Why Big Agri wants to call new-generation GMOs anything but that

New genomic techniques, new breeding techniques, gene editing, precision breeding — these buzzwords may sound like winning moves in Scrabble, but they are mainly confusing for many of us.

And make no mistake, they were designed for that very purpose. 

In reality, they quite simply refer to a new generation of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Calling them 'new GMOs' would have been transparent, but such clarity would likely have sparked widespread public resistance to the European Commission’s legislative proposal to deregulate them.

The deliberate use of confusing and blurry concepts discourages informed debate, leaving citizens sidelined and journalists reluctant to dig deeper. 

In July 2023, the European Commission unveiled its proposal to exclude these new GMOs from the existing EU GMO law.

This means no mandatory labelling, no safety checks, and no liability. Since then, EU governments have struggled to agree on a definition for these products, let alone justify the need for such deregulation. Yet, the Polish presidency of the EU is determined to close the file, at all costs.

The heart of the push for deregulation lies in one controversial (corporate) premise: that new GMOs are no different from conventional crops. Based on this (false) claim, corporations insist they need no authorisation processes, labelling, safety checks, traceability, or liability — and EU decision makers have been all to eager to take that claim for granted.

The truth is, there is no substantive research on how new GMOs interact with other species once released into our fields, or their long-term impacts on biodiversity and agriculture practices.

Proponents claim deregulation is essential to increase the uptake of new GMOs in Europe.

But looking at countries where regulation is already loose, like Canada or the US, the few new GM plants actually grown have been withdrawn from the market due to failures, as seen with Cibus’ genetically modified rapeseed. Far from revolutionising agriculture, new GMOs often serve as little more than marketing tools to attract investors rather than offering sustainable farming solutions. 

For other two decades, European citizens have overwhelmingly rejected GMOs.

In France, 77 percent of respondents to a 2022 poll said they wanted new GMOs to be strictly regulated at European level, the same way classical GMOs are. In Austria, 94 percent agree that products from new GMOs should be labelled as such.

Yet the new law sidesteps these demands by excluding new GMOs from labelling requirements. While the law refuses to grant consumers their right to know if their food contains new GMOs, it now introduces a label for patented seeds. 

So far, EU governments have failed to agree on whether the new law should grant corporations patenting rights. The Polish presidency’s draft attempts to address the patenting conundrum by requiring producers to check and inform buyers that their seeds, food or feed are not covered by patents. The European Commission is then supposed to verify that. In case of doubt, the seed is to be labelled as patented. But the draft leaves critical details unanswered: who in the Commission will handle this, and how?

Patent problem and Big Agri’s monopoly

Trying to fix the patent issue through food safety legislation is like patching a sinking ship with duct tape. The real problem lies in the existing patent legislation which is riddled with loopholes, allows the European Patent Office to grant patents beyond the EU, and fosters the power of a handful of big corporations - Bayer, Corteva and Chem China/Syngenta - over the food sector.

In 2017, 70 percent of the seed and agrochemical industry was in their hands. More than 1,300 conventionally-bred European varieties are already affected by patents, which are mainly held by these industry giants.

Deregulation of new GMOs will only strengthen their monopolies, making it harder for small and medium-sized breeders to access critical genetic resources, undermining their ability to adapt to emerging diseases or extreme weather. 

Once again, deregulation would benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else — farmers, breeders, consumers, nature. EU policy-makers must halt this legislation and the European Commission must finally assess how patents on GMOs — which often include conventionally-bred and even wild generic material — impact the breeding sector and farmers. 

Deregulation of new GMOs is not the solution, but a step backward.

It’s time to clear the fog: farmers need genuine innovation like ambitious multiple cropping systems, they need support from researchers to reintroduce landscape elements on their fields. These are the pathways to increased farm resilience and better adaptation to the challenges of the climate crisis, destruction of nature, and soil degradation.