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

B100559/2025

European Parliament 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 (D110122/02 – 2025/2959(RSP))

– 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),

– 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,

– 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,

– 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,

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

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

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

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

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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 implementing decision;

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;

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;

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.