TWN Info Service on Biosafety
15 December 2023
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Ministers Withhold Support for EU Presidency’s Proposal to Deregulate New GMOs
New genetic modification techniques – also known as new genomic techniques (NGTs), gene editing or new GMOs – describe several scientific methods used to alter genomes and genetically engineer certain traits into plants.
After the European Commission put forward its vision for how the technology should be handled, the Spanish Presidency was hoping to seal the deal to widely deregulate plants produced using NGTs, on 11 December. But its ambitions fell flat after it failed to win over enough EU (agriculture) ministers to reach a qualified majority of support (Item 1). It is understood that among those that criticized the proposal were Austria, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Slovenia. Meanwhile, Bulgaria and Germany abstained.
Among the main bones of contention from Member States included coexistence between organic production and conventional, as well as concerns over the handling of patents, a sticky subject that the Commission’s original proposal fails to address. There were also concerns over the lack of clear traceability and labelling requirements.
The ministers’ evident lack of support is a warning to lawmakers that excluding new GMOs from the current EU GMO rules would flood European fields with patented new GM seeds and increase monopolies in the farming sector. If passed, the proposal would abolish labelling requirements, safety checks and any type of liability processes for new GMOs. As such, NGOs have called on the European Parliament to reject the Commission’s legislative proposal (Item 2). Both the EU Council and the EU Parliament will have a say on the final law in the coming months.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
__________________________________________________________________________
Item 1
MINISTERS FAIL TO FIND CONSENSUS ON NEW GMOS
Arc2020
https://www.arc2020.eu/ministers-fail-to-find-consensus-on-new-gmos/
11 December 2023
EU agriculture ministers have failed to find a position on the EU’s plans to loosen the rules on the use of genetic editing technologies, despite a concerted push from those at the helm of the rotating EU presidency. So what does this mean in practice? Natasha Foote brings you the latest from Brussels.
Overview
The new genetic modification techniques – also known as new genomic techniques (NGTs), gene editing or new GMOs – describes several scientific methods used to alter genomes and genetically engineer certain traits into plants.
After the European Commission put forward its vision for how the technology should be handled in the future back in July, it is now over to lawmakers to hash out their positions on the file.
With both camps pushing full speed ahead, the Spanish Presidency was hoping to seal the deal on a general approach (download it here) on the file on Monday (11 December) during the last meeting of EU agriculture ministers under its watch. (More info on what else went on today can be found at the Council’s official page here)
But its ambitions fell flat after the position failed to win over enough EU ministers to reach a qualified majority (QMV) of support.
The Details
QMV means a combination of 55% of member states vote in favour (or against) – in practice, 15 out of 27 – as well as member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population. (for more detail on QMV see here)
While the vote was not an ‘official’ one – meaning there is therefore no official voting list published – ARC understands that among those that tipped the scale against the Presidency position included Austria, Romania, Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Slovenia, all of which reserved criticism for the proposal.
Meanwhile, Bulgaria and EU juggernaut Germany – whose government is split between the country’s green-led agriculture ministry and its liberal research and science ministry and Bulgaria – abstained.
Germany’s abstention is also particularly important because QMV of the population element to QMV.
Concerns and Reactions
Among the main bones of contention from member states included coexistence between organic production and conventional, as well as concerns over the handling of patents, a sticky subject that the Commission’s original proposal fails to address.
Meanwhile, several ministers also raised concerns over the lack of clear traceability and labelling requirements.
Welcoming the decision, EU organics association IFOAM gave a nod to agriculture ministers for “recognising EU breeders’ and farmers’ protection from patents and the monopolisation of genetic resources”.
Likewise, Greenpeace’s GMO campaigner Eva Corral said it was “encouraging” that countries did not reach an agreement on what she considers an “unacceptable” proposal.
“European countries must now proceed with negotiations to achieve that all new GMOs are safety checked, traceable and labelled. This will ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and transparency for consumers and economic operators,” she said.
However, centre-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, who leads work on the file over in the European Parliament, said that she “regretted” the fact the Council was not able to find a qualified majority on new genomic techniques.
The rapporteur said she “look[s] forward to concluding negotiations in the Parliament” and still hopes that the Council will “adopt a position in time for us to move forward on this important proposal”.
Meanwhile, Thomas Duffy, farmer and former Vice President of Young Farmers association took to X to criticise the EU Council for “dragging our farmers back into the stone age”, arguing the technologies are needed to help reduce our fertiliser and pesticide use.
What now?
The result will come as a blow to Spain’s agriculture minister Luis Planas, who has been vocal about his ambitions to seal the deal under his watch.
While the minister insists the Presidency will keep working on the file until the bitter end – or 31 December, which marks the end of its time at the helm of the rotating EU presidency – the most likely course of action is that it will now pass to the baton to the Belgian Presidency, which kicks off in January.
“We’ll continue to work [on this] until the end of our Presidency so that the Belgian presidency can hopefully conclude the trilogues with success,” Planas said. According to a representative for the Spanish Presidency, they will now attempt to push for a position during a meeting of EU ambassadors on 22 December.
Maintaining that EU ministers are “very close to reaching an agreement,” Planas noted that a failure to find an agreement soon would mean that the EU “will continue without a legal framework at least until 2025”.
However, ahead of the vote, another source close to the matter explained that if a qualified majority is not reached, the approach will most likely be turned into a “progress report or a state of play and move the file to the next to the next Presidency,” adding that this was the “standard” procedure.
Meanwhile, EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner Stella Kyriakides stressed that the file is of crucial importance for the European Commission, calling it a “tool that we cannot afford not to take advantage of and use”.
To help move the debate along, she said the EU executive is “fully committed to assessing the potential impact of patenting of plants,” calling it a “prominent issue” in the debate in both Council and Parliament.
“There are important issues but I’m confident we can find a way forward, promising that the Commission “will be looking at this”.
While the Commissioner said that the EU executive “reserves its position on certain substantial amendments”, citing herbicide tolerance plants and certain cultivation opt-outs, she said that it would “consider these carefully with a very open mind”.
Meanwhile, work continues in the Parliament, with a key vote in its agriculture committee also scheduled for Monday (11 December). While the committee is not the lead on the file, it does share competence on several key areas of the file, including on the status of category 1 NGT plants.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Item 2
EU AGRICULTURE COUNCIL CHALLENGES THE DEREGULATION OF NEW GMOS
GM Watch
https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20344
11 December 2023
Today’s outcome is “a relief for nature protection, our right to transparency, our right to know what we buy and eat, and our freedom of choice”
Today Europe’s agriculture ministers challenged the Spanish presidency’s proposal to widely deregulate the new generation of genetically modified plants (new GMOs, or now so-called “new genomic techniques” or NGT). The ministers’ evident lack of support[1] is a warning to lawmakers that excluding new GMOs from the current EU GMO rules would flood European fields with patented new GM seeds and increase monopolies in the farming sector.
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said:
“Agriculture ministers hit the brakes on the deregulation of new GMOs, rightfully prioritising farmer, consumer, and environmental concerns. Today’s outcome is a relief for nature protection, our right to transparency, our right to know what we buy and eat, and our freedom of choice.”
Friends of the Earth Europe now calls on members of the European Parliament to reject the Commission’s legislative proposal. Both the EU Council and the EU Parliament will have a say on the final law in the coming months.
About the deregulation proposal
The Spanish presidency’s deregulation proposal would abolish labelling requirements, safety checks and any type of liability processes for new GMOs. As a result, consumers, farmers, and food processors would no longer have transparency on whether the plants and food they grow, buy and eat contains new GMOs or not. The proposal would mean:
* Releasing untested new GMOs into nature. So far, the direct and indirect impacts of putting new GMOs in the wild have not been assessed. For instance, no research has been conducted on how new GMOs interact with bees and other pollinators, nor on how GMO cropping can speed biodiversity loss. [2]
* Abolishing consumers’ right to know as defined in the European treaties as well as in EU’s general food law. By excluding new GMOs from labelling requirements, consumers, farmers and the whole food chain can no longer know if the seeds, ingredients and final food products they buy contain new GMOs or not.[3]
* Depriving governments of their right to ban the cultivation of new GMOs on their territory. Since 2015, 17 governments have already banned the cultivation of GMOs.[4]
* Abolishing basic responsibilities for the biotech industry, such as delivering a detection method for each new GMO they develop. The new legislation makes it impossible for farmers and the food sector that want to produce conventional, organic or GMO-free food to protect themselves against unwanted contamination. The European Commission proposes to have testing methods be paid by those who want to avoid new GMOs and to remove public cultivation registers.
* Making it impossible for national authorities to control food safety of new GMOs as the biotech industry is no longer required to provide testing methods, nor are the operators obliged to trace the product along the food chain.
* Setting a precedent for corporate-driven law-making. The European Commission proposal is based on promises made by the industry about products that are currently still in the pipeline, without baseline or independent assessment on the actual sustainability of new GMOs.
Annemarie Volling, genetic engineering expert at the German Farmers’ Association AbL, commented on today’s result:
“This is an important first stage victory for GMO-free conventional and organic agriculture and food production. The proposed legislation contradicts the EU precautionary principle and aims to abolish our freedom to decide how we breed, sow, and harvest – and what we want to eat. The protection of our harvests from genetic engineering contamination would no longer be guaranteed. The AbL calls on the responsible governments of the EU member states to remain vigilant and not to be swayed by minimal compromise proposals. The hypothetical promises of the genetic engineering industry must be debunked. The European Parliament must also reject this one-sided industry-oriented legislative proposal. For real solutions, we need holistic approaches – without genetic engineering and patents. The AbL demands: No gifts for the genetic engineering corporations – the right to GMO-free agriculture and food production must be secured!”
Notes
[1] Germany and Bulgarian abstained. Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia raised major concerns.
[2] https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/new-gmos-a-risky-distraction-to-climate-food-security/
[3] https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/unmasking-new-gmos-protecting-farmers-consumers-right-to-transparency/
[4] https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/gmo-authorisation/gmo-authorisations-cultivation/restrictions-geographical-scope-gmo-applicationsauthorisations-eu-countries-demands-and-outcomes_en
Sources: Friends of the Earth Europe; AbL