b'REGULATORY INCENTIVES for verified conventional-like NGT plantsconventional products, specifically in view The proposal also foresees regulatory incen- as problematic and discriminatory.of unauthorized products. If for imports, tives to potential notifiers or applicants forTogether, the prohibition for organicit is not possible to identify unauthorized category 2 NGT plants and products con- production and the seed bag labellingNGTs with Category 2 changes, it is dis-taining traits with the potential to con- provisions create a third category of plantcriminatory to require GM traceability and tribute to a sustainable agri-food system,products between conventional oneslabelling of such products in the EU. Any in order to steer the development of cat- and GMOs. This is not in line with theCat 2 plant/product that cannot be distin-egory 2 NGT plants towards such traits.approaches taken in other countries andguished from a conventional product should Traits that would be included in regulatorymight create trade issues. The Commissiontherefore be considered as a Category 1 incentives include yield, tolerance/resist- could have taken a much clearer regulatoryNGT plant/product to not again run into ance to biotic stresses, tolerance/resistanceapproach by exempting verified Category 1enforcement issues.to abiotic stresses, resource use efficiencyNGT plants from Directive 2001/18, e.g.,The Verification Process for Category (such as water and nutrients), characteris- by adding them to Annex IB and with that1 Plants must provide legal clarity and tics that enhance the sustainability of stor- being exempted from the GMO legislationshould be foreseeable and reliable. The age, processing and distribution; improvedconsistent with random mutagenesis. EU seed and breeding sector welcomes quality or nutritional characteristics andthat national competent authorities are the the reduced need for external inputs, suchA CONSERVATIVE APPROACHresponsible bodies for conducting the ver-as plant protection products and fertilisers.WITH THE POTENTIAL OFification procedure. This increases accessi-Herbicide tolerance traits would not bePOLITICIZATION bility for SMEs. Nevertheless, the criteria applicable for regulatory incentives (likeWe regret that the Commission took a veryin Annex 1 on which the verification is regulatory advice or waiver of fees forconservative approach regarding the equiv- built need further clarification to allow a SMEs). alence criteria in view of the limited num- common understanding between national The opt-out option for Member Statesbers of genetic changes and the exception ofcompetent authorities and, with this, legal to not allow cultivation of EU-approvedendogenous-gene interruptions for a plantcertainty for developers.GMOs would not be applicable to Categoryto be covered by the equivalency criteria forBreeding companies invest up to 20 2 NGT plants. Cat 1. This discriminates polyploid cropsper cent of their turnover in research and which include multiple copies of the samedevelopment. They rely on legal certainty A FIRST TAKE OF THE EU SEEDgene and for which each modification wouldfor their investments. The verification pro-SECTOR ON THE PROPOSAL be counted separately and against knock-in/ cess should therefore be based on clear cri-The EU seed and breeding sector reiter- knock-out improvements (of disease-resist- teria and the scientific expertise of member ates that any NGT-derived plant which isance for example). A diploid crop with onlystates competent authorities. Any interven-verified as conventional-like should also betwo copies of a gene (alleles) could stilltions by Member States or the Commission subject to the same regulatory frameworkbenefit from being classified in Category 1should be limited to scientifically justified as conventional breeding products. Anywhile the same trait in a polyploid crop withcomments only and not be based on polit-additional requirements would be discrim- several copies of the same gene would leadical considerations.inatory and unjustified. to a Category 2 product. Based on this principle, it is incon- Even though the EFSA concluded thatWHATS NEXT?sistent that conventional-like NGT plantsoff-target effects are of the same nature asThe Commission proposal is only the first, would be considered GMOs for organicchanges occurring by conventional breed- but of course important, step in the legis-farming under the proposed regulationsing, including random mutagenesis, thelative procedure. The proposal will now be (Art 5(2)). This would create additionalCommission proposes to consider off-targetdiscussed by the European Parliament and hurdles for organic breeding and farmingchanges at predictable locations under thethe Council to develop a text that finally as well as legal uncertainty, both for breed- limit of 20 genetic modifications. There is aneeds to be adopted by all three EU insti-ing companies and for traders and wouldrisk that the identification of these off-tar- tutions. Having in mind that the EU has unfairly prohibit organic farming fromgets might discriminate crops (specifi- elections in June 2024, the likelihood that benefitting from any of the NGT-derivedcally smaller crops) for which no referencethe Parliament will conclude its discus-product innovations in plant breeding thatgenome sequence is available. This wouldsions before then is rather limited, but not we expect in the years to come. severely limit the diversity of applicationsimpossible. After an adoption of the reg-Conventional and organicof NGTs and the diversity of crops.ulation, the EU Commission would then agriculturehaveEuroseeds has always highlightedneed to draft and adopt implementing coexisted with- that any GMO-light approach (Categoryacts that make the regulation operational outspecif ic2) is unworkable, specifically for SMEs.by outlining details of the procedures, coexistence rulesTherefore, for Category 2 plants that aredata requirements etc. Only then would or limits. Creatingcovered by such a GMO-light regime,first products be verified, field trialled new barriers wouldthe incentive mechanisms for Category 2and marketed under the new regulatory result in numerousauthorizations will be ineffective. regime.measures being takenWe also have serious doubts aboutThe resurrection of plant breeding by farmers and wouldenforceability in regard to detection andinnovation in the EU has been initiated by increase costs across the agri- traceability requirements for NGT prod- the Commission proposal for a regulation of food value chains.ucts of Category 2 for which no or only ancertain NGTs. But the gravestone is heavy Euroseeds supports transpar- adapted detection method can be developed,and requires the full political commitment ency and consumer choice by makingthat can unequivocally identify the regu- in Parliament and Council to finally be fully information about the use of NGTs pub- lated product. One of the conclusions of theremoved and, through this, to unleash the licly available (i.e., in the EUs commonCommission Study on NGTs in 2021 waspotential of plant breeding innovation to catalogue of plant varieties or other publicthat the current GMO legislation is difficultcontribute to a competitive, sustainable, databases). We consider seed bag labellingto enforce due to lack of distinction fromand productive EU agriculture.EUROPEAN-SEED.COMISEED WORLD EUROPE I 13'