After years of lobbying by international giants such as Bayer/Monsanto, Corteva, Syntega, etc. the EU finally acceded to their key demand last week. In its second reading, the European Parliament decided that, in the future, over 90% of all plants created using new genetic engineering techniques will be treated the same as plants from conventional breeding, thereby eliminating ALL protective measures such as traceability and risk assessment. Labeling will be mandatory only for seeds, but not for the final product. The patentability of NGT crops will create major problems for breeders and farmers in Europe and make our food production heavily dependent on large multinational corporations. But let’s start from the beginning. How did this actually come about?
How did Trilogue Negotiations go?
Toward the end of the previous legislative term, the European Parliament adopted its position on the deregulation of NGTs by a majority vote—without the support of the Greens. Thanks to pressure from the Greens, however, the Parliament’s position was improved in several areas compared to the Commission’s proposal. These include a more rigorous environmental risk assessment, mandatory labeling of NGT1 plants, and a ban on patents for NGT plants.
The rapporteur, Jessica Polfjärd (EPP), did not support these critical amendments in the plenary session and subsequently failed to defend the clear EP mandate in the trilogue negotiations. Ultimately, the legislation now provides only for seed labeling and voluntary declarations regarding patents.
What does the new law say?
Under the new genetic engineering law, NGTs are to be classified into two categories in the future: NGT-1 plants are defined as genetically modified organisms that are seen as being equivalent to organisms produced using conventional breeding methods. NGT-2 plants are those that are not classified as “conventionally similar.” The classification is based on the number of modified nucleotides. This new classification means that over 90% of all NGT plants fall into the NGT-1 category. This is a gross oversimplification and disregards important scientific findings. Instead of focusing solely on the number, it would also be important, for example, to consider the location of the modifications and their biological effects.[1] The only exception are genetic modifications that confer tolerance to herbicides and the production of a known insecticidal substance. These NGT plants can only belong to category 2 in the future as well.
NGT-2 plants must undergo a simplified authorization procedure compared to the currently applicable EU Genetic Engineering Regulation. While existing traceability and labeling requirements will continue to apply, protective measures against unintended release are now optional.
Since NGT-1 plants are legally considered equivalent to conventional plants, national authorities now only need to verify whether NGT plants fall under Category 1 prior to approval. Once approved, they are exempt from all protective measures such as traceability, risk assessment, or monitoring measures. The approval also does not expire. Furthermore, only seeds and other plant propagating material from NGT-1 plants must be labeled, but not the final product in the supermarket.
From now on, NGT-1 plants will therefore be treated by law the same as any conventional plant. The argument here is that it is not possible to distinguish plants from conventional breeding from NGT plants. At the same time, however, unlike products from conventional breeding, they are still the result of technical modification and thus intellectual property and can therefore be patented. This leads us to the first major point of criticism for the Greens:
Patents on Plants
Although NGT-1 plants are legally treated the same as plants from conventional breeding, it is still possible to patent these plants. The obvious problem here is that if NGT-1 plants do not have to be labeled and there is no longer any publicly accessible data on traceability, small-scale breeders cannot know which gene sequences are potentially patented and can therefore very easily run into legal trouble. Furthermore, with the elimination of mandatory traceability, corporations will be able to patent individual plant traits in the future without any way to verify whether these traits truly resulted from genetic modification or simply arose naturally. Similarly, breeders can be sued for using plants with such traits, even if they arose through natural breeding. Lawmakers were well aware of this problem, but the proposed solution is unsatisfactory. Instead of a patent ban on NGT-1 plants, as demanded by breeders and agricultural representatives, a publicly accessible database containing patent information is to be created. In addition, producers are encouraged to “license patented Category 1 NGT products on fair terms” on a voluntary basis. However, that is not enough to protect farmers and breeders from lawsuits over patent infringement. Breeders’ associations warn that many farms will go out of business, which threatens the future of plant breeding in general.
Following an EU initiative, a ban on the patenting of plants and biological processes has been in effect since 2017. Nevertheless, patents on plants are regularly granted when genes have been successfully sequenced. In 2025 alone, the European Patent Office granted 40 patents on traits derived from conventional breeding, covering several hundred plants. For the most part, the patent holders are a handful of international corporations. However, the patent exclusion explicitly does not apply if the plants were produced using genetic engineering methods. Agricultural chemical companies such as Bayer/Monsanto and Corteva have alreadyfiled 1,549 patents worldwide for so-called genetically modified crops. Bayer/Monsanto, Corteva, Syngenta, and BASF already control over 50% of the global seed market. The new regulation opens the floodgates for patented seeds and high profits for mega-corporations, to the detriment of breeders and farmers. Large parts of our food production could thus become dependent on a handful of mega-corporations. But those are not the only sector negatively affectd. There are many more resons to oppose this new law:
Organic Farming
NGTs will remain banned in organic farming. To enforce this, the seeds of these plants are to be labeled. It remains unclear, however, how those who wish to produce NGT-free are supposed to prevent contamination along the production chain. In any case, once approved or registered, NGT plants will be authorized throughout the EU. EU member states will then no longer be able to ban the cultivation of these NGT plants.
Lack of Transparency for Consumers
According to the new regulation there will be no more labeling for NGT products from now on, except for seeds. As a result, NGT products would no longer be traceable to consumers in supermarkets or in processed foods. This marks the end of consumer transparency as well as the very sizeable market share for NGT-free products throughout Europe.
Lack of traceability
It is very difficult to trace and prove that organisms have been genetically modified. The Commission lacks the scientific capacity to carry out such detection processes. Under the EU GMO Regulation currently in force, manufacturers must submit detection methods as part of the authorization process. This requirement no longer applies to new genetic engineering. As a result, any damage to the environment or biodiversity cannot be traced, and those responsible cannot be held accountable.
Lack of Impact Assessment
Unlike the old EU GMO Regulation, the new law no longer requires a risk impact assessment prior to approval, neither for NGT-1 nor for NGT-2 plants. This means that collateral damage and negative effects—such as allergies or impacts on flora and fauna—can only be detected after the plants have been released into the environment.
Are the Greens against genetic engineering?
No! New genetic engineering holds enormous potential; for example, thanks to new genetic engineering, there has been tremendous progress in the fields of xenotransplantation, as well as in vaccines and industrial goods. But patents on life pose a threat to our food security and the independence of farms and we cannot simply ignore consumers’ desire for transparency . The new law ignores concerns and real dangers and is a gift to the globalized chemical industry, allowing it to strengthen its market power at the expense of small-scale breeders and farmers. This is not about being for or against new genetic engineering, but about sensible protection measures and the defence of our regional agriculture.
[1] https://www.testbiotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Testbiotech_Background_NGT_Regulation_final_0.pdf (p.4-6)