China’s seed war for food security and supply chains

What do a semiconductor and a soybean seed have in common? In Beijing’s strategic vocabulary, both are labelled as “chokehold” vulnerabilities — critical dependencies that external actors can exploit. 

The logic is clear. China feeds roughly 20% of the world’s population with 9% of global arable land and 6% of its freshwater resources — a constraint that has pushed Beijing to treat seeds as what the country’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) calls the “chips” of agriculture: the critical upstream technology on which agricultural production depends. 

Amid persistent US-China tensions and recurring supply chain shocks, Beijing is moving upstream in the food system by tightening control over seed genetics through both hybrid breeding systems and genetically modified (GM) technologies. The objective is to narrow yield gaps with advanced economies like the US and reduce import dependence, particularly on feed and food crops like corn and soybean.

China’s food security challenge is often framed through import dependence — and with good reason. In 2025, the country imported a record 111.83 million tons, with over 90% sourced from Brazil, Argentina and the US. This concentration underscores persistent exposure to external supply shocks.

Yet imports are only the downstream expression of a deeper vulnerability. China’s corn and soybean yields remain significantly below US levels. With significant arable land and water constraints, closing this gap requires technological upgrading rather than further input expansion.

Advanced seed biotechnology — including precision trait engineering, transgenic development and gene editing — remains dominated by a small number of multinational firms: Bayer, Corteva, ChemChina’s Syngenta Group and BASF collectively control roughly 50-60% of the global seed market. Despite substantial domestic investment, China continues to lag — and this is the chokehold Beijing seeks to break.

As Qiushi, the Communist Party’s leading theoretical journal, emphasises, the objective is technological self-reliance in seed science and autonomous control over seed sources. Policy frameworks reflect this priority, including the Seed Industry Revitalisation Action Plan (2021–), successive Central No. 1 Documents, and the 2024–2035 Outline for Building an Agricultural Powerhouse. 

Institutionally, such efforts are supported by Nanfan Silicon Valley in Hainan — a year-round breeding hub hosting over 800 research institutions and some 8,000 scientists annually — now positioned as a core national platform for agricultural innovation.

China’s GM trajectory reflects both scientific ambition and institutional caution. After early breakthroughs in the 1980s and biosafety approval for insect-resistant rice in 2009, commercialisation of GM staple crops stalled for over a decade amid regulatory conservatism and public concern.

But this is changing. In 2021, Beijing launched a three-year pilot cultivation of GM corn and soybean on just 200 mu (13 hectares), expanding to around 4 million mu by 2023. MARA found that GM corn achieved over 90% pest control efficacy, with average yield gains of 8.9% for corn and 8.8% for soybean. 

Since then, planting moved into a commercialisation demonstration phase, reaching 10 million mu (667,000 hectares) in 2024, expanding to around 3.3 million hectares by 2025 — roughly 7% of national corn area — alongside more modest soybean expansion.

Regulatory infrastructure has expanded in parallel. By end-2024, MARA had issued 35 biosafety certificates and granted production and marketing licences to 26 seed companies, including major Chinese firms like Da Bei Nong and Longping High-Tech. In 2025, MARA-affiliated researchers published a review of China’s agricultural biotechnology programme, covering product development, commercialisation and future prospect, indicating a state-level assessment of the sector’s progress.

China’s seed strategy is defined by a structural contradiction. Beijing seeks to accelerate domestic adoption of advanced seed technologies to secure food security — yet simultaneously projects those same technologies outward as instruments of global agricultural influence. 

This dual objective sits at the heart of the “new quality productive forces” (新质生产力) framework enshrined in the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030), which positions frontier technological capability as the foundation of China’s long-term national competitiveness. The former demands affordability, accessibility and farmer uptake; the latter demands innovation leadership and global reach. These are not always the same thing — and in seed systems, the gap between them is widening.

Constraints within China’s agricultural sector reinforce this. The sector remains highly fragmented — often described as “small, scattered, and weak” (小散弱) — with thousands of firms and uneven innovation capacity. Technology adoption is also uneven: larger, better-resourced farms adopt faster, while smallholders, who cultivate more than 70% of agricultural land, face persistent barriers.

Public trust further complicates deployment. High-profile food safety incidents, from the 2008 melamine-contaminated infant formula scandal to the 2024 cooking oil contamination case, have weakened confidence in regulatory systems. Surveys indicate that nearly half of respondents hold negative views toward GM food, with just under 14% considering it as a form of bioterrorism — a view connected to military figure Peng Guangqian who publicly linked GM technology to Western biological warfare against China. Addressing these concerns is crucial: without public acceptance, scale adoption remains constrained.

These domestic constraints sit uneasily alongside China’s accelerating outward-facing ambitions. The 2017 acquisition of Syngenta by ChemChina — a US$43 billion deal and the then-largest overseas acquisition by a Chinese firm — provided access to global seed genetics, agrochemical technologies and networks across more than 90 countries. 

The acquisition also laid the foundations for China’s outward push in agricultural biotechnology. Between 2019 and 2025, Da Bei Nong secured GM soybean trait approvals in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, demonstrating an ability to navigate foreign biosafety requirements and compete in global seed markets.

Policy signalling reinforces this trajectory. MARA describes hybrid rice as a “hallmark” of BRI agricultural cooperation, while the 2025 Sanya Seed Conference positioned Nanfan Silicon Valley as a global innovation hub, with AI-integrated precision breeding identified as the frontier of future competitiveness.

China’s seed strategy carries significant implications for Southeast Asia, a region investing in domestic seed systems to address yield gaps and climate-related agricultural pressures.

Two aspects of China’s presence warrant particular attention. The first is hybrid rice — the primary staple for more than half the world’s population and an area where China holds a clear technological advantage. Based on conventional cross-breeding, Chinese hybrid rice seed is already exported at scale. As F1 hybrids (first offspring from crossing two pure lines) do not reproduce true-to-type, farmers normally repurchase seed each season, embedding recurring supplier relationships directly into production systems.

The scale of adoption is most visible in the Philippines. Chinese hybrid varieties yield eight to ten tonnes per hectare — roughly double conventional strains — driving expansion from 4.6% of planting area in 2011 to over 30% by 2024. With around 10% of global rice production traded internationally, seed technology exerts disproportionate influence over food security in rice-dependent economies.

The second aspect — GM crops — remains more constrained. ASEAN’s approach to GM cultivation is fragmented and nationally determined: only a handful of countries permit domestic cultivation, while others allow GM imports for food and feed. No Chinese GM varieties have yet been approved for cultivation in the region.

Given Chinese biotechnology firms’ growing international engagement and Southeast Asia’s existing links to Chinese seed systems, firms may seek GM cultivation approvals in selected ASEAN markets if regulatory conditions continue to ease, building on their demonstrated ability to navigate international biosafety approval processes.

If granted, the relationship would deepen structurally. Unlike hybrid seeds, GM adoption introduces intellectual property licensing, trait-specific input dependencies, and ongoing biosafety compliance alongside the existing cycle of annual seed repurchase. Over time, these mechanisms could extend external influence from production inputs into regulatory governance, shaping biosafety standards, IP frameworks, and variety registration systems, while also reinforcing broader China-ASEAN agricultural and economic ties.

China’s seed strategy ultimately reflects a broader effort to transform agricultural productivity into a domain of technological and geopolitical competition, where genetic innovation becomes as consequential as commodity trade. As this system evolves, seeds, instruments of food production, will become increasingly strategic assets shaping the future architecture of global agriculture.

Related: China leads Northeast Asia’s nuclear buildout | The US-China soybean comeback that could reshape global markets