News

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.

Three groups of French and European organizations have publicly called on political leaders not to abolish labelling and traceability requirements for GMOs produced using new techniques. In their view, maintaining these obligations is the only way to guarantee freedom of choice for farmers and consumers, and to protect the seed and peasant sectors from contamination and attempts by multinationals to take control of living organisms.

At the beginning of April, the Tirpaa again discussed the expansion of the list of crops covered by the multilateral system and the revision of the contract governing their use. While some Member States of the Treaty are invoking the need to guarantee global food security, fears are being voiced that there will be a drift in widespread access to peasant and traditional seeds. This would facilitate their patenting, without any real sharing of the benefits, to the detriment of the countries of the “South” and the rights of the peasants.

The European Commission’s postponement of its “biotech law” until the end of 2026 is raising questions. Presented as a future “regulation”, this law must be coordinated with other legal acts still under discussion, in particular the one on new genomic techniques (NGT). But the regulation on health data (known as “EHDS”), adopted in February 2025, could also be a reason for this postponement.

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.

Inf’OGM interviewed Stéphane Galais, a farmer in Ille-et-Vilaine (Brittany, France) with a 25-hectare farm producing milk and cheese. He is also national secretary of the Confédération paysanne. In this interview, he explains and analyses what agritech means to him.

A few months ago, Living Carbon, a US start-up, announced that it had developed and planted genetically modified poplar trees in 2023. These trees are said to absorb more quickly carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases whose current accumulation in the atmosphere and oceans is causing problems for the Earth’s climate. As part of this program, Living Carbon is acquiring carbon credits to finance its work. The aim is to reduce the photorespiration of poplar and pine plants. What is photorespiration? What would be the ecological repercussions of this modification of photosynthesis?

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.