If adopted as is, the provisional version of the draft EU regulation that aims to facilitate placing new GMOs derived from the latest genetic engineering techniques on the market is expected to strengthen innovation, the sustainability of food systems, and the competitiveness of European agriculture in relation to its competitors from third countries, notably thanks to GMOs that have been adapted to climate change, are resistant to long periods of drought, or even use, for example, fewer pesticides—a potential contribution to the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy, according to the European Commission (see EUROPE 13203/14) and European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides (see EUROPE 13168/16).
Among other well-known concerns regarding health, consumers, and the coexistence of biodiversity and genetically modified and conventional crops, the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament expressed on Tuesday, 4 July, that it was concerned about the potential consequences that the European Commission’s proposal, expected on Wednesday, could have on food sovereignty.
This proposal envisages considering all GMOs that have been obtained by targeted mutagenesis or cisgenesis and that have undergone only a few modifications ‘that can be observed in nature’ or with conventional breeding (up to 20 different genetic modifications per plant) equivalent to conventional plants—thus neither requiring an in-depth assessment of their health and environmental risks nor having any labelling or traceability requirements in order to be marketed, according to the leaked text (see EUROPE 13203/14).
Only next-generation GMOs that have undergone a greater number of modifications, not found in nature, would be subject to an assessment proportionate to the risk and to the labelling and traceability requirements set out in current legislation (Directive 2001/18/EC).
Patents and monopoly. In their study published on Tuesday, the Greens/EFA warn that in the context of existing intellectual property regimes, deregulating certain genetically modified crops and foods could have significant long-term consequences on the sustainable and equitable development of the EU’s agri-food systems.
Speaking the same day by video conference, Benoît Biteau of France, vice-chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and member of this political group, told the press that he feared a potential strengthening of the monopoly held by major seed companies.
“Our study shows a real threat to farmers and food sovereignty”, he declared, fearing that farmers would become even more dependent on seeds—a dependence that threatens their work to develop genetic resources adapted to their environment.
He also cited the example of “farmers in northern Africa who, using conventional breeding, successfully obtained a drought-resistant wheat with unprecedented performance”, whereas new GMOs do not yet exist beyond a few field trials in third countries.
“Today, we have seed companies that are taking over the work on genetic variability and becoming owners of these resources by adding a little technological sophistication, which makes plants dependent on fertilisers, pesticides, and irrigation. For food sovereignty, we need to free farmers from this dependence while the genetic resources developed by farmers do not need these synthetic fertilisers”, indicated Mr Biteau to sum up the issue.
To consult the Greens/EFA study: https://aeur.eu/f/7vy (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)