Posted by 
“Would you rather feed gene-edited lettuce to your kids or no lettuce at all?” asks Mónica Álvaro, an agronomist specialized in organic farming.
Álvaro is clear: she wouldn’t put plants engineered in a laboratory on her plate, but realizes that some families might have no choice once these products enter the market.
In July, the European Commission proposed rules to legalize new gene-editing technologies for crops, exempting them from the hard-fought and ultra-restrictive law on genetically modified organisms (GMO) — often labeled as “frankenfoods” — in a bid to catch up with other regions of the world already embracing these new varieties.
Such deregulation was marketed by its proponents as the magic recipe to help farmers produce more and affordable food against the backdrop of a worsening climate crisis and high inflation. Resistance to drought and pests are some of the potential crop traits that Brussels is eyeing.
The EU executive stepped on the gas in the hope that this proposal would soften entrenched opposition to its plan to reduce chemical pesticides (SUR) — another key file under the Commission’s broader Green Deal agenda — and get it over the line before the end of the term.
But, several months on, what was acclaimed as a quick fix by industry groups and conservative lawmakers is now at risk of hitting a wall due to growing opposition and the speed at which lawmakers have been asked to deal with such a complex matter.
EU split
Spain, as the country holding the rotating presidency of the EU Council and one of the most liberal with genetically modified foods, is helming the proposal and pledged it would reach an agreement with member countries before the end of December.
Introducing these new technologies in agriculture is necessary to “guarantee food security with rational use of our natural resources,” Spanish Agriculture Minister Luis Planas said during an informal meeting of EU agriculture ministers in September, expressing confidence in their support for his plan.
However, splits have since emerged between EU countries on whether to allow easier market access for such super varieties.
The proposal faces a setback at Monday’s Agrifish Council — the last of the Spanish presidency — with Planas seen as unlikely to gather a qualified majority in favor of Spain’s position.
“What the Commission proposed was a gift to the industry,” said one EU diplomat close to the negotiations, adding that the presidency’s final text features “cosmetic retouches” while leaving many concerns of member countries unaddressed.
Northern countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland are leading the coalition in support of the presidency’s proposal. However, there is also a steady group of countries opposing it — including Croatia, Poland, Hungary and Austria.
One of the heavyweights — Germany — is “a silent supporter” of the skeptics, according to the diplomat, but will likely abstain due to internal divisions.
Knowledge gaps
Intellectual property remains a main concern as ministers and lawmakers in the European Parliament fear unleashing these new technologies would lead to further corporate capture by multinationals such as Bayer, Syngenta and Corteva through the use of patents. The three companies together account for almost half of the plant breeding sector.
Even the industry says the scale of the issue is hard to assess: “The simple answer is we don’t know,” said Garlich von Essen, secretary-general of industry lobby Euroseeds. However, “the assumption is that, at least in the beginning, it will rather mean more patents than less,” he added.
Another concern that the boosters of super crops have yet to allay is how to ensure coexistence with the EU’s fledgling organic farming sector, where conventional GMOs are strictly prohibited.
With the new rules, the vast majority of gene-edited plants and seeds won’t need to be labeled as such, a move favored by Spain and lawmakers like Sweden’s Jessica Polfjärd from the European People’s Party, who’s leading the European Parliament’s work on the file.
But without traceability requirements, the organic sector fears loosening the rules will threaten their own existence and mislead consumers.
“Are they [lawmakers] well informed? In my experience not,” said Jan Plagge, president of the interest group for the organic sector IFOAM. “And that’s quite dangerous.”
However, the clock is ticking and lawmakers in the Parliament’s agriculture committee are also set to vote on their opinion on the file on Monday.
It is highly likely that the agri report, led by Czech far-right rapporteur Veronika Vrecionová, will win broad support — even though negotiators still had to call in scientists for a last-minute meeting this week due to overall confusion on key technical aspects.
“Shadow negotiators in the agriculture committee don’t yet understand what’s being discussed,” said a parliamentary official granted anonymity to speak freely.
A vote in the environment committee — which is leading deliberations on the file — is set for January 11, but similar issues may arise.
“It’s not a simple file,” said Christophe Clergeau, the French socialist negotiator in the environment committee. “The Spanish Presidency has underestimated it.”
Clergeau explained that parliamentary negotiators will only hold three meetings before the vote. “We obviously need more time, otherwise I am afraid it will be a mess,” he added, questioning the scientific ground of the proposal and pointing out the outstanding issues on patenting, traceability and consumer information.
Over in the Council, the Spanish presidency might still attempt to secure an agreement at a meeting of EU ambassadors on December 22 — which the following Belgian presidency could take over to the next council in January.
It will take a very long time to really know the effects of using and consuming such products, said Álvaro, who is also a deputy secretary-general of the Spanish organizations for small and medium farmers (UPA). “It is now up to decision-makers to decide whether this is a risk worth taking.”
Additional reporting by Bartosz Brzeziński.
