Abolition of GMO labelling requirements for new GM plants and foods would violate international law

 

A legal opinion commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture concludes that the abolition of labelling requirements for plants modified with new genetic engineering techniques and their products would violate international law. The legal opinion examines the compatibility of the EU deregulation proposal for new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs) with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Its verdict is that it fails to comply with the Protocol. GMWatch

 

 

Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said she is not opposed to new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs), but expressed serious concerns about the proposed EU deregulation. She is particularly worried about the potential environmental and agricultural impacts of introducing new plant varieties, especially given our limited understanding of wild species. “We cannot claim any equivalence of NGT 1 [new GMOs that deregulation supporters claim are conventional-like and thus don't require regulation] with normal breeding,” said Tielborger as she questioned the distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2 [new GMOs with more complex alterations than NGT 1, claimed to need only light-touch regulation]. She added, “Even molecular biologists would agree that this distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2 is not based on scientific evidence. I mean it's just a random number and it doesn't make sense,” she added. She is also unconvinced about the ability of NGTs to save our food system, saying, “We don't need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It's an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it.” Euro News

 

 

In an article on the UK-based pro-GMO-deregulation lobbying website Science for Sustainable Agriculture, agribusiness consultant James Wallace pushes for UK public science research and development to be even more industry-influenced and “market” orientated than it already is. In passing, the article contains some interesting criticisms of the John Innes Centre (JIC) – a research institute that is heavily oriented towards corporate (especially GMO) interests – including that its glory days are all in the past. Wallace writes, "Renowned internationally for its high-quality science and league-topping performance in academic publications, JIC’s demonstrable impact at farm level is rather less impressive... The JIC website’s statement that 'the John Innes Centre returns £15.22 to the UK economy for every £1 invested' is... open to challenge, since it is not based on past performance but on theoretical and highly optimistic forward projections over the next 10, 15 and 25 years." On these statements, at least, we agree with him! For more on the JIC, see this. GMWatch comment on article on Science for Sustainable Agriculture website

 

 

Two prominent German investors voiced exasperation over Bayer AG’s recurring struggles, demanding a clearer path out of the conglomerate’s crises ahead of the annual shareholder meeting on Friday. Deka Investment’s Ingo Speich characterised the current results of Chief Executive Officer Bill Anderson’s two-year tenure as “disastrous”, pointing to the falling stock price, stubbornly high debt levels and US legal problems. Once an icon of German industry, Bayer is now “at a strategic dead end,” Speich said in prepared remarks ahead of the meeting. Deka is a top 20 investor in Bayer. Meanwhile, Janne Werning at Union Investment argued that Bayer’s crop science division — the primary reason for the company’s $63 billion takeover of Monsanto in 2018 — has turned into a “problem child”. Bloomberg (paywall)

 

 

Before the the Bayer annual shareholders meeting (AGM) on 25 April 2025, over 100 organisations from the EU, US and around the world – including GMWatch – signed an Open Letter to Bayer's shareholders. The organisations - representing consumers, farmers, academics, human rights and environment defenders - called on them to stop Bayer's intense lobby campaign taking place across the US, aiming to prevent citizens from going to court after suffering health damage after using Roundup or any other harmful pesticide. Corporate Europe Observatory

 

 

A new first-of-its-kind law enacted in North Dakota could shield agrochemical manufacturer Bayer from lawsuits claiming it failed to warn customers that its popular weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer. Though the immediate effect may be small, given that North Dakota is among the least populated US states, Bayer is hopeful that success there could lead to similar laws being passed around the country. The company faces an onslaught of lawsuits seeking billions of dollars for alleged harm from Roundup. The next state to follow North Dakota could be Georgia, where a similar bill is pending before Gov. “Ultimately, this sets a bad precedent,” said Sam Wagner, an agriculture and food organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, which opposed the measure. "It will arguably make it extremely tough for anyone to win a case” filed in North Dakota against a pesticide manufacturer. Newsday

 

 

A recent study states that “agricultural pesticide use in the US is linked to various cancers as strongly as smoking cigarettes” – yet Bayer is lobbying to stop cancer victims bringing lawsuits against any of the pesticide giants, writes attorney and farmer John Klar. Klar adds that when a Georgia jury recently awarded a cancer sufferer $2.1 billion in damages due to harms allegedly from Roundup exposure, most of that was in punitive damages. The large punitive award was motivated by an abundance of evidence showing Monsanto actively worked for decades to manipulate the scientific record on Roundup risks. Baltimore Sun (content not available in some regions)

 

 

We hope you’ve found this newsletter interesting. It was made possible by GMWatch supporters. To become one, please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!