On Wednesday 5 July, the European Commission presented its proposal, as eagerly awaited as it was dreaded, for a regulation to promote the development of the latest genetic engineering technologies (New Genomic Techniques or NGTs) and to accelerate the marketing of new GMOs derived from them in the EU by means of a simplified authorisation procedure. This would exempt some of them from an in-depth assessment of their risks to health and the environment, from labelling for the end consumer and from traceability requirements.
In accordance with the draft leaked to the press and detailed in this article, the European Commission has made a distinction between two categories of these new GMOs obtained by mutagenesis or cisgenesis, which it assures, like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), are as safe as any traditional plant (see EUROPE 13203/14).
The new GMOs, which would be considered analogous to plants obtained by conventional selection for having undergone only 20 genetic modifications, would be subject to a simple notification requirement before being authorised like any other plant.
The seeds of these new GMOs would nevertheless be duly identified as such in a public register of seeds, but the food or animal feed would not be specifically labelled.
Other new GMOs - those that have undergone more than twenty genetic modifications - would be subject to obligations similar to those imposed by Directive 2001/18/EC, which currently governs the GMO authorisation procedure.
Innovation for productive and competitive agriculture. The European Commission intends to boost the productivity of European agriculture, its competitiveness and its ‘sustainability’, in that NGTs will make it possible, for example, “to produce GMOs that use fewer pesticides” and to offer farmers “solutions to replace chemical pesticides”, according to the Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans. He stated this during a press conference on Wednesday.
Betting on the “potential” of these new technologies, he also highlighted the advances to be expected from drought-resistant GMOs, for example, and emphasised that “the Member States had called on the Commission to include these new genomic techniques” in the new European regulatory framework “for using fewer chemical pesticides”.
According to the Commission, this proposal was presented as part of a package of measures ‘For the sustainable use of key natural resources, which will also strengthen the resilience of EU food systems and agriculture’.
The Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides, who is in charge of this dossier, was absent when the text was presented “for family reasons”, said Mr Timmermans.
NGTs banned in organic farming. The proposed regulation, which concerns plants derived from NGTs and products intended for human or animal consumption, does however include a ban on the use of these new-generation GMOs in organic farming, as requested by the sector.
Asked what could be done to avoid the pitfall of increased use of pesticides precisely because of tolerance to pesticides - a pitfall observed in older GMOs - Mr Timmermans replied that this problem could concern all GMOs, not just GMOs derived from NGTs.
As for the link between this legislation and the proposed regulation on nature restoration, which is currently in difficulty due to opposition from the EPP group, Mr Timmermans said: “we are trying to build bridges between the different points of view”.
Some satisfied. In the European Parliament, the EPP, which called for this legislation “for innovative solutions that enable more food to be produced”, is satisfied. “The situation is clear: we need to produce more food in Europe. We totally disagree with the Greens in the European Parliament, who want to sabotage the new law, thereby hindering food production in Europe. It’s time for the other political groups to abandon their outdated resistance to innovation and technological progress. We need new technologies to ensure sustainable food production”, stressed MEP Jessica Polfjärd.
The major farming unions are on the same wavelength as the Commission. In a press release, Copa Cogeca immediately welcomed the proposed regulation “after more than a decade of postponements”, reiterating its view that “NGTs are part of the toolbox that enables breeders to accelerate their breeding programmes and bring better quality plant varieties to the market more quickly, which must be accessible in all sectors and regions to help European farmers, who are facing many challenges, including the acceleration of climate change”.
Some dismayed. For the left wing of the Parliament and NGOs, it’s dismay, having already expressed this on numerous occasions as soon as the options envisaged by the Commission became known, and as soon as the leaked text was circulated.
“It is out of the question to accept the marketing or cultivation of products derived from genetic engineering that have not been subject to any evaluation, labelling, traceability or real consumer information”, threatened Christophe Clergeau (S&D, French), accusing the European Commission of “playing at sorcerer’s apprentice”. He added: “I’m not against developments in science, but I can’t accept Europeans being turned into guinea pigs”.
Along the same lines, the Greens/EFA group, like the NGOs, said that it cannot accept that these new GMOs should be authorised without a full assessment of their risks, in the name of environmental and health protection, a sustainable agricultural model and the right of consumers to know what they are eating. Not to mention the fact that they fear that the large seed companies’ monopoly on seeds will be strengthened, to the detriment of farmers (see EUROPE 13215/4).
The NGO Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE), which, like the NGO Test Biotech, had already denounced the similarity between the Commission’s arguments and those of major seed companies such as Euroseeds (see EUROPE 13134/9), is once again alarmed.
“The European Commission is choosing to give in to a long-lasting campaign from big corporations instead of protecting citizens’ rights. It’s appalling to see that the Commission basically says agribusiness do not need to bear the risks of releasing untested new GMOs into our fields and plates, but consumers, farmers and nature do”, said Mute Schimpf from this NGO.
As one can see, the debate on this proposal for a regulation promises to be difficult, and it will be up to the EU Council and the European Parliament to determine who will take the lead in the EU Council configurations and in the various parliamentary committees.
To see the proposed regulation: https://aeur.eu/f/7xq (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)