New genomic techniques (GMO/NGT)

Following the European Council’s approval on 21 April of the text aimed at deregulating GMOs produced using new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs), it is now up to the European Parliament to vote on this text. Ahead of this vote, scheduled for mid-June, 93 European organisations have sent a joint letter to the members of the Parliament’s Environment Committee asking them to “protect farmers’, breeders’ and citizens’ rights”.

In late April 2026, the French government supported the deregulation of GMOs produced using new techniques of genetic modification (GMO/NGT). A month earlier, however, the French Embassy in the United States had sent the government a memo detailing the situation in that country. Despite more than 140 marketing authorisations, only a few GMO/NGT are actually on the market there… but with significant patent-related issues. The situation described bears no resemblance to the promises made by multinational corporations or the European Commission.

As the European Parliament’s plenary vote on the deregulation of GMOs produced by new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) approaches, the issue of patents remains a key point of contention. Against this backdrop, the German delegation of the European People’s Party (EPP) has called on the European Commission. It is asking the Commission to show willingness to review Directive 98/44 on “biotechnological inventions” to ensure free access to genetic resources and prevent them from being controlled by major seed companies.

At a “Seed Sector Meeting” in February 2026, the representative of the French Ministry of Agriculture defended the proposed deregulation of numerous GMOs. However, his remarks primarily revealed tensions, misunderstandings and disagreements within the French administration regarding the issue of patents… a subject that is nonetheless central to the future of plant breeding!

On 21 April 2026, EU Member States voted in favour of deregulating GMOs/NGTs at the EU Foreign Affairs Council. The text is coming back now in the European Parliament’s court, with its Environment Committee due to meet on 5 May, ahead of a plenary session for discussions and votes by MEPs on 19 May 2026.

Whilst the process of deregulating GMOs/NGTs is continuing within the European institutions, opposition to it has been growing in recent weeks. These positions are being taken by a wide variety of stakeholders. Without claiming to be exhaustive, Inf’OGM offers an overview of the main statements published recently.

Agritech is the convergence of genetics, robotics and digital technology. The tomato we’re about to discuss could serve as a symbol of this: it has been genetically modified to be more easily pollinated by a robot, which is itself controlled by a network of connected computers, commonly referred to as “artificial intelligence” (“AI”). This “innovation” is, above all, an illustration of the current headlong rush toward technology.

If the European Commission manages to convince the European Council and Parliament to accept its legislative proposal, many GMOs could be deregulated in Europe. Since the 2010s, it has been argued that these GMOs produced using new techniques (GMOs/NGTs) cannot be distinguished from organisms that have arisen naturally or through conventional breeding. Yet, in 2020, France explained in detail how to make this differentiation technically possible. A fact that the French government seems to have forgotten since…

Prior to 2018, some Member States had decided not to submit certain applications for trials authorisation of GMOs obtained through new techniques (GMOs/NGTs) to the GMO legislation. However, in 2018, a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that these GMOs must indeed be treated as regulated GMOs. According to a 2021 report by the European Commission, these cases of wrongfully deregulated GMOs have been rectified, and the trials in question have been cancelled or brought into compliance with regulations. These cases suggest that regulating such GMOs is indeed feasible.

A patent confers the right to prevent third parties from exploiting an invention. Whilst historically it applied to specific technical objects and/or the processes for obtaining them, its extension to living organisms – and subsequently to genetic information – has transformed its scope. Between the broadening of claims, mechanisms for extending protection and growing legal uncertainties, patents now represent a threat from the biotechnology industry to fundamental economic and societal issues, particularly food sovereignty.

Following the approval by European Union member states, including France, of the draft text on the deregulation of GMOs derived from new genomic techniques (GMOs/NGTs), French MPs tabled a motion for a resolution on 21 January 2026. This motion for a resolution calls on the government to oppose the European text.

A dispute over patent rights to Crispr/Cas9 has been ongoing for several years between its main discoverers, universities and research institutes. To date, the outcome of this dispute and its impact on the Crispr/Cas9 economy remain unpredictable. Added to this is an ongoing dispute over Crispr applications between the parties to the main dispute and companies. Despite this, the widespread use of this tool for modifying living organisms, and the associated health, environmental and socio-economic consequences, seem inevitable.