The European Union is looking to streamline some agricultural regulations using a framework, dubbed a "Competitiveness Compass," to advance reforms aimed at deregulating new genomic techniques, while also seeking to simplify the implementation of the EU's antideforestation rules.
In a dense 26-page document packed with policy recommendations, Brussels laid out its vision for global economic competition — proposing regulatory cuts and simplified environmental rules.
“The regulatory burden has become a brake on Europe’s competitiveness,” the document states, citing data that two-thirds of businesses see it as an obstacle to long-term investment.
As part of this effort, the European Commission will reevaluate corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence directives, which currently require businesses to disclose their environmental impact.
Despite these economic priorities, EC President Ursula von der Leyen has reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to the Green Deal, a broad effort to reduce the union's environmental footprint. However, the EU Agriculture Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food plan — released last month — has led many in Brussels to view the Farm to Fork strategy as effectively dead.
The plan aims to balance von der Leyen’s environmental goals with the economic realities of farming. It scraps the proposed sustainable pesticide use regulation, including the original goal of halving pesticide use, while retaining plans to review animal welfare legislation and accelerate the adoption of biopesticides as alternatives, as reported by Agri-Pulse.
Asked about Farm to Fork’s “death,” EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen told reporters, “The way of working has clearly changed towards those reductions that are needed.”
Now in Brussels, new GMOs and the Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) have become part of the simplification wave.
Europe advances plans for 'new GMO' deregulation
The European Union Council passed its official negotiating mandate on new genomic techniques, or NGTs, last week, a formal authorization allowing it to begin negotiations with its other legislative bodies after a year-long political gridlock.
If passed, it would create new regulatory pathways that could ditch the GMO label for NGT category 1 plants, those that were developed through conventional breeding methods or naturally.
Under the new rulings, NGT 1 plants — those derived from targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, such as CRISPR-Cas9 — would be exempt from the current GMO legislation. The only requirement would be labeling seeds, and then a single verification process, as outlined by the European Commission.
Like what you see on the Agri-Pulse website? See even more ag and rural policy news when you sign up for a four-week free trial Agri-Pulse subscription.
Others, known as NGT 2 plants, would remain subject to the current GMO legislative framework of risk assessments, authorization and monitoring.
Currently, no authorized crops or animals from NGTs are sold as food or animal feed in the EU.
The European Commission originally proposed NGT reforms, which the European Parliament advanced with patent restrictions and organic seed protections. Last week, under Poland's presidency, the Council passed its position, moving the proposal into trilogue discussions — an informal negotiation involving representatives of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.
In a statement, COPA-COGECA, Europe’s largest farming organization, said the advancement of this legislation will “revitalize European seed production and offer new opportunities to farmers and cooperatives by providing access to crop varieties that are more resistant to droughts and diseases.”
Debate between the EU legislative bodies will center on which pathways are patentable and whether they should be banned from organic production.
The commission did not include patentability in its original proposal, while the parliament plan pushes for fully prohibiting patenting of the new pathways, and much of the council wants to allow patenting with the caveat that it must be publicly noticed.
For organic production, parliament agrees that all NGT plants should remain prohibited. The council's proposal suggests that member states should have the option to adopt measures restricting category 1 NGTs in organic production and banning the cultivation of category 2 NGT plants in certain territories. Additionally, it stipulates that tolerance to herbicides cannot be one of the traits for category 1 NGT plants.
Eric Ball, deputy director of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, said that his organization convinced the European Parliament that NGTs “are not compatible with the principles of organic production and should therefore be prohibited in organic farming.” However, many organic growers and breeders fear these discussions are being rushed and are unhappy NGTs could enter the authorized market as what they consider a “new GMO.”
Key national organizations like France’s health agency, ANSES, and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, BfN, have voiced concerns over what they see as the risk of such new techniques but have not provided evidence to support the concerns. Nevertheless, France eventually voted with the council to move the proposal forward.
Organic farmers fear that NGTs could increase corporate control over seeds through patents, restricting farmers' rights to save and exchange seeds — a principle of organic farming.
The timeline for final approval remains uncertain, depending on whether negotiations conclude under Poland’s council presidency or extend into Denmark’s leadership of the council in the second half of the year. Both governments are right-leaning, which could influence the final shape of the reforms.
Lessening the burden of the deforestation regulation
“You may see the EU deforestation regulation being caught in this wave [simplification] too,” Anton van den Brink, deputy secretary general of the European Feed Manufacturers' Federation, said. That would be a benefit for agricultural producers in countries that export to Europe.
Anton van den BrinkThe deforestation regulation, or EUDR, restricts imports of 300 products derived from seven commodities unless they are certified deforestation-free. They include cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber and soybeans. Initially set to take effect at the end of 2024, the regulation was delayed until this Dec. 30 to give more time to comply. Lobbying efforts in Europe are seeking modification.
The European Landowners' Organization says there is room for adjustment and simplification.
“We were able to clarify certain definitions and improve the text,” ELO Director General Jurgen Tack said. “Even with limitations, our goal remains to simplify the regulation where possible.”
Originally developed by environmental ministries in isolation, the rules were agreed to in 2021 and formally adopted in 2023 — “lightning speed for Brussels legislation,” said van den Brink. “We've had very little chance to provide input or even access the conversation.”
The one-year delay will help businesses develop traceability protocols to avoid fines.
Industry leaders fear that supply chain disruptions could be significant. “Even if the legislation is postponed, money has already been spent on bureaucracy and there has been a transfer of costs,” van den Brink said.
“You see some big companies that will say, ‘We are ready and let's go for it,’” fostering a common misconception. Just because a large company is prepared doesn’t mean the legislation is inherently good; the entire sector and each commodity must be considered, he said.
“There are companies that have spent millions of euros just to build the systems to prove EUDR compliance. … Not every company has that capacity.”
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
.png?1716326054)
