New breeding techniques (NBTs) are fundamentally transforming plant breeding. They allow targeted, precise and controlled interventions in the genome and are regarded by Studer as a continuation of classical breeding methods. This view is expressed in an interview published in Schweizer Bauer.

While classical mutagenesis produces thousands of random genetic changes, genome editing techniques such as CRISPR-Cas enable precise modifications without introducing foreign genetic material. The resulting plants are genetically indistinguishable from conventionally bred varieties. Nevertheless, in Switzerland NBT plants are subject to stricter regulation – a paradox that treats identical plants differently depending on the method used.

EU moving forward – Switzerland hesitating

In the European Union, a change of course is emerging. On 3 December 2025, negotiators from the 27 EU member states and the European Parliament agreed to largely equate plants developed using new breeding techniques with conventionally bred plants. Food produced from these plants would be allowed on the market without special labelling. If approved by Parliament and the Council, this would mark a historic breakthrough for European plant breeding.

Switzerland, by contrast, continues to plan its own legislation with mandatory environmental risk assessments – even for NBT plants that contain no foreign genes. Studer sees this as problematic: Swiss farmers and breeders would be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to their EU counterparts. The exchange of seeds would become more difficult, and in some cases impossible.

The higher the barriers, the greater the market concentration

A central argument of critics of new breeding technologies concerns the power of large agribusiness corporations. Yet this is precisely where Studer issues a warning: increased regulation does not lead to greater diversity, but to greater concentration. Over recent decades, agricultural companies have grown not only due to technological superiority, but above all because of rising regulatory requirements. Research, development and approval processes have become increasingly costly and complex. The result has been consolidation. Small breeders have disappeared, and start-ups often fail at the “go-to-market” stage.

Strict rules can ultimately only be afforded by large corporations. Restricting access to modern breeding tools excludes smaller players and reinforces the very market power that many critics oppose.

Studer therefore advocates a different approach: if diversity in plant breeding is the goal, market entry barriers must be lowered. Innovation emerges where many actors have access to modern tools.

Global competition is moving fast

While Europe and Switzerland continue to debate, innovation is progressing rapidly elsewhere. In the United States, Brazil and particularly China, genome-edited crops are already being widely developed and approved. According to the Point newsletter by scienceindustries, 509 of the approximately 900 known global projects involving genome-edited crops originate in China. Breeding objectives range from higher yields and stress tolerance to improved food and feed quality.

Blocking new breeding techniques does not protect diversity – it restricts it. A diversified plant breeding sector requires less ideological opposition and more pragmatism. Deregulation lowers market entry barriers, enables innovation and strengthens a broad breeding landscape. This is the key to sustainable agriculture and long-term food security.