It gave its final approval on Wednesday morning to new rules that make it easier to access pest-resistant plants that yield more and require fewer pesticides.
The regulation, which concerns so-called new genetic techniques (NGTs), was approved following a provisional agreement between the Parliament and the Council in December 2025, closing a round of negotiations that lasted more than two years and provoked a sharp confrontation between supporters of agricultural innovation and critics who talk of a significant setback in food safety.
Two classes of plants, different rules
The new legislation shifts the regulatory burden from how a plant is produced to the final genetic outcome. The plants resulting from the new genetic techniques are divided into two categories with different legal obligations.
The NGT-1 category includes plants with a limited number and type of changes that could also occur through conventional crossings. Once certified as meeting the criteria, they are treated like conventional plants. Following Parliament’s request, plants engineered for resistance to herbicides or to produce insecticides are excluded from this category.
The NGT-2 category includes plants with more extensive or complex genetic modifications, those that are usually also called “mutated”. These remain under the strict GMO rules and must undergo a risk assessment and approval before being placed on the EU market.
The rules will apply to plants produced in Europe as well as imported products. Products such as low-gluten wheat, pathogen-resistant potatoes and drought-resistant maize are available or in advanced development outside the EU.
Which plants are actually covered by the regulation?
The new legislation does not concern a specific crop but a wide range of species, as gene editing techniques (mainly through CRISPR/Cas) can be applied to almost any plant organism. Trials have already been carried out in at least ten species, including alfalfa, camelina, maize, grapevine, potato, soybean, sugar cane, tobacco, tomato and wheat, with the new traits mainly focusing on pest and disease resistance, improved nutritional value, drought tolerance and plant structure traits.
In practice, the most advanced applications discussed as examples of the new regulation include gluten-reduced wheat for people with sensitivities or intolerances, potatoes resistant to fungi and pathogens such as powdery mildew, and corn with increased drought tolerance.
At the same time, other applications are being developed at the European research level: Italian research programs are genetically processing wheat, tomatoes, vines, peaches and citrus fruits, with the aim of improving disease resistance and yield, while researchers at the University of Verona are examining the use of gene processing in viticulture as well, with prospects for application in winemaking.
Internationally, where rules are already looser than in the EU, products such as potatoes with drastically reduced levels of acrylamide after chilling have already been developed or are on the market, with chips from these varieties containing up to 80% less acrylamide, as well as the first seedless blackberries grown by targeting the genes responsible for hard seeds. Powdery mildew-resistant grapevines, blight-resistant wheat, drought- and salinity-tolerant soybeans, and high-yielding tomatoes with fewer leaves and branches are already approved or in trials in the US.
For Greek agriculture, similar applications could in the future concern crops of high national importance such as wheat, grapevine, citrus or tomato, although no specific Greek variety is yet reported to be in an active stage of development using NGTs.
Traceability, labeling and right of veto for Member States
Full traceability and labeling remain mandatory for NGT-2 plants, and member states can restrict or ban their cultivation even if approved at EU level. Varieties containing or derived from an NGT-1 plant will be registered in a public European database, and all seed bags and propagating material will have to be marked NGT-1 so farmers can choose fully informed.
To direct the use of NGTs towards the development of plants with viability traits, the regulation makes it mandatory to monitor their effects on viability. In organic production, no use of NGTs is permitted, although the technically unavoidable presence of an NGT-1 plant will not be considered an infringement. The Commission will assess whether the regulation creates administrative, financial or practical burdens for organic farmers.
On the issue of intellectual property, it will be possible to patent NGTs, with the exception of features or sequences that occur in nature or are produced by biological means. MEPs included safeguards to prevent market concentration and to keep farmers’ right to save and reuse seeds.
The satisfaction of the rapporteur
Rapporteur Jessica Polfjärd (EPP, Sweden) called the vote a historic victory for European farmers, arguing that Parliament has chosen innovation, competitiveness and food security, and that farmers have long demanded access to these breeding tools to develop crops that are more resistant and less dependent on pesticides.
The reactions: “Concession to the industry” denounce the Greens and the Left
The final deal, however, is far from what Parliament had originally asked for, and this distance fueled a backlash from political groups who voted against the text. The fiercest confrontation concerns patents. In 2024 Parliament had called for a complete ban on patenting of plants, plant material, genetic information and procedural features of NGTs, precisely to avoid legal uncertainty, increased costs and new dependencies for farmers and plant breeders. The original proposal was described by the Parliament itself as necessary “to avoid legal uncertainties, increased costs and new dependencies for farmers and plant breeders”.
In the final compromise text, this prohibition was abandoned. Instead, it envisages a future voluntary code of conduct, which critics say is insufficient to address market concentration concerns and farmers’ rights.
French Socialist MEP Christophe Clergeau, a member of the environment committee, had described the compromise text as “problematic”, with many open questions, particularly on the patent regime, and tried unsuccessfully to reintroduce amendments to strengthen protection before the final vote.
A similar stance was taken by the Greens and the Left, who together with a significant section of the Socialists had opposed the legislation as early as 2024. Civil society organizations had called for measures to ensure that patented NGT products remain traceable, so that farmers and businesses are not exposed to legal risks without a way to verify the presence of patented traits in their crops.
The Corporate Europe Observatory, which monitors lobbying in Brussels, had warned before the vote that MEPs had backed measures in 2024 to limit patents on NGT seeds and crops, but that crucial demand was lost in negotiations between EU institutions.
At member state level, opposition was not limited to Parliament. In approving the Council’s position, Germany abstained, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary voted against liberalizing the rules.
Safety and consumer concerns
A second front of reaction comes from scientific and environmental organizations that question the philosophy of the new regulatory framework. The German organization Testbiotech had complained before the vote that the agreement essentially exempts all NGT plants from the mandatory environmental risk assessment, while abolishing the food labeling and traceability rules that have been in force until now.
According to the same organization, the new regulation creates the impression that safety rules and standards will continue to apply, when in fact industry is given free rein to bring its products to market through a fast-track approval process, largely ignoring the consequences for health and the environment.
This opposition is not new. When the relevant parliamentary committee first approved the relaxation of the rules, the relevant decision drew strong criticism from environmental groups, while the debate over NGTs has divided the European Union for years, in a debate reminiscent of the more general controversy over genetically modified organisms in the early 2000s.
The industry side: insufficient differentiation of the two categories
In contrast, organizations representing the feed and agricultural industry, such as the European federation FEFAC, welcomed the move but criticized the choice to impose common labeling on all NGT products. In the organization, this undermines the very essence of the distinction between category 1, treated as conventional, and the remaining categories assimilated to GMOs, and could be a significant barrier to the adoption of the technology.
As they noted, mandatory labeling of “new genomic techniques” would stigmatize category 1 products, even though the European Food Safety Authority has repeatedly stated that these do not pose additional risks compared to varieties produced by conventional breeding methods.
For its part, the legislation itself provides for monitoring mechanisms aimed at appeasing critics: a public patent database, a provision for the establishment of an expert group involving the European Patent Office, and a future study by the Commission on the impact of patenting on innovation, the availability of seeds for farmers and the competitiveness of the European plant breeding industry.
The regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU and will be implemented two years later. Meanwhile, the battle over the content of the future patent code of conduct and impact study is expected to continue, as opposing political groups say they will closely monitor the implementation of the new framework.
