In its final plenary session, the EU Parliament endorsed the EU Commission’s proposal to widely deregulate the new generation of GMOs – products of so-called “new genomic techniques”, or NGT. Friends of the Earth Europe commented: "This decision positions the EU for even greater deregulation than in the United States of America. The approved legislative proposal grants corporations the right to market new GMOs without any type of safety, monitoring and liability obligations, putting human health, nature, and farmers’ rights at risk." Mute Schimpf, food and farming campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe said: “Today’s decision is a blow to food and environmental safety. It endorses a path that leaves nature, the food sector, and farmers vulnerable while bolstering profits and unchecked power for big corporations.” For the moment, some Parliamentary "wins" remain in the proposal, such as labelling of "category 1" NGTs – those that are claimed to have only simple genetic changes. The proposal now goes back to the EU Council. Friends of the Earth Europe is calling on the Council to continue to block the deregulation of new GMOs. GMWatch

 

 

In Belgium, when it comes to new GMOs, the biotech lobby is dealing the cards. French, German and Austrian national agencies have concluded that EU plans to deregulate new GMOs are scientifically flawed. But the Belgian health agency, Conseil Supérieur de la Santé (CSS), disagrees. Their experts’ industry links suggest why, as academics Barbara Van Dyck and Anneleen Kenis point out in an article for Le Soir.

Pieter Spanoghe, chair of CSS’s working group, is known in the Belgian media for his support for pesticides, most notably glyphosate. For several years, he’s organised a pesticide symposium at Ghent University, sponsored by BASF, Bayer & Syngenta, who stand to benefit from GMO deregulation. Two other members of the working group co-signed a lobbying letter to the EU Commission calling for deregulation of new GMOs — for mainly economic reasons. Three others published or signed pro-deregulation articles and one also coordinates a research project in collaboration with Syngenta.

Van Dyck and Kenis sum up their findings: "The conclusions of the Belgian opinion therefore say as much about the composition of the group of experts as they do about the substance. Unlike its French, German and Austrian counterparts, the Belgian working group seems to play down the uncertainties in terms of both biosafety and socio-economics. The precautionary principle is seen as an unnecessary obstacle. However, as Andy Stirling, a specialist in innovation, states, the precautionary principle does not aim to ban new technologies, but calls for innovation to be given a considered direction and to take the necessary time to do so." GMWatch on Twitter/X @GMWatch, translating French language article in Le Soir

 

We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible by readers’ donations. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!