Genomic breeding methods are not given a chance to prove themselves
Modern genomic breeding methods are legally classified as genetic engineering – and are therefore still effectively blocked. Yet we have been eating genetically modified plants for decades, just under the label of “classical mutagenesis.” The new, more precise techniques are regulated more strictly than the old ones, even though they are considered safer from a scientific perspective. A contradiction that urgently needs to be corrected. The EU is setting a good example.
Thursday, December 4, 2025
Modern genomic techniques are considered genetic engineering. That is what the European Court of Justice ruled – with the consequence that plants bred using these methods still cannot be sold in the EU today.
The reality, however, is this: We have been eating genetically modified food for decades, just under a different name. Classical mutagenesis – the targeted alteration of DNA through radiation or chemical agents – has been used since the 1950s. Numerous crops, including organic varieties of wheat, potatoes and carrots, originate from this type of breeding.
Scientifically, it has long been undisputed: classical mutagenesis is genetic engineering. It directly changes the plant’s genome and is, in principle, no different from modern methods – except that the old techniques are less precise and far less predictable. The European Court of Justice confirmed this in 2018 (C-528/16): mutagenesis generally falls under genetic engineering legislation. The only exemption applies to methods with a 'long history of safe use.'
And this is where the inconsistency begins: old mutagenesis is considered safe because it has been used for a long time, even though it causes far more and less controlled genetic changes. The new, more precise methods, however, are denied the opportunity to demonstrate their safety – they are not allowed onto the market in the first place. Yet research is clear: modern genome editing techniques are highly precise, well controlled and often considered safer than classical mutagenesis.
In other words: the effects of classical mutagenesis have been part of our diets for decades – including in organic products. The new, more precise methods could potentially be safer, but are regulated far more strictly simply because they lack a 'long track record.' This is not only illogical but represents a regulatory imbalance that ignores scientific evidence and slows down urgently needed innovation in plant breeding.
Put simply: genetic engineering has long been on our plates – this is confirmed by both science and the ECJ ruling. The unequal treatment of new methods shows how far politics and regulation lag behind reality. It is high time for a clear-eyed reassessment and a correction. The EU has now taken steps in this direction: the new breeding techniques may soon be approved, and their products sold without labelling requirements. It is high time for Switzerland to follow suit.
Sources
Kindly note:
We, a non-native editorial team value clear and faultless communication. At times we have to prioritize speed over perfection, utilizing tools, that are still learning.
We are deepL sorry for any observed stylistic or spelling errors.
Related articles
Genetic scissors for the future – soon in Switzerland too?
Genome editing is seen as a promising way to make agriculture more sustainable and climate-resilient. But Switzerland is hesitant to approve it. A popular initiative even wants to ban it. But what can CRISPR really do?
Q&A New Breeding Technologies
New breeding technologies will play a decisive role in the agriculture of the future for breeding robust and high-yielding plant varieties. Here you will find answers to the most important questions and claims.
Bio Suisse rejects modern breeding methods
At their meeting in April 2023, the delegates of Bio Suisse rejected the use of new breeding methods in organic farming. With this decision, the organic association closes itself off from the possibility of becoming more productive and sustainable through modern precision breeding, such as the incorporation of disease tolerance using the CRISPR/Cas gene scissors. As reported by the "Tages-Anzeiger," the decision of the delegates was clear, and there was no real substantive debate on the topic.
"The EU is moving forward – Switzerland must not lose touch"
The EU has largely approved genomic plant breeding. Four plant researchers from the University of Zurich, ETH, and Agroscope contextualize the EU decision from June 17, 2026.
Neither Left nor Right: Forward!
In climate, energy, and agricultural policy, beliefs often take precedence over facts. The American think tank The Breakthrough Institute demonstrates a different approach: embracing disagreement, evaluating technologies with an open mind, and viewing productivity as an ally of environmental protection.
Why consumers accept gene-edited foods on their plates
Acceptance of gene-edited foods increases when their tangible benefits are clear to consumers. Studies show that visible advantages for health, the environment or food security are key to public support.
Condoms made from dandelions? Thanks to genome editing, it could become possible!
Bright yellow and widespread, dandelions shape our meadows. While some see them as troublesome weeds, researchers are discovering a sustainable industrial resource in the plant. Thanks to modern genome editing, the humble dandelion could soon provide rubber for condoms, gloves and tyres – right on our doorstep.