The European Commission says it is not currently planning changes to the rules governing genetically modified animals. But its response to our joint letter raises concerns about where EU policy could be heading.
On 9 July 2026, Animal Advocacy & Food Transition with 41 organisations from the animal welfare, environmental, farming and food sectors asked the European Commission to maintain strong safeguards for genetically modified animals produced using New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). We urged the Commission to maintain rigorous risk assessment and authorisation requirements, ensure traceability and consumer labelling, and reject any deregulatory pathway similar to the one now being introduced for certain NGT plants. We also warned against using genetic engineering to adapt animals to the problems of intensive farming. Animals need better living conditions, not genetic modifications that enable them to tolerate harmful ones.
In its reply, the Commission states that it is “not currently planning a policy initiative that would concern specific regulatory changes for GM or NGT animals.” While we welcome this assurance that for now, NGT animals remain subject to the existing EU GMO framework, concerns remain as the Commission’s response also highlights the potential of NGTs to deliver traits such as increased productivity, disease resistance, drought tolerance and heat resistance. It points to these traits as potential contributions to the “sustainability and resilience” of animal farming.
The Commission mentions resilience but it does not specify for what kind of farming. Genetically modifying animals to tolerate heat or resist disease may be presented as climate adaptation or an animal welfare improvement. But these approaches address the animal rather than the farming system.
Disease and welfare problems in intensive farming are also linked to stocking densities, housing, management, stress and genetic uniformity. Similarly, engineering animals to avoid injuries caused by intensive systems does not address the conditions causing those injuries. We should improve farming systems rather than genetically adapt animals to endure them. There is already a long history of breeding farmed animals for ever-greater productivity, with serious consequences for health and welfare. NGTs could potentially accelerate this process. The question, therefore, is not simply what NGTs can do, but what kind of farming we want in the future.
The Commission refers to EFSA’s 2025 opinion, which found no novel hazards associated with NGTs in animals compared with conventional breeding or established genomic techniques.
But this does not mean that every NGT animal is safe, desirable or good for animal welfare. Nor does it answer the ethical question of whether particular genetic modifications should be pursued. The development of genetically engineered animals can itself involve embryo manipulation, reproductive technologies, cloning and developmental failure. These concerns reinforce the need for careful, independent oversight.
The Commission says that any future changes to the GMO framework would consider safety, animal welfare and ethical issues, follow its Better Regulation principles and involve public consultation. While we welcome these commitments, the experience of NGT regulation in plants shows why close scrutiny is essential. The EU has now adopted rules that largely exempt certain NGT plants from the GMO framework, following a process in which the Regulatory Scrutiny Board identified significant shortcomings in the Commission’s impact assessment. There is therefore no reason to assume that future changes concerning animals will automatically provide the safeguards we are calling for.
There may be no proposal to deregulate NGT animals today. But the direction of policy matters. Animal Advocacy & Food Transition will continue to call for strong regulation, transparency, independent scrutiny and meaningful public participation. Animals should not be genetically engineered to fit the failures of intensive farming.
