NGT Deregulation Nears Final Vote as Concerns Grow Over Transparency, Patents and Pollinator Protection
- Apr 28
- 4 min read
Language Note: this article is originally written in English.
Automated translations may contain inaccuracies. For precise information, please refer to the English text. We appreciate your patience.
The EU is approaching a final vote on new rules that would deregulate most genetically modified crops developed through New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). Critics warn the proposal would remove labelling, traceability and risk assessment for the majority of these products - raising concerns for transparency, pollinators and farmers. Civil society is mobilising through the campaign “Blacked-Out Ingredients - Label gene-edited food!”, while BeeLife highlights concrete risks for beekeeping and ecosystem protection.
What is at stake in the EU’s NGT regulation
The European Union is entering the final phase of adopting its new regulation on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), a legislative shift that could fundamentally reshape the rules governing genetically modified organisms in Europe.
Following the conclusion of trilogue negotiations, the file is now heading towards a final plenary vote in the European Parliament, provisionally scheduled for 19 May. If approved without changes, the regulation will be formally adopted.
A decisive political timeline
Key milestones in the coming weeks include:
29 April – announcement of the Council’s first reading in plenary
30 April – deadline for Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to table amendments ahead of the ENVI Committee vote
5 May – vote in the ENVI Committee
13 May – deadline for amendments ahead of plenary
19 May – final vote in plenary (to be confirmed)
At this stage, the process is often described as a “rubber-stamping exercise”. However, political tensions remain high.
A controversial attempt to reopen the debate
In an unusual move, French MEP Christophe Clergeau (S&D) is attempting to reintroduce amendments to the agreed text, focusing in particular on patents.
The Parliament had originally called for a ban on patents on NGT plants, but the final compromise allows them, relying instead on a future voluntary code of conduct. Critics argue this falls far short of addressing concerns around market concentration and farmers’ rights.
Clergeau warns that without stronger safeguards, the regulation could lead to:
increased dependency on large corporations,
reduced choice for farmers,
higher prices,
and the gradual disappearance of small breeders.
His proposal aims to:
protect farmers from legal action linked to patented seeds,
strengthen oversight of licensing practices.
However, reopening the text would delay the legislative process — a prospect strongly opposed by supporters of the current deal, including lead negotiator Jessica Polfjärd (EPP).
Patents, traceability and labelling at the heart of the debate
Beyond patents, key amendments expected ahead of the plenary vote include:
traceability provisions,
labelling requirements,
safeguards originally proposed in Parliament but weakened during negotiations.
Civil society organisations and some MEPs are calling for measures to ensure that patented NGT products remain detectable, so that farmers and operators are not exposed to legal risks without the means to verify the presence of patented traits.
A system with fewer safeguards
Under the proposed regulation, NGT-1 plants — expected to account for the majority of new genetically modified crops — would be treated as equivalent to conventional crops and exempt from:
risk assessment,
traceability,
labelling on final products,
post-market monitoring.
Only a smaller category (NGT-2) would remain subject to existing GMO rules.
Critics argue that this creates a significant transparency gap, with most genetically modified products potentially entering the food chain without consumer awareness.
Civil society mobilises
In response, a coalition of 52 organic, environmental and consumer organisations has launched the international campaign “Blacked-Out Ingredients — Label gene-edited food!”.
The campaign highlights a simple but powerful message:consumers have the right to know what is in their food.
Its visual symbol — food labels with blacked-out ingredients — reflects what critics see as the real risk of the proposal: not just deregulation, but the systematic removal of transparency from the food chain.
For over two decades, public opinion has remained clear: more than 85% of European citizens support mandatory GMO labelling, including for new genomic techniques. More than 520,000 citizens have already signed petitions calling for transparency.
Despite this, the current proposal would remove labelling requirements for the vast majority of NGT plants, effectively reducing the level of information available to consumers.
Beyond labels: implications for pollinators, consumers, beekeepers and farmers
The debate goes beyond consumer information. It raises broader questions about:
the future structure of the seed market,
the autonomy of farmers,
the protection of biodiversity,
and the resilience of pollinator-dependent systems.
For beekeeping, the lack of traceability raises specific concerns. If NGT-1 crops cannot be tracked, it becomes impossible to determine whether bees have foraged on them — creating uncertainty for honey producers, legal inconsistencies within EU food law, and tangible risks for market access.
A narrowing window for action
With the final vote approaching, the outcome remains uncertain. Amendments would require a majority of 361 MEPs — a challenging but not impossible threshold.
Civil society organisations are considering public mobilisation in Strasbourg ahead of the plenary vote, underlining the growing concern around the direction of EU policy.Critics warn that the proposal does not merely modernise GMO legislation, but actively reduces existing safeguards, marking a significant shift in EU food policy.
As one campaign representative put it: “It’s not just labels that are being removed — it is the freedom to choose what we eat.”
A turning point for EU food policy
The NGT regulation represents a pivotal moment.
The question facing policymakers is no longer only about innovation, but about who controls the food system and how much citizens are allowed to know about it.
For BeeLife and many stakeholders, the answer remains clear: innovation must go hand in hand with transparency, traceability and the precautionary principle.
Without these safeguards, Europe risks not only ecological blind spots — but also a loss of public trust in its food system.
