GM Soybean MON 94637: Safety Concerns Block Approval

What is being discussed

• GM soybean MON 94637 is a genetically modified soybean that produces two new Bt proteins (Cry1A.2 and Cry1B.2) to protect against moth and butterfly pests.
• The European Commission is preparing a decision that would allow this soybean, and any food or feed made from it, to be sold in the EU.

Parliament’s concerns

• Safety assessment

• EFSA gave a favourable opinion in July 2025, but the Parliament notes:

• The new Bt proteins are much more potent than earlier versions, raising new safety questions.

• The company’s scientific review had methodological problems and omitted some studies.

• Genetic changes were not fully mapped with modern sequencing, so unintended DNA changes may exist.

• Gene‑expression tests were performed only in one field, one year, and one country.

• Toxicity tests mainly used Bt proteins produced in bacteria, not the plant‑produced proteins.

• Some significant findings in 28‑ and 90‑day animal studies were not followed up.

• Possible interactions between the two Bt proteins, plant chemicals, or other stressors were not studied.

• The environmental risk assessment did not fully consider accidental releases or effects on non‑target organisms.

• Democratic process

• The Commission should not approve GMOs unless a qualified majority of Member States in the relevant committees supports it.

• Both committees (Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed and the Appeal Committee) voted no opinion, meaning no majority support.

• One Health approach

• Safety must consider long‑term health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment together. The current assessment does not meet this holistic view.

• International commitments

• Authorising a GM crop tolerant to a herbicide (glufosinate) banned in the EU would conflict with the EU’s commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Sustainable Development Goals, and would give an unfair advantage to companies that can use that herbicide.

Parliament’s requests to the Commission

1. Withdraw the draft decision that would allow the GM soybean to be sold.
2. Do not authorise the soybean until there is clear, long‑term evidence that it is safe for biodiversity, food safety, farmers’ livelihoods, and animal health.
3. Reform the GMO decision‑making process to reflect Parliament’s objections and the lack of qualified‑majority support from Member States.
4. Submit a new legislative proposal that addresses these democratic and safety concerns.
5. Inform the Council, the Commission, and all Member State governments and parliaments about this resolution.

Implications for consumers and farmers

• The EU Parliament is not ready to allow this GM soybean on the market because the safety evidence is incomplete and the approval process lacks democratic backing.
• Until the Commission revises its decision and provides stronger safety data, the soybean will not be sold in the EU.
• The Parliament’s stance reflects a broader concern that GM crops should be thoroughly tested, transparently approved, and consistent with EU environmental and international commitments.

Broader context

The European Union maintains a rigorous, multi-layered procedure for authorizing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) for import, processing, and use in food and animal feed. This process is governed by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which relies heavily on scientific risk assessments conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). europarl.europa

However, the authorization process frequently faces political gridlock. When the European Commission proposes an authorization, it requires support from a qualified majority of Member States in the relevant committees. If Member States cannot reach this majority—often voting "no opinion"—the Commission is frequently legally obligated to proceed with the authorization anyway. This creates tension, as the European Parliament frequently passes non-binding resolutions—such as the one concerning MON 94637—to signal their strong opposition based on safety, democratic, or environmental concerns, despite the Commission's scientific backing. tridge

Impact on people living in the EU

For the average citizen, the immediate impacts of this legislative back-and-forth are limited by existing EU consumer protection laws. It is important to understand the following distinctions regarding how these products affect your daily life:

This ongoing debate highlights the Parliament’s role in advocating for a more precautionary approach to food safety, reflecting public skepticism toward GMOs in the EU. While scientists at EFSA often conclude that these products are safe for consumption, the Parliament continues to push for more comprehensive, long-term, and holistic testing to ensure consumer confidence and alignment with broader environmental goals. gm.agbioinvestor