Genetically modified maize DP202216 x NK603 x DAS-40278-9 and its sub-combinations DP 202216 x NK603, DP202216 x DAS-40278-9

P10_TA(2026)0265

PE789.025

European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2026 on the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1443 of 29 June 2026 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP202216 x NK603 x DAS-40278-9 and its sub-combinations DP202216 x NK603, DP202216 x DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2026/2746(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1443 of 29 June 2026 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP202216 x NK603 x DAS-40278-9 and its sub-combinations DP202216 x NK603, DP202216 x DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

– 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 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 30 October 2025, and published on 5 December 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 10 March 2023, Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., based in Belgium, on behalf of Corteva Agriscience LLC, based in the United States, submitted an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize DP202216 × NK603 × DAS-40279-9 (the ‘GM maize’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM maize for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B. whereas, on 30 October 2025, EFSA adopted a favourable scientific opinion in relation to the authorisation of the GM maize, which was published on 5 December 2025;

C. whereas EFSA concluded that the GM maize and its sub-combinations, as described in the application, are as safe as their conventional counterpart and the tested non-genetically modified maize reference varieties with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment; whereas EFSA also concluded that the consumption of food and feed from the GM maize and its sub-combinations does not represent any nutritional concern for humans and animals; whereas the opinion did not address several broader environmental, socio-economic, and cumulative impacts which EFSA considers to fall outside its remit;

D. whereas the GM maize was developed by crossing to combine the following three single events: DP202216 expressing the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase enzyme (PAT) to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides, and the maize endogenous protein with altered expression (EPAE) ZMM28 to provide the potential for Yield Enhancement (YE) under field conditions; NK603, expressing CP4 EPSPS and CP4 EPSPS L214P to confer tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicides; and DAS-40278-9, expressing aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase (AAD-1) to confer tolerance to 2,4-D and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) class of herbicides;

E. whereas only sub-combination NK603 × DAS- 40278-9 has previously been assessed by EFSA; whereas no experimental data were submitted by the applicant for sub-combinations DP202216 x NK603 and DP202216 x DAS-40278-9, which have not previously been assessed by EFSA; whereas despite this, EFSA concluded that this sub-combination would not raise safety concerns;

F. 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 maize cultivation;

G. whereas the vast majority of GM crops, including the GM maize, 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 ;

H. whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or wholly dependent on herbicides, 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 maize 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;

I. 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 has to be expected that the GM maize will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate, glufosinate, AOPP and 2,4-D herbicides and that therefore a higher quantity of residues and their breakdown products (metabolites) may be present in the harvest;

J. 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;

K. 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’;

L. whereas a peer-reviewed scientific article by an expert involved in developing GM plants questions the safety of GM crops tolerant to 2,4-D because of its degradation into cytotoxic breakdown products;

M. 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 toxicity of the metabolites can be impacted by the genetic modification itself;

N. 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, the Paris Climate Agreement and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD);

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

P. 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;

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

R. whereas Union renewal of the authorisation of the GM maize 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;

S. whereas the cultivation of the GM maize is not allowed in the Union;

T. whereas Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1443 would allow imports into the Union that do not comply with the standards observed by Union farmers, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

U. 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;

V. 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;

W. 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;

X. 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 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1443 exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2. Considers that Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1443 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 repeal Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1443;

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.