The fight against GMOs moves to Europe.
The European Parliament’s constitutive sessions extend for five years. This implies that when the current session ends in 2024, voters in Europe will have to cast new ballots for MEPs or extend the term of their current representatives.
Why does this matter? By the end of this session, genetically modified crops may represent a whole new world for EU agriculture, thanks to the efforts of the Parliament. In the last two years or so, the GMO controversy has spread over the globe and into Europe.
In fact, the Precision Breeding Bill was one of the first significant agricultural regulations to pass the UK government after Brexit, allowing genetically edited crops to be grown on English farms (for the time being). The US has been producing and exporting genetically modified food for decades.
So why hasn’t Europe joined the party sooner? Why is it unwilling to come to the party at all? The intensity of feeling for and against proposed deregulation was extremely evident during an event in November at the European Parliament in Brussels, which was hosted by various anti-GMO organizations and individuals.
What’s being suggested?
There is disagreement on the debate’s very limits. The European Commission is formally attempting to amend the law pertaining to crops grown using “new genomic techniques,” or NGTs. The Commission points out that NGTs were nonexistent in 2001, the year that legislation pertaining to genetically modified crops was introduced. It is now attempting to detach “NGT plants that could also occur naturally or by conventional breeding” from that particular legislation, so removing them from the prevailing ban on genetically modified organisms. One question and answer session can encapsulate the essence of the planned deregulation—at least in the Commission’s opinion: “Are you deregulating GMOs? Without a doubt not.
However, this is contested. NGTs are not genetically modified organisms (GGTs), a claim made by supporters of the proposed deregulation that is highly valued by European consumers. However, many people—including some of the MEPs present at the Brussels event and certain food and beverage companies—view NGTs as precisely that. Maria Noichl (MEP, S&D) and her colleagues are in agreement with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as she told New Food in Brussels. The CJEU declared in 2018 that organisms cultivated with NGTs are governed by the GMO laws that are in effect in the EU.
The effect on business
It appears likely that the proposed deregulation will pass this European Parliament session, that is, before June 2024. What will happen to the industry if it does happen?
Proponents of the bill claim that farmers are already requesting permission to utilize NGT crops, which the Commission claims may be more resistant to pests, diseases, and more harsh climates. Šojdrová remarked, “Our farmers are asking me why we can’t use these new advanced breeding techniques.” It is worth noting that there is disagreement on these suggested benefits. According to one study, creating new plants with altered characteristics “won’t be sufficient to reach food security or adaption to climatic changes in a short time frame.”
However, not everyone feels the same way. Certain firms have centered their entire brand image around organic products and giving customers the option. Konz stated, “We at Tegut want to make sure we offer transparency.” “The thing that worries me the most is that this transparency is in danger.”
Hans-Peter Dejakum, a board member for global marketing at Loacker, held this opinion. According to statistics provided by Dejakum, Loacker’s “natural taste” claim held the most significance for customers in all key markets, including Saudi Arabia, China, the US, and Germany. Dejakum declared, “We have developed a strong and distinctive positioning for our brand.” “We declare this to be non-GMO; kindly leave it alone.”
This brings up an intriguing point. It is accurate to say that the Commission has reaffirmed the ban on NGTs in organic products. That isn’t the point, though. Loacker, along with numerous other firms, is concerned that its brand and business model may become obsolete if consumers lose faith in non-GMO labeling. Perception of consumers differs from the truth. If NGT labeling is not required for any of the previously listed reasons, will people categorize these products as genetically modified? The non-GMO label becomes meaningless if they do (regardless of whether they are officially recognized as such by science). A product’s label isn’t worth anything even if it doesn’t include any NGT components if customers don’t believe it.
You may also like:
Food security in emerging nations: issues and remedies
Are drinks the secret to increasing cannabis use among consumers?
Managing the lack of labour for mushroom picking
Both sides of the argument are rife with passion. The adoption of NGTs (or at least some of them) by the EU seems to be gathering steam and is even somewhat inevitable. While some believe that this latest idea is the EU’s attempt to fit in at the school playground so it can play with someone else’s ball, it is true that other markets have embraced this new science. The reality is probably far more nuanced and will undoubtedly involve a slew of intricate trade deals that could be made simpler by merely aligning.
Whatever transpires before to June will have a significant effect on the industry. Similar to money, the value of transparency in a supply chain is totally dependent on trust. A supply chain may be transparent, but if customers don’t agree, it doesn’t really matter. That’s actually what’s in jeopardy here. We’re in serious trouble if people lose faith in the food we sell them, genetically modified or not.