Gene scissors: Is it like normal plant breeding or real genetic engineering?

Currently, the EU is negotiating in trilogues on whether to deregulate genetic engineering laws, which could simplify labeling requirements. What does a recent legal opinion say about this?

Since last week (May 6, 2025), the EU has been debating in Brussels whether it will be possible in the future to use genetic engineering more or less extensively in Europe. In the so-called trilogue, the EU Commission, EU Council, and EU Parliament are exploring whether and how the current, comparatively strict genetic engineering law should be adjusted. Current drafts suggest a significant deregulation for new genetic techniques such as the Crispr/Cas gene scissors.

Advocates argue that the Crispr/Cas gene scissors are just normal plant breeding methods. Supporters of new genetic techniques often argue that Crispr/Cas and similar breeding methods are not really genetic engineering. Instead, they are tools that are "equivalent" to conventional breeding methods. However, the "Opinion on the compatibility of the EU proposal for a regulation on plants derived from certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety" sees this differently. It was written by Prof. Dr. Silja Vöneky and Constantin Born, Laura Tribess, and Silke Weller from the University of Freiburg.

Opponents argue that the Crispr/Cas gene scissors are indeed genetic engineering. The current legal opinion from April 2025, published by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMEL), contradicts the advocates' view. According to the authors around Prof. Vöneky, new genetic techniques are modern biotechnology that bypasses natural gene inheritance. Therefore, the new genetic technique with the Crispr/Cas gene scissors is subject to the international Cartagena Protocol. The abolition of labeling requirements for products derived from New Genetic Techniques, as demanded in the current draft law, would therefore violate international law on biosafety and biological diversity, as summarized in the opinion, which can be read here.