The European Parliament adopted a resolution opposing the Commission's draft to authorise the placing on the market of genetically modified soy MON 94637. It calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft and not to authorise this soy. This is not a law: Parliament is expressing its position against the Commission's draft act.
The European Commission had proposed to authorise the placing on the market of products containing genetically modified soy MON 94637, following a favourable opinion from the European Food Safety Authority issued on 1 July 2025. This soy was developed to resist certain insects thanks to two insecticidal proteins. The standing committee composed of representatives of the Member States did not deliver an opinion during its vote on 27 February 2026. Parliament, which has long opposed GMO authorisations in the absence of a qualified majority of Member States, examined the draft and voted against it.
Request to withdraw the draftParliament calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of soy MON 94637.
No authorisation without sufficient evidenceParliament calls on the Commission not to authorise this soy in the absence of sufficient evidence on its long-term impact on biodiversity, food safety, farmers' livelihoods and animal health, within the framework of the One Health approach.
Risk assessment deemed incompleteParliament considers that the risk assessment remains incomplete, particularly regarding molecular characterisation, toxicological assessment and environmental risk assessment.
Reform of the GMO procedure requestedParliament invites the Commission to present without delay a legislative proposal to reform the decision-making procedure on GMOs, in order to address its persistent objections and the absence of a qualified majority among the Member States.
Transmission to the institutionsParliament instructs its President to forward the resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Parliament adopted the resolution by 412 votes in favour, 145 against and 11 abstentions, in an electronic roll-call vote.
This vote does not directly change the rules for consumers or businesses: soy MON 94637 is neither authorised nor banned by this resolution. Parliament is expressing its opposition to the Commission's draft and asking it not to authorise this soy. If the Commission withdraws its draft, the soy cannot be placed on the Union market. If it maintains its draft, the procedure will run its course. Parliament is also calling for a reform of the GMO authorisation procedure, which could change the way such decisions are taken in the future.
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution opposing the authorisation of genetically modified soy MON 94637. It calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal and not to authorise this plant. This is not a law: it is a political warning, and it reveals a decision-making mechanism that no longer works.
Parliament voted against authorising MON 94637 soy. It did not do so out of hostility to biotechnology as such, but because the risk assessment seems sloppy to it: incomplete molecular characterisation, toxicological studies based on microbial rather than plant proteins, field trials limited to one year and one country. It therefore calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal.
But this resolution has no binding force. The Commission can maintain its proposal and authorise the soy. Parliament expresses a position, not a decision. And that is precisely the problem: citizens believe their representatives decide, when the final decision escapes the vote.
The standing committee, made up of representatives of the member states, did not deliver an opinion on 27 February 2026, for lack of a qualified majority. This is a recurring deadlock: member states want neither to approve nor to reject, and the Commission decides alone. This mechanism allows the Commission to authorise a GMO without a clear majority, while giving Parliament a consultative role that dares not speak its name.
The absence of a clear decision has an economic and political cost. For farmers and businesses, uncertainty over access to imported raw materials matters as much as the decision itself. For citizens, distrust of institutions grows when procedures give the impression that choices are technocratic and opaque.
Parliament calls for a reform of the procedure. An approach based on subsidiarity and political responsibility would require member states to own their choices: either they authorise or they refuse, but they cannot hide behind the absence of a majority. Such a reform would make the process more legible and more accountable.
The Commission should also draw the consequences of Parliament's opinion: if it maintains its proposal, it must explain why the scientific objections raised are unfounded. Failing that, it fuels distrust and weakens the credibility of the entire authorisation system.
Parliament votes, but the Commission decides: this is not democracy, it is procedure.
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution opposing the authorisation of genetically modified soy MON 94637. It calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal and not to authorise this plant. This is not a law: it is a political warning, and it reveals a decision-making mechanism that no longer works.
Parliament voted against authorising MON 94637 soy. It did not do so out of hostility to biotechnology as such, but because the risk assessment seems sloppy to it: incomplete molecular characterisation, toxicological studies based on microbial rather than plant proteins, field trials limited to one year and one country. It therefore calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal.
But this resolution has no binding force. The Commission can maintain its proposal and authorise the soy. Parliament expresses a position, not a decision. And that is precisely the problem: citizens believe their representatives decide, when the final decision escapes the vote.
The standing committee, made up of representatives of the member states, did not deliver an opinion on 27 February 2026, for lack of a qualified majority. This is a recurring deadlock: member states want neither to approve nor to reject, and the Commission decides alone. This mechanism allows the Commission to authorise a GMO without a clear majority, while giving Parliament a consultative role that dares not speak its name.
The absence of a clear decision has an economic and political cost. For farmers and businesses, uncertainty over access to imported raw materials matters as much as the decision itself. For citizens, distrust of institutions grows when procedures give the impression that choices are technocratic and opaque.
Parliament calls for a reform of the procedure. An approach based on subsidiarity and political responsibility would require member states to own their choices: either they authorise or they refuse, but they cannot hide behind the absence of a majority. Such a reform would make the process more legible and more accountable.
The Commission should also draw the consequences of Parliament's opinion: if it maintains its proposal, it must explain why the scientific objections raised are unfounded. Failing that, it fuels distrust and weakens the credibility of the entire authorisation system.
Parliament votes, but the Commission decides: this is not democracy, it is procedure.
