Crops tailor-made using new gene-splicing techniques should face fewer regulations than genetically modified organisms, EU negotiators agreed Thursday.  Critics are calling it a GMO rebrand; proponents say they are bringing science back in style. The late-night negotiations — dragged across the finish line with the help of the European Parliament’s far right — capped years of haggling over how to ease the path for a new generation of gene-editing technologies developed since 2001, when the EU’s notoriously strict regulations on GMOs were adopted. The deal’s backers tout NGT’s potential to breed climate-resilient plants that need less space and fertilizers to grow, and they argue the EU is already behind global competitors using the technology. But critics fear the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to major seed corporations.   The agreement opens the door to “unlabelled — yet patented — GM crops and foods, boosting corporate market power while undermining the rights of farmers and consumers,” warned Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds, an NGO opposing GMOs, calling the deal a “complete sell-out.” INNOVATION VS. CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.  Currently, most plants edited using new precision breeding technology — which can involve reordering their DNA, or inserting genes from the same plant or species — are covered by the same strict rules governing GMOs that contain foreign DNA.  The deal struck by the EU’s co-legislators creates two classes for these more recent techniques. “NGT1” crops — plants that have only been modified using new tech to a limited extent and are thus considered equivalent to naturally occurring strains — would be eligible for less stringent regulations. In contrast, “NGT2” plants, which have had more genetic changes and traditional GMOs will continue to face the same rules that have been in place for over 20 years.  Speaking before the final round of negotiations, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen argued that the bloc needs to have NGTs in its toolbox if it wants to compete with China and the U.S., which are already making use of the new tech.  The deal “is about giving European farmers a fair chance to keep up” echoed center-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, the lead negotiator on the Parliament’s side of the deal. She added that the technology will allow for the bloc to “produce more yield on less land, reduce the use of pesticides, and plant crops that can resist climate change.” Polfjärd had struggled to keep MEPs on the same page even as the bill advanced into interinstitutional negotiations. Persistent objections from left-wing lawmakers, including a key Socialist, forced her to embrace support of lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe, breaking the cordon sanitaire.  Martin Häusling, the Green parliamentary negotiator, called the result miserable, saying it gives a “carte blanche for the use of new genetic engineering in plants” that threatens GMO-free agriculture.  DAVID AND GOLIATH In a hard-won victory for industry, the final legislation allows for NGT crops to be patented.  For Matthias Berninger, executive vice president at the global biotech giant Bayer, it’s just good business. “When we talk about startup culture in Europe … we also need to provide reasonable intellectual property protections,” he said in an interview. Yet safeguards meant to prevent patent-holders from accumulating too much market power don’t go far enough for Arche Noah. The NGO advocating for seed diversity in Europe, warned of a “slow-motion collapse of independent breeding, seed-diversity and farmer autonomy” if the deal makes it to law as is. They have MEP Christophe Clergeau, the Parliament’s Social-Democrat negotiator who led the last-ditch resistance.  In an interview on Thursday morning, he gave it five to 10 years before small breeders have disappeared from the bloc and farmers are “totally dependent” on the likes of Bayer and other huge companies. (Berninger said Bayer doesn’t want to inhibit small breeders by enforcing patents on them.) The deal now needs to be endorsed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU before the new rules are adopted. At the end of the day, it’s up to consumers to pass judgment, DG SANTE’s food safety and innovation chief Klaus Berend said Thursday, appearing at the POLITICO Sustainable Future Summit directly before the late-night negotiations began.  “We know that in Europe, the general attitude toward genetically modified organisms and anything around it is rather negative,” he cautioned. The key question for new genomic techniques is “how will they be accepted by consumers?” Their acceptance, Berend added, “is not a given.” Rebecca Holland contributed to this report.

The newly created [aclp.eu] Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP) simplifies access to patented traits for European plant breeders, enabling them to leverage the latest technologies and help farmers to meet the challenges of sustainable food production. Europeans rightly expect safe food at affordable prices. But this is getting harder and harder for European farmers to do. Consumer expectations regarding quality and price keep rising, while farmers face increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices, for example, by reducing their carbon emissions and the impact agriculture has on soil and water. Across the EU, arable farmers are increasingly confronted with drought conditions while the amount of cultivatable land is shrinking. At the same time, the EU is making trade agreements with exporters of agricultural produce that are exposing European farming to ever greater competition. European agriculture cannot afford to be left behind as producers in other parts of the world have access to the latest agricultural technologies. If farmers have access to the best available seed varieties, as well as other innovations, they can tackle these competing challenges. EU policymakers are currently negotiating new rules for developing innovative plant varieties through new genomic techniques (NGTs). These techniques allow plant breeders to introduce highly desirable characteristics such as improved drought tolerance or pest resistance, helping plants cope with challenges like water shortages or maintaining yields, without increasing the use of crop protection products or fertilisers. These sought-after traits can be enhanced by speeding up traditional plant breeding techniques, which, until now, have required long-term work crossing varieties to develop desired traits. Plant breeding can focus, for example, on developing varieties with shorter stems, that are more resistant to heavy rain. It can also improve plants’ resistance to common diseases, such as rhizomania, a common disease affecting sugar beet crops. NGTs use very precise genome-editing tools to target the traits breeders want to enhance in a plant’s own DNA. The precise targeting means that the desired characteristics can be boosted in a single generation rather than the dozens or hundreds that traditional plant breeding requires. Unlike genetic modification, NGTs do not introduce genetic material from other organisms. They work with the material that is already a natural part of the plant’s DNA. If we want European farmers to continue to produce safe, affordable food and farm in an environmentally sustainable way, we need to ensure that plant breeders have access to the latest plant technologies in their already shrinking toolbox. > If we want European farmers to continue to produce safe, affordable food and > farm in an environmentally sustainable way, we need to ensure that plant > breeders have access to the latest plant technologies(…) Currently, for many breeders across the EU, making the most of the latest varieties can involve navigating the complex world of patents. Intellectual property (IP) protection, which includes patents, is often portrayed as blocking access to an innovative technology. In actual fact, it’s not. IP protection plays a crucial role in ensuring access to and safeguarding scientific progress by securing a fair return on investment for researchers. In Europe, plant varieties can be protected under the Plant Breeders’ Rights system, which grants breeders the ability to market their innovations while allowing others to use them for further breeding. However, technological inventions, such as new traits or breeding techniques, may be protected by patents, provided they meet certain legal requirements, which include being genuinely inventive and having an industrial application. In this case, users have access to the patented technology through different mechanisms such as licensing. Effective IP protection ensures that innovators benefit from their inventions. This encourages healthy competition, which leads, in turn, to more innovation. > Effective IP protection ensures that innovators benefit from their inventions. > This encourages healthy competition, which leads, in turn, to more innovation. This can be a complex environment to navigate, especially for breeders who are not trained as IP specialists. Small businesses that want to use patented innovations can face obstacles such as lack of transparency regarding the existence of a patented trait, complexity in negotiating with a patent holder, and insecurity about fair terms and conditions. These time-consuming and expensive processes can lead some companies to refrain from breeding new varieties with the latest innovations or to fear they might be infringing patents when using a new variety released on the market. In order to reduce this complexity, plant breeders have launched several initiatives such as platforms to improve transparency around patented traits and to facilitate access to patents. These platforms strike a balance between rewarding innovation and ensuring fair availability so no single organization can monopolize critical patented inventions. For over a decade, the International Licensing Platform (ILP), has been providing access to patented traits in vegetable crops. Recognising the need for a similar system in other crops, European plant breeding companies sought to expand this model to a wider range of crops, including corn, sunflower, cereals, sugar beet, potatoes, fruit and flowers. In 2023, a group of European plant breeding companies came together to launch the Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP), with the aim of facilitating fair access to patented traits and promoting innovation across multiple crop types. This new platform makes it easy for breeders to access current and future technologies. Instead of having to worry about complex patent rules, all they need to do is enter a standard licensing agreement and agree on a royalty fee with the patent holder. If they cannot reach an agreement within six months, they have the right to go to arbitration at the end of which they are guaranteed to get a license to use the patented variety. This system covers over 95% of all patented traits currently available on the market in Europe. The ACLP has been developed by plant breeders as a way to ensure that seed companies can offer their customers the best available varieties to deal with the competing challenges faced by European agriculture. > The ACLP has been developed by plant breeders as a way to ensure that seed > companies can offer their customers the best available varieties to deal with > the competing challenges faced by European agriculture.   If we want European farmers and Europe’s agriculture to remain competitive and produce food in a sustainable way, we must continue to enable access to the best plant varieties that the latest technologies can provide. #EnablingInnovation | www.aclp.eu | LinkedIn: ACLP – The Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform

BRUSSELS — The European Commission published its long-term “vision” for the European Union’s agriculture and food policy on Wednesday, setting out ambitions for a sector that has been at the center of political protests, trade tensions and regulatory headaches. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen’s paper lays out a roadmap through 2040, promising better conditions for farmers, fairer supply chains, and a rethinking of sustainability policies. “Food and farming are vital for Europe’s people, economy and society. We need the agri-food sector to flourish and compete in a fair global marketplace, with enough resilience to cope with crises and shocks,” Hansen said as he unveiled the plan.  “The roadmap we are presenting today sets out the path for tackling the many pressures that EU farmers face.” But while the EU executive wants to ease some regulatory burdens, it’s also laying the ground for bigger fights over trade rules, food pricing and supply chain fairness. Here are the five key takeaways from the EU’s master plan for agriculture: 1. MAKE FARMING ATTRACTIVE AGAIN (OR AT LEAST SURVIVABLE) European farmers are getting old: Just 12 percent are under 40, and many are struggling with low incomes, bureaucracy and volatile markets. Hansen’s vision acknowledges that, unless something changes, Europe won’t have enough farmers left by 2040 — or the ones who remain will just be fewer and bigger. His plan? Better pay, fewer administrative burdens and new income streams like carbon farming and bioeconomy projects to keep young people in the business. The Commission is also set to deliver a generational renewal strategy this year, focusing on easier access to land and financing for young farmers. A revamp of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2027 will be key to delivering on these promises. But there’s already an emerging fight over whether the CAP should remain a standalone fund in the EU budget or get folded into a larger money pot. The Commission is signaling a shift toward more targeted CAP support, prioritizing active farmers, young entrants and those producing essential food. There’s also talk of simplifying direct payments and adjusting subsidy distribution. The big question: Will this actually attract new farmers — or just stop existing ones from quitting? 2. THE FIGHT OVER FOOD CHAIN PROFITS ISN’T OVER Hansen’s vision takes aim at power imbalances in the food supply chain, signaling that the Commission isn’t done cracking down on unfair trading practices. Farmers have long argued that retailers and food manufacturers squeeze them on prices, forcing them to sell below production costs — a practice the Commission wants to curb further by revising the UTP directive. However, while farmer groups see this as essential, the Commission’s free-market hawks remain uneasy about an outright ban on below-cost sales that could distort competition. So, the vision emphasizes rules against “systematically” compelling below-cost sales, rather than writing a strict, blanket ban into law. The plan also includes a greater role for the new Agri-Food Chain Observatory to track who makes what margin in the food supply chain — a move that could add transparency, but also more friction, between farmers and bigger actors. And it’s not just farmers feeling squeezed. The Commission is also acknowledging concerns about rural workers, women in agriculture, and foreign laborers, saying the industry needs to be more attractive and fair. A Women in Farming platform will be launched, though it’s unclear how much impact it will have. There is also a call to improve conditions for low-wage workers in agriculture and food processing, but no new enforcement tools to back it up. Expect pushback from other players, like retailers and food manufacturers, who argue that higher farm-gate prices will drive up costs for consumers, but also concerns that the EU isn’t doing enough to protect farm and food-sector workers from low pay and poor conditions. 3. SUSTAINABLE CARROTS, NOT UNSUSTAINABLE STICKS The Commission wants farming to decarbonize and pollute less, but farmers should be seen as part of the solution, not the problem, the vision argues. That means fewer penalties and more incentives, while food companies and retailers should bear as much of the climate and environmental burden — though how they’ll be held accountable remains unclear. The slew of environmental derogation requests from farmers shows that “one-size-fits-all approaches” don’t work, the Commission says. That’s why the midyear CAP simplification will give EU countries more flexibility, shifting the CAP “away from conditions to incentives,” including for “streamlined” ecosystem services. The plan includes stronger support for carbon farming, bioenergy production, organic and agroecological practices, and the bioeconomy and circularity. Brussels also wants biopesticides and new genomic techniques to reach the market faster — with a proposal on biopesticides promised this year — while biotechnologies need scaling up. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should get a larger budget to speed up safety assessments and clear regulatory bottlenecks. That said, not all innovations are welcome. The paper warns that “certain food innovation is sometimes seen as a threat” — a not-so-subtle nod to cultivated meat. It “calls for an enhanced dialogue,” which effectively means a freeze. Meanwhile, livestock “is and will remain an essential part of” the EU’s food system, with its own dedicated “work stream” to boost competitiveness. Feed additives “will be essential” to making the sector more sustainable. 4. MORE HOMEGROWN FOOD AND FEED, AND A CRACKDOWN ON IMPORTS The final text slightly tones down some of the trade protectionist language from an earlier draft, but the Commission is still sounding the alarm over Europe’s dependency on imported agricultural inputs, from fertilizers to animal feed. Right now, the EU heavily relies on key fertilizer imports from Russia, Belarus and North Africa, while soy for animal feed comes mostly from South and North America. To fix this, Hansen’s vision includes a new protein strategy to boost EU-grown plant proteins, increased production of low-carbon and recycled fertilizers, and more investment in domestic agritech innovation. The Commission is also exploring the idea of food stockpiles — a move that signals greater concern for supply chain resilience. One of the most politically sensitive parts of the vision? A trade reciprocity plan is expected in 2025, outlining how the EU will enforce equal standards for imports on pesticides, animal welfare and sustainability. To back this up with enforcement, the Commission wants to set up a dedicated import control task force, working with member countries to strengthen border checks and prevent banned substances from entering the EU market. The challenge? Replacing imports without driving up costs — or setting off trade conflicts with key partners. But in a key change from the earlier leaked draft, there’s now no explicit ban on EU companies exporting toxic pesticides that are prohibited at home. Instead, the Commission will begin with an impact assessment, leaving open what future restrictions might look like. 5. CRUMBS FOR THE CONSUMER Neither food, nor consumers get much in the way of new rules. The Commission will propose strengthening the role of public procurement, though a desire stated in last week’s version to ditch the “cheaper is better” mentality has been deleted, emphasizing merely that procurers should seek the “best value.” The document calls for shorter supply chains. Eating healthy also means eating local, it argues, since unfortunately “food is more processed, eating habits are changing and supply chains have gotten longer.” For that reason, there will be a Food Dialogue with stakeholders every year to discuss product reformulation, food affordability and collecting data on dietary intake. The Berlaymont will launch a study on the health impact of ultra-processed foods and it intends to extend country-of-origin labeling. Another change from last week is a paragraph on how consumers should receive “trustworthy information” and that the EU will crack down on “misleading environmental claims and unreliable sustainability labels.” Consumers should also be “supporting farmers in the transition” toward more environmental production, since “markets fail to reward the progress already made.”  There is no mention of front-of-pack labeling (like the forgotten Nutri-Score), nutrient profiles for marketing sugary, salty and fatty products, or plant-based diets. CAN THIS VISION SURVIVE THE POLITICS? Brussels’ new vision is full of big promises — simpler rules for farmers, a more balanced food supply chain, a crackdown on unfair trade and a pivot to carrots over sticks on green rules. But in scrapping an explicit export ban on toxic pesticides and watering down rules on public procurement, the Commission shows it’s wary of imposing new hurdles that could spark backlash. That leaves a big question mark over whether this plan can actually change Europe’s farming model — and if it will do enough to ease the concerns of farmers, consumer groups and environmental campaigners.  With the upcoming CAP reform, looming budget fights and intense trade negotiations ahead, it won’t be an easy harvest for Hansen. This story has been updated.