On 5 July 2023, the European Commission presents the proposal for deregulation of the new GMOs (NGTs), without considering the risks for biodiversity and the environment, the health of humans and animals, pollinating insects. (1)
Civil society – through coalitions Save Bees and Farmers, European Beekeeping Coordination, Greenpeace Europe, Italy Free from GMOs among others – raises the alarm, without however being listened to. (2) Life science and democracy failure.
1) Deregulation of the new GMOs, NGTs. The proposal of the European Commission
The proposal di deregulation of the new GMOs or NGTs (New Genomic Techniques) is based on the unproven industry hypothesis Biotech – endorsed by the European Commission – which deduces the 'indistinguishability' and even the 'equivalence' compared to plant organisms obtained with traditional methods of selection. (3)
1.1) New GMOs or NGTs, concept
'For 'NGT plant' means a genetically modified plant obtained by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis, intragenesis or a combination of the two. Provided that the NGT plant does not contain any genetic material from outside the breeders' gene pool that may have been temporarily inserted during the development of the NGT plant' (proposal for a regulation, Article 3.1.1).
The new GMOs or NGTs as defined above, they therefore include plants obtained through:
- 'targeted mutagenesis', which involve modifications of the DNA sequence in 'precise' points of the genome of an organism,
- 'cisgenesis'. Insertion into the organism's genome of an 'exact' copy of genetic material already present in the 'pool genetics of the breeders‘,
- 'intragenesis'. Insertion into the genome of a 'rearranged' copy of genetic material composed of two or more DNA sequences present in the 'pool genetics of the breeders'.
1.2) Random concepts
Nobody of concepts has so far been clearly defined, nor are there experiences or scientific evidence capable of demonstrating a lower level of risk compared to other genetic modifications. Indeed, some definitions have been introduced for the express purpose of extending the deregulation tailored to the industry Biotech.
Thegene pool of breeders' for example it is defined as the set of genetic information available in a species and in the other taxonomic species with which it can be crossed, also through advanced techniques such as embryo rescue, induced polyploidy and bridge crossings.
1.3) 'Equivalence' to conventional plants
The Commission thus proposes to consider the new GMOs or NGTs'of category 1' as equivalent to plants obtained by traditional breeding techniques, provided that they:
- have been made with no more than 20 different genetic insertions per plant (up to 20 nucleotides), any number of DNA deletions or inversions, and the introduction of DNA sequences from the so-called 'reproductive gene pool’,
- are not designed to achieve new GMO or NBT herbicide tolerance.
1.4) Deregulation
La deregulation of the new 'category 1' GMOs or NBTs involves:
- exemption from any risk assessment, in defiance of the precautionary principle (Paper 191.2 TFEU). Manufacturers will be able to simply notify the national authorities and obtain that the related information is handled confidentially,
- absence of a unique identifier of the new GMO or other methods useful for tracing its traits and their propagation in the environment,
- derogation from the requirements of traceability, with all due respect to citizens' rights to make informed purchasing and consumption choices
- labeling of seeds only, with the obligation to indicate 'new genomic technique category 1' and the option to add any claim on their hypothetical properties,
- no information on the label of agricultural and food products that contain or are derived from the new GMOs or NBTs.
Other NGTs, made with even more substantial DNA insertions, would instead be subject to a 'soft risk assessment'. And the Commission aspires to reserve for itself the power to modify crucial aspects of the proposal, through implementing acts removed from the consent of Parliament and the Council.
2) Food sovereignty in smoke
Member States will gladly renounce the food sovereignty proclaimed at random, because:
- the proposed regulation excludes their ability to prohibit the cultivation of new GMOs or NBTs in their territories,
- national administrations will only be able to establish measures aimed at mitigating accidental contamination.
experience moreover it teaches – as explained by the scientific director of BeeLife Noa Simon – that already 'the genetically modified material from old GMOs pollutes areas far from where the plants are grown, with the contribution of pollinating insects which favor their spread'. (2)
3) Unavoidable contaminations
Cross contamination new GMOs are inevitable and will make it impossible to distinguish traditional plants from NGTs. Furthermore, the modified genetic material can be transmitted to wild plants of the same species, with effects on the genome, physiology and metabolism of plants that are difficult to predict. (4)
The productions biological products will in turn be exposed to further risks, since GMO contaminations are not allowed and can nevertheless occur due to cross contamination. As a result, producers who have dedicated years to preserving biodiversity risk losing their organic certification due to accidental causes. (5)
4) Pesticides galore, pollinating insects at risk
The big scam of old and new GMOs – as already demonstrated in the ebook 'GMOs, the big scam' LINK – pertains to their function. So far, in most cases, at the service of the pesticide industry which is in the hands of the same global monopolists. In confirmation of this, the report of Food Watch (2023) observes how in recent years of research on new GMOs or NBTs, often financed with public funds, no scientific studies aimed at reducing the use of pesticides have been published. (6)
World Biodiversity Council in turn underlined the need for a specific assessment of the risks caused by the new GMOs or NBTs to pollinating insects precisely to avoid, once again, that ignorance - or the bad faith characteristic of Big Ag, Now Big 4 (7,8) – cause further genocides of bees and other pollinating insects. Just as was the case thirty years ago, recalls Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of #Savethebees and the Farmers, when the same Corporation they introduced seeds treated with pesticides, promising they could even protect bees.
5) Farmers in slavery
Farmers will be definitively forced into slavery by the global monopolists of seeds (as well as pesticides, the notorious Big 4), which will retain patents e royalties on the plants they grow. This is already the case for 'club variety' apples, the cultivation of which is permitted only through a license and is subject to restrictions on the freedom of enterprise such as the ban on direct sales and on extending the cultivated area. Rather than the duty to manage their trees according to the contract and to respect certain fruit quality criteria (e.g. shape, size, colour).
If they will be granted patents on NTGs, all plants presenting the edited gene will be covered by patent. And farmers could be denied the rights to their seeds and plants – to reproduce them, trade them, improve their resistance to climate change through traditional breeding techniques – if they carry such genes, even if only due to unintentional cross-contamination. But mass agricultural confederations – Copa-Cogeca in the EU, Coldiretti in Italy – continue to cheer for the new GMOs or NBTs, as their own consortia profit from the sale of seeds and pesticides, at the expense of the farmers themselves.
Dario Dongo
#notinournames!
Footnotes
(1) 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.arc2020.eu/leak-draft-ngt-regulation-and-impact-assessment-revealed/
(2) Greenpeace EU, 'Save bees and Farmers' ECI coalition, BeeLife. Unscientific deregulation of GMOs puts bees and nature at risk and violates consumer rights. BeeLife. 28.6.2023. https://www.bee-life.eu/post/unscientific-deregulation-of-gmos-puts-bees-and-nature-at-risk-and-violates-consumer-rights
(3) Alessandra Mei. Via Campesina unmasks the rhetoric on 'new GMOs' in 12 points. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(4) Dario Dongo, Riccardo Clerici, Silvia Comunian. New GMOs, it is essential to strengthen the risk analysis. Scientific review. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 14.6.20
(5) Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labeling of organic products. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R0848 See art. 11
(6) Food watch. New Genome Techniques (NGT) – A risky corporate distraction from real sustainable solutions. https://www.foodwatch.org/fileadmin/-INT/pesticides/2023-01-30_foodwatch_Pesticides_and_NGTSs.pdf 31.1.23
(7) Dario Dongo. How the agrochemical industry hides the toxicity of pesticides. New studies. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 13.6.23
(8) Dario Dongo. Seeds, the 4 masters of the world. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade). 15.1.19
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
