News
French organisations call on MEPs to reject GMO deregulation
By Antoine VEPIERRE
Published on the 09/03/2026
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.
In December 2025, negotiators from the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Member States agreed on the text aimed at deregulating GMOs/NGTs1. According to the legislative procedure to be followed2, the text still has to be formally adopted by the Council of the EU. If necessary, the European Parliament will vote on this text in plenary session, which could take place in May 2026. In view of this vote, on 9 January 2026, 18 French organisations published an open letter3 to remind MEPs of the commitments made by the previous European Parliament in April 20244. Other associations and organisations have also mobilised to denounce this deregulation, such as Kokopelli5. The Demeter Biodynamic Federation and Save our Seeds offer a tool on their websites to call on MEPs to take action6.
A reminder to MEPs of their initial positions…
The main reason why the organisations are writing this open letter to MEPs is because the agreement reached in the trilogue “directly contravenes the positions taken by the European Parliament“. In fact, the position adopted by MEPs in April 2024 called for “plants derived from NTGs to be subject to mandatory labelling” and for “a ban on the patentability of plants derived from NGTs that are indistinguishable from plants derived from traditional non-patentable breeding,as well as restrictions on the extension of the scope of patents“. These provisions were not included in the draft text negotiated in trilogue.
The signatories point to “a glaring paradox, since on the one hand plants derived from category 1 NGTs are presented as being similar to plants derived from conventional breeding, and on the other hand they are already covered by multiple patents whose scope, under current European law, extends to similar plants derived from conventional breeding, which are not patentable. However, under European law, plants derived from essentially biological processes (including conventional breeding) are not patentable“.
…and the risks posed by abandoning them
In their letter, the organisations focus on the risks that this deregulation would pose to farmers, seed producers, consumers and certain sectors.
Legal uncertainty would weigh on farmers due to patents, combined with “the removal of the obligation to publish detection and identification methods“. As a result, they would face “potential risks of abusive patent infringement lawsuits in the event of accidental contamination or if traditionally bred plants had the same traits and sequences as those patented“.
As for seed producers, the danger would also come from patents. The signatories explain that these could cause them to lose customers, force them to be bought out or negotiate licensing agreements with multinationals, or even cease trading. Like farmers, they could “also be prosecuted for infringement“.
As for consumers, “the right to information and freedom to choose one’s food would no longer be respected, as there would be no traceability and no labelling“. Another consequence of this removal would be that it would be impossible to discriminate against imported products, “particularly those from Brazil and Argentina [under the recently signed Mercosur agreement], where GMOs account for a high percentage of crops“.
Finally, the signatories point to the threats to the organic and GMO-free sectors, particularly due to possible contamination. While certain measures can limit this contamination, they warn of the additional costs that this could entail. They believe that “the costs of coexistence measures and the impacts in the event of environmental or health problems should not be borne by sectors that oppose the use of new GMOs“. In other words, those who grow GMOs/NGTs should bear the consequences.
One might think that this open letter is just another in a long list of appeals to European decision-makers by civil society organisations7. In reality, it is much more significant than that. At this advanced stage of negotiations on the text deregulating GMOs/NTGs, MEPs are the last representatives of European citizens who can still put a stop to this process. In view of the aforementioned changes to agriculture, social life and the environment, it is important to alert MEPs and make them face up to their responsibility.
Other letters to sign or send
A few weeks later, Kokopelli took the same approach with an open letter to MEPs5. In it, the seed producer sets out the same arguments against the deregulation of GMOs/TTGs. The association is even calling on citizens to co-sign the letter. Furthermore, it is seeking “public figures” to give “more weight to [its] arguments” thanks to their “notoriety“. The letter already has more than 5,000 signatories and aims to reach 100,000.
Both the Demeter Biodynamic Federation and the Save our Seeds organisation have posted a tool online that allows citizens to contact the MEPs of their choice6. The aim of these open letters is to demand that MEPs defend the right of European citizens “to choose and protect GMO-free farming” by guaranteeing traceability and “labelling on traceability” from the seed producer to the end consumer and by being aware of the problem posed by patents.
- Eric Meunier, “Qualified majority in the Council of the European Union to deregulate numerous GMOs”, Inf’OGM, 24 December 2025. ↩︎
- Eric Meunier, “What “discussion” procedures are imposed on European legislators?”, Inf’OGM, 24 February 2026. ↩︎
- Collective open letter, “Nouveaux OGM : 18 organisations appellent les eurodéputés à rejeter l’accord”, 9 January 2026.
List of signatories: Agir pour l’environnement, Bio Consom’acteurs, Confédération paysanne, CSFV 49, FNAB, Foll’avoine, France Nature Environnement, Générations Futures, Groupe International d’Etudes Transdisciplinaires, Mouvement de l’Agriculture Biodynamique, Objectif Zéro OGM, OGM Dangers, POLLINIS, Synabio, UFC-Que Choisir, Vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OGM 46, Vigilance OG2M. ↩︎ - Eric Meunier, “Les États membres bloquent la déréglementation des OGM”, Inf’OGM, 8 February 2024. ↩︎
- Kokopelli, “Les NGT, un danger pour notre autonomie agricole”, 3 February 2026. ↩︎
- Save our Seeds, “Protect GMO-free food and farming,“ 13 January 2026.
Biodynamic Federation Demeter, “Say no to GMOs in your food,“ 14 January 2026. ↩︎ - Denis Meshaka, “GMO/NGT Regulation: civil society organisations concerned about the outcome of the trilogue”, Inf’OGM, 5 November 2025.
Antoine Vépierre, “French organisations concerned about GMO deregulation”, Inf’OGM, 4 June 2025.
Antoine Vépierre, “In 2025, more and more organisations are opposed to the deregulation of GMOs”, Inf’OGM, 12 March 2025.
Denis Meshaka, “Deregulation of GMOs: 13 organisations call for it to be rejected”, Inf’OGM, 25 January 2025. ↩︎