Viewpoint: France’s Le Monde endorses bizarre activist conspiracy disinformation about the ‘dangers’ of gene-edited crops

Le Monde published on December 10 (date on the web) and 11 (date of the print edition, published the day before) 2025 an opinion piece by a quartet of environmentalists – MPs Lisa Belluci and Benoît Biteau, former MEP José Bové and MEP Marie Toussaint – warning us of an almost inevitable end of the world coming soon.

Online, the headline reads, “By authorizing ‘new GMOs,’ the EU is fostering dependency instead of building resilience.” The title was shortened in the print edition.

In the introductory paragraph:

“In an opinion piece in Le Monde , Green Party MPs Benoît Biteau and Lisa Belluco, MEP Marie Toussaint, and prominent figure in peasant struggles José Bové speak out against the agreement in favor of introducing new genomic techniques, which they describe as a dangerous ‘ privatization of life ’. ”

Here is the beginning of their “Mayday! Mayday!“:

“During the night of December 3-4, European institutions reached an agreement on ‘ new GMOs ,’ plants produced using new genomic techniques. If it is definitively adopted in March 2026, the entire European agricultural sector will be transformed: patenting of life forms, disappearance of seed companies, irreversible contamination of local and ancient genetic resources, which are nevertheless promising for adapting to climate change. Nothing seemed too good to ensure the profits of seed companies and pesticide manufacturers.”

The real issue is the proposal for a “Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning plants obtained by means of certain new genomic techniques and food and feed derived therefrom, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/625“. It was presented by the Commission on July 5, 2023, and was deemed to be of a certain urgency given the various issues at stake, including the competitiveness of the European Union.

But this text was the subject of fierce debates in both Parliament and the Council — thanks to anti-GMO, anti-capitalist, anti-system lobbyists, or simply those cynically interested in their business — and required a “trilogue” procedure, which finally came to fruition, again after fierce discussions.

We won’t say much about the draft text that now needs to be approved by Parliament and the Council (in principle next spring). It will need to be read very carefully to understand its exact meaning and to uncover the pitfalls laid by legislators of questionable competence in some cases, and downright cunning in others. Consider this: the initial proposal contained 48 recitals and 34 articles.

The Commission’s stated primary objective of this text was to “maintain a high level of health and environmental protection“… The timid and decadent European Union in all its splendor…

More realistically, it was about planning simplified procedures for plants produced using “new genetic techniques” (NGT according to the English acronym), typically “molecular scissors” such as CRISPR-Cas9, which earned a Nobel Prize for the Frenchwoman Emmanuelle Charpentier and the American Jennifer Doudna.

In other words, the aim was to exempt them from the regulations on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are applied in such a way that the European Union prohibits the cultivation of GMOs (except for MON 810 maize in Spain and Portugal, which benefited from an exceptional set of circumstances). Cultivation is permitted, but not imports for animal and human consumption in the case of approved event-species combinations.

Typically, these are plants (varieties) that could be produced by Mother Nature or by plant improvement specialists (biotechnologists and breeders) using “classic” tools and methods, which — except in activist circles — are not subject to any dispute.

A press release from the Council provides details on the provisional agreement. The Commission’s main page is here.

Of course, despite the stakes and the prospects for considerable progress, the ecosystem of protest has been quick to label as “new GMOs” the (future) varieties obtained through genomic techniques, themselves still described as “new” despite the passage of time.

Of course, this ecosystem has brought back practically all the arguments that have been opposed to GMOs for over forty years, and therefore recycled against the “new GMOs“.

And, of course, since everything is good in the opposition — even the worst as long as it “hits” at the level of reptilian brains — these arguments were relayed to the Council by countries like Poland on the issue of patents and to Parliament by, in particular, Green, Socialist and far-left MPs.

The opinion piece that Le Monde dared to publish — but isn’t it consistent with its editorial line? — is, from this perspective, a masterclass. Let’s try to answer it briefly, without succumbing to Brandolini’s law, which states that the energy required to respond to bullshit is (at least) an order of magnitude greater than the energy required to create it.

Patentability and selection firms

Unsurprisingly, in the imaginary and apocalyptic world of the authors of the op-ed, it is all-out war between “giants like Corteva, Bayer and Limagrain” — the latter being, incidentally, a structure based on a farmers’ cooperative — against the other players in the varietal and seed industry:

By allowing the patenting of plants produced using new genomic techniques, they will be able to lock down access to genetic resources and impose costly licenses that small businesses cannot afford. 

It’s the same old story! This hasn’t materialized in countries that allow the cultivation of traditional GMOs, even those with relatively lenient intellectual property laws. Because real economic life isn’t the hell depicted by die-hard opponents of plant biotechnology (so-called “green” biotechnology) and intellectual property.

Furthermore, the authors — one of whom is a lawyer — could not have been unaware that the issue was addressed in the European Union by Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Indeed, Article 12 of the Directive provides for a system of compulsory cross-licensing. The first two paragraphs are as follows:\

1. Where a breeder cannot obtain or exploit a plant variety right without infringing a prior patent, they may apply for a compulsory license for the non-exclusive exploitation of the invention protected by that patent, insofar as such a license is necessary for the exploitation of the plant variety to be protected, subject to an appropriate fee. Member States shall provide that, where such a license is granted, the patent holder shall be entitled to a reciprocal license on reasonable terms to use the protected variety.”

2. Where the holder of a patent relating to a biotechnological invention cannot exploit it without infringing a prior plant breeders’ right on a variety, they may apply for a compulsory license for the non-exclusive exploitation of the variety protected by that breeders’ right, subject to an appropriate fee. Member States shall provide that, where such a license is granted, the holder of the breeders’ right shall be entitled to a reciprocal license on reasonable terms to use the protected invention  .

This obviously applies in the field of NGTs…

Patentability and farmers

The scenario remains fundamentally the same, and is just as implausible in light of experience… or simple rationality:

For farmers, the threat is twofold: increased dependence on patent holders and higher seed prices, as seeds would become licensed goods rather than common resources.

This stance is doubly pathetic.

On the one hand, there is already a “dependence” through plant variety protection (plant breeders’ rights), as virtually all recent modern varieties are protected by plant variety rights. Any patents that may be introduced will hardly change this situation. According to Article 11 of the aforementioned directive, farmers’ rights regarding farm-saved seed are governed by the provisions of the regulation establishing a Community system for the protection of plant varieties (No. 2100/94, Article 14).

Presenting the corresponding seeds as “common resources ” is — let’s be polite and use a legal term — a clear error of judgment.

On the other hand, and most importantly, the complaint assumes that farmers are forced — in the real economic world, by technical and economic advantages that have become unavoidable — to adopt varieties derived from genetic engineering and covered, in one way or another, by a patent. And what is the socio-economic and political ambition of the authors of the opinion piece and their allies? To prevent farmers from accessing these varieties by blocking them through legislation on (real) GMOs!

It’s not certain they understood the huge gap that their refusal position requires…

“Irreversible contamination of local and ancient genetic resources…“

Here’s another tall tale that’s hard to shake, but which can have a huge impact on an uninformed readership.

Where are the “local and ancient genetic resources” in the French (or European) agricultural landscape? The bulk of them are safely stored in the collections of research institutes and breeding companies, for which they can serve as raw material for variety creation.

Some of them are indeed cultivated by followers of “peasant seeds“. They are reproduced from one year to the next, so that they are, in theory according to the tall tale, subject to “irreversible contamination” by commonly cultivated varieties.

But what is not a problem suddenly becomes one with varieties derived from NGT, a particular characteristic of which is precisely that they are of the same nature as commonly cultivated varieties!

In fact, this argument of “irreversible” contamination clashes head-on with the principles and activity of seed and plant production, which demonstrate that it is quite possible, with a few protective measures (isolation), to produce seeds and plants conforming to the original varietal description with a very limited number of outliers.

Among the authors, there is a character who wrote on his website that he is “[i]gronomic engineer, agronomy is my cross-cutting skill, but I am also a specialist in genetics, ecology and water management” (he is actually a graduate of the National School of Agricultural Engineering — ENITA, now Bordeaux Sciences Agro in short ).

Genetic resources that are “promising for adapting to climate change“…

Here is another element from the beginning of the article quoted above that leaves one speechless!

“Genetic resources” — plant material that was adapted (according to theories in vogue in the alternate world) to past climatic conditions — would be “promising” for adaptation to those of the future…

This does not mean that there are no interesting elements to be found, but that the argument is a kind of grandstanding gesture intended to provoke outrage.

A gift to seed companies that isn’t really a gift to seed companies…

One sentence in the introduction is enough to provoke outrage among fans:

“Nothing seemed too good to ensure profits for seed companies and pesticide sellers.“

This is phenomenal for both economic sectors!

The authors of the opinion piece performed an extraordinary high-wire act in their text, and in the same paragraph no less: in the sector of varieties and seeds, we would have — at the same time — “giants like Corteva , Bayer and Limagrain [who] already dominate an extremely concentrated sector” and “[i]n France, [a] varietal selection [which] relies on about 70 small breeders, often cooperatives or family businesses”, the European seed market having “more than 7000 companies, the vast majority of which are microstructures with fewer than ten employees.”

And so, with the supposed “patentability of plants derived from new genomic techniques,” the “big players” could strangle the “little players“… this patentability being, however, a gift to all the “seed companies“…

Why “alleged“? Since the 1970s — the impetus having been given by the European Patent Convention of October 5, 1973, also known as the “European Patent Convention” or “Munich Convention” — plant varieties, “as such,” are excluded from patentability (Article 53). What can be patented are essentially genetic structures and genetic engineering processes. Without going into detail, these patents can still have an effect on modified plants. However, some patent applications are controversial.

The huge pesticide hoax

It’s hard to see how the proposed regulation could benefit pesticide sellers. In the real world, that is, where even pesticide sellers actively involved in breeding create varieties resistant to pests and diseases. But that’s a different story in the parallel world of the authors of this opinion piece…

In the real world, new genomic techniques are a powerful tool for introducing resistance to pests and diseases in cultivated species and varieties. This should reduce the use of pesticides — as is the case with GM Bt varieties. These techniques are also readily available and not reserved for those with deep pockets.

And, with regard to tolerance to herbicides, the parties to the trilogue agreed — in their wisdom (irony) — on its exclusion from the simplified procedure.

In this parallel universe, there would be “a close association between these GMOs and the increased use of pesticides.” It’s presented like that, but one must surely believe that the authors are extrapolating their view of the current situation — with “conventional”  GMOs largely dominated by herbicide-tolerant and/or insect-resistant varieties — to the future of varieties derived from NGT. This is a situation to which the staunch opponents of GMOs are no strangers.

“Promises of increased productivity and adaptation to extreme climatic conditions, such as droughts, are nothing more than misleading marketing ploys. While companies have managed to develop certain seeds that offer only very modest genetic improvements, it is primarily their tolerance to pesticides that justifies their selection!“

We will have a special thought here for children suffering from vitamin A deficiency, deprived of Golden Rice… And another special thought, of a different nature, for hardened opponents of Golden Rice, such as Greenpeace.

One grain of pollen flies, and all organic farming is ruined

You are probably familiar with the “butterfly effect,” originally formulated as a question: “Can the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas? “

Here is the “GMO pollen effect” formulated as a highly peremptory assertion. This rhetorical diarrhea deserves to be quoted almost in its entirety:

“Without labeling, traceability, and containment in closed environments, it is impossible to guarantee the absence of contamination in organic plots. Pollen from new genomic techniques cultivated in open fields will inevitably spread. The “ coexistence of different agricultural systems ” was already more of a slogan than a reality, given how much pesticide pollution was weakening organic farming. With these unlabeled, untraceable GMOs grown in open areas, coexistence becomes absolutely impossible. Seed companies will prevail. Organic farming will disappear, and with it, traditional seeds. A windfall for some, total ruin for all living things, future generations, and the hope of food sovereignty. ”

This is reminiscent of a sinister Australian legal farce , where a farmer (a puppet of biobusiness entities) sued another farmer because of GM rapeseed strands blown by the wind from the latter’s field into the former’s pastures.

The concept of GMOs is enshrined in the jurisprudence of the CJEU

We will not go into the peroration and the call for resistance against genetic progress — the “technological headlong rush” — which is obviously illusory for the authors of the op-ed.

Let us return, however, to a statement made at the beginning:

“Since the judgment of 25 July 2018 by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it has been accepted that, regardless of the method of genetic modification of a living organism, whether new or old, the modified organism falls under the applicable Community regulations on genetically modified organisms [GMOs] .  ”

That is — at best — fallacious.

First, the Court of Justice of the European Union answered a specific question — mutagenesis — and accompanied this conclusion with another relating to mutations:

“Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with Annex IB, point 1, to that Directive and in the light of recital 17 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that only organisms obtained using mutagenesis techniques/methods which have been traditionally used for various applications and whose safety has been established for a long time are excluded from the scope of that Directive.“

Are the new genomic techniques “mutagenesis techniques/methods“? Did the legislator also make provisions for techniques that were unknown in 2001?

On the other hand — and most importantly — the Court’s ruling is only valid insofar as the legislature has not decided to amend the existing law.

However, this is precisely the subject of the regulation contested by our four authors who, although they do not express it explicitly, suggest — like many other activists — that the notion of GMO has been set in stone by the CJEU.

This is certainly tempered by another assertion which comes after a detour via ANSES and which aims to suggest that the draft regulation disregards — would disregard — the potential risks to health and the environment:

“The new agreement, on the other hand, removes many of these techniques from the GMO framework and subjects them to the same rules as seeds produced through traditional crossbreeding.  “

That’s not entirely accurate, but that’s the spirit of the proposed regulation.

Reminder: among the aforementioned authors, there is a lawyer.

Where is the world headed?

Ms. Lisa Belluco, Mr. Benoît Biteau, Mr. José Bové, and Ms. Marie Toussaint are, of course, entitled to express their views. Views which we strongly criticize (this adverb has no “ecological” or “ecological” connotation). That’s freedom of expression.

Le Monde is also permitted to publish this viewpoint. In principle, this is freedom of information.

But, in view of our analysis, or simply upon reading the opinion piece, one is entitled to wonder whether the newspaper’s editorial line does justice to this freedom.

Not so fast! There’s still Parliament… 

Postscript

The compromise text was adopted by the Council (Heads of State and Government) on 19 December 2025.

France voted in favor. Germany abstained, and Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia voted against. Information differs regarding Belgium: it is reported to have either voted against or abstained (abstention having the same effect as voting against).

Eighteen states voted in favor (at least 15 were needed), representing 66.17% of the population (at least 65 were needed).

[Editor’s Note: This article has been translated from French and edited for clarity.]

André Heitz is an agronomist by training and a former United Nations system civil servant with the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

A version of this article was originally posted at Seppi Blog and is reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit both the GLP and original article. Find Seppi Blog on X @SeppiWackes