News

On 17 June, between 12.30 and 1.30 pm, MEPs, meeting in plenary session, will vote, without debate, on the proposal to deregulate GMOs derived from new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs). Inf’OGM summarises here some of the positions, campaigns and other calls for action by civil society organisations, elected representatives, businesses and trade unions regarding the risks that its adoption would entail.

The FNSEA (French National Federation of Farmers’ Unions) recently called for the “precautionary principle” to be replaced by an “innovation principle”. Behind this political and semantic offensive lies a challenge to the risk management framework enshrined in the French constitution. Whilst the European Commission says it intends to propose an “innovation regulation” before the end of the year, this demand from the FNSEA echoes the ongoing process of deregulating GMOs derived from new genetic modification techniques (NGTs). By seeking to abolish their assessment, traceability and mandatory labelling, Europe too is disregarding the precautionary principle, which it nevertheless enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty.

Following the European Council’s approval on 21 April of the text aimed at deregulating GMOs produced using new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs), it is now up to the European Parliament to vote on this text. Ahead of this vote, scheduled for mid-June, 93 European organisations have sent a joint letter to the members of the Parliament’s Environment Committee asking them to “protect farmers’, breeders’ and citizens’ rights”.

ollowing the transposition into French law, at the end of April 2026, of the 2024 European Directive aimed at combating SLAPP (“strategic litigation against public participation”), Inf’OGM publishes here the press release dated 6 May 2026 issued by eleven organisations campaigning on this issue. Deploring “the lack of ambition in this text, drafted without consultation with civil society or parliamentary debate”, these eleven organisations had already published the opinion piece “SLAPP: just 35 days left to act” in the newspaper Le Monde on 31 March 2026, an opinion piece to which Inf’OGM and the Syndicat de la Presse pas pareille were signatories.

In late April 2026, the French government supported the deregulation of GMOs produced using new techniques of genetic modification (GMO/NGT). A month earlier, however, the French Embassy in the United States had sent the government a memo detailing the situation in that country. Despite more than 140 marketing authorisations, only a few GMO/NGT are actually on the market there… but with significant patent-related issues. The situation described bears no resemblance to the promises made by multinational corporations or the European Commission.

In late February, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended granting marketing authorisation for a vaccine marketed under the name mCombriax. This is an mRNA “vaccine” against COVID-19 and seasonal flu, developed by Moderna, intended for people aged 50 and over. This opinion will be forwarded to the European Commission, which could adopt the marketing authorisation decision. Given that mRNA technology is still in its infancy and has not yet really proven itself in the medical field, this favourable opinion is somewhat surprising.

As the European Parliament’s plenary vote on the deregulation of GMOs produced by new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) approaches, the issue of patents remains a key point of contention. Against this backdrop, the German delegation of the European People’s Party (EPP) has called on the European Commission. It is asking the Commission to show willingness to review Directive 98/44 on “biotechnological inventions” to ensure free access to genetic resources and prevent them from being controlled by major seed companies.

This autumn, governments, businesses, Indigenous communities and other representatives of civil society are to meet in Yerevan (Armenia) to discuss the protection of terrestrial and marine biodiversity. As more and more genetic components of this biodiversity are being digitised, multinational corporations want to seize the opportunity to exploit the benefit-sharing fund for the use of DSI, known as the “Cali Fund”. Their demands? To reduce the amount of the contributions and the ability of states to decide on national measures, and to widen the loopholes allowing them to bypass prior consent for the use of living organisms that make up biodiversity.

Adopted at the COP16 on biodiversity in November 2024, the Cali Fund was officially launched on 25 February 2025. Its aim is to collect a share of the revenue generated by the use of digital sequence information (DSI), which is predominantly exploited by industries in the Global North and identified in biological resources that very often originate from the Global South. The fund’s promise is to ensure the sharing of benefits arising from the use of this DSI, which in particular fuels numerous patent applications. But one year after its launch, the fund remains largely ignored by the main users of DSI.