Alphons Piatti has been an organic farmer for 40 years, served as head of Bio Austria, and rejects any form of genetic engineering. All the more surprising that he openly addresses the 'fundamental self-deception of his own sector' in an ORF documentary: 'If you tell someone: you always believed that everything in organic farming was produced without mutagenesis – well, they will probably be surprised.' And he asks the crucial question: 'How do we deal with this?'

The documentary offers the answer: 'Perhaps by serving consumers the facts: mutagenesis is genetic engineering!' This is true scientifically as well as legally: 'According to a ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ, July 2018), organisms produced through traditional, undirected mutation breeding are classified as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However, they are exempt from all provisions of GMO legislation, including approval and labelling obligations.'

But marketing blinds the (organic) retail sector to this reality: at the end of November 2025, REWE, dm, Alnatura, dennree and Rapunzel sent an open letter to Members of the European Parliament, demanding that full labelling requirements for plants bred via classical mutagenesis be extended to new breeding methods. This came ahead of another 'trilogue' between the Council, Parliament and Commission, where the Danish Presidency aims for a political agreement.

The European Commission and the Council propose that plants without inserted foreign DNA should not require labelling, because they are legally considered conventional. The reason: these plants are created through targeted mutagenesis, such as via gene-editing tools, and cannot be distinguished from plants obtained through conventional or classical – thus untargeted – mutagenesis. REWE, dm and other organic retailers nevertheless insist on labelling, relying on ideology rather than facts.

If they prevail, it would create a paradox: two plants could carry exactly the same mutation. One – without any label – would have been produced through classical, untargeted mutagenesis, carrying many additional random mutations. The other, created through modern, precise mutagenesis, would have to be labelled, even though it is indistinguishable from the first.

So the question truly is: how do we deal with this? Scientifically, the sensible answer would be: drop the labelling requirement for both. Don’t like that? Then the only consistent option from a scientific standpoint would be to label all plants produced through mutagenesis – i.e. through genetic engineering. And there are many, as Professor Kai Purnhagen from the University of Bayreuth notes: 'If mutagenesis had not been exempted from GMO legislation, an estimated 80–90% of cereal products on the European market would have to be labelled as GMOs.'

Many consumers – organic or not – would be surprised to learn how much genetic engineering they’ve eaten in recent years. The same applies to Switzerland, where opponents of biotechnology launched an initiative stating: 'Anyone placing genetically modified organisms on the market must label them as such.' If adopted, this would trigger a genuine labelling avalanche. But such transparency is apparently not what the initiators have in mind.

Old habits die hard, as the saying goes. And the current debate on labelling requirements for new breeding techniques shows: this also applies to the marketing narratives of certain organic apostles.