The European Via Campesina Coordination (ECVC), a Europe-wide confederation of unions and organizations of farmers, small- and medium-scale farmers and farm workers, has long advocated for sustainable, family-based and diversified agriculture. Back in 2017, he published a 12-point paper to shed light on the health and environmental risks of possible deregulation of new GMOs, which we repost here.
The new GMOs
New GMOs, also called New Genomic Techniques (NGT) or New Breeding Techniques (NBT), represent the latest stage of advancement in genetic manipulation technologies. They differ from transgenesis in that the new genetic material that is inserted into a plant comes from another plant of the same or similar species. (1)
The large biotech industries claim that the new plants that are obtained are quite similar to those resulting from the traditional natural selection that has always been exercised by farmers and smallholders to improve plant resistance. And it is on that basis that they are lobbying the European Union and member states to deregulate, hiding the unpredictable and unexpected risks that such genetic manipulations can generate, such as unintentional genetic alterations (Kawall, 2021). (2)
Nor have any studies been conducted to assess whether there is a correlation between feed made from GMO products and the effects noticed by farmers in animals. These include a shorter life span, decreased fertility, and lower vitality of the animal. (3)
The openness of policy to new GMOs
The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environment liberalized open field testing of new GMOs through an amendment to the ‘drought decree’ (Decree-Law 39, 4/14/23), converted into Law 68/23. The decree mentions ‘Techniques of Assisted Evolution’ (TEA), probably so as not to alarm a country where GMOs have never entered. (4)
From Europe meanwhile, which has already shown that it has assimilated the seed lobby ‘s narrative, (5) leaks a draft proposal for a regulation from the Health Directorate General (DG SANTE) that was supposed to remain hidden until the July 5 European Commission meeting. (6)
The proposal is to create two categories of NTG plants. ‘Category 1,’ including plants that have been modified but have modifications that could occur in nature or obtained through conventional breeding techniques. For these, notification of placing on the market alone would be sufficient, with no labeling, risk assessment or traceability requirements-except for herbicide-resistant ones.
Those that have undergone the insertion or replacement of up to 20 nucleotides or the deletion of an unspecified number of nucleotides; the inversion of a sequence or the insertion of a DNA sequence from a plant of the same species will be considered ‘equivalent’ to traditional plants.
The labeling requirement will remain for NTGs that do not fall under the listed requirements and flow into ‘category 2’. Neither will these be required to be monitored or required to have a method of tracking changes made. The will is to bring the new GMOs into the market, despite the 2018 European Court of Justice ruling that equates them for all intents and purposes with genetically modified organisms.
The battle of civil organizations
ECVC, along with 38 other organizations, has signed an open letter to the European Commission following the publication of the DG SANTE proposal to call for a U-turn on seeds. We need more species diversity, to promote truly sustainable agriculture, decreasing the use of pesticides and herbicides (which are used heavily in GMO crops). They also claim the right of farmers to multiply, exchange and sell their own seeds. (7)
A battle long waged against viral deception (viral deception). Here are the 12 points published in 2017 (3) to analyze and expose the rhetoric of multinational seed companies and bring out the risks of any liberalization of New Genomic Techniques.
1 – Only if consumers are informed can they reject GMOs
If today only 1 percent of food contains GMO products-and there is an obligation to indicate this on the label-it is thanks to the mobilizations of European consumers, farmers and citizens. However, most animal feeds coming from the Americas contain GMOs (and products from them are not labeled as GMOs).
2 – They were renamed NTGs to sell GMOs without informing consumers
GMOs have been renamed to make the public believe that they do not involve genetic mutation. The terms ‘plant improvement’ or ‘breeding techniques’ refer us to traditional plant improvement techniques achieved through a long process of selecting desired characteristics and multiplying plants. But this is not the case. NTGs also intervene at the level of genes, such as transgenesis. They cause genetic mutations that do not occur in nature and are techniques that occur in vitro. They are for all intents and purposes genetically modified organisms.
3 – Human beings cannot invent nature
Biotech industries have immediately sought patent protection for new GMOs. However, patents apply to inventions and not to discoveries or natural phenomena such as inbreeding or selection. If, as we are told, the changes achieved with NTGs are processes that would also occur in nature, these should be considered discoveries, not inventions.
4 – Tradition cannot be novelty
A contradiction then arises: should new GMOs be considered new or traditional techniques? Seed lobbies are calling for NTGs not to be subjected to the stringent GMO regulation because the result obtained is comparable to that achieved by traditional breeding techniques for the species. But a patent can only be granted for an innovation.
5 – Genetic alterations made invisible
The industries insist that plants obtained through NTGs are identical to existing plants or those obtained through traditional breeding techniques. For this purpose, they present only the newly produced protein, called ‘genetic information,’ for the purpose of the patent, without providing information about any further alterations that have occurred in the plant. In fact, the organization says, it is likely that through specific genome analysis, plants obtained by the new techniques can be distinguished from others.
6 – Health and environmental hazards.
Claiming that there are no differences between plants obtained through NTGs and allowing them to be grown in the open field without tracking requirements exposes us to risks to our health and the environment. Indeed, there is no data based on a ‘long safety history’ as the precautionary principle would have it. Without plant examinations, we cannot verify whether there have been any undesirable alterations. Which would go on to contaminate other crops through pollinators or carried by the wind. The industry is calling for deregulation of GMOs with an eye toward the U.S. law based on ‘substantial equivalence,’ which does not look at the process but only at the end product. The focus is not on the entire plant, which might show unwanted changes, but only on the claimed genetic trait, eliminating any possible suspicion of risk.
7 – Industry can apply to patent all existing seeds
If no distinction is made between NTG-derived and conventional plants, the industry can claim ownership of all those plants with the same patented genetic trait. Both GMO plants and those that have them naturally. Even seeds that small farmers and homesteaders have passed down for generations or those stored in seed banks are at risk of appropriation by seed lobbies.
8 – And yet, transparency and traceability are simple
In case there is difficulty in distinguishing a product derived from NTG, the law wants the GMO regulation to be applied, which requires strict traceability of affected products. If the product is not labeled, traced, or distinguishable in any way from a natural product or a derivative of a conventional process, the patent holder cannot claim any kind of ownership.
9 – Disappearance of small and medium-sized enterprises
Large biotech industries say NTGs will be more competitive. In reality, public investment will be diverted to the few large companies that have the tools to develop the new GMOs. Small companies that do not have the means to produce new plants will become dependent on the patents of large companies. Already, 75 percent of the world seed market is in the hands of 10 companies, and only 3 of them hold more than half of it.
10 – Suppression of farmers’ and small farmers’ rights to their own seeds
In countries where they have been allowed, GMOs have contaminated all other non-GMO crops. 15 years after they were released into fields, GMOs have contaminated 95 percent of North America’s corn, soybeans, canola and cotton. Local farmers were sued by the seed industries because they were unknowingly reproducing patented plants. They have lost the right to seeds that have been passed down for years and have been forced to buy GMO seeds every year.
11 – Further reduction in biodiversity
Crop biodiversity has already been deeply eroded by half a century of green revolution that replaced millions of local crop varieties with a few thousand ‘improved’ varieties. Now, with genetic engineering, a few hundred patented genes are invading the planet’s crops.
12 – Controlling people through controlling their food
The wide variety of seeds selected by farmers over the millennia will be replaced by a few patented seed banks. We will lose the ability of plants to adapt to climate change, and future generations will not have the ability to feed themselves.
The right to food, food sovereignty and people’s food security could escape any form of public control and would instead be subject to the sole will of the shareholders of a handful of multinational corporations.
Alessandra Mei
Notes
- GIFT Editors. NBT, the dark side of new editing techniques. Science review. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade) 6.3.2021
- Katharina Kawall (2021). The generic risks and the potential of SDN-1 applications in crop plants. Plants (Basel). 2021 Nov; 10(11): 2259. doi: 10.3390/plants10112259 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8622673/
- ECVC. New plant breeding techniques – 12 reasons to STOP these ‘New GMOs’. 22.9.2017 https://www.eurovia.org/publications/new-plant-breeding-techniques-12-reasons-to-stop-these-new-gmos/
- Dario Dongo, Marta Strinati. Italy. The ‘drought decree’ becomes a Trojan horse for new GMOs. Civil society protests. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade) 5/31/2023
- Dario Dongo, Alessandra Mei. New GMOs, deregulation in sight in the European Union? GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 10.3.2023
- Proposal for a regulation of the european Parliament and of the Council on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed, and amending Directives 68/193/EEC, 1999/105/EC, 2002/53/EC, 2002/55/EC, and Regulation (EU) 2017/625. https://www.croceviaterra.it/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Draft-NGT-proposal_CIC.pdf
- ECVC. Joint letter to the European Commission on the EU seed marketing legislation. 5/31/2023 https://www.eurovia.org/news/joint-letter-to-the-european-commission-on-the-eu-seed-marketing-legislation/
Graduated in Law from the University of Bologna, she attended the Master in Food Law at the same University. You participate in the WIISE srl benefit team by dedicating yourself to European and international research and innovation projects.