A rift in public opinions has split farmers following the European Parliament’s recent vote on a sweeping proposal to deregulate “New Genomic Techniques” (NGTs). NGTs include advanced methods like CRISPR/Cas that modify the genetic makeup of agricultural crops without introducing new genetic materials, as in the case of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

Under the current regime, all NGT plants fall under the same strict regulations as GMOs. However, the new Parliament vote signals a shift toward a legislative framework that regulates NGT crops more similarly to rules applied to plants derived from traditional breeding methods.

More nuanced regulations for NGTs could potentially lead to expedited innovations of crops that are more climate-resilient, higher-yielding and requiring fewer fertilizers and pesticides.

However, while producers debate implications of safety and transparency, the final rules are still pending further discussions and negotiations.

Contrasting responses from farmers
Organic producers under IFOAM Organics Europe warn the outcome is a “step backwards” in terms of biosafety and freedom of choice for consumers. The Parliament voted for a ban on all patents related to NGT plants to avoid legal issues and dependencies for farmers.

“A majority of MEPs voted in favor of weakening biosafety requirements for NGTs but also to maintain traceability of NGTs all along the production and the possibility for national coexistence measures to protect organic agriculture,” said Jan Plagge, president of IFOAM Organics Europe, after the vote.

“[The vote by MEPs] is full of contradiction as it acknowledges some major issues associated to NGTs deregulation but fails to provide concrete solutions and would leave farmers and breeders exposed to corporate takeover of genetic resources through patents.”

Copa-Cogeca, a coalition of farmer representatives within the 27-nation bloc, counters with a contrasting perspective, stating: “This vote is seen by the EU farming community as a new step in the right direction.”

“NGTs are among the practical solutions that can help our agriculture reconcile production and adaptation to climate change while maintaining cutting-edge research in the EU.”

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.

KWS, BASF and Bayer nclick="updateothersitehits('Articlepage','External','OtherSitelink','Farmers divided on New Genomic Techniques as European Parliament favors deregulation','Farmers divided on New Genomic Techniques as European Parliament favors deregulation','339164','https://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/ifoam-organics-europe-calls-for-ngt-farming-vote-delay-amid-unsolved-issues.html', 'article','Farmers divided on New Genomic Techniques as European Parliament favors deregulation');return no_reload();">previously told Food Ingredients First 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.

Proposed two-tiered regulatory system
NGTs could no longer remain within the same regulatory framework as GMOs, argues Copa-Cogeca.

The farming coalition supports that the decision to separate NGTs and GMOs from under one umbrella was “understandable and anachronistic from the point of view of science and farmers.”

In yesterday’s Strasbourg plenary, the European Parliament approved the draft report of Jessica Polfjärd (EPP, Sweden) on NGTs, with 307 votes in favor, 41 abstentions and 263 against.

While the proposed regulatory shift doesn’t deregulate NGTs entirely, it proposes a two-tiered system that categorizes these novel crops based on their potential risks and similarities to conventional breeding:

1. NGT-1 Plants: Considered similar to conventionally bred plants due to minor genetic modifications (under 20 changes). These would face reduced regulations, exempting them from most GMO requirements.

2. NGT-2 Plants: All other NGTs not falling under category 1. These would still be subject to adapted GMO regulations, albeit potentially less stringent than the current ones.

“For Copa and Cogeca, this balanced approach is the right one,” affirms Copa-Cogeca. “As noted by Commissioner for Health Stella Kyriakides at the end of voting, it is now up to the Council to adopt its general approach so that trilogues could start rapidly.”

“Copa and Cogeca are therefore appealing to the Council negotiators to swiftly find a position on NGTs.”

Ban on patented seeds
MEPs want a full ban on patents for all NGT plants, plant material, parts thereof, genetic information and process features they contain, to avoid legal uncertainties, increased costs and new dependencies for farmers and breeders.

IFOAM Organics signaled its support for this move to bar NGT seed patents, which were referred to as a “threat to the European breeding sector.”

“[MEPs] sent a clear message that patent protection should not extend to genetic material that can also be obtained by conventional breeding.”

This move was also welcomed by Copa-Cogeca, which states: “Copa and Cogeca positively note the adoption of the amendments regarding the exclusion from patentability.”

Restricting NGTs from organic
In its vote, the European Parliament aligned with the approach of the European Commission and demands from the organic sector to explicitly maintain the ban of all NGTs in organic production.

The Parliament also voted to maintain traceability provisions for NGTs that go beyond the minimum transparency on NGTs in seed lots proposed by the European Commission.

MEPs also rejected amendments that would have prevented Member States from taking coexistence measures to protect the integrity of organic and conventional GMO-free production.

“A position from the Council of ministers is still expected before trilogue negotiations could start,” highlights IFOAM Organics.

“Organic producers count on Member States in the Council to secure their right to take traceability and national coexistence measures to ensure the freedom of farmers, food producers and consumers not to use genetic engineering techniques.”

Local producers condemn “techno-fixes”
These new policy updates surrounding NGTs come at the heels of EU organic farmers voicing nclick="updateothersitehits('Articlepage','External','OtherSitelink','Farmers divided on New Genomic Techniques as European Parliament favors deregulation','Farmers divided on New Genomic Techniques as European Parliament favors deregulation','339164','https://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/eu-organic-farmers-sound-alarm-amid-revenue-decline-and-tightening-eco-regulations.html', 'article','Farmers divided on New Genomic Techniques as European Parliament favors deregulation');return no_reload();">complaints over shrinking margins amid mounting pressures from tightening eco-regulations.

“In the last weeks, we have also heard farmers across Europe calling for fair revenues and conditions; in response, EU politicians are moving forward with replacing regulation with techno-fixes that are giving more power to the pesticide and biotechnology industry,” says Marta Messa, secretary general of Slow Food.

“It is absurd and misleading to claim that this deregulation will help make food systems more sustainable. We urge European ministers to call for following the precautionary principle, and protecting transparency and freedom of choice in the Council discussions.”