{"id":12637,"date":"2026-05-21T09:57:49","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T08:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=12637"},"modified":"2026-06-04T14:28:54","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T13:28:54","slug":"the-european-union-has-not-signed-off-on-the-permanent-contamination-of-food","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2026\/05\/21\/the-european-union-has-not-signed-off-on-the-permanent-contamination-of-food\/","title":{"rendered":"The European Union Has Not \u201cSigned Off on the Permanent Contamination\u201d of Food"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Original article<\/a>\u00a0(in Bosnian) was published on 18\/05\/2026; Author:\u00a0Elma Muri\u0107<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What are the claims?
<\/strong>The EU has signed off on the permanent contamination of the plants we eat and the privatization of all living things.
What are the facts?
<\/strong>Although numerous criticisms can be heard publicly regarding proposed changes to existing EU regulations in the field of genetically modified plants and crops, as well as the potential consequences of these changes in the EU, there is no evidence that such food is \u201ccontaminated\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 27, 2026, a website Logi\u010dno published an article<\/a> about the announced new rules in the European Union for labeling food produced from genetically modified organisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

BREAKING \u2013 EU Signed Off on the Permanent Contamination of the Plants We Eat and the Privatization of All Living Things<\/em>
<\/em>Imagine going to a store tomorrow to buy bread, salad, or fruit for your child, and nobody tells you that this food was created in a laboratory with genetic scissors. Brussels has just approved a new type of genetically modified organism that you will not be able to recognize because absolutely nothing will be written on the packaging. They are called NBTs (New Breeding Techniques), a new genomic technique, and the European Union wants to force them into every bite you eat without your consent and without any possibility for you to say no.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The article states that NBT organisms are not \u201cclassic\u201d genetically modified organisms (GMOs) because this technique moves genes within a single species. However, this is allegedly problematic because the technique is \u201ccompletely artificial and industrially oriented\u201d and \u201chas nothing to do with the natural selection farmers have used for centuries\u201d. It explains that, under the new rules, NBT organisms will be divided into two categories. Plants with up to 20 genome edits will fall into the first category and will not carry special labels in stores, while plants in the second category, with more than 20 edits, will be treated according to existing GMO rules, meaning they will carry labels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article further claims that \u201cconsumers will not have a single piece of information about what they are eating\u201d, and that \u201cthe French agency ANSES warned as early as January 2024 that NBTs can lead to changes in the biological functions of plants and potentially cause risks to health and the environment, but its opinion was completely ignored because European law overrides national law\u201d. The article also criticizes lobbying by large companies that profit from patenting genetically modified organisms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

What is most frightening is that political parties are silently passing over this issue as if it did not concern the fundamental human freedom of choice, children\u2019s health, and the survival of small farmers. This is not merely a legislative mistake, but Brussels\u2019 conscious surrender to a powerful lobby that will profit from illness and ignorance. A free person has the right to know what they put in their mouth. A free state has the right to feed its citizens honest food, not laboratory experiments wrapped in plastic without any warning label.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The European Union and regulations on the use of new genomic techniques (NGTs)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Food obtained from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is often the subject of debate due to concerns about possible long-term consequences for human health and the environment. However, it is important to distinguish scientifically confirmed risks from assumptions. Most major scientific and health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO)<\/a> and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)<\/a>, state that GMO food that has passed regulatory checks has no proven greater health risks than conventional food. However, debates do exist regarding specific technologies, regulation, environmental impact, and long-term effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New genomic techniques (NGTs)<\/a> for plant breeding, often also called new breeding techniques (NBTs), are precise and targeted scientific methods used to alter part of a plant\u2019s genetic material without requiring the insertion of foreign genetic material from another species. This makes them different from techniques used to create genetically modified organisms (GMOs)<\/a>, which involve inserting foreign genetic material into an organism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The production and use of NGT-modified plants in the European Union has long been in the focus of the European public, regulators, and critics of this new generation of gene-editing technologies. Contrary to the claims made in the Logi\u010dno article, namely that \u201cthe media are silent\u201d about EU agreements and regulations related to the use of NGTs, details of these regulations are publicly available, as are media articles and reports that question or criticize them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A number of documents, information materials, and press releases<\/a> on new genomic techniques for plant breeding and the need to revise old rules<\/a> and introduce new ones in the EU regarding these technologies can be found on official EU websites. The documents are also available in Croatian, one of the official languages of the EU (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An EU document presenting facts about these technologies states the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

New plant breeding techniques can contribute to sustainable agri-food systems and help respond to challenges such as global food insecurity and climate change, benefiting farmers, consumers and the environment. The new methods could reduce pesticide use and help develop plants with fewer allergens.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The document also provides examples of plants created using these technologies, such as low-gluten wheat and pathogen-resistant potatoes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the explanation<\/a> of why the European Union needs new rules, it is stated that plants obtained through new genomic techniques (NGTs) are currently covered by GMO legislation<\/a>, in line with a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

However, unlike genetically modified plants, plants bred using new genomic techniques can be <\/em>very similar or even identical to products obtained through conventional breeding techniques<\/em><\/strong>, as well as to naturally occurring plants. Plants obtained through new genomic techniques that contain foreign genetic material will continue to be regulated by GMO legislation. The new EU rules aim to provide legal clarity regarding new breeding methods <\/em>that do not use foreign DNA<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

On April 21, 2026, the Council of the EU issued a press release<\/a> stating that it had adopted new rules, that is, a regulation distinguishing between two categories of NGT plants. The press release also contains a detailed description of what these categories entail:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The regulation distinguishes between two categories:<\/em>
<\/em>Category 1 (NGT-1):<\/em><\/strong> plants considered equivalent to conventional varieties. National authorities will verify their status, but their offspring will not require further checks. NGT-1 plants and products will not be labeled, except for seeds and other reproductive material, allowing operators to maintain supply chains free of new genomic techniques if they wish. Certain traits, including herbicide tolerance and the production of known insecticidal substances, are excluded from this category.<\/em>
<\/em>Category 2 (NGT-2):<\/em><\/strong> plants with more complex genetic modifications. Existing EU GMO legislation will continue to apply to them, including authorization, traceability, and mandatory labeling. Member states may opt out of cultivating NGT-2 plants and may introduce coexistence measures to prevent unintended presence in other products.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In simpler terms, the regulation introduces a new method of labeling plants and products grown using NGTs depending on the specific type of genetic modification involved. Category NGT-1 would include plants modified to a limited extent using new technologies and therefore considered equivalent to natural varieties, while the NGT-2 label would still have to be carried by plants created through more complex genetic modifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statement also emphasized that \u201coperators developing NGT-1 plants must provide information on relevant patents in a public database\u201d and that \u201cwithin one year of the regulation entering into force, the Commission will publish a study on the effects of patenting on innovation, seed availability and the competitiveness of the sector, and, if necessary, propose further measures\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European Parliament must formally adopt the text of the regulation, and \u201cthe new framework is expected to apply from mid-2028\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Criticism of the new EU regulations on NGTs<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As mentioned, it has long been publicly known that the European Union has been discussing and working on the adoption of regulations on the application of new genomic techniques (NGTs) in the EU and the establishment of regulatory frameworks. In recent years, many media outlets around the world, including in our region, have written about the new rules, and the changes to previous EU rules on the genetic modification of plants used for food and feed have not been without criticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the European Commission proposed in 2023 to revise EU rules on genetically modified crops (GMOs) in order to ease restrictions on plants bred using new gene-editing technology (NGT), media in the region reported<\/a> that environmental groups stressed that such plants require careful oversight and that the proposal risked making European agriculture dependent on large agricultural companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2023, the website Gospodarski list published a lengthy article conveying<\/a> comments from environmental organizations in Croatia, according to which the draft new regulation on NGTs \u201cforesees a significant weakening of the existing regulatory regime\u201d and that the market would see \u201cproducts of new, still insufficiently researched technologies, which will not be detectable, nor will final consumers be provided with information that these are NGT products\u201d. Other media outlets in Croatia also wrote about the new EU regulations and what they could potentially mean for domestic agriculture, growers, and end users (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reactions also followed after the Council of the EU and Parliament reached a preliminary agreement<\/a> in December 2025 on a set of rules establishing a legal framework for NGTs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2025, Politico magazine reported<\/a> that the new agreement on genetically modified crops had cracked the EU\u2019s dam against genetic modification, noting that \u201ccritics call it a rebranding of GMOs\u201d. The article also stated that there were numerous disagreements among EU negotiators and that \u201csupporters of the agreement highlight the potential of NGTs to breed climate-resilient plants that need less land and fertilizer to grow, and argue that the EU is already lagging behind global competitors using the technology\u201d, while \u201ccritics fear that the EU is opening the door to GMOs and giving too much power to large seed corporations\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reuters reported<\/a> at the time that \u201csupporters say the technology accelerates natural mutations and offers a response to climate and environmental pressures\u201d, while \u201ccritics classify it among genetically modified organisms as a risk to ecosystems and health\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even after the Council of the EU adopted the regulation in April 2026, resistance from parts of the public calling for stricter regulation remains present. EuroNews reported<\/a> on May 6 this year that \u201cthe final word will be given by the European Parliament, which had previously advocated a more cautious approach, including mandatory labeling of GMO products and restrictions on seed patenting<\/a>\u201d. EuroNews also added that the debate on NGT plants raises the question of \u201chow to reconcile technological progress with consumer rights and environmental protection\u201d, and that \u201cthe upcoming EU decision could have long-term consequences not only for agriculture but also for the way citizens choose and consume food\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, it is clear that the media have been reporting on the new EU rules on NGTs in recent years and that the proposed regulation has not been spared criticism. These criticisms range from concerns about health and the environment within the EU to fears that the new regulations and permission for patenting will directly benefit agricultural corporations at the expense of local farmers and producers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is NGT food \u201ccontaminated\u201d?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to a range of concerns and criticisms, in a text titled \u201cIs the EU approving new GMOs? Separating fact from fiction\u201d, the European Parliament answered questions<\/a> about the safety of NGTs and how these technologies differ from GMOs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The text explains that a major difference between GMOs and NGTs is that \u201cGMOs are usually produced by inserting genes from another species into a plant, while NGTs allow targeted changes in the plant\u2019s own DNA\u201d. It adds that \u201cGMOs contain genetic material that could not have arrived there through conventional breeding, while NGTs speed up changes that could have occurred through traditional techniques\u201d. In response to the question \u201cAre NGTs safe?\u201d, it states the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

At present, the scientific consensus is that <\/em>NGTs can be considered as safe as conventional breeding<\/em><\/a> for the types of gene edits that fall under category NGT-1. This is because no foreign DNA from any other species is introduced, and the gene edits are small, targeted and limited in number, and can also occur through random natural mutations or conventional breeding.<\/em>
<\/em>At the request of the European Parliament, under the new rules, plants genetically modified for herbicide tolerance and traits producing insecticides are explicitly excluded from category NGT-1 in order to address concerns about agricultural and environmental knock-on effects.<\/em>
<\/em>NGT-2 plants <\/em>\u2013<\/em> those with more extensive modifications <\/em>\u2013<\/em> will be subject to the full GMO authorization regime precisely because the safety assessment for them is less straightforward. Full traceability and labeling will remain mandatory for NGT-2 plants, and EU countries may restrict or ban the cultivation of plants even if they are approved for cultivation in the EU, in line with current GMO rules.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Alongside claims that the \u201cEU has signed off on the permanent contamination of the plants we eat\u201d, the Logi\u010dno article states that the French agency ANSES warned in January 2024 that NBTs can lead to changes in the biological functions of plants and potentially cause risks to health and the environment, and that \u201ctheir opinion was completely ignored because European law overrides national law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is true that ANSES, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, published an opinion<\/a> in January 2024 on \u201cmethods for assessing health and environmental risks and socio-economic issues associated with plants obtained using certain new genomic techniques (NGTs)\u201d, in which it warned of potential risks related to NGTs. The agency had previously also called for clarification<\/a> of certain definitions or classification procedures and the scope of techniques covered, while highlighting certain scientific and health limitations in establishing criteria in the proposed EU regulations. In its opinion, ANSES added that it \u201cnotes that these techniques may lead to changes in the biological functions of plants, which are not taken into account in the Commission proposal for category 1, and that subsequent risks to health and the environment cannot be excluded\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The European branch of the environmental organization Greenpeace warned<\/a> in 2024 that, in addition to ANSES, national agencies in Germany and Austria had also pointed to potential risks related to the proposed new EU regulation. However, in none of the mentioned opinions and assessments did expert teams and working groups label NGT plants as contaminated, \u201cpoisoned\u201d, or toxic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Food obtained from genetically modified plants that has passed regulation and can be found on the markets of a number of countries around the world is not toxic. In earlier analyses of false claims related to GMO food (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>), Raskrinkavanje emphasized that the World Health Organization (WHO) states<\/a> on its website that genetically modified food currently available on the international market has passed safety assessments and is \u201cnot likely\u201d to pose risks to human health. The same information can be found in other sources. For example, the Canadian government\u2019s website states<\/a> that \u201cthe use of GM techniques does not introduce unique risks into the food supply\u201d and that \u201cthe potential for long-term effects of these foods is no different from that of conventional foods that have long been a safe part of the Canadian diet\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, although numerous criticisms can be heard publicly regarding proposed changes to existing EU regulations in the field of genetically modified plants and crops, and the potential consequences of those changes within the European Union, there is no evidence that such food is \u201ccontaminated\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to manipulative claims that the EU wants to \u201cforce\u201d products obtained from NGT crops \u201cinto every bite you eat\u201d, the new EU regulation does not mean that all food on the EU market will become genetically modified \u201covernight\u201d. Seeds and reproductive material obtained through NGTs will be labeled, giving growers the possibility to choose and allowing them to continue producing food without new genomic techniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claims that GMO technology is a tool for \u201ccontrolling\u201d the food supply belong to narratives promoting conspiracy theories about alleged secret plans to manipulate the global population or the global economy. These claims are not based on facts, and numerous organizations and fact-checking platforms around the world have written about disinformation and myths claiming that GMO food is intended to directly harm human health and economies (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>).Accordingly, we rate the claim made by the website Logi\u010dno that the EU has \u201csigned off on the permanent contamination of the plants we eat\u201d as manipulation of facts<\/strong>. We rate the claim that \u201cthe media are silent\u201d about the new EU regulations on NGT plants, as well as the claim that \u201cthe EU wants to force NGTs into every bite we eat\u201d, as a conspiracy theory<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Original article\u00a0(in Bosnian) was published on 18\/05\/2026; Author:\u00a0Elma Muri\u0107 What are the claims?The EU has signed off on the permanent contamination of the plants we eat and the privatization of all living things.What are the facts?Although numerous criticisms can be heard publicly regarding proposed changes to existing EU regulations in the field of genetically modified […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":12651,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[31,161,786],"class_list":["post-12637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks","tag-european-union","tag-food","tag-regulations"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12637","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12637"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12637\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12652,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12637\/revisions\/12652"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12651"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}