What changed

Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of food, food ingredients and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet KWS20-1 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

P10_TA(2025)0328

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

Genetically modified sugar beet KWS20-1

2. References: 2025/2959(RSP) / B10-0559/2025 / P10_TA(2025)0328

PE779.398

3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 16 December 2025

European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2025 on the draft Commission Implementing Decision authorising the placing on the market of food, food ingredients and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet KWS20-1 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D110122/02 – 2025/2959(RSP))

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

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of food, food ingredients and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet KWS20-1 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D110122/02),

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

– 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,

The resolution calls on the Commission to withdraw the Commission draft implementing decision (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 vote of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 14 October 2025, at which no opinion was delivered, and the vote of the Appeal Committee on 28 November 2025, at which again no opinion was delivered,

The resolution calls on the Commission not to authorise the Genetically Modified (GM) sugar beet due to the lack of sufficient evidence on long-term impacts on biodiversity, food safety, farmers’ livelihoods and animal health, in line with the One Health Approach (paragraph 4, recitals D to M and recital S).

– 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 raises concerns about the insufficiency of field trials supporting the application (recital J) and considers that independent monitoring and surveillance of potential adverse effects on biodiversity, soil health, pollinators and non-target organisms remain insufficiently guaranteed (recital K).

– having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 26 March 2025, and published on 12 May 2025,

The resolution 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 considers that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides that are banned in the Union is inconsistent with those commitments and would allow imports that do not meet standards applied to the EU farmers, putting them at a competitive disadvantage (recitals N and O and paragraph 6).

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

The resolution refers to the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture – which 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. It also recalls that fairer trade relations, at 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 (recital P).

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

The resolution calls on the Commission to submit, without delay, a legislative proposal to reform the decision-making procedure on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in order to respond to the consistent objections of Parliament and the lack of qualified majority support among Member States (paragraph 5 and recitals Q and R).

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

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

A. whereas on 30 May 2023, Bayer Agriculture B.V., based in Belgium, on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, based in the United States, and KWS SAAT SE & Co. KGaA, based in Germany, submitted an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands for the placing on the market of food, food ingredients and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet KWS20-1 (the ‘GM sugar beet’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

The Commission would like to recall that the draft implementing decision concerns the authorisation for the placing on the market of food, food ingredients and feed produced from GM sugar beet KWS20-1, but not the cultivation of this sugar beet.

B. whereas EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion on 12 May 2025, concluding that the GM sugar beet is as safe as its conventional counterparts; whereas that opinion did not address several broader environmental, socio-economic, and cumulative impacts which EFSA considers to fall outside its remit;

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:

C. whereas the GM sugar beet was developed to confer tolerance to glyphosate-, dicamba-and glufosinate-ammonium-based herbicides;

on 30 May 2023, Bayer Agriculture B.V., on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP based in the United States, submitted an application to the national authority of the Netherlands an application for the authorisation of the placing on the market of food, food ingredients and feed produced from this GM sugar beet, with the exception of cultivation;

D. whereas the risk assessment carried out by EFSA did not include long-term toxicological studies or detailed analysis of cumulative and combinatorial effects, including potential interactions with residues of pesticides commonly used in sugar beet cultivation;

on 12 May 2025, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published an opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 concluding that this sugar beet is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM sugar beet reference varieties with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment;

E. whereas the vast majority of GM crops, including the GM sugar beet, 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;

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;

F. 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 seed also spray the complementary herbicides; whereas heightened reliance on the complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM sugar beet will accelerate 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’; whereas, as a consequence, the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen on soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, as well as leading to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

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;

G. whereas serious 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;

the draft decision was voted in the Standing Committee on 14 October 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

H. whereas dicamba is highly volatile, meaning that once applied, it is prone to volatilise and move into the air and then drift with the wind until brought down to the ground, exposing people, animals and non-target plants, vines, trees, and shrubs to potential and serious damage, especially when exposure occurs over several years; whereas dicamba drift and damage to nearby crops, trees and vines has become an exceedingly divisive issue pitting one group of farmers against other farmers and rural neighbours and triggering extensive litigation over lost crops and replanting costs;

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

I. whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 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;

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

J. whereas field trials supporting the application were conducted under limited geographical and climatic conditions, only in the United States, that do not represent the full diversity of sugar beet-growing regions, including those strongly affected by climate change-related stressors;

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;

K. whereas independent monitoring and surveillance of potential adverse effects on biodiversity, soil health, pollinators and non-target organisms remain insufficiently guaranteed;

on that basis, the Commission adopted this decision on 27 February 2026.

L. whereas the precautionary principle, enshrined in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should apply in cases of scientific uncertainty;

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 did not exceed its implementing powers.

M. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 requires that GM food and feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment;

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:

N. whereas Union authorisation of the GM sugar beet would not be consistent with international commitments on pesticide reduction, given the increased human, animal and environmental exposure to glyphosate, dicamba and glufosinate in countries which grow this herbicide-tolerant GM crop, along with the potentially serious associated health outcomes;

EFSA performed a comprehensive risk assessment of this GM crop which concluded positively, after considering Member States’ comments. Therefore, the Commission considers that its decision is in line with the EU legislation on GM food and feed, and the EU’s General Food Law and in line with the precautionary principle and the One Health approach (paragraph 2).

O. whereas the Commission implementing 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;

In relation to the call on the Commission not to authorise the GM crop due to the alleged lack of sufficient evidence on long-term impacts on biodiversity, food safety and farmers’ livelihoods in line with the One health approach and risks associated with herbicides use (paragraph 4 and recitals D to M), EFSA’s assessment covered all relevant aspects of food and feed safety, as well as environmental assessment, including interactions of the GM crop with target and non-target organisms, and possible cumulative and combinatorial effects of herbicides use, within the remit of EFSA’s responsibilities. 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.

P. 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, at 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;

The risk assessment of an application for food and feed uses of a 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.

Q. whereas Parliament has repeatedly stressed that the Commission should not authorise GMOs in cases where no qualified majority is reached by Member States in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed or the Appeal Committee, in order to address the persistent democratic deficit;

The environmental risk assessment of active substances and plant protection products is carried out 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 food and feed, whether domestic or imported, including to GM products, and ensure that the health of EU consumers is fully protected. Glufosinate, to which this GM crop is resistant, is no longer approved in the EU because the applicant withdrew a renewal application that it had submitted earlier. It should be noted that glufosinate is classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B (recital I). The Commission will review the existing MRLs, once the on-going assessment of MRLs for glufosinate that the Commission mandated EFSA to perform will be completed.

R. 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;

With regard to concerns about the insufficiency of field trials provided in the application (recital J) EFSA concluded that the field trials were appropriate to support the risk assessment, taking into account the selection of test materials, the field trial sites and their associated management practices, and the agronomic–phenotypic characterisation. EFSA confirmed that the sugar beet is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM sugar beet reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

S. whereas the One Health approach requires taking into account the interdependence between human, animal, plant and environmental health when assessing the long-term sustainability and safety of GMOs;

Regarding concerns about the insufficient independent monitoring and surveillance of potential adverse effects (recital K), the post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) is composed, according to Directive 2001/18/EC, of a general surveillance and of a case-specific monitoring when specific risks have been identified during the environmental risk assessment. Following the risk assessment performed by EFSA for this application, EFSA did not identify specific risks for the GM crop that would require case-specific monitoring and concluded positively on the safety of the GM crop for the environment, considering the proposed PMEM plan adequate for the scope of the application.

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

As regards the claim that the authorisation would not be consistent with the EU’s international obligations on pesticide reduction (recital N), the Commission is fully committed to respecting the EU’s international commitments in the field of environmental protection, which have to be implemented in the relevant policy areas (climate change, biodiversity, etc.) or in appropriate initiatives. However, the Commission decisions for the placing on the market of GMOs that do not present risks to health or to the environment do not run counter to such international commitments.

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;

In relation to the concern that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides that are banned in the Union would allow imports that do not meet standards applied to EU farmers, and the call on the Commission to reassess its approach on market access for agri-food imports and exports (recitals O and P and paragraph 6), it should be noted that 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 is imported.

3. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its implementing decision;

The Commission stated in the Vision for Agriculture and Food adopted on 19 February 2025 that it would pursue, in line with international rules, a stronger alignment of production standards applied to imported products. To this end, the Commission has launched in November 2025 a study to prepare an impact assessment that will consider the impacts on the EU’s competitive position and the international implications of establishing the principle that the most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU for health and environmental reasons are not allowed back to the EU through imported products.

4. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the GM sugar beet due to the lack of sufficient evidence on long-term impacts on biodiversity, food safety, farmers’ livelihoods and animal health, in line with the One Health approach;

In the meantime, the Commission proposed in the recently adopted Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus an amendment to the Regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin (Regulation (EC) No 396/2005) so that, on a case-by-case basis, for substances that are not approved in the EU and that have certain particularly hazardous properties, MRLs that have been set based on good agricultural practices in third countries (also referred to as import tolerances) or on Codex maximum limits can be lowered to the technical zero if considered appropriate in the light of the outcome of an impact assessment.

5. Calls on the Commission to submit, without delay, a legislative proposal to reform the decision-making procedure on GMOs in order to respond to the consistent objections of Parliament and the lack of qualified majority support among Member States;

With regard to the call to submit a legislative proposal to reform the decision-making procedure on GMOs in order to respond to the consistent objections of Parliament and the lack of qualified majority support among Member States (paragraph 5 and recitals Q and R), the Commission would like to recall that it 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 decided to withdraw the proposal on 16 July 2025, and the withdrawal was published on 6 October 2025.

6. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides that are banned in the Union, such as glufosinate, is inconsistent with the Union’s international commitments under, inter alia, the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including the Kunming-Montreal Framework, and that it creates an uneven playing field for Union farmers;

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