EU lawmakers have been locked in intense negotiations for months on loosening rules on the use of new genetic technologies in plant breeding. But talks are stalling on one particularly sticky issue. So why have patents become so central in this story, and what would it mean for farmers and breeders if lawmakers get their way on permitting patents? Natasha Foote digs in.
A quick catch-up
Welcome to one of the thorniest debates in EU seed politics — where the future of seed breeding collides head-on with the future of farmers’ and consumers rights, and the control over our food chain.
Since the early 1990s, EU legislation on GMOs has protected European farmers and consumers from genetically modified technologies, with some of the strictest rules in the world.
But this could soon change, thanks to a new political nomenclature for a subset of genetic technologies (new genomic techniques, or NGTs, which describe the scientific methods used to alter genomes and to genetically engineer certain traits into plants) that, it is argued, should side-step these laws.
The current political push is the culmination of an aggressive lobbying effort from industry bodies, raising concerns about who will control the future of Europe’s seeds and food systems.
Patent-ly problematic
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have both sealed their position on the file, and the final compromise approval process is well underway. But several months (and many, many meetings, including two political and over 30 technical meetings) down the line, there’s no sign of white smoke yet.
Major divides remain between the two lawmakers on how to regulate these technologies, with patents being a major political fault line.
Patents are artificial monopolies granted by public authorities for a limited period of time. The idea, at least on paper, is to encourage research and development by giving patent holders greater opportunity to recoup their investment. Patent holders have exclusive rights to control and license the use of the inventions for 20 years, which means they can de facto stop their competitors from using the invention.
The crux of the divide is that Parliament wants a full ban on patenting NGT plants. Meanwhile, the Council prefers to rely instead on transparency tools and fair licensing, without touching EU patent law.
Legal quagmire
But what exactly makes this so patent-ly problematic?
Firstly, the issue goes well above Brussels’ pay grade. Banning patents means re-opening the European Patent Convention (EPC), an international treaty creating a unified framework for obtaining and protecting patents in several European countries.
While theoretically legally possible, it’s improbable and highly complex. According to an analysis by seed organisation ARCHE NOAH, the global legal framework does give states certain flexibility in relation to the application of the patent regime to plants and seeds. Specifically, the 1994 WTO Agreement on Trade related intellectual property rights (TRIPS) allows states to completely exclude plants from patentability.
However, in Europe this flexibility “has not been fully used”, notably due to the prior existence of the 1973 European Patent Convention (EPC), and the subsequent EU Biotech Directive.
In short, a ban would likely require amending both EU-level laws and the European Patent Convention itself — a slow, politically fraught process.
It is a Pandora’s box that the Commission is not prepared to open, also confirmed by a recent report it commissioned exploring the patent problem – but one that, at least for the moment, continues to be a red line for the European Parliament.
What would patents mean in practice?
The seed industry has long argued that patents are a “precondition for the continuous innovation in plant breeding”. “Only on the base [sic.] of a fair return on its exceptionally high level of research and development investments can the industry continue to bring improved products to farmers and growers,” insists European seed lobby Euroseeds.
But this would come at a high cost for both farmers and breeders, according to organisations like No Patents on Seeds.
They warn that the discussion on the future regulation of NGT plants is likely to become a starting point for a new discussion on the patentability of naturally derived seeds.
According to the European Commission, ‘type 1’ NGTs (see infographic above) should be considered “equivalent to conventional breeding”, and therefore the organisms obtained by NGTs are described as being similar to those existing naturally in peasants’ or conventional seeds.
If the European Commission’s proposal on NGTs is adopted, the risk is 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 and express its function.
Therefore, argues No Patents on Seeds, NGTs will bring with them a strong increase in the number of plant varieties affected by patents, a trend which has already started (see box below). As a result, the patent holders “will be able to control future plant breeding, agriculture and food production, regardless of whether genetic engineering is used or not”.
This increase in the number of patents on seeds would then “disrupt existing food production systems and plant breeding by blocking or hampering access to biological resources and promoting seed market concentration,” the association argues.
A Few Numbers to Lose Sleep Over– Since 2009 the EPO has granted ~340 patents on conventionally bred plants. – Around 1,500 patent applications in that time target classical breeding material. – As of 2024, around 40 patents on food plants obtained without genetic engineering were already granted, including major traits like drought resistance and disease tolerance. – Wild genetic resources are being patented too, such as a patent on resistance to tomato brown rugose virus, sourced entirely from a wild tomato species. Source: No Patents on Seeds report, October 2025 |
What does this mean for farmers and seed breeders?
A curiosity in the debate is that force with which some farmers’ lobbies have been won over by pro-NGT arguments. While EU farmers’ association Copa-Cogeca acknowledges that patents are an issue, it argues that the “two debates should be separated” in the interest of “adopting the NGT proposal as soon as possible”.
But there is divergence among farmers’ groups. The German farmers’ association Deutscher Bauernverband has recently spoken out against patents, warning they may “block breeding progress”. “If key plant characteristics are monopolised by individual companies, our farmers and small and medium-sized breeders will lose access to important genetic material,” they warned in a recent statement.
Meanwhile, for small farmers association ECVC, patents and GMOs-NGTs are inextricably linked. “These patents pose a direct threat to peasants’ rights on seeds,” the association warns in a recent report.
The organisation argues that removing patents from seeds and NGT-derived plants would safeguard traditional practices of saving, exchanging, and re-using seeds — practices that underpin small-scale, diverse, and autonomous agriculture.
“This phenomenon of monopolisation is accompanied by an increase in seed prices and a reduction in the diversity of commercial seed supply, but also by a reduction in the agrobiodiversity developed and renewed by farmers”
ECVC report on the risk of patents on GMOs-NGTs, October 2025
Rock and a hard place
ECVC also warns that farmers and breeders will lose the means to oppose what they call the “abusive extension” of the scope of patents to farmers’ seeds.
Due to the ‘absolute product protection’ given to patents, farmers need to show expressly that they have not used the patented invention to prove they have not infringed on a patent.
This burden of proof weighs heavy on farmers, especially smaller ones, it argues, pointing out they do not rely on formal breeding protocols and may not be able to prove that they did not use the patented material.
As such, this proof will be “impossible in the absence of an obligation to publish the methods for distinguishing a patented GMO from any other product,” the farmers’ association warns.
Under the threat of potential infringement proceedings, farmers will have “no choice but to purchase patented GM-seeds,” the association argues, adding that small seed producers will become “dependent on the few multinationals that hold patents on NGTs, and already dominate the seed market”. “These will be the only ones to benefit from this deregulation,” they warn.
This leaves farmers stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, farmers will no longer have access to seeds from small local seed companies that are better suited to their cultivation conditions and climate, as these companies will “disappear in favour of large patent-holding firms”.
On the other hand, farmers will no longer be able to breed, use and reuse their own seeds, which are “much better suited to their lands and to biotic and abiotic stresses than GM-plants developed in laboratories and standardised for the global market”.
What this adds up to, argues ECVC, is an even stronger dependency on corporate seed suppliers tied to the prices they set for seeds that are less suited to their needs.
The patent holders’ playbook
Seed association ARCHE NOAH warns that “smaller sized breeders will not venture due to risk of patent infringement”, including over concerns whether the plant material they wish to use in their breeding work is covered by patent protection or not.
Pointing out that it takes considerable human and financial resources to follow patent developments, ARCHE NOAH is among those that argue that only the dominant industry has financial resources necessary “both to apply for patents and to subsequently enforce them”.
In this way, the patent holders can “drive out smaller actors […], or simply ensure freedom to operate (access to genetic diversity) in their segments,” it warns. This means they could see restricted access to traits they need to develop a commercially viable product, e.g. resistance to a specific disease.
“These large players typically use their patents as “bargaining chips” with the other industry giants to ensure they can secure the necessary access to genetic diversity to continue their breeding work,” the organisation argues.
Ultimately, this may also backfire on the other end of the food chain – the consumers. “The colossal blocking power of patents may limit the choice of consumers at the end of the food chain especially when patent claims reach further into transformed products,” the report concludes.
Last minute Christmas present?
Right now, that battle is being waged line-by-line in legal texts and whispered through keyhole meetings in Brussels – and there is one final swing at a last-minute decision, with another political inter-instutional meeting scheduled on 3 December, expected to run late into the night.
Ahead of the final push to seal a deal before Christmas, neither side is particularly happy. According to sources inside the negotiations, the Parliament feels under “enormous pressure” from the Council.
Meanwhile the Council feels the Parliament is being a “disrespectful negotiation partner” and deliberately stalling progress. This is because the Parliament has “flip-flopped” on its position on patents – one minute holding its red line, the other indicating that it could give ground there.
What it ultimately comes down to is how hard the centre-right, who are charged with leading this file in the Parliament, is willing to fight for the Parliament’s position. ARC contacted the centre-right’s Jessica Polfjard, who is leading work on the file, but she chose not to comment while negotiations are ongoing. But other sources indicate that pressure from the Liberals and the Socialists are, at least for the moment, keeping the position intact.
It means that, despite the best efforts of the Danish, who currently hold the reins of the rotating EU Presidency and have made the NGT file one of their top priorities, it seems possible – but unlikely – that a final compromise will be reached this side of Christmas.
But the Danes do have one last joker up their sleeve. Rumour has it that if a deal is not struck, the Council may push the whole file into second reading, effectively hitting Parliament with a four-month “take it or leave it” ultimatum.
The idea is to push the Parliament into action – but it’s risky. “The second reading would be a slap in the face,” one Parliament insider said, adding that it’s just a way to “shut the Parliament up”. If Parliament rejected that second reading, it would be a dead end for the file.
In this tug-of-war over Europe’s seeds, one thing’s clear: the outcome of these talks will shape the food system for generations to come, defining who gets to sow, and who’s left reaping the consequences.
Join a Global Movement Resisting Corporate Control of LifeWhile the EU is embroiled in a heated discussion about how patents and NGTs may deepen food growers’ dependency on corporate seed suppliers, a parallel debate is gaining momentum internationally. For years now, farmer-led and civil society groups have been calling for a re-examination of UPOV, the international legal framework that gives corporations monopoly rights over seeds. Unlike patents—which cover technical inventions and can block access to traits or breeding tools—UPOV grants Plant Variety Protection (PVP), over specific plant varieties, limiting how farmers and breeders may use them and often narrowing possibilities for seed saving and further breeding. On December 2, 2025, a joint initiative was launched to Stop UPOV, urging governments to reconsider adherence to a system many argue undermines seed sovereignty and biodiversity worldwide. More information and ways to get involved are available at https://stopupov.org. |
More
Whats Seeds for Tomorrow? A Podcast Mini-Series by Seeds4All and Seed Carriers
GMO-Free Seed Production Under Threat! Consequences of NGT deregulation on the ground
Re-Sowing the Seeds of Connection in Switzerland, Part I – Nurturing What We Have
Where The Untended Feeds Us – Cécile Gilquin’s “Tiers-Paysage”
Crafting the Collective – Tijs Boelens’ Vision for a Farmer-Led Grain Revival
Op Ed | Big Ag Pushes Lawmakers to Roll Back Consumer Rights
Portugal | Regenerative Heritage Grains – From Soil To Bread
True Bread – the Restorative work of Farmers, Millers & Bakers in Hungary
