Myth busting: NGTs and organic

With an eye on this year’s elections, the EU institutions have geared up work on many important dossiers and advancing progress certain legislative proposals as quickly as possible. But rushing legislative processes is not necessarily a good thing for food and farming.

Agrochemical industry pushes New Genomic Techniques on Europe

This is clearly visible in the sped-up timeline on the Commission’s proposal on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), a controversial topic with major issues at stake, such as environmental protection and freedom of choice for citizens and food producers. Following the publication of the proposal, two parallel political processes started: negotiations in the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the one hand and negotiations and votes in the European Parliament on the other hand.

The Council presidency did not achieve to reach an agreement in the Council of Ministers, neither when put to a vote in December nor in February. Among the reasons are major concerns about the impact of deregulation on European breeding (due to the issue of patents) and the lack of workable solutions for co-existence with organic (and GM-free agriculture).

The European parliament reached a position in the plenary vote on 7 February 2024. According to IFOAM Organics Europe the outcome is a step backwards in terms of biosafety and freedom of choice for consumers, but MEPs safeguarded some minimum transparency requirements and even re-integrated traceability provisions that Member States should build on to secure the freedom of farmers not to use genetic engineering.

With so much at stake and unresolved concerns, more time and discussions are needed to address unanswered concerns about biosafety and patents, and to establish a robust framework that supports freedom of choice for producers and consumers.

Organic food & farming – Under ever-increasing attack

In this political context, the organic sector is increasingly being attacked by pro-NGT proponents. Below you can find a summary of common arguments used to try and discredit the position of the organic movement, as well as our rebuttals to these misleading statements.

Myth 1: “Organic uses GMOs”

The techniques mentioned by these individuals, known as mutagenesis by irradiation or by chemical treatment, have been exempt from the EU legal framework on GMOs since as early as 1990 and served as the precursor to the to Directive 2001/18.Their exemption was granted based on their “long history of use at the time”.

In 1990, organic farming was not even regulated at EU level, and nobody cared to ask any representative of the organic movement what they thought about this exemption. These old mutagenesis techniques, dating back to at least the 1960s, have nothing in common with the recent genetic engineering techniques, that are also referred to (confusingly on purpose) as “mutagenesis”, and that are part of the so-called “novel genomic techniques” (NGTs) in EU jargon.

Organic breeders and operators would be more than happy to be able to exclude such varieties from the organic production process, but…they can’t! Precisely because the legal requirements of traceability and labelling do not apply to these old mutagenesis techniques. And this is exactly what the organic sector wants to avoid for the new genetic engineering techniques (however you call them, NGTs, gene editing, targeted mutagenesis, etc.). If products designed with these NGTs are not subject to mandatory traceability and labelling, their use would de facto be imposed on all farmers, organic or not, because there would be no way to know where they are, and no way to avoid them.

Myth 2: “Organic wants to use NGTs”

In a resolution adopted at the European organic movement’s June 2023 General Assembly, European organic re-affirms that organic production should remain free from GMOs including from New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). An overwhelming majority (97.69% of votes in favour, 2,31% against) of the organic movement voted in favour of a system-based approach of innovation and sustainability on Wednesday 21 June 2023. Read the press release and resolution. The clear result of the resolution is also the outcome of a very arduous and democratic consultation on the position of the international and European organic movement on this issue. These time-intensive and thorough discussions were held over two years and culminated in a clear position paper adopted in 2017.

Myth 3: “Organic is bad for food security”

TP Organics, the European Technology Platform for Research & Innovation into Organics and Agroecology, published a clear policy brief on food security and organic and agroecological farming. Its main message is to achieve long-term food security, we need to rethink our food production systems, making them less reliant on external inputs (fossil fuels, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, imported feed, etc.) and more resilient, as outlined in the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Despite enough food being produced worldwide, food security can be threatened by some intensive farming practices, unequal food distribution and income inequality, combined with inflation/increase in food and energy costs.

Myth busting: NGTs and organic

Agrochemical industry pushes New Genomic Techniques on Europe

Organic food & farming – Under ever-increasing attack

Myth 1: “Organic uses GMOs”

Myth 2: “Organic wants to use NGTs”

Myth 3: “Organic is bad for food security”

Further reading

Official positions

Other materials