EU Commission’s next-gen GMO proposal puts chemical giants in conflict with grassroots agriculture

06 Nov 2023 --- Major chemical companies and grassroots agriculture groups are locked in a dispute over the use of next-generation genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in farming, as lawmakers debate the European Commission’s controversial proposal to widely deregulate new genomic techniques (NGTs). 

The proposal was discussed by European Parliament (EP) members of the Agriculture and Environment committees on October 26 and will be addressed again tomorrow (November 7).

Slow Food and Friends of the Earth Europe have urged MEPs to reject the proposal and keep new GMOs regulated under the current EU GMO rules. They warn that deregulation would threaten nature and the rights of consumers, farmers and breeders to transparency.

However, KWS, BASF and Bayer tell us that NGTs can actually boost environmental sustainability in farming and alleviate food security fears while the transparency concerns can be overcome. These leading NGT players tell us they welcome the draft legislation as an opportunity for Europe to lead in sustainable agriculture on the world stage.

Transparency to triumph?
The far-reaching deregulation proposal suggests excluding new GMO plants, such as products from CRISPR-Cas9, from the current legal framework, which Slow Food suggests would exempt these NGTs from labeling requirements, safety checks and traceability processes.

“This proposal would prevent the entire supply chain and consumers from wilfully opting for GMO-free choices, undermining their right to transparency and information about the food they buy,” Giulia Gouet, policy officer for agroecology at Slow Food, tells Food Ingredients First.

Farmers could also face contamination risks from neighboring fields that use NGT plants, financial costs from patent lawsuits by unknowingly planting NGT seeds and limited access to seed diversity, impoverishing biodiversity, she adds.NGT players insist deregulation would help the EU lead on sustainable farming, but opponents doubt whether new GMOs are sustainable at all.

Organic farmers are also concerned they will need to prove their food is “GMO-free” or “organic” to keep qualifying for certifications. IFOAM Organics Europe recently demanded the EP to maintain its ban on all NGTs in organic farming.

But, NGT manufacturers insist that transparency can be achieved through effective information sharing, for instance, through a public database of NGTs, with data on plants recorded during the breeding process.

“Our website already has a dedicated section to list our seed varieties, reporting their main characteristics in terms of benefits for the farmer and environment and all breeding methods used — including NGTs,” Dr. Anja Matzk, head of regulatory affairs at KWS, tells us.

“We aim to share this information as part of the labeling of our seed bags in the future, allowing for easy access. As the website contains information on all breeding methods — not exclusively on NGTs — we do not discriminate between products and allow farmers full freedom of choice.”

Meanwhile, “labeling can propel transparency provided the information conveyed by labels is not misleading to consumers or used to discriminate between products with identical safety characteristics,” a BASF spokesperson tells us.

Likewise, Bayer claims it is committed to sharing information about its seed products to enable farmers and consumers to make informed choices and support voluntary consumer labeling schemes.

“We are maintaining an ongoing dialogue across the food value chain to encourage informed choices. But it is not justified to apply the current mandatory GMO labeling and traceability requirements to gene-edited plants comparable to conventionally bred plants,” a company spokesperson says.

NGTs versus GMOs
NGT pioneers want to stress the “clear distinction” between NGTs and GMOs. With GMO technologies, scientists can incorporate genes from other species, like other crops or bacteria, in a plant’s DNA. But with NGTs, scientists work purely with a plant’s own DNA.

“Therefore, with NGTs, scientists are limited to the same characteristics that can be obtained by conventional breeding or occur spontaneously in nature — but much faster and more targeted,” the Bayer spokesperson tells Food Ingredients First.

“That’s why genome-edited products should not be regulated differently from products developed with conventional breeding technologies, in line with the view of many renowned scientists in the plant breeding field.”GMOs and NGTs are not the same: GMOs include genes from other species whereas NGTs are limited to a plant’s own DNA.

But grassroots agriculture groups want NGTs regulated for the very reason that they are new and emerging technologies.

“There is no more doubt that agriculture and food systems need to be transformed to fight the climate and biodiversity crises, but while we hear promises that new GMOs will help farmers do so, there is simply no evidence at this stage,” says Madeleine Coste, director of advocacy at Slow Food.

“New GM techniques like CRISPR are new in agriculture — it is irresponsible and premature to abolish or even weaken the strong EU regulations we have to assess their safety and guarantee freedom of choice to consumers and farmers.”

Silver bullet for sustainable food?
Voices on both sides of the NGTs debate agree that Europe’s food system must be transformed amid rising climate change fears and heavy dependence on foreign imports. But whether new GMOs are the answer to Europe’s agriculture needs remains a matter of contention.

The BASF spokesperson claims that NGTs have the potential to provide farmers with climate-resilient tools for more productivity and sustainable agriculture. “Breeders curate gene changes and their corresponding favorable characteristics together to identify new varieties of food crops with high climate resilience, strong virus and disease resistance and high nitrogen utilization efficiency. In turn, farmers with resilient crops can grow more with less resources,” they explain.

Similarly, the Bayer spokesperson sees NGTs as “one very promising puzzle piece” for feeding a growing world population while protecting the planet’s boundaries, reducing food waste and providing much faster innovation cycles, which are “desperately needed” to address food security and climate change.

“NGTs are also key for the EU to keep pace in the global technology race as they facilitate access for small and medium institutions and companies. The EU needs proportionate, future-proof and science-based legislation to safeguard societal needs and European competitiveness,” they tell Food Ingredients First.

But grassroots agriculture groups warn that NGTs could actually deteriorate environmental standards in farming.Grassroots agriculture groups warn NGT deregulation will result in diminished transparency, but new GMO producers say public information sharing can alleviate these concerns.

“Risks to the environment include exacerbating weed problems, invasiveness that results in displacement or extinction of native plant species or changing the characteristics of the plant in a way that impacts wildlife,” Gouet at Slow Food tells us.

“New GMO plants made with gene-silencing technology — intended to kill insect pests — could silence the genes of non-target and helpful insects and even human or animal eaters — with potentially damaging consequences.”

Monoculture mischief?
According to Slow Food, GMO crops are generally grown in massive monocultures, with pesticides and fertilizers bought as part of the seed package. The organization claims that big GMO seed companies are also the largest pesticide sellers by value and, therefore, reluctant to abandon a primary revenue stream (pesticides and fertilizers) in the interests of sustainability.

“The industry claims new GMO technology can contribute to sustainability by developing, for example, seeds resistant to drought or fungal pathogens. However, genetic engineering has failed to deliver on these traits because they are genetically complex, underpinned by many genes. They are therefore difficult or impossible to obtain through GMO methods, which can only manipulate one or a few genes,” Slow Food’s policy brief reads.

In contrast, indigenous and other conventionally bred varieties adapted to the local environment and climate perform well under difficult conditions, the organization argues.

Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, comments: “Agribusiness corporations are telling everyone who will listen that their new GMOs are the silver bullet to sustainable food systems, yet they are doing everything they can to hide them.”

“The truth is that they know consumers do not want them and so they are trying to sneak them onto supermarket shelves to boost their profits.”

By Joshua Poole