Europe

As the European Union attempts to move forward with its trilogue on the deregulation of plant GMOs derived from new techniques (NGT), the French Association for Plant Biotechnology (AFBV) and its German counterpart (WGG) are stepping up to the plate. In a joint statement, they highlight the disagreements between the European Parliament and the Council, while arguing, on the basis of what they claim to be “scientific” arguments, for the deregulation of these GMOs, to the benefit of the biotech sector.

Under the guise of making the continent a world leader in “life sciences”, the European Commission has confirmed its clearly pro-industry vision in its strategy published in early July. With a resolutely competitiveness-focused approach, it minimises the potential consequences for other social actors.

In 2024, the European Union once again recorded alerts of GMO contamination. Of the 24 alerts, the vast majority concerned unauthorised GM rice, but also papaya, soybean, flax and corn. Two cases of contamination by genetically modified microorganisms were also reported, one of which even forced the Belgian authorities to issue a public statement recalling a product. In three cases, the nature of the illegal GMO was not specified.

The need to be able to detect and identify GMOs obtained through new genetic modification techniques is a request that is being made more and more frequently. Following in the footsteps of associations, farmers’ unions, organic and non-GMO producers and processors, as well as supermarkets, it is now the turn of some laboratories specializing in analyses to make such a demand. At a time when European legislators are discussing the possible complete deregulation of such GMOs, these positions could carry more and more weight.

In an article published in April 2025, Euronews highlights “new genomic techniques” using the example of a wheat genetically modified by Crispr/Cas9 in the UK. This wheat, developed by a team of biologists from Rothamsted Research at the University of Bristol, has been tested in a field north of London since October 2021. Although this trial is being carried out without any environmental, agricultural or health precautions, it does provide a good showcase for potential investors.

Three groups of French and European organizations have publicly called on political leaders not to abolish labelling and traceability requirements for GMOs produced using new techniques. In their view, maintaining these obligations is the only way to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and to protect the seed and peasant sectors from contamination and attempts by multinationals to take control of living organisms.

The European Commission’s postponement of its “biotech law” until the end of 2026 is raising questions. Presented as a future “regulation”, this law must be coordinated with other legal acts still under discussion, in particular the one on new genomic techniques (NGT). But the regulation on health data (known as “EHDS”), adopted in February 2025, could also be a reason for this postponement.

As the trialogue on the proposed deregulation of GMOs got underway on 6 May between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Member States of the European Union, French organisations are once again warning of the potential “serious and irreversible consequences of this text”.
Alternatiba Rennes, one of the signatories of this letter, has also taken action in the public arena.

Behind its label as an agricultural cooperative from Auvergne (France), Limagrain is now a global player in GMOs. The Group has been promoting GMOs for many years. Last March, its CEO, Sébastien Chauffaut, was optimistic about the forthcoming deregulation of GMOs/NGTs, which he hopes to market from 2029. Here’s a look at Limagrain’s GMO strategy, combining state privilege and lobbying.

In 2025, the European Union is expected to adopt a “biotech act” aimed, among other things, at modernising agriculture through new technologies. At the same time, public policies, in particular the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), are guiding farmers towards ever more expensive and sophisticated mechanisation. As a result, a “high-tech” and soil-less agricultural model is taking shape in Europe, with the risk of increasing farmers’ indebtedness and marginalising small-scale farming.

“Artificial intelligence” (AI) is used to extract and restructure information from raw or unstructured data. Companies are using it to identify phenotypic traits associated with genetic sequences. Referring to a recent patent application by the company Inari, the German NGO Testbiotech points out the risks associated with the combination of new genomic modification techniques (NGT) and AI. It condemns the possible abuses of patentability and the need for robust GMO regulations. However, Inari has already filed other similar applications, which raises questions about the legal impact of such rights and their adaptation to AI-driven technologies.

At the European Patent Office (EPO), one of the key principles for patentability of inventions is that the invention must be described in sufficient detail for any “person skilled in the art” to be able to reproduce it. In biotechnology, where living systems are manipulated, this requirement poses a particular challenge. The notion of “reproducibility” of the invention thus becomes an essential criterion, which can take on different meanings depending on the context. This article explores the subject of the reproducibility of biotechnological inventions according to the practice of the EPO, in particular the case law of its Boards of Appeal.