‘New GMO’ Deregulation: Europe’s Small-Scale Farmers and Breeders Warn of Corporate Control and Socio-Economic Risks
European small-scale farmers and small and medium size breeders, the food sector and civil society are deeply worried by the attempts to rush an agreement in the Council and negotiations between the EU Council and the Parliament in light of the potential risks of new GMOs for human health and nature and of the many outstanding unresolved issues on the table, i.e. patents, identification and detection methods, price of seeds, seed diversity, coexistence, negative socioeconomic impacts and risk of further corporate control of the food chain. European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) has endorsed this joint statement by civil society groups.
Joint Statement: Protect the business of small and medium size breeders, farmers, and the organic and non GMO sectors in the EU
European countries are discussing a new far-reaching legal proposal on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It covers genetically modified (GM) crops and wild plants produced with new gene editing techniques (NGTs). These GMO plants are also known as “new GMOs” or “NGT-GMOs”, and will mostly be covered by patents, as are “old GMOs”. The proposal will increase the control that a handful of companies exert on farmers, and restrict the freedom of circulation of genetic material for breeders and farmers. It poses a serious threat to the business of European small- and medium-size breeders and farmers, and to the organic and GMO-free sectors.
The proposed law excludes new GMOs from the existing EU GMO legislation. In particular, it excludes most of them from being checked for safety, allowing their deliberate release into nature and their presence in the food chain without any assessment of the risks this could pose for nature or human health. The proposal also excludes most new GMOs from being monitored after release, which is necessary in case problems arise for consumers or nature that were not picked up during the risk assessment.
Independent scientists and national agencies from France, Germany, and Austria, are warning that new GMOs could pose risks to nature (i.e. modified interactions with pollinators) and human health (i.e. allergenicity or toxicity). The proposal will also remove freedom of choice for producers and citizens because most new GMOs will no longer be traceable (tracked) and labelled in food products.
This deregulation of new GMOs will have significant socio-economic impacts on farmers, breeders and other actors in the food chain but these will not be considered in a risk assessment as they should.
Deregulating new GMOs will cause problems for farmers and breeders.
These problems include biopiracy with privatisation of seeds (life), increased risk of lawsuits against farmers and breeders by the patent industry because of patent infringement claims, administrative burden due to legal uncertainty (constant legal vigilance), increased production costs, risk of losing their business, reduced seed variety (agrodiversity) – which is needed by farmers to adapt to the effects of climate change – and increased vulnerability to pests and diseases. The proposal is also a threat to farmers’ existing rights to save, use, re-use and exchange their seeds (farmers’ rights on seeds) and to small and medium breeders, and could also breach the rights of organic and GM-free farmers.
Sustainability promises of new GM plants are hypothetical given that very few new GMOs have reached the market in the last decade. Amongst the new GMOs that have reached the market, there are already examples of market failures. When it comes to the benefits to society, such as adaptation to climate change with increased resistance to drought, i.e. to water scarcity, research has been ongoing for a long time with old and new GMOs, with no success so far. On the other hand, selection carried out by farmers in their fields and by small- and medium-size breeders already offers adaptation to stresses such as drought (which is expected to increase as the climate warms) and solutions adapted to specific local farming conditions and farming systems. For example, knowledge-intensive organic breeding programs offer successful, innovative varieties with more resilient crops adapted to the principles and specific conditions of organic farming.
A product or an agriculture production system cannot be declared “sustainable” solely based on a given plant variety or on a trait (plant characteristic). Furthermore, much of the ongoing research with NGT-GMOs is not intended to achieve sustainability or to bring benefits to society but is consumption or industry oriented (p.3), for example, pink pineapples.
The signing organisations representing European farmers and small and medium size breeders, the food sector and civil society are deeply worried by the attempts to rush an agreement in the Council and negotiations between the Council and the Parliament in light of the potential risks of new GMOs for human health and nature and of the many outstanding unresolved issues on the table, i.e. patents, identification and detection methods, price of seeds, seed diversity, coexistence, negative socioeconomic impacts and risk of further corporate control of the food chain.
We are very worried that the solutions proposed by the European Parliament and the Belgian and Polish Council Presidencies on patents are not solving the patent problem (see point 1.1 in annex).
We call on European countries to protect their farmers and breeders, as well as citizens and nature. All new GMOs must remain covered by an assessment of the risks and monitoring, identification and detection methods, and traceability and labelling along the food chain. Countries must be able to ban or restrict their cultivation in their territory. We call on European countries to stop the de-regulation of new GM plants.
This post is also available in Español.