Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, in a written answer on 22 June 2026, defended the EU's practice of authorising genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for import while maintaining strict restrictions on cultivation, arguing that both are subject to rigorous safety assessments and that the discrepancy arises from Member State opt-outs and applicant choices. The answer responds to a parliamentary question from Gilles Pennelle and ten other MEPs of the Patriots for Europe group, who had challenged what they called a 'major contradiction' between the EU's restrictive cultivation rules and its growing imports of GM soy and feed.
Várhelyi stressed that EU legislation imposes strict rules for both cultivation and market placement, including imports, with all GMOs undergoing a comprehensive risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority. He noted that access to cultivation depends on whether applicants seek authorisation for that purpose and whether Member States use Directive 2015/412 to prohibit cultivation on their territory for non-safety reasons. Currently, eighteen Member States ban cultivation of the only GM maize authorised for growing in the EU. The Commissioner framed import authorisations as a practical response to the high protein feed demand of EU livestock farmers, enabling the import of GM feed deemed safe.
The answer contains no new policy proposals or commitments to change the current framework. It reiterates the existing legal basis and the Commission's reliance on scientific risk assessment. The MEPs had asked whether the Commission would implement measures to end the perceived double standard and better protect European consumers and farmers, but Várhelyi did not signal any intention to revise the rules. The response suggests the Commission sees no contradiction, instead portraying the two tracks as consistent applications of the same safety-first principle, with cultivation restrictions reflecting Member State choices rather than EU-level inconsistency.
Institutional follow-up is unlikely in the near term, as the answer closes the written question procedure without announcing any review or legislative initiative. The issue may resurface in parliamentary debates or future trade negotiations, particularly as EU imports of GM soy from Latin America continue to rise. Stakeholder impact is moderate: EU livestock farmers benefit from continued access to affordable GM feed, while anti-GMO consumer and environmental groups see their concerns dismissed. EU farmers who might wish to cultivate GM crops remain blocked by Member State opt-outs, and the Commission shows no inclination to harmonise the regime.