We would like to see proportional, science based risk assessment for Cat2 plants, with a process that is predictable, equitable and not overly onerous for applicants. We agree with the findings of EFSAs safety assessment; that the technologies themselves are not linked to hazards, and will lead to fewer unintended modifications to the genome than conventional breeding techniques.
JIC
John Innes Centre
Academic / research · United Kingdom
not in the EU Transparency RegisterThis organization files on consultations without a register number, so its record here is built from its filings alone. Register facts (staff, costs, accreditations) are not available for it.
2
positions filed
in the 655 files tracked
1
legislative file
of 655 tracked
1
with a full position paper
attached to a submission
Counts here are a floor, never a total: they cover the 655 consultation files tracked so far (56,999 submissions, mostly 2021–26), so an organization's real filing history is larger, not smaller.
Track John in PolicySpeak: request access →
Work at John Innes Centre? so we know who speaks for it.
Their record over time
John Innes Centre filed 2 positions on 28 Sept 2026, across 1 of the 655 legislative files tracked here, attaching a full position paper 1 time.
What they argued
We welcome the NGT Regulation and agree with the focus on characteristics of the plant rather than technology. The Cat1 verification process needs to be proportionate, science-based, and accessible to SMEs and academics. It should be carried out by a panel of experts and harmonised across Member States who should not add additional requirements beyond the Regulation.
Looking for an argument rather than an organization? Search every submission for a phrase and see everyone who used it.
Put John Innes Centre next to another organization. Same files, same register facts, side by side. Compare →
Is this your organization?
Everything on this page comes from John Innes Centre’s own submissions to the European Commission. We have added nothing and interpreted nothing. If something is wrong or out of date, email info@policyspeak.com and we will correct it. If you are an individual named in a record, our privacy policy sets out your rights to correction, objection and removal.
Quotes are verbatim from submissions published by the European Commission, trimmed to their opening passage and never summarized by a model. Organizations only, never individuals. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU; the European Commission is not liable for this reuse.