Agriculture in the age of climate change: towards the end of inertia on genetic editing

The technologies that make it possible to modify the DNA of cells accelerated enormously with the development, around 2010, of CRISPR/Cas9. To put it simply: the CRISPR/Cas9 system works by cutting a target DNA at a very precise point chosen by the researcher, then inserting, modifying, or removing individual DNA bases or groups of them. The result is a cell that has been, in every sense, genetically modified.

Do GMOs come to mind?

Technically, GMOs derive from classical genetic engineering techniques aimed at inserting exogenous genes — from another organism — into the target DNA, so that the recipient cell or organism acquires a specific trait. In the case of plants, these traits might include resistance to pests, the ability to grow in unfavourable environments, or increased productivity. The insertion of this new gene or characteristic into the DNA occurs in a completely random manner.

CRISPR/Cas9, by contrast, makes it possible to modify an organism's genome without necessarily introducing exogenous DNA (which may be synthetic or derived from sexually compatible species) — it can also work solely by acting on sequences already present. Moreover, the researcher can decide with precision exactly where the target DNA will be inserted, deleted, or modified. From medicine to agriculture, the potential applications of this technology are numerous, and we are already seeing its effects in the first approved therapies for thalassaemia and certain rare genetic diseases.

This scientific distinction between GMOs and plants obtained through modern genetic editing techniques — long considered marginal in public debate — becomes crucial as the climate context evolves rapidly and negatively impacts agriculture. Farmers have been grappling with climate challenges for decades, doing whatever they can to keep pace with prolonged droughts alternating with devastating rainfall, extreme heat, and new pest infestations, to name just a few. All of these factors put pressure on agricultural productivity and the stability of entire food supply chains.

Despite substantial technical differences, plants obtained through CRISPR/Cas9 — now referred to as TEA (Assisted Evolution Technologies) — have until now been subject to the same restrictions as traditional GMOs, even though they are in many respects indistinguishable from the plants from which they were derived.

The current regulatory rigidity has little to do with science and a great deal to do with ideology, in a cultural and political context shaped by widespread distrust of biotechnologies applied to food.

In the meantime, GMOs have been subjected to rigorous safety assessments conducted by authoritative bodies such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). At the same time, public risk perception around GMO consumption in Europe has gradually declined, as Eurobarometer data confirms. Whether due to more effective science communication or the emergence of issues considered more pressing, fewer and fewer citizens are concerned about GMOs, acknowledging that there is no evidence that they are inherently harmful to health. This greater acceptance, however, has not translated into political decisions that are either timely or consistent.

The current European regulatory framework permits the import of certain GMO products with appropriate labelling, while leaving member states the option to ban their cultivation on national territory. In Italy, for example, cultivation is prohibited (Law 115/2015), although since 2024 field trials of plants obtained through modern techniques (TEA/CRISPR) have been permitted. Yet Italians consume products derived from genetically modified crops every day, primarily through animal feed and global supply chains — while continuing to treat their cultivation on Italian soil as problematic. This is no longer a matter of fear, but of ambiguity and hypocrisy: we tolerate GMOs when grown elsewhere, but not in our own backyard.

Now, after more than fifteen years of scientific, public, political, and institutional debate, the European Commission has finally arrived at a revision of the regulatory framework that in effect distinguishes between the two categories of techniques — over the objections of the trade associations and lobbying groups still opposed to the change. Specifically, the new rules introduce a classification of plants obtained through TEA or New Genomic Techniques (NGT) into two main categories: NGT1 and NGT2. NGT1 plants will include those with minimal genetic modifications that could theoretically occur in nature through evolution — albeit over longer timescales — or through conventional breeding techniques. For these plants, the approval process will be significantly simplified and will no longer fall under the strict regime applicable to traditional GMOs. NGT2 plants, on the other hand, will include more extensive and complex DNA modifications, or those containing genetic material from sexually incompatible species. These will continue to be subject to more thorough risk assessment and a regulatory framework closer to that of classical GMOs. Another significant element concerns labelling: this will be required only for seeds and for NGT2 plants, not for NGT1, since the genetic modifications introduced are indistinguishable from those that can be achieved through conventional techniques. This too reflects a paradigm shift: from symbolic emphasis on the process, to evaluation of the product's characteristics.

Overall, the regulatory revision does not represent an indiscriminate green light for biotechnologies, but an attempt to realign the rules with the current state of scientific knowledge and an agricultural context that has changed profoundly from previous decades.

This landmark shift comes just in time to begin addressing a problem that neither politics nor public opinion can afford to ignore or defer any longer. The difference in attitude towards genetic editing becomes clear when agriculture and medicine are compared. The use of genetic editing in medicine has been met with growing enthusiasm, particularly when it concerns life-saving interventions. In agriculture, the same logic has encountered stronger resistance — even when the modifications do not involve the introduction of foreign genes, and when they respond to concrete and urgent needs: improving crop yields without the overuse of pesticides, or developing resistance to drought and thermal stress.

Is food security not directly linked to the survival of the human species?

Although final approval is still pending, the regulatory change should be read in precisely this light. Not as a sudden enthusiastic embrace of technological progress, but as an acknowledgement of the limits of regulatory categories designed for a more stable climatic context — one that no longer exists. Continuing to treat genetic editing as an undifferentiated extension of traditional GMOs means further reducing the options available to European agriculture for adaptation. This does not imply that genetic editing is a universal solution. The challenges posed by climate change require interventions on multiple levels: water resource management, agronomic practices, consumption models, and supply chain policies. But it does mean acknowledging that we can no longer afford to forgo an effective tool simply in the name of ideology.

Image credit: imsogabriel stock on Unsplash