Ontwerp­re­so­lutie over het ontwerp van uitvoe­rings­be­sluit van de Commissie tot verlening van een vergunning voor het in de handel brengen van producten die geheel of gedeel­telijk bestaan uit of zijn gepro­du­ceerd met genetisch gemo­di­fi­ceerde soja MON 87705 

B10‑0244/2025

European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D105678/03 – 2025/2647(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D105678/03),

– 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[1], 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 28 February 2025, at which 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[2],

– having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 2 April 2020, and published on 18 May 2020[3],

– having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)[4],

– 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 11 September 2015, Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. on behalf of Monsanto Company, based in the United States, submitted to the national competent authority of the Netherlands an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (‘the GM soybean’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’). The application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM soybean for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas on 2 April 2020, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion on the GM soybean, which was published on 18 May 2020; whereas EFSA had considered all the questions and concerns raised by the Member States in the context of the consultation with the national competent authorities, as provided for in Article 6(4) and Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

C. whereas EFSA was, however, not able to finalise the risk assessment and to conclude on the safety of the GM soybean due to the absence of a 90-day study on the GM soybean and the absence of a post-market monitoring plan taking into consideration the altered fatty acid profile of the GM soybean stack;

D.  whereas on 3 October 2024, EFSA adopted a statement, which was published on 28 October 2024, complementing its scientific opinion of 2 April 2020, based on the additional data provided by the applicant[5], EFSA concluded that the GM soybean, as described in the application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-genetically modified soybean reference varieties with respect to its potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. EFSA also concluded that the consumption of the GM soybean does not represent a nutritional concern;

E. whereas the GM soybean has been modified to be tolerant to glyphosate-based and dicamba herbicides and to alter its fatty acid profile;

Lack of assessment of the complementary herbicide

F. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013[6] requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices affect the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide-tolerant plants;

G. whereas the vast majority of GM crops have been genetically modified to be tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without killing the crop, as would be the case with a non-herbicide-tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops lead to an increased use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds[7];

H. whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or entirely dependent on herbicides; whereas heightened reliance on complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM crops accelerates 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’;

I. whereas the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will lead to the deterioration of soil health, water quality and above and below ground biodiversity, and will also lead to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues in food and feed;

J.  whereas dicamba is highly volatile, meaning that once applied, it is prone to move into the air and then drift on the wind until it falls to the ground, exposing people and non-target plants, vines, trees and shrubs to potential and serious damage, especially when exposure occurs over several years;

K. whereas a 2020 study by United States government scientists, published in the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Epidemiology, found that heavy use of dicamba increased the risk of developing liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers among applicators;

L. whereas the 2020 study states that approval of GM dicamba-resistant crops is expected to lead to increased agricultural use of dicamba in the years to come[8] and the Heartland Health Research Alliance’s Pesticide Use Data System confirms that that is the case, with dicamba use up 10-fold in the Midwest of the United States compared to a decade ago[9];

M. whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; 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 recent peer-reviewed scientific studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate[10];

N. whereas a peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate accumulates in GM soybeans, with a corresponding negative impact on nutritional composition compared with non-GM soybeans[11]; whereas a pilot project carried out in Argentina found surprisingly high levels of glyphosate residues on GM soybeans[12];

O. whereas in GM plants, the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the plant, and the composition, and thus toxicity, of the break-down products (‘metabolites’) may be driven by the genetic modification itself[13];

P. whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on GMOs and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs;

Ensuring a global level playing field and upholding the Union’s international obligations

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

R. whereas the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture[14] call on the Commission to reassess its own approach to 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 consistent with goals for healthy food and a healthy environment, globally, were one of the main demands of the farmers during the demonstrations of 2023 and 2024;

S. whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations’ (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health[15]; whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (‘UN SDG’) Target 3.9 aims to substantially reduce by 2030 the number of deaths and diseases caused by hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination[16];

T. whereas the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (‘Kunming-Montreal Framework’), agreed at the COP15 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’) in December 2022, includes a global target to reduce the risk of pesticides by at least 50 % by 2030[17];

U. whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states 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 UN SDGs and the UN CBD;

V. whereas Union authorisation of the GM soybean would not be consistent with international commitments on pesticide reduction[18], given the increased human and environmental exposure to herbicides in countries which grow herbicide-tolerant GM crops, along with the potentially serious associated health outcomes;

W. whereas deforestation is a major cause of biodiversity decline; whereas emissions from land use and land use change, mostly due to deforestation, are the second biggest cause of climate change after the burning of fossil fuels[19]; whereas the Paris Climate Agreement and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted under the UN CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets promote sustainable forest management, protection and restoration efforts[20]; whereas UN SDG 15 includes the target of halting deforestation by 2020[21]; whereas forests play a multifunctional role that supports the achievement of most UN SDGs[22];

X. whereas forest fires in the Amazon are driven by high levels of deforestation; whereas in a 2019 communication the Commission set out its ambition to protect and restore the world’s forests[23]; whereas the global protection of biodiversity, including forests, is a key objective of the EU Biodiversity Strategy[24];

Y. whereas soya production is a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests in South America; whereas 97 % of soya cultivated in Brazil and 100 % of soya cultivated in Argentina is GM soya[25];

Z. whereas an analysis by the Commission found that soya has historically been the Union’s number one contributor to global deforestation and related emissions, accounting for nearly half of the deforestation embodied in all Union imports[26];

Reducing dependency on imported feed

AA. whereas one of the lessons from the COVID-19 crisis and the still ongoing war in Ukraine is the need for the Union to end the dependencies on some critical materials; whereas in her mission letter to Commissioner Christophe Hansen, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen asks him to look at ways to reduce imports of critical commodities[27];

AB. whereas trade agreements incentivise imports to the Union of food and animal feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs; whereas Brazil and Argentina are among the world’s top GMO producers and pesticide users, including GMOs and pesticides banned in the Union for health or environmental reasons;

Undemocratic decision-making

AC. whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, Parliament adopted 38 objections to placing GMOs on the market and has adopted another 10 resolutions objecting to placing GMOs on the market already in the current tenth term;

AD. 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;

AE. whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee[28];

AF. whereas the vote on 28 February 2025 of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States; 

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 incompatible 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[29], 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 and to submit a new draft to the committee;

4. Calls on the Commission, in line with the One Health approach, not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops, as it would lead to increased use of complementary herbicides and therefore increased risks to biodiversity, food safety and workers’ health;

5. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides is inconsistent with the Union’s international commitments under, inter alia, the UN SDGs and the UN CBD, including the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Framework[30];

6. Expects the Commission, as matter of urgency, to deliver on its commitment to come forward with a proposal to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the Union are not produced for export, and on its commitment to ensure reciprocity by better aligning our domestic production standards with those applied to imports, notably for pesticides;

7. Calls on the Commission to ensure convergence of standards between the Union and its partners in free trade agreement negotiations, in order to meet Union safety standards;

8.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally 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[31]; expresses its deep disappointment, however, that, since then the Commission has continued to authorise GMOs for import into the Union, despite continued objections by the Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

9. 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’[32];

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