The first half of 2025 coincides with a crucial stage of the European Union’s reform on new genomic techniques (NGTs). NGTs include a diverse set of precise genome modification methods, the common feature of which is the possibility of interfering with genetic material without introducing foreign DNA. Their legal status raises significant interpretational doubts in the light of the current EU law on GMOs, which is based on Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001) and Regulation 1829/2003 (Regulation, 2003).
The 2018 ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which included organisms obtained by mutagenesis in the GMO regime, was groundbreaking (Court of Justice of the EU, 2018). Following this ruling, the European Commission carried out an in-depth analysis of the legal consequences, which in 2024 resulted in the adoption of a draft regulation differentiating the status of NGT1 and NGT2 plants (European Commission, 2021). The new regulation, approved by the Council in March 2025 under the Polish presidency, constitutes a significant change to the current legal model in relation to NGT1, de facto leading to deregulation (Małopolska Izba Rolnicza, 2025).
Although the EU’s GMO policy has been based on the precautionary principle and risk assessment for over two decades, this is not the first deregulation. Food and feed or GM crops can be approved for sale by decision of the European Commission, but many Member States—including Poland—have decided to introduce crop bans, despite the existing authorization mechanism at the EU level. This possibility has existed since 2015 and results from Directive 2015/412 (the so-called opt-out clause) (Directive, 2015), which allows Member States to refuse to cultivate authorized GM crops. This clause does not apply to GM food or feed, because Member States cannot prohibit the import of these products. Ultimately, EU law allows Member States to decide only on GM crops, not on the presence of such products on the market.
However, some countries, such as Poland, are introducing national bans on the production, marketing, and use of GM feed and GMOsintended for feed use in their territory. Currently, this national ban is irrelevant, as there is a moratorium in place that allows Poland to import feed containing GM ingredients (ISAAA, 2024). High-protein feed components, including GM soybean meal, are crucial for the poultry sector, in which Poland has been a leader in the EU and a major global exporter for years (Kowalska et al., 2023).
The introduction of new regulations is therefore not only another deregulation of EU law, but also an opportunity to assess the functioning of the current GM feed safety model, which has been in force for over two decades. This model remains inconsistent, dispersed, and susceptible to national exceptions, which raises serious questions about its effectiveness and impact on the competitiveness of European agriculture (Goodman, 2024).
The aim of this article is to assess the legal regulations regarding GMOs in the EU agriculture. The analysis will be carried out on the example of their implementation in Poland.
Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001) defines a genetically modified organism as “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” Further explanations of this definition are provided in Annex I A to the Directive, which describes a list of techniques leading to the creation of GMOs. The Annex includes recombinant nucleic acid techniques consisting in introducing foreign genetic material (e.g., synthesized DNA) into an organism using vectors, which enables its further reproduction in the organism where it does not naturally occur; techniques consisting in the direct introduction into an organism of hereditary material prepared outside the organism (e.g., by microinjection, macroinjection, or microencapsulation), cell or protoplast fusion techniques leading to the creation of cells with new genetic combinations that cannot be obtained under natural conditions.
In turn, Part 2 of Annex I A describes an exhaustive list of techniques, the use of which does not lead to the creation of GMOs, but provided that they do not involve the use of recombinant nucleic acid molecules or genetically modified organisms produced by techniques/methods other than those excluded by Annex I B, i.e., in vitro fertilization and natural processes such as conjugation, transduction and transformation, and induction of polyploidy. Importantly, Annex I B contains an exhaustive list of techniques leading to genetic modification of products to which the provisions of the Directive do not apply, i.e., mutagenesis and cell fusion (including protoplast fusion) of plant cells of organisms that can exchange genetic material by traditional breeding methods. (Zimny et al., 2019)
It is worth emphasizing that traditional methods have long been used in plant breeding. Breeders have gradually developed traditional methods, including selection and cross-breeding of different plants, in order to select the most genetically recombinant offspring. Mutation obtained by traditional method was often used to generate plants with new features, but also to remove features undesirable for humans. In the past, such an undesirable feature was high erucic acid content in rapeseed (Roscoe et al., 2001).
In order to generate plants with complex traits (e.g., tolerance of plants to salt, drought, resistance to diseases), the process was supplemented by the use of high doses of ionizing radiation (e.g., gamma radiation – γ, X-ray – X) or chemical mutagenesis, modifying or splitting chromosomes at random places (Georges & Ray, 2017). Then, plants, using their natural mechanisms, repaired damaged DNA and regenerated. In this way, traditional breeding methods allowed for obtaining greater genetic variability without introducing foreign DNA into the plant. This technique is older than genetic engineering, but is still used, for example, in the creation of plant varieties.
In the case of GMOs, the list of the above-mentioned techniques leading to genetic modifications included in Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001) is not closed, which allows for the addition of new techniques. However, despite the dynamic development of genetic modification techniques in the last 20 years, this list has not been updated and the provisions of the directive have remained unchanged. As a result, there is still a lack of coherent legal regulations regarding new genomic techniques (NGT). NGTs include genome editing methods that allow for the introduction of changes of varying scope – from minor, point modifications to more complex and multiple interventions in genetic material. One of the most well-known methods is CRISPR-Cas9, the so-called “genetic scissors,” which allow for precise modification of DNA sequences (Yin et al., 2024). Unlike traditional genetic engineering, NGTs do not involve the random introduction of foreign genes, but allow for controlled and targeted changes within the plant’s own genome. Importantly, gene editing using the CRISPR-Cas9 system does not have to involve the introduction of foreign DNA into the plant genome, which is a fundamental feature that distinguishes it from classical transgenic organisms (Teferra, 2021).
New genomic techniques make it possible to obtain desired features by precisely modifying the existing genes of a given plant. Depending on the method used, plants can be created that contain only their own modified genetic material (e.g., as a result of directed mutagenesis) or those to which material from organisms capable of natural interbreeding has been introduced. Such precise interventions, with the simultaneous potential lack of foreign DNA in the final product, allow us to ask an important legal question: should organisms obtained as a result of NGT be subject to the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC on genetically modified organisms? (Ahmad et al., 2023; Bohle et al., 2024; Directive, 2001)
On 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (case C-528/16) ruled that organisms obtained by means of new genomic techniques (NGTs), such as site-directed mutagenesis, are subject to the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001). The CJEU (2018) found that the risks to the environment and health associated with these organisms are comparable to those resulting from traditional GMOs obtained by transgenesis. Moreover, NGTs allow for the creation of genetically modified organisms faster and on a larger scale than classical mutagenesis, which—according to the Court—supports the need to apply the precautionary principle (European Union, 2016).
Following a 2018 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Commission published a report on NGTon 29 April 2021 (European Commission, 2021). In this document, the EC concluded that the current rules on GMOs are not adequate to regulate plants obtained using NGT. It pointed to the legal uncertainty, difficulties in supervision and enforcement, and the lack of flexibility of the current regulations.
Furthermore, the EC report stated that some plants obtained using NGT can be beneficial to society and contribute to building a resilient and sustainable food system as part of the Farm to Fork Strategy. As a result, the Commission has announced legislative work on NGTs. In this perspective, the French Directorate-General for Risk Prevention (DGPR) and the Directorate-General for Food (DGAL) made a formal request to the French Agency for Food, Environment, Health, and Safety (ANSES) for a scientific opinion, in preparation for the upcoming discussions at the European level. The opinion work was carried out in parallel with the Commission’s intensive legislative work (French Agency for Food, 2024).
In July 2023, the Commission proposed to distinguish between two distinct categories of plants obtained using NGT (European Commission, 2023):
NGT plants, which may occur naturally or be produced by conventional breeding techniques including random mutagenesis using chemical and/ or physical mutagens (‘NGT category 1 plants’). Such plants would be treated similarly to conventional plants and would only require a verification procedure to confirm that they are equivalent to plants obtained by conventional breeding.
NGT plants with more complex sets of genetic modifications, which should continue to be subject to the requirements of the EU GMO legislation (‘NGT category 2 plants’)
In its analysis, ANSES presented a position in line with the CJEU judgment in case C-528/16. ANSES assessed that plants modified using new genomic techniques, including targeted mutagenesis, may pose health and environmental risks comparable to conventional GMOs. They should therefore be subject to the same risk assessment procedures that apply to GMOs in the EU. However, the work of ANSES did not analyze the EC’s proposal to divide NGTs into two categories (French Agency for Food, 2024). Therefore, despite ANSES’s criticisms and reservations, the legislative process continued. Its main objective was to formally distinguish between the two categories of plants, with NGT1 benefiting from a simplified regulatory pathway.
On 7 February 2024, the European Parliament adopted amendments to the draft regulation on NGT in its first reading, supporting the Commission’s proposal to divide plants into two groups and verify the status of NGT1 (European Parliament, 2024). One of the key amendments introduced by the European Parliament was to clarify the criteria for recognizing plants obtained using NGT1 as equivalent to naturally occurring plants or plants bred using conventional methods. In the case of monoploid plants, a limit of 20 individual genetic modifications was set, but it was indicated that this number should be adapted to the specificity of the genome of a given plant, including its size and structure. The Parliament drew attention to the need to proportionally increase the permissible number of modifications in polyploid plants, which are characterized by a larger number of homologous sets of chromosomes and a natural tendency towards greater genomic variability. In addition, in the case of NGT1 plants, which are not subject to the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001), there is no obligation to label food and feed produced using them, because they are indistinguishable from conventional products, and the detection of introduced genetic changes is impossible without prior knowledge of the specific DNA sequence. This obligation applies only to seed material, which is intended to protect the market, in particular the interests of farmers and seed companies, not consumers (European Parliament, 2023b).
Finally, on 5 July 2024, the European Commission adopted a draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on plants obtained using certain NGTs and their food and feed. The draft provides that:
NGT1 plants will be treated as conventional plants, provided that an official declaration of NGT1 status is obtained;
verification is to be carried out by the national authority responsible for GMO authorization;
the seed material of NGT1 plants will be marked, but the final products (food, feed) will not have to be marked as GMOs.
Under the leadership of the Polish presidency, on 14 March 2025, representatives of the Member States approved the Council’s negotiating mandate on the regulation of plants obtained using NGTs and the food and feed produced from them (EC, 2023). The Council supported the main aspects of the NGT proposal published by the European Commission (Council of the EU, 2025). However, it does not finish working on the regulations, as the above provisions do not regulate the patenting of NGTs (Małopolska Izba Rolnicza, 2025).
In accordance with the Council mandate, one year after the entry into force of the Regulation, the Commission will be required to publish a study on the impact of patenting on innovation, the availability of seeds to farmers, and the competitiveness of the EU agriculture.
Europe’s position on genetically modified organisms has remained unchanged for 24 years. Its foundations are the precautionary principle and risk assessment. The precautionary principle states that when scientific evidence on potential risks to the environment or human and animal health is uncertain or incomplete, no action should be taken. However, planned actions may be reviewed when more scientific information becomes available (European Union, 2016). The risk principle is based on a common risk assessment and authorization procedure, which is carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) or EU Member States, and includes requirements for post-market monitoring, labelling, and traceability of GMOs (Bruetschy, 2019). Based on the EFSA report, the final decision on whether to allow GMOs to be placed on the market or cultivated is taken by the European Commission (EC) (Wrześniewska-Wal, 2008).
The decision is issued for 10 years with the possibility of extension. A positive decision means that a given GM product can be introduced to the EU market and, in the case of plants, that it can be cultivated. Issuing a permit to introduce a GMO product to the market is equivalent to stating that the state of science and technology currently does not allow for determining the existence of defects in this product (Korzycka-Iwanow, 2017).
Ultimately, however, the lack of social acceptance and a cautious approach to GM crops meant that only two varieties of GM plants were permitted for cultivation in the EU under the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001): MON 810 maize (Goodman, 2024) and the Amflora potato. In the case of the Amflora potato, after a positive opinion from EFSA that this crop does not pose a risk to human health or the environment, the EC decision was challenged by Hungary, France, Austria, Luxembourg, and Poland and was annulled (Davison & Ammann, 2017; EFSA, 2012). The above-mentioned Member States sought to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GM crops and products derived from them. Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 (Regulation, 2003) contains a clause on emergency measures, which allows for the prohibition of GM crops, but only for important scientific reasons. Initially, those Member States (Austria, Hungary) that sought the possibility of introducing a restriction or prohibition of the cultivation of GM crops on their territory or part thereof applied safeguard clauses and emergency measures in accordance with Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001) and Article 34 of Regulation No. 1829/2003 (Regulation, 2003). These provisions allowed for restrictions or prohibitions to be introduced, but only after new or additional scientific information had been obtained affecting the risk assessment or if the previously available information had been reassessed (Andersson et al., 2004). Another group of Member States applied the notification procedure set out in Article 114(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (European Union, 2016) which requires the submission of new scientific evidence concerning the protection of the environment or the working environment. However, none of the EU countries has proven such an impact under these provisions.
Poland has also introduced restrictions and bans, as the Polish government adopted the framework position on GMOs by resolution and declared Poland a GMO-free country (Rada Ministrów, 2008). In January 2013, Poland introduced a ban on the cultivation of GM crops. The ban was justified by the risk of contamination of honeys produced in Poland with GM maize pollen, which was important for beekeepers and honey producers (Scott-Thomas, 2013). In the Seed Act, the Polish government introduced a ban on the entry into the register of cultivated plants and the trade in seed material of genetically modified plant varieties (Ustawa, 2003). For this reason, the European Commission (EC) filed a complaint against Poland with the CJEU. On 2 October 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU issued a judgment in which it ruled that Poland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of Directive 2001/18/EC (Court of Justice of the EU, 2014), concerning the notification, registration, and information to the public on GM crops. However, at the time of the CJEU ruling, no GM crops are currently being grown in Poland.
This became possible due to the deregulation of Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001). Directive 2015/412 (Directive, 2015), i.e., the opt-out clause, allows individual countries to decide independently on the cultivation of GM plants (Directive, 2015). A decision made under these provisions by a given country to limit or prohibit GM cultivation allows for the avoidance of systematic recourse by Member States, including Poland, to moratoriums, which are challenged in court proceedings (CJEU). The clause gives each Member State the possibility to introduce a ban on the cultivation and/or trade of GM seed material, without justifying its position with any scientific evidence (Parliament and Council, 2014). Applications in this matter were submitted by the following countries: Latvia, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. In addition, Belgium (only in the Walloon region), Germany (except for cultivation for scientific purposes) and the UK (Andersson et al., 2004) want to ban GMO cultivation. Poland took advantage of this opportunity and reported the exclusion of its territory from the possibility of cultivating all types of modified maize currently permitted for cultivation in the European Union. Therefore, GM cultivation is not planned in Poland. Nevertheless, on 9 November 2012, the Parliament adopted a new act on seed production, which harmonizes national law with Directive 2001/18/EC (Ustawa, 2012).
As a result, Member States may use the so-called opt-out clause in relation to the cultivation of specific genetically modified plants, already authorized in the EU, but they cannot prohibit the import of food and feed products to their country. In order to unify these regulations, in 2015 the Commission proposed extending the solution agreed in Directive 2015/412 (Directive, 2015) on GM cultivation to GM food and feed. According to this proposal, the GM approval process will remain unchanged, but Member States will be able to decide whether genetically modified food or feed may be used on their territories. However, in October 2015, the European Parliament rejected this project (Think Thank European Parliament, 2015). This means that the amendment to Directive 2001/18/EC (Directive, 2001) applies only to cultivation. Directive 2015/412 (Directive, 2015) allows Member States to decide independently only whether they will cultivate GM plants on their territory, but not whether GM food or feed will be on their market.
It should be noted that under this directive, six GM crops were authorized for introduction into the EU for food and feed purposes at the beginning of 2018, including four soybean varieties, oilseed rape and one renewed authorization for maize. Before the end of 2019, two new maize varieties were approved and three existing authorizations for maize and sugar beet were renewed for food and feed purposes, allowing their cultivation in the European Union (Dionglay, 2025). As a result, EU countries do not cultivate GM crops on a larger scale. It seems that the introduction of regulations concerning NGT plants, and especially group 1, may change this situation. The issue of granting patents is crucial, as it may limit the use of NGT plants by breeders and farmers. The current provisions of the patent law do not provide for a full exemption for the breeder, therefore the Polish Presidency has proposed amendments concerning full transparency regarding patents on NGT1 plants. Thanks to them, breeders will not be forced to search for patent owners and exposed to the consequences of unknowingly infringing the patent (Małopolska Izba Rolnicza, 2025). According to the EP amendments, NGT1 plants should not be subject to patent provisions, but only to the Community system of protection of plant varieties established in Regulation 2100/94, which allows for the application of the breeder’s derogation (Council Regulation, 1994). NGT1 plants, seeds derived from them, plant material, related genetic material such as genes and gene sequences, and agronomic plant traits should therefore be excluded from patentability. This exclusion should be applied in a consistent manner throughout the legislation.
However, it should be noted that the planned changes concern NGT1 plants. In the case of NGT2, in accordance with the EU Council negotiation mandate of March 2025, Member States will have the possibility to prohibit the cultivation of such plants on their territory. In particular, this project provides that Member States may decide to prohibit the cultivation of NGT2 plants on their territory, taking into account the diversity of agricultural systems and natural and economic conditions. Additionally, Member States may introduce measures to prevent the unintended presence of NGT2 plants in other products and the unintended presence of NGT1 plants in organic farming (Council of the EU, 2025).
Within the European Union, trade in GM feed recognized as safe in the light of Community legal regulations and entered in the Register of GM Food and Feed of the European Union is permitted and conducted. The above regulations are uniform for all Member States, but Poland has introduced different regulations. According to them, a ban on the production, introduction to trade and use in animal nutrition in Poland of GM feed and GMOs intended for feed use was introduced in the Feed Act (Ustawa, 2006). However, as a result of efforts by industry organizations, a moratorium on the ban on the use of GM feed was introduced. The Polish ban on the use of genetically modified feed was to enter into force two years after its announcement, i.e., on August 12, 2008. Meanwhile, this deadline has been constantly postponed to the following years: 2013, 2017, 2019, and 2025.
The introduction of the ban into Polish law resulted in the European Commission filing a complaint against Poland with the Court of Justice. The EC found that the provisions of Polish law were contrary to EU law and undermined the principle of legal certainty. In its complaint, it recalled that the application of quantitative restrictions on the import of goods and any measures having equivalent effect across Member States is prohibited. In accordance with the principle of free movement of goods, products approved in accordance with European Union procedures must be permitted for sale in all European Union countries, and the ban on the use of genetically modified feed in Poland violates these principles. However, according to the Court, the Commission did not precisely demonstrate that in the specific circumstances of this case there had been a breach of the principle of legal certainty, as the disputed ban had not yet entered into force. In view of the above, the Commission’s complaint should be dismissed without the need to rule on the remaining objections raised by both the Commission and Poland (CJEU, 2013). Currently, the moratorium on the ban is in force until 2030. The example of the Polish moratorium shows that the ban on feeding animals with GM plants is quite illusory.
The moratorium allows Poland to import GM feed and its components. In Poland, the demand for feed mainly concerns high-protein components for the production of high-quality mixtures, used especially in the feeding of broiler and layer chickens. Poland is the largest poultry producer in the European Union and the third largest poultry exporter in the world (KOWR, 2024). According to data from Statistics Poland, in 2023 the value of Polish poultry export amounted to USD 4.5 billion (Brazil – USD 8.97 billion, USA – USD 4.88 billion) (Pasińska, 2024). Poland imports significant amounts of soybean meal annually, estimated at 2.6–2.7 million tons. Soybean meal imports are on the rise. The main suppliers are South American countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, and the United States (Dzwonkowski, 2024). In the 2023/24 season, Poland was the largest importer of soybean meal in the European Union, importing 1.43 million tons, which accounted for 20% of the total EU import (Rosiak, 2024).
Despite the statutory ban on the use of GM feed in force in national regulations, Poland remains one of the largest importers of GM soybean meal in the European Union. This state of affairs is only possible thanks to the repeatedly postponed dates of entry into force of the regulations prohibiting the use of these feeds. The introduced moratorium, in force continuously from 2008 to the present, effectively enables further import and use of GM feeds in the domestic animal production sector.
The analysis of data on the import of soybean meal between 2006 and 2024 clearly indicates the growing dependence of the domestic feed industry on imported GM protein, especially from South America. The imported products are compliant with the EU GM Food and Feed Register, which means that they have been recognized as safe in the light of Community legal regulations. However, the observed practice indicates a clear discrepancy between the ban declared at the level of the Feed Act and the actual state of functioning of the feed market in Poland. As a result, Poland’s dependence on imported protein is growing, which raises doubts as to the effectiveness and coherence of the adopted regulations.
The EU regulatory model concerning GMO feed leads to a situation in which, despite formal restrictions in national legislation, the import of GM soybean protein remains the dominant source of feed protein in Poland. This dependency poses significant legal and economic risks. Therefore, one of the key elements of food policy is to ensure food security, which also encompasses access to plant protein and requires the diversification of its sources. Research conducted in Poland to date has shown that there are certain possibilities to use protein feed from legumes in animal nutrition. Research by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on the use of legume seeds in the nutrition of cattle, pigs, and poultry was conducted as part of the program devoted to improving domestic sources of plant protein, their production, trade system and use in feed (Sarnowski, 2012.) (2011–2015) and the program on increasing the use of domestic feed protein for the production of high-quality animal products in conditions of sustainable development (Komunikat, 2016) (2016–2026). Both programs have shown that Poland has production potential related to the cultivation of legumes, and the area of crops has remained at a similar level in the years under study. The main limitations of legumes are the variability and instability of yields.
Currently, Poland is implementing the assumptions of the Strategy for Responsible Development until 2020 (with a perspective until 2030) (Prusiński, 2018). The assumption of the strategy is to create optimal conditions for the sustainable development of agriculture and small and medium-sized enterprises, where the key task is to find high-protein substitutes for protein used in the production of feed in Poland.
The source of vegetable protein may be the seeds of legumes grown in various types of soil, including non-GM soybean, the cultivation of which is currently widely spread, not only in Poland but also in other EU Member States (COBORU, n.d.). Another important source of protein for feed should be the seeds of native legumes (large-seeded legumes), characterized by the following protein content: peas – 22–23%, field beans and narrow-leafed lupine – 30–35%, yellow lupine – 40–45% in the EU Community Catalogue of these species, while the share of other large-seeded legumes is only 3–6%. This is probably due to the fact that the popularity of lupine cultivation in Poland is by far the highest in the entire EU (Prusiński, 2019).
However, the complete replacement of soy protein with domestic legume seeds will be difficult due to the limited shares of these feeds in diets (permissible amounts), especially in feed mixtures for young poultry, and also due to the excessive content of structural carbohydrates (fibers) and antinutritional substances (alkaloids, tannins). Exceeding the permissible shares of legumes in animal diets reduces production efficiency and its economic effects.
Another important initiative has been carried out for several years by the Central Research Centre for Cultivars (COBORU). New high-yielding soybean varieties adapted to the soil and climatic conditions of Poland are being introduced to the National Register maintained by COBORU and to the seed trade. The number of soybean varieties in the National Register (KR) is growing dynamically, which could potentially contribute to the growth of the importance of soybean in cultivation in Poland. Currently, the Register includes 44 soybean varieties, most of which are varieties adapted to cultivation in the soil and climatic conditions of Poland (COBORU, 2022). Many of them are characterized by high yield potential and a short vegetation period, which is important in our climate zone. However, not all of them are new and high-yielding varieties. The National Register includes both newly registered and older varieties that still meet the requirements.
It should be emphasized that the so-called “COBORU Protein Initiative” (Gacek, 2019) is not only about soybean varieties, but also about other species of high-protein plants (faba bean, field pea, narrow-leafed lupine, yellow lupine). The primary goal of these works is the ongoing verification of all regions of the country in terms of their suitability for growing varieties of individual protein plant species. Based on the results of these works, a general recommendation of varieties of all protein plant species, most suitable for cultivation in individual voivodeships, is being introduced (Rada Ministrów, 2017).
Polish initiatives are part of the European Union’s protein strategy. The aim of the planned changes to the EU’s protein policy is to reduce the EU’s dependence on protein imports and increase production in individual countries. The European Parliament supported its own report on the European Protein Strategy in 2023. The report emphasizes that protein production should be considered a key aspect of the EU’s food system, while promoting the sustainable development of all possible protein sources. The development of the plant protein sector will benefit European farmers, soil quality, biodiversity, climate, and human health (European Parliament, 2023a).
The EU regulatory model concerning GM feed is inconsistent and lacks uniformity. Member States may prohibit the cultivation of GM crops but cannot restrict their import or use in feed. As a result, a “mosaic of GMO regulations” emerges—a system in which individual countries adopt different approaches to both the cultivation of GM crops and the use of feed. Poland is a clear example of this inconsistency. Although national legislation formally bans the use of GM feed, Poland remains one of the largest importers of GM soybean meal in the European Union. This is made possible by the moratorium introduced in 2008 to date. As a result, the high level of GM feed imports by Poland indicates the dependence of the domestic feed sector on external sources of protein, which is GM protein, despite the applicable bans and declared opposition to GM crops. Further deregulation and new legislative proposals, including those concerning NGT1 and NGT2, may deepen the regulatory stratification in the EU, although on the other hand it cannot be ruled out that some Member States will be interested in using innovative solutions, including NGT. The current situation requires a comprehensive reform and harmonization of EU law on GMOs and NGT, in order to ensure transparency, coherence, and legal security for feed market participants, farmers, and consumers. Poland has the potential to develop domestic sources of feed protein, particularly in the field of legume crops (e.g., peas, field beans, lupines, unmodified soybeans), which may significantly contribute to reducing dependence on imported GM soybean meal. The increase in the number of domestic soybean varieties entered into the National Register indicates the intensification of breeding work and the breeding adaptation of this plant to Polish conditions, which may increase the importance of domestic soybeans in the feed system in the future.