Europe

Negotiations on the future European regulation on new genetic modification techniques have been focusing on two sensitive issues for several months: patentability and sustainability. Keen to conclude the dossier before the end of the year, the Danish Presidency is stepping up efforts to find a compromise, at the risk of neglecting issues that are of particular concern to small and medium-sized breeders and farmers. Denmark will seek an agreement this week, having already threatened to freeze discussions and refer the text back to the European Parliament for a second reading.

Being precise, targeting and achieving one’s goal, directing a mutagenesis… these are adjectives that convey a sense of control and precision. However, on closer inspection, these adjectives mean nothing in a legal text. Because, in the European Commission’s proposal to deregulate a number of GMOs, they are not accompanied by their corollaries: targeted where? Precise to what degree? Directed by what or by whom?

On 14 October 2025, eight consumer associations from various EU Member States published an opinion calling on European institutions to maintain GMO labelling to enable European consumers to make informed choices about their food.

As the trilogue on the regulation of new genomic techniques (NGT) continues, civil society organisations are expressing their concerns about the outcome of the discussions, particularly on the issue of patents. This is evidenced by two recent position statements: those of the European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) and Arche Noah, which illustrate their mobilisation around this crucial debate at a key moment when European decisions are being made.

In early August, the European Commission launched a multilingual online public consultation on its forthcoming “Biotechnology Regulation”. Presented as an exercise in transparency and citizen participation, the questionnaire is in fact primarily designed to gather the industry’s position. In particular, it does not address the ethical and civic dimensions raised by new genome editing techniques (NGTs), such as health risks, the appropriation of living organisms by industry, or the management of health data. This regulation could offer the Commission and multinationals a way out if current or past negotiations on other legislative acts fail to achieve their objectives.

Since 3 May 2022, the European Commission has launched numerous legislative initiatives relating to living organisms. The deregulation of plants and certain GMO micro-organisms, the digitisation of living organisms and patents are all topics being discussed by Member States and the European Parliament. If adopted, these projects would make it easier for companies with the means to appropriate living organisms. What is the current status of these projects? Inf’OGM takes stock.

At the end of July 2025, the EU Biotech and Life Sciences Alliance was quietly launched in the European Parliament. Supported by the lobby group Europabio, its aim is to bring together MEPs to “ensure that the [European] Union takes bold and coordinated action” to strengthen its biotechnology sector. While this initiative reflects a desire to maintain Europe’s competitiveness, it raises a major political question: where does democratic representation end and institutionalised lobbying begin?

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.