There’s no evidence that deregulation will deliver climate resilience. By Friends of the Earth Europe

As the European Parliament prepares to vote next week on removing new GMOs from existing safeguards, lawmakers are pushed by the European Commission and Council to replace protections with absolute faith in industry promises. Yet after many harvests lost to drought, floods and heatwaves, the central question is not whether new GMOs sound innovative but if there is any evidence that deregulation will actually deliver climate resilience.

Climate resilience and evidence-based decision-making

Despite the biotech industry’s claims, taken as face value by the European Commission in the drafting of its proposal, a reality check reveals that in countries like the USA, Canada, Argentina or Japan, where new GMOs can already be marketed, only three crops are actually grown. Two of those grown in the US actually survive pesticide spraying, which means they present the same characteristics as the GMO that has been developed for more than 30 years. It also shows that strong rules are not what hinders innovation, but rather that the real performance of new GM plants is weak.

Far from easing innovation for farmers and accelerating climate resilience, a wide deregulation will rather reinforce corporate profits, control and immunity for multinationals like Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta - ChemChina. Diverse cropping systems are what will actually help farmers face the climate crisis. The real innovation lies in experimenting how to plant and harvest as well as further researching which combinations of plants deliver harvests under extreme weather conditions – from droughts to floods.

The controversial topics

* Transparency, labelling and traceability

In 2024, the EU Parliament changed the EU Commission’s proposal and voted with a clear majority for labelling new GMOs along the whole chain - from seeds to final consumer product – and for traceability to be a precondition for marketing the seeds. But the key negotiator from the EU Parliament did not bring this position into the negotiations with the EU Council and Commission.

Now, some parliamentarians are asking to reintroduce consumer labelling as well as traceability for the plenary vote on 17 June 2026.

* Patents, patents and patents

Patents are not common in the European plant breeding sector, which has its own system to reward breeders for their work. With new GMOs and very vast patent claims, this would change. By patenting traits that can also occur naturally or through classical breeding methods, big corporations will be able to claim ownership of natural seeds and products obtained from classical breeding, blocking small and medium-sized breeders from accessing these resources.

Patents were one of the topics that agriculture ministers discussed and tried to fix under various Council presidencies. The resulting position is a mild, voluntary-based text that ignores unfair bargaining power, relying on the unrealistic assumption that small-scale breeders can negotiate with global players like Bayer and Corteva and their hundreds of lawyers, on terms to use patent-protected materials for their breeding.

In 2024, a huge majority of EU parliamentarians (588) voted to limit the scope of patents. But the European People’s Party (EPP) rapporteur did not stand up for this position in the trilogue negotiations with the EU Council and Commission. There is currently nothing limiting big agribusiness’ power and control, and nothing to prevent these multinational corporations from denying breeders and farmers access to plant material desperately needed to adapt to new diseases and extreme weather conditions.

Various political groups of the EU Parliament have now tabled this amendment again and are searching for support from other parliamentarians for the upcoming vote.

What's already lost for consumers, farmers and nature

The EU institutions have abolished all forms of safety checks for 84% of new GMOs and agreed on indefinite rights to grow and market them without any monitoring. In case they cause harm to people, farm animals or nature, neither the companies marketing them nor the farmers growing them can be held accountable.

Next steps

If the EU Parliament substantially changes the law previously agreed with the EU Commission and Council during trilogues with regard to labelling, traceability or patents, a so-called formal second reading starts. It means that the EU Commission and Council restart negotiations for the final text in the next 4 months.

***

Background information on the deregulation of new GMOs

New GMOs, who wins and who loses? From labelling and liability to patents and risk assessments – Friends of the Earth Europe

How big agri ghost-wrote the Commission’s proposal on new GMOs – Friends of the Earth Europe

Source: Friends of the Earth Europe

Image: Matauw/Shutterstock (licensed purchase)