Poland pushes to get plant gene editing reforms over the line

Poland has thrown its weight behind efforts to reform EU rules on genetically modified plants after including the dossier on its list of presidency priorities. Proposed by the European Commission in 2023, the reforms were beginning to show signs of neglect. 

The European Parliament reached a common position on the dossier in April 2024, but until now EU governments have not been able to reach a qualified majority. Their common position is required before trilogue discussions can begin and the reforms progress to becoming law.

“As an honest broker, the Polish presidency has a duty to seek a compromise position in the Council, and this is exactly what we are trying to do,” a diplomat told Science|Business.

Being able to harness the benefits of gene edited plants is seen as important for both European competitiveness and food security. Gene editing makes it possible to design or enhance traits of interest in existing plant species, improving the nutritional profile of crops and increasing their resistance to disease or harsh climatic conditions such as drought and flooding.

Warsaw submitted a compromise text in January. Following discussions at the technical level, it is due to be considered by a Council working party on genetic resources and innovation in agriculture meeting tomorrow, February 14.

Feedback from the member states is expected to come in over the next few months. “We will continue to work on the proposal to find the right balance,” the diplomat said. 

If talks are successful, the results could be presented at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting in June. But with such a divisive issue, nothing can be taken for granted.

According to Mute Schimpf, a food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe who is tracking the dossier, there is “a clear blocking minority” made up of France, Germany, Romania, Greece, Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Slovakia, which do not currently support Poland’s new text.

A spokesperson for biotech multinational Bayer, however, is more optimistic that the governments will find some common ground. “We understand that the mood remains constructive, with most parties firmly committed to finding agreement,” they said to Science|Business.

New genes, new rules

The Commission proposal back in 2023 was an attempt to revisit EU rules on genetically modified plants in the light of new genomic techniques (NGTs) such as gene editing that have come to the fore since the rules were drawn up. Considered more controlled and predictable than older transgenic techniques, NGTs are still caught in the EU regulations that impose strict controls on genetically modified crops.

The Commission’s suggestion is to create two categories for plants created by NGTs. Category 1 covers plants that are genetically altered but are “like” those produced by conventional breeding methods, and these will be exempt from regulation as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). All other NGT plants fall under Category 2, and must stick to the GMO rules.

Both politicians and civil society were quick to voice concerns on contentious issues such as the arbitrary distinction of the two categories, the lack of traceability and labelling and, therefore, of transparency for consumers, the potential loss of member states’ right to ban their cultivation and, most importantly, the patenting of NGT plants.

In the end, MEPs backed the proposal, but only after introducing a ban on patents to avoid giving multinational seed companies greater control over natural resources, which could ultimately push farmers and breeders into the arms of private firms.

The new Polish proposal attempts a more nuanced approach. On patents, it distinguishes between process patents protecting basic technologies and process patents resulting in a trait of interest. This is to “strike a balance between protection of innovations in the field of basic technologies and the freedom to use the broadest possible pool of material for breeding purposes.”

It has also included the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the use of Category 1 NGT plants for cultivation, if they choose.

Opinion still divided

The Polish initiative has done little to address the concerns of those who find the whole approach misguided. 

“The idea to fix intellectual property rights issues via a GMO law isn’t best practice in law making,” Schimpf said. She also thinks that the impact of the legislation on farmers’ and breeders’ access to genetic material should have been assessed.

The lack of risk assessment for Category 1 plants remains a concern for Nina Holland, a researcher at campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory. “It will be unhelpful for a transition to sustainable food production if NGTs are not assessed for risks, and if they spur an increase in corporate domination over the food chain,” she said. 

Anything that tends to produce monocultures should be treated with caution. “For climate resilience, we need a larger diversity of crops that are adapted to local circumstances, and that are less uniform,” Holland added. “That is contrary to how the biggest biotech seed firms develop their genetically modified varieties.”

Meanwhile, the plant breeding industry has its own concerns. 

“The aim should be to stimulate a maximum dispersal of innovations at lowest possible transaction costs,” said Petra Jorasch, manager for plant breeding innovation advocacy with lobby group Euroseeds. “This will not be possible by disrupting the common EU seed market with an opt-out option for member states, and with that preventing access for breeders and farmers to NGT innovations and products.”

Bayer agrees that it is not in the EU’s interest to deny farmers and breeders access to NGTs. It also sees a worrying technology gap emerging between Europe and its competitors. 

“While other regions, such as the US and China, continue to advance rapidly in this field, the EU’s share of research and investment in genome editing has been steadily declining,” the company spokesperson said. “An enabling regulatory framework is an essential step to take for the EU to close this innovation gap.”