Seeds of Controversy: Deregulation in Europe, Resistance in the Global South

18 Mar 2025

The events of recent weeks seem to underscore the tangible progression of a cycle that, just a few decades ago, may have been unforeseen. Since genetically modified organisms (GMOs) began to be promoted by seed companies, their actual use has expanded, particularly in regions where the social, ecological, and economic impacts on the food production system have likely been less debated. Over the past decade, data indicates that genetically modified crop cultivation has increased only in certain countries of the Global South. Even in the United States, historically receptive to GMO cultivation and consumption, the cultivated area has remained unchanged in recent years, while it has declined significantly in India and China. However, it continues to grow in some Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Paraguay, and has expanded considerably in Pakistan.

Urgent Need for a Strong Response from Civil Society in Europe

In recent weeks, however, certain events have likely provided a tangible sign of the urgent need for a strong response from civil society. In Europe, after lengthy negotiations, policymakers approved the initiation of official discussions on a proposal to deregulate legislation on new GMOs, which the previous European Commission had sought to distinguish from traditional GMOs. The negotiations were so prolonged and complex, with vetoes and often divergent positions, that the final approval resulted in an even worse document—one in which the dilution of control mechanisms by Member States offers an exclusive and additional advantage to agro-industrial companies interested in producing these varieties or scaling up their production.

Now, the situation appears even more confused. However, what remains clear and unequivocal is that yet another opportunity has been lost to protect the agro-food production system and advance the necessary agroecological transition—both of which are essential for the social and economic security of many rural communities worldwide. European organic production will face greater risks since, although the use of genetically modified varieties remains prohibited under organic farming regulations, farmers lack sufficient safeguards against the risk of contamination in fields where genetically modified crops coexist.

Kenya, Philippines and Mexico leaders against GMOs

While Europe moves toward deregulation and the consequent reinforcement of agro-industrial models, a different trend is emerging in other parts of the world, where experience with genetically modified organisms is leading to opposing decisions. Recently, Kenya’s Court of Appeal banned even the import of genetically modified products (following the government’s 2022 decision to prohibit the cultivation of GMO varieties). Even earlier, in mid-2023, the Supreme Court of the Philippines blocked the cultivation of Golden Rice—a variety with highly controversial origins—citing insufficient information on its food safety.

More than 80% of genetically modified varieties are soy and corn, rarely intended for human consumption, followed by cotton. In these three crops, genetic modification primarily targets herbicide resistance, leading to increased chemical use, which disrupts ecosystem balance and undermines agroecological production models. Their contribution to biodiversity loss is evident, with more than 70% of the world’s corn, soy, and cotton fields cultivated with genetically modified varieties.

This context underscores the significance of the Mexican government’s decision to enshrine in its constitution a total ban on genetically modified corn—both old and new—after historically allowing its cultivation. For Mexicans, corn is a traditional crop with hundreds of local varieties at risk of GMO contamination, and its cultural and social heritage cannot and must not be compromised.

A highly fragmented picture

This creates a highly fragmented picture, casting more shadows than light and failing to provide a globally coherent solution aligned with the need to conserve ecosystems through a food system that respects biodiversity, soil health, and the preservation of water resources. GMOs, both old and new, are not designed to feed people and communities but to further enrich the agro-industry, driven by profit maximization that has nothing to do with global food security.

A recent economic investment by multinationals involved in the genetic modification of bananas, for example, has led to the development of a new genetically modified cultivar aimed at reducing oxidation and extending the fruit’s shelf life. This clearly demonstrates that the objectives are purely industrial, with no connection to the farmers who sustain the planet. The innovations introduced by the genetically modified crop market consistently focus on enhancing performance to secure increasing profits for agricultural multinationals through the irrational exploitation of natural resources. This stands in direct contrast to the urgent need to mitigate the impact on ecosystems—something that can only be achieved through a food production system guided by strong agroecological principles.

by Francesco Sottile, Slow Food Board member and Professor of Biodiversity and Quality in Food Systems at the University of Palermo