What changed

B100407/2025

Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the Commission implementing decision (EU) 2025/1898 of 22 September 2025 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP51291 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP51291 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D108064/03 – (2025/2807(RSP))

1. Resolution tabled pursuant to Rules 115(2) and (3) of the European Parliament’s Rules of procedure

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP51291 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D108064/03),

2. References: 2025/2807 (RSP) / B10-0407/2025 / P10_TA (2025)0222

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, and in particular Article 7(3) and Article 19(3) thereof,

3. Rapporterus: Martin HÄUSLING (Greens/EFA/DE), Biljana BORZAN (S&D/HR), Anja HAZEKAMP (The Left/NL) and Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN (EPP/FI)

– having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 13 June 2025, at which no opinion was delivered, and the vote of the Appeal Committee on 15 July 2025, at which again no opinion was delivered,

4. Date of adoption of the resolution: 8 October 2025

– having regard to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers,

5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (ENVI)

– having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 2 October 2024 and published on 11 November 2024,

6. Brief analysis/assessment of the resolution and requests made in it:

– having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’),

The resolution calls on the Commission to repeal the Commission implementing decision (EU) 2025/1898 and to submit a new draft to the committee (paragraph 3) on the grounds that it exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (paragraph 1) and that it is not compatible with the aim of that Regulation and the general principles of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, i.e. the protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring effective functioning of the internal market (paragraph 2).

– having regard to Rule 115(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

In particular, the resolution raises concerns about the complex genetic modification used to develop maize DP51291, that resulted in the creation of several new gene sequences, raising concerns about potential genomic disruptions and allergenicity risks (recitals E and F). It also raises questions on European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) risk assessment in terms of the toxicological assessment of the IPD072Aa toxin due to its novelty and on potential gene flow to wild relatives (recitals Q to X). It highlights insufficient data on agricultural practices and environmental factors affecting the risk assessment of the genetically modified (GM) maize (recitals G to J) and questions the appropriateness of field trials (recital K).

– having regard to the motion for a resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety,

The resolution calls on the Commission not to authorise the GM maize due to the increased use and lack of assessment of the complementary herbicides and the associated risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health in line with the One Health Approach (paragraph 5 and recitals L to P). It expects the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to deliver on its commitment to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the EU are not produced for export (paragraph 6).

A. whereas on 27 January 2023, Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., based in Belgium, on behalf of Corteva Agriscience LLC, based in the United States, submitted an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP51291 (the ‘GM maize’);

In addition, it urges the Commission to consider the EU’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, as regards pesticide reduction (recitals AA and AB) and to consider them as other legitimate factors when drafting its decision (recital AC). It reiterates its call on the Commission for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’ (paragraph 8).

B. whereas the GM maize produces the IPD072Aa toxin to act against corn rootworm, the phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT) protein for tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicides and the PMI protein as a selectable marker;

The resolution recalls the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture that call on the Commission to reassess its approach on market access for agri-food imports and exports, given the challenge of diverging standards of the EU and its trading partners and in order to ensure a global level playing field (recitals Y and Z), and to the need to reduce dependency on imported feed (recital AD). It therefore calls on the Commission to ensure convergence of standards between the EU and its partners in free trade agreement negotiations, in order to meet the EU’s safety standards (paragraph 4).

C. whereas glufosinate, which is considered as a complementary herbicide, is classified as a substance toxic for reproduction in category 1B and therefore meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council; whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018;

The resolution welcomes that the Commission recognised the need to take sustainability into account for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and expresses its disappointment that the Commission proceeds with GMO authorisations for import despite ongoing European Parliament objections and a majority of Member States voting against (paragraph 7).

D. whereas IPD072Aa is an insecticidal toxin produced by the bacterium Pseudomonas chlororaphis, engineered to act against corn rootworm;

The resolution refers to ‘undemocratic’ decision-making recalling the numerous resolutions objecting to GMO authorisations adopted by the European Parliament in its eighth, ninth, and the current tenth terms (recital AE) and the fact that authorising decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission with a lack of support from Member States and the objections of European Parliament (recitals AF and AH) and states that no change of law is required for the Commission not to authorise GMOs in the absence of a qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee (recital AG).

Complex genetic engineering

6. Response to the requests and overview of actions taken, or intended to be taken, by the Commission:

E. whereas maize DP51291 was developed through a complex, multi-step genetic engineering process involving the creation of a genomic ‘landing pad’, followed by microprojectile co-bombardment using five plasmids, and a subsequent agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated insertion of expression cassettes into the landing pad;

The Commission would like to recall that the implementing decision concerns the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from GM maize DP51291, but not the cultivation of this maize.

F. whereas this genetic modification process resulted in the deletion of 113 base pairs of maize genomic DNA, as revealed by bioinformatic analysis, and led to the formation of several novel open reading frames (ORFs), indicating potential genomic perturbations arising from the transformation procedure; whereas five of these ORFs exhibited greater than 35 % sequence identity to known allergens, thereby exceeding the threshold commonly used in allergenicity assessments;

With respect to paragraphs 1 and 3 of the resolution, the Commission would like to point out that the draft decision has been prepared in line with and has undergone the procedural steps set out in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on GM food and feed and in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on comitology, as illustrated below:

Lack of data on agricultural practices and environmental factors

on 27 January 2023, Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., on behalf of Corteva Agriscience LLC based in the United States, submitted to the national competent authority of the Netherlands an application for authorisation for the placing on the market of GM maize DP51291for food/feed and other uses, except of cultivation;

G. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the expression of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide-tolerant plants;

on 11 November 2024, EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion and concluded that GM maize DP910521 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment;

H. whereas environmental stressors, such as drought or temperature extremes, can induce unexpected patterns of gene expression in newly inserted DNA sequences;

in its scientific opinion, EFSA considered all the questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation of the national competent authorities as provided for by Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

I. whereas the field trials used to support the compositional and phenotypic analysis of the GM maize were conducted over a single growing season (2021) in the United States and Canada under weather conditions that do not adequately represent the diversity of maize-growing regions, particularly in countries such as Brazil;

the public commented on the EFSA opinion, and all the scientific comments received were scrutinised by EFSA, which confirmed the conclusions of its initial scientific opinion;

J. whereas extreme weather events were reported at some trial locations; whereas no specific investigations were undertaken to assess future conditions influenced by ongoing climate change;

the draft decision was voted in the Standing Committee on 13 June 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

K. whereas glufosinate, was applied only once during the field trials, following EFSA's dosage recommendations; whereas, however, in real-world agricultural practices, herbicide application rates and frequencies often vary significantly by region and may involve higher or repeated use, meaning that the field trial data may not sufficiently reflect the full range of environmental and agricultural conditions under which the GM maize is likely to be cultivated or imported;

the draft decision was voted in the Appeal Committee on 15 July 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

Lack of assessment of glufosinate

in accordance with the rules set out in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, a decision has to be taken on the application;

L. whereas glufosinate is associated with significant risks to biodiversity, toxicity, and long-term ecosystem health;

in accordance with the rules set out in Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 on comitology, it is for the Commission to decide on the adoption;

M. whereas the vast majority of GM crops have been genetically modified so that they are tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without the crop dying, as would be the case for a non-herbicide-tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds;

on that basis, the Commission adopted the decision on 22 September 2025.

N. whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or wholly dependent on herbicides, and does so by charging a premium for GM seeds that can be justified only if farmers purchasing such seeds also spray the complementary herbicides; whereas heightened reliance on complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM crops accelerates the emergence and spread of weeds resistant to those herbicides, thereby triggering the need for even more herbicide use, a vicious circle known as ‘the herbicide treadmill’;

The Commission therefore considers that by going forward with the adoption process of a decision that fully complies with the procedural steps set out by the co-legislators in the GMO legislation, it does not exceed its implementing powers.

O. whereas the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen as regards soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, and lead to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

With respect to the other provisions of the resolution, the Commission considers that they fall outside the remit of the right of scrutiny, which is limited to the question of whether the implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act. The Commission is not required to justify the implementing act as regards these points. Nevertheless, the Commission has carefully considered the position expressed by the Parliament and would like to make the following comments:

P. whereas an assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (‘EFSA GMO Panel’) and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs;

EFSA performed a comprehensive risk assessment of this GM crop which concluded positively, after considering Member States’ comments as well as comments from the public. Therefore, the Commission considers that its decision is fully in line with the objectives of EU legislation on GM food and feed and of the EU’s General Food Law to protect health and the environment (paragraph 2).

Outstanding questions concerning the IPD072Aa toxin

Regarding the concerns raised about the complex genetic modification used to develop the GM maize DP51291 (recitals E and F) and outstanding questions concerning the IPD072Aa toxin (recitals Q to X), EFSA thoroughly evaluated the genetic modification process and the resulting molecular changes in maize DP51291, including the assessment of the novel gene sequences, and performed a toxicological assessment of the IPD072Aa toxin. EFSA did not identify safety concerns with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment of the products concerned, including regarding the novel gene sequences, toxicity of the IPD072Aa protein and potentially increased allergenicity of newly expressed protein.

Q. whereas Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 requires a toxicological assessment to demonstrate that the intended effects of a genetic modification do not involve adverse effects on human and animal health;

Regarding concerns about environmental impact, insufficient data on agricultural practices and appropriateness of field trials (recitals G to K) and gene flow to wild relatives like teosinte (recital W), EFSA reviewed the traits, agronomic data, and exposure levels in accordance with the EFSA guidance documents. EFSA concluded that maize DP51291 poses no safety risks if accidentally released and is unlikely to persist differently from conventional maize in Europe. EFSA confirmed that environmental effects will not differ from that of conventional maize varieties, that there is no indication of an increased likelihood of gene flow to non-target organisms, and that the field trials were appropriate to support the risk assessment and the post-market environmental monitoring.

R. whereas IPD072Aa is a new protein, meaning that its use in agriculture and introduction into the food chain cannot fully rely on previously gained experience;

In relation to the call on the Commission not to authorise the GM crop due to risks of increased use of herbicides resulting in risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health (paragraph 5) and concerns raised about lack of assessment of the complementary herbicides (recitals L to P) and inconsistency with the EU international commitments (paragraph 8), the Commission would like to point out that, while the authorisation of GMOs is not linked to the authorisation of herbicides, the two authorisation systems are geared to ensure a high level of protection of health and the environment. The risk assessment of an application for food and feed uses of an herbicide-tolerant GM crop includes assessment of the safety of the GM crop sprayed with the herbicide by comparison to its conventional counterparts. EFSA concluded favourably for the GM crop concerned by this resolution as mentioned above.

S. whereas, despite differences, observed similarities between IPD072Aa and Bt toxins highlight the need for careful consideration in the risk assessment process; whereas several studies have indicated that Bt toxins may induce immune-related side effects, including potential adjuvant properties, meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

The environmental risk assessment of active substances and plant protection products is done in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Maximum residue limits (MRLs) apply to all relevant imported food/ feed, including to GM products and ensure that the health of EU consumers is fully protected. For substances no longer approved in the EU because of health concerns related to residues, the MRLs are set at the “technical zero”, the lowest level at which analytical methods allow quantification of residues.

T. whereas a scientific study found that the toxicity of Bt toxins may also be increased through interaction with residues from spraying with herbicides, and that further studies are needed on the combinatorial effects of ‘stacked’ events (GM crops which have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant and to produce insecticides in the form of Bt toxins); whereas assessment of the potential interaction of herbicide residues and their metabolites with Bt toxins is, however, considered to be outside the remit of the EFSA GMO Panel and is, therefore, not undertaken as part of the risk assessment;

Regarding the call on the Commission expressed in paragraph 6 to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the EU are not produced for export, and to deliver on its commitment to ensure reciprocity by better aligning our domestic production standards with those applied to imports, notably for pesticides, the Commission refers to the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability from October 2020 in which the Commission committed to work on ensuring that hazardous chemicals banned in the EU are not produced for export and to promote the EU industry as a global frontrunner in the production and use of safe and sustainable chemicals. The Commission has launched a study to examine various options for the possible preparation of an impact assessment. Further work on this initiative will be considered after the finalisation of the study.

U. whereas the toxicity assessment of IPD072Aa does not consider potential synergistic or cumulative effects resulting from interactions with plant metabolites or herbicide residues;

In addition, as stated in the Vision for Agriculture and Food adopted on 19 February 2025, the Commission will establish a principle that the most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU for health and environmental reasons are not allowed back into the EU through imported products. To advance on this, the Commission will launch in 2025 an impact assessment that will consider the impact on the EU competitive position and the international implications and, if appropriate, propose amendments to the applicable legal framework.

V. whereas no data have been provided on the accumulation of IPD072Aa in food webs, its environmental dissemination, particularly via wastewater and manure into soil and aquatic ecosystems, or its effects on non-target organisms;

Concerning the call on the Commission to ensure convergence of standards between the EU and its partners in free trade agreement negotiations, in order to meet the EU’s safety standards (paragraph 4), all imported food and feed must comply with relevant EU regulations and standards relating to safety and health, which are applicable irrespective of whether the product is produced domestically or imported.

W. whereas the potential for gene flow to wild relatives such as teosinte, reported in Spain and France, raises concerns regarding the persistence of the transgene in the environment and its possible ecological consequences;

In relation to the need to take sustainability into account in the authorisation of GMOs (paragraph 7), the Commission will shape the way forward as set out in the Vision for Agriculture and Food.

X. whereas the monitoring requirements laid down in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 are insufficiently enforced, with no independent verification of the data submitted by Corteva Agriscience LLC;

As regards the call to consider the EU’s international obligations (paragraph 8), the Commission is highly committed to respecting the EU’s international commitments in the field of the environment. However, the adoption of Commission decisions for the placing on the market of GMOs that do not present risks to health or to the environment does not run counter to such international commitments. With respect to the call expressed in this paragraph for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’, the Commission would like to stress that the decision is based on a positive EFSA scientific opinion, as described above.

Ensuring a global level playing field and upholding the Union’s international obligations

Issues related to market access for agri-food imports and exports, diverging standards of the EU and its trading partners (recital Z) and reducing dependency of imported critical commodities (recital AD) will be part of the Commission’s work in accordance with its political guidelines and the mission letters of the responsible Commissioners. However, such issues cannot be addressed in the context of the Commission decisions for the placing on the market of GMOs.

Y. whereas the cultivation of the GM maize is not permitted in the Union; whereas the adoption of the draft Commission decision would allow imports into the Union that do not comply with the standards observed by Union farmers, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

Finally, with regards to the arguments concerning the ‘undemocratic’ decision-making process and the lack of support by the Member States for any GMO authorisation for food and feed uses (recitals AE to AH), the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council and the Parliament on 14 February 2017 to amend Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, changing the voting rules at the Appeal Committee to increase transparency and accountability in the GMO decision-making process. However, this proposal has not been adopted by the co-legislators. In light of this situation, the Commission approved the decision to withdraw the proposal on 16 July 2025, and the withdrawal was published on 6 October 2025. As such, the Commission is bound to apply the procedures laid down in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 on comitology and in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on GM food and feed.

Z. whereas the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture call on the Commission to reassess its approach on market access for agri-food imports and exports, given the challenge of diverging standards of the Union and its trading partners; whereas fairer trade relations, on a global level, consistent with goals for a healthy environment, were one of the main demands of farmers during the demonstrations of 2023 and 2024;

AA. whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations’ (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health; whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (‘UN SDG’) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination;

AB. whereas the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed at the COP15 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’) in December 2022, includes a global target to reduce the risk of pesticides by at least 50 % by 2030;

AC. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs and the UN CBD;

Reducing dependency on imported feed

AD. whereas one of the lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and the still ongoing war in Ukraine is the need for the Union to end the dependencies on some critical materials; whereas in the mission letter to Commissioner Christophe Hansen, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asked him to look at ways to reduce imports of critical commodities;

Undemocratic decision-making

AE. whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, Parliament adopted 38 resolutions objecting to placing GMOs on the market and has adopted another 11 resolutions objecting to placing GMOs on the market already in the current 10th term;

AF. whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

AG. whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee;

AH. whereas the vote on 13 June 2025 of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States; whereas the vote on 15 July 2025 of the Appeal Committee again delivered no opinion;

1. Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2. Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision and to submit a new draft to the committee;

4. Calls on the Commission to ensure convergence of standards between the Union and its partners in free trade agreement negotiations, in order to meet Union safety standards;

5. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the GM maize due to the increased risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health in line with the One Health approach;

6. Expects the Commission, as matter of urgency, to deliver on its commitment to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the Union are not produced for export;

7. Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs; expresses its deep disappointment, however, that, since then the Commission has continued to authorise GMOs for import into the Union, despite ongoing objections by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

8. Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN SDGs; reiterates its call for draft implementing acts to be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum explaining how they uphold the principle of ‘do no harm’;

9. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.