Plant scientist explains the impact of the EU’s new gene-editing rules
The European Union adopted new legislation on plants obtained through certain new genomic techniques in June 2026. The new framework will apply after a two-year transition period. It distinguishes between ...
The European Union adopted new legislation on plants obtained through certain new genomic techniques in June 2026. The new framework will apply after a two-year transition period. It distinguishes between two categories. Plants in Category 1 (NGT-1) have a limited number and type of genetic changes that could also occur naturally or through conventional breeding. Under the new legislation, they will largely be regulated like conventionally bred plants. Category 2 plants with more extensive or complex modifications will remain subject to the existing genetically modified organism (GMO) rules.
In this interview, Dr. Jürgen Kleine-Vehn, professor of molecular plant physiology, assesses the new EU regulations.
What kind of plants are affected by the new EU decision?
A single tiny change to a plant's genome can already affect whether it copes better with drought, resists disease or flowers earlier than its sibling. Scientists call these changes mutations.
In nature, such mutations occur all the time, for example, as a result of sunlight. Plant breeders have been using mutations for a very long time in conventional and organic farming. In fact, many crops we grow today were created by inducing mutations with radiation or chemicals, and nobody would call those plants GMOs.
The difference with genome editing is not the kind of change that is made, but how it is introduced. Instead of using chemicals or radiation to create many random changes and then searching for a useful one, genome-editing tools such as CRISPR can introduce a small change at a specific place in the genome. In this targeted mutagenesis, the molecular tools are used only temporarily and do not remain in the final plant. The new regulations apply to these types of genetically modified plants.
Are those genetically modified plants safe for us to consume?
The changes introduced by genome editing are molecularly identical to those that arise naturally or through conventional breeding. The method used to create them does not by itself establish a new category of biological risk. This is the scientific basis for treating verified NGT-1 plants as comparable to conventionally bred plants. Based on this, the EU now regards NGT-1 plants as safe and has decided that they will no longer be regulated in the same way as GMOs. Plants that carry foreign DNA are still rigorously regulated under the existing GMO legislation.
When people think of genetic engineering in plants, many think of debates about Monsanto and the dependence of farmers on large agribusinesses. How valid are those concerns?
These concerns are valid and should be taken seriously. But they don't really start with genome editing. They're part of much bigger questions about how our agricultural systems are organized, who controls plant varieties and who benefits from innovation.
Genome editing could help public research, smaller breeding programs and diverse farming systems develop more sustainable crops. At the same time, patents and market concentration can reinforce existing imbalances. In other words, the technology itself does not decide how it is used—the political, legal and economic framework around it does. The main challenge is to ensure that patents and market concentration do not limit access to the technology to a few large companies.
Are there concrete advantages the new EU decision brings about?
More than anything else, it can help us breed more precisely and quickly. Today's agriculture is under pressure in several ways. Farmers have to ensure reliable production under increasingly difficult conditions while lowering their negative impact on biodiversity. Moreover, they should do all of this without expanding farmland at the expense of nature. The new breeding techniques allow breeders to make small, targeted changes that help crops cope better with stress, for example, by using water more efficiently, tolerating heat better or being less susceptible to diseases. Developing a new crop variety through conventional breeding usually takes 25–30 years. Genome editing does not remove the need for testing and field trials, but it can shorten parts of the breeding process considerably.
Do you see any potential for innovations based on the new EU decision?
Yes, indeed. An exciting idea scientists are exploring is turning to "wild" relatives of modern crops. Many of these wild plants are naturally very good at coping with heat, drought or poor soils—often far better than modern crops. The problem is that they're hard to farm or eat. Their yield could be poor, their seeds could fall off too easily, they might not flower at the same time or they may produce bitter substances. Using genome editing, breeders can make just a few small changes to fix these practical issues while retaining their robustness. This approach is often called de novo (anew) domestication and could open up diverse new options for agriculture—especially as climate conditions become increasingly extreme.
What were the main political issues in the debate over genome-edited plants?
When new genome-editing techniques such as CRISPR emerged in the late 2010s, the existing EU legislation did not specifically account for them. In 2018, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that organisms produced by such techniques should generally be regulated as GMOs under the 2001 GMO Directive. This meant extensive safety assessment, authorization, monitoring and labeling regulations.
This led to a debate about whether a plant should be treated as a GMO simply because genome editing was used, even if the same small genetic change in the resulting plant could also occur naturally or through conventional breeding. The trilogue negotiations ultimately led to a differentiated framework in which verified NGT-1 plants are treated like conventional plants and NGT-2 plants with more extensive modifications remain under GMO rules.
How can I make an informed decision for or against NGT-1 plants when shopping for produce?
Even though food products grown from NGT-1 plants will not carry a GMO or NGT label, seeds will be labeled and NGT-1-bred varieties will be listed in public databases. This enables farmers to choose whether they want to use NGT-1 varieties and to transparently communicate their decision. In line with EU organic farming rules, the use of NGT-1 plants in "organic food" production is prohibited.
At the Cluster of Excellence CIBSS, you examine molecular signaling processes in plants. Will the EU vote influence your basic research and its application?
At CIBSS, our core interest is fundamental research on topics of societal relevance. We address how organisms like plants sense their environment, how different signals are combined and how this information is turned into decisions that shape growth and development. The EU decision doesn't really change what we do in the lab from day to day.
In the longer run, however, this EU policy can make a real difference. It can influence how quickly fundamental scientific insights like ours are translated into applications that benefit society. While our research may not be driven by immediate applications, we do aim to generate knowledge and sometimes prototypes that can be used to support more sustainable agriculture. Understanding basic biological mechanisms is the foundation for sustainable solutions, no matter which specific breeding tools are eventually used.
Who's behind this story?
BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021. Full profile →
Bachelor's in mathematical biology, Master's in creative writing. Well-traveled with unique perspectives on science and language. Full profile →
Citation: Plant scientist explains the impact of the EU's new gene-editing rules (2026, July 23) retrieved 24 July 2026 from https://phys.org/news/2026-07-scientist-impact-eu-gene.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.