The European Parliament plenary on 17 June 2026 adopted the report by Jessica Polfjärd (EPP) on new genomic techniques (NGTs) in agriculture, rejecting all amendments. Polfjärd urged rejection of changes, arguing NGTs provide tools for climate resilience and food security. Christophe Clergeau (S&D) opposed, warning of patents and control by multinationals like Bayer. Silvia Sardone (PfE) backed NGTs as distinct from GMOs, accusing 'environmental Taliban' of misinformation. Pietro Fiocchi (ECR) supported NGTs for reducing pesticides and water use. Pascal Canfin (Renew) endorsed a 'European model' for NGTs, improving on the Commission proposal. Martin Häusling (Greens-EFA) and Anja Hazekamp (The Left) opposed, citing lack of labeling, traceability, and patent bans, with Hazekamp calling it a 'direct result of aggressive lobbying.' Anja Arndt (NI) demanded mandatory labeling and patent exclusion. All amendments were rejected, and the legislative act was adopted. The Parliament also adopted the return regulation provisional agreement, the EU-Pakistan tariff agreement, and the termination of the EU-Liberia forest agreement.
The debate exposed a split between centre-right and centre-left groups, with EPP, PfE, ECR, and Renew backing NGTs as a climate and food security tool, while S&D, Greens, and The Left opposed over patent concentration, labeling, and traceability. The adopted report now moves to Council. For farmers and seed producers, NGTs could offer drought-resistant and pest-resistant crops, reducing pesticide and water use, but the lack of labeling and patent rules may concentrate control among large biotech firms like Bayer, disadvantaging smallholders and the organic sector. Consumers face potential benefits from more resilient food supply but lose transparency on whether products contain NGTs. The organic sector, reliant on GMO-free status, may face cross-contamination risks without traceability rules.