GMO approvals under pressure: How climate shocks shape policy across nations

events. Using both theoretical modeling and empirical analysis, the paper shows that climate shocks can weaken a coun- try’s comparative advantage in GMO production and reduce the capital allocated to GMO-related technologies. Empiri- cally, the paper uses the local projection method to estimate the cumulative effects of climate shocks on GMO approvals, controlling for country and commodity fixed effects as well as a set of relevant socioeconomic and institutional variables. The findings show that, on average, one additional climate shock reduces GMO approvals by 0.03 events four years later. Droughts and severe winter conditions emerge as the most disruptive climate events, with long-lasting negative effects on GMO approvals over a seven-year horizon. This paper reveals the mechanism behind the impact of climate shocks on GMO approvals in two ways. First, GDP per capita is used as a proxy for a country’s capacity to invest in and implement GMO technologies. At lower income levels, countries tend to approve fewer GMOs—even several years after experiencing climate shocks. This pattern persists when focusing only on GMOs that have already been approved in other countries, and when the analysis is limited to drought Fig 6. Marginal effects of the logarithm of GDP per capita on drought-related GMO approvals. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332298.g006

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332298 October 22, 2025 18 / 20 shocks and drought-tolerant GMO traits. These results suggest that limited economic and technical capacity can constrain a country’s ability to adopt adaptive biotechnologies, even when faced with increasing climate risk. Second, the paper generates a Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) measure to to separate countries into two groups—those with a comparative advantage in GMO production and those without. The results show that climate shocks have more persistent and negative effects on GMO approvals in countries with a comparative disadvantage. Specifically, four years after a shock, these countries experience a notable decline in approvals, while countries with a comparative advantage do not. This supports the view that protectionist responses and weak specialization can amplify regulatory hesitation, leading to stalled innovation and potential global disputes over GMO policies. These findings carry important policy implications. As climate shocks become more frequent and severe, countries with limited technological capacity or weak comparative advantage in GMO production may fall further behind in adopting adaptive agricultural innovations. This delay not only undermines national food security efforts but may also deepen global disparities in resilience and productivity. To address this challenge, national policymakers should prioritize investments in agricultural research and development, strengthen biosafety regulatory frameworks, and enhance institutional capacity to

evaluate and deploy GMO technologies effectively. At the international level, cooperation is essential. Multilateral organizations, donors, and trade partners can help bridge these gaps by supporting harmonization of regulatory standards, facilitating access to pre-approved GMO events, and funding the technical infrastructure needed for risk assessment and monitoring. Encouraging transparent, science-based approval systems—particularly for GMO traits that have been vetted through international protocols—can reduce approval asymmetries and minimize delays in critical adaptive technologies. Additionally, trade agreements and global forums should consider the role of biotechnology in climate resilience and promote mechanisms that enable low- and middle-income countries to benefit from innovation diffusion. In sum, enhancing the institutional and regulatory founda- tions for GMO adoption in structurally disadvantaged regions is essential for building a more adaptive, inclusive, and secure global food system in the face of accelerating climate change. Supporting information S1 Data. Data R1. (CSV) Author contributions Conceptualization: Xiangwen Kong. Data curation: Xiangwen Kong. Formal analysis: Xiangwen Kong. Funding acquisition: Xiangwen Kong. Investigation: Xiangwen Kong. Methodology: Xiangwen Kong. Project administration: Xiangwen Kong. Resources: Xiangwen Kong. Software: Xiangwen Kong. Supervision: Xiangwen Kong. Validation: Xiangwen Kong. Visualization: Xiangwen Kong.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332298 October 22, 2025 19 / 20 Writing – original draft: Xiangwen Kong. Writing – review & editing: Xiangwen Kong. References 1. Zhang T, He Y, DePauw R, Jin Z, Garvin D, Yue X, et al. Climate change may outpace current wheat breeding yield improvements in North Amer- ica. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):5591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33265-1 PMID: 36180462 2. Amanullah M, Nahid M, Hosen SZ. Global overview of genetically modified foods and its benefits: a review. Health Dyn. 2024;1(7):236–43. https:// doi.org/10.33846/hd10703 3. Smith PJ, Katovich ES. Are GMO policies “trade related”? Empirical analysis of Latin America. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2017;39(2):286–312. 4. Mitchell P. Europe’s anti-GM stance to presage animal feed shortage? Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(10):1065–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1007-1065 PMID: 17921975 5. Stein AJ, Rodríguez-Cerezo E. Low-level presence of new GM crops: an issue on the rise for countries where they lack approval. Agbioforum. 2010;13(2):173–82. 6. Vermij P. Liberty Link rice raises specter of tightened regulations. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(11):1301–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1301 PMID: 17093456 7. Wang Y, Johnston S. The status of GM rice R&D in China. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(7):717–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0707-717 PMID: 17621287 8. Wheeler T, von Braun J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science. 2013;341(6145):508–13. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci- ence.1239402 PMID: 23908229

9. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D. The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev. 2012;102(1):131–66. https://doi. org/10.1257/aer.102.1.131 PMID: 26719595 10. Aghion P, Bénabou R, Martin R, Roulet A. Environmental preferences and technological choices: is market competition clean or dirty? Am Econ Rev Insights. 2023;5(1):1–19. 11. Miao Q, Popp D. Necessity as the mother of invention: innovative responses to natural disasters. J Environ Econ Manag. 2014;68(2):280–95. 12. Hedoui MA, Beghin JC. Decomposing the impact of genetically modified organism regulation on bilateral trade: an application to corn trade. Aust J Agric Res Econ. 2025. 13. Moscona J, Sastry KA. Does directed innovation mitigate climate damage? Evidence from US agriculture. Q J Econ. 2023;138(2):637–701. 14. Brown ME, Carr ER, Grace KL, Wiebe K, Funk CC, Attavanich W, et al. Do markets and trade help or hurt the global food system adapt to climate change? Food Policy. 2017;68:154–9. 15. Do Q-T, Levchenko AA, Raddatz C. Comparative advantage, international trade, and fertility. J Develop Econ. 2016;119:48–66. 16. Melitz MJ. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica. 2003;71(6):1695–725. 17. Chaney T. Distorted gravity: the intensive and extensive margins of international trade. Am Econ Rev. 98(4):1707–21. 18. Qaim M. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2020;42(2):129–50.

ers in low- and middle-income countries. Nat Plants. 2020;6(10):1231–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00783-z PMID: 33051616 30. Jordà Ò, Schularick M, Taylor ALM. When credit bites back. J Money Credit Banking. 2013;45(s2):3–28.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332298 October 22, 2025 20 / 20 31. Jordà Ò, Taylor AM. “Local Projections.” WORKING PAPER. NBER. 2024. https://www.nber.org/papers/w32822 32. Klomp J. Economic development and natural disasters: a satellite data analysis. Glob Environ Change. 2016;36:67–88. 33. Klomp J, Hoogezand B. Natural disasters and agricultural protection: a panel data analysis. World Develop. 2018;104:404–17. 34. Chen YE, Li C, Chang CP, Zheng M. Identifying the influence of natural disasters on technological innovation. Econ Anal Policy. 2021;70:22–36. 35. Okolo CV, Wen J. Economics of natural disasters and technological innovations in Africa: an empirical evidence. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023;30(5):12362–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22989-8 PMID: 36107292 36. Jin L, Wang J, Guan F, Zhang J, Yu S, Liu S, et al. Dominant point mutation in a tetraspanin gene associated with field-evolved resistance of cotton bollworm to transgenic Bt cotton. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(46):11760–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812138115 PMID: 30381456 37. Yu Q, You L, Wood-Sichra U, Ru Y, Joglekar ALKB, Fritz S, et al. A cultivated planet in 2010–Part 2: The global gridded agricultural-production maps. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2020;12(4):3545–72. 38. Vollrath TL. A theoretical evaluation of alternative trade intensity measures of revealed comparative advantage. Rev World Econ. 1991;127(2):265–80.

39. Dalum B, Laursen K, Villumsen G. Structural change in OECD export specialisation patterns: de-specialisation and ‘stickiness’. Int Rev Appl Econ. 1998;12(3):423–43.