Euroseeds

Background

Euroseeds is a trade association representing nearly 70 European companies that breed, produce, research, and market the seeds of “agricultural, horticultural and ornamental plant species,” as well as more than 30 national member associations from European Union member and non-member states.¹

Euroseeds describes its goals as:²

“fair and proportionate regulation of the European seed sector;
“freedom of choice for customers (farmers, growers, industry, consumers) in supplying seeds as a result of innovative, diverse technologies and production methods;
“effective protection of intellectual property rights relating to plants and seeds.”

Euroseeds says that it “represents the European seed industry” to EU ministers and institutions including the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, and the Community Plant Variety Office.³

Euroseeds members comprise 67 seed industry companies, and 36 national trade associations.⁴ It represents national seed trade associations, plant breeders’ societies, and plant variety societies from 27 European countries.⁵ It also represents individual plant breeding companies, seed specialist businesses, and international agrochemical companies, mainly from France, the Netherlands, Britain and Germany.⁶

Associate members of Euroseeds include the agrochemical giants Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva, UPL, and BASF.⁷

Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta are represented on the Euroseeds board.⁸

Euroseeds was established in 2000 by the merger of four European seed associations: COSEMCO, a seed industry trade association; ASSOPOMAC, a potato breeders association; AMUFOC, a trade group for forage seed producers; and COMASSO, a plant breeders association.

Euroseeds has funded at least one impact assessment of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, a component of the European Green Deal that aims to transform the EU’s food system and reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture.

The study, carried out by HFFA Research, concluded that “without accelerating plant breeding in the EU in the future, the objectives of the ‘Farm to Fork’ and ‘Biodiversity’ strategies and, hence, the European Green Deal can hardly be achieved.”⁹

Euroseeds routinely advocates for increased support for and investment in “genetic crop improvement” technologies and gene-editing, and argues that the techniques and technologies it advocates for will help the EU meet its climate targets.¹⁰

Stance on Climate Change

In its 2020 “Seed Sector” brochure, Euroseeds wrote that “Europe’s seed sector is determined to help achieve the European Union’s policy objectives of a secure supply of sustainable, healthy, nutritious and high-quality food, and of a greener, circular competitive and climate-neutral economy by 2050.”¹¹

Regarding the challenges of sustainability and climate change mitigation, Euroseeds wrote that innovation in plant breeding and seed production were “playing a major role” in helping farmers respond to climate change. Euroseeds also listed one of its aspirations as “maintaining and creating new biodiversity by using existing plant genetic resources to develop new ones.”¹²

Referring to a self-funded study, Euroseeds states on its website that “recent scientific studies have proven that plant-breeding innovation already strongly contributes to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of farming, food production and the entire economy.”¹³

On Twitter, Euroseeds has suggested that genome editing is an “important tool” and “key solution” for responding to climate change, producing food for the world’s growing population, and conserving biodiversity.¹⁴ ¹⁵

Stance on Farm to Fork Strategy

Euroseeds has been critical of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy.

Euroseeds has made a number of posts on Facebook warning that the “full implementation” of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies might decrease food security,¹⁶ will “require dedicated extra hectares of land to produce food,”¹⁷ and will “significantly reduce the crop market supply” by 2030.¹⁸

In October 2021, Euroseeds signed a joint declaration alongside CropLife Europe, COPA-COGECA, the Agri-Food Chain Coalition, Fertilizers Europe, and other agribusiness industry trade groups that warned the “non-data based political targets” to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use as part of the Farm to Fork Strategy would “have deleterious effects on European agriculture.”¹⁹

In November 2022, Euroseeds signed a letter addressed to Wolfgang Burtscher, Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Commission, regarding the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation (SUR). SUR is a key element of EU F2F and would see the strategy’s pesticide reduction targets enacted in law.²⁰

The letter argued that “policy measures need to take into consideration the consequences and downsides of PPPs [plant protection products] reduction targets for all actors in the food chain, especially in light of the aftermath of COVID-19, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the effects of climate change.” It also argued for “a comprehensive impact assessment,” “adequate targets that are based on science and feasible for producers,” and providing “alternatives [to widely-used pesticides] before withdrawing chemical solutions.”

According to Corporate Europe Observatory, such impact assessments “tend to favour economic factors over social and environmental ones,” adding that these reports are “only delaying progress towards tackling the climate emergency.”²¹

In December 2022, Member States demanded a reassessment of SUR, in line with industry calls.²²

Research Funded by Euroseeds

In May 2021, the consultancy HFFA Research published a study initiated and financed by Euroseeds. The study predicted major food production losses resulting from the EU Farm to Fork and the Biodiversity strategies and examined plant breeding’s ability to “compensate” for a projected fall in yields.²³

The study concluded that over the next 10 years, genetic crop improvements could have “the potential to counteract” half of possible production and market supply losses resulting from the strategies, as well as their “negative consequences on use of global natural resources,” such as water, land, and the climate.

The study’s recommendations included:

“Speeding up processes aiming at genetic crop improvements”
Using “all available technologies,” including plant breeding technologies, to speed up processes aiming to genetically improve crops
Ensuring that policy and regulatory frameworks “encourage and not hinder the…necessary investments into future plant breeding”
Government policies and funding that support “public awareness raising” about “multiple benefits of plant breeding in agriculture” and to “encourage plant breeders to further (and even more) invest into the development of new and better seed varieties”

The study concluded that “without accelerating plant breeding in the EU in the future, the objectives of the ‘Farm to Fork’ and ‘Biodiversity’ strategies and, hence, the European Green Deal can hardly be achieved.”²⁴

The study’s authors claimed that their work was never “influenced by the initiator and supporters of the study.” However, they also stated that a “project steering group” from Euroseeds, as well as Euroseeds “partner organizations,” provided “continuous and valuable feedback throughout the research phase” of the project.²⁵

Euroseeds held a launch event for the study, titled “How innovation in plant breeding boosts sustainable farming in the EU.” Public relations firm Hume Brophy invited the Head of Cabinet for Janusz Wojciechowski, Europe’s Commissioner for Agriculture, to the event.²⁶

Euroseeds promoted the study on its website and on social media.²⁷

The organization posted a video on Facebook captioned, “According to HFFA Research study, EU #plantbreeding in the next 20 years will help avoid an additional #GHG emissions of more than 3.6B tons until 2040.” The video stated: “The EU Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies will require dedicating extra hectares of land to produce food. This results in extra greenhouse gas emissions of 3.6 billion tons until 2040.”²⁸

However, the HFFA study highlighted the speculative nature of some of its findings. According to its authors, study described only one of “many possible future outcomes of implementing the two strategies,” and stated: “This should especially be kept in mind when discussing and interpreting the subsequent results.”²⁹

Campaign group Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has stated that the HFFA study “replicates the GM [genetic modification] lobby regulatory wish-list” and could be used to justify weakening GMO policies in the Farm to Fork Strategy.³⁰

One month before the Euroseeds-funded study was published, the European Commission published a report recommending that EU legislation on genetically modified organisms should be updated to allow the use of targeted gene editing in crops.³¹ Päivi Mannerkorpi, head of the unit for plant health at the European Commission, said that the study strengthened the case for allowing gene editing, saying: “We believe that we should use all the available tools.”³²

Other Industry-Funded F2F “Impact Assessments”

The Euroseeds-funded HFFA study was one of five “impact assessments” of Farm to Fork funded by industry groups. Among them, CropLife Europe commissioned an impact assessment of the possible outcomes of the F2F strategy from Wageningen University and Research (WUR). Euroseeds and other agribusiness lobby groups such as COPA-COGECA and Fertilizers Europe also funded this study.³³ ³⁴

WUR published a summary of its findings in October 2021, a week before the European Parliament voted on the Farm to Fork Strategy, and released the entirety of its study in January 2022, according to Corporate Europe Observatory.³⁵

Euroseeds promoted the study in a January 2022 press release, claiming that it “highlights that innovation is crucial to help reduce the negative impacts of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies.” The statement did not mention that CropLife Europe – the pesticide trade association, and a vested industry interest – had funded and “guided” the WUR report.³⁶

The WUR impact assessment predicted an average 10-20 percent drop in agricultural production, based on modeling of the EU’s targets for reducing land and agrichemical use. Its key recommendation was “removing legislative barriers to new [crop] breeding techniques,” including gene-editing.³⁷

The WUR assessment’s methodology and findings have been criticized by other scientists, and one author of the report has also highlighted its limitations. The study did not include any simultaneous changes in the food system in its analyses,³⁸ such as changing diets, or shifts in the rest of the world food system that would improve the implementation of the Farm to Fork strategy.³⁹ ⁴⁰

In a statement about several of the industry-funded F2F impact assessments, the European Commission stated:⁴¹

“The studies provide both the scientific community and policy makers with a valuable insight on the choice of policy tools to mitigate the risks. However, the models used in the studies all have their limitations. They are not able to assess the full impacts of the two strategies and predict the future. For instance, the future consumer behavioural changes, the impact of research and innovation or technological uptake in the agricultural sector have not, or partially, been taken into account.”

Stance on Gene Editing and Genetic Modification

Euroseeds has suggested that developing and implementing new gene editing and other genetic techniques will be necessary to address climate change.

In October 2021, Euroseeds held a joint event with the American Seed Trade Association, with panelists speaking on “How can innovation and new technologies in agriculture, such as Plant Breeding Innovation, contribute to a more sustainable food system?”⁴² Speakers included John Clarke, Director of International Affairs at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG-AGRI), alongside an MEP and representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.⁴³

In January 2022, Euroseeds contributed to a joint statement published by the Agri-Food Chain Coalition regarding the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, stating: “We need a regulatory environment that encourages plant breeding and delivers on both purposes: quality assurance for customers (the reproductive material meets their demands regardless of the production system, conventional/organic) and speeding up the development of new varieties (for which New Genomic Techniques are a crucial element).”⁴⁴

In June 2022, Euroseeds met with members of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG-SANTE), and emphasized that Commission proposals to deregulate gene editing should be adopted with “urgency.” Euroseeds argued that while “some varieties might be rejected after testing,” the “marketing of PRM [plant reproductive materials] could be permitted while testing is still ongoing.”⁴⁵

What Is Gene Editing?

Gene editing in agriculture is the process of adding, enhancing, or removing specific traits from the DNA of an organism, in order to make it more resistant to pests, diseases, weather, and other problems that can lower crop yields. Gene editing and other “plant breeding technologies” are considered forms of genetic modification under current EU law.⁴⁶

Some studies conclude that there is still not enough data in order to assess the long term safety of such new crops, nor their environmental impact.⁴⁷

Scientists, NGOs and industry members have widely debated whether gene editing should be considered a form of genetic modification. Proponents of gene editing say that it differs from genetic modification because it does not introduce DNA from other species “and creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by natural breeding processes.”⁴⁸

Greenpeace has expressed concerns about the unknown effects of these technologies, such as unintended outcomes created by gene editing errors, or the control of gene-editing techniques by few corporations.⁴⁹

Lobbying Against Regulation of New Genomic Techniques

Euroseeds has argued that new genomic breeding techniques “should not be subject to [European] GMO legislation.”⁵⁰

EU Update of GMO Rules

In 2019, the EU began revising its rules on plant and forest reproductive material, which includes seeds, young plants, tubers, and plant cuttings. The update’s goals included aligning legislation with the European Green Deal’s Farm to Fork, biodiversity, and other strategies.⁵¹

In April 2021, the European Commission published a study on the status of new genomic techniques in EU law, stating that the current EU GMO directive is “not fit for purpose for some new genomic techniques and their products, and that it needs to be adapted to scientific and technological progress.”

In response to the study, Euroseeds Secretary General Garlich von Essen signed a joint letter with other industry associations including the European Chemical Industry Council, CEMA, and CropLife Europe. The letter welcomed the findings of the study, and called on EU ministers of agriculture to act on them in the context of both climate change challenges and the European Green Deal. The letter stated:⁵²

“The NGT study now confirms that ‘several of the plant products obtained from NGTs’ can contribute to various goals of the European Green Deal by saving land resources, allowing a more sustainable use of crop protection products, antibiotics and emissions while stabilizing and increasing crop yields and improving animal health and welfare to ensure food security.”

In September 2021, over 50 organizations – including Corporate Europe Observatory, European Coordination Via Campesina, and Friends of the Earth – published a critical response to the EU study. They charged that the commission had “uncritically” followed “the GMO industry’s ‘wish list’ for deregulation,” and ignored “a large body of scientific evidence and analysis pointing to the risks of new GM techniques.”

According to the NGOs:⁵³

“GMO developers and associated lobby groups (such as ALLEA, EU-SAGE, EuropaBio, EPSO, Euroseeds, Plants for the Future European Technology Platform (ETP), and the ‘big farmers’’ lobby organisation COPA[)] claim that there should be ‘nondiscrimination’ between conventional and gene-edited products because the mutations induced by gene editing could also arise in nature or during conventional breeding programmes, so gene-edited products are no riskier than natural or conventionally bred products. The Commission’s document comes to a strikingly similar conclusion.

“But this argument is false and misleading. New GM techniques may induce a single base change that could also occur in nature – but they can also induce changes that do not occur in nature. Gene-editing applications can target several genes at once, or be used in repeated applications, resulting in changes that would be extremely difficult or impossible to achieve using chemical- or radiation-based mutagenesis or in nature. However, risk is not dependent on the size of the intended change – large risks can result from small changes, and vice versa.”

In its July 2021 submission to the public consultation on the revised EU rules, Euroseeds cited the HFFA Research study that the association itself had funded, stating:⁵⁴

“The study reconfirms that plant breeding has been and continues to be the key driver of competitiveness and resource efficiency, boosting both the socio-economic and the environmental sustainability of EU agri-food production, and with that fully supporting the two EU strategies’ objectives…Euroseeds strongly supports continuous further improvement of the legal framework to take account of latest technological and other developments, to speed up processes, drive quality and reduce cost for operators as well as administrations.”

EU Legislation on Seed Treatment Technologies

Euroseeds has also lobbied specifically on seed treatment technologies in EU legislation. Euroseeds writes that seed treatment involves applying “plant protection products [pesticides, fungicides, and/or herbicides] directly to the seed itself” prior to sowing in order to “protect the seed during germination and protect the plant itself during growth.” Euroseeds claims that seed treatment is “more environmentally friendly than spraying crops in the field.”⁵⁵

In 2020, Euroseeds co-hosted a workshop with the Seed Treatment Industry Stewardship Steering Committee (STISSC) that “focused on the challenges the seed and crop protection industry is facing on the authorization and access of plant protection products for the treatment of seeds that are intended to be used within and outside the European Union (EU).”⁵⁶

The workshop was held in response to “the finalization of the guidance document for the authorisation of plant protection products for seed treatments.” Representatives of the national authorities of Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the European Commission attended the workshop.⁵⁷

Euroseeds has also suggested that seed treatments have a role in meeting EU pesticides targets. In a 2022 response to the EU Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (SUR), Euroseeds suggested that seed treatment technologies could help reach the legislation’s goal: “Seed treatment technologies are fully compatible to the integrated pest management (IPM) principles, while contributing to delivering resilient and healthy plants for the benefit of society.”⁵⁸

Scientists and NGOs say that seed treatments can cause harm to biodiversity, by risking mortality of sensitive bird species and affecting wild bee populations, much like conventionally applied pesticides.⁵⁹ ⁶⁰

Funding

Euroseeds received EU grants worth 101,200 euros in 2020, according to its entry in the EU Transparency Register.⁶¹

The organization also lists several EU-funded projects on its website. These include “Invite,” which aims to “explore opportunities that may improve the current variety testing system (DUS, VCU and performance), e.g. by use of advanced technologies and to look at how the sustainability profile of varieties could be better reflected.” Euroseeds was a consortium member of this project.⁶²

The majority of Euroseeds’ funding may come from its members, though this information is not currently available on its website.

Lobbying

According to its entry in the EU Transparency Register, Euroseeds spent between 1,500,000 euros and 1,749,999 euros on EU lobbying in 2020, the last year for which information is available.⁶³

Between 2013 and 2020, the group spent between 6,250,000 euros and 7,249,994 euros on EU lobbying, according to official data gathered by LobbyFacts.⁶⁴

The organization has held seven meetings with representatives of the European Commission since 2016. These include:⁶⁵

In June 2022, Euroseeds met with Stella Kyriakides, the European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety on Plant reproductive material and New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).
In December 2021, Euroseeds met with Valdis Dombrovskis, chair of the Commissioners’ “Group on an Economy that Works for People”, to talk about the transatlantic seed trade in the context of the Trade & Technology Council. A U.S. lobby group, The American Seed Trade Association, also attended the meeting.

In the Transparency Register, Euroseeds lists its policy and legislation targets as: “All EU initiatives, policies and legislative files touching upon plant breeding (including access to genetic resources, research and development), seed production, seed trade and seed marketing.”⁶⁶

Euroseeds has submitted comments to a number of EU public consultations and roadmaps, including legislation regulating plants produced by certain new genomic techniques, and revision of EU rules for sustainable use of pesticides.

Affiliations

Euroseeds is a member of the Agri-Food Chain Coalition, an association of twelve of the largest industry bodies that lobby on behalf of the EU agriculture industry.⁶⁷

Resources

1
“Who we are,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9BpUW
2
“Who we are,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9BpUW
3
“Representing the Seed Sector“ (PDF), Euroseeds, July 1, 2019. Archived July 25, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
4
“Who we are,” Euroseeds. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/U6nK4
5
“Association members,” Euroseeds. Archived July 11, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/7jrfx
6
“Individual members,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/3CKZT
7
“Associate members,” Euroseeds. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/MgHpc
8
“Individual Members,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4. 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/3CKZT
9
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
10
“Seed Sector Brochure,” Euroseeds, 2020. Archived July 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
11
“Seed Sector Brochure,” Euroseeds, 2020. Archived July 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
12
“Seed Sector Brochure,” Euroseeds, 2020. Archived July 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
13
“Sustainability and climate change,” Euroseeds. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6vo6Y
14
Euroseeds. “Within 100 years, it is estimated that the # of people needing to be fed will more than triple.” Tweet by @EuroseedsEU, September 21, 2021. Retrieved from Twitter.com. Archived November 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zyc5C
15
Euroseeds. “#Agriculture faces the challenges of #foodsecurity, #sustainability & #climatechange.” Tweet by @EuroseedsEU, January 28, 2022. Retrieved from Twitter.com. Archived November 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/2eWCj
16
“#DYK that the full implementation of the #EUFarm2Fork and #EUBiodiversity might decrease #foodsecurity? #Plantbreeding progress is potentially able to compensate in the long run!ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game-changer-fo…/#GrowingTheFuture #COP15,” Facebook post by Euroseeds, December 16, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .png on file at DeSmog.
17
“According to HFFA Research study, EU #plantbreeding in the next 20 years will help avoid an additional #GHG emissions of more than 3.6B tons until 2040. ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game…/ #EUFarm2Fork #EUBiodiversity,” video uploaded to Facebook by Euroseeds, January 4, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
18
“Even 2 decades of #plantbreeding progress at current pace will not compensate for market supply losses if #EUFarm2Fork and #EUBiodiversity strategies are fully implemented. With access to all the innovative tools, plant breeding can help!ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game…/ #GrowingTheFuture #COP15,” video uploaded to Facebook by Euroseeds, December 16, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
19
“Farm to Fork – it is time to listen to what the data says,” CropLife Europe, October 12, 2021. Archived July 19, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/4R4P3
20
“Re: Joint open letter from agri-food chain organisations regarding the potential impact of the current proposal on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products Regulation (“SUR”) on the EU agricultural value chain, considering the current socioeconomic situation in Europe,” Europatat, November 17, 2022. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UqwMD
21
Vicky Cann. “Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business,” Corporate Europe Observatory, July 28, 2022. Archived October 25, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/dSLE8
22
Clare Carlile and Hazel Healy. “Flagship EU Green Farming Reforms in Peril as Lobbyists Exploit Ukraine War,” DeSmog, December 9, 2022.
23
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
24
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
25
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
26
Hume Brophy. “Invitation – Euroseeds online event 17 May 2021,” Provided by the European Commission, Accessed via AsktheEU, May 4, 2021. Archived November 21, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
27
“Plant breeding is a game changer for sustainable agriculture, new study shows,” Euroseeds, May 17, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/sTTJM
28
“According to HFFA Research study, EU #plantbreeding in the next 20 years will help avoid an additional #GHG emissions of more than 3.6B tons until 2040. ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game…/ #EUFarm2Fork #EUBiodiversity,” video uploaded to Facebook by Euroseeds, January 4, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
29
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
30
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork.,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
31
“EC study on new genomic techniques,” European Commission, April 29, 2021. Archived November 28, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/3NzFf
32
Florin Zubașcu. “Biotech lobbies gear up for gene editing regulation battle,” Science Business, May 18, 2021. Archived June 21, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UsPgq
33
“Farm to Fork: What the analysis and data tell us,” EURACTIV YouTube, October 12, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TR15L
34
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
35
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
36
“Wageningen University and Research study highlights that innovation is crucial to help reduce the negative impacts of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies,” Euroseeds, January 20, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/DTXVL
37
Johan Bremmer, Ana Gonzalez-Martinez, Roel Jongeneel, Hilfred Huiting, Rob Stokkers, Marc Ruijs. “Impact Assessment of EC 2030 Green Deal Targets for Sustainable Crop Production,” Wageningen University and Research, December 2021. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
38
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork.,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
39
Magdalena Pistorius, “Farm to Fork studies do not give ‘whole picture’, agri stakeholders warn,” Euractiv, October 29, 2021. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/ibXPF
40
“Factsheet: Green Deal targets for 2030 and agricultural production studies”, European Commission, February 2022. Archived August 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
41
“Green Deal 2030 targets and agricultural production studies,” News Article, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission, October 18, 2021. Archived July 22, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/9MJmE
42
“Charting transatlantic cooperation for a sustainable food system,” Euroseeds, October 13, 2021. Archived November 21, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BSLvr
43
Hume Brophy. “RE: Invitation as a guest speaker: Transatlantic dialogue on agricultural innovation for a sustainable food system,” Provided by European Commission, Accessed via AsktheEU, October 8, 2021. Archived November 21, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
44
“Farm to Fork Strategy: how to reach the targets?,” Agri-Food Coalition, January 27, 2022. Archived on July 25, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5PRDt
45
Email from DG Sante. “BTO: meeting CAB with Euroseeds of 16 June,” Provided by European Commission, Accessed via Ask the EU. Archived November 16, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
46
Kai Purnhagen and Justus Wesseler. “EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, September 28, 2020. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/8szpW
47
Aristidis M. Tsatsakis, Muhammad Amjad Nawaz, Demetrios Kouretas, Georgios Balias, Kai Savolainen, Victor A. Tutelyan, Kirill S. Golokhvast, Jeong Dong Lee, Seung Hwan Yang, Gyuhwa Chung. “Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review,” Environmental Research, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.011
48
“Press release: Plans to unlock power of gene editing unveiled,” Gov.uk, September 29, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/RnjAL
49
“Danger Ahead: Why gene editing is not the answer to the EU’s environmental challenges,” Greenpeace, March 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
50
Tarja Laaninen. “New plant-breeding techniques: Applicability of EU GMO rules,” European Parliament Member’s Research Service, October 2019, Archived August 24, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/fmcy8
51
“Plant and forest reproductive material (revised rules).,” European Commission, June 15, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/meWLS
52
“Inter-association letter to the EU Ministers of Agriculture and DG SANTE – Europabio,” Europabio, May 21, 2021. Archived October 31, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/hdZXe
53
Slow Food Europe. “Biased from the outset: The EU Commission’s “working document” on new GM techniques fails to uphold environmental and consumer protection Standards,” Slow Food, September 2021. Archived June 28, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/c6Dg1
54
Euroseeds. “Feedback from: EUROSEEDS on Plant and forest reproductive material (revised rules),” European Commission, July 13, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/Q3OLB
55
“Seed Treatment And Technologies,” Euroseeds. Archived October 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/2lwCD
56
“Workshop Seed Treatment evaluation under Regulation (EC) 1107/ 2009,” Euroseeds and Seed Treatment Industry Stewardship Steering Committee, November 19, 2020. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
57
“Workshop Seed Treatment evaluation under Regulation (EC) 1107/ 2009,” Euroseeds and Seed Treatment Industry Stewardship Steering Committee, November 19, 2020. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
58
“Euroseeds position on the Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Pesticide,” Euroseeds, June 23, 2022. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/C3tUn
59
Paul de Zylva. “The problem with pesticides: Effects on wild species, food production and our environment,” Friends of the Earth Insight Unit, December 2019. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
60
Rundlöf, M., Andersson, G., Bommarco, R. et al., “Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees”, Nature, March 26, 2015. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/sxhxj
61
“Euroseeds,” EU Transparency Register. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/gslM7
62
“INVITE: INnovations in plant VarIety Testing in Europe,” Euroseeds. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/RP7pd
63
“Euroseeds,” EU Transparency Register. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/gslM7
64
“Euroseeds,” LobbyFacts. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Djf5e
65
“List of meetings “Euroseeds” has held with Commissioners, Members of their Cabinet or Director-Generals since 01/12/2014 under its current ID number in the Transparency Register: “11362308587-10” (PDF),” European Transparency Register, July 26, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
66
“Euroseeds,” EU Transparency Register, July 6, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Ku9mU
67
“Members,” Agri-Food Chain Coalition. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9RvTP

1
“Who we are,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9BpUW
2
“Who we are,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9BpUW
3
“Representing the Seed Sector“ (PDF), Euroseeds, July 1, 2019. Archived July 25, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
4
“Who we are,” Euroseeds. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/U6nK4
5
“Association members,” Euroseeds. Archived July 11, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/7jrfx
6
“Individual members,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/3CKZT
7
“Associate members,” Euroseeds. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/MgHpc
8
“Individual Members,” Euroseeds. Archived July 4. 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/3CKZT
9
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
10
“Seed Sector Brochure,” Euroseeds, 2020. Archived July 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
11
“Seed Sector Brochure,” Euroseeds, 2020. Archived July 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
12
“Seed Sector Brochure,” Euroseeds, 2020. Archived July 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
13
“Sustainability and climate change,” Euroseeds. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/6vo6Y
14
Euroseeds. “Within 100 years, it is estimated that the # of people needing to be fed will more than triple.” Tweet by @EuroseedsEU, September 21, 2021. Retrieved from Twitter.com. Archived November 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/zyc5C
15
Euroseeds. “#Agriculture faces the challenges of #foodsecurity, #sustainability & #climatechange.” Tweet by @EuroseedsEU, January 28, 2022. Retrieved from Twitter.com. Archived November 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/2eWCj
16
“#DYK that the full implementation of the #EUFarm2Fork and #EUBiodiversity might decrease #foodsecurity? #Plantbreeding progress is potentially able to compensate in the long run!ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game-changer-fo…/#GrowingTheFuture #COP15,” Facebook post by Euroseeds, December 16, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .png on file at DeSmog.
17
“According to HFFA Research study, EU #plantbreeding in the next 20 years will help avoid an additional #GHG emissions of more than 3.6B tons until 2040. ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game…/ #EUFarm2Fork #EUBiodiversity,” video uploaded to Facebook by Euroseeds, January 4, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
18
“Even 2 decades of #plantbreeding progress at current pace will not compensate for market supply losses if #EUFarm2Fork and #EUBiodiversity strategies are fully implemented. With access to all the innovative tools, plant breeding can help!ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game…/ #GrowingTheFuture #COP15,” video uploaded to Facebook by Euroseeds, December 16, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
19
“Farm to Fork – it is time to listen to what the data says,” CropLife Europe, October 12, 2021. Archived July 19, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/4R4P3
20
“Re: Joint open letter from agri-food chain organisations regarding the potential impact of the current proposal on Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products Regulation (“SUR”) on the EU agricultural value chain, considering the current socioeconomic situation in Europe,” Europatat, November 17, 2022. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UqwMD
21
Vicky Cann. “Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business,” Corporate Europe Observatory, July 28, 2022. Archived October 25, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/dSLE8
22
Clare Carlile and Hazel Healy. “Flagship EU Green Farming Reforms in Peril as Lobbyists Exploit Ukraine War,” DeSmog, December 9, 2022.
23
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
24
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
25
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
26
Hume Brophy. “Invitation – Euroseeds online event 17 May 2021,” Provided by the European Commission, Accessed via AsktheEU, May 4, 2021. Archived November 21, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
27
“Plant breeding is a game changer for sustainable agriculture, new study shows,” Euroseeds, May 17, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/sTTJM
28
“According to HFFA Research study, EU #plantbreeding in the next 20 years will help avoid an additional #GHG emissions of more than 3.6B tons until 2040. ℹ️ https://euroseeds.eu/…/plant-breeding-is-a-game…/ #EUFarm2Fork #EUBiodiversity,” video uploaded to Facebook by Euroseeds, January 4, 2022. Archived December 16, 2022. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.
29
Steffen Noleppa, Matti Cartsburg. “The socio-economic and environmental values of plant breeding in the EU and for selected EU member states,” HFFA Research, June 2021. Archived July 21, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/5p4z3
30
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork.,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
31
“EC study on new genomic techniques,” European Commission, April 29, 2021. Archived November 28, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/3NzFf
32
Florin Zubașcu. “Biotech lobbies gear up for gene editing regulation battle,” Science Business, May 18, 2021. Archived June 21, 2021. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/UsPgq
33
“Farm to Fork: What the analysis and data tell us,” EURACTIV YouTube, October 12, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/TR15L
34
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
35
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
36
“Wageningen University and Research study highlights that innovation is crucial to help reduce the negative impacts of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies,” Euroseeds, January 20, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/DTXVL
37
Johan Bremmer, Ana Gonzalez-Martinez, Roel Jongeneel, Hilfred Huiting, Rob Stokkers, Marc Ruijs. “Impact Assessment of EC 2030 Green Deal Targets for Sustainable Crop Production,” Wageningen University and Research, December 2021. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
38
“A loud lobby for a silent spring: The pesticide industry’s lobbying tactics against Farm to Fork.,” Corporate Europe Observatory, March 17, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/hpFb3
39
Magdalena Pistorius, “Farm to Fork studies do not give ‘whole picture’, agri stakeholders warn,” Euractiv, October 29, 2021. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/ibXPF
40
“Factsheet: Green Deal targets for 2030 and agricultural production studies”, European Commission, February 2022. Archived August 4, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
41
“Green Deal 2030 targets and agricultural production studies,” News Article, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission, October 18, 2021. Archived July 22, 2022. Archive URL: http://archive.today/9MJmE
42
“Charting transatlantic cooperation for a sustainable food system,” Euroseeds, October 13, 2021. Archived November 21, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/BSLvr
43
Hume Brophy. “RE: Invitation as a guest speaker: Transatlantic dialogue on agricultural innovation for a sustainable food system,” Provided by European Commission, Accessed via AsktheEU, October 8, 2021. Archived November 21, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
44
“Farm to Fork Strategy: how to reach the targets?,” Agri-Food Coalition, January 27, 2022. Archived on July 25, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/5PRDt
45
Email from DG Sante. “BTO: meeting CAB with Euroseeds of 16 June,” Provided by European Commission, Accessed via Ask the EU. Archived November 16, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
46
Kai Purnhagen and Justus Wesseler. “EU Regulation of New Plant Breeding Technologies and Their Possible Economic Implications for the EU and Beyond,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, September 28, 2020. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/8szpW
47
Aristidis M. Tsatsakis, Muhammad Amjad Nawaz, Demetrios Kouretas, Georgios Balias, Kai Savolainen, Victor A. Tutelyan, Kirill S. Golokhvast, Jeong Dong Lee, Seung Hwan Yang, Gyuhwa Chung. “Environmental impacts of genetically modified plants: A review,” Environmental Research, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.011
48
“Press release: Plans to unlock power of gene editing unveiled,” Gov.uk, September 29, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/RnjAL
49
“Danger Ahead: Why gene editing is not the answer to the EU’s environmental challenges,” Greenpeace, March 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
50
Tarja Laaninen. “New plant-breeding techniques: Applicability of EU GMO rules,” European Parliament Member’s Research Service, October 2019, Archived August 24, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/fmcy8
51
“Plant and forest reproductive material (revised rules).,” European Commission, June 15, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/meWLS
52
“Inter-association letter to the EU Ministers of Agriculture and DG SANTE – Europabio,” Europabio, May 21, 2021. Archived October 31, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/hdZXe
53
Slow Food Europe. “Biased from the outset: The EU Commission’s “working document” on new GM techniques fails to uphold environmental and consumer protection Standards,” Slow Food, September 2021. Archived June 28, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/c6Dg1
54
Euroseeds. “Feedback from: EUROSEEDS on Plant and forest reproductive material (revised rules),” European Commission, July 13, 2021. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive PDF: https://archive.ph/Q3OLB
55
“Seed Treatment And Technologies,” Euroseeds. Archived October 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/2lwCD
56
“Workshop Seed Treatment evaluation under Regulation (EC) 1107/ 2009,” Euroseeds and Seed Treatment Industry Stewardship Steering Committee, November 19, 2020. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
57
“Workshop Seed Treatment evaluation under Regulation (EC) 1107/ 2009,” Euroseeds and Seed Treatment Industry Stewardship Steering Committee, November 19, 2020. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
58
“Euroseeds position on the Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Pesticide,” Euroseeds, June 23, 2022. Archived July 4, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/C3tUn
59
Paul de Zylva. “The problem with pesticides: Effects on wild species, food production and our environment,” Friends of the Earth Insight Unit, December 2019. Archived December 14, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
60
Rundlöf, M., Andersson, G., Bommarco, R. et al., “Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees”, Nature, March 26, 2015. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/sxhxj
61
“Euroseeds,” EU Transparency Register. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/gslM7
62
“INVITE: INnovations in plant VarIety Testing in Europe,” Euroseeds. Archived December 14, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/RP7pd
63
“Euroseeds,” EU Transparency Register. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/gslM7
64
“Euroseeds,” LobbyFacts. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Djf5e
65
“List of meetings “Euroseeds” has held with Commissioners, Members of their Cabinet or Director-Generals since 01/12/2014 under its current ID number in the Transparency Register: “11362308587-10” (PDF),” European Transparency Register, July 26, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.
66
“Euroseeds,” EU Transparency Register, July 6, 2022. Archived July 26, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/Ku9mU
67
“Members,” Agri-Food Chain Coalition. Archived June 22, 2022. Archive URL: https://archive.ph/9RvTP

DeSmog

DeSmog

Euroseeds

Background

Stance on Climate Change

Stance on Farm to Fork Strategy

Research Funded by Euroseeds

Stance on Gene Editing and Genetic Modification

Lobbying Against Regulation of New Genomic Techniques

Funding

Lobbying

Affiliations

Resources

Related Profiles

Hume Brophy

Agri-Food Chain Coalition (AFCC)

Bayer

Wageningen University & Research

DeSmog

DeSmog

Euroseeds

Background

Stance on Climate Change

Stance on Farm to Fork Strategy

Research Funded by Euroseeds

Stance on Gene Editing and Genetic Modification

Lobbying Against Regulation of New Genomic Techniques

Funding

Lobbying

Affiliations

Resources

Related Profiles

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter