News

The argument that the European Union must catch up with other countries by deregulating GMOs produced using new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) is repeated ad nauseam by their proponents. However, at the end of 2025, an OECD report reviewed the legislation in force in some of the largest GMO-producing countries (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the United States, etc.). And the least one can say is that the international legislative landscape is highly varied.

New genetic modification techniques (NGTs) are presented by their proponents as a mean of promoting innovation in seed production and broadening farmers’ choices. However, the US experience shows that deregulating GMOs is not enough to make them accessible to users. According to a 2023 report by the US Department of Agriculture, the significant increase in patent fees on GMOs is hindering access to seeds in general. Europe, which has just adopted its regulation on GMOs produced using NGTs, arguing that it is necessary to boost variety innovation, was nevertheless aware of this report on the situation in the US.

In an article published in Philosophies in July 2026, Grégori de Souza and Jelson Roberto de Oliveira argue that, from a philosophical standpoint, the genetic manipulation of plants raises new ethical questions. Biotechnology transforms living things into objects. In doing so, they assert, it alters the ontological foundations of life and calls for an ethic of responsibility that extends to the entire biosphere.

In times of war, market concentration allows companies to reap even greater profits, while farmers and consumers around the world suffer from rising fertilizer and food prices. This report provides a snapshot of the state of concentration in the agri-food sector. It follows up on the 2025 edition and assesses the state of market concentration in six key agricultural sectors: commercial seeds, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, agricultural machinery, veterinary pharmaceuticals, and livestock genetics.

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?

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which certifies “sustainably” managed forests, held a public consultation on the interpretation of its definition of “genetically modified organism” (GMO)i – a definition adopted in 2000 and copied verbatim from the European definition in force since 1990. Currently, GMO tree plantations cannot obtain FSC certification. The consultation revealed conflicting views among the stakeholders (both members and non-members) who participated. However, among FSC members specifically, a narrow majority of respondents favored classifying trees derived from New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) as GMOs. Consequently, the FSC secretariat decided to keep trees genetically modified using NGTs within the GMO category, thereby maintaining the ban on their use in certified plantations.

In June, the European Parliament adopted a regulation on new genetic modification techniques (NGTs). Contrary to the demands of several civil society organisations – notably farmers’ groups, but also MEPs – the text does not ban patents on products derived from these NGTs. However, experience in the US shows that the strengthening of intellectual property rights over seeds has been accompanied by a general rise in their prices – particularly those of genetically modified seeds – and by increased concentration within the sector. This trend could also occur in Europe and, in the long term, have an impact on food prices.

The adoption of the future European regulation on plant reproductive material, known as the ‘seeds regulation’, has entered its final stages. The ‘provisional compromise’ is presented as a modernisation of the current legislation. Among other things, it extends the market for conservation varieties across the entire European Union and regulates the non-commercial exchange of seeds between farmers. However, this compromise has not achieved consensus. Whilst the peasant farmers’ organisation ECVC is calling for its rejection, organisations defending cultivated biodiversity welcome some of the progress made. The seed industry and the mainstream agricultural unions, for their part, welcome a framework that reinforces the current market organisation.