This paper investigates the observed discrepancy between real and perceived commercial risks associated with the use of genetically modified (GM) products in developing countries. The research focuses particularly on the effects of GM-free private standards set up by food companies in Europe and other countries on biotechnology and biosafety policy decisions in food-exporting developing countries. The paper finds that by setting up GM-free standards, these actors are indirectly influential via their local traders, who face the possibility of exclusion if they do not comply with the standards. Organic producers and anti-GM organizations also play a role in spreading perceptions of commercial risks that are not always justified. By comparing cases, three types of relevant commercial risks were differentiated: real risks, potential risks, and unproven risks. Two critical, yet misleading, presumptions perpetuated by the various interest groups include the infeasibility of non-GM product segregation and the lack of alternative buyers. The paper also finds that information asymmetries and risk-averse behaviors related to perceived market power can help insert unfounded export concerns into biosafety or biotechnology policy decisions. The results of the analysis are used to suggest a simple framework to separate real commercial risks from others, based on five critical questions designed to aid decision makers when they face pressures to reject GM crop testing, application, consumption, or use for fear of alleged export losses.