after such incidents can take years. For that reason, exporters often view a complete prohibition on genetically modified seeds, as is currently in place, as preferable to any attempt at regulation. According to the parliamentary source in the general secretariat, however, a competing network of interests has long pushed for legislation to open new markets for genetically modified seeds and the pesticides associated with them. The balance of power between the two camps, they say, has helped keep successive bills frozen for more than a decade despite repeated attempts to move them forward. This time, however, it is a different story. The source points to the fact that the latest bill was not submitted by the government, but by Fouad in his capacity as the head of the Justice Party’s parliamentary bloc. Under normal circumstances, bills submitted by MPs stand little chance of becoming law compared with legislation backed by the government, the source says. A member of the Energy and Environment Committee, who spoke to Mada Masr on condition of anonymity, argues that the bill’s sponsor is less important than the political support it receives. According to the source, whether Fouad’s proposal or a government-sponsored alternative passes will depend on intervention from higher sovereign authorities capable of tipping the balance in favor of companies involved in genetically modified seeds and pesticides, as well as resolving concerns related to European export standards. For this reason, the parliamentary source says the reintroduction of biosafety legislation that has circulated in the House since 2016 under the banner of genetic engineering suggests either a shrewd reading of market calculations and power balances by Fouad, or prior coordination with a state institution. Fouad tells Mada Masr that his motivation is to address the state of chaos and regulatory vacuum surrounding the safe use of genetic engineering technologies. “If it is harmful, then we should stop importing it. If it is beneficial, then we should cultivate it,” he says. *** Scientific research has not established that genetically modified crops are harmful to human health in absolute terms. However, each genetically modified crop requires its own rigorous safety assessment, particularly with regard to long-term effects. The European Union’s 2015 legislation, for example, stipulates that GMOs intended for cultivation must undergo an individual risk assessment before they can be authorized for the European market. In Egypt, a series of biosafety committees were established beginning in 1995 to oversee products developed using genetic engineering technologies, including medicines, vaccines, food products, specialized nutritional formulations and seeds, with the aim of ensuring the safe use of biotechnology and protecting public health and the environment. In 2008, however, the Agriculture Ministry, with no public statement, approved the registration of a genetically modified maize variety developed by Monsanto. The hybrid combined MON 810 — a genetically engineered corn variety — with a local Egyptian strain known as Ajeeb. The resulting variety was registered by Monsanto as Ajeeb-YG, and, in the same year, the ministry granted the company’s Egyptian distributor, Fine Seeds International, a license to market it commercially. Between 2008 and 2012, the crop was cultivated on around 3,800 feddans. Several studies examined the Monsanto-developed maize variety. Two studies published in 2014 reported pathological tissue changes in the livers of laboratory rats, enlargement of renal blood vessels and signs of necrosis in the testes and intestinal villi after 91 days of feeding on the genetically modified corn. Two years later, a study conducted by researchers at Tanta University’s Faculty of Medicine reported similar findings, concluding that rats fed MON 810 maize for 90 days showed significant intestinal damage. Alongside concerns raised by such studies, local campaigns led by activists and civil society organizations emerged in 2012 as part of broader international movements lobbying against Monsanto. In Europe, public pressure and scientific research prompted several countries, including Austria, France, Germany, Greece and Hungary, to ban cultivation of the maize variety, citing concerns about biodiversity. Although the European Union approved MON 810 cultivation in 1998, planting remains concentrated in only a handful of member states, most notably Spain and Portugal. In 2015, the EU adopted a legislative framework imposing stricter controls on genetically modified crops, requiring comprehensive risk assessments before approval, including evaluations of potential impacts on human and animal health and the environment. Under similar pressure, Egypt’s agriculture minister at the time suspended imports of the genetically modified corn seed — a decision that remains in effect today. A central concern for campaigners has been the ecological and agricultural impact of biotechnology-based farming. They warn that genetically modified crops can affect biodiversity through the transfer of engineered genes to wild plant populations, potentially contributing to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds and affecting non-target organisms such as bees and other beneficial species. Alongside environmental concerns are fears of dependence on multinational corporations. Widespread adoption of genetically modified crops concentrates control over seeds and food production in the hands of a small number of global companies. Today, four corporations — Bayer, BASF, Syngenta Group and Corteva Agriscience — account for 56 percent of the commercial seed market and 61 percent of worldwide pesticide sales. In 2013, the six companies that later formed the four giants commanded 75 percent of global private sector plant-breeding research. In the 1980s, the combined market share of the world’s 10 largest seed companies did not exceed 15 percent. Several studies linked consolidation within the seed and agrochemical industries to rising seed prices, increasing pressure on small-scale farmers, particularly in developing countries. These companies have also developed seed varieties designed to work with their own pesticides. Bayer, for example, produces the herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the brand name Roundup, as well as seed varieties engineered to tolerate it, known as Roundup Ready. This model effectively requires farmers to purchase both seeds and pesticides from the same supplier each planting season. The repeated use of a single herbicide gives rise to resistant weeds over time, prompting farmers to apply larger quantities of the chemical, raising concerns over environmental and public health consequences. Studies have warned about the effects of glyphosate exposure on human health, while the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency classified the chemical in 2015 as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Monsanto, and later Bayer, have consequently faced tens of thousands of lawsuits in the US from people who attribute their lymphoma diagnoses to exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides. Peer-reviewed studies have also warned of environmental impacts associated with glyphosate use, including soil degradation and groundwater contamination due to its tendency to leach rapidly into water systems. For that reason, former American University in Cairo social anthropology professor Reem Saad argues that what is needed is not legislation so much as public awareness and a broad societal debate about genetically modified agriculture. She stresses that its consequences on ecosystems, agricultural land and farmers are not easily reversible. She also rejects the argument that biotechnology is intended to eliminate hunger, arguing instead that the problem lies not in insufficient food production, but in unequal distribution, adding that higher yields associated with genetically modified agriculture are accompanied by increased pesticide use, which can undermine soil quality, disrupt ecosystems and reduce biodiversity. Hala Barakat, an environmental and heritage consultant, shares similar concerns. She argues that discussions of biosafety often conflate regulating genetically modified products with endorsing their use. Speaking to Mada Masr, Barakat says that allowing the establishment of facilities to produce, distribute and cultivate genetically modified seeds in Egypt would carry environmental and health risks that are comparable, in her view, to those associated with opening a cement factory. “Prioritizing investor interests destroys agriculture,” she says. Instead, Barakat argues that what Egypt’s agricultural sector needs is to focus on preserving local seed varieties and supporting small farmers rather than large investors. Such an approach would help protect crop varieties adapted to local soils and climatic conditions while reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete soil quality and strain limited natural resources, she adds. Saeed Soliman, the former head of the Genetics Department at Zagazig University’s Faculty of Agriculture, likewise argues that multinational agribusiness corporations are pursuing more than seed sales alone. Their objective, he tells Mada Masr, is to consolidate control over strategic crops such as wheat and rice, much as they have done with corn, through the spread of single-use hybrid and genetically modified seeds that farmers must repeatedly purchase, rather than save the seeds from their own harvests and replant. In Soliman’s view, such a model would lock farmers into long-term dependence on a handful of global suppliers. And by adopting it, he says, “we would be walking willingly toward our doom.”The post After 14-year ban, Future of Egypt-led coalition pushes to legalize genetically modified seed cultivation first appeared on Mada Masr.
