No to pesticide cuts? No gene editing proposal, Commission official warns

The EU executive could reconsider the presentation of its forthcoming gene editing proposal if the European Parliament rejects plans to slash the risk and use of pesticides, a Commission official told EURACTIV.

The comments come on the back of the decision of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) to reject two crucial proposals under the Green Deal – the sustainable use of pesticides regulation (SUR) and the nature restoration law (NRL) – over food security concerns.

The contentious-but-ambitious SUR proposal aims to slash the use and risk of pesticides in half by 2030, as set out in the EU’s flagship food policy, the Farm to Fork strategy, while the NRL aims to restore the EU’s degraded ecosystems.

Together, the two form foundational pillars of the political ambitions to restore Europe’s nature by 2050.

For the Commission official, who spoke to EURACTIV off the record, the two proposals go hand in hand with its forthcoming proposal on new genomic techniques (NGTs).

“If the European Parliament says they reject the sustainable use of pesticides regulation, what is really the need to have this proposal on NGTs?” the official queried.

This is because there is “clearly a connection” between reducing chemical pesticides and bringing the NGTs into play, the official explained, noting that they are “one of the responses” to the necessity of reducing the chemical pesticides.

Gene editing describes a number of new scientific methods used to alter genomes with the aim of genetically engineering certain traits into plants. This includes pest resistance, which researchers hope can lower the amount of pesticides used.

The Commission’s long-awaited proposal on whether to loosen EU rules on new genetic techniques is expected in the second quarter of 2023 – but this could change given the recent pushback, according to the official.

“If the chemical pesticides proposal is down, then what really is the added value of the NGTs?” the official asked, adding that the proposal should only be tabled for the ‘right reasons’, with fears of being ‘left behind’ not counting.

“The reasons cannot be that we need to table this because the Chinese and the Americans are doing it,” they said, pointing out that they have chosen to cultivate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while the EU has not, and “we have been perfectly fine without”.

Instead, it should be driven by the “added value of having the NGTs in the market”, noting that there is little point, otherwise, in bringing “another extremely polarised debate into the equation”.

Berlin split on gene editing ahead of Commission proposal

One month before the European Commission is expected to propose a deregulation of certain gene editing techniques, the German governing coalition remains unable to find common ground and might be forced to abstain.

A ‘package’ approach

The comments are unlikely to please those on the centre-right of the Parliament, who have long been vocal advocates of gene editing technology, nor industry players, the latter of which recently wrote to the Commission to reiterate their support for the Commission’s plans for a legislative proposal on NGTs.

Advocating an ‘enabling and proportionate’ regulatory framework for the technology, the signatories, which include the likes of the EU farmers’ association COPA-COGECA and Euroseeds, representing the European seed sector, maintain the technology is poised to become a key tool for delivering plant genetic improvements in the decades to come.

The withholding of the gene editing proposal, if the EPP continues its ‘crusade’ against the Green Deal, is backed by leading liberal MEP Pascal Canfin, who also chairs the European Parliament’s environment committee (ENVI).

“If I were [Commission Vice President] Timmermans, I would not put my proposal for NBTs [new breeding techniques] on the table in June in that context,” he told EURACTIV, adding that he is sure the Commission will be “much more reluctant to go for NBTs if the EPP is trying to kill the whole package”.

As with the Commission official, the MEP believes that there is “no reason to have NBTs” if the problem is not recognised by those on the centre-right.

“If there is no problem, there is no solution needed,” they said, pointing out that NBTs play a key role in reducing dependency on pesticides and the two “are deeply connected”.

As such, the liberal MEP advocates a ‘package approach’ to climate resilience which comprises both nature and technological-based solutions.

“The only way to move forward is precisely to package the two to provide new solutions for farmers,” the official said.

Tactical timing

Meanwhile, the Commission official also lambasted the EPP’s timing, saying this was “not accidental”.

“We have to be aware of the fact that 11 million farmers are now filling in applications for CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] direct payments, and the deadline is 15 May,” they said, noting that this is when frustrations over red tape and bureaucracy are at their peak.

“Let’s see after 15 May whether this narrative is going to stay, but I what I want to make very, very clear is that we’re not letting go,” the official said, adding that they “have a lot of friends in the European Parliament who are also not giving up the fight”.

“So we will continue with the agenda,” they said.

EU lawmaker: If Green Deal crumbles, it is on the centre-right's head

The ‘crusade’ against the agricultural elements of the Green Deal by the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) risks upsetting the balance of the established pro-European majority, according to leading liberal MEP Pascal Canfin, who urged the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to step in. 

[Edited by Gerardo Fortuna/Nathalie Weatherald]

Read more with Euractiv

EU food systems law proposal hits first stumbling block

The impact assessment on the proposal future framework for sustainable food systems (FSFS) has failed to win approval from the Commission's quality control board, according to sources, although this is not expected to delay the presentation of the proposal.