Crops tailor-made using new gene-splicing techniques should face fewer regulations than genetically modified organisms, EU negotiators agreed Thursday.  Critics are calling it a GMO rebrand; proponents say they are bringing science back in style. The late-night negotiations — dragged across the finish line with the help of the European Parliament’s far right — capped years of haggling over how to ease the path for a new generation of gene-editing technologies developed since 2001, when the EU’s notoriously strict regulations on GMOs were adopted. The deal’s backers tout NGT’s potential to breed climate-resilient plants that need less space and fertilizers to grow, and they argue the EU is already behind global competitors using the technology. But critics fear the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to major seed corporations.   The agreement opens the door to “unlabelled — yet patented — GM crops and foods, boosting corporate market power while undermining the rights of farmers and consumers,” warned Franziska Achterberg of Save Our Seeds, an NGO opposing GMOs, calling the deal a “complete sell-out.” INNOVATION VS. CAPITULATION European lawmakers, however, were responding to fears that outdated GMO rules were holding back progress on more recent genomic tweaks with a lighter touch — and throttling innovations worth trillions of euros.  Currently, most plants edited using new precision breeding technology — which can involve reordering their DNA, or inserting genes from the same plant or species — are covered by the same strict rules governing GMOs that contain foreign DNA.  The deal struck by the EU’s co-legislators creates two classes for these more recent techniques. “NGT1” crops — plants that have only been modified using new tech to a limited extent and are thus considered equivalent to naturally occurring strains — would be eligible for less stringent regulations. In contrast, “NGT2” plants, which have had more genetic changes and traditional GMOs will continue to face the same rules that have been in place for over 20 years.  Speaking before the final round of negotiations, Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen argued that the bloc needs to have NGTs in its toolbox if it wants to compete with China and the U.S., which are already making use of the new tech.  The deal “is about giving European farmers a fair chance to keep up” echoed center-right MEP Jessica Polfjärd, the lead negotiator on the Parliament’s side of the deal. She added that the technology will allow for the bloc to “produce more yield on less land, reduce the use of pesticides, and plant crops that can resist climate change.” Polfjärd had struggled to keep MEPs on the same page even as the bill advanced into interinstitutional negotiations. Persistent objections from left-wing lawmakers, including a key Socialist, forced her to embrace support of lawmakers from the far-right Patriots for Europe, breaking the cordon sanitaire.  Martin Häusling, the Green parliamentary negotiator, called the result miserable, saying it gives a “carte blanche for the use of new genetic engineering in plants” that threatens GMO-free agriculture.  DAVID AND GOLIATH In a hard-won victory for industry, the final legislation allows for NGT crops to be patented.  For Matthias Berninger, executive vice president at the global biotech giant Bayer, it’s just good business. “When we talk about startup culture in Europe … we also need to provide reasonable intellectual property protections,” he said in an interview. Yet safeguards meant to prevent patent-holders from accumulating too much market power don’t go far enough for Arche Noah. The NGO advocating for seed diversity in Europe, warned of a “slow-motion collapse of independent breeding, seed-diversity and farmer autonomy” if the deal makes it to law as is. They have MEP Christophe Clergeau, the Parliament’s Social-Democrat negotiator who led the last-ditch resistance.  In an interview on Thursday morning, he gave it five to 10 years before small breeders have disappeared from the bloc and farmers are “totally dependent” on the likes of Bayer and other huge companies. (Berninger said Bayer doesn’t want to inhibit small breeders by enforcing patents on them.) The deal now needs to be endorsed by the Parliament and the Council of the EU before the new rules are adopted. At the end of the day, it’s up to consumers to pass judgment, DG SANTE’s food safety and innovation chief Klaus Berend said Thursday, appearing at the POLITICO Sustainable Future Summit directly before the late-night negotiations began.  “We know that in Europe, the general attitude toward genetically modified organisms and anything around it is rather negative,” he cautioned. The key question for new genomic techniques is “how will they be accepted by consumers?” Their acceptance, Berend added, “is not a given.” Rebecca Holland contributed to this report.

Europe’s draft gene-editing law may only survive thanks to the far right. The new law would determine whether Europe opens the door to a new generation of gene-edited plants, an innovation boon worth trillions of euros. But after months of hours-long meetings, fraying tempers and déjà-vu debates, the small circle of officials trying to hammer out the legislation know they’ve hit a wall. Now, inside the negotiation rooms, a taboo is starting to look like a safety valve. Two right-wing MEPs — allies of Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini — look ready to break the impasse. “The left is blocking negotiations,” said Silvia Sardone, a rising star in Italy’s far-right Lega party. “Their demands are impossible to meet.” Though they would never put it so bluntly, other negotiators on the New Genomic Techniques file agree with her. Week in, week out, European Commission officials, national diplomats and Parliament representatives lean over annotated printouts that, by now, feel more familiar than their own phones. Supporters say the technology could help develop crops that cope with drought and cut chemical use. Critics fear it would strengthen big seed companies through patents and squeeze out smaller breeders. But whenever talks resume, they fall apart immediately — not over objections from governments or the Commission, but because the Parliament’s own voices are pulling in opposite directions.  French Socialist Christophe Clergeau, backed by Greens and the The Left, is holding the line on stronger protections for small companies, consumers and the environment. Swedish conservative Jessica Polfjärd, playing the role of the Parliament’s broker, is struggling to keep her camp together. Meanwhile, two members of the group — previously ignored — are quietly indicating they’re ready to settle. It’s in that vacuum that a once-taboo idea has crept into the conversation: What if the far right is now the only way to get this done? THE NEW ARITHMETIC Just a few months ago, that would have been dismissed outright. But after last week’s raucous vote in the Parliament chamber — when the center right openly teamed up with far-right groups to bulldoze a deregulation package through a booing hemicycle — it no longer sounds so outlandish. The Commission says it cannot concede more changes. Governments say they have already gone as far as they can. The text bounces back to the table, unchanged. French Socialist Christophe Clergeau, backed by Greens and the The Left, is holding the line on stronger protections for small companies, consumers and the environment. | Fred Marvaux/European Parliament “We are circling the same paragraphs every week,” said one diplomat, who like others in this story was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. That’s where two unlikely figures hover at the edge of the impasse. One is Pietro Fiocchi, an Italian heir to a historic ammunition dynasty, a hunting evangelist who addresses “dear hunters and fishermen friends” in Facebook videos, and a man known for once appearing on a campaign poster pointing a gun. The other is Sardone, a combative hardliner who rails against “green follies,” edible insects and electric cars. She has made headlines for social media posts warning of “Islamization,” alleging ties between far-left activists and Islamic extremists, and attacking the Romani community. Neither is anyone’s idea of a biotech champion. But both have indicated they’re willing to accept the slimmed-down deal governments say is the only realistic option. And the pair’s readiness has changed the mood. The threat of the far right stepping in could force Clergeau to accept a weaker compromise — a centrist move which is in vogue in the Parliament — according to a Parliament official close to the talks. This is only to avoid an even weaker, far-right-backed deal being pushed through without him, the official added. Swedish conservative Jessica Polfjärd, playing the role of the Parliament’s broker, is struggling to keep her camp together. | Fred Marvaux/European Parliament Clergeau flatly rejected that scenario, saying the talks hadn’t reached that point and that nothing new had emerged to warrant further comment. He previously said he is pressing for proof that new genomic techniques actually deliver benefits, not just promises on paper. The deal, he argued, must not accelerate the concentration of the seed market in the hands of a few multinational companies, at the expense of smaller breeders and farmers. Polfjärd declined to comment for this story, pointing to the sensitivity of the ongoing talks. Last year, MEPs overwhelmingly backed a ban on patents for gene-edited plants, in a rare show of unity from the far right to the far left. This time, a majority — including a sizeable chunk of Clergeau’s own Socialists — is expected to support whatever deal the negotiators manage to hammer out if that’s what it takes to get the regulation into law. That’s one reason EU diplomats argue Clergeau is no longer reflecting the balance inside the Parliament. But before any of that matters, negotiators still have to break the deadlock inside the room. A fresh round of technical meetings is scheduled for Thursday and next week, before what is expected to be a decisive political-level session in early December. Few around the table believe the remaining disagreements will magically resolve themselves before then. Which leaves one uncomfortable calculation hanging over every meeting. As another diplomat put it: “If that’s what it takes to get the deal through, then why not?”