In July 2023, the Commission presented a proposal for a new regulation on new genomic techniques (NGT), which would mean an almost complete deregulation of NGTs. Following a fast-track procedure, the European Parliament approved most of the Commission’s proposal in February 2024. However, the Greens were able to fight for mandatory labeling for consumers in supermarkets, a possible opt-out for member states and the withdrawal of approval if problems arise. These positions are now at least on the negotiating table in the trilogue and the negotiations with the member states.
Background
Genetic engineering is only to remain prohibited in organic farming. In order to enforce this, the seeds of these plants are to be labeled. However, it is unclear how those who want to produce without GMOs are to avoid contamination along the production chain. For all NGT plants, once an authorization or registration has been granted, it should apply throughout the EU. The EU member states can then no longer prohibit the cultivation of these GM plants. This is a particularly bitter blow for Austria, whose GMO-free organic and conventional agriculture is an international export hit. The European People’s Party wants to go even further than the Commission’s draft and allow genetic engineering even in the organic sector. According to their proposal, not even the seeds of genetically modified plants should be labeled, which would make GMO-free production virtually impossible.
The largest producers of NGTs are the agrochemical giants Bayer/Monsanto and Corteva. They have been lobbying for an exemption of new genetic engineering methods from the EU GMO Law for years and thus against the strict safety and consumer protection requirements in line with the precautionary principle. In 2023 the Commission has given in to the lobbying and published a new proposal for a regulation on plants obtained by new genomic techniques in July 2023: in contrast to the current legal situation, the Commission no longer wants to carry out approval procedures for 94% of all seed varieties produced using ew genomic techniques. Specifically, this concerns all genetically modified plants that the EU Commission defines as “comparable”1 to those from natural breeding (also known as NGT1 plants). This would mean that all previously required risk analysis and environmental impact assessment procedures would no longer be neede for these NGT1 plants. Producers would also no longer have to explain what has been changed, which would make traceability impossible. The labelling obligation is also to be dropped – a cut in transparency and freedom of choice for consumers, who will no longer be able to recognize genetically modified products on supermarket shelves in future. This also means that genetically modified organisms could be released into nature in future without any scientific assessment of possible risks, such as allergies or negative impacts on biodiversity. But that’s not all: according to the Commission’s proposal, it should not even be possible to retroactively withdraw approval for many NGT products if problems arise.
Pressure in the European Parliament
After negotiations began in the committees on agriculture and the environment in the European Parliament in December 2023, the text was practically chased through the various instances so that the vote in plenary could take place as early as the beginning of February 2024. During the negotiations in the committees, which only lasted a few weeks, the Green negotiators were only able to get their way on a few points. For the most part, the Commission proposal was simply supported and in some cases even made worse. In the negotiations, extremely important points were either not sufficiently answered or even brushed aside:
Open Questions
Patents: NGTs are patentable and so the proposed deregulation could mean a lot of patents on plants in the EU. However, patents are not an EU competence but are granted by the European Patent Office. In order to exclude NGTs from patentability, all 38 signatory states of the European Patent Convention would have to agree. A recently published report by European environmental organizations shows that a search for the term “CRISPR-Cas plant” in international databases for patent applications returned no fewer than 20,000 results. These are often broad patent applications covering all plants with a particular trait, regardless of how that trait was actually created. For European breeders, this could mean major legal difficulties and large parts of our food production could become dependent on a few corporations. Neither the Commission nor the EPP are prepared to negotiate here. A simple definition of NGT plants as “not patentable” is not legally sound.
Genetic engineering in organic farming: The Commission proposal provides for organic farming to be the only sector to remain GMO-free. To this end, GMO seeds are to be labeled. It leaves unanswered the central question of how contamination along the production chain can be avoided and how organic farmers can ensure GMO-free production under these conditions. The European Parliament has spoken out against mandatory coexistence measures such as cultivation distances, mandatory registration, etc.
Vote in the European Parliament
The report was adopted by 307/263/41 votes. For the most part, the European Parliament approved the Commission proposal. Many of the Green proposals for improvement were rejected by the European People’s Party, the liberal and right-wing parties. MEPs from the ÖVP, FPÖ and NEOS also voted against an environmental impact assessment, monitoring of environmental effects and labeling for consumers in the vote in February. In many votes, individual ÖVP MEPs simply did not vote. Nevertheless, the Greens were also able to achieve some important successes. Thanks to Green motions, it was possible to anchor the mandatory labeling of NGT products as “new genetic engineering” in supermarkets and to create a possibility for the authorities to withdraw approval if problems arise. There is also to be a drop-out option for member states. This would mean that Austria could remain GMO-free. Here too, individual ÖVP MEPs, including Alexander Bernhuber, did not vote in favor, while the NEOS voted against an opt-out.
What’s next?
After the vote in plenary, the trialogue negotiations between the Commission, the European Parliament and the member states will continue. The latter have not yet been able to agree on a position, which makes it rather unlikely that the negotiations will be concluded before the end of this legislative period – the EU Commission’s declared aim. For a conclusion before the EP elections in June, the trilogue negotiations would have to be completed in time for the last plenary week at the end of April 2024.
Myths about NGTs
Myth: The new genetic engineering can help in the fight against climate change and hunger by making varieties becoming more resistant to heat or drought. Fact: These apparently simple solutions have been promoted by GMO producers for years now. Looking at the facts, however, it becomes clear that these promises are just greenwashing. Of all GMOs currently in conventional use and on the market, 99% are limited to soy, maize, cotton and rapeseed and almost exclusively result in higher herbicide tolerance. This means a market advantage for the manufacturers, because farmers can purchase both the patented plants and the appropriate herbicides from them, making our food production dependent on a few mega-corporations. Scientists also criticize in an open letter that it is naive to believe that the crisis of a complex ecosystem can be solved with the genetic manipulation of a few crops. Only an agricultural transition towards climate- and biodiversity-friendly and agroecological methods, with a focus on regional cycles and small-scale agriculture can mitigate the consequences of the climate catastrophe.
Myth: Opposition to the new genetic engineering is anti-science. Fact: New genetic engineering has enormous potential, for example in medical applications or the production of certain raw materials in closed systems. With gene sequencing, conventional breeding can be massively accelerated, allowing comparable breeding results to be achieved without risk. However, the industry has little interest in developing such processes because the resulting products cannot be patented.
- The criteria for this classification, for example the number of altered nucleotides, are very simplistic and ignore important scientific findings. Instead of just the number, for example, it would also be important to consider the location of the changes and their biological effects. ↩︎
