New genomic techniques (GMO/NGT)

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.

On 19 December 2025, EU Member States declared themselves in favour of deregulating GMOs derived from new genomic techniques (GMOs/NGTs). After a brief passage through the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, this text must now be formally adopted by the Council of the European Union. If this is the case, it will be up to the European Parliament to vote on the text. 18 French organisations are taking this opportunity to send an open letter to MEPs calling on them to “defend the founding values, principles and treaties of the European Union, as well as the position adopted by the European Parliament in February 2024”. Other European organisations are encouraging European citizens to contact MEPs directly.

On 28 January 2026, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee confirmed, by a large majority, its support for the deregulation of almost all GMOs obtained through new techniques (GMOs/NGTs). This vote follows the informal approval by Member State representatives of the compromise text resulting from the trilogue on 19 December 2025.

Since July 2023, EU institutions have been engaged in discussions on the proposal to deregulate many GMOs. These discussions follow an established procedure of negotiations between the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission. Complex but logical, this procedure can sometimes confuse those who follow it. Inf’OGM helps you see things more clearly.

While the deregulation of GMOs obtained through new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) is currently under review, the issue of patents continues to provoke contrasting positions within European agricultural organisations. In this context, the position of the Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV), Germany’s main agricultural union, is particularly noteworthy. While in favour of the use of these NGTs, it nevertheless warns of the risks associated with patents. This is an original position among European agricultural organisations.

Since the European Commission submitted its proposal to deregulate almost all GMOs in 2023, multinational seed companies and lobbyists have been busy lobbying European institutions to support this proposal. Companies and civil society organizations can request meetings with MEPs. These meetings are listed, at least in part, on the Parliament’s website. In this article, Inf’OGM shows that supporters of GMO deregulation had 59 meetings, compared to 23 for opponents.

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.