FFor many farmers and the agricultural industry, it is a great opportunity to secure food security in times of climate change or to reduce the use of pesticides; For organic farmers, however, it is genetic engineering by another name: plants that were created using new genomic techniques (NGT) such as Crispr/Cas genetic engineering. There are big differences between these plants and genetically modified plants (GMOs). Unlike GMOs, no foreign genes are usually introduced into a plant, for example to make it resistant to insects. Supporters argue that the Crispr/Cas gene scissors only accelerate what would be possible with classical breeding through targeted interventions in the genome.
The European Commission shares this view. That's why she suggested in the summer that gene-edited plants should be treated in the same way as conventional breeding when it comes to approval. This amounts to a registration requirement without any further special rules. The condition is that they could have arisen naturally or through targeted breeding – for example through crossing and selection. According to a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2018, the same procedures apply to gene-edited plants as to GMOs. These are lengthy and, with a few exceptions, have effectively made Europe a GMO-free continent. Unlike conventional genetically modified plants, according to the proposal, individual EU states should not be able to ban the cultivation of these edited plants or outdoor trials.
Relatively narrow majority for new EU genetic engineering regulation
On Wednesday, the European Parliament supported the Commission's proposal for the new genetic engineering regulation with a relatively narrow majority of 307 votes to 263 and 41 abstentions. Unlike the Commission, however, MEPs are calling for compulsory labeling of goods, for example in supermarkets, that have been produced using new genomic techniques. The commission had only suggested labeling the seeds. In this way, she wants to prevent the seeds from being accidentally used in organic farming. It should remain banned there, even after the European Parliament's decision.
The Greens and the SPD expressed strong criticism of the decision. “What the conservatives have supported here with votes from the liberals and the right is, for me, a political revelation and defies all reason,” said Green MEP and organic farmer Martin Häusling. It is irresponsible that, in the interests of the agricultural industry, the way is suddenly cleared for the negligent use of new genetic engineering without sufficient consultation. Hundreds of scientists, civil society, environmental associations and hundreds of companies stormed against it. The SPD MP Maria Noichl spoke of a “black day” for farmers. With the adopted position, conventional and organic farmers would partially lose the necessary protection from the previously applicable regulations on coexistence, traceability and transparency.
The CDU MP Peter Liese, on the other hand, emphasized: “As a doctor who dealt intensively with genetic engineering in his doctoral thesis, I see no irresponsible risks for people and the environment, since no foreign genes are introduced.” In so-called natural plant breeding, the seeds are used often irradiated with gamma rays without anyone getting upset about it. FDP MP Jan-Christoph Oetjen spoke of a “good decision”. The new methods enabled more resistant plants and less use of pesticides.
Now that the European Parliament has decided on its negotiating mandate, the member states still have to agree on a common position. A first attempt at this in the Council of Agriculture Ministers also failed because the federal government could not agree on a common position and therefore had to abstain. Belgium, which will conduct business in the Council from January to the end of June, has promised a quick agreement. Parliament and the Council of Ministers then have to agree on a common text for the EU law. The time for this is running out before the European elections from June 6th to 9th.
The question of how patent law for gene-edited plants should be regulated is not clarified in the draft regulation. The point causes tension between the different interest groups. On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted to no longer be able to patent plants produced using genomic techniques. However, this would not have a legally binding effect. Nevertheless, the biotechnology association DIB of the Chemical Industry Association expressed strong criticism. Questioning the tried and tested patent regulation would endanger legal certainty and innovations in medical and industrial biotechnology. This means that start-ups and small and medium-sized companies in particular will be deprived of their only protective right.
#clear #genetic #scissors #plants
