On the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean GMB151 x DAS-44406-6 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council

A.whereas on 29 May 2024, BASF SE, based in Germany, on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, based in the United States, submitted an application to the national competent authority of Belgium for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean GMB151 × DAS-44406-6 (the ‘GM soybean’);

B.whereas on 27 January 2026, EFSA issued a favourable scientific opinion on the GM soybean, in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas it concluded that the GM soybean, as described in the application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-genetically modified soybean reference varieties with respect to the potential effects on human and animal health and the environment; whereas the opinion did not address several broader environmental, socio-economic, and cumulative impacts which EFSA considers to fall outside its remit;

C.whereas the GM soybean was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GMB151 and DAS-44406-6; whereas the two-event stack soybean expresses the Cry14Ab-1, HPPD-4, PAT, AAD-12 and 2mEPSPS proteins to confer resistance to plant parasitic nematodes and to provide tolerance to several herbicides, including glufosinate-based, 2,4-D based and glyphosate based herbicides;

D.whereas the risk assessments carried out by EFSA did not include long-term toxicological studies or detailed analysis of cumulative and combinatorial effects, including potential interactions with residues of pesticides commonly used in soybean cultivation;

E.whereas the vast majority of GM crops, including the GM soybean, have been genetically modified so that they are tolerant to one or more ‘complementary’ herbicides which can be used throughout the cultivation of the GM crop, without the crop dying, as would be the case for a non-herbicide tolerant crop; whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds;

F.whereas herbicide-tolerant GM crops lock farmers into a weed management system that is largely or wholly dependent on herbicides, and does so by charging a premium for GM seeds while creating a dependency on the use of complementary herbicides as an integral part of the production system; whereas heightened reliance on the complementary herbicides on farms planting the GM soybean will accelerate the emergence and spread of weeds resistant to those herbicides, thereby triggering the need for even more herbicide use, a vicious circle known as ‘the herbicide treadmill’; whereas, as a consequence, the adverse impacts stemming from excessive reliance on herbicides will worsen soil health, water quality, and above and below ground biodiversity, as well as leading to increased human and animal exposure, potentially also via increased herbicide residues on food and feed;

G.whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and therefore meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council; whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018;

H.whereas significant scientific uncertainties regarding the safety of glyphosate for human health and the environment persist; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of other recent peer-reviewed scientific studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate; whereas the journal ‘Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology’ has formally retracted the scientific paper ‘Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans’, published in 2000, which has been used to defend the safety of glyphosate in many risk assessments, as ‘concerns were raised regarding its authorship, the validity of the research findings in the context of misrepresentation of the contributions by the authors and the study sponsor and potential conflicts of interest of the authors’;

I.whereas assessment of herbicide residues and metabolites found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic because the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, as well as the composition and thus the toxicity of the metabolites can be impacted by the genetic modification itself;

J.whereas independent monitoring and surveillance of potential adverse effects on biodiversity, soil health, pollinators and non-target organisms remain insufficiently guaranteed;

K.whereas the precautionary principle, enshrined in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should apply in cases of scientific uncertainty;

L.whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 requires that GM food and feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment;

M.whereas Union authorisation of the GM soybean would not be consistent with international commitments on pesticide reduction, given the increased human, animal and environmental exposure to glyphosate and glufosinate in countries which grow this herbicide-tolerant GM crop, along with the potentially serious associated health outcomes;

N.whereas the cultivation of the GM soybean is not allowed in the Union;

O.whereas the draft Commission implementing decision would continue to allow imports into the Union that do not comply with the standards observed by Union farmers, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

P.whereas the conclusions of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture call on the Commission to reassess its approach on market access for agri-food imports and exports, given the challenge of diverging standards of the Union and its trading partners; whereas fairer trade relations, at a global level, consistent with goals for a healthy environment were one of the main demands of farmers during the demonstrations of 2023, 2024 and 2025;

Q.whereas Parliament has repeatedly stressed that the Commission should not authorise GMOs in cases where no qualified majority is reached by Member States in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed or the Appeal Committee, in order to address the persistent democratic deficit;

R.whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

S.whereas the One Health approach requires taking into account the interdependence between human, animal, plant and environmental health when assessing the long-term sustainability and safety of GMOs;

1.Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2.Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is incompatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision;

4. Calls on the Commission not to authorise the GM soybean due to the lack of sufficient evidence on long-term impacts on biodiversity, food safety, farmers’ livelihoods and animal health, in line with the One Health approach;

5. Calls on the Commission to submit, without delay, a legislative proposal to reform the decision-making procedure on GMOs in order to respond to the consistent objections of Parliament and the lack of qualified majority support among Member States;

6. Highlights, in this regard, that authorising the import for food, feed or products of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to herbicides that are banned in the Union, such as glufosinate, is inconsistent with the Union’s international commitments under, inter alia, the United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including the Kunming-Montreal Framework, and that it creates an uneven playing field for Union farmers;

7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.