The EU has recently adopted new regulations for gene-edited plants. Jürgen Kleine-Vehn, Professor of Molecular Plant Physiology, explains the political context behind the decision, what it means for consumers, and the opportunities and risks it presents.
The European Union has adopted new legislation on plants obtained by 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. With 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, Prof. 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?
Kleine-Vehn: 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 for creating 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 only used 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 conventional genetically modified organisms – or in short GMO. 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 they 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 programmes, and diverse farming systems to 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 to breed more precisely and faster. 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 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 takes usually 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 to turn to “wild” relatives of modern crops. Many of these wild plants are naturally very good at coping with heat, drought, or poor soils — often by far better than modern crops. The problem is that they’re hard to farm or to eat. Their yield could be poor, their seeds fall off too easily, they don’t flower at the same time, or they’re maybe producing bitter substances. Using genome editing, breeders can make just a few small changes to fix these practical issues and at the same time retain their robustness. This approach is often called de novo (anew) domestication and could open up diverse new options for agriculture — especially since 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 labelling 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 trilog negotiations led finally to a differentiated framework, in which verified NGT-1 plants are treated like conventional plants and NGT-2 plants with bigger 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 labelled 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 signalling 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 a more sustainable agriculture. Understanding basic biological mechanisms is the foundation for sustainable solutions, no matter which specific breeding tools are eventually used.
Cluster of Excellence CIBSS – Centre for Integrative Biological Signalling Studies
The researchers of the Cluster of Excellence CIBSS – Centre for Integrative Biological Signalling Studies (CIBSS) at the University of Freiburg are dedicated to understanding the language that determines multicellular life in humans, animals and plants. CIBSS brings together more than 70 research groups from six faculties of the University of Freiburg, the Freiburg University Medical Centre and the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in cooperative and interdisciplinary research projects. The Cluster of Excellence CIBSS is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) since 2019 as part of the Excellence Strategy competition of the federal and state governments. In January 2026, CIBSS has entered a second seven-year funding phase.
The participating research groups integrate knowledge from across more than ten disciplines, ranging from cell and developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, structural biology, molecular and synthetic biology, immunology, and plant sciences to bioinformatics, ethics, and law. The research programme builds on the collaborative interdisciplinary spirit and commitment of the CIBSS research community in advancing integrative biological signalling studies.