Summary
The European Union has changed how gene-edited crops are regulated, dividing them into NGT-1 and NGT-2 categories. The framework could ease adoption of CRISPR-based crop improvements, but limits on the number and size of edits may restrict more complex traits.
The European Union has changed its rules for gene-edited crops, ending the previous approach under which all such plants were regulated as genetically modified organisms. The new framework divides them into two categories: new genomic techniques 1 (NGT-1) and new genomic techniques 2 (NGT-2).
The change could make it easier to develop crops with traits such as drought tolerance, heat tolerance, disease resistance and improved nutrient efficiency. But an analysis by plant geneticist Nico De Storme argues that strict limits within the more lightly regulated category could prevent gene editing from reaching its full agricultural potential.
What the EU’s new categories mean
Gene editing techniques such as CRISPR can make targeted changes to a plant’s DNA. Unlike some genetically modified organisms, which can incorporate DNA from another species, gene-edited plants may contain only small changes to their existing genetic material.
Under the new EU framework, NGT-1 plants can contain limited alterations and are treated as equivalent to plants produced through conventional breeding. NGT-2 covers other new-genomic-technique plants, which remain subject to strict GMO rules.
The rules place limits on the number of edits an NGT-1 crop can contain and on the number of DNA base pairs that can be changed in each edit. These limits are intended to keep the resulting plants within the range of changes that can occur naturally.
De Storme argues that the limits do not reflect how variation arises in nature or how conventional breeding works. Mutations can occur randomly, and breeding programmes aimed at improving several traits can involve hundreds of genetic variants. A tightly limited number of edits could therefore make it difficult to combine several useful traits in one variety or to improve characteristics controlled by many genes.
Why implementation matters for agriculture
The policy shift comes as European agriculture faces pressure from climate change, geopolitical instability and tighter rules on pesticide and fertiliser use. Crop varieties that resist several diseases or use nutrients more efficiently could help farmers maintain production under those conditions.
Gene editing does not automatically produce those outcomes, but it gives breeders a way to alter specific traits more directly than conventional breeding. The source cites a 2023 European Commission impact assessment that estimated annual economic losses for EU cereal farmers could reach €2.7 billion by the early 2030s under more restrictive conditions.
More permissive rules could also support plant-science research in Europe. De Storme links earlier restrictions to a loss of researchers and intellectual property over the past decade, and argues that the revised framework could help reverse that trend.
The author recommends that the EU build flexibility into the rules as implementation continues. The United States is presented as one alternative model: regulators assess the characteristics and potential public-health or ecological risks of the resulting plant rather than focusing primarily on the breeding method used to create it.
The European change is therefore a regulatory opening rather than an approval of a particular crop. Its practical effect will depend on how NGT-1 limits are applied, how NGT-2 plants are assessed and how the system is explained to farmers and consumers.