More than seventy academics today call on the Member States’ Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministers of Environment and MEPs to reject the proposal of the European Commission to deregulate a substantive part of the New Genetically Modified Organisms (new GMOs), also known as New Genomic Techniques (NGTs)
19 November 2023
More than seventy academics today call on the Member States’ Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Ministers of Environment and MEPs to reject the proposal of the European Commission to deregulate a substantive part of the New Genetically Modified Organisms (new GMOs), also known as New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). They argue that the shortcomings of the proposal are so fundamental that the only appropriate response is a complete rejection of the proposal.
If the Council and the European parliament adopt the proposal, then nearly all new GMOs currently in the pipeline would be given the green light for cultivation and sale to consumers without either health or environment risk assessment taking place. It would also proceed without labelling, traceability, patent impact assessment, or the possibility for Member States to refuse them being imposed on their population and territories. As the letter of academics points out, this move would have the effect of throwing out the precautionary principle. It would also be in direct opposition to the opinion of a vast majority of European citizens. In a recent opinion poll conducted by IPSOS, European citizens unambiguously express their wish to know whether the food they are eating is genetically modified, and endorse the need to have GMO-products tested before being released into the environment.
The Commission seems to have put their sights on getting the proposal approved quickly and without much public involvement, maybe partly because they are aware that a more profound and public debate won’t support the far-going deregulation they currently propose. As a result, despite the fundamental changes proposed by the Commission, most people are unlikely to have heard about their proposal at all.
This Commission proposal is not exactly an example of democratic processes of policy making. Despite numerous citizen petitions, warnings from concerned molecular biologists, and objections raised by a range of environmental and agricultural NGOs, the organic farming sector, and farmer organisations like La Via Campesina, the Commission has presented a proposal that solely caters to the short-term interests of agrochemical industries, rather than its citizens’ rights to a healthy environment or farmers’ right to seeds.
To sell its proposal, the Commission draws on three flawed lines of argument, which have been inspired by agrochemical lobby-arguments, to win over a not-all-too enthusiastic political body and citizenry.
- The Commission argues that new GMOs are not really different from conventional plants and therefore don’t need the same safety measurements or labelling as the older generations of genetically modified plants. However, the letter points to scientists that have demonstrated that even a limited number of gene-edits by NGTs can lead to radical changes in the respective organisms (plants), including unexpected changes at other than the targeted places in the genome. Independent scientists therefore have stated that there is no scientific rationale for excluding new GMOs from safety tests as mandatory under current legislation.
- The Commission argues that Europe needs to deregulate these risky technologies in order to keep its biotechnology and engineering sector globally competitive. The letter of academics warns that this strategy constitutes a “race to the bottom” whereby even minimal health, environmental and social concerns are waved aside in a logic of hyper-liberalisation and deregulation.
- New GMOs are sold on the promise that they will help farmers adapt to climate change. However, as the academics point out, similar promises of the so-called benefits of the previous generations of GMOs have never been realised. In reality, the system of GMO patents has further strengthened concentration in the food industry, contributed to increased use of toxic chemicals in agriculture, and undermined the position of small, subsistence and organic farmers. If the proposal were to be enacted, these farmers would be merely put under further pressure. Organic farmers would struggle to keep their fields GMO-free. Furthermore, as the academics point out, climate resilient agriculture cannot be realised by editing genes, but has to be addressed at a systemic level.
In conclusion, the letter calls for a rejection of the proposal, as it will not contribute to sustainability goals, or climate-resilient systems of agriculture. At the economic level it will only strengthen the agrochemical industry, while posing potential risks to people’s health and the environment, and further destabilising small and organic farmers’ livelihoods. Furthermore, it would undermine citizens’ ability to choose GMO-free food, as the lack of labelling and traceability would make it impossible to know whether a product is actually genetically modified or not.
The letter will remain open for further signatories from concerned academics.
Press contacts:
Barbara Van Dyck, PhD, Associate Professor at the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University (UK)
Anneleen Kenis, PhD, Lecturer Political Ecology & Environmental Justice, Brunel University London (UK); Senior Research Fellow (FWO), Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven & Centre for Sustainable Development, Ghent University (BE)
newgmo.org 