A new draft legislation has revealed the European Commission’s intention to move forward with plans for New Genomic Techniques (NGT) and potentially circumvent existing GMO rules. A leaked document reveals how EU authorities want to see a relaxation of GM restrictions as a way of fighting climate change and its impact on some crops, but this poses some concern within the food industry.

“There is significant demand in the EU and globally for NGT plants, because of their potential to contribute to addressing current challenges in the agri-food system,” says the EC.

Climate change and biodiversity loss “have put the focus on long-term resilience” and food system sustainability. Authorities say that “provided they are safe for consumers and environment,” NGT could be the solution and even “potentially” contribute to food security.

“The economic rationale is very strong. If we want to cope with climate change and support food security we need these techniques.”

Moreover, the EC says that the war in Ukraine has revealed weaknesses of the EU’s food system on “external dependencies” on imports, with authorities looking to embrace the concept of “Open Strategic Autonomy,” looking for well-functioning, diversified and sustainable global value chains.

“NGTs are applied to a far larger range of crop species than established techniques and can thereby contribute, for example, to decreasing the EU’s dependence on imports of plant proteins.”

If authorities present the proposal to the College of Commissioners on July 5, it is anticipated they will face mounting opposition. Earlier this year, environmental and food organizations gathered over 420,000 signatures against deregulating what they call “new GMOs,” as they fear deregulation would weaken all traceability in the existing food system. 

“The leaked version of the proposal to deregulate products of ‘new genomic techniques’ confirms our fears. The EC plans to exempt the majority of NGT plants from any GMO requirements, including being subject to risk assessment for health and environment, traceability throughout the food chain and labeling for consumers,” Madeleine Coste, Director of Advocacy at Slow Food, tells Food Ingredients First.

 “This means that consumers, farmers and the whole food chain would no longer know whether the seeds and food they buy contain NGTs or not, and that we risk the uncontrolled release of potentially unsafe new GM plants into nature, as well as further concentration of power over our food system into the hands of a few corporations.” 

The leaked document details how an easing of GM policies could include controls being soften on a range of plants so that new varieties can be developed such as wheat that can withstand drought and tomatoes that are resistant to fungus disease. 

Skipping normal procedure
The draft presents two alternative ways to the EU’s standard regulatory screening of GMO procedures, which is notoriously hazardous and lengthy. This screening can take over five years, compared to around two years in Australia, Canada, US or Brazil, according to a nclick="updateothersitehits(Articlepage,External,OtherSitelink,Genetically edited plants could be excluded from EU rules on GMO,Genetically edited plants could be excluded from EU rules on GMO,335248,https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.202154529, article,Genetically edited plants could be excluded from EU rules on GMO);return no_reload();">peer-reviewed study. 

In these suggestions, plants that are considered types that could “occur naturally or be produced by conventional breeding” would avoid burdensome regulation.

Through targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis scientists change the genetic structure of plants in a fast and precise manner. However, the changes they induce could potentially occur in nature, without human intervention. 

“Such plants would be treated similarly to conventional plants and would not require authorization, risk assessment, traceability and labeling as GMOs; a transparency register would be established for these plants.” 

Other NGT plants would fall under “Category 2” and remain subject to traceability and labeling regulations. 

“For all other NGT plants (cCategory 2 NGT plants, it should provide for adaptations of the different authorization procedures of the current GMO legislation, in particular a risk assessment adapted to the risk profile of the plant.” 

Regarding such Category 2 plants, the EC talks about potential “regulatory incentives,” such as accelerated application procedure, providing pre-submission advice on risk hypotheses, fee waivers and additional incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Are NGTs the silver bullet?
Industry’s major proponents of NGTs – such as Bayer, Euroseeds, BASF and Syngenta – have been outspoken on the advantages for gene edited crops. They maintain that these advancements will lead to a boost in food production to cope with droughts, floods and insects, while aiding in carbon capturing in the soil and reducing reliance on fertilizers. 

The EC concedes in its draft proposal that “NGT plants could be among the tools that contribute to the reduction target on the use and risk of pesticides set out in the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies.”

“They can increase yields, thus require less surface to be cultivated, need fewer resources such as fertilizers, crop protection products or water and are more resistant to extreme weather conditions,” a Bayer spokesperson told Food Ingredients First in a recent interview. 

NGTs have already been used to lower the level of potentially carcinogenic acrylamide in wheat and to precision breed vitamin-D-enriched tomatoes.

Nonetheless, even pioneers of the technology, such as David Exwood, VP of the UK National Farmers unio, are cautious about overstating the potential of the new technology, saying that it could bolster climate-friendly food production and support biodiversity, but it is by no means “a silver bullet.”

From the other side of the argument, Eric Gall, policy manager at IFOAM Organics Europe, said that rather than “depending on and hoping for silver bullet solutions” such as GM crops, the EC focus should be on upscaling concrete and well-defined agroecological practices with proven benefits for biodiversity and soil quality.

No way back
Opponents to gene-editing say that new rules would prevent farmers, food producers, retailers and consumers from opting for GMO-free choices.

There are also fears that GMOs are not sustainable and contribute to biodiversity loss by mixing with or dominating wild plants. 

They could also weaken organic food standards by leaving organic food systems unable to opt out of using NGT seeds, according to IFOAM. 

Meanwhile, opponents of the legislation raise questions about whether real drought tolerance through NGT can be achieved, as it would require the modification of over 60 genes.

“We remind the European Commission that the right of consumers to be informed is enshrined in the Treaty of the European unio, as well as in the EU General Food Law. EU policies should put people before profit, not the other way around,” Coste concludes.