From Precaution to Proportion: A Risk-Based Framework for GE Crops in Europe

Genetically Engineered (GE) crops represent one of the most promising tools available to improve food security and agricultural resilience in a sector facing increasing pressure to produce higher yields while reducing environmental impacts.

It is difficult to overstate the potential benefits of GE crops: higher yields, reduced reliance on pesticides and herbicides, greater tolerance to heat and cold, and improved drought resilience. This of course comes at a higher cost of seed from manufacturers but considering the reduced cost of traditional plant protection products being required these costs may be offset by reduced expenditure on plant protection products, potentially resulting in cost neutrality or improved profitability for growers.

Why Aren't More GE Crops Grown in Europe?

At the time of writing, the only GE crop cultivated commercially within the EU is an insect-resistant maize variety, grown primarily in Spain and used largely for animal feed. Meanwhile, countries around the world continue to expand GE crop cultivation, with the United States alone planting more than 70 million hectares.

There are early indicators of movement beginning in this sector as of December 2025, a majority of EU member states voted to begin easing certain restrictions on GE crops. But as many people are aware the wheels of bureaucracy move ever so slowly and all the while potential benefits for farmers, consumers and the environment may remain unrealised.

What's Delaying GE Crop Production in Europe?

First, there is relatively little political incentive to champion GE crops. There has been a massive backlash against GE crops since their inception.

One concern frequently raised is the possibility of gene transfer from GE crops into wild relatives, potentially contributing to herbicide resistance or other unintended ecological effects. Various biological containment strategies have been proposed to reduce this risk, though these approaches themselves often generate debate regarding farmer autonomy and dependence on commercial seed suppliers.

Despite the scientific evidence supporting the safety of many proposed and approved GE crops, concerned groups remain and public trust cannot be assumed. Scientists, regulators and policymakers will need to communicate much more effectively with the public if confidence in these technologies is to improve.

Strong Argument for GE Crops to Proceed... with Caution

Perhaps this is one of the most compelling arguments for a cautious approach and one that is hard to outright counter. In the 21st century we live in a world marred by the errors learnt from rapid technological advancement of the 20th century and a lack of foresight and oversight. The world has paid a significant environmental cost for past failures to adequately assess certain technologies and chemicals, including substances such as DDT. As such we now have some of the most advanced and stringent legislation about agricultural chemicals in the world. Many fear the possibility of repeating similar mistakes with genetic technologies. This caution can be used constructively to develop a proportionate, risk-based assessment framework that balances innovation with environmental and consumer protection.

Could GE Crops be Registered Like Plant Protection Products?

This leads to my core argument.

Currently in the EU, we have one of the largest, most robust and complex regulatory frameworks in the world for approval of plant protection products PPP (herbicides, pesticides etc.) this process can take over a decade to see a product registered.

Why aren’t we using this system to register GE crops? Even a greatly stripped back version of our PPP legislation should provide ample data to support safe use for both the environment and consumers. This process could be further enhanced with constantly evolving in silico and modelling software to predict likely toxicity from genome sequencing before the crop is even produced.

We don’t have to re-invent the wheel. We can build upon decades of scientific expertise, farming developments, regulatory experience and environmental oversight to assess modern genetic technologies.

Would Regulation Be Prohibitively Expensive for GE Crops?

It is prohibitively expensive to get a product registered in the EU with huge delays and an increasing number of studies required. This cost is then of course passed on to farmers and ultimately consumers. To ever have a chance of being viable, Europe would need to agree a greatly reduced assessment framework for GE crops focused on efficacy and toxicology/ecotoxicology. Some elements of traditional pesticide registration, such as environmental fate and physical-chemical testing, may be less relevant and could potentially be reduced, adapted or potentially removed for GE crop assessments.

What Could a Fit-for-Purpose Risk Assessment for GE Crops Look Like?

There are a few proposed frameworks for this already but as a brief outline we’d need to:

• Completely sequence the original crop and highlight exactly which genes have been changed and why.
• Identify the affected proteins or other relevant molecules and use in silico modelling to predict structural and functional changes.
• At this stage, in silico modelling should provide a prediction of potential toxicological and ecotoxicological concerns.
• Establish exactly where in the plant the edited gene and subsequent proteins will be present/expressed.
• Determine whether the edited gene, or any resulting protein products, are likely to be present in the final consumer product.
• Generate efficacy data demonstrating the intended trait and compare crop performance against the parent cultivar.

Much of this assessment could be conducted during the primary research phase with minimal organism testing. Any additional toxicity data requirements could potentially be addressed using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), including cellular toxicity assays. The main cost/experimental data needed, in my opinion, would be efficacy data which, most would agree, constitutes a fair minimum.

As an additional precaution, some basic NTA ecotox studies could be conducted on GE plant leaves. But even these relatively cheap studies might be surplus to requirements, in my opinion.

Some may think this level of data requirement relatively naïve given the 10-15-year process of safety checking that occurs for current plant protection products, but, essentially with gene editing, as with anything else, we end up with basic questions to address:

Who? ...What? ...Where? ...Why? ...When? ...and How?

Public Engagement is Probably the Biggest Challenge for GE Crops

What then, would be the purpose of going to all this political and logistical effort – trying to sell farmers and the public on improvements they don't currently believe in? Can we make any progress on this issue without public awareness and information campaigns?

In today’s online landscape, scientific topics are often discussed through social media, advocacy campaigns and competing sources of information, making public engagement particularly challenging, regardless of how much substantial and robust data is available.

Growth of GE Crops in Europe

Europe faces a choice between maintaining a highly precautionary approach and developing a regulatory system that encourages innovation while safeguarding human health and the environment. The challenge is not whether GE crops should be accepted without scrutiny, but whether existing scientific tools can be used to effectively assess risk. If Europe wishes to remain competitive while addressing food security and climate pressures, the conversation must shift from ideology to evidence. Raising these questions is perhaps the first step toward that goal.

And, here's a fantastic video on GMO crops. Almost 10 years old and still as relevant today as it was then... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4
(9 minutes)