Should the EU ease regulation on new generation GMOs?
ADVERTISEMENT
Few topics are as divisive and controversial as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The same level of contention also characterises new genomic techniques (NGTS), often referred to as the new generation of GMOs.
As explored in the last
episode
of Euronews Tech Talks, NGTs are cutting-edge technologies used to alter the genetic material of plants by editing their DNA.
Currently, in the European Union, crops developed using NGTs are regulated under the same framework as GMOs. However, this situation might soon change.
Related
What are GMOs and why do they remain so controversial? | Euronews Tech Talks
In 2023, the European Commission adopted a proposal to ease restrictions over gene editing techniques, making producing and commercialising NGT-derived crops simpler.
This proposal is still under discussion and has the support of several scientists.
However, the deregulation of NGTs also raised concerns among other experts and non-governmental organisations like Friends of the Earth Europe.
To better understand the reasons for and against the deregulation of NGTs, Euronews Tech Talks spoke with two experts from different sides of the debate: Michael Antoniou, Professor of molecular genetics and toxicology at King's College London; and Nathalie Verbruggen, Professor of plant physiology and molecular genetics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Is the proposed distinction between two types of new genomic techniques scientifically justified?
Under the new EU proposal, NGTS would be split into two categories: NGT 1 and NGT 2. Crops classified as NGT 2 would remain subject to the GMO regulation, while those labelled as NGT 1 would be exempt from strict risk assessment and labelling requirements.
This distinction would depend on the number of genetic modifications introduced into an organism, a criterion that, according to both professors, is inconsistent.
"This distinction is considered completely artificial, which is true because nature does not draw neat lines," Verbruggen explained. "NGT 1 makes no sense to me at all because when you look at the criteria, it's a free-for-all," Antoniou said.
Although the two experts agree that the division between NGT 1 and NGT 2 lacks scientific grounding, their reactions diverge.
Related
NGTs: Inside the first European gene-edited wheat field trial | Euronews Tech Talks
Verbruggen would like to have more plants under the category NGT 1, to have greater deregulation.
"We (scientists) don't see it as a risk, but as a missed opportunity," she said.
Conversely, Antoniou is concerned about the high number of NGT crops that would already be in the category NGT 1.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There is no way you can bring about 20 large-scale changes in the DNA of the organism and that this could occur naturally," he explained.
Could the deregulation of NGTS solve climate change and make our food system more secure?
Antoniou and Verbruggen also have different perspectives on the impact of the EU proposal on climate change and the entire food system.
Verbruggen embraces a balanced but optimistic position.
"Like most technologies, the impact is not inherently good or bad; it will depend on the use [of the NGTs]," she said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Like most technologies, the impact is not inherently good or bad, it will depend on the use [of the NGTs].
Nathalie Verbruggen
Professor
However, the Brussels-based expert sees a strong potential in this tool.
"If the uses are guided by sustainability goals, NGTs can become powerful tools to support agriculture and biodiversity," she told Euronews.
According to Verbruggen, the strength of these new techniques lies in their ability to make precise genetic modifications, accelerating processes similar to natural breeding.
"We talk about reducing fertilisers by making crops less dependent on nitrogen or phosphorus and making them more resilient to diseases and pests," she stated.
ADVERTISEMENT
Conversely, Antoniou is sceptical about the promises of NGTs.
Related
What are NGTs and why are they sparking so much controversy in the EU?
"The types of characteristics that we would like our plants or animals to have in the face of climate change... are what are known as genetically complex traits," the professor explained.
"It's not like one gene or two genes give you robust drought tolerance or saline tolerance or heat stress tolerance," he said.
According to Antoniou, the problem does not lie within the crops, but with the agricultural system itself.
ADVERTISEMENT
"What we need are climate-ready systems of agriculture, not climate-ready crops or animals,' he told Euronews.
Antoniou stressed that gene-editing tools can be less precise than believed, potentially leading to unpredictable effects on the environment.
Related
Governments agree to ease regulation of new-generation GMOs
Why could patenting be a problem?
One problem that Antoniou and Verbruggen are on the same page about is patenting.
Under the new regulation, NGT-made crops would be subject to patenting, something both experts believe could have a detrimental effect on the balance of power in the EU economic system.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Farmers are going to suffer more because they will pay more for their seeds, they will be restricted on how they use and how they grow them," Antoniou explained.
"This [the patenting of NGTs] can favour large biotech companies. And I think one of the spirits of this new regulation is to enlarge the access to new partners, smaller industries, public industries, and universities, so this could jeopardise this opening," Verbruggen said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
4 days ago
- Euronews
EU aims to create a ‘competitive' single market for space services
The EU Commission is aiming to create a competitive single market for space services and data by cutting red tape, protecting space assets and ensuring a level playing field for all businesses, in a new EU Space Act proposed on Wednesday. 'The Space Act will allow us to grow in space,' EU Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius told reporters. 'Growth in space means growth and jobs on Earth and in space,' he added. The regulation also seeks to address Europe's fragmented space rules by harmonising national measures to make the bloc's space market cleaner, safer, and more resilient. 'This fragmentation is bad for business, bad for competitiveness, bad for our future in space,' Kubilius argued, stressing that Europe wants a stronger stake in the global space economy. In 2023, the global space economy was valued at €572 billion and is expected to grow by around 9% annually until 2035, potentially reaching €1.6 trillion. So far, however, the space market has largely depended on public investment and institutional programmes—areas where Europe risks falling behind. According to the European Space Agency (ESA), Europe accounted for 11% of global public space funding in 2023 (€12 billion), while the US contributed 64% (over €65 billion) and China 12%. Europe's share of global private investment follows a similar pattern, with European investments totalling €980 million compared to the €3.6 billion invested by the US. To support the development of Europe's industrial and economic presence in space, the EU executive also presented on Wednesday 'A Vision for the European Space Economy,' a communication outlining 40 proposed measures intended to help the bloc expand its participation in the global space market. Space increasingly 'congested and contested', says Kubilius 'The European industry, although very competitive, can only capture one third of the accessible upstream market and one fifth of the downstream market,' a senior EU official said ahead of the proposal. The space economy is typically divided into three key areas: the upstream segment, which covers research, development, manufacturing, and launches; the downstream segment, focused on applications using space-based technologies; and a derived market, which includes all economic activities benefiting from space advancements, such as photovoltaic panels. Kubilius also warned that space is becoming increasingly congested and contested. 'It's time to put in place rules of the road for space to prevent damage and disasters and protect space services,' he said. Over the next decade, an estimated 50,000 new satellites and around 140 million pieces of debris will enter orbit, according to EU figures. Space assets are increasingly exposed to threats, both intentional and accidental. Kubilius pointed to rising cyber and physical risks. 'We know there is continuous radio-frequency interference with our systems, jamming, and spoofing. We know there are many cyberattacks. So, with our Space Act, we will increase the resilience of our satellites and space operations,' he said. If adopted, the regulation would apply to EU and national space assets, as well as non-EU operators providing services in the European market. However, it would not cover military activities. To ease the transition, the Commission plans to provide support to help businesses—especially small and medium-sized enterprises—manage any costs tied to compliance. MEP Christophe Grudler (France/Renew), co-chair of the Parliament's intergroup on sky and space, welcomed the proposal as an important first step toward building a space industry on an EU scale. "This, together with the upcoming EU Space Programme, will set the EU into orbit for the global space race,' he said in a press release. The Space Act also includes steps to boost the EU's presence in the satellite launcher market, which is currently dominated by Elon Musk's SpaceX. One measure would make a single launch authorisation valid across the entire EU. "This is a strong signal to encourage innovation and strengthen the competitiveness of the European space sector, which we want to see grow," Grudler concluded.
Euronews
4 days ago
- Euronews
The Great Bulgarian Vulture Return: Europe turns over a new leaf after centuries of bird persecution
Vultures are a fascinating and extremely useful species. These scavengers play an essential role in ecosystems, feeding on dead animal remains and thus helping to prevent the spread of bacteria and viruses. Yet, for centuries, this animal was persecuted to the point of extinction in many parts of the continent, between the 19th and 20th centuries. A vulture conservation movement emerged in Europe in the 1960s and was made popular by the documentaries of French ornithologist Michel Terrasse. Various reintroduction efforts, supported by the European Union, have since succeeded in returning these fascinating animals to several regions of the continent, such as the Alps and the Pyrenees. Soaring over the Balkan Mountains In two mountainous regions of Bulgaria, successive European LIFE projects helped re-establish the Griffon Vulture in 2010, then the Cinereous Vulture in 2018, decades after they had disappeared. Thanks to European funding, hundreds of birds have been released by the Bulgarian NGOs Fund for Wild Flora & Fauna (FWFF) and Green Balkans, with the support of international partners such as the Vulture Conservation Foundation (VCF) and the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). Recently, for the first time, Bulgaria reintroduced three specimens of the Bearded Vulture, Europe's rarest vulture, as part of a LIFE project. It was the last of the four European vulture species still absent from the Bulgarian skies. The Balkan Peninsula is seen by experts as a stepping stone to connect populations of the birds in Europe with those in North Africa and Türkiye, which is important for gene flow. A fragile return These reintroductions require significant conservation efforts to restore habitats, monitor the birds' development and raise awareness among local communities. Vultures remain threatened by lack of food, habitat loss, electrocution from power lines and illegal poisoning — one of the greatest conservation challenges. Some stock breeders even poison carcasses to protect their animals from predators like wolves. Vultures are collateral victims in this. Another LIFE project, called BalkanDetox, aims to strengthen law enforcement, raise awareness among local communities about this illegal practice and improve poison detection. Some of the vultures released are equipped with sensors that track their geolocation and body position in real time. If the bird's position is abnormal, this allows project members to intervene quickly to treat the bird and locate the suspected feeding site. The Birds Directive, adopted in 1979, is one of the oldest environmental laws in the EU and protects all birds living in the European Union. Around 500 bird species call Europe home. Its aim is to halt the decline of species and ensure their long-term prosperity. States must therefore take measures such as banning the hunting of certain species or protecting areas conducive to bird reproduction.
Euronews
18-06-2025
- Euronews
Could Europe bring in top research talent from the US?
US government spending on health research has reached a 10-year low, forcing universities to draw from their savings and hurting companies that sell lab supplies. Researchers who pursued global health, race, gender identity, climate change and topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion also saw their grants terminated. This has led to three-quarters of US-based respondents in a Nature poll considering leaving the country, creating an opportunity for the EU to attract researchers from the US. "We believe that diversity is an asset of humanity and the lifeblood of science. It is one of the most valuable global goods, and it must be protected," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in May in a speech delivered at La Sorbonne University in Paris. In 2024, the US accounted for 36% of all highly cited researchers, compared to 21% in China and 19% in the EU (including Switzerland and Norway), according to a Bruegel analysis. While the EU retains a significant portion of its own talent, it also contributes substantially to the global pool of mobile top researchers, particularly to the US. Among US-based highly cited researchers at Harvard, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia, 7.7% earned their PhD in the EU. A large portion of the US-based top research workforce also has an international education, with 24% of US-based highly cited researchers being entirely educated abroad. Family ties, personal life plans and career prospects are among the factors that can persuade researchers to move countries. However, there is still a large salary gap between US and EU academics. A top researcher at the University of California can earn between $500,000 (€432,300) and over $1 million (€865,240) annually. In contrast, even the highest-paid professors at top European institutions such as Spain's Complutense University of Madrid typically earn no more than €77,122. Initiatives such as Choose Europe, which includes a €500 million package aimed at attracting researchers to Europe, alongside efforts to reduce barriers for international students and researchers, could lead to essential changes in the long run. For instance, Provence-Aix Marseille University reported being "inundated" with applications from US-based researchers after announcing the launch of the three-year Safe Place For Science program, where they expect to raise €15 million and host around 15 researchers. Yet, between 2022 and 2024, the most attractive destinations among US graduates who wanted to move abroad were the United Kingdom and Canada. "Life-changing plans take time, and it is too early to expect a massive outflow from the US," the Bruegel analysis stated. But 30 years of exposure to glyphosate has shattered his dreams and his existence. He was diagnosed five years ago with an intravascular B-cell lymphoma, a rare form of cancer. It has been recognised as an occupational disease. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world and also the most controversial. It has been classified as 'probably carcinogenic' by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2015. More recent studies from research institutes such as the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) have established a likely link between exposure to the chemical and certain forms of cancer. Yet, the European Union has extended its authorisation until 2033, relying on studies by EFSA and ECHA, the European authorities for food and chemical safety. Several environmental and consumer rights organisations challenged the decision before the European Court of Justice last April. The gap between assessments results from the methodologies used by research institutes and European regulatory agencies, according to Xavier Coumoul, a toxicologist and researcher at Inserm in France. 'When a pesticide manufacturer wants to market a product, the regulatory agencies require the manufacturer to conduct its own tests to prove the product is safe,' he explains. This process raises many questions surrounding the independence of these surveys. 'EFSA gives little consideration to epidemiological studies and relies considerably on what the industry provides, whereas Inserm or IARC rely much more on the academic literature and monitoring real-life product use.' Ludovic Maugé, whose life now hangs by a thread, is among those for whom the product's toxicity is undeniable. After undergoing more chemotherapy than is usually permitted, his last hope, he says, is a transplant using his own modified stem cells. It's a vanishingly small chance. 'As my oncologist told me, we can no longer speak of a cure,' he confides. Since his cancer was recognised as an occupational disease, Ludovic receives a modest social allowance, along with monthly compensation of 180 euros from Bayer-Monsanto — which manufactured the product that poisoned him. 'It's a pittance, but I don't care. What mattered most to me was to see my illness recognised as work-related.' Despite his daily ordeal, Ludovic, who can no longer work, wants to take his fight further. 'What I want is to spread the message to everyone. Glyphosate destroyed my life — it poisoned me. These products destroy people and destroy nature,' he insists. He is outraged by the EU's decision to renew glyphosate's authorisation. 'When I see politicians reauthorising these products, it makes me furious. It's the pesticide lobby. Unfortunately, we can't do anything against these politicians and Bayer-Monsanto. If I had one thing to say to the European Union, it's this: just ban these products. That's it.'
