Microorganism

In an opinion piece published on 22 July 2026 on a French media’s website Mediapart, sixteen representatives of French organisations have expressed alarm at the potential deregulation of genetically modified micro-organisms. This deregulation, proposed by the European Commission in December 2025, has already received initial approval from the Council of the European Union, including that of the French government. In their opinion piece, the signatories specifically call on the French government “to make a genuine change in stance and to take a firm stand against this deregulation of GMOs”.

According to the European Commission, biocontrol products are intended to be a sustainable alternative to chemical pesticides. However, as we saw in a previous article, the Commission plans to group products that are genuinely low-risk together with products derived from biotechnologies – whose risks have not been assessed – under the single term “biocontrol”. Yet, the term “biocontrol” creates confusion by fostering the illusion that it is a technique akin to organic farming. What is the reality?

On Tuesday 16 June 2026, the Council of the European Union achieved a qualified majority to enter into negotiations with the European Parliament on a draft directive that would allow the release of genetically modified micro-organisms into the environment under less stringent regulatory conditions. France has declared its support for this draft directive. This decision endorses the European Commission’s proposal of 16 December 2025 as part of the “Biotech Acts”. These latter aim to simplify regulations for the benefit of businesses.

Presented as an alternative to chemical pesticides, biocontrol operates on a logic of substitution that allows the pesticide industry to “green” its operations. Worse still, biocontrol products could overshadow beneficial approaches such as peasant agroecology or biological pest control. To facilitate the marketing of biocontrol substances, the European Commission proposed a definition and simplified regulations in the draft Omnibus X regulation in December 2025.

In December 2025, the European Commission proposed a set of measures to amend the regulations governing food and animal consumption, compiled in a document entitled “Omnibus X”. This document notably proposed the creation of a new legal category: “biocontrol substances”, described as an alternative to chemical pesticides, whose development and marketing the European Commission aims to promote. However, on June 12, the Council of the EU noted the lack of a qualified majority for this text.

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.

A proposal for a directive made by the European Commission on 16 December 2025 calls on Member States and the European Parliament to deregulate the marketing of genetically modified bacteria, yeasts, viruses and other micro-organisms, including transgenics. According to the Commission, the aim would be to allow companies to market these GMO microorganisms (GMMs) under lighter or even no rules. This would involve an “adapted” health and environmental risk assessment, an end to traceability, an end to environmental monitoring… Following the plants, the deregulation of GMOs is therefore continuing, this time with microorganisms, with perhaps the animals next in line in 2026.

In 2025, the European network of GMO laboratories (ENGL) published a report written by several of its experts on the detection and identification of genetically modified microorganisms using new techniques in the food and feed industry. According to this report, the vast majority of these micro-organisms are detectable and identifiable. However, “in somecases”, with the processes currently available, very small genetic modifications can be more complicated, or even impossible, to detect and differentiate from those that can occur without technical intervention on the genome.

For several years, Inf’OGM has been working to monitor and decipher the words used by multinationals and legislators in discussions about GMOs, industrial property or the digitisation of living organisms. The choice of words is by no means insignificant, and naming a subject, a tool or elements of nature contributes to a good understanding of the issues at stake… or to maintaining confusion!

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.

In 2024, the European Union once again recorded alerts of GMO contamination. Of the 24 alerts, the vast majority concerned unauthorised GM rice, but also papaya, soybean, flax and corn. Two cases of contamination by genetically modified microorganisms were also reported, one of which even forced the Belgian authorities to issue a public statement recalling a product. In three cases, the nature of the illegal GMO was not specified.

Animal proteins without animalsMilk proteins without cows, fish without fish, meat without animals and even egg proteins without eggs or chickens: welcome to the realm of “precision fermentation” for our future food. Three start-ups in the sector have obtained approval for their milk-free milk proteins from the US health authorities, enabling them to sell them to food manufacturers.The industry and certain institutions are presenting these innovations as a step forward in reducing the carbon impact of livestock farming and meeting the food needs of human populations. Above all, it is a promising market: these “advances” are already attracting investors.