IFOAM Organics Europe calls for NGT farming vote delay amid “unsolved issues”

25 Jan 2024 --- IFOAM Organics Europe, an umbrella organization for organic food and farming, warns that many issues around New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) remain unsolved after the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI Committee) voted on the legislative proposal yesterday.

A majority of MEPs from all political groups voted to maintain the ban on NGTs in organic production in welcome news for organic farmers. However, IFOAM claims traceability provisions and coexistence measures proposed by the European Commission that go beyond the minimum transparency on NGTs in seed lots are still necessary.

IFOAM has called for the plenary vote on NGTs, scheduled for early February, to be delayed to enable “depoliticized, cross-party discussions that adequately address concerns related to biosafety, patents and the establishment of a robust framework supporting the freedom of choice for both producers and consumers.”

Jan Plagge, IFOAM’s president, said after the vote: “This rushed legislative process to deregulate NGTs goes against the interest of European breeders, farmers and citizens. Today’s vote by MEPs in the Environment committee leaves too many issues about risks, patents and the right of farmers and consumers to avoid NGTs unsolved.”

Chemical giants versus grassroots agriculture
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 NGTs.

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

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

NGT pioneers 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.

Meanwhile, 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.The EU Parliament is scheduled to adopt the NGT mandate during the February 5–8 plenary session.

Protecting farmers
In yesterday’s vote, MEPs rejected amendments to the “free movement of NGTs.” According to Plagge at IFOAM, this is a significant decision, showing that a clear legal basis to “allow member states to take coexistence measures to protect the integrity of organic and conventional GMO-free production is possible and needed.”

“Intellectual property rights attached to NGTs extend to genetic material and traits that can also be obtained by conventional breeding and jeopardize the European model of innovation in breeding, based on the circulation of genetic resources among hundreds of SMEs,” he says.

“Claiming to address the patent issue with an amendment and a report is wishful thinking — but far behind reality. The only thing that currently protects farmers and breeders from legal threats from multinationals abusing the patent system to claim ownership over conventional breeding is the traceability and labeling system that applies to all GMOs, including NGTs.”

“How will MEPs explain to farmers that they choose to carelessly leave them exposed to patents and to hand over the seed breeding sector to a few big companies? Protecting the freedom of breeders and farmers to select their own seeds is a matter of European sovereignty that should be addressed before any deregulation of genetic engineering.”

By Joshua Poole