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 CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.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.

Today, as the world reaches a critical juncture in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the EU must choose: match scientific breakthroughs with political will and investment or retreat, putting two decades of hard-won progress at risk. Having saved over 70 million lives, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Global Fund) has proven what smart, sustained investment can achieve.  But the impact of its work — the lives protected, the life expectancy prolonged, the systems strengthened, the innovations deployed — is now under threat due to declining international funding.  > The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the > Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. Declining international funding, climate change, conflict and drug resistance are reversing decades of progress. HIV prevention is hampered by rising criminalization and attacks on key populations, with 1.3 million new infections in 2024 — far above targets. TB remains the deadliest infectious disease, worsened by spreading multidrug resistance, even in Europe. Malaria faces growing resistance to insecticides and drugs, as well as the impacts of extreme weather. Without urgent action and sustained investment, these threats could result in a dangerous resurgence of all three diseases. The stakes could not be higher  The Global Fund’s latest results reveal extraordinary progress. In 2024 alone: * 25.6 million people received lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, yet 630,000 still died of AIDS-related causes; * 7.4 million people were treated for TB, with innovations like AI-powered diagnostics reaching frontline workers in Ukraine; and * malaria deaths, primarily among African children under five, have been halved over two decades, with 2.2 billion mosquito nets distributed and ten countries eliminating malaria since 2020. Yet one child still dies every minute from this treatable disease.  What makes this moment unprecedented is not just the scale of the challenge, but the scale of the opportunity. Thanks to extraordinary scientific breakthroughs, we now have the tools to turn the tide:  * lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral, offers new hope for the possibility of HIV-free generations; * dual active ingredient mosquito nets combine physical protection with intelligent vector control, transforming malaria prevention; and  * AI-driven TB screening and diagnostics are revolutionizing early detection and treatment, even in the most fragile settings. Some of these breakthroughs reflect Europe’s continued research and development and the private sector’s leadership in global health. BASF’s dual-active-ingredient mosquito nets, recently distributed by the millions in Nigeria, are redefining malaria prevention by combining physical protection with intelligent vector control. Delft Imaging’s ultra-portable digital X-ray devices are enabling TB screening in remote and fragile settings, while Siemens Healthineers is helping deploy cutting-edge AI software to support TB triage and diagnosis.  But they must be deployed widely and equitably to reach those who need them most. That is precisely what the Global Fund enables: equitable access to cutting-edge solutions, delivered through community-led systems that reach those most often left behind. A defining moment for EU Leadership The EU has a unique chance to turn this crisis into an opportunity. The upcoming G20 summit and the Global Fund’s replenishment are pivotal moments.  President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Síkela can send a clear, unequivocal signal: Europe will not stop at “almost”. It will lead until the world is free of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  The Global Fund is a unique partnership that combines financial resources with technical expertise, community engagement and inclusive governance. It reaches those often left behind — those criminalized, marginalized or excluded from health systems.  > Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has > ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments > deliver impact, even in crisis. Its model of country ownership and transparency aligns with Africa’s agenda for health sovereignty and with the EU’s commitment to equity and human rights. Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments deliver impact, even in crisis. The cost of inaction Some may point to constraints in the Multiannual Financial Framework. But history shows that the EU has consistently stepped up, even in difficult fiscal times. The instruments exist. What’s needed now is leadership to use them. Failure to act would unravel decades of progress. Resurgent epidemics would claim lives, destabilize economies and undermine global health security. The cost of inaction far exceeds the price of investment. For the EU, the risks are strategic as well as moral. Stepping back now would erode the EU’s credibility as champion of human rights and global responsibility. It would send the wrong message, at precisely the wrong time.  Ukraine demonstrates what is at stake: with Global Fund support, millions continue to receive HIV and TB services despite war. Cutting funding now would risk lives not only in Africa and Asia, but also in Europe’s own neighborhood. A call to action Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for us, is a resounding no. We therefore urge the European Commission to announce a bold, multi-year financial commitment to the Global Fund at the G20.  This pledge would reaffirm the EU’s values and inspire other Team Europe partners to follow suit. It would also support ongoing reforms to further enhance the Global Fund’s efficiency, transparency and inclusivity. > Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can > the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for > us, is a resounding no. This is more than a funding decision. It is a moment to define the kind of world we choose to build: one where preventable diseases no longer claim lives, where health equity is a reality and where solidarity triumphs over short-termism. Now is the time to reaffirm Europe’s leadership. To prove that when it comes to global health, we will never stop until the fight is won.

PARIS — French farmers are protesting again. Agricultural workers parked their tractors in front of France’s National Assembly and organized road blocks across the country for demonstrations in support of legislation which would make it easier to obtain administrative authorization to build breeding facilities and allow the temporary use of acetamiprid, an insecticide that has been banned in France since 2018. Both proposals are the type of red-tape-slashing measures farmers sought when they organized large-scale protests last year. The bill is set to be discussed in the National Assembly on Monday, but its backers said green and left-wing parties tried to obstruct proceedings by proposing hundreds of amendments to the text before the debate. The proposed law was approved by the French Senate in January and is backed by Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard. The new wave of protests was organized by influential farming lobbies FNSEA and Jeunes Agriculteurs, though one left-wing farmer’s union opposes it. FNSEA chief Arnaud Rousseau on Monday said protests will continue until Wednesday but acknowledged that they will be mostly symbolic. “The aim is not to annoy the French, but to bring the message we put across a year and a half ago, which is that French agriculture is in danger,” Rousseau said in an interview with FranceInfo. However, France’s left-wing opposition parties, in particular France Unbowed and the Greens, worry that the French government and the European Union are going too far in targeting measures meant to protect the environment, including on the use of pesticides, in the wake of last year’s massive demonstrations. European Union agriculture ministers are gathering in Brussels on Monday to discuss the bloc’s Common Agriculture Policy as well as trade with Ukraine and the United States. More radical farmers organizations are expected to take to the streets in Brussels next week in opposition to the bloc’s green rules.

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump is an equal-opportunity mercantilist. When it comes to the European Union’s €198 billion trade surplus with the United States, he’ll claw at any sector he can. Brandishing 25 percent tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, the U.S. president has demanded that the bloc buy more American cars, fossil fuels, weapons, pharmaceuticals — and food. “They don’t take our farm products, they take almost nothing and we take everything from them … tremendous amounts of food and farm products,” Trump complained to journalists in Florida earlier this month, decrying his country’s €18 billion deficit in agri-food trade with Europe. Taking more of the first four is feasible. The Commission can lower its 10 percent duty on imported automobiles, while EU countries can purchase less oil from Kazakhstan, fewer missiles from South Korea, and smaller drug batches from Switzerland. These demands would hurt local industry, but they are doable if Brussels wants to appease the irascible ultranationalist. The fifth is not. A range of culinary, phytosanitary and political obstacles bar the way to Europe’s importing most American staples — from Texan beef and Kentucky chicken to Wisconsin milk and Kansas wheat. Then there’s the fact the new EU commissioners for agriculture and animal welfare, Christophe Hansen and Olivér Várhelyi, want to tightly regulate agri-food imports. It may be a bitter pill for the president to swallow. But not even his “Art of the Deal” can vanquish Europe’s Art of the Meal. THE INVISIBLE HAND PICKS EUROPEAN FOOD  Contrary to what Trump says, the imbalance in agri-food trade isn’t due to unfair customs duties. U.S. and EU rates are similarly low for most products: zero for hard liquor, a few percent for wine and cereals, and 5 percent to 10 percent for fruits, vegetables, cured meats, confectionery, canned food and processed goods. The exceptions are EU dairy and pork (often upward of 20 percent), yet these aren’t areas where American rivals have much of a chance anyway, given that the EU runs a massive surplus in both categories (Germany and Spain are top exporters). Moreover, the U.S. is protective too — for example, on beef — and accepted higher EU dairy duties in the 1988 Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. Why? Because it extracted a promise that the EU wouldn’t subsidize oilseed production. Why would that matter to the Americans? Because that’s what they’re best at cultivating. Farms in the U.S. are on average 10 times bigger than in the EU and are able to churn out raw materials: hunks of meat, blocks of cheese and silos full of cereals. However, apart from the odd Californian wine, the U.S. doesn’t have many specialty products to vaunt. Europe is the opposite: A mosaic of small, regionally diverse farms, its producers are uncompetitive in most commodities, but possess an advantage in traditional foods. For example, the continent has five times more “geographical indication” trademarks than the U.S., allowing its farmers to transform simple crops into premium goods.  It’s bad agribusiness but great gastronomy, which is the second reason Americans spend more on EU farm goods than vice versa. While Americans happily gobble and slurp European GIs, Europeans typically find U.S. foods too fatty, salty, sugary or alcoholic for their palates. “If you look at the product composition, it’s very different,” said John Clarke, until recently the EU’s top agricultural trade negotiator. “The EU exports mostly high-value products: wine, spirits, charcuterie, olive oil, cheese. The U.S. exports low-value commodities: soya, maize, almonds … the fact [these have] a lower unit value is a fact of life.” During Trump’s first term, a bad harvest in Brazil and Argentina at least gave Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker an opportunity to offer Washington an apparent concession: The EU would buy more American soybeans. Trump gleefully celebrated what was in fact a financial necessity for European farmers, who need soy for animal feed. This time that won’t work, though. Brazilian grain harvests are near record levels, while Ukraine is investing heavily in oilseeds. The Commission is rolling out a protein strategy that  encourages supply diversification and more domestic production. And Europeans are eating less red meat, dragging soybean demand down. PHYTOSANITARY PARANOIA If Trump wants Europeans to eat more American food, he’ll have to convince them to swallow something even tougher: U.S. food safety standards. Europeans might buy American software, movies and weapons, but they aren’t keen on U.S. beef pumped with hormones, chlorine-washed chicken or genetically modified corn. The main reason? Brussels’ precautionary principle — a regulatory approach that requires proof a product is safe before it can be sold. The U.S., by contrast, operates on a risk-based system, where anything not proven harmful is fair game. That divergence has created a trade minefield. American beef exports are capped at 35,000 metric tons annually under a special quota, thanks to an EU-wide ban on hormone-treated meat. U.S. poultry is largely locked out because of pathogen reduction treatments — a fancy way of saying Americans rinse their chicken in antimicrobial washes the EU deems unacceptable. Genetically modified crops, a staple of U.S. agribusiness, also face strict EU restrictions, requiring lengthy approvals and labeling rules that spook European consumers. Pesticides are another flash point. Today, over 70 different pesticides banned in the EU as toxic to human health and the environment remain widespread in U.S. grain and fruit farming. That includes chlorpyrifos, an insecticide linked to brain damage in children, and paraquat, a weedkiller associated with a higher long-term risk of Parkinson’s disease. As a result, Brussels imposes residue limits that frequently force U.S. growers to create separate, EU-compliant supply chains. While Trump may rage about tariffs and trade imbalances, it’s Brussels’ food safety regulations — not import duties — that are keeping much American food off European plates. And with the EU mulling even stricter crackdowns on imports that don’t conform to its standards, expect the transatlantic trade menu to get even leaner. DON’T ANGER THE FARMERS Trump may not be aware, but European capitals also witnessed furious farmer protests last year. Fear of foreign competition was one of the main triggers, with unions bitterly criticizing imports from Ukraine and South America’s Mercosur bloc for their looser production standards, laxer agrochemical use and cheaper agricultural land. Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have still not lifted their illegal blockades on Ukrainian grain, and the Commission is in no position to force them to do so. In fact, Brussels has responded by making fair pricing for farmers the lodestar of its upcoming agri-food policy. The EU even wants to apply “mirror clauses” to imports to align rules on animal welfare and pesticides, according to a leaked draft of a long-term policy vision due out this week. A surge in U.S. imports would likely prompt the same attacks. These could be politically decisive ahead of stormy presidential races this year in Poland and Romania, two European breadbaskets, as well as major elections in France, Italy and Spain in the next two years.  So is there no solution to Trump’s hunger for agri-trade parity? It seems not, unless the president decides to massively expand the U.S. military’s presence in the EU, bringing tens of thousands more peanut butter-loving troops to defend the continent’s security. It’s a crazy idea of course. Then again … Giovanna Coi contributed reporting.