Outcome in a nutshell
The provisional agreement would effectively deregulate New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). It abandons risk assessment, labelling and traceability, detection methods, coexistence measures and opt out (national cultivation bans) for NGTs of category 1. Category 1 NGTs are considered "equivalent" to conventionally bred crops and comprise 94% of all NGTs. Only seeds and plant breeding material have to be labelled to help Non-GMO growers avoid planting NGT crops.
NGT1 plants (defined as crops that do contain up to 20 genetic modifications, an arbitrary and very high threshold) will only be subject to a verification procedure: a Member State has to confirm that the criteria for NGT1 classification have been met: the threshold of 20 genetic modifications and traits that will be excluded from the NGT-1 category, like tolerance to herbicides and the production of a known insecticidal substance.
The deal undermines the vital “precautionary principle”, under which GMOs have been subject to comprehensive risk assessment, both to protect consumers and the environment. It also gives up Parliament’s position to ban patents on all New GMOs, which poses a threat to small and medium plant breeders and the EU food system.
Winners and losers
The winners and losers of this deal are clear: it is going to be bad for farmers, small and medium-sized breeders, the food sector and consumers, and an obvious benefit to the biotech industry. By abolishing risk assessment for NGT1 plants, it saves on approval costs, and by abolishing traceability and labelling, NGT1s remain invisible to consumers and to the food sector (they will not be indicated on packaging), i.e. NGTs 1 do not have to face the judgement of the market.
As they will be subject to patent law, for biotech or huge seed companies respectively, developing NGTs plants will become much more attractive than breeding conventional plants: As patent holders have exclusive rights to control and license the use of their inventions for 20 years, they can stop competitors (including farmers and small and medium-sized breeders) accessing important genetic material and they can dictate prices for it.
Because (patented!) category 1 NGTs will be considered “equivalent to conventional breeding”, organisms obtained by NGTs are described as being similar to those existing naturally in peasants’ or conventional seeds. This increases the risk that the scope of a patent covering genetic information obtained by NGTs may extend to all peasant or conventional seeds that contain this genetic information. A strong surge in the number of plant varieties affected by patents would be the consequence. This could lead to control of future plant breeding, agriculture and food production, regardless of whether genetic engineering is used or not.
Consequently, a handful of companies – those ones who have financial resources to apply for patents and to enforce them – could determine seed prices and, therefore, indirectly food prices.
ENGA’s top-level take on the trilogue agreement
The real scandal is that the trilogue agreement provides developers of NGTs the best of both worlds: no labelling of category 1 NGTs because they are allegedly like conventional breeding (conventional bred plants are not labelled), and patents because they are GMOs (conventional bred plants are not patentable).
Political deal making
With this agreement, Commission and Council have prevailed because the EPP rapporteur has abandoned all of Parliament's positions: labelling, traceability, and ban of patents. This was possible because she was able to rely on the support of the shadow rapporteurs from the right-wing parties and Renew (the Liberals).
Adaptation of Non-GMO production to the new EU legislative situation
All economic operators have two years to adapt to the new legislation.
What might such an adaptation look like in practice — how revised Non-GMO standards can also guarantee the exclusion of New GMOs, what would future supplier contracts, or reorganised goods flows look like? The International Non-GMO Summit 2026 will provide answers, including updates on detection methods, practitioner measures, and the cultivation of New GMOs across countries.
The New GMOs market report (first published in 2025 and the first in a series of annual publications) shows which NGT plants the food sector already has to deal with. Only three New GMOs are currently in cultivation: two maize plants, grown in the USA which are insect and herbicide resistant and a tomato, with increased GABA content intended to lower blood pressure, cultivated in Japan. That means, there are hardly any New GMOs on global markets, and it does not look as though this will change in the foreseeable future. Of the 49 plants in development, the majority could be cultivated but are not. The often-evoked impression that New GMOs are everywhere apart from in the EU is false. Even in countries with deregulation, NGTs are barely being grown.
Next steps
Now Parliament and Council have to adopt the new law, Parliament with a simple majority, the AGRIFISH Council with qualified majority (55 % of all member states, where 65 % of EU population live). Within the COREPER (Committee of Permanent Representatives) a trial vote will take place on 19 December, to determine whether the majority of Member States agree. If they do so the final vote (in any Council) is a mere formality. The vote in Parliament’ plenary is expected in February or March 2026.
Some countries and MEPs might not support the deal. But it is unclear whether they are sufficient to stop the legislation.
ENGA calls on the Council and the European Parliament to reject this legislative proposal and to stand up for citizens, who want to know what is in their food, and for a food sector that wishes to continue producing food without GMOs.