06.12.2025
Mutations on the Lunch Table
Dear readers,
Imagine we are in the office of the organisers of the so-called «Food Protection Initiative», who say they want to protect Switzerland «from the risks of genetic engineering». Piles of signature sheets lie on the table, and the anti-GMO team is carefully counting – thousands of people have already signed. A sense of satisfaction spreads through the room – and so does hunger.
The choice for lunch is quickly made: spaghetti with homemade tomato sauce, of course organic, with tomatoes from their own Demeter garden. Water is boiling on the stove, the sauce smells of ripe fruit and herbs. For a moment, calm returns. A small moment of enjoyment.
While the spaghetti is being twirled onto forks, hardly anyone is thinking about the fact that there is plenty of genetic engineering on the plate. The durum wheat semolina used for the pasta very likely comes from varieties bred using mutagenesis. As Professor Kai Purnhagen from the University of Bayreuth says: «If mutagenesis had not been exempted from genetic engineering legislation, an estimated 80–90% of cereal products on the European market would have to be labeled as GMOs.»
And those large, juicy tomatoes may also be the result of classical mutagenesis and thus also genetic engineering. A culinary contradiction that does nothing to diminish the pleasure but serves as a reminder of how complex the history of our food really is.
The scene shows how contradictory our approach to food and genetic engineering is. Since the 1950s, classical mutagenesis has been in use. This breeding method alters the genetic material of plants through radioactive irradiation or chemical treatment.
This process creates thousands of random mutations in the genome – most of them useless or even harmful. Only a small fraction leads to traits that are desirable in breeding, such as improved taste or disease resistance. Such plants are often crossed back with the original variety to retain the desired characteristics and eliminate unwanted mutations. In practice, however, many of these changes remain undetected and persist.
This is a finding that should actually be particularly alarming for opponents of genetic engineering. Scientifically, mutagenesis breeding is a form of genetic engineering. This is not only the opinion of renowned plant researchers such as Prof. Beat Keller from the University of Zurich. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed this in a ruling on 25 July 2018: both classical and so-called new mutagenesis techniques, which produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs), fall under the GMO Directive.
Classical mutagenesis is widely used and does not stop at organic products either. To date, well over 3,000 plant varieties have been bred this way. These products end up on the plates of even the most ardent opponents of genetic engineering — without any labelling. Nothing has happened to them, despite the intended and unintended mutations in the genome of these plants.
Consumption is safe. This is precisely why plants from classical mutagenesis breeding, despite their legal «genetic engineering» label, can still be cultivated and sold without special restrictions.
The situation is completely different for the new breeding methods. Compared with classical mutagenesis, these work with almost surgical precision. Instead of thousands of uncontrolled mutations, only those gene segments that are responsible for the desired improvements are specifically altered. It is therefore difficult to understand why varieties created through targeted mutation breeding are not also approved without restrictions.
Ironically, this prevents them from demonstrating their safety in practice. For the ECJ, this proof of safety through long-term experience was ultimately the main argument for exempting classical mutagenesis – despite being classified as genetic engineering – from additional regulation.
The situation becomes even more absurd when one considers that new methods can theoretically produce exactly the same mutations as classical mutagenesis. The ECJ ruling therefore leads to a situation where two plants that are identical in substance must be regulated differently – simply because they were produced by different methods. The more targeted, and likely safer, approach of the new breeding methods is being held back.
Welcome to the new, confusing world of genetic engineering regulation!
New breeding methods such as genome editing are already approved in many countries. In Argentina, Brazil, Japan or the USA, plants that do not contain foreign genes are no longer considered classic GMOs and may be cultivated like conventional varieties. In the EU, a political process towards liberalisation is currently underway. The proposal accepted by negotiators of the EU Member States and the European Parliament on 3 December would indeed be a milestone: products developed using the new genomic techniques could be offered in supermarkets without mandatory GMO labelling. The logical inconsistency would finally be removed.
In Switzerland, the situation is completely different. Here, the Federal Council has presented a proposal that – through labelling obligations, separation of product flows and cultivation restrictions – would effectively prevent such products from having any real chance on the market.
You may now be asking yourself: Why is this such a problem? Can’t we simply continue with classical mutagenesis? Isn’t everything fine as it is? In principle, we could. But plant breeding is increasingly about speed. Environmental conditions are changing rapidly as a result of climate change. Cultivating many crops is becoming more and more difficult. At the same time, there is political pressure to reduce the use of plant protection products to a minimum. There is a veritable bottleneck in the approval of plant protection products. As a result, farmers have fewer and fewer tools at their disposal to protect their crops in increasingly challenging conditions and produce sufficient high-quality yet affordable food.
In this context, plant breeding plays a crucial role. It must bring new plant varieties to market quickly that can thrive in these new conditions. Classical mutagenesis can only achieve this to a limited extent. Genome editing, by contrast, makes it possible to introduce precise changes exactly where they are needed – quickly and accurately. It would be another important instrument in agriculture’s toolbox.
And while all these scientific and political debates continue, the results of genomic breeding efforts are already landing on our plates every day. So next time you enjoy a plate of spaghetti, remember: even the most committed opponents of genetic engineering cannot avoid it entirely. Genetic engineering is not always visible – but products bred with these methods still taste good.
Your swiss-food editorial team
