Review 601: New GMOs

This Review brings the latest updates on the threatened EU deregulation of new GMOs (EU DEREGULATION), along with news of the court case opposing the UK deregulation (UK DEREGULATION) and reports on pushes for DEREGULATION GLOBALLY. There’s also information on NEW GMO RISKS.

EU DEREGULATION

EU deregulation vote planned for 17 June
The European Parliament will vote in plenary on Wednesday 17 June on the proposal for deregulating the use of new genomic techniques (NGTs) in agriculture. Thirty-seven amendments have been tabled in the name of The Left (Anja Hazekamp), Greens/EFA (Martin Häusling) and S&D (Christophe Clergeau) groups. This vote will follow an ENVI Committee vote on 15 June.

EU Take Action: Blacked out ingredients
Send an email to your Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) asking them to stand for strict regulations for all new GMOs! The action is available in different languages.
EN https://www.blacked-out-ingredients.eu/en/take-action/
DE https://www.blacked-out-ingredients.eu/de/take-action/
ES https://www.blacked-out-ingredients.eu/es/take-action/
IT https://www.blacked-out-ingredients.eu/it/take-action/
NL https://www.blacked-out-ingredients.eu/nl/take-action/
FR https://www.blacked-out-ingredients.eu/fr/take-action/

EU Take Action: Grab MEPs’ attention on LinkedIn
On LinkedIn you can engage directly with European Parliamentarians, where they are most active and visible. You can comment on their personal LinkedIn pages with just one click at this link, with help in constructing a comment. Every message counts – whether you reach out to one MEP or several.

German MEPs raise concerns over patents
As the European Parliament’s plenary vote on the deregulation of GMOs produced by new genetic modification techniques (GMOs/NGTs) approaches, the issue of patents remains a key point of contention. Against this backdrop, even the German delegation of the European People’s Party (EPP), a business-friendly centre-right political group, is asking the European Commission to show willingness to review Directive 98/44 on “biotechnological inventions” to ensure free access to genetic resources and prevent them from being controlled by major seed companies.

New report highlights gap between “new GMO” hype and global market reality
The Non-GMO industry association ENGA, in cooperation with the US-based Non-GMO Project and semnar, has published its latest report on new GMOs, analysing global market developments and regulatory trends. The report identifies a growing disconnect between expectations, sustainability claims, and real-world deployment. Despite increasing political and industry attention, often driven by the promise of climate and environmental benefits, just four new GMO crops are currently cultivated worldwide (only one more than in 2025). At the same time, 108 crops are in development, often cleared for market access but not cultivated. The anticipated sustainability benefits of new GMO plants have yet to materialise in practice. To date, no new GMO currently on the market contributes to sustainability objectives, while only a limited number of products in development target climate-related traits such as drought or heat tolerance.

European food retailers call for labelling and traceability of new GMOs, protection from patent claims
Leading retail companies have called for improvements to the draft legislation on new GM techniques: labelling must be ensured right through to the end product, traceability must be guaranteed throughout the value chain, and European farmers and breeders must be protected from patents.

The deregulation of new genomic techniques is biologically nonsensical
Writing in Le Monde, a group of scientists have expressed deep concern over the EU proposal to deregulate new GMOs, which they say is based not on science but “an illusion”, as well as “a radical form of biological reductionism” that is “contradicted by the entirety of contemporary biology”. They also warn that it risks opening up EU markets to a slew of patented seeds, which they describe as a threat to European seed sovereignty. GMWatch has published a summary of this important article in English.

Public event in Athens, Greece: Experts warn on EU plans on new GMOs

An event on the risks and impacts that new genetically modified plants will have on health, the environment, the economy, and society, titled “Our Food at Risk: The Hidden Promotion of GMOs” was held in Athens by Greenpeace Greece and the Sito and AEGILOPS seed and biodiversity networks on 7 May. About 100 people – including GMWatch co-director Claire Robinson – attended the event, which took place in the Athens Cultural Centre, and listened to presentations by scientists, organisations, and representatives of political parties regarding the risks and impacts that the planned deregulation of new GM plants will have on health, the environment, the economy, and society. Prof Michael Antoniou gave a detailed presentation on the risks to health and the environment posed by new GM plants. He subsequently gave an interview to the Greek publication OW, an English translation of which is available here.

Greek agronomists’ association slams EU GMO deregulation plans
The Panhellenic Federation of Agronomists’ Associations (abbreviated in Greek as POSG), the primary professional and scientific organisation representing agronomists across Greece, has strongly criticised the EU’s deregulation plans for GM plants and products derived from new genomic techniques (NGTs). POSG says the proposed regulation will lead to:
* A serious lack of information regarding the food that citizens choose. The absence of clear and mandatory information deprives consumers of their fundamental right to free and informed choice, as they do not know exactly what they are consuming.
* A system of dependence for producers, with serious consequences for the functioning of agricultural production and the preservation of their autonomy, particularly with regard to seeds and plant propagating material. This dependence may have significant legal and economic implications due to the patenting of genetic material.
* The increased risk of widespread contamination of conventional and organic crops by NGT plants, a fact that threatens the security of production systems and the sustainability of distinct production chains.
* Unforeseeable impacts on biodiversity.

A wide range of stakeholders opposed to the deregulation of GMOs/NGTs
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. Inf’OGM offers an overview of the main statements published recently.

What Europe risks with New GMO and seed regulations
Through the voices of farmers and cooks from across its European network, Slow Food argues that, if adopted in their current form, the deregulation proposals would move Europe further away from food democracy and an agroecological transition.

Non-GMO has a future, says industry summit
The Non-GMO and organic labelling of food is likely to become even more important in future as a result of the EU’s planned deregulation of new genomic techniques (NGTs) – and the agricultural and food sectors will overcome the challenges associated with the new rules, according to the conclusions of the Non-GMO Summit 2026. Over 120 representatives from the food industry, academia, laboratories, market research, the legal sector, public authorities, associations and the media, from 14 countries, gathered in Frankfurt in May 2026 for a conference on the future of non-GMO products, ahead of the upcoming EU deregulation of NGTs. “Consumers want transparency,” said the German Federal Minister for Agriculture Alois Rainer (CSU) in his message opening the conference. The “Ohne Gentechnik” label has established itself as a reliable tool and is an important component of a responsible market. In Rainer’s view, the “high labelling and traceability standards” of “Ohne Gentechnik” can remain in place even after the deregulation of GMOs.

UK DEREGULATION

PBOs are GMOs: What Beyond GM’s High Court hearing revealed
Beyond GM reports on their court case challenging the UK government’s deregulation of new “precision bred” GMOs (PBOs) in England: “We’ve just picked ourselves up from the floor after an intense and exhausting two-day hearing at the High Court. The proceedings were very technical, with barristers and judge moving constantly between multiple computer screens, paper evidence bundles, legal authorities and witness materials as they worked through the issues in real time. At the same time, the hearing exposed – in a way that pre-trial exchanges often don’t – just how fragile and contradictory the government’s position is. We are grateful to all who came to support us. The court was packed on both days, with members of the public and representatives from civil society, science, academia and the legal community behind us in the gallery. It was the first time the public had a chance to hear the government’s arguments and evidence, some of which were subject to confidentiality restrictions before the hearing. The government’s barristers conceded that PBOs are scientifically genetically modified organisms, while arguing they should not be regulated as GMOs.” Read on at the link above. See also Beyond GM’s X feed for a short sharp lesson on the UK government’s attitude to the public and farmers when it comes to GMOs.

Don’t look, don’t find: UK government blinds itself to risks of new GMOs

GMWatch has published a scientific critique of the UK Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 and the corresponding ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) and FSA (Food Standards Agency) guidance documents on new GM gene-edited “precision bred” (GM-PB) plants. The critique is authored by GMWatch co-director Claire Robinson and molecular geneticist Prof Michael Antoniou. It explains why the Regulations and guidance documents are scientifically invalid and fail to protect public health and the environment from risky new generation GMOs. In particular, the critique shows that the ACRE guidance document for applicants, published in November 2025, is so flawed that it significantly weakens the already ill-conceived 2025 Regulations.

The new fight against GMOs — where is everybody?
Patrick Holden — part of the successful 1990s GMO campaign for appropriate regulations — highlights the importance of preserving our right to keep GMO plants out of our fields and GMO food off our plates. He is a co-claimant in Beyond GM’s judicial review of the UK government's GMO deregulation. He says what he finds shocking is the absence of those voices that should oppose the deregulation: “The National Farmers’ Union represents tens of thousands of farmers, including many who depend on the organic premium and the credibility that comes with a guarantee of non-GM status. Silence. The Consumers Association exists precisely to defend the public’s right to know what is in their food. Silence. The major environmental NGOs, with their memberships, their legal teams, their media relationships and their decades of expertise in exactly this kind of regulatory battle. Silence. And the organic movement itself – the community with the most immediate and practical stake in getting this right – seems to be fighting from the shadows and sidelines.”

Gene-edited meat “on dinner plates soon ”?
New legislation allowing the gene editing of farm animals could be approved for England in the coming weeks after researchers have tested the practice on pigs, chickens, sheep and cattle. Critics believe the technology will introduce new welfare risks for farm animals and distract from the need to resolve existing abuses in intensive livestock farming. Work by one New Zealand NGO suggests public reporting of animal gene editing research could help the public decide whether the risks outweigh possible benefits. The NGO believes obliging the AgResearch Ruakura Animal Containment Facility to produce publicly available annual reports describing its work helped end its animal gene manipulation trials and shutter the operation in June 2025. The requirement to produce the annual reports followed a court case against Ruakura brought by the NGO. Examples of adverse effects in the 2023 report include a gene-edited calf born blind, possibly, it says, due to an unintended consequence of the gene edit. Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free New Zealand, said the reports show gene-edited livestock suffering from chronic foot problems, pneumonia, respiratory issues, fused organs and deformities.

UK’s “Regulatory exceptionalism and opacity ” on GMOs will block realignment with EU
As part of its attempt to realign post-Brexit UK with EU markets, the UK government wants to negotiate a single market for goods between the UK and EU, but this proposal has been rejected by EU officials, one of whom says: “The UK’s red lines are increasingly constraining progress”. Beyond GM comments: “One UK red line was opposition to meaningful traceability and labelling for GM-precision bred organisms (PBOs), even though current and proposed EU frameworks still retain at least some stronger transparency requirements than the UK regime. The UK is still trying to reassure the biotech industry that GM-PBO deregulation can be carved out from future EU alignment. But the further the UK diverges on transparency and traceability, the harder trade, coexistence and regulatory compatibility become... If the UK wants a durable and trusted regulatory system for GM-PBOs, it cannot be built on regulatory exceptionalism and opacity. Transparency, traceability and democratic participation are not barriers to progress. They are conditions for legitimacy.”

DEREGULATION GLOBALLY

Chile: Organisations criticise government over regulation of GM gene-edited crops

The Chilean Pesticide Action Network (RAP-Chile), together with various environmental, farmers’, beekeepers’ and consumer organisations, has strongly criticised the process initiated by the Agricultural and Livestock Service (SAG) regarding the regulation of crops obtained using technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9, known internationally as new genomic techniques (NGT). In the organisations’ view, the process reveals serious shortcomings in terms of the lack of meaningful public participation and the absence of scientific rigour in the process used to assess the genetic material of genetically edited crops. RAP-Chile also criticised the SAG for failing to take into account the critical issues and risks associated with NGTs, particularly regarding their safety and level of accuracy.

New Zealand: Grass-fed may not mean natural any more (video podcast)
Meat and dairy will still be called “grass-fed”... you just won’t know the grass isn’t natural any more. AgResearch (Govt Crown Research Institute) acknowledges that their genetically engineered (including gene-edited) ryegrass can’t be fully contained once it’s released. It doesn’t just stay in the field it’s planted in. It would contaminate native grass species, with no recall button. Watch the full GE Honesty Podcast with Jodie Bruning from Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility for a breakdown of the Gene Technology Bill and what it could mean for New Zealand.

“NEW GMO” RISKS

GM plants differ from non-GM parents in unintended ways – and that goes for GM gene-edited plants too
Following a recent podcast interview, GMWatch co-director Claire Robinson and Prof Michael Antoniou were asked whether there is any solid scientific research looking at how gene expression or molecular composition in older-style “transgenic” and “new GM” gene-edited plants differs from conventionally bred plants. There is good evidence of unintended changes between older-style GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts. Regarding “new GMOs” made with gene editing tools, there is very little research looking at differences between the GM gene-edited plant and its non-GM parent. However, one study has already shown remarkable differences. CRISPR/Cas gene editing and base editing of rice plants caused major changes in gene expression and protein profiles.

Groups take legal action against authorisation of gene-silencing pesticide
POLLINIS and Nature & Progrès Belgium have taken legal action and filed an appeal for annulment against the emergency authorisation of the genetically modified gene-silencing pesticide Calantha in Belgium. Calantha is an RNAi (RNA interference, or gene-silencing) pesticide developed by the US company GreenLight Biosciences, containing Ledprona. Although this active substance is already on the market in the United States, it has been the subject of considerable criticism from various organisations, notably the NGO Center for Food Safety, due to concerns about its safety and its potential effects on non-target species. Ledprona is currently being assessed by the European authorities.

“Far beyond any control or prediction ”: The convergence of NGTs and AI - risks to biodiversity
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 warnings from expert scientists are featured in an excellent webinar by Testbiotech, now available on Youtube.

India: Farmers ’ union advocates indigenous farming practices and warns on gene editing
The Indian farmers’ union Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) is demanding assured procurement of pulses and oilseeds, incentives for crop diversification, and a ban on gene-editing tools in farming. Highlighting food security concerns, BKS calls for a policy framework for self-reliance and the preservation of indigenous seeds. The opposition against gene editing reflects worries over ecological impacts. 100% procurement of pulses and oilseeds refers to a government policy to buy the entire produce offered by farmers at a guaranteed Minimum Support Price (MSP).

GMWatch News Review archive

Review 601: New GMOs