Why Farmers Are Sounding the Alarm on EU Deregulation?
The European Parliament’s recent decision to authorize the commercialization of plants derived from New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) marks a turning point for European agriculture. After three years of intensive debate, the vote paves the way for a new generation of genetically modified organisms to enter the market, potentially as early as 2027. However, for peasant organizations such as our member organization, Confédération Paysanne in France, part of the European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC), this legislative shift is viewed not as progress, but as a calculated dismantling of food safety and farmers’ autonomy.
The core of the controversy begins with the terminology itself. From the perspective of peasant movements, the term “NGT” functions primarily as a marketing label aimed at rebranding genetically modified organisms. While the industry highlights biological nuances such as mutagenesis or cisgenesis, ECVC maintains that these techniques remain, fundamentally, GMOs. “In reality, the organisms that are obtained by NGTs are GMOs, and even the new regulation defines them as such” notes Jean-Mathieu Thevenot, a representative for ECVC, who argues the new label was created specifically because traditional GMOs are widely rejected by European citizens.
One of the most significant grievances raised by ECVC is the total suppression of traceability and detection methods. Under the new regulations, GMO plants could be sold without specific labeling, meaning farmers may plant them and consumers may eat them without ever being informed. This lack of transparency effectively neuters the precautionary principle, a cornerstone of European environmental and health law.
The organization warns that by removing the ability to track these products, the industry is also removing the ability to study their long-term health and environmental impacts. Furthermore, the move replaces the legally and scientifically established precautionary principle with a loosely defined “innovation principle,” which peasants argue lacks any rigorous legal or scientific standing.
Beyond health concerns, the peasant movement identifies a massive economic threat: the shift toward patents on life. Currently, European seeds are largely governed by the Plant Variety Rights (PVR) system. The new regulation, however, facilitates a transition to a classical patent system for genetic traits, as NGTs and the products are considered as “innovative technical processes”, and therefore patentable. This system gives a full monopoly on the use of the techniques, or products and traits derived from them, to the few companies holding these patents, such as Corteva, Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta, etc.
ECVC warns that, without any traceability requirement, this will lead to an “unavoidable contamination” of non-GMO fields by GMO pollen. Under a patent-heavy regime, a farmer whose fields are accidentally contaminated could face legal prosecution for “patent theft”. This poses an existential risk to the organic sector, which strictly prohibits GMOs; these farmers would bear the financial and logistical burden of protecting their crops from contamination to maintain their certifications. Moreover, if there no possibility to detect and identify NGT-plants, the patent protection may also extend to conventional crops presenting similar characteristics, even if they have been obtained by conventional breeding. This opens the door to a privatisation of plant genetic resources through the patent system.
Climate Change: Technological Fix or Ecological Shift?
Share this article
Proponents of NGTs often cite the climate crisis as a justification, promising “climate-ready” seeds that can withstand drought and heat. ECVC firmly rejects this narrative, pointing out that promises of drought-resistant GMOs have historically gone unfulfilled.
Instead of doubling down on an extractivists and productivist model reliant on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, our peasant movement advocates a return to peasant agroecology. We argue that farmers already possess thousands of traditional seed varieties with the natural genetic capacity to adapt to changing climates, provided they are allowed to work with natural elements rather than against them.
The battle is far from over. The European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) and its allies plan to challenge the application of this law on several fronts. ECVC argues the text violates international treaties, such as the Cartagena Procotol of the Convention on biological diversity, which requires traceability of GMOs. The incompatibility of the proposal with the international obligations of the EU, as well as the legal uncertainties it creates at the EU level, certainly provide ground for legal appeals, in front of national courts or the Court of Justice of the EU. ECVC also notes that, in some contexts, allied movements have engaged in direct actions in the field to highlight environmental risks related to GMOs and to uphold current moratoriums on their cultivation, which are currently active in 17 European countries, but will be cancelled by the new regulation.
Ultimately, ECVC views this as a struggle for the future of the European food system. Peasants are calling for a unified front between farmers and consumers to demand a model based on peasant agroecology and food sovereignty, as well as justice and transparency, rather than one that serves the economic interests of a few seed multinationals. Without intervention, they warn that by 2027, the choice of what to grow and what to eat may no longer belong to the people, but to the patent holders.
A version of this article was originally posted at La Via Campesina and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find Conversation on X @via_campesina
