Food System

New GMOs, NGTs. The European Commission’s deregulation proposal.

July 4, 2023

On July 5, 2023, the European Commission presents the proposal to deregulate new GMOs (NGTs), without considering the risks to biodiversity and the environment, human and animal health, and pollinating insects. (1)

Civil society-through the Save Bees and Farmers coalitions , European Beekeeping Coordination, Greenpeace Europe, GMO-Free Italy among others-is raising the alarm, but not being heard. (2) Life science and democracy failure.

Table of Contents

**1) Deregulation of new GMOs, NGTs. The European Commission’s proposal**

The proposed deregulation of the new GMOs or NGTs (New Genomic Techniques) is based on the biotech industry’s unproven assumption–made by the European Commission–that they are ‘indistinguishable‘ and even ‘equivalent‘ to plant organisms obtained by traditional breeding methods. (3)

1.1) New GMOs or NGTs, notion.

‘For ‘NGT plant ‘ means a genetically modified plant obtained by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis, intragenesis or a combination of the two. Provided that the NGT plant does not contain any genetic material from outside the breeding gene pool [breeders] that may have been temporarily inserted during the development of the NGT plant‘ (proposed regulation, Article 3.1.1).

Novel GMOs or NGTs as defined above therefore include plants obtained through:

‘
targeted mutagenesis
‘, which involve DNA sequence changes at ‘precise’ points in an organism’s genome,
‘
cisgenesis
‘. Insertion into the organism’s genome of an ‘exact’ copy of genetic material already present in the ‘ breeders’ genepool ‘,
‘
intragenesis
‘. Insertion into the genome of a ‘rearranged’ copy of genetic material composed of two or more DNA sequences present in the ‘ breeders’ genepool ‘.

1.2) Rambling concepts

None of the concepts have been clearly defined to date, nor is there any experience or scientific evidence to show a lower level of risk than other genetic modifications. Indeed, some definitions have been introduced for the express purpose of extending deregulation tailored to the biotech industry.

For example, the ‘ breeders‘ gene pool‘ is defined as the totality of genetic information available in a species and in other taxonomic species with which it can be crossed, including through advanced techniques such as embryo rescue, induced polyploidy and bridge crosses.

1.3) ‘Equivalence’ to conventional plants.

The Commission thus proposes to consider new GMOs or NGTs ‘Category 1‘ as equivalent to plants obtained by traditional breeding techniques, provided that they:

have been made with no more than 20 different genetic insertions per plant (up to 20 nucleotides), any number of DNA deletions or inversions, and the introduction of DNA sequences from the so-called ‘breeding gene pool.’
are not designed to achieve tolerance of the new GMO or NBT to herbicides.

1.4) Deregulation

Deregulation of new ‘category 1’ GMOs or NBTs entails:

exemption from any risk assessment, in defiance of the precautionary principle(Article 191.2 TFEU). Manufacturers will be able to limit themselves to notification of national authorities and have the relevant information handled confidentially,
absence of unique identifier of the new GMO or other useful methods to trace its traits and their propagation in the environment,
Waiver from traceability requirements, with goodwill to citizens’ rights to make informed purchasing and consumption choices
labeling of seeds only, with a requirement to state ‘new genomic technique category 1’ and the ability to add any claims about their hypothetical properties,
No label information of agricultural and food products that contain or are derived from the new GMOs or NBTs.

Other NGTs, made with even more substantial DNA insertions, would be subject to a ‘light risk assessment’ instead. And the Commission aspires to reserve for itself the power to amend crucial aspects of the proposal through implementing acts removed from the consent of Parliament and the Council.

2) Food sovereignty up in smoke

Member states will grudgingly give up their proclaimed food sovereignty because:

the proposed regulation excludes their power to prohibit the cultivation of the new GMOs or NBTs in their territories,
national administrations will only be able to establish measures to mitigate, accidental contamination.

Experience , moreover, teaches-as BeeLife Scientific Director Noa Simon explains-that already ‘genetically modified material from old GMOs pollutes areas far from where the plants are grown, with pollinating insects contributing to its spread.’ (2)

3) Unavoidable contamination

Cross-contamination of new GMOs is inevitable and will make it impossible to distinguish traditional plants from NGTs. II modified genetic material can moreover be transmitted to wild plants of the same species, with effects that are difficult to predict on the genome, physiology and metabolism of plants. (4)

Organic productions , in turn, will be exposed to additional risks, as GMO contamination is not allowed and may nevertheless occur due to cross-contamination. As a result, producers who have devoted years to preserving biodiversity risk losing their organic certification through accidental causes. (5)

4) Pesticides a go go, pollinating insects at risk.

The big scam of old and new GMOs-as already demonstrated in the ebook ‘GMOs, the big scam‘ LINK-is about their function. So far, in most cases, serving the pesticide industry that is in the hands of the same global monopolists. Confirming this, the Food Watch report (2023) notes how during these years of research on new GMOs or NBTs, often publicly funded, no scientific studies have been published to reduce the use of agrotoxics. (6)

World Biodiversity Council stressed in turn the need for a special assessment of the risks caused by new GMOs or NBTs to pollinating insects precisely to prevent, once again, ignorance-or the bad faith characteristic of Big Ag, now Big 4 (7,8)-cause further genocide of bees and other pollinating insects. Just as happened 30 years ago, recalls Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of #Savethebees and the Farmers, when the same corporations introduced pesticide-tanned seeds even promising they could protect bees.

5) Farmers in bondage

Farmers will be permanently forced into slavery by the global monopolists of seeds (as well as pesticides, the infamous Big 4), who will retain patents and royalties on the plants they grow. As is already the case with ‘club variety’ apples, the cultivation of which is allowed only by license and is bound by restrictions on freedom of enterprise such as a ban on direct sales and on extending the cultivated area. Rather than the duty to manage their trees according to the contract and meet certain quality criteria of the fruit (e.g., shape, size, color).

If patents are granted on NTGs, all plants with the edited gene will be covered by patents. And farmers could be denied rights to their own seeds and plants-to reproduce them, exchange them, improve their resistance to climate change through traditional breeding techniques-if they have such genes, even if only because of unintentional cross-contamination. But the massive agricultural confederations-Copa-Cogeca in the EU, Coldiretti in Italy-continue to cheer for new GMOs or NBTs, as their own consortia profit from selling seeds and pesticides, at the expense of the farmers themselves.

Dario Dongo

#notinournames!

Notes

(1) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed, and amending Directives 68/193/EEC, 1999/105/EC, 2002/53/EC, 2002/55/EC, and Regulation (EU) 2017/625 https://www.arc2020.eu/leak-draft-ngt-regulation-and-impact-assessment-revealed/

(2) Greenpeace EU, ‘Save bees and Farmers’ ECI coalition, BeeLife. Unscientific deregulation of GMOs puts bees and nature at risk and violates consumer rights. BeeLife. 28.6.2023. https://www.bee-life.eu/post/unscientific-deregulation-of-gmos-puts-bees-and-nature-at-risk-and-violates-consumer-rights

(3) Alessandra Mei. Via Campesina unmasks rhetoric on ‘new GMOs’ in 12 points. GIFT(Great Italian Food Trade). 16.6.2023

(4) Dario Dongo, Riccardo Clerici, Silvia Comunian. New GMOs, it is imperative to strengthen risk analysis. Scientific Review. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 14.6.20

(5) Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labelling of organic products. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R0848 See Article 11.

(6) Foodwatch. New Genome Techniques (NGT) – A risky corporate distraction from real sustainable solutions. https://www.foodwatch.org/fileadmin/-INT/pesticides/2023-01 -30_foodwatch_Pesticides_and_NGTSs.pdf 31.1.23

(7) Dario Dongo. How the agrochemical industry hides the toxicity of pesticides. New studies. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 13.6.23

(8) Dario Dongo. Seeds, the 4 masters of the world. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 15.1.19