Left-wing parties in the European Parliament have criticized a proposal by center-right European People's Party (EPP) member Jessica Polfjärd to relax rules on new genomic techniques (NGTs) even more than initially intended by the Commission, reports Euractiv.

Heated Debates

During a debate within the European Parliament's Environment Committee (ENVI), lawmakers discussed the recently submitted draft report by Polfjärd, the parliament's lead negotiator on the NGT file.

The Commission proposed to loosen rules on certain NGTs or gene editing – a set of new scientific methods used to modify genomes to genetically alter specific traits in plants.

While the proposal sparked passionate criticism from the Greens and other left-wing MEPs, who believe it goes too far in deregulating genetically modified plants, Polfjärd's draft not only welcomes much of the Commission's position but also proposes to go further in liberalizing certain aspects.

These proposed changes by the center-right MEP relate to some of the most controversial points of the legislation, particularly the labeling of NGTs and their coexistence with organic farming.

Principles of organic farming at stake?

Specifically, Polfjärd proposes that NGT-based plants should be allowed not only in conventional agriculture but also in organic farming – something excluded by the Commission's proposal.

The relationship between genetic editing and organic farming is controversial: while many organic farmers worry that deregulating NGT rules could mean they can no longer ensure their production is free from genetic editing, others – like Polfjärd – believe the issue should be resolved by simply allowing NGTs even in organic farming.

The rapporteur wants to ensure "a fair environment" where "any operator without discrimination can use the techniques," according to the draft.

EU Ministers Split on Risks

An initial discussion on new genomic techniques saw many EU agriculture ministers welcoming the European Commission's proposal to loosen the bloc's genetic editing rules as a cornerstone for sustainable agriculture, while others expressed concerns about potential risks.

However, this push didn't sit well with MEPs from several other party groups.

"The rapporteur didn't understand the basic principles of organic farmers," said left-wing MEP Anja Hazekamp.

Others expressed concerns about cross-contamination, i.e., the worry that NGT products from neighboring farms could "contaminate" the products of organic farmers. "How do you know what your neighbor farmer is growing?" asked Green MEP Martin Häusling.

Socialist MEP Christophe Clergeau warned that NGTs in organic crops could mean "a loss of image [and] value" and a "major impact" on traditional farming practices.

Nothing to Hide

Another point of contention was Polfjärd's proposal to reduce labeling requirements for NGTs even more than envisaged by the Commission.

According to the Commission's proposal, NGT-based plants that cannot be distinguished from those obtained through conventional breeding (category 1) should be treated as their conventional counterparts, while those with "more complex changes" (category 2) would be subject to stricter requirements.

However, both types of plants should remain subject to certain labeling and traceability requirements.

This is where Polfjärd's report diverges, arguing that conventional category 1 plants should not be labeled and tracked, as this would be "discriminatory."

"Similar conventional plants should be treated conventionally," said MEP Radan Kanev, speaking on behalf of Polfjärd.

"This additional requirement creates an unjustified distinction and an unjustified administrative burden," he added.

The recent proposal by the European Commission to boost the market introduction of genetically modified crops will not affect how patents for these innovative technologies are granted, according to the organization that protects inventions in Europe.

A "naive" Move

The Greens, on the other hand, called the move "naive" and "arrogant," and the left accused the rapporteur of hindering "transparency and traceability."

Meanwhile, Renew MEP Martin Hojsik argued that there is no problem with labeling NGT-based plants. "If you think [NGTs] are good," he argued, "there's no reason why anyone [would want to hide] them."

Hojsik also said that the patent issue is a "missing essential piece" in the debate. "We don't want to have patents on plant varieties," added MEP Jan Huitema from the same party.

The Commission's proposal did not include intellectual property rights (IP), which could mean that NGTs will be patented under GMO rules.