The European Commission’s proposal on new genetic techniques was broadly welcomed by the European Parliament – apart from the Greens, who slammed it for being full of empty promises, going against EU law and being more political than science-based.
Read the original French article here.
The Commission’s proposal to relax rules on new genetic techniques (NGTs) has sparked a thorny debate in the European Parliament.
Lawmakers sitting on the Parliament’s Agriculture Committee (AGRI) exchanged views on Thursday (6 July) with Claire Bury, the European Commission representative who had come to defend the project.
This long-awaited text represents a real step forward for many MEPs – from the centre-left to the far right.
Until now, plant varieties produced using these NGTs have been subject to the 1999 GMO [Genetically Modified Organism] Directive, revised in 2001, with a rigorous authorisation process and strict traceability and labelling requirements.
In its proposal, the EU executive differentiates between NGTs that cause few mutations, which could theoretically occur in nature – and those that cause more complex mutations.
Now, varieties in this first category will be “equivalent to conventional products” and, therefore, no longer be subject to GMO restrictions.
Organic, herbicides, patents
“The EU must not be the last place in the world to put in place tools to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal,” stressed liberal MEP Irène Tolleret, referring to the UK, which has introduced legislation on gene editing since leaving the EU. The US and China are also often taken as models by those favouring speeding up procedures.
Gene-edited plants are often adapted to be more resilient against climate change or pests. As such, they are instrumental to achieving the EU’s Farm to Fork targets set out in the European Green Deal, namely a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides and a 20% reduction in the use of synthetic fertilisers by 2030, the MEPs in favour of the text have said.
“The data is encouraging, with trials carried out since 2015 showing that NGTs reduce pesticide use by 33% or 21% depending on the indicators,” the Commission representative added.
These new varieties will also contribute to the genetic enrichment of crops, biodiversity and the diversification of food products, some MEPs argued.
Some, however, questioned why organic farming would not be able to benefit from NGTs, with socialist MEP Clara Aguilera focusing on the first category of NGTs being excluded from the framework for GMOs.
Bury responded that organic producers could still be authorised to use NGTs, but only at a later stage and with “guarantees”.
The other sensitive issue concerns herbicide-resistant NGT products, which have been accused of increasing synthetic product use. While an initial version of the text had placed these varieties in the second category – like GMOs – they no longer appear in the final document.
“How can we discourage farmers from using pesticides?” MEP Tolleret asked.
The European Commission admits that this is “not addressed” in the NGT proposal and is waiting for the member states to decide on the matter.
The MEPs were also concerned about access to these techniques, particularly for small farms.
“A balance will have to be struck between promotion and innovation, ensuring that small companies can obtain patents, but also that farmers can have access to seeds,” said Bury. The Commission plans to assess the impact of patenting and access to plants as part of a follow-up study, the conclusions of which will be presented in 2026.
Empty promises for the Greens
While the Chairman of the AGRI Committee, Norbert Lins, was pleased to note a rather “positive” reception from the elected representatives, the Greens and part of the Left voiced their disapproval of the “new GMOs”.
One after another, the Greens accused the Commission of contradicting the verdict of the Court of Justice of the EU which in 2018 ruled that all products derived from NGTs should, from a legislative point of view, be treated as GMOs.
For French Green MEP Benoit Biteau, Brussels is “breaking the thermometer” by amending EU regulations.
Green MEP Sarah Wiener highlighted “invasive species” that could pose problems 20-30 years after their introduction, asking how their impact on pollinators and microorganisms can be known when no studies have been carried out.
“We’re going to release something into nature that we can’t recapture […] In the meantime, we’re going to keep everyone in the dark,” she continued.
The Commission defended itself by insisting on the “convincing evidence” on which its work is based, referencing opinions issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC). “These products are safe”, Bury insisted.
For socialist MEP Maria Noichl, the Commission is “spreading false news” by saying NGTs will promote biodiversity and crop diversity.
“The opposite is true: as soon as there are patents, there is less diversity, only more efficient and profitable varieties,” said Noichl.
Green MEP Martin Häusling denounced the proposal as more political than scientific.
“In the United States and Brazil, more [pesticides and fertilisers] are used with GMOs. Where are the drought-resistant plants? And disease-resistant potatoes? And wheat with less gluten? These are probably empty promises,” he warned.
[Edited by Gerardo Fortuna/Nathalie Weatherald]
