Full speed ahead for gene editing as lead MEP aims to seal deal before EU elections

There is a possibility to finalise a deal on the EU’s plans on gene editing technology before next June’s EU elections, rapporteur Jessica Polfjärd told Euractiv in an interview, stressing this is necessary to equip farmers in the face of growing environmental challenges.

Gene editing – also known as new genomic techniques (NGTs) – describes several scientific methods used to alter genomes and genetically engineer certain traits into plants, such as drought tolerance.

After the Commission put forward its vision for how the technology should be handled in the future, it is now over to lawmakers to hash out their positions on the file.

In the Parliament, that job falls on centre-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd – and she is wasting no time doing so, intending to seal a deal on its position on the matter during the January plenary session.

“There is a possibility here to move quickly […] to finalise before the election,” she told Euractiv, pointing out that otherwise, it may “take potentially years before we have a deal”.

The file comes at a politically sensitive time, with several key sustainable agriculture files buckling under the the pressure of the looming EU elections, combined with a concerted pushback from the right in the Parliament. Any file not on the table before the June elections faces an uncertain future in the next Commission and Parliament.

However, her proposed timeline has come under fire from the Socialists, Greens, and Left groups in the Parliament, who warn that it is “way too fast” and too tight for practical matters, such as translation of the text and shadow meetings.

The European Parliament’s agriculture committee is set to vote on its opinion on 11 December. Meanwhile negotiations on compromise amendments have started in the Parliament’s Environment Committee, with a vote pencilled for 11 January, followed by a full plenary vote on 15 January.

But while she acknowledged that this timeline is “ambitious”, Polfjärd maintains it is both feasible and necessary given that the sector faces growing environmental challenges.

“It is more important than ever that we can find new techniques and find crops that are more resistant,” she said, pointing to Europe’s warming and increasingly unpredictable climate, combined with insecurities arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, she stressed that her proposed timeline – which shortens the original timeline by “only three weeks” – has a majority support from the other shadows, while lawmakers on the other side of the coin are pushing even harder.

“The Spanish [EU Council] presidency is even more ambitious than us,” she said, pointing out that they would like to have their position before Christmas. According to sources close to the matter, the presidency is aiming for a general approach in the next meeting of EU ministers, scheduled for 10-11 December.

‘No imposition’ on organic

Among the most controversial amendments proposed in Poljfärd’s draft report is one which would permit the use of category 1 NGT plants in organic production.

According to the Commission’s proposal, NGT-based plants that are indistinguishable from ones obtained by conventional breeding (category 1) should be treated like their conventional counterparts, while ones with more ‘complex modifications’ (category 2) would be subject to stricter requirements.

The move has drawn the ire of organic farmers, and the EU organic’s association, IFOAM, who have repeatedly stressed that coexistence between the two systems is impossible.

“It would be shocking if MEPs decided to delete the ban of NGTs in organic production and impose the use of NGTs to all producers in Europe, organic or not,” Jan Plagge, president of IFOAM Organics, said in a statement on 6 December.

Despite this, the rapporteur maintains that organic farmers are “divided” on the issue. “I know it’s a sensitive issue even within the organic farmers, [also with] discussions within themselves as they are divided,” she said.

For this reason, she argued, it is “important to give the possibility for those who want to use it”.

“There is nothing that forces them to use this. But it’s important to embrace also those organic farmers who want to do this,” she said, maintaining that it is “not an imposition on anyone, it’s just enabling”.

Another contentious point is on labelling requirements, both for seeds and food.

In a joint statement published on Tuesday (5 December), a coalition of scientists called for mandatory traceability and labelling “all the way through up to the consumers”, stressing that all food chain actors should be provided with full transparency about NGT plants and their usage at different stages of food and feed production.

However, for Polfjärd, labelling on seeds would be redundant as it would subject them to additional and ‘discriminatory’ burdens. “If NGT plans are to be seen as conventional-like, they should not have any additional elements of a regulatory burden, they should follow the same regulatory pipeline.”

However, on the consumer side of the food chain, the rapporteur said she is open to exploring “consumer friendly” ways to label gene edited food, suggesting the use of a QR code to help inform consumers.

Striking the right balance between safeguarding consumer trust and watering down the proposal will “be a subject for the negotiations,” she added.

Meanwhile, asked whether she saw labelling as a potential sweetener in the negotiations for those opposed to the proposal, the rapporteur said she saw it as a likely point “where the discussion will end” but that it was “too early in the negotiation process to say”.

[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]

Read more with EURACTIV