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 soybean MON 87705 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

B100334/2026

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 soybean MON 87705 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D114998/03 - 2026/2747(RSP))

– having regard the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D114998/04),

– 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,

– 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 27 April 2026, at which no opinion was delivered, and the vote of the Appeal Committee on 2 June 2026, at which again 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 10 December 2025, and published on 12 January 2026,

– 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 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/696 authorised the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 (the ‘GM soybean’); whereas the scope of that authorisation also covered the placing on the market of products other than food and feed containing or consisting of the GM soybean, for the same uses as any other soybean, with the exception of cultivation;

B. whereas, on 8 March 2024, Bayer Agriculture BV, based in Belgium, on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, based in the United States submitted an application to the Commission for the renewal of that authorisation;

C. whereas, on 12 January 2026, EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion on the GM soybean , in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas EFSA 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 soybean, adopted by EFSA in 2012 and 2013; whereas those opinions did not address several broader environmental, socio-economic, and cumulative impacts which EFSA considers to fall outside its remit;

D. whereas the GM soybean has an increased oleic acid content and exhibits tolerance to glyphosate-containing herbicides;

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 soybean cultivation;

F. whereas the vast majority of GM crops, including the GM soybean, 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;

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, while creating a dependency on the use of complementary herbicides as an integral part of the production system; whereas heightened reliance on the complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM soybean 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 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;

H. 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; whereas, as a consequence, it is expected that the GM soybean will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate and that therefore a higher quantity of residues and their breakdown products (metabolites) may be present in the harvest;

I. whereas significant scientific uncertainties regarding the safety of glyphosate for human health and the environment persist; 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 other recent peer-reviewed scientific studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate; whereas the journal ‘Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology’ has formally retracted the scientific paper ‘Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans’, published in 2000, which has been used to defend the safety of glyphosate in many risk assessments, as ‘concerns were raised regarding its authorship, the validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors’;

J. whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic because the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned as well as the composition and thus the toxicity of the metabolites can be impacted by the genetic modification itself;

K. whereas the compositional analysis showed that the GM soybean has a significantly altered fatty acid profile compared to its conventional counterpart, with an increase in oleic acid and accompanying decreases in linoleic acid and palmitic acid; whereas scientific concerns centre on the long-term nutritional implications of wider population exposure to this altered profile, in particular for consumers who rely heavily on soybean oil; whereas EFSA considered dietary intake estimations to assess the nutritional relevance of the changes, using different assumptions of consumption and replacement scenarios; whereas EFSA recommended, based on these assumptions, only a post-market monitoring plan focused on collecting import data to the Union and conducting an updated nutritional assessment if available information on consumption patterns differed from those used during the original risk assessment;

L. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 requires 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 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD);

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

N. 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;

O. whereas the Union, as a Contracting Party to the UN CBD and in accordance to its Article 3, has the responsibility of ensuring that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States;

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

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

R. whereas the draft 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;

S. 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;

T. 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;

U. 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;

V. 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 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;

4. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the import of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, due to the associated increased use of complementary herbicides and therefore the increased risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health;

5. Welcomes the fact that the Commission 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;

6. 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’;

7. Highlights that the amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 17 December 2020 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, which were adopted in Parliament as a basis for negotiations with the Council, state that the Commission shall not authorise GMOs when there is not a qualified majority of Member States in favour; insists that the Commission respect this position and calls on the Council to proceed with its work and adopt a general approach on this file as a matter of urgency;

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