Plant breeding has been practiced for thousands of years and has played a fundamental role in improving crop performance. Through conventional breeding, plant breeders enhance genetic gain, increase productivity and efficiency, and improve traits such as resilience, drought tolerance, and growth. Feed crops developed through conventional breeding are not considered Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) under EU legislation. Organisms in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination are called “genetically modified organisms” (GMOs). Today, GM crop varieties account for a significant share of global production of several major crops, including soybean (~75%), cotton (~75%), maize (~35%), and canola (~25%).
Soybean, maize and canola are essential, nutrient-dense components of animal feed worldwide, including in the European Union (EU). These crops play a crucial role in supporting the EU’s livestock sector, which comprises approximately 131 million pigs, 71 million cattle, and more than one billion chickens (Eurostat, 2025), hence the EU relies heavily on imports of these feed materials. Since a large share of these commodities originates from countries where genetically modified crop varieties are widely cultivated, GMO testing plays a central role in verifying that imported feed materials comply with EU authorization, traceability, and labelling requirements. The current regulatory framework also covers the cultivation of GM crops in Europe. At present, the only GM crop authorized for cultivation in the EU is MON810, an insect-resistant maize variety grown primarily in Spain for use as animal feed. Other GM crops authorized for food and feed use in the EU may be imported and used but not cultivated within the EU.
Changing GMO landscape in the EU
Today, well over 100 GM crop events are approved for import, processing, and use in food and animal feed within the EU and the list is growing. In December 2025 for example, the European Commission (EC) authorized the import of four GM crop events for use in food and animal feed. These included one newly approved maize event and the renewal of authorizations for three existing GM crop events: maize, oilseed rape, and soybean. More recently, in June 2026, the EC authorized one GM maize event and its sub-combinations and renewed the authorizations for two existing GM crop events (maize and soybean) for food and feed use. Each authorization is valid for 10 years, so once a GM crop is authorized for use in food or animal feed, it remains subject to monitoring throughout the entire supply chain to ensure continued compliance with EU legislation.
Konstantin Rizos, Technical Director Testing at FoodChain ID, explains: “The growing number of authorized GMOs is adding complexity to the feed sector and increasing the workload for quality managers. It is essential to continuously monitor which GMOs are being cultivated in different regions of the world. Smaller laboratories without a global presence often find this more challenging. FoodChain ID operates laboratories in Brazil and North America, key sourcing regions for agricultural commodities affected by GMOs, which allows us to closely track developments. At the same time, in key producing areas such as North and South America, earlier GM varieties are increasingly being replaced by newer generations of varieties, often stacked events combining multiple traits like herbicide tolerance and insect resistance Keeping track of these changes is critical for designing effective testing strategies and to provide good advice to customers.”
Follow-up testing and providing guidance
In practice, the scope of GMO testing in feed samples needs to be carefully adapted to the raw material, its origin, the customer’s supply chain, and the certification scheme involved. “Selecting the right testing scope is therefore essential. Beyond generating test reports, laboratories also play a vital role in helping customers interpret results and determine the appropriate next steps when certification criteria are not met. Most quality managers are well informed, but it is unrealistic to expect them to always keep track of every GMO event and the consequences of (unintended) non-compliance can be significant. Traders may redirect affected batches to alternative markets, while farmers may need to return feed materials to suppliers if specifications are not met. For unapproved GMOs, which are subject to zero-tolerance rules in the EU, products cannot be marketed. Earlier this year, for example, soybean meal imported from Argentina was found to contain traces of an unauthorized GMO, resulting in batches being rejected and returned to the supplier,” Rizos explains.
Rizos also sees that follow-up testing is becoming increasingly common, particularly because single and mixed feed materials often contain botanical impurities (from another crop) that may carry GMO material. Rapeseed cake is a good example. Rizos explains: “Initial screening may detect GMO markers, but further analysis is often required to determine whether the GMO originates from GM rapeseed itself or from traces of another crop, such as soybean residues left in transport vessels. Similar situations can arise in feed mills, where different raw materials are processed on the same production lines and low-level carry-over may occur despite cleaning and flushing procedures. Additional testing and calculations are then needed to assess compliance and how to proceed. The application (for example when the soybean meal is used in lesser amounts in a total dairy cow ration) matters and requires calculation. Such guidance is important for our customers.”
Dealing with new genomic techniques (NGTs)
Testing strategies must continue to evolve as new GM crop varieties and breeding technologies emerge as well. Over the past two decades, advances in biotechnology have led to the development of new genomic techniques (NGTs), which enable targeted genetic changes to produce crops with traits such as herbicide tolerance, improved resistance to diseases, pests, and environmental stresses. In June 2026, the EU adopted a new regulatory framework for NGTs, which will apply two years after entry into force, i.e., around mid-2028, depending on publication timing. Under the new rules, gene-edited plants will be divided into two categories. NGT-1 plants, containing only limited genetic changes that could also occur naturally or through conventional breeding, are still considered as GMOs, but will be treated similarly to conventionally bred plants and will be only labelled at the seed level, but not throughout the supply chain. However, NON-GMO and organic certification schemes as well as voluntary NON-GMO seals, like “Ohne Gentechnik” in Germany or “Ohne Gentechnik hergestellt” in Austria do not allow NGT-1 product usage. NGT-2 plants, with more extensive genetic modifications, will remain subject to the EU’s existing GMO legislation, including risk assessment, authorization, traceability, and labelling.
Rizos addresses: “The new NGT legislation will increase the complexity of testing, verification, and certification for the feed industry and we, at FoodChain ID, are closely following these developments and actively participate in expert working groups addressing the challenges they create. The complexity sits in the fact that unlike conventional GMOs, especially NGT-1 organisms contain only very small genetic changes that are difficult to detect with existing analytical methods and may not be identified through routine GMO screening. Detecting these modifications with routine real-time PCR requires prior knowledge of the exact genetic alteration and, in some cases, might not be possible depending on the DNA sequence context. As a result, we might need to find smarter ways of traceability and documentation in the feed sector before the NGT legislation becomes active in 2 years’ time.”
FoodChain ID: your trusted guide for GMO testing
Overall, we can certainly say that the GMO landscape is getting more complex. This requires a trusted and experienced partner. FoodChain ID offers a full range of accredited qualitative and quantitative testing methods for the major commercialized GMO crops as well as unauthorized varieties. In addition, an international network of ISO 17025 accredited testing labs enables FoodChain ID to detect, identify and quantify GMOs according to the customer needs and location.
“At FoodChain ID, we design tailored testing protocols based on the raw materials, origin, and certification requirements of each customer. Our quality-controlled workflows cover the entire process from sample receipt to reporting and we place great emphasis on helping customers interpret the results. Our goal is to take the complexity of GMO compliance off our customers’ shoulders, allowing them to focus on their core business while remaining compliant with the applicable regulations,” Rizos concludes.
Contact us to learn more about our GMO testing services and how to ensure GMO compliance across your operations.
Dr. Konstantin Rizos, Technical Director at FoodChain ID Testing. Active for over 20 years in the field of GMO testing and assay development. Mr. Rizos is also member in several governmental working groups for development of GMO tests.