While the tightening of the return policy is seen as a relief, genetic engineering could call into question a decades-long Austrian line in agricultural policy.

Image: visitstrasbourg.fr

Brussels. This week, the European Parliament made far-reaching decisions that could have a lasting impact on the political direction of the EU. In two particularly controversial areas, Members of Parliament set a new course: in migration policy through approval of so-called “return hubs,” and in agriculture through further liberalization of new genomic techniques (NGT).

Return hubs: deportations outside the EU

Particular attention was paid to the vote on reforming European return policy. The core element is the so-called return hubs—facilities located outside the European Union to which individuals without a right of residence could be transferred until their return is organized.

Supporters argue that the EU has struggled for years to effectively deport individuals obliged to leave. The new rules are intended to accelerate procedures, place greater responsibility on those affected to cooperate, and make returns more efficient.

Critics, however, see significant human rights risks. They warn of prolonged detention, weakened legal protections, and the possibility of transferring people to third countries with which they have no personal connection.

For Austria, the debate is particularly significant. The federal government has long called for a more consistent return policy and is likely to welcome the new options in principle. However, whether and how return hubs will actually be implemented still depends on final approval by as-yet unspecified member states (Uganda or Kazakhstan are being discussed) and on practical agreements with third countries.

New genetic engineering: paving the way for “Frankenfood”

The decision on new genetic engineering in agriculture could prove even more controversial. Parliament voted to exempt certain plants modified using modern techniques such as CRISPR gene editing from existing strict GMO regulations.

Supporters expect higher yields, more climate-resilient crops, and reduced pesticide use. However, many scientists, environmental organizations, and representatives of organic farming warn that the long-term consequences of such interventions have not been sufficiently researched.

Although genetic engineering is promoted as a way to produce organic-like food with reduced pesticide use, this apparent efficiency conceals a dangerous principle: genetically modified seeds, like pig farming, lead to cheap food production. Pork is prohibited in the Abrahamic religions precisely because it is produced “cheaply” through thrift and exploitation—namely by feeding animals with waste. Today, we are aware of the consequences of such short-sighted cost-cutting in food production: disease outbreaks; and attempts to preserve meat from low-cost production through curing and smoking have been associated with cancer. While feeding animals with waste is now banned in Europe and North America, bacon and ham are not. Nothing can replace organic food. Since organic plants must defend themselves against insects and fungi without chemical pesticides, they produce significantly more secondary plant compounds (polyphenols and antioxidants), which have cell-protective effects in the human body.

Opponents are particularly critical of the fact that labeling and approval requirements for many of these new plants could be significantly relaxed. Consumers might then have little ability to recognize whether their food comes from genetically modified plants.

For Austria, this issue is especially sensitive. For decades, the country has been one of the strongest opponents of green genetic engineering and has built an international reputation as a producer of GMO-free food. Domestic organic farming could come under pressure due to new risks of cross-contamination and rising monitoring costs.

The economic dimension is also controversial. Critics fear that a few global agribusiness corporations could further expand their market power by holding patents on genetically modified plants and seeds. Smaller breeders and farmers could become increasingly dependent on large companies.

There is also a fundamental objection: while the European Union has so far followed the precautionary principle, approving new technologies only upon comprehensive evaluation, a paradigm shift may now be underway. Critics describe this as an open-ended experiment whose ecological and economic consequences may only become fully visible in decades.

Europe sets a new course

The European Parliament’s votes reflect a European Union in transition. In migration policy, Brussels is moving toward greater control and more efficient returns. In agriculture, the path is being cleared for new genetic technologies, despite reservations expressed by significant parts of the population and numerous member states.

For Austria, both decisions could have far-reaching consequences. While stricter return policies are often seen as relieving national asylum systems, the relaxation of GMO regulations could call into question decades of Austrian agricultural policy.

The parliamentary session is therefore likely to be remembered as a turning point—not only because of new rules, yet also because of the fundamental question of how much risk Europe is willing to take in the name of progress and competitiveness.

By Okay Altinisik | 18-6-2026, 11:22:33