New genomic techniques in plant breeding are discussed differently today than the genetic engineering of the 1990s. While back then transgenic plants and their potential risks to humans and the environment stood in the center, politics and society are today mainly occupied with questions of market concentration, patent protection, transparency and consumers' freedom of choice.

Humans have been breeding crops for thousands of years – first through selection and cross-breeding, and for more than 75 years also through the use of mutagenesis. In this process, the genome of crop plants is irradiated or treated with chemicals to generate genetic diversity for breeding. This creates thousands of random changes, so-called mutations, in the genome of a plant. This procedure is legal and the foundation for many today's varieties.

CRISPR-Cas and the question of up-to-date regulation

For a few years now, plants have been "edited" with new tools such as CRISPR-Cas, generating mutations in a highly targeted manner. This enables plant breeding researchers or breeders to specifically switch off or repair a gene by changing individual DNA building blocks. Such changes can also occur naturally or be caused by conventional mutagenesis. Consequently, it can no longer be technically determined in the end product how the change originated. Therefore, the question arises whether a regulation that places the applied method in the foreground is still up to date.

The European Union has reacted to this and put new rules into force in June of this year. It distinguishes between NGT1 plants, whose genetic changes could also have occurred naturally or through conventional breeding, and NGT2 plants with more extensive genetic modifications. Decisive is no longer just the tool, but the result. That is very pragmatic.

Swiss regulatory approach and disadvantages for SMEs

Switzerland has missed an opportunity here. Although parliament initiated a revision of the legislation as early as 2022, the draft sent out for consultation in 2025 provides for additional control and approval procedures as well as labeling requirements compared to EU legislation. These additional hurdles would not only disadvantage Switzerland compared to the EU, but would above all hit SMEs which, unlike large corporations, can rarely afford complex and expensive approval procedures and would face additional control and proof obligations in trade with the EU.

Climate change and opportunities of genome editing

This debate could hardly be more topical. The hot and dry summer has clearly demonstrated how strongly climate change can put agriculture under pressure. We need robust crop plants and adapted varieties. For this, new approaches are required alongside classical breeding. Even though there is no single solution for the challenges of climate change, genome editing can make an important contribution. It makes it possible to adapt varieties of traditional crop species more specifically to certain environmental conditions and to make previously little-used, drought-tolerant crop plants such as buckwheat or millet usable more quickly for Swiss agriculture. More diversity on the field means less risk: if one crop fails under drought stress, another can cope better with it. This diversification strengthens the resilience of agriculture and our food system.

Alignment with the EU as a necessity

Switzerland should therefore clarify matters as quickly as possible and align its regulations with those of the EU. As a small country with close ties to European agricultural and food markets, it can ill afford regulatory special paths. The more the legal foundations diverge from one another, the greater the bureaucratic burden, the regulatory costs, and the hurdles for the exchange of plant material will become.

Until then, we should use the time to bring different perspectives together, strengthen the dialogue between science, economy and society, and build mutual trust. If this succeeds, Switzerland, too, can soon use the opportunities of new genomic techniques in a pragmatic and responsible manner.

Keywords: ETH Zurich · CRISPR-Cas · Genome editing · Plant breeding · NGT · Agricultural policy · Drought tolerance