US Farm Bill faces biotech crossroads as Brazil and China accelerate deployment

The 2026 US Farm Bill arrives at a pivotal moment for agricultural biotechnology, as the country enforces pre-2020 regulations following a federal court decision that vacated USDA’s modernized framework. According to an opinion article published by AgFunderNews, Achal Shah, VP of strategic development at Monterey Holdings’ biotech division, argues that while the United States remains a global leader in ag biotech innovation, it is losing ground in deployment to Brazil and China — a shift with implications for national security, farmer competitiveness, and long-term food production.

“The US leads the world in ag biotech, but that lead is eroding, not in the lab, but in the gap between discovery and deployment,” Shah wrote.

The regulatory setback stems from the reversal of USDA’s updated system, which had exempted certain gene-edited plants from oversight and introduced a more streamlined, risk-based review process. With the previous framework reinstated, approval timelines have lengthened, creating uncertainty for developers and growers.

Shah contends that the US does not face an innovation deficit but a deployment bottleneck. He outlines three policy tests that biotech regulation must pass — speed, scale, and staying power — warning that current conditions place the country at a competitive disadvantage.

Speed: regulatory timelines under pressure

In Europe, policymakers have adopted a tiered New Genomic Techniques framework that differentiates between simpler gene-edited crops and more complex genetic modifications. Meanwhile, China has accelerated approvals. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service data cited in the article indicate that Chinese genetically engineered corn and soybean plantings reached approximately three million hectares in 2025, more than quadruple the previous year’s level. China also approved its first gene-edited rice variety in late 2024.

“A genetically engineered trait developed simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic — or the Pacific — will reach those fields first,” Shah noted, framing the issue as one of market share, investment signaling, and future price competitiveness for American growers.

He points to USDA’s “Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework” as a step forward but argues that further measures are needed. Among them: a single-window review process for low-risk traits, an 18-month approval target for products currently requiring more than three years, and AI-assisted safety assessments to streamline lower-risk decisions.

Scale: specialty crops and regulatory economics

Beyond row crops such as corn and soy, Shah highlights the limited penetration of biotech in US specialty crops — fruits, vegetables, and nuts — which together generate more than $75 billion annually in farm-gate value. He attributes the gap to the fixed costs of federal approval, which are more easily justified for large-acreage crops than for region-specific varieties such as heat-tolerant walnuts.

While US investment has remained concentrated in row crops, Brazil has expanded its bio-input market. Data from CEPEA researchers at the University of São Paulo show that Brazil’s biological inputs sector grew 15% in the 2023/2024 season and has averaged 21% annual growth over three years. Brazil’s 2024 bio-inputs law cut approval timelines by half, and the Plano ABC+ program reimburses up to 50% of verified biological spending.

Shah argues that without similar policy adjustments, the US risks becoming dependent on imports for specialty crop production. Proposed solutions include commercialization vouchers to offset regulatory costs for low-risk biotech traits, regional trial networks for smaller developers, and treating bio-inputs as infrastructure within Farm Bill programs.

Staying power: farmer margins at the center

Shah also emphasizes farm economics. Production expenses have exceeded commodity prices for two consecutive years, shifting growers’ attention from long-term biotech potential to short-term survival. He suggests that policy should prioritize margin protection alongside yield gains.

Brazil’s model, he notes, integrates biological adoption into financial structures through reimbursement mechanisms and carbon-credit linkages. In contrast, US growers face transition risks without guaranteed returns.

“The policy conversation must shift from yield metrics to margin metrics,” Shah wrote.

He proposes bridge mechanisms to reduce adoption risk, conservation programs tied to per-acre savings, and investments in on-farm biomanufacturing to reduce exposure to volatile chemical input markets.

Shah acknowledges that faster approvals and expanded access would benefit biotech developers, including companies he works with, but argues that reforms must prioritize growers. Voucher programs, he suggests, should include safeguards to prevent market concentration, and trial networks should incorporate farmer representation.

The 2026 Farm Bill — formally titled the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 — presents what Shah describes as a strategic test. “Speed, scale, and staying power are the right rubric — but only if the staying power belongs to the farm operation,” he concluded.

As global competitors move ahead, US policymakers now face a decision on whether regulatory reform can narrow the gap between laboratory breakthroughs and field-level adoption.