b'HOW DO YOU VIEW THE NEWGMO Directive to non-transgenic plants, BREEDING TECHNIQUES (NBTS)it effectively cuts the EU off from the SUCH AS GENE-EDITING?scientific consensus and political devel-SHOULD THESE BE REGULATED? opments worldwide. This puts breeders, Its no surprise that Hazekamp (GUE/ farmers, processors, traders and con-NGL) believes new ways of geneticallysumers at a competitive disadvantage modifying plants and animals should beto regions with suitable, differentiated strictly regulated, as the Court of Justiceregulations.of the European Union (CJEU) has De Castro views NBTs as one of the ruled. These new GMO techniques arebiggest opportunities available to better not the way to ensure food security, sheprotect biodiversity at the same time sus-states. We should invest in organic andtainable intensification of food production agro-ecological farming instead. She alsomoves ahead. However, it is fundamental believes clear labelling of all products andto specify that these NBTs have nothing processes is needed to protect the rightsto do with the so-called Frankenstein of consumers and farmers. foods as they simply replicate naturalTertsch (MEP-ECR) and Aguilarevolution processes, and hence cannot be (COMAGRI-ECR) would like the EuropeanPaolo de Castro (S&D) managed in the same way as traditional Commission to table new legislation thatGMOs, he says. De Castro adds these will clarify why organisms obtainedinnovations that change the agronomic through gene editing are not to be subjectand qualitative characteristics of plants to the GMO Directive. Tertsch describesallow us to decrease the use of chemical the CJEU ruling an obvious consequenceand nutritional inputs and to reduce the of outdated regulation unable to reflectenvironmental footprint of agriculture. technological progress. He thinks that whilst a clarification amendment of theSOME PEOPLE FEEL FARMERS IN GMO directive will be a complex andEUROPE ARE LOSING VARIOUS long procedure, this is better than theTOOLS THAT ARE NEEDED TO damaging status quo. Aguilar believesPRODUCE ENOUGH FOOD the CJEU ruling might have a dramatic(FOR EXAMPLE, BANS ON impact on the EU farming sector, andMORE PLANT PROTECTION that we should acknowledge that thisPRODUCTS). WHAT IS YOUR is the consequence of the CommissionsTAKE ON THIS VIEWPOINT?lack of action to clarify the interpretationSchreijer-Pierik (EPP) agrees that of the legislation. Aguilar would like thebecause EU approval of various active EU legal framework to be harmonized toingredients are increasingly not being protect both conventional and modernrenewed, farmers are facing difficulties. breeding, and points out that in its delayShe believes plant protection products to accommodate gene editing in its legalUlrike Mller (RE) are essential to food security and com-framework, the EU is behind fast-actingpetitiveness of European agriculture. competitors such as Brazil, Argentina,The current situation and formulation of Canada and Australia.European legislation impedes biological Mller (RE) also believes actionlow-risk alternative pesticides and also must be taken to deal with the ruling,hampers innovation in conventional pes-otherwise these innovative techniquesticide development, she explains. This will be used to the benefit of other regionscould never have been the intention of the in the world. precautionary principle. Risks can be mit-Schreijer-Pierik (EPP) is in favourigated in other ways than by forbidding of NBTs involving mutagenesis to beactive substances.exempted from the GMO Directive, toFor Mller (RE), plant protection enable solutions to be found for the chal- products must obviously be banned if they lenges of the future such as worldwideare proven to be dangerous for health, food security. We cannot do withoutbut at the same time, she supports farm-NBTs, she says. ers having tools in order to guarantee S&Ds de Castro and Aguilera arehigh-quality food produced by European also in favour of a new legislative frame- family farms at acceptable prices. work for NBTs, and de Castro says thisThe ECR position is that public edu-is one of the S&Ds main priorities forcation and research findings should lead the new parliamentary term. Aguilerathe way in risk reduction in the access explains that by extending the prohib- Clara Aguilera (S&D) that EU farmers have to crop protection itive compliance requirements of theproducts, as well as breeding innova-EUROPEAN-SEED.COMIEUROPEAN SEED I 11'