Learning from the Grassroots focuses on dedicated civil society networks, that show how sustainable change in the field of food sovereignty is almost always driven by civil society — by associations, NGOs, alliances, engaged businesses, and individuals. Bureaucratic regulations, by contrast, often lag behind or even stand in the way of sustainable development.
This tension is particularly evident in the realm of seed politics. Civil society networks advocating for open access, diversity, and food sovereignty argue that the bureaucratic rules designed for industrial agriculture have become overwhelming for small farms and independent breeders. What was once meant to ensure quality now often turns into an almost insurmountable obstacle.
At the same time, pressure from the seed industry to deregulate new genetic engineering techniques is growing. Such a relaxation of regulations could unleash a wave of patents – and thus further consolidate the power of a few multinational corporations over key resources in the food system.
Seed diversity is under threat from both directions: from bureaucratic regulations on one side and the profit-driven ambitions of international corporations on the other. What’s becoming increasingly evident is that the commitment to diversity and seeds as a common today rests entirely on the shoulders of civil society actors.
The future of seed diversity lies in the hands of a vibrant civil society
This commitment is increasingly under pressure. The human right to pass on seeds and preserve climate-resistant, locally adapted, and traditional varieties is being curtailed worldwide. Strict seed regulations as the European PRM (the regulation on the production and marketing of plant reproductive material) require varieties to meet specific criteria. To be approved and marketed, varieties must be distinct, uniform, and stable.
These requirements favor industrial high-yield varieties and marginalize the diversity of traditional and local crops. Old, regional, or open-pollinated varieties mostly fall through the cracks of these criteria because they are often not uniform enough. They may not be sold, even if they are ecologically valuable. As a result, many varieties are vanishing and genetic diversity is being lost. However, local crops are a central foundation for food sovereignty and agro-ecological resilience.
In many national seed regulations, the requirement for the official registration of commercial plant varieties also poses an obstacle to the informal and unbureaucratic exchange of seeds at the grassroots level. By restricting the marketing and distribution of seeds to officially approved varieties, these laws effectively limit the free exchange of traditional, regionally adapted, or farmer-bred seeds.
From common to intellectual property
The corporate seed lobby is pushing for the deregulation of new genetic engineering (NGT) and its equal treatment with conventional breeding. This would open up a dangerous gateway for large agricultural corporations to expand their patent rights. Patents were originally intended to protect technical inventions. However, the patenting of plants from conventional breeding is prohibited under current EU law.
By legally equating new genetic engineering techniques with conventional breeding, corporations can patent plant traits that also arise naturally. These include disease resistance, drought tolerance, and other adaptive traits. In many cases, these traits have indeed not been developed through technical inventions, but through classical breeding, or via random mutations. This allows companies to create monopolies on key plant traits that were previously in the public domain.
No monopoly on life – patents affect us all
The serious effect of this practice is increasing market domination by a few multinational companies. Through international agreements such as TRIPS (the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, administered by the WTO) corporations are involved in the jurisprudence process of states and state-unions. These agreements create binding legal standards for how states must structure their intellectual property (IP) laws. This gives these multinational corporations ever greater control over agricultural production worldwide.
The flood of patent applications means that breeders are faced with unmanageable license fees, expensive laboratory analyses, and legal uncertainties. They are constantly at risk of unintentionally infringing existing patents and thus facing legal and financial consequences.
If the EU does not take countermeasures soon, more and more small and medium-sized breeding companies will be forced to give up. This would not only further reduce the diversity of cultivated varieties. The concentration process among a few large seed corporations would also deepen farmers‘ dependence on patented seeds, which come with strict licensing conditions, license fees, and limited self-determination.
When ‚cutting bureaucracy‘ becomes a cover-up for corporate interests
However, the reflex to vote for right-wing parties in response to the European Union’s regulatory frenzy and the influence of the seed industry lobby on EU decision-making processes is heading in exactly the wrong direction. These parties are particularly susceptible to the whispers of the pesticide and GMO seed lobby. They represent the interests of industrial agriculture and marginalize critical civil society movements as a ‚disruptive factor.‘
Under the pretext of reducing ‘unnecessary bureaucracy’, regulations designed to protect us from excessive corporate greed are now being watered down or abolished in the Eropean Union. These are regulations that protect the environment, ensure clean air and healthy food, guarantee fair and safe working conditions, and combat discrimination.
Center-right pact: power shift in the EU Parliament and its implications
Several legislative proposals have already been adopted without the European Commission first presenting an impact assessment, even though this is essential for informed decision-making. The additional use of the so-called fast-track procedure further exacerbates the situation, as it makes a thorough democratic debate in the European Parliament virtually impossible.
In addition, right-wing parties play a central role in putting pressure on civil society movements. They attempt to delegitimize committed groups, associations, and NGOs, try to withdraw their funding, or publicly discredit them. Especially in the areas of agriculture, biodiversiy, sustainability, and food souvereignty, this makes the work of those who are committed to ecological and social sustainability even more difficult.
Behind closed doors
Perhaps the debate about the European Union’s regulatory frenzy should be conducted in a more nuanced manner. It is undeniable that the EU is built upon a dense web of rules and procedures. Decision-making processes within the EU institutions are often not very transparent. Complex negotiations – such as, currently, the trilogue negotiations on the deregulation of new genetic engineering between the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament – frequently take place behind closed doors. They are shielded from meaningful public scrutiny.
As a result, regulations emerge from a process that few citizens understand and even fewer can influence. This technocratic opacity reinforces the perception that Brussels operates in a world of its own, increasingly alienated from the everyday realities it seeks to govern.
Polulist simplification
Yet the crucial question is not merely how much the EU regulates, but what is being regulated (or deregulated), why, and in whose interest. Without this distinction, the debate runs risk of descending into populist simplifications that obscure rather than clarify.
A blanket rejection of regulation can inadvertently weaken the very forces of civil society that are essential for a functioning democracy: those committed to the common good and serving as the last line of defense against the disproportionate power of large corporations. Meaningful criticism of EU regulation must therefore focus less on quantity and more on purpose, transparency, and accountability.
The power of civil society networks
While the powerful lobby of seed and pesticide companies in Brussels is gaining more and more influence, a decentralized counter-lobby has long since formed: a network of NGOs, associations representing farmers‘ rights, associations for the preservation of old varieties and the free distribution of seeds, and seed companies that work according to strict organic guidelines and reject the patent system.
These civil society actors are also trying to influence European seed policy. Their strategies range from directly influencing political processes – national as well as in Brussels – to raising awareness, petitions, and practical initiatives on the ground, such as regional variety conservation programs.
Despite limited resources, the counter-lobby has achieved significant goals in recent years – such as the rejection of a draft restrictive EU seed regulation in 2014 that would have effectively banned old varieties. Nevertheless, pressure from industry remains high, and many civil society actors encounter closed doors in Brussels.
Our food security is at stake
In times of climate crisis and biodiversity loss, the fight for free, diverse seeds is becoming increasingly important – not only for farmers, but for society as a whole. Across Europe, numerous initiatives have joined forces to promote an agricultural policy that focuses on diversity and the common good.
It is only thanks to the commitment of these civil society actors and their networking that the influence of large corporations in Europe has been pushed back by several decades.
EU: Head-on attack by corporate lobbyists
But what happens next? While states in the Global South, such as Mexico and Kenya, are already starting to ban GMOs and (as in the case of Mexico) even enshrine this rejection in their constitution, the industrial seed lobby seems to have made a concerted effort in recent years to break into the European market.
What would happen if the European Union decided to deregulate the new genetic engineering technology? What consequences would this have for the future of food sovereignty in Europe?
Goodbye freedom of choice?
Apart from the impending flood of patents: Without mandatory labeling, how can separate production chains for seeds, transport, and storage be guaranteed and monitored? Who would bear the costs if an organic farm were contaminated by NGT plants? How can the organic trade credibly guarantee that products are GMO-free if labeling requirements are abolished?
How can genetically modified organisms that cause damage to human and animal health or to ecosystems be withdrawn from circulation if there is no mandatory traceability? In short, how will the EU’s precautionary principle be upheld?
