News

Being precise, targeting and achieving one’s goal, directing a mutagenesis… these are adjectives that convey a sense of control and precision. However, on closer inspection, these adjectives mean nothing in a legal text. Because, in the European Commission’s proposal to deregulate a number of GMOs, they are not accompanied by their corollaries: targeted where? Precise to what degree? Directed by what or by whom?

On 14 October 2025, eight consumer associations from various EU Member States published an opinion calling on European institutions to maintain GMO labelling to enable European consumers to make informed choices about their food.

Plants and fungi genetically modified using CRISPR or other “targeted mutagenesis” techniques, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) designated by the acronym “NGT” for “new genomic techniques”… These various expressions are used in speech and writing by many legislators and scientists, even though they are inappropriate. But they are used for an explicit purpose: to obtain the deregulation of a very large number of GMOs by systematically removing the words “genetically modified”, which cause public mistrust.

For several years, Inf’OGM has been working to monitor and decipher the words used by multinationals and legislators in discussions about GMOs, industrial property or the digitisation of living organisms. The choice of words is by no means insignificant, and naming a subject, a tool or elements of nature contributes to a good understanding of the issues at stake… or to maintaining confusion!

As the trilogue on the regulation of new genomic techniques (NGT) continues, civil society organisations are expressing their concerns about the outcome of the discussions, particularly on the issue of patents. This is evidenced by two recent position statements: those of the European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) and Arche Noah, which illustrate their mobilisation around this crucial debate at a key moment when European decisions are being made.

In early August, the European Commission launched a multilingual online public consultation on its forthcoming “Biotechnology Regulation”. Presented as an exercise in transparency and citizen participation, the questionnaire is in fact primarily designed to gather the industry’s position. In particular, it does not address the ethical and civic dimensions raised by new genome editing techniques (NGTs), such as health risks, the appropriation of living organisms by industry, or the management of health data. This regulation could offer the Commission and multinationals a way out if current or past negotiations on other legislative acts fail to achieve their objectives.

The Asilomar Conference (California, United States) on ‘recombinant DNA’ was organised in 1975 by molecular biology researchers. Its aim was to define the safety conditions necessary for handling genetically modified bacteria shortly after the first attempts at transgenesis.
Today, despite their medical, agricultural and environmental promises, biotechnological advances, combined with other technologies such as ‘artificial intelligence’, are above all a sword of Damocles hanging over all living things. In 2025, a new Asilomar conference failed to produce a joint statement by the participants.

On August 6, 2025, the agri-food group Mars acquired a license to use CRISPR tools from the biotech company Pairwise with the aim of developing genetically modified cocoa trees. If this partnership between the biotech and agri-food worlds is worth looking into, it is because it concerns the world leader in chocolate products, which has been interested in the issue for several years now.

When reading legislation, one sometimes finds oneself thinking that it is a good thing that legislators are not responsible for editing the dictionaries in our libraries. The specific case of the term “microorganism” provides a striking example. Behind this term lie biological entities whose contours vary according to the regulatory texts. Bacteria, yeasts, algae, nematodes, even DNA or seeds: these are just some of the examples given by various regulatory texts, which show that the legislative definition of “microorganisms” has constantly varied according to economic interests. What do these texts have in common? They all can blur the traceability requirements imposed by GMO legislation.