The European Parliament is expected to approve new rules to make it easier for farmers to grow genetically edited crops using new genomic technologies (NGTs). Voting on the NGT is scheduled for Wednesday, June 17, 2026.
If so, it would mark a major policy change. Brussels has maintained a cautious stance on genetically modified organisms since regulation of GMOs began in the 1990s.
From ‘Frankenfoods’ to CRISPR crops
Thirty years ago, GMO agricultural products were often called “Frankenstein foods” or “Frankenfoods”. Environmentalists and some members of the media warned that GMOs could cause allergic reactions, lead to antibiotic resistance and other long-term health effects.
Critics argued that genetically modified seeds could increase corporate control over farmers, and that modified genes would leak into non-GM crops and the broader environment. And the EU regulates the technology more strictly than many other parts of the world.
The Frankenstein nickname reflects the concern that, in traditional GMOs, genes from one species are introduced into another through a process called transgenics.
New genetic technologies (NGTs) are different. With many NGT applications, no foreign genes are added. Instead, existing genes in the plant are altered using the Nobel Prize-winning gene editing tool CRISPR, which has made it possible to cut out and replace faulty genes, essentially rewriting an organism’s genome.
NGT: Natural change with a shock?
Under the new EU law, there will be two groups of NGTs:
NGT-1 includes “crops with a limited number and types of variation, and which can occur through traditional breeding,” according to A European Parliament Summary. These will be treated like traditional crops.
But the new rules will not apply to NGT-2 plants, which are defined as having more than 20 genetic modifications or involving specific, excluded symptoms, such as Herbicide tolerance.
“If the CRISPR-edited plant contains no foreign DNA and only contains changes that can also arise through natural mutation processes, then from a scientific point of view, there is no solid reason to treat it like a classical transgenic plant,” said Detlef Weigel, director of the department of molecular biology at the Max Planck Institute for Biology in Germany.
“So by distinguishing between NGT-1 and NGT-2 plants, the EU is moving in the right direction,” Weigel told DW.
“What is important, however, is that the categories remain scientifically meaningful, transparent and verifiable,” he said. “We need regulation that is scientifically based, proportionate and pragmatically practical.”
Proponents of the change claim that providing NGT-1 to farmers could help them cope with climate change, leading to the development of crops that are more resistant to drought, pests and diseases. He says NGT-1 can also reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides.
But not all scientists agree that the technology should be treated differently from traditional GMOs.
GABA: not just another tomato
Michael Antonio, professor of molecular genetics at King’s College London, says gene-edited plants are fundamentally different from conventionally grown crops because the CRISPR process itself can cause unintended changes in the new plant’s DNA.
“Scientific evidence shows that when considered holistically, the CRISPR gene editing process causes massive random, unintended damage to plant DNA, and [those sites of damage] The number could be in the hundreds or thousands,” Antonio told DW.
Antonio Gaba cites tomatoes as an example. They were the world’s first commercially available CRISPR gene-edited foods.
GABA Tomatoes grown in Japan contain high amounts of the neurotransmitter GABA and are marketed to lower blood pressure, improve sleep, and provide temporary stress relief.
“Yes, [they look] Like a normal tomato, but what changes have also occurred inadvertently in its biochemistry and structure?” he asks, prompting the answer, “We don’t know.”
Antonio argues that the EU’s proposed rules do not adequately account for unintended genetic changes that may occur during the gene editing process. He believes that developers should be forced to use molecular profiling methods to determine how genome-wide changes have been made.
Changes in crop genes are ‘nothing new’
Weigel says CRISPR is an improvement on older methods used by plant breeders to create new crops, such as introducing chemicals and radiation to induce mutations. Weigel says these methods are often less predictable than CRISPR’s results.
“CRISPR is more accurate in this regard than many older methods,” Weigel said. “This does not make biology automatically risk-free, just as not every naturally occurring plant is automatically edible. But it becomes difficult to see why such plants should be inherently more dangerous than conventionally grown plants.”
And are NGT crops edible? The World Health Organization says that all GM foods should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But currently available products may pose risks to human health, he says.
‘Don’t ban new technology’ – create better security measures
Matin Kaim, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Bonn, argues that the EU has been too cautious in its approach to crop biotechnology, including older, transgenic technologies.
“Issues of public acceptance have led to expensive and lengthy regulatory processes for transgenic GM crops, not because these crops are actually dangerous, but because anti-GM activists have managed to portray them as dangerous in public perception,” he told DW.
Qem says that although practical experience with NGT is limited, the technology will likely make breeding new crops faster, more accurate and more efficient.
“The best answer is generally not to ban specific technologies, but to identify smart policies that help maintain competition and fair access to relevant innovations for all,” he said.
Edited by: Zulfikar Abbani