In recent years, the European Union (EU) has been the scene of intense debates regarding the regulation of genetically modified crops (GMOs) and new genomic techniques (NGTs), notes Euractiv.

These discussions have been marked by divergences among member states regarding the definition and patenting of such crops. In this context, Poland has played a key role in attempting to break the legislative deadlock, proposing compromises and solutions aimed at harmonizing the differing positions of member states.

The Context of NGT Regulation in the EU

In July 2023, the European Commission proposed that plants obtained through "new genomic techniques" be excluded from the strict regulations imposed on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the 2001 GMO Directive.

This proposal sought to create a new category, "category 1," for such crops, which would be considered equivalent to plants obtained through conventional breeding methods.

Thus, these crops would be exempted from the stringent regulations applied to first-generation GMOs, which involve the insertion of foreign genes to confer new properties such as pesticide resistance or longer shelf life, reports Euronews.

Challenges in Defining and Patenting NGTs

However, member state governments have failed to reach a consensus on the exact definition of these products and whether they should be patentable.

The issue of patenting has been particularly controversial, as patents could grant monopoly rights to producers, limiting farmers' access to these technologies.

The European Parliament, which has already adopted its position on the proposal, wants to ban patents on all these plants to prevent monopolies.

Poland’s Initiatives to Unlock Negotiations

As holder of the rotating presidency of the EU Council, Poland has attempted to push forward a stalled proposal that would exempt a new generation of genetically edited plants from the strict licensing and traceability requirements applied to GMOs.

Leaked documents indicate that Warsaw seeks to abandon Hungary’s demand to reopen the entire political debate, instead reverting to an earlier definition and focusing on the patent issue.

In an accompanying note to a compromise proposal dated January 7, Polish officials suggested that the designation of "category 1" should be based "solely on biological characteristics" and not on whether the plant is patented. This approach aimed to address concerns about the existence of patents on NGT-derived plants and facilitate a qualified majority in the Council.

Reactions and Future Prospects

However, Poland’s proposal has not been without criticism. Astrid Österreicher, an EU policy specialist at the German think tank TestBiotech, argued that this approach would do little to curb the power of major agrochemical corporations, which remains a key concern for opponents of genetically modified crops.

Environmentalists have also criticized the idea that the threshold for designating an NGT crop as equivalent to a conventionally bred plant could be set at a specific number of genomic molecules.

They argue that even small genetic modifications could result in undesirable or hazardous properties, emphasizing that all new strains should undergo rigorous risk assessments.

Despite Poland’s efforts, on June 26, 2024, the planned EU regulatory reforms for genetically modified crops were cast into doubt after a Belgian attempt to forge an intergovernmental agreement on liberalizing new technologies failed.

Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia signaled their opposition even to the latest compromise proposal, while Belgium, Bulgaria, and Germany planned to abstain. This led Belgium to withdraw a vote from the agenda of a diplomatic meeting in Brussels.

Poland's efforts to break the deadlock on genetically edited crop regulation reflect the complexity and sensitivity of this issue within the EU.

While its proposals aimed at balancing innovation with public interest protection, the persistent disagreements among member states highlight the need for ongoing, in-depth discussions to reach a consensus that reflects both scientific advancements and societal concerns.