On 4 December, EU negotiators reached an agreement to deregulate plants engineered with new genomic techniques. In this op-ed, Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds argues that the deal dismantles key elements of EU GMO law for a broad category of genetically modified plants rebranded as “conventional-like” and granted patent rights. While the agreement still awaits final approval, Achterberg sets out why it should be rejected.
Although the Council and Parliament’s agreement on so-called new genomic techniques (NGT) fits into the EU’s wider deregulation agenda, it goes much further than removing environmental and social protections. It represents a political choice to eliminate transparency, obscure risks and shift control of the food system into the hands of a small number of corporations.
Risky GM plants rebranded as ‘conventional-like’
The new law creates a new category of genetically modified (GM) plants, termed NGT Category 1 (NGT1), which are portrayed as “not real GMOs” on the grounds that the envisaged genetic changes could – it is claimed – also occur without genetic engineering. According to experts, this claim does not hold up scientifically.
More importantly, GM plants falling within this category cannot be assumed to be free of risks to human health or the environment. Nevertheless, the EU would voluntarily strip itself of the ability to identify and control such risks by abolishing risk assessment and environmental monitoring altogether.
Since the stated objective is to facilitate market entry for GM plants produced with new genetic engineering techniques, the new law could unleash a growing number of untested GM plants within a short period of time. An increasing number of such plants are already being trialled in open environments, even though, so far, relatively few have reached the market – including in countries where no meaningful regulatory oversight applies.
GM food made invisible to neutralise consumer opposition
If the agreement enters into force, consumers will no longer be able to tell whether the food they buy is made from genetically modified plants. Mandatory GMO food labelling would disappear. This change is highly significant. The existing GMO label is rarely seen precisely because retailers avoid stocking GM products due to persistent consumer rejection.
Many people oppose genetically modified food for reasons ranging from health and environmental concerns to ethical objections and resistance to monopolistic agricultural models. The new law would not address these concerns – it would rather remove the possibility of informed choice by rendering GM food invisible.
Only seed bags would still carry a label, and even then not as “GMO” but as “NGT Category 1”. This is supposed to allow farmers to maintain GMO-free production. In reality, the law foresees no effective measures enabling farmers, including organic farmers, to prevent GMO contamination.
Large corporations benefit
The main beneficiaries of GMO deregulation are companies that develop and market patented GM plants. They gain faster market access with minimal regulatory scrutiny, while retaining exclusive patent rights.
Where conventional and organic breeding systems have historically fostered diversity, adaptability and regional resilience, corporate breeding models rely on highly standardised, patented seed varieties. Farmers who use patented seeds are prohibited from saving or replanting them and must purchase new seeds year after year. This creates long-term economic dependency and erodes farmers’ autonomy.
At the same time, those who wish to avoid patented varieties are placed in an untenable position. In the absence of traceability or analytical detection methods, they are expected to prove that their plants do not infringe patents, while patent holders retain the right to initiate legal action at any time. For small breeders and farmers, even the threat of litigation can be financially ruinous. Unlike multinational corporations, they cannot afford prolonged legal battles.
Consumers, farmers and breeders pay the price
For small and medium-sized breeding companies, organic farmers and regions committed to GMO-free agriculture, the consequences of deregulation are potentially existential. It remains entirely unclear how they are supposed to ensure GMO-free breeding and agricultural production under a system that removes traceability and detection methods while expanding patent protection.
The burden of proof is fundamentally reversed. Those who want to farm and breed without GM plants must demonstrate absence of GMO contamination, while those introducing GM plants are shielded from scrutiny. This is not a minor regulatory adjustment but a profound policy shift. It sends a clear political signal about which farming systems the EU intends to promote and which it is prepared to marginalise.
Promises do not outweigh downsides
Proponents argue that genetic engineering will deliver crops that are more resilient to climate change, drought and emerging pests and diseases. These promises are understandably appealing to farmers facing the effects of climate change. Yet drought tolerance is a complex trait that cannot be achieved by simply switching a handful of genes on or off. Claims of disease resistance are equally shaky, as pathogens continue to evolve and overcome genetic defences.
More fundamentally, climate change is not about a single stress factor but about increasing instability and unpredictability. Periods of extreme drought are often followed by heavy rainfall. Agricultural resilience cannot be achieved through isolated genetic traits but through diversity, healthy soils and farming systems that resemble natural ecosystems in their complexity.
Even if certain GM traits were to prove useful in specific contexts, the larger question remains unresolved. What kind of agriculture does Europe want to support? One that is knowledge-intensive, ecologically grounded and diversified, or one that is technologically driven, patent-dependent and controlled by a small number of global corporations?
A choice that can still be reversed
It is telling that even farmers’ organisations supportive of NGT crops are deeply concerned. The German Farmers Association has warned that the damage caused by the expansion of patents could far outweigh any hoped-for benefits of improved plant varieties.
The EU agreement still needs to be approved by national ministers and the European Parliament. They should look past the rhetoric of innovation and competitiveness and recognise the deal for what it really is – a profound erosion of transparency, biosafety, and democratic control over our food system.
The EU agreement on the deregulation of GM plants must not be quietly waved through. It must be rejected.
More
Whats Seeds for Tomorrow? A Podcast Mini-Series by Seeds4All and Seed Carriers
The Future of Seeds: The Power Play Between Patents and New GMOs
GMO-Free Seed Production Under Threat! Consequences of NGT deregulation on the ground
Poland backtracks on patents in efforts to push ahead with EU plans on new GMOs
