Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a revolutionary tool in modern agriculture, offering a promising solution to a range of challenges, including biological and environmental threats. In Europe, the focus on genetically modified plants has narrowed to fighting the climate crisis, reducing the time between crop yields, and improving overall food security. The EU seeks the widespread adoption of a specific category of GMOs to continue its work on the “Farm to Fork” initiative (a plan under the European Green Deal), aiming to transform the European food system into a sustainable, non-polluting, and biodiverse one (1). However, genetically modified crops remain highly controversial, as debates often center on food safety and transparency, as well as patent law and the corporate monopolization of the most basic human necessities: seeds and crops. A new proposal by the European Commission aims to recognize certain genetically modified crops (New Genomic Technique 1) as equivalent to “normal,” non-genetically modified food. Will this help the EU achieve its green goals, or will it potentially harm our biodiversity, favor corporate interests, and muddy the waters of food safety and regulation?
The EU's Shift Toward New Genomic Techniques
There are two types of genomic techniques, as categorised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Genomic techniques that were developed before the adoption of the EU’s legislation on GMOs in 2001 are known as established genomic techniques (EGTs), while new genomic techniques (NGTs) refer to those developed after (2). NGTs can be further categorized into subgroups. Genetically modified plants modified with the genetic structure from their own species are considered a category 1 NGT plant. Their genetic modifications could also arise naturally or via conventional breeding. Category 2 NGTs, however, are those that require more thorough bioengineering methods to achieve, such as live gene editing using CRISPR-Cas technology, to exhibit desired traits (3). Currently, all types of GMOs are under strict scrutiny in the EU, as they must undergo numerous safety assessments, including toxicology studies and environmental impact analyses, conducted by the European Food Safety Agency (4).
In July 2023, the European Commission proposed treating NGT 1 plants as equivalent to conventional crops, thereby reducing the testing and controls to which they are subject. They would still be subject to a verification process to ensure the necessary criteria have been met, such as the rule that no more than 20 point changes are made to the plant’s DNA, which restricts the magnitude of genetic interference (5). In March 2025, the Council of the European Union agreed to discuss the mandate, highlighting specific points of controversy and disagreement (3).
Scientific Promise vs. Public Distrust
Dissenters, ranging from interest groups and organizations like Greenpeace and Save Our Seeds to the Greens–European Free Alliance, have criticized this proposal, claiming that it benefits the “genetic plant pharma industries to the detriment of farmers” and fails to respect the consumer’s right to information and transparency because of its reduction in traceability and labelling of these crops (6). This fear stems from past instances of widespread GMO use leading to monopolistic practices and corporate ownership; one such example is Monsanto’s use of glyphosate in the US (7). Creators of new, genetically modified crops may apply for a patent, thereby gaining ownership of the crop. As such, they can regulate access and use, depriving farmers of effective ownership of the crops they harvest and leaving them at a serious economic disadvantage if they choose non-genetically modified seeds. To take it even further, replanting seeds after a harvest could become factually illegal, as it would overstep into the boundaries of the patent.
Critics further emphasize the lack of necessary measures to achieve the Commission’s desired outcomes. For example, the rule that targeted gene edits do not exceed 20 points in the plant’s DNA. While ensuring that larger edits are not made does not offer much relief either, there is no biological rule that makes fewer modifications less impactful. Rather, it is the specific modification and its location that matter, and small insertions/deletions can cause unintended consequences (8). Instead, they wish for Europe to continue regulating all GMOs and remain largely GMO-free.
There is no denying that the widespread adoption of GM plants in Europe can bring immense social, environmental, and health benefits. Scientific proof backs this up, and global organizations and scientific agencies continue to advocate for GMO adoption, claiming it may be the only way to deal with an ever-growing population and limited resources. Yet public skepticism and opposition persist, albeit often rooted in misconceptions. Misinformation, such as the belief that consuming genetically modified crops alters personal DNA, contributes to public disapproval. Phenomena such as psychological and genetic essentialism (the belief that DNA is an organism’s essence, an immutable core that determines its identity and development) perpetuate fears, leading people to believe that genetically modified crop DNA can transfer undesirable traits to consumers (10).
Failure to explicitly differentiate NGT 1 and organic plants in the Commission's proposal fuels pre-existing public distrust. The EU’s decision will show its priority: technological development for a greener future or strict oversight and patience to effectively ensure food safety.