EU countries have officially sealed their position on plans to loosen rules on the use of new genetic technologies, setting the ball rolling towards deregulation of new GMOs in the near future. But this isn’t the end of the story just yet. So what happens now? Natasha Foote brings you the latest from Brussels.
After months at an impasse, EU countries had a breakthrough moment on Friday (14 March), managing to find enough support for a common position on the EU’s plans to deregulate new genomic techniques (also as new GMOs or gene editing).
Concretely, this now means that the institutions have all the ingredients – that is, both positions from the two lawmakers – to move forward in talks to finalise the plans once and for all.
The final recipe mix for deregulation of the technology will be a compromise that lies somewhere between the two positions.
That means there is still an uphill battle ahead which, no doubt, will be full of twists and turns. But it also means we can already see what is likely to go all the way to the end, and what are likely to be the key sticking points in negotiations.
What’s been decided?
For instance, there are a few places where the Parliament and Council are on the same page as the Commission. There is consensus on the core idea of splitting plants created with the new technology into two categories with two different approval paths. NGT plants considered equivalent to conventional ones (so-called ‘NGT 1’ plants) would be exempted from the requirements of the EU’s GMO legislation, while category 2 NGT plants would still have to follow stricter requirements. (see diagram below)
This is despite reports from multiple national agencies, including the French health agency ANSES and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), in recent weeks concluding that there is no scientific basis for these criteria.
Patent differences
Other areas, however, are less harmonious, chief among them being patents.
Patents have proven a make-or-break issue from the beginning of negotiations after the Commission chose not to – and has since made clear it has no intention to – open that particular Pandora’s box in its original proposal.
The positions here are far apart, with the Parliament pushing for a total ban on patents for NGT 1 crops. Meanwhile the Council has ended up with a much laxer approach which would enable companies to patent NGT 1 crops, with some caveats of information sharing and data reporting, some of which are voluntary.
This will be a key issue to watch. Re-opening patents requires a level of legal wrangling that the Commission has made clear it is not interested in attempting – so much so that sources previously said that if both lawmakers had decided to back a ban on patents, it would have considered pulling the proposal entirely off the table.
Negotiations on this are likely to be influenced by a number of factors, including the publication of a new Commission study on the impact of patents on seed availability and competition in the breeding sector. The Council’s proposal also included a new expert group on patents, which could also influence the path talks will take.
Other key areas of contention include labelling, with the Council backing the Commission’s idea that only plant reproductive material must be labelled, while the Parliament called for much more comprehensive labelling along the food chain.
There are also questions on the sustainability criteria and assessment of NGT plants, which is intertwined with another file currently under negotiation, on Plant Reproductive Materials (PRM). This file is currently being negotiated by the EU countries, who have not yet sealed a general position.
Check out the infographic below with a comparison between the two positions on some of the key points.
What now?
So, technically, there is now everything that is needed to move forward with talks on the final shape of this plan. But that doesn’t mean the way ahead will be plain sailing.
As pointed out above, the proposals differ significantly in important details – to the extent that experts from TestBiotech, which campaigns against the deregulation of the technology, maintain the legislative proposal could “still fail in the final votes after the trilogue”. They point out that, despite technically garnering enough support in the Council, there is still plenty of criticism from member states who were not on board.
This sentiment is echoed elsewhere, with a recent investigation in the EUObserver noting the discontent among diplomats opposed to the law, who critiqued their pro-NGT counterparts for pushing through a “half-baked text” seeking to prioritise corporate needs over consumers’ rights, farmers’ livelihoods or the environment.
Another key factor to take into consideration is that conversations are playing out in a very different political context this time around, with the Parliament leaning much further to the right. That being said, the file will be handled by the same MEP as that one that negotiated Parliament’s position, centre-right Jessica Polfjärd, so it remains to be seen how easily she can be persuaded to shift on key points of difference.
All in all, there will still be plenty of plot twists to keep us busy on the file – but the Council’s position has taken the plans to loosen this new genetic technology one step closer to reality, and one step closer to EU farms and forks.
More on NGTs
New vote could take new GMOs one step closer to EU fields and plates
Parliament greenlights plans to loosen EU rules on new GMOs – but with key conditions
Poland backtracks on patents in efforts to push ahead with EU plans on new GMOs
Plan to Loosen EU Rules on Genetic Technologies Passes First Parliament Hurdle
