Strict regulations from 2001 still apply to green genetic engineering, although the methods have advanced since then.

The EU Commission now aims to loosen these rules, raising concerns of a precedent.

The Belgian Ministry of Health granted approval in early May, just in time for planting season. The company Inari in Ghent is allowed to cultivate genetically modified maize on a test field, which has been genetically altered to be shorter and thus more resistant. The conditions include a minimum distance of 200 meters to conventional plantations, a high fence, and regular monitoring.

The number of such field trials in the EU is limited, and in Germany, there have been none for ten years. The EU Commission intends to change this. They consider the strict regulations that are over 20 years old to be outdated.

Sustainability through new technologies?

Even according to Norbert Lins, the agricultural expert of the European People’s Party (EPP), new techniques like CRISPR/Cas are hardly comparable to the old genetic engineering methods. The CRISPR/Cas DNA scissors allow precise modifications of the genome, enabling more targeted and faster changes compared to older methods. Lins calls for a “pragmatic approach to new breeding techniques in terms of modern and sustainable agriculture.”

The Commission expects these new technologies to bring more sustainability to Europe’s fields and farms. This is urgently needed to achieve their own goals, as Brussels demands a 50% reduction in pesticide use by 2030.

However, Martin Hausling, a Green Member of the European Parliament and former organic farmer, does not believe in these claims. He states, “These are all fairy tales. The same promises were made twenty years ago with old genetic engineering. If you look at the United States now since genetic engineering entered the market, more pesticides are being used.”

Brussels aims to avoid dependencies

According to the Commission, the new genetic techniques should contribute to food security and increase independence from food imports from other countries. Brussels fears that the EU could be technologically, economically, and ecologically left behind, weakening the EU’s strategic autonomy.

Therefore, the Commission proposes to relax the rules, according to the draft legislation known so far: there should be no more authorization, risk assessment, or labeling for genetically modified plants “that could also occur naturally or be produced through conventional breeding.”

More precise targeting

This can be achieved, for example, through mutagenesis, which causes changes without inserting genetic material. Or through cisgenesis, where genes are transferred between cross-compatible organisms, thus not introducing foreign genes, such as to make maize more resistant to pests.

The Christian Democrat Lins emphasizes: “Most people see the major risk in the incorporation of foreign organisms. However, the focus should be on plants whose beneficial traits can be achieved more quickly and accurately with CRISPR/Cas than with classical methods.”

“Increased costs for organic farming”

In contrast, Maria Noichl, a Member of the European Parliament from the Social Democratic Party (SPD), voices significant concerns about the Commission’s proposal. She states, “In my opinion, precaution in breeding and green genetic engineering should take absolute precedence. The precautionary principle must be maintained at all costs. I reject any watering down of EU regulations in this regard, as currently proposed by the EU Commission.”

The Social Democrat fears problems in the coexistence of conventional and organic farming. Modern genetic engineering methods are also prohibited in organic agriculture.

According to Green politician Hausling, this poses special challenges for affected farmers. “Organic farmers need to know what is in the seeds and what their neighbors are planting. If they don’t know, they have to take precautionary measures themselves, and that will significantly increase the costs of organic farming. Establishing control systems and conducting investigations clearly come at the expense of organic farming.”