In just a few days, two decisions made in Brussels and Washington redrew the boundaries of the global food system. The European Parliament approved the regulation on new genomic techniques (NGTs), reclassifying most new GMOs as « conventional plants » by law, with no prior risk assessment, no traceability, and no labelling for consumers or farmers.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US Supreme Court was closing doors of its own, making it harder for people harmed by Bayer-Monsanto’s glyphosate weedkiller Roundup to seek justice in court. Different institutions, same corporate playbook: profits come first, people come second.

The EU has framed its green light to the new GMOs as a simple modernization of the rules — but in reality, it’s dealt another blow to the precautionary principle, at a moment when research keeps flagging real uncertainties around gene editing, including the risk of unintended mutations. There’s a further sting in the tail: accidental contamination could spiral into an intellectual property dispute, shifting the burden of proof onto farmers themselves. And in a final blow, Parliament rejected the amendments that would have guaranteed traceability and limits on patents, stripping citizens, farmers, and organic supply chains of their right to choose.

In this landscape, Italy stands out as one of the most exposed countries. The organizations that opposed the vote describe it as a severe blow to food sovereignty, consumer rights, and the future of organic and small-scale farming. For a production system built on quality, biodiversity, and territorial identity, the new GMOs pose a genuine threat. And this isn’t just a technical debate, it’s about who gets to decide agriculture’s future: rural communities, or patent holders.

As documented in Navdanya International’s report « Seeds of Resistance, » this deregulatory push has precedent. In Latin America, the so-called « Argentina model » has stripped back controls, biosafety measures, and labelling requirements to speed new genetically modified varieties onto the market. Similar strategies are gaining ground in Africa and Oceania, where the language of food security and climate adaptation is being used to pave the way for patented seeds and technology packages that lock farmers into industrial dependency. These are new forms of biopiracy: ones that privatize life itself and know how to sidestep international safeguards like the Nagoya Protocol.

The US ruling on Roundup completes the picture: as legal protections for pesticide victims shrink, exclusive rights over seeds and technologies grow stronger. Deregulate the risk, privatize the gains, socialize the harm: this has become the dominant paradigm.

But there are alternative paths too. Mexico has enshrined protection of native corn in its constitution; the Philippines halted some transgenic crops by invoking the precautionary principle; and in Switzerland, a new popular initiative aims to keep genetic engineering out of the fields. Even in Europe, momentum is building to challenge the new regulation before the EU Court of Justice.

While transnational policy follows a direction set by corporate interests, more and more territories are charting a successful alternative path: one grounded in agroecology, cultivated biodiversity, farmer autonomy, and cooperation. Climate resilience and food security cannot be bought at a steep price from the corporate banquet table; they emerge instead from regenerating food systems built on seeds as a common good.

Manlio Masucci, Navdanya International