Welcome to our Review, which covers the latest developments on new GMOs, or “new genomic techniques”, as some like to call them. The EU is getting dangerously close to deregulating new gene-edited plants (EU DEREGULATION PROPOSAL), in the face of massive opposition from businesses and citizens and despite alarming new scientific findings (BIOSAFETY AND REGULATION) that gene editing is even more disruptive to gene function than was previously believed. We also have a section on the NEW ZEALAND DEREGULATION PROPOSAL, which is both deeply unpopular and scientifically indefensible.
One of the major sticking points in the EU deregulation negotiations has been the issue of PATENTS, which threaten to tie up our seeds, foods, and farming in a corporate-controlled legal nightmare. Our new commentaries on the topic include a rundown of what’s coming for food and farming if an influx of new GMOs (all of which are patented) comes onto the market as a result of deregulation.
Recent developments in GM AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE emphasise the urgent need for rigorous regulation of new GMOs, as dangerous novel organisms could be created through this marriage of technologies (watch out for the upcoming webinar on this). GENE EDITING MYTHS showcases a new report that debunks one of the major myths of gene editing – that it “turbo-charges nature” and delivers new improved crops quickly and efficiently. Based on the documented case studies, the reality is very different.
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION covers the misguided embrace of synthetic biology and other types of genetic engineering by a major conservation organisation that clearly doesn’t understand the issues. INDIA’S GENE-EDITED RICE SCANDAL tells a sorry tale of lies, cover-ups, and attempted gagging of scientists by the Indian government and a major research organisation, all intended to hide the less than impressive performance of gene-edited rice varieties.
Finally, UK GMO DEREGULATION gives the latest updates since the government passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.
EU DEREGULATION PROPOSAL
EU Member States approve the deregulation of GMOs obtained by new GM techniques In the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) meeting of 19 December, a majority of EU Member States approved the provisional trilogue agreement on the deregulation of GMO plants obtained by new genomic techniques (GMO-NGTs). European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC), representing small and medium-scale farmers, said the move “ignores farmers’ and small and medium-sized seed producers’ concerns on patents, farmers’ rights on seeds, the protection of organic and GMO-free sectors, consumers’ right to information, and the risks for human health and the environment. A group of 8 countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) have recognised those legitimate concerns and did not support this dangerous text.”
ECVC denounced the decision as a “strategic error for Europe’s food and seed sovereignty and the future of EU agriculture, which will only benefit to a handful of patent-holding seed corporations, reduce agrobiodiversity, increase the prices of seeds for farmers, and deceive consumers by removing the labelling of final products”.
Bayer’s ambitions boosted by relaxation of EU gene-edited crop rules Bayer believes looser new GMO regulations in the EU will vindicate its troubled acquisition of US rival Monsanto – which has halved its market value. The change is strategically important as Bayer owns among the largest plant genetic data sets in the world following the Monsanto acquisition. Bayer has identified genetically modifying wheat as a particular target. Beyond Europe, Bayer views Africa as a crucial long-term market. Bayer’s chief lobbyist Matthias Berninger said, “If Europe and the US align on this technology, we can bring it to Africa far faster than before.”
Now the European Parliament must save GM labelling – GMO-free industry association Alexander Hissting, managing director of the Association for GMO-Free Food (VLOG), commented on the deregulation move: “It is right and important that Germany did not agree to the ill-conceived and economically and consumer-damaging abolition of mandatory GMO labelling in the EU. The German government should now throw its full political weight behind protecting the economy and consumers in order to stop the deregulation of genetic engineering despite [the] majority in the trial vote in Brussels. Now the European Parliament (EP) must save genetic engineering labelling. It can still overturn the proposed legislation in its vote in early 2026. This is exactly what MEPs should do, as they already called for the retention of mandatory GMO labelling and the exclusion of patents on genetically modified plants in their majority position adopted in 2024 – both of which contradict the current proposal.”
Maintain the EU’s GMO labelling, businesses tell MEPs In an open letter, the German businesses REWE, dm, Alnatura, dennree and Rapunzel called on MEPs Manfred Weber, Jessica Polfjärd and Stefan Köhler (all from the European People's Party, EPP) to retain the full labelling requirement for new genetic engineering as well as older style genetic engineering.
GMO-free seed production under threat Without GMO-free seeds, a GMO-free agricultural and food industry is not possible. Yet there has been little discussion of the potential impact on GMO-free seed production of the European Commission’s planned deregulation of new genomic techniques (NGTs), write Eva Gelinsky and Lena Hüttmann of the GMO-free seeds organisation IG Saatgut. Under the EU’s current GMO laws, those applying for authorisation for a product containing GMOs must also provide the information necessary to develop a detection method. Under the planned deregulation of Category 1 NGT (new GM) plants, the mandatory submission of the relevant genomic data and the development of detection methods will no longer be required. Nor would companies be required to provide reference material. Without detection methods, it would not be possible to check for contamination in seeds.
Poll: 82% of Danes oppose GMO deregulation, at odds with government position A poll by YouGov indicates that 82% of Danes say the EU should stop its GMO deregulation efforts and maintain the current strict rules to protect food safety, the environment, and consumers’ right to choose. Meanwhile, 84% of Danes aren’t aware that the Danish government supports the EU Commission’s plan to weaken GMO regulations. This poll comes as the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are in the final negotiation rounds to determine if new GMO products will be exempt from labelling and traceability requirements and if patents will be allowed on new genomic techniques.
Two films on new GMO deregulation in the EU and the consequences Two excellent films on the EU proposal to deregulate new GMOs have emerged from Denmark. The Danish government is firmly in favour of deregulation. But these films make clear that such a move has no popular mandate and that the government has only maintained its stance by ignoring the dissenting views of farmers, civil society, scientists and experts who don’t want a GMO free-for-all. “New Technologies and Denmark’s Food: Is genetically engineered farming the answer to our food crisis?” In Danish with English subtitles With French subtitles With Dutch subtitles “The Living Solution – Challenging GMO deregulation” Isabelle Denaro’s documentary film, in Danish with English subtitles
BIOSAFETY AND REGULATION
Gene editing disrupts multiple gene functions through large-scale epigenetic changes in a way that persists through successive cell generations CRISPR/Cas gene-editing unintentionally disrupts multiple gene functions in a way that is passed to successive cell generations, a study shows. The disruption followed repair of a DNA double-strand break at the intended gene edit sites. Cells organise their DNA in a structure called chromatin that is involved in the control of which genes are turned on or off. The authors of the study investigated whether chromatin structure fully recovers after DNA damage is repaired. They found that even after the DNA was repaired, the chromatin of the affected regions remained misfolded and showed reduced expression of multiple genes, and these changes were passed on to daughter cells. DNA damage therefore leaves lasting marks on genome expression. The authors call this phenomenon “chromatin fatigue”. The study was carried out in human cells, but the effects found, in all likelihood, will also occur in plants and animals. The findings have serious implications for the safety and performance of these organisms – and how they should be regulated.
GMO proponents say new GMOs need “proper oversight” In a fascinating article, two GMO proponents – one of whom used to work for Monsanto – write that gene-edited crops are no safer than GMOs, and fast-tracking regulatory approval could trigger a costly backlash. They write: “While there isn’t anything uniquely dangerous about gene editing, there isn’t anything uniquely safe about it either. With both gene editing and transgenic methods, you’re rewriting the genome — and what matters is the impact of the new genetic content, not where the underlying DNA 'letters' came from. Whatever methods are used, genetic engineering can deliver enormous benefits, but brings real risks – and requires proper oversight to ensure safety and maintain public confidence.”
Note, however, that these authors favour product-based regulation, which focuses only on the intended GM trait and ignores the massive DNA damage caused by gene editing and associated processes, as well as any unintended effects of the intended genetic changes. What's needed is process- and product-based regulation, which looks at both intended and unintended changes. This is the type of regulation that the EU has had in place for years and that the EU pro-deregulation lobby is currently trying to overturn for gene-edited GMOs.
Long-read whole genome sequencing the only way to confirm absence of foreign DNA in gene-edited products Long-read whole genome sequencing is “the only reliable approach to confirm the absence of foreign DNA” in GM gene-edited crops, according to a scientific article in Nature Biotechnology. The article confirms what GMWatch has been saying for years. The article’s uncompromising message, in effect, lays down a challenge to governments that have based their deregulation of gene-edited products on the criterion that they do not contain foreign or “novel” DNA. Addressing the modest (in corporate terms) costs of performing whole genome sequencing, the authors write, “The decision to invest in WGS [whole genome sequencing] should consider the potential costs that may arise if fragments of foreign DNA are detected. We surmise that the cost related to an overlooked transgene fragment may exceed the cost for WGS by orders of magnitude, and the cost of loss of consumer trust may weigh even more heavily.”
GE Honesty podcast: “GMWatch, the global watchdog of the GMO industry” (video podcast) In a podcast in the GE Honesty series, hosted by New Zealand-based Callum Horler, GMWatch’s Claire Robinson and molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou discuss the lack of safety studies on “new GMOs”, the rebranding of gene editing as “precision breeding”, and the risks associated with deregulation. The conversation emphasises the importance of consumer awareness, transparency, and the need for robust regulations in the face of powerful industry lobbying. The discussion explores science, power, and regulation – and why transparency still matters when it comes to the food on our plates. See other GE Honesty podcasts here. More about GE Honesty here.
European Commission wants to deregulate micro-organisms produced with new GM techniques Releasing genetically modified viruses, bacteria or yeasts into the environment or industrial sectors (including agri-food) without control and without knowing the risks they may pose seems to be the objective pursued by the European Commission, which appears to be preparing a legislative initiative to deregulate GM micro-organisms (GMMs) produced with new GM techniques (NGTs). Multinationals are working to gain intellectual property rights over living organisms, and micro-organisms are part of the picture. To this end, European experts are being mobilised to provide the European Commission with the reports necessary to justify deregulation.
PATENTS
Enshittification of our food and farms: Patents and new GMOs Bayer’s Monsanto has sued COVID-19 vaccine makers Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna for patent infringement for using its messenger RNA technology to manufacture their vaccines. The lawsuits allege that the companies copied technology developed by Monsanto back in the 1980s for enhancing protein production in (among other GMOs) GM insecticidal crops, in order to stabilise the genetic material used in their vaccines. For many, the initial reaction may have been cynical amusement at the sight of a corporation that has been furiously lobbying for legal immunity from those it harms, pursuing others through the courts. There is also the irony of Big Biotech (Ag) going after Big Biotech (Pharma) for allegedly stealing their patented technology. But for those familiar with Bayer subsidiary Monsanto’s history of aggressively going after US farmers for supposed patent infringements, there also looms a sense of dread. What’s coming for our seeds, farms, and food if the EU deregulates new gene-edited GMOs, which are covered by multiple patents? It seems certain that the Bayer vs Pfizer et al. lawsuits are a foretaste of the legal barrage that will face Europe’s plant breeders and farmers. The process will be one of the “enshittification” of food and farming, to borrow a term from author and digital rights activist Cory Doctorow.
If new GM plants are natural-like, they shouldn’t be patented – Danish ethics council The Danish Council on Ethics has issued a statement which addresses GM gene-edited plants. Twelve council members recommend that gene sequences from gene-edited NGT1 plants (which the Commission wants to deregulate based on the assumption that they are equivalent to conventional plants) should not be patentable. Only four council members are in favour of patents on these plants. The 12 members’ arguments include: * Gene sequences from NGT1 plants are identical to naturally occurring/conventionally bred gene sequences, which is why they are considered non-patentable discoveries. * Without the breeders’ exemption, patents risk blocking breeders’ free access to genetic plant material. GMWatch has long pointed out the inconsistency of GMO developers’ claims that gene-edited plants are natural-like while at the same time they are patenting them. Natural products are not legally patentable; to justify a patent, there must be an inventive step. These disingenuous claims are coming back to bite their originators.
GM AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Webinar: “The convergence of NGTs and AI: risks to biodiversity” 27 January, 14:00–15:30 CET Before a decision is made on the deregulation of plants derived from new genomic techniques (NGTs, new GM techniques), Testbiotech is inviting political decision makers to look into the future of technological development and consider simple truths. Experts warn that the ongoing convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and genetic engineering can lead to organisms that “have the potential to produce a set of novel, hard-to-predict effects. Forecasting how bespoke genomes will behave is incredibly difficult.” Once released, the genetic changes “could be out in live beings potentially for millennia, far beyond any control or prediction. They might reverberate down countless generations.” These concerns are also relevant for discussion about NGT plants. The current proposal for future regulation would lead to an accelerated release of NGT1 plants that are largely different to plants known from conventional breeding and can persist, propagate and spread in the environment. Register by emailing This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. (no link in header)
AI-designed viruses: A virologist’s warning (video) In a video podcast, virologist Simon Wain-Hobson talks about the risks of applying artificial intelligence to virus design. The discussion centres on a project in which researchers used AI to generate novel bacteriophages (viruses that infect and replicate within bacteria). From hundreds of AI-designed candidates, the team synthesised 16 functional viruses. One replicated faster than its natural reference phage, while six showed remarkable genetic stability. Even for Simon, whose career spans decades of studying viral evolution, the results were shocking. He argues that applying AI-driven methods to animal or human viruses could readily generate dangerous new pathogens.
LABELLING OF NEW GMOs
91% of Canadians want gene-edited GMOs labelled A poll commissioned by the Canadian Health Food Association (CHFA) finds 67% of Canadians say foods produced using gene editing should be considered genetically engineered and 91% believe consumers have the right to know.
GM food without new DNA added will not be labelled in Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has approved new definitions for genetically modified food in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Food produced using new GM techniques, including gene editing, will not need to be labelled as “GM” on the food label, if novel DNA or novel protein was not introduced in the process. GE-Free New Zealand spokesperson Jon Carapiet said the weaker labelling requirements took informed choices away from the consumer.
NEW ZEALAND DEREGULATION PROPOSAL
New Zealand’s Gene Tech Bill = more failed GMOs in fields and food (mini video) In a video interview, Prof Jack Heinemann explains how New Zealand’s Gene Tech Bill would allow for more failed GMOs into the environment, including the ones we didn't intend to make, or even knew we made, because the bill would allow genetic engineering to be carried out in uncontained facilities. Other countries, like Brazil, have zero-tolerance rules for unknown or unapproved GMOs. But this Bill would make New Zealand one of the most relaxed gene-tech regimes in the world.
Who’s really pulling the strings on New Zealand’s Gene Tech Bill? Who’s really pulling the strings on New Zealand’s Gene Tech Bill? Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) have peeled back the curtain – and what they’ve revealed doesn’t match the public narrative. The origins of this bill didn’t just “emerge”. They were shaped, steered, and shepherded by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials with far too much skin in the game. The public were told this was about “innovation”. But the paper trail tells a different story – one where industry-aligned advisers and politicians helped design a law that hands away people's right to know what they’re eating.
Opposition to GMO deregulation in New Zealand, Germany, Philippines Gatherings were held in Auckland and 28 other locations in New Zealand to stop the Gene Tech Bill, which would deregulate GMOs. In Germany, two farmers handed over 130,000 signatures calling on German ministries to protect GMO-free farming in the GMO deregulation battle. And in Negros Occidental in the Philippines, three Catholic bishops are opposing moves to lift the 18-year GMO ban, calling the proposal irresponsible, unjust, and dangerous.
GENE EDITING MYTHS
Turbo charging nature? The political myth behind gene-editing “speed” claims A report – “Turbo Charging Nature: The fast promises and slow delivery of gene-edited crops” – reveals that after two decades of hype and heavy public investment, the UK’s flagship gene-editing projects have failed to deliver on their central promise: speed. For years, ministers, biotech developers and government advisers have claimed that gene editing would “turbo charge nature”, speeding up traditional breeding and delivering rapid solutions to climate change, food insecurity and public health. But the report shows that the rhetoric of speed has been a political tool, not a scientific reality – used to justify deregulation, rebrand genetic modification as “precision breeding”, and strip away public oversight. Tracing the development timelines of five high-profile projects – low-asparagine wheat, blight-resistant potatoes, virus-resistant sugar beet, omega-3 camelina and the purple tomato – the report finds that none have reached the UK market despite decades of work and tens of millions of pounds in taxpayer funding. In several cases, conventionally bred varieties have beaten the biotech versions to market, achieving similar or better results without GM.
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION
IUCN votes on gene editing in conservation: Biotech lobbyists “win”, nature loses In mid-October, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) voted to reject a moratorium on releasing genetically engineered wild species and, instead, adopted a policy that accepts and seeks to normalise the use of synthetic biology in conservation. It’s a turning point that many see as a betrayal of conservation’s first principles. Delegates at the 2025 World Conservation Congress were asked to vote on two linked motions: * Motion 133, calling for a moratorium on the release of genetically engineered wild species, was defeated by the narrowest of margins – just one vote – among IUCN members. * Motion 87, establishing a policy framework for the use of synthetic biology in conservation, was approved in its place. The result exposes deep divisions within the conservation community over whether genetic engineering has any legitimate role in protecting or restoring ecosystems. Also see Save Our Seeds’ analysis, “IUCN deeply split over genetically engineering nature”.
INDIA'S GENE-EDITED RICE SCANDAL
Indian govt’s claims about gene-edited rice varieties don’t stack up, analysis of ICAR data shows Raising fresh questions about the performance of the two gene-edited rice varieties released by the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, a new analysis of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)’s trial data has revealed that there was no increase in yield and that the varieties were not maturing earlier when compared to the parental varieties, contrary to claims made by the government during their introduction. See also this article, which reveals that one of the gene-edited varieties yielded lower than the non-GM parent.
Why experts are opposing India’s gene-edited rice varieties The Indian government’s announcement that it will release the two gene-edited rice varieties has prompted criticism from experts. Researcher and agroecology practitioner Soumik Banerjee said: “We are interfering with the DNA. We are removing elements of the DNA without knowing their function. We only talk about the positive results, but we don’t know the negative ones. Nature put those genes there, and we are removing them, saying there are only positive effects. That is not possible.” Dr Krithika Yegna, a biotechnology scientist, said gene editing was still GM and that the method is not foolproof.
ICAR responds to critics – by smearing and expelling them Instead of responding with facts to criticisms of the false claims (see above) about gene-edited rice, ICAR has fallen back on the usual ploy of dismissing the critics as anti-development. It has also deployed more drastic – though equally dishonest – tactics. Interestingly, the first criticism came from within ICAR, and ICAR’s response was instant and dramatic. Venugopal Badaravada, a member of the institution’s governing body and general body representing farmers, was summarily expelled and his reputation smeared after he said that the benefits claimed for the two gene-edited rice varieties had not been established.
ICAR gags scientists after row over performance of two new gene-edited rice varieties The ICAR is evolving organisational guidelines for scientists after a recent controversy over data related to gene-edited rice varieties. These guidelines restrict scientists from sharing their research findings with the media and journals. They also direct scientists to avoid publishing any research papers in international journals until they are fully confident about their findings. GMWatch comments that what ICAR claims is a push to ensure “robust data” is clearly nothing more than a gagging order calculated to prevent the release of data inconvenient to the GMO industry and its friends in government.
UK GMO DEREGULATION
“Precision bred” GMO field trial tracker The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025, which Beyond GM is challenging through a judicial review, have become officially operational. Beyond GM says: “We may not see an immediate flow of products on the market, but our new Precision Bred GMO Field Trial Tracker has detected a last-minute scramble to get more experimental field trials up and running. There are currently 22 active trials of precision-bred GMOs in England – none of which have been assessed for environmental safety.” GMWatch adds that nor have they been assessed for food safety.
Citizens’ Charter on Genetic Technologies upholds choice and transparency A new Citizens’ Charter for Transparency, Accountability and Choice in the Use of Genetic Technologies has been launched, setting out clear principles for how genetic engineering – including gene editing and so-called “precision breeding” – should be governed in the UK. The Charter responds to recent changes in UK law that have dismantled long-standing safeguards for GMOs. These changes allow developers to self-certify the safety of genetically engineered crops, foods and environmental releases, while removing requirements for independent oversight, labelling and traceability.
68 pages of “listening”, zero pages of action – what Defra’s report on “precision bred” GMO seeds reveals UK farm ministry Defra has published its “Summary of responses to the consultation on the Plant Varieties and Seeds Framework for precision bred plant varieties”. The document is detailed, data-heavy, and full of the language of collaboration – yet beneath the surface it reveals something deeply troubling about how public participation is being used in policymaking around gene-edited crops. At first glance, this looks like government listening. Defra tells us it has “consulted”, thanks respondents for their engagement, and assures them that their feedback will “inform and shape implementation”. But nowhere does it commit to acting on what people said. People want transparency, traceability and labelling – but the government shows no intention of honouring these demands.
UK Food Standards Agency wants to “raise awareness” of new GMOs with the help of the Science Media Centre The UK government has deregulated so-called “precision bred” GMOs in England. In September the UK Food Standards Agency, which is supposed to protect the public by ensuring food is safe, held a meeting at which it was lamented (point 7.9) that “Consumer awareness of precision breeding was low. The FSA was considering how to raise awareness, potentially working with partners such as the Science Media Centre.” So we can look forward to biased and corporate-friendly messages about the wonders and supposed safety of “precision bred” GMOs from the very agency – the FSA – that is supposed to regulate them.
