This Review looks at the battles happening in Europe, both in the UK and the European Union, over new GMOs. After decades of facing fierce resistance throughout Europe, the biotech industry has been increasingly on the front foot in recent years, particularly since the Brexit vote and the rise of the far-right. Although the industry and its supporters haven’t been able to roll back the restrictions on existing GMOs, their deregulatory agenda for new GMOs has borne fruit first in the UK and finally in June this year in the EU. But as this Review shows, these issues are very far from settled – with a court victory for deregulation opponents this summer in the UK and lawsuits being launched in the EU. Be in no doubt, more opposition to deregulation will follow.
Looking back, looking forward: New GMOs and old lessons
In June the UK High Court ruled in favour of a judicial review challenging the deregulation of so-called ‘precision bred organisms’ or PBOs – the UK government’s euphemism for new gene-edited GMOs. The judicial review, which led to the government’s decision to remove mandatory labelling and traceability being ruled irrational and unlawful, was led by Beyond GM, with Patrick Holden, CEO of the Sustainable Food Trust, and two others standing as co-claimants. In a powerful article, Patrick reflects on why he chose to speak out and on the importance of the case. He writes: “Many of the MPs who waved this legislation through without scrutiny probably couldn’t tell a GMO from their own elbows and are utterly seduced by the idea that we can improve on nature using the great white heat of technology… Ask anyone on the street and they likely won’t be able to tell you what a PBO is, yet 8 in 10 people in the UK believe that all GMOs should be labelled and traceable in our food system. This change of law has a major impact on the right to exercise informed choice and to choose not to plant, sell or buy GMOs.” More information on the court case here.
Reactions to the EU deregulation of new GMOs
The EU new genomic techniques (NGT) Regulation 2026/1388, which deregulates the vast majority of GM gene-edited plants by removing the requirement for risk assessment, traceability and labelling, was adopted on 17 June 2026 and enters into application on 17 July 2028. For those who missed our bulletins giving links to responses to the deregulation, those responses can be read here, here, and here. To sum up, in the words of Corporate Europe Observatory, the deregulation is “A betrayal of farmers, consumers and science itself”.
Move “opens the floodgates to a wave of patents”
Paul Grabenberger, seed policy expert at the Austrian seed savers’ association ARCHE NOAH, called the vote “a missed opportunity to protect Europe’s farmers, breeders and food system from an expansion of seed patents. With this result, Parliament has failed to draw a clear line against corporate control over genetic resources.” ARCHE NOAH warnedthat the move “opens the floodgates to a wave of patents”.
Italy: 21 organisations condemn vote against food sovereignty, farmers’ rights and consumers’ rights
The European Parliament’s vote in favour of deregulation sets the clock back twenty-five years, abolishing risk assessment, traceability and labelling of GMOs produced using new genomic techniques (NGT), as well as allowing the transfer of patent rights to conventional plants, says Centro Internazionale Crocevia, in a statement signed by 21 organisations. The group adds: “This could spell the end of the precautionary principle; by allowing patented GM crops into the environment, it paves the way for further centralisation of the seed market in the hands of a handful of agrochemical multinationals.”
No EU GM food on our plates! – Swiss citizens’ campaign
Due to the EU adoption of the NGT (de)regulation, food produced from GM crops will find its way into Switzerland without labelling – with serious consequences: consumers are losing control over what ends up on their plates, and GMO-free agriculture is under threat. But Switzerland can do things differently. If you’re in Switzerland, sign the petition to the Federal Council and Parliament to demand the right to choose and to protect Swiss food quality from genetic engineering!
Unexpected rift in the Hungarian anti-GMO consensus during European Parliament vote
Hungary’s leading environmental and organic agriculture NGOs expressed outrage that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) of Hungary’s governing Tisza Party voted to relax the regulations on new GMOs, thus violating the long-standing political consensus – even enshrined in its constitution – that Hungary should remain GMO-free. More on this here.
German groups challenge deregulation in a lawsuit
A broad coalition representing German plant breeding and propagation, agriculture, food processing and trade, wild plant propagation, and industry associations is challenging the NGT Regulation. The lawsuit was filed with the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg and is directed against the legislative bodies, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. Annemarie Volling, coordinator of the legal action and genetic engineering expert at the Working Group for Peasant Agriculture (AbL) e.V., said, “This regulation violates fundamental economic rights, such as the right to freedom of enterprise and the right to property. It also violates the principles of precaution, a high level of environmental protection, and consumer protection.” More information on this here.
Slovakia files legal challenge to GMO deregulation in Europe
When the European Parliament voted to deregulate new GMOs, only one country unanimously rejected the legislation: Slovakia, all of whose MEPs voted against it. In September, Slovakia again stood alone in opposing Brussels, as it filed a lawsuit challenging the new GMO laws at the Court of Justice of the European Union. GM Freeze’s Leonie Nimmo talked with Samuel Matejíčka from the civil society organisation quid est VERITAS to find out more. This fascinating article goes into the differences between Slovakia and other countries with governments that have turned their backs on public opinion. There’s more information on the Slovak case here and here.
Slovak Academy of Science’s support for GMO deregulation runs contrary to the science, says responsible scientists’ organisation
The Slovak Academy of Science (SAS) has issued a statement in support of the deregulation of new GM techniques. But ENSSER (the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) has published a statement critiquing SAS’s stance. ENSSER says the SAS statement “ascribes a series of benefits to New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) but does not provide any scientific evidence to support this. Furthermore, the SAS ignores the substantial risks of these techniques that have been reported in the scientific literature. These risks arise from the experimentally validated fact that NGT procedures as a whole are highly DNA-damaging and not as precise and predictable as is claimed, and neither are their outcomes. The existing scientific evidence provides no support for the NGT Regulation but instead leads to the conclusion that it should be withdrawn and proper risk assessment and labelling should be put back in place.” More here on how the process of gene editing (the main NGT procedure) is far from precise, predictable and safe.
Italian seed keepers mobilise
Italian seed keepers are building grassroots networks to protect traditional crop varieties and support farmers’ right to save, select, and exchange seeds outside corporate channels. Seed preservation advocates argue that the EU’s NGT Regulation raises important questions about patents, transparency, access to crop genetics, and who controls future breeding rights.
NGT plants: Correcting flaws of the EU Regulation?
The European Commission launched consultation processes on the implementation of the controversial EU regulation on plants derived from new genetic engineering (or new genomic techniques, NGTs). Among other things, the processes aimed to specify how the claimed equivalence of so-called ‘NGT1 plants’ to conventionally bred plants will be verified and which of these plants will be assessed for health risks. It also aims to establish what information must be included in a registry where NGT1 plants will be registered in the future.
GMWatch submits evidence to the consultation
GMWatch and Prof Michael Antoniou made a submission to the Commission’s consultation (see above). The submission details the molecular analyses that should be performed in order to ensure that claims of equivalence between an NGT1 plant and what could occur in conventional breeding have some scientific basis. The analyses are:
-
Whole genome sequencing (long-read) to reveal the full spectrum of DNA changes brought about by the gene editing and associated processes (such as tissue culture and the GM transformation procedure)
-
Transcriptomics, to reveal changes in global patterns of gene expression
-
Proteomics, to reveal changes in the protein profile
-
Metabolomics, to reveal changes in the metabolite profile.
The submission can be read here.
Wageningen University “should not speak on behalf of everyone on the issue of gene editing”
One of the submissions made in the Commission’s consultation (see above) came from Wageningen University & Research (WUR). The submission bearing WUR’s name supported the NGT Regulation – and it was made in the name of the whole university. But not all researchers at WUR agree: 42 of them sent a letter to the executive board of the university objecting to the submission’s implication that all WUR scientists share the opinion expressed in it. They state that WUR traditionally has a wide diversity of opinions on controversial subjects like this.
Top image: Shutterstock – licensed purchase
