News

On Wednesday 17 June 2026, MEPs adopted the compromise text deregulating GMOs produced using new genetic modification techniques (GMO/NGT). This text, which is identical to that adopted by the Council of the EU on 21 April 2026, means that GMO/NGT will be able to be placed on the market in the EU without authorisation, without risk assessment, without labelling (except on seed lots) and without the publication of methods for detecting and identifying them. It will come into force in 2028.

In April 2026, Jacquet, a subsidiary of Limagrain, withdrew wraps from the French market: they contained genetically modified flax not commercially authorized. While no genetically modified flax varieties are currently officially cultivated worldwide, Canada authorized the cultivation of one variety in 1996 before withdrawing the authorization in 2001. This country has also recently ended its mandatory flax export monitoring program.

In July 2023, alongside its proposal to deregulate new genetic modification techniques (NGTs), the European Commission promised an assessment of the impact of patents on plant breeding. The report, produced by Technopolis and published in December 2025, highlights several problems related to patents. These problems will not be resolved by the non-binding measures adopted by the Council of the European Union in April 2026. Do the European authorities really only listen to the voice of industry, even if it means ignoring the reports they commission?

On 17 June, between 12.30 and 1.30 pm, MEPs, meeting in plenary session, will vote, without debate, on the proposal to deregulate GMOs derived from new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs). Inf’OGM summarises here some of the positions, campaigns and other calls for action by civil society organisations, elected representatives, businesses and trade unions regarding the risks that its adoption would entail.

The FNSEA (French National Federation of Farmers’ Unions) recently called for the “precautionary principle” to be replaced by an “innovation principle”. Behind this political and semantic offensive lies a challenge to the risk management framework enshrined in the French constitution. Whilst the European Commission says it intends to propose an “innovation regulation” before the end of the year, this demand from the FNSEA echoes the ongoing process of deregulating GMOs derived from new genetic modification techniques (NGTs). By seeking to abolish their assessment, traceability and mandatory labelling, Europe too is disregarding the precautionary principle, which it nevertheless enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty.

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”.

ollowing the transposition into French law, at the end of April 2026, of the 2024 European Directive aimed at combating SLAPP (“strategic litigation against public participation”), Inf’OGM publishes here the press release dated 6 May 2026 issued by eleven organisations campaigning on this issue. Deploring “the lack of ambition in this text, drafted without consultation with civil society or parliamentary debate”, these eleven organisations had already published the opinion piece “SLAPP: just 35 days left to act” in the newspaper Le Monde on 31 March 2026, an opinion piece to which Inf’OGM and the Syndicat de la Presse pas pareille were signatories.

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.

In late February, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended granting marketing authorisation for a vaccine marketed under the name mCombriax. This is an mRNA “vaccine” against COVID-19 and seasonal flu, developed by Moderna, intended for people aged 50 and over. This opinion will be forwarded to the European Commission, which could adopt the marketing authorisation decision. Given that mRNA technology is still in its infancy and has not yet really proven itself in the medical field, this favourable opinion is somewhat surprising.