By Policy Analyst Natasha Foote

Inter-institutional talks (known as ‘trilogues’ in EU-speak) are well underway, as well as technical meetings between the three parties in efforts to hash out a compromise deal – but several months (and many meetings, including 2 political and over 30 technical meetings) down the line, there’s no sign of white smoke yet.

Major divides remain between the Council and Parliament on how to regulate the New Genomic Technologies (NGTs), most notably on the issue of patents. Parliament wants a full ban on patenting NGT plants. The Council prefers transparency tools and fair licensing, without changing EU patent law.

The issue is a key one, as re-opening patents requires a level of legal wrangling that the Commission has made clear it is not interested in attempting – so much so that sources previously said that if both lawmakers had decided to back a ban on patents, it would have considered pulling the proposal entirely off the table.

Neither side is happy in this negotiation, with sources in the Council lambasting the Parliament’s behaviour as “outrageous and disrespectful” for having an “unclear position” after indicating it would change its position on patents, before flip-flopping at the last minute.

For their part, the Parliament has complained of their counterparts in the Council putting “enormous pressure” on the Parliament and only “pretending” to concede ground to the Parliament on sticky issues.

Whether the Parliament holds out on the patent ban is yet to be seen – sources say the EPP are not wedded to the idea, while right-wing ECR are quiet on the issue. As such, the outcome will likely come down to how strong the centre-left coalition holds, and how strongly negotiators are willing to hold the Parliament's line.

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.

Meanwhile, access to information is getting tougher. According to other sources familiar to the file, the NGT debriefing post-trilogue was made “restricted”, meaning that only a handful of people were privy to the information shared. The source explained this is a “highly unusual” move usually used only for extremely sensitive files, such as on sanctions.

Another development in the works according to sources is that the Council might push the file to a second reading (see here for the nitty gritty of the process). This would see the Council’s position become the main negotiating text, pushing the Parliament into a corner and starting a 4-month stop-clock on a ‘take-it-or-leave-it” approach.

The move is risky, but insiders believe they would have the support needed, potentially to push this procedure through this side of Christmas.

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.

Overall, the mood is not high – and although the Danes are hell-bent on seeing this proposal through to the end, it seems many now see any deal this side of Christmas as a vanishingly unlikely proposition.

The next trilogue is now set for 3 December.

On the backdrop of these trilogues, twenty-four organisations from across Europe’s agri-food chain have issued an urgent call to the European Commission ahead of trilogue negotiations on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) calling for a change in the approach of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA).

Signatories urge regulatory simplification and faster, more predictable procedures to ensure Europe remains attractive for investment, in efforts to push work from EFSA along to back the loosening of rules around NGTs.

But this isn’t the only notable news on patents in recent times. The European Patent Office (EPO) has upheld a patent (EP3560330) held by KWS on maize with a naturally occurring trait, despite a new rule that was meant to exclude patents on conventionally bred plants.

Although the EPO applied the new rule, it did not narrow the scope of the patent. Naturally occurring gene variants and plants obtained through conventional breeding or random mutagenesis are still treated as patentable inventions. No Patents on Seeds! now plans to appeal.

The situation is further complicated because KWS has filed a second patent application claiming the same trait using different gene variants—a sign that even the company itself may view the first patent as unclear or unstable. This fuels legal uncertainty for all breeders working with similar material.

This decision is widely seen as a precedent showing that the EPO’s new rule does not close the loopholes that allow companies to monopolise plants bred through traditional methods. It highlights an ongoing disconnect between EU legislators—who intended to keep natural traits and conventionally bred plants outside the patent system—and current EPO practice.

But also the ruling comes at a sensitive time, considering discussions on NGTs (see above). As such, civil society groups, breeders, and MEPs are urging the EU to step in and clarify that only genetic engineering methods—not native traits—may be patented.

Discussions are also ongoing on the Plant Reproductive Materials (PRM) file – but while the Danish (who currently hold the reins of the EU’s rotating presidency) are hopeful to push the file over the finish line before the end of the year, whispers in Brussels’ corridors suggest that this is an increasingly unlikely prospect.

Ahead of the recent 6–7 November Working Party meeting, five European seed and farming organisations urged Agriculture Ministers to fix critical gaps in the EU’s proposed Plant Reproductive Material (PRM) Regulation.

“We are concerned about the missing attention within the negotiations for the conservation and dynamic management of plant genetic resources, the survival of small, local seed producers and the needs for a diversity of cultivars for organic and agroecological farmers,” the letter reads.

The signatories warn that, without targeted changes, the PRM reform could undermine seed diversity, burden small producers, and limit farmers’ rights—the opposite of what a resilient EU food system needs.

While efforts are still being made on the file, insiders are not optimistic that the Danes will manage to close the file before the end of their Presidency. Meanwhile, things are not faring any better for a related file, the Forest Reproductive Materials (FRM), which sources say has been postponed “sine die”.