GMOs

harvest_soybeans_plantation
harvest_soybeans_plantation

Stop the import of GM crops destroying nature

After 50 resolutions, Commission must finally heed Parliament’s advice

MEPs Tilly Metz and Eleonora Evi argue that the EU must no longer be complicit in the destruction of primary forests, expansion of monocultures and use of toxic chemicals banned in the EU through the continued import of GM crops.


en
Rapeseed field
©ross-tek

Find me if you can – Detecting gene-edited plants in the EU food chain

10.12.2020

Live Webinar - Register here!

EU governments are worried that GM plants engineered with so-called “gene editing” cannot be distinguished from similar, non-GM plants and therefore cannot be regulated. Based on such “practical questions”, they asked the Commission to assess, by April 2021, whether these ...


en
Hand holding grain
Hand holding grain © Bart Sadowski

Genome editing in agriculture

A Greens/EFA perspective

Biodiversity and ecosystems are under extreme threat, with around one million species facing extinction. In order to respond to these unprecedented and closely interlinked crises, our food and agricultural systems need to be rapidly transformed. High input, industrial farming based on monocultures and factory farming must be replaced by high biodiversity, locally adapted food production systems, ones which produce healthy food while respecting animal welfare and the environment.


en
Picture illustrating farm to fork

Radical transformation of our agricultural system needed, not GMOs

A Greens/EFA perspective on genome editing in agriculture

Biodiversity and ecosystems are under extreme threat, with around one million species facing extinction. To avert the worst consequences of runaway climate change, urgent action needs to be taken now.In order to respond to these unprecedented and closely interlinked crises, our food and agricultural systems need to be rapidly transformed. High input, industrial farming based on monocultures and factory farming must be replaced by high biodiversity, locally adapted food production systems, ones which produce healthy food while respecting animal welfare and the environment.


en
GMO objection

New Parliament re-asserts its opposition to GMOs

The new Parliament adopted its first three GMO objections that the European Commission proposes to authorise for  import into the EU for food (for humans) and feed (for livestock).  Let’s now hope that the new Commission will have the political courage to respect the call from citizens and the European Parliament to stop GMO authorisations and imports into Europe


en
sharepic tomatoe patent

The abuse of European Patent law must stop!

This Thursday, 19 September, the European Parliament will vote on a resolution on the issue of the patentability of biological plants and animals, aka plants and animals that could be found in nature or bred by farmers.


en

Thirty six objections and counting

Why the European Parliament opposes new EU GMO authorisations in vain

Thirty six. That is the number of objections that the European Parliament has voted through, against the draft authorisations of genetically modified plants in the EU put forward by the European Commission (the most recent objections against a GM soy and a GM maize). In 24 of these cases, the European Commission has happily ignored both the indecision of Member states (and hence the lack of a clear political majority) and the European Parliament’s clear disagreement and went ahead to authorize the GM plants anyway. Nine additional authorisations are expected in the coming weeks.


en
pesticides
Pgiam istock

Parliament approves greater transparency on approval of pesticides and GMOs

Food law

Public interest and people's health is more important than protecting the secrets of chemical giants or not embarrassing the European Food Safety Authority. The complete lack of transparency in the authorisation of pesticides, genetic engineering and food additives, will finally be addressed.


en | fr | es | de

Why we objected to GMOs in the EU - 36 times!

Our Group has always fought against Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the EU. We believe that they pose risks to consumers’ health, animal welfare and the environment. This is why the every time the European Commission proposes the authorisation of a new one, the European Parliament objects to it. Read our top six reasons for saying no (again and again).


en

After years of deadlock and political nightmares, are we finally ready to change the discussion on GMOs?

What care ethics can bring to the conversation

Today, the European Parliament backed four objections against the authorisation for import of new GM plants into the EU, bringing the total number of such objections to 31 in just over three years. Nevertheless, the European Commission decided to override this opposition and to authorize 24 of them. Why and how did we end up in this political stand-off? And, more importantly, how do we get out of this situation? A team of researchers may have opened a path with the publication of several studies on the Politics of Care and how it could be used to assess emerging technologies.


en

The “innovation principle” is a regulatory Trojan horse from the industry

How a group of industries with problematic products are trying to weaken the precautionary principle

Few words carry a more positive image than “innovation”: solving humanities’ problems, bringing comfort, relief and fun. So why the hell are the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament opposing the introduction of the so-called “innovation principle” in the Horizon Europe Regulation, which will be setting the terms for the next 160 billion euro EU research funding programme? Because this is in reality an industry stunt to hinder the precautionary principle, and the EU citizens' safety. Here is how.


en

A new EU law for more transparency in the food chain

No more dirty secrets in the authorisation procedure for pesticides, GMOs, food additives and novel food!

Democracy and science have in common the fact that they cannot be properly carried out in the dark: both require transparency. The altercation around the reauthorisation of the herbicide glyphosate in 2017 shed an uncomfortable light on the opacity of both the assessment process and the authorisation process of pesticides in the EU. The Commission's imperfect attempt to make the situation better will be debated and voted on next week in the European Parliament, under strong industry lobby pressure.


en | fr