Sittings · Document
Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on the Commission implementing decision (EU) 2025/1898 of 22 September 2025 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP51291 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council
1. Resolution tabled pursuant to Rules 115(2) and (3) of the European Parliament’s Rules of procedure
2. References: 2025/2807 (RSP) / B10-0407/2025 / P10_TA (2025)0222
3. Rapporterus: Martin HÄUSLING (Greens/EFA/DE), Biljana BORZAN (S&D/HR), Anja HAZEKAMP (The Left/NL) and Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN (EPP/FI)
4. Date of adoption of the resolution: 8 October 2025
5. Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (ENVI)
6. Brief analysis/assessment of the resolution and requests made in it:
The resolution calls on the Commission to repeal the Commission implementing decision (EU) 2025/1898 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).
In particular, the resolution raises concerns about the complex genetic modification used to develop maize DP51291, that resulted in the creation of several new gene sequences, raising concerns about potential genomic disruptions and allergenicity risks (recitals E and F). It also raises questions on European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) risk assessment in terms of the toxicological assessment of the IPD072Aa toxin due to its novelty and on potential gene flow to wild relatives (recitals Q to X). It highlights insufficient data on agricultural practices and environmental factors affecting the risk assessment of the genetically modified (GM) maize (recitals G to J) and questions the appropriateness of field trials (recital K).
The resolution calls on the Commission not to authorise the GM maize due to the increased use and lack of assessment of the complementary herbicides and the associated risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health in line with the One Health Approach (paragraph 5 and recitals L to P). It expects the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to deliver on its commitment to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the EU are not produced for export (paragraph 6).
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 (recitals AA and AB) and to consider them as other legitimate factors when drafting its decision (recital AC). 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 8).
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 in order to ensure a global level playing field (recitals Y and Z), and to the need to reduce dependency on imported feed (recital AD). 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 4).
The resolution welcomes that the Commission recognised the need to take sustainability into account for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) 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 7).
The resolution refers to ‘undemocratic’ decision-making recalling the numerous resolutions objecting to GMO authorisations adopted by the European Parliament in its eighth, ninth, and the current tenth terms (recital AE) 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 AF and AH) 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 AG).
6. Response to the requests and overview of actions taken, or intended to be taken, by the Commission:
The Commission would like to recall that the implementing decision concerns the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from GM maize DP51291, but not the cultivation of this maize.
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:
on 27 January 2023, Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., on behalf of Corteva Agriscience LLC 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 GM maize DP51291for food/feed and other uses, except of cultivation;
on 11 November 2024, EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion and concluded that GM maize DP910521 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment;
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;
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;
the draft decision was voted in the Standing Committee on 13 June 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;
the draft decision was voted in the Appeal Committee on 15 July 2025 with no qualified majority against or in favour;
in accordance with the rules set out in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, a decision has to be taken on the application;
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;
on that basis, the Commission adopted the decision on 22 September 2025.
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.
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:
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).
Regarding the concerns raised about the complex genetic modification used to develop the GM maize DP51291 (recitals E and F) and outstanding questions concerning the IPD072Aa toxin (recitals Q to X), EFSA thoroughly evaluated the genetic modification process and the resulting molecular changes in maize DP51291, including the assessment of the novel gene sequences, and performed a toxicological assessment of the IPD072Aa toxin. EFSA did not identify safety concerns with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment of the products concerned, including regarding the novel gene sequences, toxicity of the IPD072Aa protein and potentially increased allergenicity of newly expressed protein.
Regarding concerns about environmental impact, insufficient data on agricultural practices and appropriateness of field trials (recitals G to K) and gene flow to wild relatives like teosinte (recital W), EFSA reviewed the traits, agronomic data, and exposure levels in accordance with the EFSA guidance documents. EFSA concluded that maize DP51291 poses no safety risks if accidentally released and is unlikely to persist differently from conventional maize in Europe. EFSA confirmed that environmental effects will not differ from that of conventional maize varieties, that there is no indication of an increased likelihood of gene flow to non-target organisms, and that the field trials were appropriate to support the risk assessment and the post-market environmental monitoring.
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 5) and concerns raised about lack of assessment of the complementary herbicides (recitals L to P) and inconsistency with the EU international commitments (paragraph 8), 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. For substances no longer approved in the EU because of health concerns related to residues, the MRLs are set at the “technical zero”, the lowest level at which analytical methods allow quantification of residues.
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.
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.
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 4), 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.
In relation to the need to take sustainability into account in the authorisation of GMOs (paragraph 7), the Commission will shape the way forward as set out in the Vision for Agriculture and Food.
As regards the call to consider the EU’s international obligations (paragraph 8), 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.
Issues related to market access for agri-food imports and exports, diverging standards of the EU and its trading partners (recital Z) and reducing dependency of imported critical commodities (recital AD) 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.
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 AE to AH), 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 approved the decision to withdraw the proposal on 16 July 2025, and the withdrawal was published on 6 October 2025. 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.