The Deregulation of NGT-1 Plants
On June 17, 2026, the European Parliament passed a landmark regulation that exempts a major category of new genomic techniques (NGTs) from the established EU GMO framework. Under these new rules, plants and seeds modified with up to 20 genetic alterations—classified as Category 1 NGTs (NGT-1)—will no longer be subject to standard safety risk assessments, GMO labeling requirements, or field-to-plate traceability. Instead, the only mandatory notification will be a basic label on seed bags. This fundamental shift in policy was pushed through by altering the annexes and scope of the EU Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18/EC. [1, 2]
The Deliberate Release Directive has been a cornerstone of European environmental safety since 2001, established because the intentional release of GMOs carries proven, long-term risks to both biodiversity and human health. By carving out this exemption, the EU is now permitting the unregulated introduction of complex genetic modifications directly into our ecosystems and food systems. Without mandatory traceability or separation measures, the unregulated release of these plants means that, over time, conventional and organic seed pools are expected to face widespread cross-pollination and contamination. This unchecked spread threatens the genetic integrity of non-GM crops and removes the possibility of maintaining strictly GMO-free supply chains. [1]
Although the new seed legislation (PRM) grants farmers general permission to exchange conventional seeds at the local level, this permission does not apply if the seeds contain a patented NGT trait. This is because patent law takes precedence over seed legislation. If a farmer exchanges or saves a seed that is patented by a biotech company, he is violating patent law—regardless of the fact that the PRM rules state that farmers are allowed to exchange conventional seeds.
The new GMO-regulation stands in contrast to the European Court of Justice’s ruling on July 25, 2018, which stated that new genomic techniques carry similar risks to older methods, lack a history of safe use, and must therefore be regulated under the same GMO framework. [1]
A Flawed Scientific Premise
The European Commission argues that NGT-1 plants are equivalent to conventionally bred plants developed through traditional chemical or radiation mutagenesis, which historically escaped strict regulation. By basing this equivalence solely on a narrow group of older conventional plants exempted out of historical necessity in 2001, the EU is using a minor precedent to justify a broad, commercially driven deregulation. This poses a significant challenge, as the new NGT-1 category is expected to encompass the vast majority of all future crop development.
However, independent scientists strongly contest this claim on both biological and technical grounds. Research published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences highlights that modern gene-editing tools can bypass natural genomic boundaries in ways conventional breeding never could. Stripping away regulatory oversight introduces unmonitored hazards into agriculture with no historical track record of safety. [1, 2]
Furthermore, a study published in the journal Science demonstrates that the DNA breaks induced by gene-editing technologies can lead to permanent structural rearrangements in the genome. This phenomenon, termed “chromatin fatigue,” causes heritable impairments in gene expression that persist across successive generations of cells, even after the primary DNA sequence has been repaired. [1]
Additionally, recent ecological modeling indicates that the environmental release of genome-editing technologies carries significant potential for unintended, multi-species effects, threatening non-target organisms across the wider agroecosystem. [1]
For traditional seed savers, this deregulation threatens the very core of genetic conservation. True seed saving relies on the preservation of biodiversity through historical lineage and natural selection— processes that have sustained agriculture for millennia. Once a seed’s genome is artificially altered in a laboratory using GMO techniques, it loses its historical integrity and its value as a true heritage variety.
The Next Step: Fast-Tracking Microorganisms (GMMs)
We are now witnessing the political fallout of this precedent. The EU is already attempting to mirror the NGT-1 deregulation strategy to exempt genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) from strict oversight.
– December 16, 2025:
The European Commission introduced a proposal under the draft European Biotech Act I, aimed at allowing certain GMMs to be used in open systems, seeds, plants, soils, without traditional risk assessments or strict traceability safeguards. [1, 2]
– June 16, 2026:
Meeting at the EPSCO Council, EU ministers rebranded these from “low-risk GMMs” to the more bureaucratic title: “GMMs eligible for an expedited procedure”. While some retail labeling may still be debated, the core environmental safety checks are being stripped away. [1, 2]
An Urgent Timeline
The final adoption of these GMM rollbacks is being fast-tracked for autumn or winter 2026. This compressed timeline leaves virtually no room for proper public consultations, democratic debate, or meaningful amendments from European citizens and independent agricultural stakeholders.
Given these cascading political and scientific insights, we firmly advocate for the adherence to the precautionary principle, ensuring that safety assessments, mandatory labelling, and rigorous monitoring remain a strict requirement for all genetic modifications in plants, microorganisms and animals.
Written by June Rebekka Bresson
2026-07-21