The EU is poised to ease restrictions on crops developed using Novel Genetic Techniques. While supporters say the technology could help farmers adapt to climate change, critics argue its effects remain poorly understood.The European Parliament is expected to approve new rules to make it easier for farmers to grow crops, genetically edited using New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). The vote on NGTs is scheduled for Wednesday, June 17, 2026. If so, it would mark a big policy shift. Brussels has maintained a cautious stance on Genetically Modified Organisms since its regulation of GMOs began in the 1990s. From 'Frankenfoods' to CRISPR crops Thirty years ago, GMO agricultural products were often dubbed "Frankenstein foods" or "Frankenfoods." Environmentalists and certain members of the media warned that GMOs could cause allergic reactions, lead to antibiotic resistance, and other long-term health effects. Critics argued that genetically modified seeds could increase corporate control over farmers, and that modified genes would leak into non-GM crops and the wider environment. And the European Union regulated the technology more tightly than many other parts of the world. The Frankenstein nickname reflected concerns that, in traditional GMOs, genes from one species are introduced into another through a process known as transgenics. Novel Genetic Techniques (NGTs) are different. With many NGT applications, no foreign gene is added. Instead, existing genes are altered in the plant, using CRISPR, the Nobel Prize-winning gene editing tool that has made it possible to cut out and replace defective genes, essentially re-writing an organism's genome. NGTs: Natural changes with a nudge? Under the new EU legislation, there would be two groups of NGTs: NGT-1s NGT-2s NGT-1s include crops with "a limited number and type of changes, and which could have occurred through conventional breeding," according to a European Parliament summary. These would be treated much like conventional crops. But the new rules would not apply to NGT-2 plants, which are defined as having more than 20 genetic modifications or those that contain specific, excluded traits, such as herbicide tolerance. "If a CRISPR-edited plant contains no foreign DNA and carries only changes that could also arise through natural mutation processes, then from a scientific point of view, there is no convincing reason to treat it like a classical transgenic plant," said Detlef Weigel, Director of the Department of Molecular Biology at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Biology. "The EU is therefore moving in the right direction by distinguishing between NGT-1 and NGT-2 plants," Weigel told DW. "What is important, however, is that the categories remain scientifically meaningful, transparent, and verifiable," he added. "We need regulation that is scientifically grounded, proportionate, and practically workable." Supporters of the change claim that making NGT-1s available to farmers could help them navigate climate change, enabling the development of crops that are more resistant to drought, pests and disease. They say NGT-1s could also reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides. But not all scientists agree that the technology should be treated differently from conventional GMOs. GABA: Not just another tomato Michael Antoniou, Professor of Molecular Genetics at King's College London, says gene-edited plants are fundamentally different from conventionally bred crops because the CRISPR process itself can cause unintended changes in the new plant's DNA. "The scientific evidence shows that when considered as a whole, the CRISPR gene editing process causes large-scale random, unintended sites of damage to the DNA of the plant, and [those sites of damage] can number in the hundreds or thousands," Antoniou told DW. Antoniou cites GABA tomatoes as an example. They were the world's first commercially available CRISPR gene-edited food. Cultivated in Japan, GABA tomatoes contain high amounts of the neurotransmitter GABA and are marketed to help lower blood pressure, improve sleep and relieve temporary stress. "Yes, [they look] like a normal tomato, but what unintentional changes to its biochemistry and composition have also taken place?" he asks, implying the answer, "we don't know." Antoniou argues that the EU's proposed rules do not adequately account for unintended genetic changes that may occur during the gene editing process. He believes developers should be obliged to use molecular profiling methods to determine how the wider genome has been altered. Altering crop genes is 'nothing new' Weigel says CRISPR is an improvement on older methods used by plant breeders to create new crops, such as the introduction of chemicals and radiation to induce mutations. These methods, says Weigel, are often less predictable than the results of CRISPR. "CRISPR is more precise in this respect than many older methods," Weigel said. "This does not automatically make the biology risk-free, just as not every naturally occurring plant is automatically edible. But it makes it difficult to see why such plants should be inherently more dangerous than conventionally bred plants." And are NGT crops edible? The World Health Organization says all GM foods should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. But currently available products are likely to pose risks to human health, it says. 'Don't ban new technology' — design better safeguards Matin Qaim, Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Bonn, argues that the EU has been too cautious in its approach to crop biotechnology, including older, transgenic techniques. "Issues of public acceptance have led to costly and lengthy regulatory procedures for transgenic GM crops, not because these crops are really dangerous but because anti-GM activists have managed to depict them as dangerous in the public perception," he told DW. Qaim says that while practical experience with NGTs is limited, the technology will likely make breeding new crops faster, more precise, and more efficient. "The best answer is typically not to ban specific technologies but to identify smart policies that help to maintain competition and fair access to relevant innovations by all," he said. Edited by: Zulfikar Abbany