Food safety and innovation: positive steps, but greater determination, coherence and pragmatism are needed

Farm Europe and Eat Europe welcome the Commission’s package as an important starting point to strengthen food safety, enhance the resilience of the agri-food system and support innovation, while ensuring that the framework is workable for farmers and delivers a high level of protection for consumers.

The package presented today by the European Commission on food safety, including the Biotech Act and the Food Safety Omnibus, sends a clear signal that the European Union recognises the need to reinforce food safety, boost competitiveness and simplify regulatory procedures, while fostering innovation.

At the same time, it is essential to begin work immediately—also in close cooperation with the European Parliament—to improve and fine-tune several elements of the initial proposals. Only in this way can the stated objectives translate into tangible benefits on the ground, making life easier for farmers and ensuring food remains safe for consumers.

We particularly welcome:

• the recognition of the role of biocontrol products as an important tool for crop protection, while acknowledging that they are not a stand-alone solution;
• the intention to simplify procedures, in particular when it comes to mutual recognition of authorisations, which should be further strengthened, especially with regard to harmonisation between Member States on emergency uses;
• the openness to new technologies such as drones, which are essential for more precise, efficient and sustainable farming practices – hoping that this could open the way to always more effective use of digital and precision farming tools.

On the other side we would have expected more determination when it comes to making clear references and consequent measures in line with to the recognised principle “no ban without alternatives” or in setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) for imports in coherence to rules and limits that apply for EU producers, to ensure effective reciprocity. 

Reciprocity rules play a central role and must be assessed in conjunction with the ongoing revision of EU customs legislation and the establishment of the EU Customs Authority. Reciprocity requires robust, uniform and credible controls on imports, overcoming the current situation in which inspections remain uneven and, in some major ports—including Rotterdam—clearly insufficient. The future EU Customs Authority must be empowered to ensure proper enforcement at EU borders and a genuine level playing field for European farmers.

We also acknowledge the ambition of the Biotech Act to strengthen Europe’s innovation capacity -also in view of the second part to be released later in 2026 and on which we hope farmers and food producers will be fully involved during the preparation process. 

However, with regard to the proposed amendments to GMO legislation—both in the Food Safety Omnibus and in the Biotech Act—it is crucial to avoid any acceleration to market based on regulatory shortcuts. In particular, fast-tracking the placing on the market of products derived from GMOs or GMMs through simplified procedures, or classifying such products as novel foods when, in practice, they are not, would undermine regulatory credibility and consumer trust.

In this respect, the Commission’s proposals aimed at promoting precision fermentation—especially where it competes directly with traditional production models, notably in the dairy sector—appear to broaden the definition of processing aids to include any GMO organism used in the manufacture of a product.

In the case of fermentation processes used for the production of synthetic milk and lab-grown dairy products, the GMOs involved are not processing aids. They are the actual producers of the final product, albeit supported by processing aids designed to ensure the feeding and development of the producing micro-organisms. The resulting product is therefore produced by GMO micro-organisms, not simply with the assistance of GMMs acting as processing aids to facilitate production.

Against this background, we welcome the reinforcement of the role of EFSA, but not aimed at accelerating procedures on file that could have long term unknown consequences on human health. Rather than introducing regulatory sandboxes—which, if applied to food, would risk moving in the opposite direction of consumer protection—EFSA should be tasked with reviewing and updating its guidelines to ensure robust, transparent and science-based risk assessments. EFSA provides scientific opinions, not legislation. It must also be ensured that assessments are not based on evidence and studies provided by the applicants themselves or entities linked to them, in order to avoid— as has recently been the case with glyphosate studies — final authorisations being based on false or misleading assumptions.

Today’s package offers an important starting point for discussion and improvements. We stand ready to engage constructively in the legislative process to ensure that the final framework delivers simpler, more harmonised and workable rules, safeguarding food safety while effectively supporting those who produce our food every day.