Food and agriculture are two sides of the same coin. What is grown, how it is produced, and under what rules it reaches the market shapes what Europeans eat and how resilient their food system is. FGS Global surveyed 2,042 people across France, Germany, Italy, and Poland to find out where the European public actually stands on agriculture and food biotech, including new genomic techniques (NGTs), ultra-processed foods (UPF), and protein diversification, and set that research against the current policy agenda.
The result is the European Food & Agriculture Innovation Policy Outlook 2026, covering the full arc from farming to nutrition: agricultural biotech and the EU's competitiveness agenda, and the food systems and healthspan debate now reshaping how Europe eats.
Click here to download the European Food & Agriculture Innovation Policy Outlook 2026.
Key findings
Agriculture innovation
One in five Europeans had never heard of biotech innovations in food and farming before taking the survey; only 13% know them well.
43% support biotech innovations in food and farming or see their potential benefits, against roughly a quarter opposed. That majority holds, but only with active, consistent communication.
62% had never heard of NGTs, and only 9% understood the difference between NGTs and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), leaving the two easily conflated in media coverage and advocacy campaigns.
41% think GMO-free labels should be updated to reflect new EU rules on NGTs; 34% disagree, and much of the rest lack the technical grounding to hold a firm view either way.
Food and nutrition
72% of Europeans are concerned about the health effects of UPF; only 27% are familiar with what the term actually means.
54% say EU-mandated UPF warning labels would reduce their purchasing of labelled products; only 5% consider them excessive.
Opinion on sugar levies remains genuinely split, 41% in favor and 35% against.
FGS Global works with food, agriculture, and nutrition companies, industry coalitions, and investors at the nexus of policy, science, and public opinion.
Engaging while the window is open. The Food and Feed Safety Omnibus, the Biotech Acts I and II, the NGT Regulation implementation, the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the EU's UPF impact study are all moving in parallel, and several of their central definitions are still unwritten. We help clients map their portfolios against this agenda and engage the files that are still open to influence.
Building narratives that hold up under scrutiny. Generic sustainability claims and unspecific health arguments are exactly what well-resourced opponents are equipped to contest. We help clients build positioning specific enough to be credible, and defensible enough to survive an adversarial reading.
Closing the gap between approval and acceptance. Regulatory clearance is not the same as public confidence. We work with the trust factors our research shows actually move opinion, safety and transparency first, so companies build public permission alongside regulatory approval rather than after it.
Shaping where opinions are actually formed. Consumers are forming views on food and farming through media, health professionals, retailers, and increasingly AI-powered nutrition tools, not through the formal regulatory process. We help clients build the scientific credibility and third-party validation that carry weight in each of those channels.
Download the report:
If you have questions about these findings or would like to discuss what they mean for your organization's regulatory and reputational strategy, please reach out to Julian Jacobitz, Managing Director, Global Public Affairs: julian.jacobitz@fgsglobal.com.
Methodology
FGS Research Europe conducted this research via Focaldata among a sample of 2,042 adults across France, Germany, Italy, and Poland. Fieldwork ran from May 13 to May 18, 2026, and results are representative of each country's population by age, gender, and region.
Inquiries: research-eu@fgsglobal.com.
