European Commission

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.

When reading legislation, one sometimes finds oneself thinking that it is a good thing that legislators are not responsible for editing the dictionaries in our libraries. The specific case of the term “microorganism” provides a striking example. Behind this term lie biological entities whose contours vary according to the regulatory texts. Bacteria, yeasts, algae, nematodes, even DNA or seeds: these are just some of the examples given by various regulatory texts, which show that the legislative definition of “microorganisms” has constantly varied according to economic interests. What do these texts have in common? They all can blur the traceability requirements imposed by GMO legislation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At the end of 2024, the Netherlands initiated a process of reflection on the meaning to be given to the legal definition of a GMO, discussing the definition word by word, expression by expression. A purely intellectual exercise? Far from it! The result of this work could change the way the definition of a GMO is read… without changing the definition itself. The expected outcome of these reflections is, of course, a lighter regulatory framework.

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!

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.

Patents involving the use of nanos* in agriculture have multiplied over the last 20 years. However, there has been no improvement in the availability of information in this field. A recent report, commissioned by AVICENN and published by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), re-emphasizes the need to change European regulations in order to better identify, assess and manage nanos in the fields and the food. AVICENN is calling for greater transparency on the marketing and risks of nanomaterials that have long been used in agriculture.