Bruno Studer, when will we see drought-tolerant CRISPR crops in Swiss fields

More recently, scientists have begun editing plants using new tools such as CRISPR-Cas to produce highly targeted mutations. These tools enable breeding researchers and breeders to switch off or repair a gene by making precise modifications to individual DNA building blocks. Because identical changes can also arise naturally or through conventional mutagenesis, it is technically impossible to determine how a mutation arose simply by looking at the final product. This throws into question whether a regulatory framework that focuses on the method used is still appropriate.

In June 2026, the European Union responded to this situation by introducing new legislation. This makes a distinction between NGT1 plants, whose genetic changes could just as easily have occurred naturally or via conventional breeding, and NGT2 plants, which feature more complex genetic modifications. By shifting the regulatory focus away from the tool used and onto the actual genetic result, the EU has taken a highly pragmatic approach.

Switzerland, however, has failed to seize this opportunity. Although the Parliament initiated a revision of the Gene Technology Act back in 2022, the draft sent out for consultation in 2025 introduces additional control mechanisms, authorisation procedures and labelling requirements that go beyond the EU's regime. These administrative hurdles would do more than just place Switzerland at a competitive disadvantage compared with the EU. They would also place a disproportionate burden on domestic small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which lack the deep pockets of multinational corporations to absorb the costs of lengthy approval processes and complex compliance paperwork when trading with EU partners.

This debate could hardly be more timely. This year's hot, dry summer clearly showed how much pressure a changing climate can exert on our agricultural systems. We need robust crop varieties tailored to shifting environmental conditions, which makes it imperative to pursue innovative technological pathways alongside conventional breeding. While there is no single silver bullet to tackle the climate crisis, genome editing can make an important contribution. It makes it possible to adapt traditional crop varieties more precisely to specific environmental conditions and to accelerate the process of turning underutilised, drought-tolerant crops such as buckwheat and millet into viable options for Swiss agriculture. A greater diversity of crops translates into lower risk. Even if one crop succumbs to severe drought stress, another will thrive. Cultivating this kind of diversification will strengthen the resilience of our agriculture and secure our food systems.

Switzerland must therefore clarify its position without delay and harmonise its regulatory framework with that of the European Union. As a small nation deeply integrated into European agricultural and food markets, it cannot afford to pursue a separate regulatory path. The more our legal frameworks diverge, the greater the administrative burdens, compliance costs and barriers to exchanging plant material will become.

In the meantime, the priority must be to bridge differing perspectives by fostering dialogue between academia, industry and the wider public and building mutual trust. If we succeed, Switzerland will soon be in a position to harness the opportunities of new genomic techniques in a pragmatic and responsible way.