Non classé

In a recent proposal for regulations claiming to “strengthen the biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors”, the European Commission wants to see these sectors governed by a policy that “balance innovation with safety, equity and environmental protection”. However, the text mainly aims to promote industrial competitiveness and attractiveness to investors. It provides for faster authorisation procedures for “biotechnology products”, a lighter regulatory framework and prioritisation of so-called “strategic” projects in order to reduce time to market.

The legislative texts concerning GMOs proposed by the European Commission aim to almost entirely remove the regulatory framework for GM plants and microorganisms. In addition to this deregulation, two new measures have been discreetly slipped in. The first, which is common to the pesticides dossier, would consist of authorising these products without any time limit. The second would give the European Commission full powers over future legislative changes.

On 19 December 2025, the French government came out in favour of deregulating GMOs obtained using new techniques of genetic modification (NGT). Having previously abstained, it has, according to our information, changed its position following a commitment made by the European Commission. This commitment, which has not yet been made public but which Inf’OGM has been able to read, does not, however, add anything to the provisional text proposed to deregulate GMOs. France’s position has enabled a qualified majority of Member States to be reached on a text that, furthermore, does not provide for any risk assessment of GMOs obtained using new techniques and classified in category 1, any labelling or traceability of these GMOs, or any environmental monitoring.

In less than two weeks, between 10 and 19 December, 2025 ended with a rather unprecedented offensive by the European Union authorities against several European texts protecting the environment, health and citizens’ rights. GMOs, pesticides, seeds, corporate responsibility… everything is being called into question in order to “simplify” life for businesses in Europe. Faced with this frenetic pace, Inf’OGM continues its watchdog work, which is essential for public debate, the proper functioning of democracy and the protection of life, by providing accurate, rigorous and reliable information.

For several years, EFSA and ANSES have been asking Bayer to monitor the emergence of teosinte, the wild ancestor of maize, in fields cultivated with Mon810 maize in Portugal and Spain. In 2023, the company was still not doing so. However, the presence of teosinte in Europe has been confirmed. A scientific study has even shown experimentally that the Mon810 transgene can be transmitted from maize to teosinte plants collected in Spanish fields. The production of transgenic insecticidal protein is therefore not under control.

Plants and fungi genetically modified using CRISPR or other “targeted mutagenesis” techniques, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) designated by the acronym “NGT” for “new genomic techniques”… These various expressions are used in speech and writing by many legislators and scientists, even though they are inappropriate. But they are used for an explicit purpose: to obtain the deregulation of a very large number of GMOs by systematically removing the words “genetically modified”, which cause public mistrust.

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.

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.

For many years now, multinationals have been collecting an increasing amount of genetic, proteic sequences and epigenetic informations. They are reducing living organisms to data compiled in digital databases. Using “artificial intelligence” algorithms, they claim to have the tools to determine which genetic modifications will produce a given new characteristic. In a society where genetic modification techniques and patents are intimately linked, these algorithms will above all accelerate the claim to own living organisms.