EU Negotiations on New Genomic Techniques

BeeLife’s perspective on the provisional political agreement

On 3rd December, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement on the regulation of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), a step framed by EU institutions as necessary to boost competitiveness, accelerate innovation, and enhance the sustainability of European food systems. However, opportunities come with risks, which is why defining the regulatory framework is of utmost importance. The deal introduces a two-tier system to regulate plants obtained via NGTs, promising simplified procedures for NGT1, plants that are considered “equivalent to conventional varieties”, and retaining current GMO rules for NGT2 modifications.

Some EU countries (Denmark, Italy) highlight benefits: increased climate resilience, reduced inputs, faster breeding, but the deal contains profound structural weaknesses that raise red flags for environmental safety, pollinator protection, transparency, and farmers’ rights. Nevertheless, some NGT varieties currently being developed address other commercial concerns (e.g., starch properties of potatoes, poplar with altered wood to serve as a biomass, tobacco ...). From a pollinator-protection and biosafety standpoint, this agreement risks opening the door to widespread, untraceable deployment of synthetic organisms in the EU food chain, at a moment when policymakers are simultaneously weakening the tools needed to detect them and withdraw them from the market if something goes wrong.

NGT1: Deregulation without safeguards

Under the deal, Category 1 NGT plants, those deemed “equivalent to conventional plants”, will be subject to no risk assessment, no monitoring, no traceability, and almost no labelling. Seeds will be labelled, but the plants, food, and feed derived from them will not. This means that:

• Farmers cultivating conventional or organic crops will not know if their neighbouring fields contain NGT1 varieties.

• Food processors, retailers, and consumers lose all ability to choose or avoid products derived from NGT1 organisms.

• Beekeepers whose bees visit these crops will not know if their neighbouring areas (in a radius of approx. 3 km) contain NGT1 varieties.

• Environmental authorities will have no monitoring tools to track unintended effects once NGT1 plants are released.

This creates a systemic blind spot at the very moment the EU is deregulating synthetic organisms whose ecological effects, especially on pollinators, soil microbiomes, and ecosystems, remain insufficiently understood.

Even more worrying, member states are not obliged to implement coexistence measures such as buffer zones, making contamination of organic and GMO-free chains more likely. This leaves sustainable sectors - including beekeeping, pollinator-dependent agriculture, and organic production - vulnerable and legally unprotected.

No risk assessment: a strategic mistake

The absence of any risk assessment for NGT1 plants stands in stark contrast to the demands of scientists and environmental agencies. The argument that modifications “could have occurred naturally” is scientifically misleading: natural occurrence is not a biosafety criterion. Without risk evaluation, monitoring, or traceability, authorities will not be able to detect unexpected ecological impacts, including effects on pollinators, soil organisms, or the spread of traits in wild plant populations.

Moreover, if risks emerge, there is no mechanism to revoke market authorisation for NGT1 plants. This regulatory void deprives society and administrations of the ability to respond to unforeseen problems.

The combination - deregulation + loss of detection capacity - creates a structural vulnerability in Europe’s biosafety architecture. It undermines our ability to protect pollinators, ecosystems, food chains, and public trust.

A small but important win regarding “sustainable criteria”: no herbicide tolerance or insecticide-producing traits in NGT1

One meaningful achievement secured by negotiators is the exclusion of:

• herbicide-tolerance traits

• production of “known” insecticidal substances

Plants engineered to produce insect-killing toxins - which could harm pollinators and beneficial insects - will be relegated to Category 2, where full GMO-style rules apply. However, the fact that the “known” is added justifies the lack of studies and risk assessment before authorisation. Having suffered the unexpected too many times, beekeepers cannot agree on this formulation. European laws are founded on the precautionary principle. If someone wants to make a profit out of a product, the least to be asked is that the collateral impacts of such products are known.

This is a welcome safeguard for bees and wild pollinators, and these traits remain eligible for NGT2 incentives.

NGT2: Opt-out is preserved - but insufficient

For Category 2 NGT plants, the existing GMO framework remains in place: labelling, traceability, authorisations, and the possibility for member states to opt out of cultivation. This opt-out represents one of the few concrete safeguards retained in the final text, but this protection does not cover NGT1 plants - meaning that the vast majority of synthetic organisms generated by NTGs entering the market may bypass all precautionary tools designed to safeguard biodiversity and agriculture.

Political outlook: the deal is not yet final

The trilogue agreement must still be approved by:

• the Council of Agriculture Ministers,

• the European Parliament.

  
  

There is no guaranteed majority. Some countries may oppose (or abstain ) the deal, and many Members of Parliament remain undecided. Given this ongoing political uncertainty, BeeLife, along with civil society, environmental organisations, beekeepers, organic producers, and concerned citizens, will continue to defend biosafety and transparency on this crucial topic until a final vote is secured.

We recognise the potential of biotechnology to contribute to sustainable agriculture, but innovation must be deployed within a robust and transparent risk-management system - not through deregulation that obscures information from farmers, food operators, and consumers, and strips away the tools needed to safeguard ecosystems and pollinator populations.

Innovation must not come at the cost of biosafety

More on the BeeLife position on the NGT Regulation here: BeeLife.2025-Position on NGT-plants