What changed

Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton T304-40 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

B100108/2026

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 renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton T304-40 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

2. References: 2026/2518(RSP) / B10-0108/2026 / P10_TA(2026)0044

(D111477/02 – 2026/2518(RSP))

3. Date of adoption of the resolution: 11 February 2026

The European Parliament,

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

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton T304-40 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D111477/02),

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 11(3) and Article 23(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, in relation to genetically modified (GM) food and feed, 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 12 December 2025, at which no opinion was delivered,

The resolution calls on the Commission not to renew the authorisation of the genetically modified (GM) cotton due to concerns about the increased use of complementary herbicides, and the alleged risks to biodiversity, food safety, farmers’ livelihoods and animal health, and insufficient evidence to address cumulative and combinatorial effects, long-term toxicological studies or indirect ecological consequences of increased herbicide use, in line with the One Health approach (paragraph 4, recitals E to K, and recital Q).

– 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 considers that independent monitoring and surveillance of potential adverse effects on biodiversity, soil health, pollinators and non-target organisms remain insufficiently guaranteed (recital I).

– having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 30 June 2025, and published on 22 July 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. It also 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 L and M 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, 2024 and 2025 (recital N).

– 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 O and P).

– 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 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/699, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1195, authorised the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton T304-40 (the ‘GM cotton’). The scope of that authorisation also covers the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GM cotton, for the same use as any other cotton, with the exception of cultivation;

The Commission would like to recall that the draft implementing decision concerns the renewal of the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from GM cotton T304-40, but not the cultivation of this cotton.

B. whereas on 22 March 2024, BASF SE, based in Germany, on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions US LLC, based in the United States, submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the renewal of that authorisation;

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 on 22 July 2025, the EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion on the GM cotton in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, in which it concluded that the renewal application did not contain evidence of any new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on the GM cotton, adopted by EFSA in 2013; whereas those opinions did not address several broader environmental, socio-economic, and cumulative impacts which EFSA considers to fall outside its remit;

on 22 March 2024, BASF SE., on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions US LLC based in the United States, submitted an application to the Commission in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for the renewal of that authorisation of the placing on the market of this GM cotton for food, feed, and other uses, with the exception of cultivation;

D. whereas the GM cotton has been developed to be resistant to certain lepidopteran pests by producing an insecticidal toxin, and to confer tolerance to glufosinate;

on 22 July 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 cotton is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM cotton reference varieties with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment;

E. whereas the risk assessments 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 cotton cultivation;

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 the vast majority of GM crops, including the GM cotton, 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;

the EFSA opinion was subject to a public consultation, and no comments were received;

G. 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 cotton 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 draft decision was voted in the Standing Committee on 12 December 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

H. 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;

the draft decision was voted in the Appeal Committee on 27 January 2026 with no qualified majority against or in favour;

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

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

J. 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;

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

K. 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;

on that basis, the Commission adopted this decision on 10 March 2026.

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

The Commission considers that it did not exceed its implementing powers by going forward with the adoption of a decision on the application as required by Regulation No 1829/2003 and by doing so fully complying with the substantive and procedural conditions set out by the co-legislators in Regulation No 1829/2003 in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 182/2011.

M. whereas the Commission implementing decision would continue to allow imports into the Union that do not comply with the standards observed by Union farmers, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

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 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, 2024 and 2025;

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, the EU’s General Food Law, the precautionary principle, and the One Health approach (paragraph 2).

O. 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;

In relation to the call on the Commission not to renew the authorisation of the GM crop due 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, recitals E to K, and Q), 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.

P. 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;

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.

Q. 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;

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’s assessment concluded favourably for the GM crop concerned by this resolution.

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

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 levels (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 tolerant, is no longer approved in the EU because the applicant withdrew a renewal application that it had submitted earlier. Glufosinate is classified as toxic for reproduction category 1B (recital H) and the Commission will review the existing MRLs, once the on-going assessment of MRLs for glufosinate, which EFSA is performing, will be completed.

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;

Regarding concerns about the insufficient independent monitoring and surveillance of potential adverse effects (recital I), 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. No specific risks were identified during the environmental risk assessment by EFSA in either the original or renewal assessment, and a post-market environmental monitoring plan was put in place consisting of general surveillance. EFSA evaluated in the renewal application, in accordance with the GMO legislation and its relevant guidelines, the post market environmental monitoring reports and concluded positively on the safety of the GM crop for the environment.

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

As regards the claim that the renewal authorisation would not be consistent with the EU’s international obligations on pesticide reduction (recital L), 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.

4. Calls on the Commission not to renew the authorisation of the GM cotton 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 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 M and N 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.

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;

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.

6. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food, feed or products 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;

In the meantime, the Commission proposed in the recently adopted proposal for a 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.

7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the 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 O and P), 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.