What Are NGTs, How Do They Differ from GMOs, and How Are They Regulated in the EU?

In 2020, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their development of a revolutionary gene-editing technology: CRISPR-Cas9. This groundbreaking technique enables scientists to make highly precise modifications to DNA, ushering in a new era of genetic engineering with wide-ranging applications in both medicine and agriculture. This advancement also brought to light a new category of biotechnologies—New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).

Though often compared to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), NGTs represent a more refined approach to gene editing, and their rise is sparking new debates—especially within the European Union, where the regulation of such technologies remains complex and contentious.

What Are NGTs?

NGTs, or New Genomic Techniques, refer to modern methods of altering the genetic makeup of organisms without introducing foreign DNA from sexually incompatible species. These techniques include CRISPR-Cas9, which acts like molecular scissors to cut and modify specific genes. The change may result in small insertions or deletions in the DNA, potentially enhancing a plant’s characteristics such as disease resistance, drought tolerance, or reduced allergen content.

Unlike GMOs, which often involve the introduction of genes from completely unrelated organisms (think bacterial genes inserted into corn), NGTs work within the genetic boundaries of related species. According to Dr. Vittoria Brambilla, a botanist at the University of Milan, this makes NGTs closer to conventional breeding—just dramatically faster and more targeted.

Key Difference Between NGTs and GMOs

While both NGTs and GMOs aim to enhance agricultural traits, the main difference lies in how the genetic modifications are introduced.

• GMOs typically involve inserting foreign genes from unrelated species—creating transgenic organisms.
• NGTs, by contrast, involve edits made to existing genes, or the introduction of genes only from cross-compatible species, and often do not leave any foreign DNA traces in the final product.

This distinction is more than technical—it carries significant regulatory, ethical, and market implications.

The First Gene-Edited Wheat Field in Europe

One of the most prominent examples of NGT application in agriculture can be found in Harpenden, UK, where Nigel Halford and his team at Rothamsted Research launched Europe’s first gene-edited wheat field trial. Using CRISPR-Cas9, they reduced the presence of asparagine, an amino acid that can turn into a potential carcinogen (acrylamide) during cooking.

The results were promising—free asparagine levels dropped to 10% of the control group. However, the process wasn’t without complications. The team initially used a method that temporarily turned the wheat into a GMO by introducing CRISPR machinery through genetic modification. They later had to breed out these GMO elements, a complex and time-consuming process.

This illustrates both the potential and the technical hurdles of working with NGTs in real-world agricultural contexts.

Regulation of NGTs in the EU

At present, NGTs are regulated under the same stringent laws that apply to GMOs in the European Union. This includes rigorous testing, labelling, and risk assessments, which many scientists argue are disproportionate for the kind of edits involved.

But change may be on the horizon. A 2023 proposal by the European Commission recommends dividing NGTs into two categories:

• NGT 1: Products with no more than 20 precise edits or with genes introduced from crossable species. These would be exempt from standard GMO regulations.
• NGT 2: All other NGT products, which would still be regulated as GMOs.

The intent is to ease the path to market for crops considered safe and close to naturally bred varieties. However, this categorisation is controversial.

Divided Opinions Among Scientists

While many researchers support loosening regulations for NGTs, not everyone is convinced. Katja Tielbörger, professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen, argues that the distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2 is arbitrary and not grounded in science.

“We cannot claim equivalence of NGT 1 with normal breeding,” she warns, questioning the idea that a certain number of genetic edits somehow make a product more “natural.” Tielbörger also challenges the narrative that new crop varieties are necessary for food security.

“Food security is not about having more varieties,” she said. “It’s about fair distribution and systemic issues in the food supply chain.”

What’s Next for NGTs in the EU?

As the European Union debates the future of NGT regulation, the stakes are high. Supporters believe relaxing rules could boost innovation, help farmers adapt to climate change, and reduce pesticide reliance. Critics worry about environmental risks, corporate control of seed markets, and insufficient scientific oversight.

Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: NGTs are redefining the frontier of agricultural biotechnology. Whether they’ll become a widespread tool for sustainable farming—or remain tangled in regulatory red tape—depends on the EU’s willingness to adapt its framework to science and society's evolving expectations.

Conclusion
New Genomic Techniques, NGTs, CRISPR-Cas9, genetically modified organisms, GMOs vs NGTs, EU regulation on NGTs, gene editing in agriculture, Rothamsted wheat trial, food security, plant biotechnology, EU agriculture policy, precision breeding, genetic engineering Europe, sustainable farming tech