New genomic techniques (GMO/NGT)

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.

On August 6, 2025, the agri-food group Mars acquired a license to use CRISPR tools from the biotech company Pairwise with the aim of developing genetically modified cocoa trees. If this partnership between the biotech and agri-food worlds is worth looking into, it is because it concerns the world leader in chocolate products, which has been interested in the issue for several years now.

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.

At first glance, this finding may seem surprising. Only three GMOs obtained through new techniques of genetic modification are currently being cultivated and their harvest commercialised. The many promises of their benefits for health, the environment, and “competitiveness”, as well as the argument that they are already deregulated in many countries around the world, would suggest that these “miracle” products would have been more widely adopted. Clearly, this is not the case.

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.

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.

As the trialogue on the proposed deregulation of GMOs got underway on 6 May between the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Member States of the European Union, French organisations are once again warning of the potential “serious and irreversible consequences of this text”.
Alternatiba Rennes, one of the signatories of this letter, has also taken action in the public arena.

Behind its label as an agricultural cooperative from Auvergne (France), Limagrain is now a global player in GMOs. The Group has been promoting GMOs for many years. Last March, its CEO, Sébastien Chauffaut, was optimistic about the forthcoming deregulation of GMOs/NGTs, which he hopes to market from 2029. Here’s a look at Limagrain’s GMO strategy, combining state privilege and lobbying.

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.