Consumers and Health

GMOs: Danish government against its people

November 12, 2025

357

A recent poll commissioned by the Danish environmental NGO NOAH and conducted by YouGov indicates that 82 % of Danish citizens believe the European Union (EU) should maintain its current stringent regulations on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), rather than pursue deregulation of new genomic techniques (NGTs).

Simultaneously, the Danish Government – empowered by its presidency of the Council of the European Union for the second half of 2025 – is actively advocating for reforms to the EU’s GMO regime.

This article outlines the findings of the Danish survey, the earlier EU-wide petition, and the ongoing negotiations on the proposal to deregulate NGTs, while providing a scientifically grounded critique of these developments in light of the precautionary principle and the will expressed by European citizens.

Table of Contents

Survey results: what Danes think

The results of the YouGov survey conducted for NOAH show that:

82% of surveyed Danish adults (aged 18+) indicated they strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement: ‘The EU should stop efforts to deregulate genetically modified products and maintain strict rules to protect food safety, the environment and consumer choice’;

84% of respondents were unaware that their government supports the Commission’s plan to ease GMO rules;

only approximately 8 % of Danes knew that the Danish Government backs the deregulation proposal.

The sample included 1,022 respondents and was representative of the Danish population aged 18 and over.

These data signal a strong misalignment between the government’s policy trajectory and public sentiment. Importantly for our scientific-policy lens, the survey suggests limited public awareness of major agricultural biotechnology reforms underway – a matter with implications for informed consent, food sovereignty and regulatory legitimacy.

The petition: civil society response

The ‘#IChooseGMOFree – Keep New GMOs Strictly Regulated’ petition, launched by a coalition of European organic/NGO organisations in 2023, reached more than 420,000 signatures from European citizens opposing the deregulation of NGT-derived plants, i.e. new GMOs. The petition emphasises concerns over consumer choice, transparency, traceability, and corporate concentration in seed markets.

From a scientific policy perspective, this mobilisation underscores two key points:

public trust in biotech innovation remains contingent on robust regulatory safeguards and participatory governance;

citizens demand the labelling and traceability of GMO crops, regardless of the technologies used.

EU proposal on New Genomic Techniques: what’s at stake

Background

The European Commission adopted its proposal on 5 July 2023 for a Regulation on plants produced by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs). The definition of NGTs includes techniques such as targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis — methods developed after the 2001 EU GMO Directive.

Key features of the proposal

The proposal introduces a two-pathway regime:

Category 1 (NGT 1). Plants developed through new genomic techniques (NGTs) containing fewer than 20 genetic modifications would be exempt from the current GMO legislation. They would be subjected to a notification procedure and labelled at the seed stage but not in food products;

Category 2 (NGT 2). All other plants obtained through new genomic techniques (NGTs) – including those carrying herbicide-resistant modifications – would remain subject to the existing GMO framework regarding traceability and labelling, while benefiting from simplified procedures for risk assessment and authorisation.

Member States would be deprived of the right to ‘opt out’ from the cultivation of NGT plants. No coexistence measures are foreseen, nor is the ‘polluter pays’ principle applied in cases of environmental damage or harm to organic farmers.

Danish presidency and national role

As the holder of the rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union for the second half of 2025, Denmark wields significant influence in steering the trilogue discussions and facilitating consensus among Member States. According to NOAH – one of Denmark’s oldest and most active environmental organisations – Danish industry groups claim that Danish experts helped shape 95 % of the draft regulation.

From a governance perspective, this creates a critical moment: a national government appears to be promoting deregulation of genome-edited crops despite overwhelming domestic opposition, raising formal questions about democratic accountability, public consultation, and the alignment of national mandates with citizen interests. This applies to Denmark, as well as to the other 26 Member States.

Precautionary principle and citizen sentiment

Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the precautionary principle – enshrined in Article 191(2) TFEU – requires that when there are reasonable grounds for concern that certain activities or substances may pose risks to human health or the environment, the lack of full scientific certainty shall not justify delaying preventive or proportionate measures to avert potential harm. The abandonment of authorisation based on a robust risk analysis, as discussed in the review available at Food Times on the environmental and public health implications of these new GMOs, clearly conflicts with the precautionary principle.

Legal analyses also indicate that the Commission’s proposal shifts liability from biotech developers to the food industry, introduces ambiguity in detection and traceability requirements, and significantly weakens citizens’ rights (ENGA, 2025). The survey data show that citizens demand transparent information to preserve their ability to choose whether to consume foods that contain or are derived from GMOs. The petition campaign further emphasises this point. Without traceability and clear labelling, consumer rights and market transparency may be compromised.

An additional concern relates to consolidation in the seed-industry sector. NOAH highlights that large biotechnology firms may gain market power if traceability and liability requirements are relaxed. Market concentration may reduce biodiversity, inhibit farmer autonomy, and limit societal control over agricultural systems.

From a scientific, policy-and-society viewpoint, the proposal to deregulate NGTs – in the context of such overwhelming public opposition and weak public awareness – is fundamentally misaligned with the precautionary principle, democratic consent, and the right of consumers to informed choice. Therefore, the EU and national governments should pause deregulation, strengthen risk assessment, enforce full traceability and labelling, and engage properly with the public before implementing such profound reforms in the agri-food system.

Implications for food systems and consumers

The potential consequences of the proposed deregulation reach beyond regulatory debates. A lighter regime could reduce mandatory consumer information, weakening trust and informed choice. Organic and non-GMO producers might face higher contamination risks without robust coexistence rules, threatening their certification and market value.

Proponents argue that new genomic techniques can accelerate crop adaptation to climate change and reduce chemical inputs, but such claims remain largely unverified and could divert attention from proven agroecological solutions.

Shifting liability from developers to downstream operators in the food chain, coupled with broad patent protections, could also intensify corporate concentration and undermine farmers’ access to genetic resources. A precautionary and transparent approach is therefore crucial to safeguard biodiversity, consumer rights and the integrity of sustainable food systems.

Interim conclusions

A significant majority of Danish citizens oppose relaxing regulations for genetically modified or genome-edited crops. A widely supported petition across Europe has already demonstrated the broad concern of civil society regarding food safety, public health and environmental protection, transparency, and consumer rights. Nonetheless, the EU is removing new genomic techniques from a regulatory framework that protects these rights based on risk analysis.

The Danish Government, during its EU Presidency, appears to be actively promoting deregulation despite public opposition, raising questions about democratic legitimacy and precaution in policy design.

Given unresolved scientific uncertainties, the proposed deregulation conflicts with the precautionary principle and the expressed will of citizens. Policymakers should ensure that the public is fully informed, that risk assessment remains stringent, that traceability and labelling are enforced, and that genuine consultation precedes any reform with such far-reaching implications.

Dario Dongo

Photo by Gilberto Olimpio

References

Biodynamic Federation Demeter International. (2023, 7 February). More than 420 000 citizens oppose the deregulation of new GMOs. https://demeter.net/more-than-420-000-citizens-oppose-deregulation-of-new-gmos/