Is Bangladesh-US trade deal a backdoor for GMO dumping?
Farida Akhter || Wednesday 29 April 2026 ||
Bangladesh signed the US Reciprocal Trade Agreement on February 9, 2026, just three days before the national election. Within two weeks, the US Supreme Court ruled that the tariff regime underpinning such agreements—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—violated federal law. The ruling represents a victory for the rule of law and the US constitutional framework. Immediately after that, Malaysia declared its agreement with the US “null and void,” establishing a precedent for sovereign reassessment of such deals.
The Bangladesh Interim Government, to avoid the reimposition of the reciprocal tariff rate (37 percent) proposed on April 2, 2025, on top of the usual most-favoured-nation (MFN) tariffs on certain or all Bangladeshi imports, signed the deal. Upon signing the “trade deal,” the US reduced the reciprocal tariff rate to 19 percent on Bangladesh’s originating goods. This was perceived as a “relief,” but at what cost?
Meat, dairy imports are a blow to rural livelihood
The US trade deal is nothing but a dumping of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through meat and dairy products. As the former adviser in the Ministry of Fisheries & Livestock (MOFL), I was aware of the possibility of imports of meat and dairy products. Obviously, we raised concerns that such imports would have a significant adverse impact on our livestock and poultry sectors and the livelihood of people.
Importing meat and dairy products from the US poses unequal trade terms for Bangladesh. The livestock and poultry sector in Bangladesh represents a fundamentally different economic model from that of the US. Here, livestock is embedded in a livelihood economy, whereas in the US, it is part of an industrial agro-capitalist system. In the US, industrial livestock farming accounts for 21 lakh farms but engages less than two percent of the population. Contrarily, in Bangladesh, livestock keeping is part of the livelihoods of 80-85 percent of 4.1 crore households, often led by women. The meat and milk supply from these sources contributes two percent to the national GDP and 16 percent of agricultural GDP, and provides a significant proportion of animal protein for the 17.5 crore people. Over 83 percent of rural households own livestock (animals and poultry), 46 percent own bovine animals (cattle/buffalo), and 76.3 percent own poultry.
Bangladesh’s poor livestock keepers do not receive any subsidy, but will have to compete with a heavily subsidised industrial livestock sector. The US Department of Agriculture has spent at least $72 billion in subsidies to livestock and seafood producers over the past few decades. This asymmetry is critical. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), smallholder livestock systems are highly vulnerable to import competition due to limited access to credit, technology, and state support.
This trade agreement with the US will allow agricultural and livestock products into the Bangladesh market as per Article 2.3, in which some issues are one-sided; for example: (1) Bangladesh will have to provide non-discriminatory or preferential market access to the US; (2) Bangladesh shall ensure that its sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are science- and risk-based and do not operate as disguised restrictions on bilateral trade, and shall remove unjustified SPS barriers in areas that undermine reciprocity in agricultural goods; and (3) Bangladesh shall not enter into agreements or understandings with third countries that include non-scientific, discriminatory, or preferential technical standards; include third-country SPS measures that are incompatible with US or international standards; or otherwise disadvantage US exports to such third countries.
None of these is in favour of Bangladesh’s interests. It is an imposition to accept the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) unconditionally, despite having an authenticated regulatory system in place.
It’s nothing but GM soybean and Bt corn dumping
Article 1.6 of the agreement mandates that Bangladesh allow genetically modified (GM) products without pre-market approval, labelling, or additional regulation. US livestock are fed with genetically modified crops (soybean and corn). Article 1.6 states: “Bangladesh shall maintain, for products of agricultural biotechnology, science- and risk-based regulatory frameworks and efficient authorisation processes, to facilitate increased trade in such products.” It also states that these products shall be imported and marketed in Bangladesh for the same purposes without requiring pre-market review, deregulation, additional labelling requirements, or approval from Bangladesh.
One simple demand from environmental and farmers’ organisations was that GMO products, whether produced in the country or imported, should be labelled. But this agreement removes such requirements and necessary regulatory measures. This agreement authorises the US to unload its genetically modified (GM) foods and other products which are considered hazardous by other countries. In the manner of a typical neocolonial power, the US used tariff threats to achieve economic, political, and trade concessions.
The corn and soybeans used for chicken, dairy and meat cattle feed in the US are genetically modified. US chicken feed also contains meat meal from recycled animal by-products (mainly beef and pork). This is a sensitive issue for Bangladesh, with over 90 percent of the population being Muslim. Over 90 percent of the acreage planted with GM soybean varieties in the US has primarily herbicide-tolerant traits, like MON89788 and DAS-44406, for chemical weed control.
According to a 2019 study by the European Union, many weeds (47 species worldwide) have adapted to the widespread use of such chemicals and become resistant. These herbicide-tolerant weeds are an increasing problem. Widespread adoption of the chemicals has led to an accelerating increase in herbicide use and, consequently, an “arms race” in genetic engineering technology and the use of complementary herbicides. The increasing amount of herbicides sprayed not only causes substantial environmental problems but also creates new challenges for the risk assessment of health effects, since products derived from these plants can introduce new herbicide residues into the food chain.
The US is the world’s second-largest producer of soya beans, accounting for 28 percent of global production. Large agribusiness corporations are highly dependent on exports. The American Soybean Association (ASA) had announced that 2025 would mark a third straight year of losses, while the National Corn Growers Association raised alarms about “the economic crisis hitting rural America.” In 2025, losses for the nine major commodity crops ranged from $35 billion to $44 billion.
Under this trade agreement with the US, Bangladesh is not importing soybean and corn directly; they will come through the import of meat and dairy products and other soybean- and corn-based products. Besides, a genetically modified growth hormone called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) is used to increase cows’ milk production by 10-15 percent. Milk from rBST-treated cows is used to make ice cream, butter, cheese, and yoghurt.
What do we do now?
The US Reciprocal Trade Agreement was concluded with nine countries. Among these, Malaysia was the first country to declare the trade deal with the US invalid on March 15, 2026. This should prompt Bangladesh to re-evaluate the deal or follow the Malaysian decision.
From a legal standpoint, Bangladesh is not bound to passively accept the consequences of a contested agreement. Article 6.5 permits termination, while Article 6.2 allows renegotiation. In international trade law, such clauses are not symbolic—they are instruments of sovereignty. The key question, therefore, is not about legality but political will.
Farida Akhter is former adviser to the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock under the interim government and executive director of UBINIG.
Published: April 29, 2026: Is Bangladesh-US trade deal a backdoor for GMO dumping?