What changed

Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

B100244/2025

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

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 soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D105678/03 – 2025/2647(RSP))

2. References: 2025/2647(RSP) / B10-0244/2025 / P10_TA(2025)0106

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D105678/03),

3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 8 May 2025

– 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,

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

– 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 28 February 2025, at which no opinion was delivered,

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

– 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,

The resolution calls on the Commission to withdraw the draft Commission implementing decision 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 the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 2 April 2020, and published on 18 May 2020,

The resolution calls on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) plants products due to the increased use and lack of assessment of the complementary herbicides and the associated risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health (paragraph 4 and recitals F to P).

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

It states that authorising the import for food and feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides is inconsistent with the European Union’s (EU) international commitments (paragraph 5). 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 and the halting of deforestation as a major cause of biodiversity decline and climate change (recitals S to Y), and recalls that soya is the largest contributor to deforestation linked to EU imports (recital Z). 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 9).

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

It expects the Commission, as a matter of urgency, 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 (paragraph 6).

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

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 ensuring a global level playing field (recital R), and to the need to reduce dependency on imported feed (recitals AA and AB). 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 7).

A. whereas on 11 September 2015, Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. on behalf of Monsanto Company, based in the United States, submitted to the national competent authority of the Netherlands an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (‘the GM soybean’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’). The application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM soybean for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

The resolution welcomes that the Commission recognises the need to take sustainability into account for the authorisation of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) 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 8).

B. whereas on 2 April 2020, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion on the GM soybean, which was published on 18 May 2020; whereas EFSA had considered all the questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation with the national competent authorities, as provided for in Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

The resolution refers to ‘undemocratic’ decision-making recalling the numerous resolutions objections to GMO authorisations adopted by the European Parliament in its eighth, ninth, and the current tenth terms (recital AC) 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 AD and AF) 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 AE).

C. whereas EFSA was, however, not able to finalise the risk assessment and to conclude on the safety of the GM soybean due to the absence of a 90-day study on the GM soybean and the absence of a post-market monitoring plan taking into consideration the altered fatty acid profile of the GM soybean stack;

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

D. whereas on 3 October 2024, EFSA adopted a statement, which was published on 28 October 2024, complementing its scientific opinion of 2 April 2020, based on the additional data provided by the applicant, EFSA concluded that the GM soybean, as described in the application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-genetically modified soybean reference varieties with respect to its potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. EFSA also concluded that the consumption of the GM soybean does not represent a nutritional concern;

The Commission would like to recall that the draft implementing decision concerns the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from GM soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, but not the cultivation of this soybean.

E. whereas the GM soybean has been modified to be tolerant to glyphosate-based and dicamba herbicides and to alter its fatty acid profile;

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 assessment of the complementary herbicide

on 11 September 2015, Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. on behalf Monsanto Company 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 the on the market of GM soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 for food/feed and other uses, except of cultivation;

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

on 18 May 2020, EFSA adopted an inconclusive opinion, as it was unable to finalise the risk assessment due to the absence of a 90-day feeding study in rodents on GM soybean MON 87705 and a post-market monitoring plan;

G. whereas the vast majority of GM crops have been genetically modified to be tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without killing the crop, as would be the case with a non-herbicide-tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops lead to an increased use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds;

on 20 March 2024, the applicant provided the additional data needed to fulfil the requirements for the risk assessment;

H. whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or entirely dependent on 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’;

on 28 October 2024, EFSA issued a statement supplementing its scientific opinion of 18 May 2020, based on the additional data provided by the applicant, and concluded favourably that the GM soybean is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM soybean varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment;

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

in its scientific opinion, EFSA answered 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;

J. whereas dicamba is highly volatile, meaning that once applied, it is prone to move into the air and then drift on the wind until it falls to the ground, exposing people and non-target plants, vines, trees and shrubs to potential and serious damage, especially when exposure occurs over several years;

the public commented on EFSA’s opinion and its complementing statement, and all the scientific comments received were scrutinised by EFSA, which confirmed the conclusions of its scientific opinion and the supplementary statement;

K. whereas a 2020 study by United States government scientists, published in the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Epidemiology, found that heavy use of dicamba increased the risk of developing liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers among applicators;

the draft decision was voted in the Standing Committee on 28 February 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

L. whereas the 2020 study states that approval of GM dicamba-resistant crops is expected to lead to increased agricultural use of dicamba in the years to come and the Heartland Health Research Alliance’s Pesticide Use Data System confirms that that is the case, with dicamba use up 10-fold in the Midwest of the United States compared to a decade ago;

the draft decision was voted in the Appeal Committee on 8 April 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

M. whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent peer-reviewed scientific studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate;

in accordance with the rules set out in Regulation (EC) 1829/2003, a decision has to be taken on the application;

N. whereas a peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate accumulates in GM soybeans, with a corresponding negative impact on nutritional composition compared with non-GM soybeans; whereas a pilot project carried out in Argentina found surprisingly high levels of glyphosate residues on GM soybeans;

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;

O. whereas in GM plants, the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the plant, and the composition, and thus toxicity, of the break-down products (‘metabolites’) may be driven by the genetic modification itself;

on that basis, the Commission adopted the decision on 4 July 2025.

P. whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on GMOs and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs;

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.

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

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:

Q. whereas the cultivation of the GM soybean is not allowed in the Union;

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).

R. whereas the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture call on the Commission to reassess its own approach to 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 consistent with goals for healthy food and a healthy environment, globally, were one of the main demands of the farmers during the demonstrations of 2023 and 2024;

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 4) and concerns raised about lack of assessment of the complementary herbicides (recitals F to P) and inconsistency with the EU international commitments (paragraph 5), 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. 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.

S. 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 to substantially reduce by 2030 the number of deaths and diseases caused by hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination;

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.

T. whereas the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (‘Kunming-Montreal Framework’), agreed at the COP15 of the United Nations 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;

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.

U. 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;

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 7), 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.

V. whereas Union authorisation of the GM soybean would not be consistent with international commitments on pesticide reduction, given the increased human and environmental exposure to herbicides in countries which grow herbicide-tolerant GM crops, along with the potentially serious associated health outcomes;

In relation to the need to take sustainability into account in the authorisation of GMOs (paragraph 8), the Commission will shape the way forward as set out in the Vision for Agriculture and Food.

W. whereas deforestation is a major cause of biodiversity decline; whereas emissions from land use and land use change, mostly due to deforestation, are the second biggest cause of climate change after the burning of fossil fuels; whereas the Paris Climate Agreement and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted under the UN CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets promote sustainable forest management, protection and restoration efforts; whereas UN SDG 15 includes the target of halting deforestation by 2020; whereas forests play a multifunctional role that supports the achievement of most UN SDGs;

As regards the call to consider the EU’s international obligations (paragraph 9), 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.

X. whereas forest fires in the Amazon are driven by high levels of deforestation; whereas in a 2019 communication the Commission set out its ambition to protect and restore the world’s forests; whereas the global protection of biodiversity, including forests, is a key objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy;

Issues related to market access for agri-food imports and exports, diverging standards of the EU and its trading partners (recital R) and reducing dependency of imported critical commodities (recital AA) 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 soya production is a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests in South America; whereas 97 % of soya cultivated in Brazil and 100 % of soya cultivated in Argentina is GM soya;

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 AC to AF), 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 has taken the decision to withdraw the proposal, which will be procedurally finalised shortly. 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 an analysis by the Commission found that soya has historically been the Union’s number one contributor to global deforestation and related emissions, accounting for nearly half of the deforestation embodied in all Union imports;

Reducing dependency on imported feed

AA. 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 her mission letter to Commissioner Christophe Hansen, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asks him to look at ways to reduce imports of critical commodities;

AB. whereas trade agreements incentivise imports to the Union of food and animal feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs; whereas Brazil and Argentina are among the world’s top GMO producers and pesticide users, including GMOs and pesticides banned in the Union for health or environmental reasons;

Undemocratic decision-making

AC. 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 objections to placing GMOs on the market and has adopted another 10 resolutions objecting to placing GMOs on the market already in the current tenth term;

AD. 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;

AE. 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;

AF. whereas the vote on 28 February 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;

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 incompatible 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, in line with the One Health approach, not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops, as it would lead to increased use of complementary herbicides and therefore increased risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health;

5. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides is inconsistent with the Union’s international commitments under, inter alia, the UN SDGs and the UN CBD, including the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Framework;

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, and on its commitment to ensure reciprocity by better aligning our domestic production standards with those applied to imports, notably for pesticides;

7. 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;

8. 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 continued objections by the Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

9. 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’;

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