Genetically Modified Crops as a Strategy for Reducing Pesticide Dependence in Sub-Saharan Africa: Exploring Benefits, Adoption Constraints and Policies ^†

Abstract

The overreliance on chemical pesticides in sub-Saharan African (SSA) for agriculture poses major challenges to sustainable agriculture, ecosystem and human health, biodiversity, and environmental sustainability. While genetically modified (GM) crops have demonstrated potential to lower pesticide use and increase crop yield, their widespread adoption remains limited across SSA, with gaps in knowledge on their yield, benefits and policies impacting their uptake. In this study, a literature-based approach was used to synthesize evidence from peer-reviewed articles and government reports published between 2010 and 2025 on pesticide use, farm productivity, and wellbeing of farmers across three focus countries: Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso. The summary of approved GM crops, events and utilisation across the three focus countries was also retrieved from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) database. Cross-country comparisons were conducted to highlight lessons learned from successful and stalled GM crop programs and to identify regulatory, socio-cultural, and economic factors shaping adoption. It is shown that while GM crops can significantly reduce pesticide usage and production costs, challenges such as public hesitancy, regulatory hurdles, limited farmer awareness, and concerns about ecological consequences continue to hinder wider uptake across the continent. Similarly, weak seed systems and the lack of regionally harmonized biosafety regulations also constrain adoption. In areas where GM crops have been successfully adopted, it was demonstrated that supportive policy frameworks, transparent biosafety regulations, effective seed certification and distribution systems, and sustained community engagement increased farmer confidence and accelerated adoption. Hence, for GM crops to be more widely adopted for sustainable crop protection in sub-Saharan Africa, governments and stakeholders must strengthen biosafety systems, invest in farmer education, promote regional regulatory coordination, and facilitate public–private partnerships.

1. Introduction

The agricultural sector is a major economic contributor in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), supporting the livelihoods of rural families and employing the largest labour force in the region [1]. However, agricultural production in SSA is still highly reliant on the heavy use of pesticides/herbicides and allied chemical agents on a wide variety of crops to protect them from weeds, insects, and pests [2]. While these pesticides have long sustained agricultural production, their heavy and often unregulated usage has resulted in far reaching negative consequences for human health, ecological stability, and environmental sustainability. Many studies have implicated chronic pesticide exposure in respiratory illnesses, endocrine disruption, and carcinogenic risks, especially among small-scale farmers who are often inadequately protected at the time of application [3,4]. Beyond this, excessive pesticide use leads to environmental contamination, loss of beneficial insect populations, declining soil fertility, and the development of resistant pest species that further increase the dependence of farmers on pesticides [2].

In response to these challenges, modern agricultural biotechnology has focused on potential alternatives to reduce overreliance on pesticides. Among these, genetically modified (GM) crops have gained global attention for their role in reducing pesticide use while enhancing productivity and food security. These advances in crop farming are particularly important in SSA, where there is widespread desertification, high pest population and farmers face high health risks from pesticide exposure and limited access to protective equipment [5]. Notable success examples of GM crop usage in SSA include the commercial cultivation of insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Zea mays L. and Gossypium hirsutum L. in South Africa, that have significantly increased yields, improved farmers’ incomes, and reduced the need for chemical pesticides [5,6]. Furthermore, the growth of GM pod-borer-resistant Vigna unguiculata (known as SAMPEA 20-T), which was authorized and widely accepted in Nigeria in 2019, have been reported by farmers to improve yield and reduce pesticide use [7]. Despite this, adoption of GM crops in SSA is uneven and limited. Only a few African countries have commercialized GM crops or conducted field trials. These varied results reflect a complex interplay of the regulatory, socio-economic, institutional, and cultural barriers that affect adoption. Public mistrust, concerns about seed sovereignty, and cultural values tied to traditional farming also shape community perceptions and influence uptake [8]. While countries like South Africa has developed a solid biosafety regulatory system that supports the commercial use of GM crops, other countries like Burkina Faso have halted cultivation of GM crops due to quality concerns, trade-related uncertainties, political reasons and regulatory constraints [5]. Understanding such divergent experiences can help inform future biotechnology policy and improve sustainable agriculture within the region. Hence, this review explores the dual role of GM crops in reducing pesticide use and enhancing yields in SSA. This was achieved through a cross-country assessment of Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso, including the challenges limiting adoption and strategies and lessons learned from successful and discontinued GM crop programs. The review also identifies policy priorities and future pathways for improving biosafety systems, strengthening regional coordination, and supporting responsible GM crop deployment across SSA.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Design and Literature Search Strategy

A structured literature-based approach was used to synthesize evidence from peer-reviewed articles and government reports published between 2010 and 2025 on major scientific databases, institutional repositories and policy archives, including Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and FAO databases. Search terms included combinations of “genetically modified crops”, “Bt cotton”, “GM maize”, “GM cowpea”, “reduction of pesticide use”, “yield improvement”, “biosafety regulation Africa”, “Sub-Saharan Africa”, “agricultural biotechnology SSA”, “farmer adoption barriers”. The summary of approved GM crop events and crop types for the three focus countries (Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso) were also retrieved from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) [9] database on 18 October 2025. Retrieved articles were screened for relevance.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they reported empirical results on pesticide use, yield, farmer income, or environmental effects of GM crops; focused on Nigeria, South Africa, Burkina Faso, or any other SSA countries to provide contextual insights; analyzed regulatory frameworks, farmer perceptions, or adoption barriers; were published in English. Studies were excluded if they were pure laboratory-based genetic engineering studies without field relevance; non-African case studies with no policy relevance to SSA; opinion pieces with no empirical evidence.

2.3. Focus Countries and Justification

The focus on Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso was majorly due to their representation of three distinct policy and adoption trajectories in Africa. South Africa represents Africa’s longest running and largest GM adopter, with a broad regulatory framework that allows the commercial production of specific GM crops [5]. Furthermore, Nigeria with its recently commercialized Bt cowpea and cotton, represents Africa’s newest and fastest expanding GM adopter, and provides an overview of early-stage adoption and regulatory evolution. Burkina Faso on the other hand presents a unique reversal case with its previous adoption of GM cotton and later suspension of cultivation, thereby providing lessons on institutional and market challenges. This trio allows for a detailed comparison of established, emerging, and discontinued GM adoption contexts in one study.

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

The key variables that were focused on include: type of GM crop, reported change in pesticide use, differences in yield between GM and non-GM varieties, farmer income impacts, policy or regulatory factors, adoption barriers and enablers. Data were synthesized thematically across three analytical domains: regulatory and institutional factors; socio-economic and cultural factors; and environmental and agronomic outcomes. A narrative synthesis approach was used to integrate findings and develop country-level comparative insights.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

This study was based on secondary data alone from public domain sources; hence, no ethical approval was required. Materials were derived from open-access publications or institutional databases that allow reuse for academic purposes.

3. Evidence Analysis and Discussion

3.1. Overview of GM Crop Adoption Patterns in Sub-Saharan Africa

As of October 2025, a total of 10 African countries appear on the ISAAA database to have approved, cultivated, or conducted confined field trials of GM crops, although the level of adoption varies widely. The geospatial distribution of GM crop adoption across the continent (Figure 1), shows a cluster of adoption across West, East, and Southern Africa, with South Africa having been historical continental leaders in commercialization of GM cotton, maize and soybeans since the 1990s [10]. Although countries like Egypt and Burkina Faso were among the first in Africa to adopt GM crops, they have since fallen behind. Countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Eswatini appear as emerging adopters of GM crops in their agricultural systems [5]. The disparity in the regional spread of GM crop adoption as shown on Figure 1 reflects persistent regulatory caution and limited biosafety preparedness in many low-income areas of Africa.

3.2. Approved GM Crop Events and Trait Diversity in the Focus Countries

The diversity of approved GM crops and the modified traits across the three focus countries are summarized in

Table 1. Summary of approved GM crop events and traits in Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso.

Country	Crop (Scientific Name)	Events Approved	GM Traits
Nigeria	Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)	1	Insect resistance; Antibiotic resistance
	Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)	1	Insect resistance
	Maize (Zea mays L.)	19	Insect resistance; Herbicide tolerance
	Soybean (Glycine max L.)	11	Herbicide tolerance
	Wheat (Triticum aestivum)	1	Drought stress tolerance
South Africa	Argentine Canola (Brassica napus)	5	Herbicide tolerance; Fertility restoration
	Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)	11	Insect resistance; Herbicide tolerance
	Soybean (Glycine max L.)	16	Herbicide tolerance; Nematode resistance
	Rice (Oryza sativa L.)	1	Herbicide tolerance
	Maize (Zea mays L.)	49	Insect resistance; Herbicide tolerance, mannose metabolism
Burkina Faso	Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)	1	Insect resistance

. Each “event” represents a unique gene insertion conferring specific traits such as pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, or improved yield [9]. Currently, South Africa demonstrates the highest diversity of GM crop events in different crops including Argentine canola, cotton, maize, rice, and soybean, with traits which mainly include combined insect resistance (IR) and herbicide tolerance (HT) [9]. Nigeria shows a growing portfolio, with approvals for cowpea, cotton, maize, soybean, and wheat, mostly focused on insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, and drought tolerance. Notably, Nigeria’s approval of GM pod-borer-resistant cowpea Vigna unguiculata (known as SAMPEA 20-T), which was authorized and widely accepted in Nigeria in 2019, represents a case of locally aligned biotechnology addressing region-specific productivity challenges [11]. In contrast, Burkina Faso has only one previously approved GM crop, Bt cotton, which was suspended in 2016 after several years of commercial use due to fibre quality concerns and institutional disagreements with the commercial partners [10].

3.3. Impact of GM Crops on Pesticide Use Reduction and Socio-Economic Outcomes

Across the three focus countries, GM crops, most notably Bt cotton, Bt cowpea, and Bt maize which are all bioengineered to produce insecticidal crystal proteins (Cry proteins) from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), making them resistant to specific pests like bollworms (cotton), pod borers (cowpea), and corn borers (maize) were consistently associated with reduced pesticide application rates and higher yields. In Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries, pests are reported to cause potential losses of between 15–73% in agricultural products which greatly increases the use of pesticides [12]. The introduction of Bt maize and Gossypium hirsutum L. that are resistant to insects, has greatly improved yields, increased farmers’ income, and decreased the need for chemical pesticides [5,12]. Evidence from multiple studies shows that insecticide use is a major driver of cowpea production costs for smallholder farmers. Under researcher-managed conditions, producing one hectare of cowpea with only two insecticide applications costs about USD 461.93/ha, whereas under farmer-managed systems where six or more sprays are typically required can push production costs to at least USD 534.64/ha [13]. By contrast, Bt cowpea significantly lowers these expenses, as farmers generally need only two insecticide applications rather than the six to eight sprays required for non-GM varieties. This reduction not only cuts overall production costs but also offers clear environmental benefits by reducing chemical pesticide use. Confined field trials in Nigeria and other parts of West Africa demonstrate that Bt cowpea varieties expressing the cry1Ab gene provide almost complete protection from the legume pod borer Maruca vitrata F., leading to significantly increased yields and a drastic reduction in the need for insecticide sprays [13,14]. Similarly, Burkina Faso also showed early reductions in pesticide application for Bt cotton and higher yields, although these benefits did not sustain long-term continuity of the technology due to fibre quality concerns and dynamics of downstream markets [5]. In all, evidence from the focus countries confirms that GM crops can substantially reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, improve yield, and contribute directly to regional sustainability goals.

3.4. Key Adoption Constraints and Pathways for Improving GM Crop Uptake in Africa

Despite the growing interest in biotechnology across Africa, the adoption of GM crops remains shaped by a complex interplay of regulatory, socioeconomic, and technical factors. While several countries have begun to strengthen their biosafety frameworks and explore commercialization pathways, progress has been uneven, and many constraints continue to limit widespread uptake. Hence, the major barriers that affect GM crop adoption on the continent and the key opportunities and strategic pathways that can support more effective and responsible integration of GM technologies into African agricultural systems must be considered. These factors vary across national contexts, as illustrated by the contrasting experiences of Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso, which are comparatively synthesized in

Table 2. Comparative Summary of Key Adoption Constraints and Enabling Pathways for GM Crops in Nigeria, South Africa, and Burkina Faso.

Dimension	Nigeria	South Africa	Burkina Faso
Regulatory framework maturity	Emerging but strengthening biosafety system through the recently operationalized National Biosafety Management Agency-led framework [15]	Long-established, well-funded, and mature biosafety regulatory system [5]	Previously functional but weakened after Bt cotton suspension [5].
Policy consistency and institutional coordination	Ongoing harmonization among regulatory agencies; improving but still fragmented coordination [15]	Strong inter-agency coordination and regulatory clarity [10]	Institutional disagreements between government and private partners undermined continuity [5].
Seed system readiness and stewardship	Developing seed certification, stewardship, and distribution systems; challenges for nationwide scale-up [15]	Highly developed commercial seed sector with strong stewardship systems [10]	Weak seed system integration for GM crops; dependency on external partners [5].
Farmer structure and capacity	Dominated by smallholder farmers; adoption driven by clear pest-control benefits (e.g., Bt cowpea) [5,7]	Dominance of large-scale commercial farming; smallholders face cost and access barriers [10,16]	Predominantly smallholder cotton farmers with limited bargaining power [5].
Socioeconomic concerns	Fear of seed dependency, loss of traditional seed systems, and corporate control; cost sensitivity among smallholders [10,17]	Concerns mainly among smallholders; commercial farmers better positioned to absorb GM seed costs [10,16]	Strong concerns over farmer autonomy, seed pricing, and market dependence [5].
Cultural, religious, and public perception	Religious and cultural objections present; narratives of “playing God” and biopiracy influence public debate [18,19]	Relatively higher public acceptance, though civil society opposition remains active [10,16]	Initial acceptance eroded primarily by economic dissatisfaction rather than cultural resistance [5].
Environmental and biosafety concerns	Gene flow risks in mixed cropping systems; concerns over long-term ecological effects of Bt proteins [8,20]	Robust environmental risk assessment and monitoring systems [12]	Environmental concerns secondary to fibre quality and market issues [5].
Observed benefits from GM adoption	Significant reduction in insecticide use; yield gains in Bt cowpea and maize [7,13]	Sustained yield gains, reduced pesticide use, and economic benefits in maize and cotton [5,12]	Initial pesticide reduction and yield gains from Bt cotton [5].
Key factors limiting sustained adoption	Public perception, regulatory learning curve, seed access for smallholder farmers [5,21]	Cost barriers for smallholders; social equity concerns [10,16]	Fibre quality issues, institutional conflict, and loss of farmer trust [5].
Pathways for improving uptake	Strengthen public engagement, involve religious and community leaders, improve seed affordability, expand extension services	Support inclusive policies for smallholders, targeted subsidies, continued stewardship	Restore institutional trust, invest in locally adapted GM traits, strengthen farmer participation
Overall adoption trajectory	Gradual expansion with strong potential	Stable and consolidated adoption	Reversal and stagnation

.

3.4.1. Cultural, Religious, and Community Perception Barriers

In many African countries, culture, social norms, and beliefs play a major role in how people view new agricultural technologies, including GM crops [5]. Since farming is deeply tied to identity, heritage, and long-held traditions, some communities are naturally cautious about crops they perceive as “modern” or unfamiliar [22]. This hesitation often stems from fears that GM crops could disrupt traditional farming practices or alter long-respected relationships with the land, nature, and biodiversity [8]. Concerns about the morality of genetic modification are often raised in debates surrounding GM crops, especially where religious and spiritual beliefs strongly influence public opinion. Opponents of genetic modification commonly refer to the technology as “playing God” or “tampering with nature,” conceptualizing it not as a scientific progress but as a moral trespass against divine order [18]. In Nigeria for instance, such concerns were observed during the introduction of Bt cowpea, where segments of the public and civil society groups raised objections grounded in religious beliefs and the perception that genetic modification represents an unnatural interference with divine creation [21]. These objections reflect deeper ideological and spiritual tensions nurtured by cultural tradition, religious dogma, and personal worldviews. While some scholars argue that such claims oversimplify the relationship between science and faith and are not grounded in scientific notions of risk, they remain powerful narratives that shape public perception and resistance to GM crops [18].

Another important issue is the widespread suspicion of “biopiracy”. While there is increased recognition that similar to modern biotechnology, traditional knowledge has made significant contributions to scientific and technological progress, many communities are concerned that these contributions will be exploited by foreign companies without fair recognition or equitable benefit-sharing [5,19]. Such traditional knowledge includes indigenously developed seed systems, farming practices, and methods of managing biodiversity, which are all generally embedded in the local cultures and considered communally owned rather than individually owned [17]. Indeed, in resource-rich countries like Nigeria, there have been concerns over the despoliation of the rich traditional knowledge and biological resources by multinational corporations for commercial gain [17]. Such perceptions nurture distrust in GM crops since, sometimes, biotechnology is seen as a conduit through which external actors can get control over indigenous seeds and undermine community sovereignty over agriculture [5].

Hence, understanding these diverse perspectives is essential for improving adoption. Solutions must go beyond simply providing scientific information to encompass genuine engagement with local values. Approaches that respect community identities, involve traditional and religious leaders, and create open dialogue between farmers, policymakers, and scientists should be considered to build trust more effectively. When communities feel heard and included, it becomes easier to integrate GM technologies in ways that align with local beliefs and support long-term acceptance.

3.4.2. Socioeconomic and Environmental Concerns

Socioeconomic realities greatly influence how people across Africa view GM crops. While majority see GM technology as a potential solution to persistent challenges such as low yields, crop losses due to pests and diseases, and food insecurity, others worry that GM crops may disrupt existing farming systems and threaten traditional knowledge passed down through generations [22]. Concerns also arise around the growing commercial control of seeds, where farmers fear becoming dependent on purchased seed varieties instead of saving their own, potentially widening financial inequalities [10]. This concern is particularly observed among small-scale farmers, who have historically used farm-saved seeds and seed sharing systems to keep production costs low. In Burkina Faso for instance, the worry over seed dependency increased during the implementation of Bt cotton varieties, where farmers and policymakers raised concerns that reliance on externally developed GM seeds reduce farmer autonomy and increase vulnerability to market fluctuations and contractual obligations with seed companies. These socioeconomic tensions in combination with other factors contributed to broader dissatisfaction that influenced the eventual suspension of Bt cotton cultivation [5]. By contrast, South Africa’s relatively more commercialized agricultural sector has been better positioned to absorb the costs associated with GM seed purchase, particularly among large-scale maize producers [10]. However, even within South Africa, smallholder farmers and social groups have expressed concerns over commercial seed systems and GM crops, which can marginalize resource-poor farmers who lack the capital to consistently purchase new seed each season [16].

Environmental uncertainty adds another layer of hesitation. People worry about unintended effects such as gene flow from GM crops to local or wild plant species, potential risks to beneficial insects, and uncertainties about long-term impacts on ecosystems [8,12]. In Nigeria, environmental concerns have been raised about the possible movement of transgenes from Bt cowpea into local cowpea varieties cultivated in mixed farming systems, where crop isolation and monitoring may be difficult to enforce consistently [5,20]. In addition to gene flow, some concerns have emerged in relation to the ecological safety of the Bt proteins produced endogenously in the plant. In contrast to naturally occurring B. thuringiensis toxins applied externally, recombinant Bt (r-Bt) proteins produced in plant tissues may have different properties in terms of structure, longevity, and mode of exposure [20]. The interaction of these proteins with endogenous plant molecules, such as protease inhibitors in cowpeas, can contribute to reduced degradation of the toxin and increased toxicity when ingested with plant biomass. Although there is evidence to show that such interactions can improve the efficacy of Bt, they also raise concerns regarding reduced specificity in non-target species with implications for ecosystem safety [20]. Thus, although biosafety studies have shown safety in humans and animals, this concern highlights the need for continuous environmental surveillance and regional risk assessment in biodiverse agroecosystems dominated by mixed cropping systems and the need for continuous reassurance and open dialogues to inform farmers about trends in biotechnological innovations, which can in turn drive adoption. Overall, these socioeconomic and ecological concerns must be considered while designing policies and community engagement strategies that support informed, inclusive decision-making around GM crop adoption.

3.4.3. Regulatory and Institutional Constraints

Regulatory and institutional limitations remain major barriers to the adoption of GM crops across Sub-Saharan Africa. In Nigeria for instance, the government had to begin a long process of harmonizing its regulatory agencies, aligning mandates, and strengthening its biosafety oversight system in preparation for the official release of the pod borer-resistant cowpea SAMPEA 20-T [15]. This collaborative effort was necessary to put in place a functional pathway that could ensure the safe evaluation and eventual approval of GM crops. Like many other emerging technologies, the regulation of GM crops plays a central role in helping society strike a balance between perceived benefits and risks; it is also increasingly becoming core to the research and product deployment strategy of public and private sector developers. Several studies have documented the progress that African countries have made at the regional and continental levels in building biosafety capacity and updating regulatory frameworks through COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa), ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), SADC, and more recently the African Union initiatives that can be linked to the AfCFTA (Africa Continental Free Trade Area) [12,15,23]. As reported by Komen et al. [15], key provisions that were defined in COMESA’s policy include: (1) establishing a system for the scientific regional risk assessment of GMOs meant for commercial planting, commerce, and food assistance within member states; (2) providing a technical opinion on the biosafety of GMOs seeking commercial status in the COMESA region so that individual nations can utilize it to make judgements within their respective national biosafety regulatory frameworks; (3) establishing a unified system for making decisions about commercial planting, GMO trading, and GM-containing food aid throughout the COMESA region; (4) helping member states develop their capacity to perform scientific risk assessment and management; and (5) creating an interactive regional system for exchanging information on biotechnology and biosafety issues in the COMESA region. Such policies aid in establishing clearer rules, enhancing biosafety capacity, improving seed quality, and reducing trade barriers. When fully implemented, these reforms may reduce regulatory delays and allow for the safer movement of GM seeds across borders while encouraging more responsible adoption of agricultural biotechnology [10].

While South Africa has a long-established and well-funded biosafety system, progress across the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa remains uneven, with countries like Nigeria only recently making significant advances as part of broader, market-driven agricultural reforms [5]. It is worth mentioning that authorization is not the last step, even in cases where GM crop varieties are approved. These decisions create new responsibilities for seed systems which demand clear policies for seed production, certification, distribution, and stewardship [15]. Successful deployment of GM crops requires governments to ensure that regulatory agencies collaborate, that seed companies understand biosafety requirements, and that farmers have access to high-quality and appropriately managed seed. Thus, effective regulation is not only about granting approvals, but also about providing an enabling environment in which GM innovations can be safely delivered, monitored, and sustained over time.

4. Conclusions and Future Directions

In sub-Saharan Africa, GM crops have shown strong potential to reduce pesticide use, boost yields, and improve farmer livelihoods. Evidence from countries such as South Africa and Nigeria demonstrates that insect-resistant GM crops can contribute to improved productivity, reduced chemical pesticide exposure, and enhanced farm-level economic returns. These benefits are especially relevant in regions where pesticide misuse poses serious risks to human health, environmental sustainability, and biodiversity. Yet, the broader uptake of these GM crops remains constrained by uneven biosafety capacities, regulatory delays, limited seed delivery systems, and persistent public scepticism. Furthermore, social and cultural factors, including concerns rooted in spiritual beliefs, perceptions of “playing God,” and fears of biopiracy and loss of control over traditional seeds continue to shape public attitudes toward GM technology. These challenges underline the need for stronger and more coordinated policy and regulatory environments that provide clarity, transparency, and timely decision-making while ensuring robust safety assessments. Therefore, strengthening national biosafety frameworks should go beyond formal legislation to include adequate institutional capacity, long-term environmental monitoring, and context-specific risk assessment that reflects Africa’s diverse agroecological systems. This is particularly important in mixed farming systems, where gene flow, ecological interactions, and non-target effects demand careful monitoring. Similarly, regulatory harmonization at the regional level could further help reduce duplication of efforts, lower approval costs, and facilitate responsible cross-border movement of GM seeds. Future efforts should prioritize inclusive and sustained public engagement strategies that improve scientific literacy, address misinformation, and build trust among farmers, consumers, traditional and religious leaders, and civil society. Furthermore, farmer-centred extension services and transparent communication about seed ownership, intellectual property rights, and benefit-sharing mechanisms are essential to addressing fears of commercial seed dependency and biopiracy. From a financial perspective, increased investment in public-sector and locally driven biotechnology research is critical to ensure that GM crop development aligns with regional priorities rather than external market interests. Research on locally adapted GM varieties can improve relevance, acceptance, and long-term sustainability, especially when these target indigenous crops, reduce pesticide use, and address region-specific pest and disease pressures. Finally, integrating GM crops within broader agroecological and integrated pest management frameworks may further enhance their contribution to resilient food systems. By addressing regulatory, environmental, and socio-cultural concerns in a coordinated and inclusive manner, GM crops can more effectively contribute to reducing pesticide dependence, minimize associated health and environmental risks, and support sustainable, climate-resilient, and food-secure agricultural systems across sub-Saharan Africa.