German Green ministers not aligned on EU gene editing deregulation

With the Greens leading both the German agriculture and environment ministries, many expect the country to stand against the Commission’s expected push to deregulate new genomic techniques (NGTs). But agriculture minister Cem Özdemir has so far refused to take sides.

According to the European Commission’s most recent agenda, the EU executive is set to table its long-awaited verdict on whether or not to loosen EU rules on gene editing in early June this year.

The term NGTs – or new plant breeding techniques (NBTs) – describes a number of scientific methods used to alter genomes with the aim of genetically engineering certain traits into plants, such as drought tolerance.

There have been various hints that the Commission could back such deregulation. Most recently, it suggested in a letter to EU lawmakers as well as in a recent study on food security that NGTs could help soften the blow of climate and environmental measures such as the proposed 50% reduction in the use of pesticides by 2030.

With key ministries held by the Greens, traditionally known to staunchly oppose gene editing, the German government could become one of the most influential opponents of a potential EU-level push for deregulation – at least in theory.

In practice, agriculture minister Cem Özdemir has not ruled out liberalising gene editing rules.

Commission dangles gene-editing to soften pesticide reduction plan blow

The revision of the EU’s pesticide framework should ‘not be seen in isolation’ from other forthcoming initiatives such as the proposal on new genomic techniques (NGTs), according to the Europen Commission.

Agriculture minister non-committal

“Personally, I am looking into it, I am informing myself, and I am forming my own opinion on the issue,” he said when quizzed about the topic during a joint press conference with Lemke in Berlin on Tuesday (17 January).

He cautioned, however, that the immediate measures to make agriculture more resilient should not be neglected in favour of a “promise of salvation far into the future” offered by the potential of NGTs for boosting food security.

Environment minister Steffi Lemke, on the other hand, took a clear stance against any liberalisation of genomic techniques.

“I find the current regulation to be exactly right because it upholds the precautionary principle,” she said during the press conference, adding that there is “no need for a new revision”.

The precautionary principle means that the use of a specific product, substance or technology – such as certain genomic techniques or genetically modified plants – can only be allowed once it is proven that this will not have negative effects on humans or nature.

Critics worry that this principle might not be upheld if the EU goes ahead with the deregulation of new genomic techniques.

“Genomic techniques can of course also have negative impacts on agriculture: They can lead to unintended effects if plants are equipped with resistances that mean biodiversity is being damaged rather than protected,” Lemke stressed.

German minister: Coalition still unclear on gene editing, animal welfare levy

There is still no agreement in sight within the coalition on several key agricultural issues like gene-editing and the animal welfare levy, German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir revealed in an interview with EURACTIV Germany.

Liberals as tiebreakers

Ever since taking office, and again during Tuesday’s conference, Özdemir and Lemke have sought to project unity and stressed that, with the agriculture and environment ministry in the hands of one single party, farming and conservation can go together.

However, the gene editing issue illustrates differences not only between the approach of the two ministries but also within the Green party.

Its left wing, which Lemke stems from, and much of the party’s base are staunch opponents of gene editing, while the pragmatists within the party, represented by Özdemir, prioritise compromise within the coalition and the EU.

If and how strongly Germany would oppose the deregulation could thus depend on who comes out on top between the two ministers. Here, the Liberals (FDP), one of the Greens’ two coalition partners, have strong feelings on the matter and could potentially act as tiebreakers.

While they do not hold any of the ministries relevant to the matter, FDP representatives have been very vocal in arguing that genomic techniques should be deregulated in order to harness technological progress for food security.

With new breeding technologies, “we can boost yields without risking sustainability,” the party’s vice group chief Carina Konrad, for instance, said earlier this month.

Gene editing, CAP, pesticides: What does 2023 hold for the EU agrifood sector?

After an action-packed 2022 that saw the EU agrifood sector disrupted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, what can we expect from 2023?

[Edited by Gerardo Fortuna/Nathalie Weatherald]

Read more with Euractiv

EU loopholes give free pass to toxic banned pesticides

Banned pesticides deemed toxic to humans and environmental health are still consistently in use in the EU thanks to the routine use of emergency derogations, a new report has found.