Niveau juridique : Union européenne
Extraits du communiqué :
« After the publication of the legislative proposal on so-called “New Genomic Techniques”, the policy process in the European Union institutions is in full swing. With the Spanish presidency of the European Council calling progress on the file “a matter of life or death” and the recent reveal of the tight deadlines in the European Parliament, the organic sector must be on high alert and put its advocacy efforts in full gear.
What are these new GMOs or so-called New Genomic Techniques?
In brief, genetic engineering is a breeding tool which deliberately alters the genetic material of plants, microorganisms, or animals to confer certain desired traits – creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). So far, GMOs are mainly modified to either withstand the spraying of weedkillers such as glyphosate, produce their own pesticide (BT toxins), or both. A new generation of GMOs, called “New Genomic Techniques” (NGTs), which can make direct modification in the crop’s DNA itself entered the market about a decade ago. Problematically, they are not as precise as claimed, trigger unwanted effects, and their consequences remain poorly understood.
Organic movement unified against old and new GMOs at EU and international level
Because of the potential risks and consequences of old and new GMOs, the use of NGTs conflicts with the precautionary principle. So, as the Commission’s draft proposal also reflects, the use of gene editing technologies is not aligned with the principles of organic agriculture. Furthermore, organic producers have to fulfill consumers’ expectations that no Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are used in the organic production process.
The organic movement has been clear on its position on genetic engineering. IFOAM – Organics International, the global organic movement, unanimously adopted a position paper in 2017 at its General Assembly in New Delhi. This position paper explains the views of organic producers on so-called “new breeding techniques”. At the European level, IFOAM Organics Europe adopted a resolution at its 2023 General Assembly, in which organic breeders, farmers, processors, certifiers, traders, and retailers demand the preservation of their freedom of choice to remain GMO-free. As our briefing paper on organic breeding also states, the organic movement believes that while sustainability-driven innovation in plant breeding is necessary, it is misguided and harmful to reduce it to the tweaking of the DNA of a single crop or variety. The rich experience in organic agriculture over the past decades shows that an agroecological perspective of our food systems, relying on a combination of strategies and tools and on ecosystem interactions, is what creates long-term resilience. Exemplified with two case studies, organic breeding thrives on a system-based approach with biodiversification and ecosystems’ health at its core. (…)
The organic movement’s 3 key concerns
1. IFOAM Organics Europe emphasizes the importance of the explicit ban of all NGTs for the purposes of organic production in the legislative proposal to deliver much-needed legal clarity and establish of essential safeguards of GM-free production.
2. The ban of Category 1 and Category 2 NGT crops in organic food and farming needs to be underpinned by the appropriate legal framework and technical means, which is not currently the case in the Commission’s proposal.
-
For Category 1 NGT crops, the proposed provisions on transparency at the seed level are necessary but not sufficient. Traceability measures are needed throughout the whole supply chain to enable food processors and operators to avoid the accidental or unavoidable adventitious presence of NGTs in their production process.
-
The NGT proposal needs to provide a clear legal basis for Member States to take national and regional coexistence measures for both Category 1 and 2 NGTs. Member States must have all legal means to ensure and implement adapted and crop-specific coexistence rules in their territory, including the right to ban the cultivation of NGTs in areas where coexistence is practically or economically not feasible. Another measure needed for a functioning coexistence regime is the introduction of a strict liability system and a compensation fund to compensate farmers in the event of contamination. Overall, for both Category 1 and Category 2 NGTs, it is important that any additional financial and legal burden to ensure the GMO-free status of production does not fall on farmers and operators who do not wish to use NGTs.
3. The impact that eliminating mandatory identification and traceability of NGTs would have on the European model of innovation in breeding is highly concerning. For a further explanation of the connection between patents on traits and genetic material and NGTs, see for example, this joint NGO letter from July 2023. Beyond significant legal uncertainties and a further market concentration in the breeding sector, the increase of patents will also stifle innovation in the breeding sector and reduce choices for farmers and consumers. The European Commission’s plan to publish a market analysis of the impact of patents on the breeding sector by 2026 is clearly too late and insufficient to address this imminent problem. Policymakers must refrain from taking any step that could facilitate the commercialisation of more patented plant varieties before the issues connected to patents on conventional traits and plant material are resolved. Since all plant reproductive material that has been modified with genetic engineering (including NGT) can be assumed to be covered by a patent, the mandatory traceability system at least provides a minimum of information on whether a given piece of genetic material or product was genetically modified. In turn, this allows breeders and farmers to avoid using such material, and therefore be protected from legal threats related to patent infringements, or from paying royalties to patent owners. (…) »
Lien vers la page du communiqué ICI