GMOs, NGT, TEA, precautionary principle, food safety: how far can we go?

It was a very technical debate, reserved for experts, that took place almost quietly over the past few days in the European Parliament. But the topic of “new GMOs” or “non-GMOs by definition” — new genomic techniques for agriculture — managed to split the European Parliament, causing deep divisions within many groups, from the center-left to the right. Compact on the “no” front, as we reported yesterday, were the far-right Identity and Democracy MEPs (with the League), and almost united was the EPP (about 30 against, mainly of whom were Poles, and about 10 abstainers) and the Renew Liberals (with five against and 14 abstainers). The split occurred among the ECR Conservatives (29 in favor, including Italy’s FdI, 31 against, and one abstainer) and the Socialists and Democrats group (55 in favor, 71 against, and two abstainers). The PD was also divided: Bresso, De Castro, Gualmini, Picierno, Rondinelli, and Variati voted in favor, while Bartolo, Benifei (the delegation leader), Covassi, Laureti, Moretti, Pisapia, and Smeriglio against. Among those against were the Green and Left groups and the M5s delegation.

We went into the details of the votes because the crux here is not the dispute over whether or not these changes may or may not be harmful to human health (an issue, of course, of primary importance). It is a question of how the Union’s food industry (from growing to process to selling) should deal with the future, preserving the principle of food safety, and health security. The crux is the “precautionary principle” in the Basic Law of the European Union, which has a raison d’être but can constrain development.

We have to decide whether to challenge the rest of the world in agricultural production or risk falling behind in research and, therefore, production compromising the Continent’s food security.

In short, we have to decide where to set the limit: research, cultivation,  marketing, or consumption.

Yesterday’s battle in Parliament centered on whether these new crops are “GMOs” or not, split between the scholars of legislative texts, half of whom said yes and another no, explaining, each with solid reasons, two opposing theses. However, the issue of innovation remained hidden, but that is the crux of the matter. How do we want to ensure that we are not outclassed by productions in the rest of the world that are developing with far fewer constraints, flooding the markets, but at the same time guaranteeing that what consumers eat  (or will eat) is healthy, or at least not harmful?

The answer is complicated: what happened yesterday proves it, but it probably has to be sought in a forward shift of the precautionary principle, finding a way that allows robust development of research and production capacity combined with health needs. Which probably means moving away from the legislative constraint placed at the source by putting it a bit further forward, accepting new definitions that evolving research and needs dictate.