Welcome to our latest Review, which leads with the tragic capitulation of EU member states to GMO industry interests in the rush to deregulate GMOs (EU GMO DEREGULATION PROPOSAL). It’s not over yet though, as the European Parliament and enough Member States could still stand up for consumers, farmers and nature, and demand safeguards are maintained in the final text. We also have the concerning BACKGROUND TO THE EU VOTE FOR GMO DEREGULATION. And we cover the parallel GMO deregulation plans in New Zealand (NEW ZEALAND GMO DEREGULATION PROPOSAL) and the UK’s “done deal” (UK GMO DEREGULATION), both of which look to be decidedly worse than what threatens in the EU.

If all of this suggests it’s almost impossible to stand up to the massive corporate power of the biotech-industrial complex and its many political allies in their global drive for GMO deregulation, then it’s worth noting that the president of Mexico has just signed into law a revision to the Mexican Constitution that not only bans the growing of GMO corn but expressly bans new GMO variants too. Tufts University researcher Tim Wise points out that this completely pre-empts any deregulatory moves in Mexico. And given the ban is a Constitutional amendment, overwhelmingly agreed by both houses of the Mexican parliament and a majority of Mexican states, it will be incredibly hard to undo. Wise adds, “I think everyone around the world is really looking at Mexico to see how a less powerful country can stand up to the most powerful country – and the most powerful industries – and assert its food sovereignty.”

EU GMO DEREGULATION PROPOSAL

Irregular goings-on in EU's GMO deregulation vote

After many months of disagreement among EU member states over the EU Commission proposal for deregulation of new GMOs and a resulting standstill, in the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) on 14 March, the Polish EU Presidency managed to secure a narrow majority for its “compromise text” supporting deregulation. Surprisingly, the Polish text differed very little from the original EU Commission proposal of 2023, which would exempt new GMOs from any labelling, safety checks, monitoring, and liability requirements. However, the events that led up to the qualified majority vote were highly irregular and could lead to failure of the proposal in future meetings – or acceptance of a “compromise” that betrays consumers, farmers, and nature. Crucial to the majority in favour of deregulation was Belgium's U-turn in supporting the text, which came as a surprise because the country’s stance had previously been to abstain on the deregulation proposal. Greece also suddenly changed its position from opposing to supporting the deregulation proposal. In a confusing development, the Belgian government has circulated a statement suggesting that it doesn’t agree with the text it voted for. And Greece’s vote was contrary to its own scientific advisors and competent authority on GMOs in the Ministry of Rural Development and Food. [Image courtesy of Citizens’ Initiative Slovakia Without GMOs.]

Belgium sets out its concerns with what it voted for

In the Belgian government’s statement of concerns, it says it wants to ensure that the framework that is finally agreed “avoids any environmental or health risks and guarantees free choice for stakeholders and consumers”. Belgium continues, “Belgium’s support for the negotiations mandate proposed by the Polish Presidency for the trilogues [three-way negotiations between the Council of the EU – made up of EU government ministers who meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws – and the Parliament and Commission] with the European Parliament therefore does not prejudge Belgium’s position on the text that will result from these negotiations.” Belgium says it will only be able to support the final text if all of the following requirements are met:
* Patents: Belgium wants a total ban on the patentability of NGT plants, possibly through amendments to the Biotechnology Directive;
* Traceability and labelling: Belgium wants mandatory traceability throughout the value and labelling chain (up to the consumer);
* Organic products and coexistence: Belgium wants a ban on NGT plants in organic products. Furthermore, Belgium wants an explicit coexistence system to be integrated into the text;
* Risk analysis and insect-resistant NGTs: in accordance with the precautionary principle, Belgium wishes to see a rigorous, case-by-case analysis of environmental and health risks before any NGT is placed on the market. Post-market monitoring of environmental and health impacts must also be ensured.

It’s important that Belgium sticks to its demands and that Parliament maintains its insistence on traceability and labelling.

Above all, it’s crucial that Germany, which has a new government, maintains its stance of abstention on the proposal and requires labelling. If you’re in Germany, please take action and send an email to the negotiators of the new coalition government!

EU ambassadors back new GMOs deregulation: A dark day for farmers, consumers, nature

Friends of the Earth Europe were among many European organisations (see below) that have condemned the vote (see above). FOEE said the vote, which paves the way for trilogues on the deregulation proposal to begin between the Council of the EU, the Parliament and the Commission, prioritised false corporate promises over public demand for strict regulation. This shift undermines the EU’s fundamental precautionary principle underlying European policymaking and the EU’s approach to consumers’ right to choose. Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe commented: “It’s a dark day for consumers, farmers and the environment. EU governments have voted on the side of a handful of big corporations’ profits, instead of protecting farmers and consumers’ right to transparency and safety. They have slashed regulatory oversight to zero and eliminated liability for untested new GMOs, gambling on empty promises for plants that don’t even exist yet.”

New GMOs: Freedom of choice for consumers, farmers must come before agrochemical lobby interests

According to Christophe Clergeau, a Vice-President of the S&D Group in the European Parliament and its shadow rapporteur on the new GMO deregulation file, “The Council and the Commission are set to work hand in hand to impose the commercialisation of new GMOs (NGT) without precaution or protection of the interests of consumers or farmers. The Parliament must stand united to defend its positions and rely on the mobilisation of the agricultural world and civil society. It is time for a general mobilisation before the start of the trilogues” between the Council of the EU, the Parliament, and the Commission. He added, “The Council’s position is similar in many respects to the Commission’s initial text: it puts consumers at risk in the absence of a comprehensive supply chain traceability system and clear information on the final product derived from the new GMOs. A simple label on a bag of seeds, without information for the end consumer, would be unacceptable.”

Other comments on the EU vote:

ENGA, the association of the European non-GMO food and feed sector, said the move was a “shocking abandonment of consumers’ right to information”.

The German Association Food without Genetic Engineering (VLOG) said, “This is unlikely to be the hoped-for breakthrough, as there are still no regulations on labelling requirements and coexistence. The food industry and consumers will not accept this.”

Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds said: “The ministers have clearly caved to pressure from large multinational biotech companies. By allowing untested and unlabelled GM plants to be released into the environment and onto our plates, they are putting both people and nature at risk. Furthermore, they are stripping consumers of their right to avoid GM food.”

Corporate Europe Observatory said: “All is not over yet. Belgium made a statement that they only agreed to give the green light to start negotiations if some conditions are met, which probably cover the problems of patents and consumer labelling. The European Parliament position also opposes the patenting of (deregulated) new GM crops.”

Greenpeace EU’s Eva Corral said: “The governments who backed this loophole for new GMOs are telling their citizens and farmers that they don’t care if unregulated genetically modified plants end up in their plates and fields against their will. This would open a pandora’s box of risks for citizens, farms, small plant breeders and nature. The European Parliament must now step up to protect people and nature.”

The scientific group Testbiotech said, “It is doubtful whether the proposal will pass in this form, as there is still a lot of criticism from member states.” Testbiotech said the current proposal “would lead to a gross negligence in the handling of NGT plants. The text is not sufficiently based on scientific criteria; it disregards the precautionary principle and freedom of choice; and would exacerbate the problem of seed monopolisation.”

IFOAM Organics Europe said the proposal “threatens European breeders, farmers, and the food industry. The text neither protects European breeders and farmers from patent claims, nor does it give the agriculture and food industry all the necessary means to safeguard their entrepreneurial freedom.”

The Biodynamic Federation said the EU vote puts “in jeopardy the sovereignty and freedom of choice of European farmers and breeders by endorsing the Council’s negotiating mandate on the new genomic techniques (NGTs) regulation leaving aside essential traceability and labelling requirements... Clear traceability and labelling provisions for all NGTs are paramount to ensure that breeders, farmers, producers and consumers alike can make informed choices.”

BACKGROUND TO THE EU VOTE FOR GMO DEREGULATION

Unpacking EU’s food fight over new GMOs

An article in the EU Observer on the eve of the vote provided useful insight into how the EU vote delivered on efforts from Europe’s factory farm capitals to override opposition from countries concerned about small and organic farmers, as well as the proposed lack of health and environmental risk assessments. While initially one of the member states slamming the brakes on a deal, Poland, since the start of its EU Council presidency in January, flipped — to the dismay of many of its own agri-food players. EU diplomats and Polish stakeholders said Poland’s U-turn came after previously “unseen” levels of pressure coming at Warsaw from all fronts. In Brussels, industrial farming and biotech hubs like Spain and Belgium led the charge during their presidencies, zeroing in on Poland’s concerns about patents after realising that, due to its population, its vote could move the file forward. An EU diplomat said, “We have a feeling many things are going through by force; our impression over the whole proposal was that [there was] an intention to push it down our throats without proper work done beforehand.” Austria says the bill risks obliterating the organic and GM-free sectors.

200+ organisations: GMO deregulation threatens breeders, farmers, and the organic and non GMO sectors in the EU

In a joint statement ahead of the vote, more than 200 organisations, including GMWatch warned EU countries they must protect farmers, small- and medium-sized seed breeders, and the organic and GM-free sectors from threats to their business posed by the deregulation of new GMOs.

Open letter from Japan to EU opposes new GMO deregulation

In an open letter, the Consumers Union of Japan has called on the European Commission and European governments to protect food safety and the environment by not excluding new GM crops, such as gene-edited organisms, from the regulations currently in place for GM crops in the EU.

There is no “magic threshold” for new GMO safety

Testbiotech has published a backgrounder summarising recent research showing clear evidence that the EU Commission proposal for the future regulation of plants obtained from new genomic techniques (NGT) is inadequate. It would be outdated before the new regulation could be implemented. The proposal is based on the fundamental misconception that there is a threshold of 20 mutations for NGT effects that would not require risk assessment. However, recent scientific publications have found undeniable evidence that there is no such thing as a “magic threshold”.

Poland’s proposal on new GMOs/NGTs ignores farmers’ rights

In February Poland presented a new “improved” proposal to the Council of the EU on the deregulation of plant GMOs obtained by new genomic techniques (NGTs). ECVC (European Coordination Via Campesina) said the proposal, which focuses on the effects of patented new GMOs on farmers, won’t solve the problems because it does not provide for any obligation to publish detection and identification processes for GM and patented plants. These are wrongly presented as “similar” to natural or conventionally bred plants, which should never be patented. Farmers and breeders will therefore not be able to know whether the conventional seeds they have bred, cultivated or marketed, contain (naturally or as a result of unavoidable genetic contamination) a genetic sequence presented as “similar” to a patented sequence obtained by NGT. If this is the case, they may be prosecuted for patent infringement and their produce may be seized.

Joint letter to the EU Commission: Pseudo-science must not be an option for Europe!

Civil society organisations – including GMWatch – and industry associations published a joint letter to the European Commission, demanding that they withdraw their proposal for deregulation of plants obtained from new genetic engineering techniques, NGTs. They stressed that any new regulation for NGT plants must be based on science and ensure safety. In this regard, the proposal made by the Commission suffers from irreparable flaws, since the criteria for speeding up market access are not science-based, but arbitrary.

Legal opinion: New GMOs deregulation proposal shifts safety testing, liability to EU food industry

The proposed deregulation of new GMOs (new genomic techniques, NGTs) in the EU would shift safety testing and liability risks for plants produced with NGTs and the products derived from them, from biotech companies to the food industry, says a legal opinion by the Berlin law firm GGSC on behalf of ENGA’s member VLOG (German Association for Food without Genetic Engineering). ENGA is the voice of the Non-GMO food and feed sector at the EU level.

Hungary will not support EU GMO deregulation proposals

A Hungarian MEP has pointed out that the Hungarian constitution prohibits the cultivation of genetically modified crops and that he does not support the EU deregulation proposals. In 2006, the five parliamentary parties at the time agreed on a GMO-free strategy for Hungary. This strategy has remained unchanged since then, and the new Fundamental Law that came into force on January 1, 2012, also sets the goal of making Hungarian agriculture free of genetically modified organisms. The parties point out that there is a lack of long-term environmental impact studies, properly conducted toxicological studies, and feeding trials. Current knowledge would not be sufficient to realistically assess the environmental, health, social, and economic risks of GMOs, they note.

NEW ZEALAND GMO DEREGULATION PROPOSAL

Scientists slam New Zealand’s GMO deregulation push as the most extreme in the world

In two expert reports, independent scientists have strongly criticised the New Zealand government’s proposal to radically weaken its GMO regulations. The proposed legislation would remove a subclass of gene-edited plants, animals, and microbes from the scope of the GMO regulations, meaning that they would be exempted from pre-market risk assessment for health and the environment, traceability requirements, and GMO labelling. They’d be treated the same as non-GM. In response to the government’s public consultation, Prof Jack Heinemann and colleagues of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, submitted their reports (the second one is available in “linked data” at the link above) in which they warn that if the bill passes, New Zealand would have the most extreme combination in the world of proposed species breadth (microorganisms, plants, animals) and process exemptions without the safety net of a case-by-case confirmation step prior to release.

New Zealand’s GMO deregulation proposal: Developers must prove their GMOs are conventional-like – not just declare it

GMWatch’s Claire Robinson, with Prof Michael Antoniou, submitted comments to the New Zealand government on its proposal to deregulate certain GMO technologies and products on the basis of developer claims that they are conventional-like. Robinson and Antoniou told the government that GMO developers must prove scientifically that their GMOs are truly equivalent to conventionally bred organisms, by carrying out certain readily available tests.

GMWatch interviewed on Reality Check Radio

GMWatch’s Claire Robinson and GE Free New Zealand’s Jon Carapiet were interviewed on Reality Check Radio on the New Zealand government’s GMO deregulation proposal (see above item).

New Zealand: Do not rush GMO deregulation bill and shut the farmers out

Two New Zealand farmers have told the government in an op-ed that they should not rush through the GMO deregulation bill and shut farmers out. They write that the new Gene Technology Bill will mean more paperwork and more compliance costs for farmers just to stand still — with the added risk of trading away their GMO-free competitive advantage.

New Zealand ministries concerned about trade and ethical implications of GMO deregulation

More consideration of trade and market access risks from GMOs is needed as New Zealand proposes to adopt legislation to deregulate GM gene-edited crops, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has warned.

Japanese consumers shocked by New Zealand deregulation proposal

In an open letter, Consumers Union of Japan comments on the New Zealand government’s GMO deregulation proposal, expressing their shock and worry at the move. Japan is a big food importer and Japan New Zealand’s fifth largest export market. New Zealand’s GMO free status has always been regarded as a significant trade advantage.

Philippines farmer-scientist network opposes New Zealand GMO deregulation

MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development), a Philippines-based network of more than 500 farmer organisations, non-government organisations, and scientists working for farmer empowerment through farmer-led agroecology, have issued a statement saying they “stand in solidarity with the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand who are resisting the corporate-driven push to deregulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including gene-edited crops”. MASIPAG writes, “Our struggle for food sovereignty, farmers’ rights, and biodiversity protection is deeply connected to yours. We join you in opposing the Gene Technology Bill, which threatens to dismantle essential biosafety protections, override democratic decision-making, and erode the rights of farmers, consumers, and Indigenous communities.”

New Zealand councils oppose undemocratic and extreme Gene Technology Bill

Northland Regional Council, Whangarei District Council, Far North District Council, Auckland Council, and Hastings District Council have made a commitment to farmers and other ratepayers to oppose the controversial Gene Technology Bill in its current form.

Greenpeace Aotearoa opposes New Zealand GMO deregulatory bill

Greenpeace Aotearoa (Greenpeace NZ) opposes the New Zealand government's Gene Technology Bill because it puts “the health of our people and the environment... at unacceptable risk“ and recommends that the bill “be rejected in its entirety“.

UK GMO DEREGULATION

The UK’s GMO “free-for-all” begins

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 deregulated gene-edited organisms (or, what the UK government misleadingly chooses to call “precision-bred organisms”, or PBOs for short. New secondary legislation that expands the sweeping deregulatory powers of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, was laid in February. The secondary legislation, developed by the farm ministry DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency, raises serious concerns about consumer choice, food safety and agricultural independence as well as being a dramatic shift from Labour’s previous position. The Act dismantles key safeguards such as labelling and traceability for genetically engineered – so-called “precision bred” organisms (PBOs). According to Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM: “The Genetic Technology Act is a shoddy piece of legislation that is a fundamental breach of public trust in the UK farming and food system and a significant step backwards for consumer rights. By stripping away essential labelling and traceability, it leaves consumers uninformed, the large majority of non-GMO farming and food businesses in the UK exposed to unforeseen risks including financial and reputational loss and, potentially, a competitive disadvantage.”

GMWatch submits comments on GMO deregulation secondary legislation to scrutiny committee

GMWatch’s Claire Robinson and molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou submitted comments on the secondary legislation (see above) to the UK parliament’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In their comments, Robinson and Antoniou write that the scientific foundation of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 is critical to its practical implementation, particularly regarding the verification of “precision bred” status for GMOs. However, they show that this scientific foundation is lacking: “Therefore, we have serious concerns about how this policy will function in reality.” In response, the SLSC issued a report in which it took the concerns raised very seriously, including making good points on the lack of labelling for the consumer (paras 32-33). It submitted probing questions to the government, which, however, gave its usual evidence-free and unscientific replies, which are included in the report. It remains to be seen whether the government will act on any of the points that the committee made.

Divided Kingdom (UK): Devolved nations and the Genetic Technology Act

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 fosters an environment that prioritises innovation over precaution. The geographical scope of the Act is limited to England. For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where agriculture, food safety and environmental protection are devolved competencies, there lies an opportunity to take a different path. Scotland and Wales have rejected the Act, opposing the cultivation and sale of gene-edited organisms. Beyond GM has outlined some specific actions devolved nations might take to reduce the impact of the Precision Breeding Act in their territories.

UK government’s gene editing plans will impact efforts to ease Irish Sea border checks says Northern Ireland minister

British government plans to press ahead with legislation deregulating gene editing will jeopardise the prospects of easing trade barriers across the Irish Sea, Northern Ireland’s agriculture and environment minister has said. Andrew Muir said he is “very concerned” after UK Environment Secretary Steve Reed last week signalled his intention to introduce the secondary legislation required to give force to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 before the end of the month. Muir said, “Any such approach risks increasing, rather than reducing, checks on food, plants and animals.” EU officials have warned that the move would not be compatible with any bilateral veterinary deal, or what’s known as a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement.

Green light for trial of GM wheat for people who can’t use a toaster properly, and more

A GM gene-edited wheat trial forming part of the PROBITY research programme got the go-ahead from farm ministry DEFRA under the new deregulated “qualifying higher plant” (QHP) system. The gene-edited wheat is engineered to have low levels of asparagine, an amino acid that produces the carcinogen acrylamide when wheat is cooked at high temperatures, such as with burnt toast. That led GM Freeze to quip that the wheat was developed for people “who are unable to use a toaster properly”. More concerning, in terms of potential contamination, is the three-year QHP oilseed rape trial that was also given the go-ahead. The full list of QHPs notified for trials is here (scroll down to header, “Notifications to release qualifying genetically modified higher plants”).

..................................................................

We hope you’ve found this newsletter useful. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!