News

This autumn, governments, businesses, Indigenous communities and other representatives of civil society are to meet in Yerevan (Armenia) to discuss the protection of terrestrial and marine biodiversity. As more and more genetic components of this biodiversity are being digitised, multinational corporations want to seize the opportunity to exploit the benefit-sharing fund for the use of DSI, known as the “Cali Fund”. Their demands? To reduce the amount of the contributions and the ability of states to decide on national measures, and to widen the loopholes allowing them to bypass prior consent for the use of living organisms that make up biodiversity.

Adopted at the COP16 on biodiversity in November 2024, the Cali Fund was officially launched on 25 February 2025. Its aim is to collect a share of the revenue generated by the use of digital sequence information (DSI), which is predominantly exploited by industries in the Global North and identified in biological resources that very often originate from the Global South. The fund’s promise is to ensure the sharing of benefits arising from the use of this DSI, which in particular fuels numerous patent applications. But one year after its launch, the fund remains largely ignored by the main users of DSI.

In 2024, 209.8 million hectares of genetically modified crops were grown worldwide, representing 4.2% of global farmland. Beyond this relatively low percentage, it is also important to note that, for decades, genetically modified crops have been limited to just a few countries and four plant species. GMO proponents readily cite the Bt eggplant in Bangladesh, or African countries that have recently authorized transgenic cotton or cowpeas… But this optical illusion is a long-standing strategy designed to create the illusion of GMO success.

At a “Seed Sector Meeting” in February 2026, the representative of the French Ministry of Agriculture defended the proposed deregulation of numerous GMOs. However, his remarks primarily revealed tensions, misunderstandings and disagreements within the French administration regarding the issue of patents… a subject that is nonetheless central to the future of plant breeding!

On 21 April 2026, EU Member States voted in favour of deregulating GMOs/NGTs at the EU Foreign Affairs Council. The text is coming back now in the European Parliament’s court, with its Environment Committee due to meet on 5 May, ahead of a plenary session for discussions and votes by MEPs on 19 May 2026.

Whilst the process of deregulating GMOs/NGTs is continuing within the European institutions, opposition to it has been growing in recent weeks. These positions are being taken by a wide variety of stakeholders. Without claiming to be exhaustive, Inf’OGM offers an overview of the main statements published recently.

Digital sequence information (DSI) has long been a source of tension between countries in the “Global North” and the ”Global South”. The latter provides the majority of the physical genetic resources containing this DSI, whilst the North, thanks to its bioinformatics capabilities, carries out most of the exploitation and financial capitalisation of this information. Thus, by linking biological functions to digitised genetic sequences, the North files numerous patent applications and captures the lion’s share of the profits, in violation of international conventions and treaties. In an attempt to legalise this new form of biopiracy, a pledge to share these benefits equitably – the Cali Fund – was formalised in 2024. It remains, however, ineffective, failing to address a major injustice.

Agritech is the convergence of genetics, robotics and digital technology. The tomato we’re about to discuss could serve as a symbol of this: it has been genetically modified to be more easily pollinated by a robot, which is itself controlled by a network of connected computers, commonly referred to as “artificial intelligence” (“AI”). This “innovation” is, above all, an illustration of the current headlong rush toward technology.

If the European Commission manages to convince the European Council and Parliament to accept its legislative proposal, many GMOs could be deregulated in Europe. Since the 2010s, it has been argued that these GMOs produced using new techniques (GMOs/NGTs) cannot be distinguished from organisms that have arisen naturally or through conventional breeding. Yet, in 2020, France explained in detail how to make this differentiation technically possible. A fact that the French government seems to have forgotten since…