Europe

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.

On 14 March 2025, the Member States of the European Union achieved a fragile qualified majority to launch a discussion with the European Commission and the European Parliament on the deregulation of GMOs. It took the member states almost two years to reach this majority, as there are still many disagreements. Negotiations between the three European decision-making bodies – known as a “trilogue” – could now get underway, subject to the vote of a final formal mandate by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee.

In July 2023, the European Commission’s proposal to deregulate GMOs was presented and understood as concerning only plants. Micro-organisms, animals and fungi would not be concerned. However, a careful reading will show that, contrary to what the European Parliament seems to have understood, some micro-organisms are indeed concerned… because they are considered to be plants!

A year and a half ago, France made it compulsory to vaccinate farmed ducks against the avian influenza virus, in order to protect its meat and foie gras industries. To date, France is the only country to have taken this vaccination route. One of the two vaccines used, the self-amplifying messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine, raises questions.

In February 2025, two statements opposing the European Commission’s proposal to deregulate GMOs were published. On 11 February 2025, more than 200 organisations, including farming unions, NGOs, small and medium-sized breeders, and players in the organic and non-GMO sectors, published a “joint declaration on the deregulation of new GMOs”. On 21 February 2025, more than 70 French players in the organic sector published a collective opinion piece online in Mediapart.