3. September 2025

NGT Essentials: Everything You Need to Know About New Genomic Techniques

The debate on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) is entering what may be its final phase: a decision is expected at the EU level on whether—and under what conditions—these new plant breeding methods can be used in the EU. Over the past few years, we have published blog articles, webinars, expert opinions, position papers and background information on the key aspects of this ongoing discourse. From the scientific basics to the opportunities for eco- and climate-friendly agriculture, from labelling issues to patent law: here we have compiled all the core aspects in one place. Our NGT Essentials.

++ The regulation of NGTs is currently under political discussion in the EU. Our members Jens Kahrmann and Georg Leggewie summarize the current EU Commission draft clearly and concisely in this guest article. ++

The Opportunities: Precision Breeding for Sustainable Agriculture

Using a wide range of plant varieties, numerous research projects across many countries show how NGTs can contribute to sustainable, diverse, climate-friendly, and resilient agriculture. Our CRISPR Library, which is currently being expanded, provides a collection of illustrated examples. As early as 2019, Dominik Modrejewski demonstrated here that NGTs offer much more than just tolerance towards pesticides.

The persistent claim that herbicide tolerance is the main focus of NGTs has long been debunked. The comprehensive EU-SAGE database shows that 21.8% of known NGT-related plant research focuses on biotic stress (resistance to pathogens and pests), while 10.6% targets adaptation to abiotic stress factors like heat, cold and drought.

Alongside other technologies (e.g. precision farming) and new approaches (e.g., agroforestry), NGTs can thus contribute to a more eco-friendly agriculture. Robert Hoffie and Martin Reich explore what such a future might look like in this article.

The Risks: Ecological Concerns Are Unfounded

There is no scientific evidence of any direct negative effects of NGT-bred—or even classically genetically modified—plants on other organisms or entire ecosystems. On the contrary, numerous publicly funded studies have confirmed their safety.

In this webinar with experts from agriculture and biodiversity, the relationship between biodiversity and plant breeding is examined.

The widespread belief that genetic engineering inevitably leads to monocultures is a misconception, as Margareta Hellmann explains in this article.

Freedom of Choice: Made Possible By New Regulation

Using freedom of choice as an argument against easier access to NGTs is popular—but illogical. In this analysis, Robert Hoffie argues that a new regulation would actually create more genuine freedom of choice. Unlike today, it would then be possible to cultivate, trade, and purchase conventional, organic, and NGT-bred plants. Rather than limiting free choice, a new regulation would expand it along the entire value chain, all the way to consumers.

Labelling: “GMO-Free” Remains Possible (but Pointless)

While it may seem intuitive to require the labelling of NGT1 plants (those with genetic changes that could also occur through conventional breeding), there are strong arguments against it:

No way to detect: By definition, the genetic changes in NGT1 plants are indistinguishable from those that occur naturally or through conventional breeding. Claims by some organizations that NGT1-specific changes can be detected have been refuted by independent scientists, as Margareta Hellmann explains in this article. Mandatory labelling of NGT1 would effectively amount to a ban, since such labelling cannot be legally enforced.
Fairness through equal treatment: The proposed regulation would treat NGT1 plants the same as those produced through classical mutagenesis (e.g., via radiation or chemicals), which are already exempted from GMO labelling. These are found in every supermarket, including organic products. Treating them differently would be inconsistent, unfair, and non-transparent for consumers. Additionally, an overwhelming majority of scientific studies has shown that biotechnological breeding methods do not pose higher risks—logical, since the types of genetic changes are the same.

Even if NGT1 plants were excluded from GMO regulation under the new law, labelling such as “GMO-free” can still be legally applied, using the current framework. The proposed rules do not interfere with existing food labelling systems.

Organic Farming: Can Plow Ahead (Same Old, Same Old)

In contrast, not using certain methods is much easier to manage. Organic agriculture has successfully done this for years—for example, excluding synthetic fertilizers, even though their use cannot be detected in the final product. The organic sector can easily add an exclusion of NGT-breeding to its criteria.

At its own request, organic farming is exempted from the approval of NGT plants (see this article by Robert Hoffie). So, the option to avoid NGT-bred plants remains fully intact. The needs of a single sector could not be any more accommodated by a new regulation.

Public Acceptance: Properly Designed Surveys Show Support

An evidence-based approach must include insights from the social sciences—especially when it comes to public acceptance. Many policymakers assume that most of the population wants “GMO-free” agriculture. However, this assumption is based on surveys that are methodologically flawed from a social science perspective.

Well-designed surveys that clearly explain the issue, provide context, and highlight trade-offs show a more nuanced picture—and not blanket rejection. These surveys reveal that NGTs are broadly supported by the public.

A guest article by social scientist Angela Bearth summarizes these findings and presents an example from her own research. There is no broad rejection of innovation in plant breeding—including NGTs—among the general population.

Intellectual Property: Patents Aren’t Always Bad—But There Are Good Alternatives

Just like labelling, the demand to ban patents on plant traits seems obvious—but this debate often lacks nuance and fails to consider key trade-offs. Patents have proven to be an effective tool for innovation across many industries. They strike a balance between incentivizing development, enabling return on investment, and making new technologies accessible to society. In plant breeding, Plant Variety Protection (PVP) laws already offer exclusive marketing rights—while also guaranteeing the breeder’s exemption, allowing others to use protected varieties to develop new ones.

However, traits developed using NGTs, which may appear in multiple varieties, also require protection, since their development is costly. Unlike PVP, patents make the underlying genetic changes publicly transparent—a principle that has facilitated innovation in many industries.

This webinar with experts explains different views on patents and other forms of intellectual property in plant breeding.

The goal should not be to abolish intellectual property altogether, but to design it in a fair, appropriate, and transparent way—something we, as the Eco-Progressive Network and WePlanet, call for in a recent white paper.

Bureaucracy as an Innovation Contraceptive

It may seem that a democratic compromise is best achieved by adding more amendments to the draft NGT legislation. However, this often overlooks the fact that excessive bureaucratic hurdles can slow down or even block innovation.

This is often missed by those genuinely seeking a constructive compromise—but not by those who intend to block the technology altogether. They are well aware of this tactic.

If the lengthy legislative process ends in an overregulated “GMO law 2.0,” nothing is gained—not for plant breeding progress, nor for citizens’ trust in the EU’s ability to act effectively.

More on plant breeding at the regulatory impasse in this article by Jana Gäbert and David Spencer.