False dawn or new dawn for genetically engineered crops in the European Union?

image
Credit: slowfood.com

It’s going to be a long and difficult journey before the fate of the European crop biotechnology reform bill passed on February 7 by the EU Parliament is known. Proponents and rejectionists are already positioning themselves for what is shaping up as an acrimonious debate that will spill over well into next year.

The fate of the measure revolves around two issues, either of which could derail or denude the final measure: whether to allow the patenting of gene-edited crops; and whether plants engineered using what the bill calls New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), also referred to in other countries as New Breeding Techniques (NBTs), will be traced and labeled. 

Both proponents and rejectionists are sharpening their knives, each contending that the measure as now written fails the public.

Claiming there is “misery ahead” for European farmers if the bill passes in its current form, Greenpeace issued its boilerplate objections, saying it would accelerate the ‘corporate takeover’ of global agriculture — the view echoed by other environmental groups that aligned with the organic industry in lobbying to water down the final bill. 

“Members of the European Parliament have failed in their duty to protect people’s health, the environment, and the future of European farming,” said a Greenpeace spokesperson.

Scientists, farmers and seed companies welcomed the passage of the bill. They claim these reforms are needed for the EU to participate in the agricultural genetic revolution that is creating disease, insect, salt, drought- and browning-resistant crops and crops better able to protect against droughts, floods and pest infestations as climate instability accelerates. Meanwhile, fruits, vegetables and grains are being tweaked to be more nutritious, tastier, colorful, and have longer shelf lives.

image
Drought rocked European farmers in 2022

But reform proponents are far from enthusiastic. Yes, it’s an improvement over current statutes that all but ban the growing of transgenic GMO crops — only one, a corn varietal — is approved across the EU. But they claim it is filled with restrictions that would ensure Europe would remain a global crop biotechnology backwater if preserved in the final measure.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

What’s in the legislation?

The bill is a compromise designed to thread the needle between the need to deregulate NBTs at a time when many other countries are taking such steps. Nigeria, Brazil, Argentina, the US, Israel, Japan Canada, Brazil, Argentina and Australia have all recently removed the shackles from new breeding technologies (NBTs), and other countries are contemplating reforms.

There are many problems with the proposals which suggest it will not be the panacea that many in the scientific, farming and biotechnology sector had hoped for. It is therefore likely to be quite a while before any GE food is fully commercialized given all the restrictions, roadblocks and regulations that will remain in place.

Challenges to passing the bill 

All major EU decisions require unanimous consent of the 27 member countries, which means both sides will not get what they want. The cumbersome nature of such a process was highlighted recently when Hungary was the lone holdout for the approval of an urgently needed $54 billion economic package for Ukraine. Viktor Orban, the long-time serving prime minister, strongly opposed the package. It took a great deal of arm-twisting to secure his approval.  

Hungary, Austria, Poland and Germany are likely to be among the most recalcitrant countries. Anti-GE groups have forged broad coalitions. The USDA Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service has issued in-depth reports analyzing the depths of the opposition in each country.

Hungary

Although the country has no formal policy on cisgenic gene-editing, the most recent USDA report for Hungary indicated that it is “one of the strongest opponents of transgenic engineering, and noting that maintaining its “GE free status” is a government priority:

Hungary does not produce genetically engineered (GE) crops, animals, or cloned livestock. The Government of Hungary opposes the use of GE products in agriculture. Political parties in Hungary have historically held a firm anti-GE position… Maintaining the country’s GE-free status is among the government’s highest priorities. [Hungary] does not support any initiative that would allow “NGT” products to be placed on the market without risk assessments. Additionally, it requires a mandatory labeling system.

Austria

Austria is also a long-time genetic engineering opponent, claiming it poses “incalculable risks”, although opposition appears to be softening in certain sectors. The country has the highest percentage of agricultural land in the EU under organic management, According to the USDA, “Anti-biotech NGOs, farmer organizations, the food-processing sector, and the retail sector all campaign against genetically engineered agricultural food products.”

Although the government formally opposes the current NGT measure, and the public is hostile, “within informed stakeholder groups like scientists, seed breeders, seed traders, and farmer representatives, the acceptance of innovative biotechnologies … is much higher than for traditional GE crops.”

Poland

Poland formally opposes crop biotechnology. Paradoxically, it imports millions of tons of GMO corn to feed its livestock even though a ban is in place, and there is no parliamentary plan to enforce that ban. Opposition to biotechnology is slowly softening in some sectors, the USDA reports, noting that “most Polish scientists and some commercial farmers support advanced agricultural techniques.” Still, “70 percent of Poles oppose agricultural biotechnology [and] environmental organizations, and consumer groups regularly protest its use in agriculture.”

Germany

The future of gene editing in Europe may rest with Germany, which has the largest economy and is the most populous country in the EU. Without its acceptance, any major liberalization is doomed to fail. The issue is “highly politicized”, the USDA writes, and the government is “conflicted”. While Germany is “generally open to new technology” and is home to numerous global agri-businesses, 

Biotech test plots, which are used both as a research tool and are a required part of the EU regulatory approval process, were destroyed by vandals so often that test plots are no longer attempted in Germany today. Public rejection of GE crops has been widespread for decades and still prevails. [A]round 58 percent of the German population are still in favor of strict regulation of agricultural biotechnology and oppose the European Commission’s proposal to deregulate the genetic engineering law. … In the current environment, there is still little prospect of developing a German market for GE crops or foods.

screenshot pm

GMOs still unfairly vilified 

Under the proposed legislation, regardless to what degree gene-editing is greenlighted, crops produced via GMOs (transgenesis) would remain severely restricted — the position recently also taken in Israel, Japan and England. That makes no scientific sense.  There is no scientific evidence suggesting that GMOs are more hazardous to human and animal health and the environment than crops grown utilizing conventional breeding techniques or via NBTs, such as CRISPR.

GMOs are an important tool that should not be shunned for ideological reasons.  Although it is used in commodity crops — a target of activists — it’s used in other ways as well. Bangladesh has grown insect-resistant eggplant for years, greatly reducing pesticide spraying and increasing yields. The Hawaiian papaya was saved from the ravages of the ringspot virus using genetic modification. Ghana has just approved the commercialization of a GMO disease-resistant cowpea for cultivation. GM sweet potato, cassava, and Irish potato have been approved or are in development across Africa. Golden rice, which is nutritionally enhanced, was created via a GMO process. 

A paper entitled, Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2018: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions”, outlined some of the environmental benefits of GMOs:

The adoption of GM insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant technology has reduced pesticide spraying…decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use…The technology has also facilitated important cuts in fuel use and tillage changes, resulting in a significant reduction in the release of greenhouse gas emissions from the GM cropping area.”

Every year the EU imports billions of dollars of GMO soybeans, corn and canola as animal feed. There has never been an instance of such feed harming any animal nor human who consumed the meat from GMO-fed animals. 

Labeling is required 

To make the deregulation of GE crops more palatable to opponents of the technology, labeling will be required. Pushing back, a growing coalition of scientists, farmers and agri-businesses, as well as many consumer advocates, say labeling is unnecessary and even deceptive, and it would inhibit acceptance. 

It would be a political label and not a scientific one. Gene-edited crops mimic what happens in nature, which is the justification used by governments around the world in deregulating cisgenesis. But even regulations on GMO crops make no scientific sense. Genetic engineering is a process and not an ingredient.  

Why would any government single out labeling GMO and gene-edited foods but no other breeding process? Foods derived from seeds that have undergone mutagenesis — 3,200 crops including organic varieties of sweet grapefruit —are not labeled even though the seeds were created using chemicals, gamma rays or X-rays, to get the desired trait. Mutagenesis has been part of crop breeding for 90 years.

screenshot pm
Examples of mutagenized plants

Foods that are the products of hybridization such as tangelos, pineberries, limequats and tayberries are not labeled, nor are foods produced via grafting. Seedless fruits such as oranges, grapes and watermelons do not require labels to explain to the public the method by which they became seedless. Labeling is arbitrary, yet it will likely be part of gene editing “reform” in the EU. It will then be used by anti-GE forces to demonize and vilify foods produced via NBTs.

Other requirements designed to placate the anti-GE advocates include mandatory traceability and a so-called safeguard clause requiring the withdrawal of authorization in the event an issue is discovered. This is a Trojan-horse clause because there is currently no way to trace gene edits, as the tweaks mimic natural processes. As a technology blog at North Carolina State University notes, “there are many challenges that will make it more difficult to detect products of new genomic techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9. Some of the products of these new genomic techniques may exist in nature, making their detection more difficult.”

Even if tracing of GE products becomes technically feasible, the clause requiring the withdrawal of authorization in the event of an issue is vague and could be used by opponents to sabotage the roll-out of GE technology. 

Ban on patents could be a ‘make or break’ issue 

The proposed legislation includes a full ban on patents for all plants and plant material developed via new breeding techniques. Why? A Parliament press release claimed it would “avoid legal uncertainties, increased costs and new dependencies for farmers and breeders,” but that’s not so.  Although patent protections can be exploited, there is scant evidence, based on evidence from around the world, that this would be the case. 

Most seeds, including most vegetable seed products, are not patent-protected. Uniquely-created plants have been in the US since the passage of the Plant Patent Act of 1930. Other countries followed suit.

Patents have been a key innovation tool in agriculture. Developers cannot ‘patent nature’, but they can, and do, patent intentionally-bred plant varieties. When not abused, they incentivize the development of new varieties. For example, the popular Honeycrisp apple variety was developed under patent, although it’s long since been off-patent. Even organic seed developers patent their inventions.

It takes upwards of 10 years and $130 million to develop a single patented trait in the US. As a patent is only in effect for 20 years from the filing of an application, that would leave as little as 7-10 years after approval for innovators to recover those staggering costs. Without a patent, why would individuals, universities or companies expend tens of millions of dollars only to see their products sold elsewhere for a pittance? 

This provision is the most contentious in the measure, and some gene-editing proponents see it as a possible poison pill. Although the Greens opposed the overall legislation, they strongly supported this amendment, as it could undercut the entire liberalization process. They hailed its inclusion as a “big win”. Seed and crop industry group EuropaBio called it a ‘red flag’, with one lobbyist saying the industry would fight the patent ban “with all its powers.” 

GE forbidden in organic farming, but at a cost

Down the road, if passed, gene editing and other NBTs could provide a bridge to bring conventional and organic agriculture together. Allowing genetic engineering in organic farming makes intellectual sense; after all, organic farming was focused entirely on modes of production and not seed development for more than a century. Opposition to genetic engineering only emerged in the 1990s, even though there were factions in the organic movement that believed that GE seeds could be grown organically. It was, reportedly, floated briefly by then US Secretary of Agriculture Daniel Glickman when he was guiding the development of the National Organic Program in the late 1990s.

The budding organic industry in the US vehemently opposed the idea, considering genetic engineering a “red line”.  As such, it remains forbidden, and most of the organic farming movement remains adamantly opposed to any form of GE.  

By forgoing the use of GE, organic farmers will not be able to avail themselves of many biotechnology crop innovations thus putting them at a severe competitive disadvantage. For example, disease-resistant grapes are in development that could reduce crop losses and the cost of spraying natural, organic copper sulfate fungicides, which are dangerous to beneficial insects, deplete the soil, and are known carcinogens. As a result, organic grape farmers will continue to suffer crop losses.  

Some in the organic movement believe gene editing should be seriously considered. Urs Niggli, former head of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FIBL), admitted that GMO-free is a selling point for organic, and that organic associations have deliberately stoked the fear of molecular biological breeding methods to distinguish themselves on the market. 

Niggli called that view outdated, as CRISPR-Cas9 enables targeted mutations at individual sites of the genome, as happens all the time in nature or conventional breeding. He warned that in rejecting GE, “the organic sector could lose its pioneering edge in sustainable agriculture, consigned to producing 20-50% lower yields than conventional farming. It could “miss out on potential solutions to current production challenges such as reliance on copper-based fungicides for disease control.”

What happens next?

The European Council will next take up the legislation. Belgium holds the six-month rotating presidency of the EC until the end of June. Its attitude towards possible GE crop cultivation is split, illustrated by the divided opinion in two regions: Wallonia (French-speaking) and Flanders (Dutch-speaking). Wallonia is opposed while support is growing in the Flemish region. It contains an agricultural biotech hub, where significant biotechnology research and experimental field trials are conducted. 

With EU Parliamentary elections scheduled for early June, no debate is likely over the next few months. On July 1, Hungary assumes the six-month rotating presidency of the EC.  It is adamantly opposed to GE.  As a result, the measure is unlikely to come up this year. In January 2025, Poland will assume the six-month rotating presidency. It too is a country that is not enthusiastic about the use of GE for crop cultivation. It therefore might take two years (or more) for the measures to undergo serious debate and bridge-building necessary to get unanimous support.

Time is of the essence 

The EU is now well behind other countries in liberalizing regulations and commercializing GE food products. The restrictive environment has prompted some plant geneticists to decamp to countries with a more favorable attitude. Venture capital to finance agricultural innovation has slowed to a trickle. Few trials are being conducted. Unlike in the US, where there is a plethora of companies researching and developing products, there are few such companies in the EU. It needs to build a GE infrastructure, but it is failing. 

The EU agriculture sector is in turmoil. Farmers are demonstrating against restrictive regulations, staging mass demonstrations in France, Germany and Belgium. They have challenged what they claim is an unworkable Europe Farm to Fork Strategy touted as a key tool to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To placate farmers, the EU has granted them temporary exemptions from rules to set aside land for nature conservation, scrapped a proposal in its 2040 climate plan to halve pesticide use, and weakened the recommendations concerning agriculture emissions. 

screenshot pm

NBTs could go a long way in helping Europe achieve it sustainability goals. Its products could reduce pesticide and fungicide use by creating insect and disease-resistant crops. It could reduce fertilizer use by developing plants that create their own nitrogen. It could reduce waste and spoilage of crops by producing crops with longer shelf lives, non-browning and hardier when transported. It can create plants that are drought-resistant and can grow using less water.  

The EU Parliament’s decision to adopt legislation loosening the rules for the cultivation of NBTs is a significant step forward considering the EU’s stringent, historical opposition to the introduction of biotechnology to crop cultivation. But the regulatory regime being proposed is not likely to set the stage for a full-scale food revolution in the EU.  Without a commitment to complete deregulation, the EU will remain a genetic engineering backwater for decades to come.

Steven E. Cerier is a retired international economist and a frequent contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project   

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}
screenshot at  pm

Are pesticide residues on food something to worry about?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring drew attention to pesticides and their possible dangers to humans, birds, mammals and the ...
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.