Global status of genome editing versus transgenesis legislation in plants and the current EU situation

• Agnès Ricroch, 
• Walid Ben Rahal, 
• Basile Genty & 
• Raphaëlle Lherminier 

npj Science of Plants volume 2, Article number: 3 (2026) Cite this article

• 4507 Accesses
• 12 Altmetric
• Metrics details

Abstract

Precise breeding programs using new genome editing techniques have been developed to create plant varieties adapted to climate change. We studied the regulatory status of the 196 members of the United Nations (distinguishing the four UK countries) according to their legislation on transgenesis. We identified eight statuses for these techniques: ‘allowed for any use’ (24 countries, Argentina being the first in 2015), ‘allowed for import’ (1), ‘legislation under discussion’ (37), ‘not allowed except for food aid’ (0), ‘not allowed’ (3), ‘regulated as transgenics’ (7), ‘no legislation’ (114) and ‘no data available’ (10). We discussed the current situation in the European Union (EU) as many countries are awaiting its regulation. We also examined field trials carried out by six EU countries. We looked at authorised and commercialised gene-edited (GenEd) plants. Countries that have authorised transgenic (Tr) plants are 22.6% more likely to approve GenEd plants than those that have not.

Similar content being viewed by others

Rewiring gene circuitry for plant improvement

Article 29 July 2024

Targeted genome-modification tools and their advanced applications in crop breeding

Article 24 April 2024

Recent advances in crop transformation technologies

Article 15 December 2022

Introduction

To sustain agricultural productivity, it is essential to create plant varieties adapted to the adverse effects of climate change (e.g., high temperatures, variable rainfall, drought, pests and diseases or impoverished soils) and to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from farms. Our study deals only with plants (Archaeplastida or Phaeophyceae; micro-algae are not included) modified via targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis (including intragenesis) using genes from the breeders’ gene pool. The new genome editing techniques are innovative tools that can be useful in precise breeding programs to contribute to reducing emissions and improving agricultural efficiency. Genome editing can be performed using four major site-directed nucleases: meganucleases (first used in corn in 2009¹), Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFN) (in tobacco in 2009²), Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) (in rice in 2012³), Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats-associated protein (CRISPR-Cas) (in rice in 2013⁴). The CRISPR-Cas system is the most common tool to excise a DNA fragment or to change bases with the Cas-linked base editors. The Cas9 with its orthologues and variants is the standard one and mainly used for DNA Double Standard Break (DSB) to generate a small insertion/deletion (indel) (1–3 bp)⁵. Guide RNA (gRNA) and CRISPR-associated (Cas-9) proteins are the two essential components. gRNA is made up of two parts, CRISPR RNA (crRNA) and trans-activating CRISPR RNA (tracrRNA). The crRNA is an 18–20 base pair in length that specifies the target DNA by pairing with the target sequence, whereas tracrRNA is a long stretch of loops that serve as a binding scaffold for Cas-9 nuclease. The guide RNA can be synthetically designed by combining crRNA and tracrRNA to form a single guide RNA (sgRNA) in order to target almost any gene sequence supposed to be edited. The mechanism of CRISPR/Cas-9 genome editing contains three steps, recognition, cleavage, and repair. The designed sgRNA recognizes the target sequence in the gene of interest through a complementary base pair. While the Cas-9 nuclease makes double-stranded breaks (DSB) at a site 3 base pair upstream to protospacer adjacent motif (PAM). In plants, DSBs are primarily repaired by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathway which is less efficient than homology-directed repair (HDR) pathway. To improve HDR pathway base editing and prime editing were developed. Prime editing generates all possible base substitutions, as well as small indels, and was quickly adopted in plants even though its site specificity limits its use in many species. Base editors generate nucleotide substitutions without generating DSBs⁵. Proofs of concept exist respectively in rice and wheat (2020)⁶ and in A. thaliana, cotton, maize, potato, rape, soybean, tomato, watermelon (2024)⁷. The recombinase and transposase-assisted target-site integration to insert more than 100 bp were used in soybean in 2024⁸. These techniques can also engineer the epigenome with the deactivated Cas (dCas) protein to catalyse site specific DNA methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana in 2019⁹ and with Cas12j2 in rice in 2022¹⁰.

To deliver genome editors six main methods are used. The most common one is the Agrobacterium-mediated delivery. Other notable delivery methods include biolistic transformations, protoplast transformations, virus-induced genome editing with or without tissue culture, grafting, and cut-dip budding⁵. Several strategies have been developed to remove or prevent the integration of gene editor constructs: elimination of transgenic sequences via genetic segregation, transient editor expression from DNA vectors, and DNA-independent editor delivery, including RNA or preassembled Cas9 protein-gRNA ribonucleoproteins (RNPs).

The genome editing techniques can lead to three types of modification: insertion/deletion (indel), DNA fragment replacement and integration of DNA fragment. This integration is characterised by the origin of the DNA according to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2022¹¹. Cisgenesis consists of “a genetic modification involving genetic material obtained from the breeder’s gene pool and transferred to the host using various delivery strategies; the incorporated sequences contain an exact copy of a sequence already present in the breeder’s gene pool”. The breeder’s gene pool consists of sexually compatible species that are closely related. Intragenesis consists of “a genetic modification involving genetic material obtained from the breeder’s gene pool and transferred to the host using various delivery strategies; the incorporated sequences contain a re-arranged copy of sequences already present in the breeder’s gene pool”. Transgenesis consists of “the process of stably introducing gene(s) from any sexually incompatible species, or any synthetic gene non-existing in nature, into the genome of a given cell and the propagation of such gene(s) thereafter”.

The legal framework of each country defines the status of these plants, and therefore their future in terms of laboratory or field research, as well as commercialisation (cultivation, import, export) of their food and feed products. This study aims to exhaustively explore the status of legislation relating to new genome editing techniques in all 192 countries members of the United Nations as well as in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, considered separately. We examined whether legislation on genome editing has evolved in relation to the legislation on transgenesis. We discussed the current situation in the 27 member states (MS) of the European Union (EU) as a major economic player. The final decision may influence the public and private research sectors as well as international trade.

Results

Legislation refers to the process of making laws by the legislative branch of government, such as parliaments or congresses, while regulation provides specific details and instructions on how to comply with laws to ensure their effective implementation and enforcement.

Based on an extensive review of numerous databases (see online methods) we found that most legislations worldwide identified three categories of site-directed nucleases (SDN). SDN-1 applications induce small-sized and undirected alterations at the target site, while SDN-2 involves the introduction of a few base pairs at the target site. In case of longer DNA sequence integration, it is known as a SDN-3 application¹². SDN-1 and SDN-2 lead to the classification of plants as conventional plants while SDN-3 often results in transgenic plants (with a few exceptions concerning intragenesis and cisgenesis in certain countries).

According to the decision tree we build up (Fig. 1 in additional information), we identified eight statuses for both GenEd plants and Tr plants: ‘allowed for any use (cultivation, import, export)’, ‘allowed for import’, ‘legislation under discussion’, ‘not allowed except for food aid’, ‘not allowed’, ‘regulated as Tr plants’, ‘no legislation’, and ‘no data available’. Each regulatory status has been assigned a color to create a table with all details by country (supplementary table 1 in additional information) and maps (Figs. 1, 2). The status of GenEd plants (Fig. 1a(world), 1b (Europe)) and Tr plants (Fig. 2a (world), 2b (Europe)) in the 196 countries is shown respectively. It is important to notice that GenEd plants and Tr plants are not necessarily subject to the same regulations.

Regulation on gene-edited plants in the world

The regulations of GenEd plants have been analysed exhaustively and presented by region and by chronological order.

Allowed for any use (cultivation, import, export)

This status, which authorises the cultivation, import and export of GenEd plants exempt from regulation, has been observed in 24 countries.

The Latin American region is the most accepting continent on regulation with a total of nine countries. Argentina was the first country to adopt a regulation in 2015. Then, Chile (2017), Brazil (2018), Colombia (2019), Guatemala (2019), Honduras (2019), Paraguay (2019), Costa Rica (2023), and Uruguay (2024) adopted a similar regulation.

The North American region with the USA (2019) and Canada (2023) are leaders in the commercialisation allowing their cultivation, import and export. Most of the companies testing and marketing foods derived from GenEd plants are based in the USA (supplementary Fig. 1and supplementary Table 2 in additional information).

In the Asian region, Israel was the first country to allow GenEd plants in 2017. Six other countries have adopted a similar regulation: Japan (2020), China (2022), Philippines (2022), India (2023), Singapore (2024), and Thailand (2024).

In the African region, only four countries allow for any use. In 2021, Nigeria was the first to adopt such a law on the continent, followed by Kenya (2022), Malawi (2022) and Rwanda (2024).

In the European region, England, whose UK left the EU on janvier 31, 2020, is the only country that allows GenEd plants for any use (2025).

In the Oceanian region, Australia (2019) is the only country to allow GenEd plants which are regulated as conventional crops.

Allowed for import

This status has only been observed in Ghana in the African region (2023), which authorises the import of GenEd plants for feed and/or food, while prohibiting their cultivation and export.

Legislation under discussion

Only 37 countries are currently discussing their regulation.

In the African region, Burkina Faso (2021), Mauritius (2024), Mozambique (2024), and Uganda (2024) are examining the status in their legislation.

In the Asian region, Indonesia (2020) and South Korea (2024) are adapting their current legislation. Documents have been drafted but there is no specific regulation on GenEd plants yet.

The EU is examining the status of GenEd plants with specific conditions which are analysed further in the present paper. Norway (2023), Liechtenstein (2024) and Switzerland (2025) are discussing the status.

In the Latin American region, Mexico (since 2016) is the only one currently discussing the status.

Not allowed except for food aid

There are no countries where this status has been observed.

Not allowed

This status, which bans GenEd plants for cultivation, import and export, has been adopted in 3 countries.

In the European region, the only country is Georgia (2017).

In the African region, the only country is Madagascar (2018).

In the South American region, Peru does not follow its neighbours, having renewed in 2021 a moratorium preventing the cultivation, import and export of LMOs (Living Modified Organisms, that possess a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology, as defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) until 2035.

Regulated as transgenics

This status, which regulates GenEd plants as Tr plants (GMOs), has been adopted in 7 countries.

In the African region, South Africa announced in 2023 that GenEd plants would fall under the same regulation as GMOs and could be produced, imported and exported.

In the European region, Moldova (2022), Northern Ireland (2023), Scotland (2023), and Wales (2023) decided that GenEd plants fall under the same regulation as GMOs and can be imported but not cultivated.

In the South American region, Nicaragua (2010) considered all engineered plants together and allowed them to be imported but not cultivated.

In the Oceanian region, New Zealand (2016) is the only country to consider GenEd plants as GMOs and forbid their cultivation.

No legislation

This status is adopted in 114 countries.

No data available

Ten countries do not provide any data.

Comparative statistics of GenEd versus Tr regulation

Of the 196 countries, 37 were excluded from the quantitative analysis because their Tr plants status was under discussion, no legislation or no data available, making it impossible to clearly classify them as permissive or restrictive. This leaves 159 countries with a defined Tr regime, of which 137 are permissive and 22 are restrictive. Of these, 31 permissive countries () allow GenEd plants, compared to  of restrictive countries. This difference is statistically significant (χ² = 6.18, df = 1, p = 0.0129; Fisher p = 0.0082), with a weak to moderate association () and a Haldane–Anscombe adjusted odds ratio of . Thus, a permissive country has approximately a 22.6% probability of ever authorising GenEd plants, versus 0% for a restrictive country.

The simulation applied to the 20 countries without regulations anticipates that in a permissive scenario, 5 of them could eventually authorize GenEd plants (versus 0 in a restrictive scenario). Detailed methods are available in the online version.

Commercialised gene-edited plants

Since 2019, GenEd plants from only eight species (mustard greens, soybean, Romaine lettuce, banana, Sicilian red tomato, waxy corn, potato, strawberry and camelina) have been placed in the market after being authorised by the country’s competent agency (Canada, Chile, Japan, and the USA) (supplementary Table 2 in additional information). The main traits modified are yield and food quality such as improved taste, non-browning aliments or trans-fat free oil.

Gene-edited plants planned to be commercialised

Some companies or public institutes have received an authorisation from their country’s competent agency and intend to market their products. A total of ten species (alfalfa (edited with TALEN), camelina, corn, grape, potato, soybean, sugarcane, tobacco, tomato, wheat) (supplementary Table 3 in additional information)¹³.

Situation of the regulation in the European Union

The opinion of Advocate General Bobek at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered on 18 January 2018 on the case C-528/16 considers that organisms obtained by mutagenesis are not subject to the regulations set out in the Directive 2001/18. The exemption laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18, read in conjunction with its Annex I B covers all organisms obtained by any technique of mutagenesis. In its judgment of 25 July 2018, in case C-528/1610 the CJEU held that Directive 2001/18 cannot be interpreted as excluding from its scope Genetically Modified Organisms (‘GMOs’) obtained by means of new techniques/methods of mutagenesis which have appeared or have been mostly developed since that Directive was adopted. NGT plants fall under the scope of the current Union legislation on GMOs. The Council requested the European Commission (EC) to submit a study in light of that judgment regarding the status of NGTs under Union law, and a proposal. The EC delivered the requested ‘Commission NGT study’ on 29 April 2021. It concluded that there are strong indications that the current Union GMO legislation (Directive 2001/18) is not fit to regulate NGT plants obtained by targeted mutagenesis or cisgenesis, and their food and feed products and that the legislation needs to be adapted to scientific and technical progress in this area. On 5 July 2023, the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of The Council created two distinct pathways for NGT plants and their food and feed products to be placed on the market¹⁴.

(1) NGT-1 plants, classified as equivalent to conventional plants, will be exempt from GMO regulation. They contain minor genetic modifications produced in the laboratory using NGTs that could also have occurred spontaneously in nature or resulted from a conventional selection process without the addition of foreign DNA to the breeder’s gene pool. Therefore, NGT-1 plants would be exempt if no more than 20 nucleotides were added or replaced during the gene editing and if contain small modifications to their genetic material (targeted mutagenesis) or insertions of genetic material from the same plant or from crossable plants (cisgenesis, including intragenesis). They are not subject to sanitary and environmental risk assessment. The EC has excluded herbicide tolerance from NGT1 plants.

(2) NGT-2 plants contain modifications that do not meet the criteria for the NGT-1 category. They are subject to appropriate “GMO-like” regulations which must be proportionate to the modified trait but include a safety and environmental risk assessment. The application file for authorisation of NGT-2 plants is much heavier than that for NGT-1 plants. It must include: (i) molecular traceability tools or, if traceability is impossible, an explanation of the reasons why; (ii) labelling that may include positive mentions (e.g., tolerance to drought or disease, improved food quality, etc.); (iii) environmental monitoring plans if necessary. The decisions notified by the authorities are recorded in the database mentioned above Fig. 3.

The current situation including the votes by the EC, the council and the parliament are presented in the discussion.

Field trials in the European Union

Field trials (FT) are a necessary step towards the future commercialisation of crops and products, whether for research and development or cultivation approval. Even if the EU legislation has not yet allowed the cultivation, import, export of GenEd plants, six MS (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Sweden) currently carry out 26 FTs with the national agency’s authorisation (Fig. 4). Nine species (Arabidopsis thaliana, barley, corn, grapevine, poplar, potato, rice, soybean, tomato) are being tested between 2021 and 2030. Sweden is the leader with a total of seven ongoing trials of three species (Arabidopsis thaliana, poplar, potato). Corn is the main tested crop (34.6% of FTs) (Fig. 2 in additional information). The novel traits are mostly resistance to biotic stress (pests and diseases), nutritional quality, drought tolerance, and plant structure. All plants are classified as NGT-1 except two plants. One is classified as NGT-2 due to the addition of one transgene for herbicide tolerance in soybean (Spain B/ES/25/05), the other due to the addition of four transgenes for drought tolerance in poplar (Sweden B/SE/23/21689). FTs in the rest of the world have already been studied in 2023¹⁵.

Discussion

Most countries have adopted the three SDN categories. However, some legislations have their own specificities.

Several countries are developing a policy of NGT plants based on the Cartagena Protocol that defines a living modified organism as “any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology”. Japan refers to the Cartagena protocol and exempt SDN-1, SDN-2, and Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis (ODM) as long as the absence of foreign DNA integration is proven in the latter cases.

Australia exempted organisms derived by SDN-1 mechanisms from restricted regulations of GMO (i.e., if an external sequence template was not used and if the organisms are free from foreign sequences). FSANZ adheres to a risk analysis approach recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the recognized international agency for global food standards. This approach involves risk assessment (identifying hazards in food and likely risks to human health), risk management (developing control measures that minimize the risks), and risk communication.

Several countries followed Argentina deregulating organisms derived by genome editing if they do not contain introduced foreign DNA-sequences (Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador).

In Africa some countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Malawi and Rwanda the regulations refer to the absence of “novel combination of DNA” in the genomes.

The Philippines established a procedure to regulate GenEd plants based on the key criteria are whether they possess novel combinations of genetic material not achievable by conventional breeding.

In the USA, since 2021 USDA APHIS implemented the “Revised Biotechnology Regulations” to provide clear and efficient regulatory pathways for applicants, when the plant products are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. On 25 May 2023 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced changes to its regulations concerning genetically engineered plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) to accelerate their use. These changes exempt PIPs created using genetic engineering that can be indistinguishable from those found in conventionally bred plants from registration and tolerance requirements. The FDA’s policy statement “Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties” (NPV policy) lays out broad, risk-based principles for ensuring the safety of foods from new plant varieties in February 2024. These principles apply to foods from genome-edited plant varieties.

Canada chose a product-based approach and proposed to exempt many GenEd plants from Tr regulation. Health Canada establishes standards for the safety and nutritional quality of all food sold in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces all health and safety standards under the Food and Drug Regulations. In Canada, regulatory oversight is triggered only where a novel trait is introduced, regardless of the technique used (conventional breeding, random mutagenesis, modern biotechnology or gene editing). The ‘novelty’ of the trait is compared to existing traits in products regarded as safe and on the market at a certain moment in time.

China has released guidelines for the safety evaluation of GenEd plants that do not harbour exogenous DNA-sequences (SDN-1, SDN 2) and has adopted a tiered assessment based on the risk profile of the target trait. If plants are not subject to the Tr regulation, they all pass the evaluation from the seed to the production before they are commercialised. GenEd plants are still managed under Tr regulation but may require much less complicated food and environmental safety evaluations compared to classical Tr plants. The first category (low risk) refers to plants/traits that do not increase the risk to environmental and food safety, the second to increased environmental risks, the third to increased food safety risks, and the fourth to increases in both environmental and food risks. Israel classified all the GenEd plants as conventional as long as they do not integrate foreign DNA (outside the breeder’s gene pool). Therefore, cisgenic and intragenic plants are deregulated while transgenic (Tr) plants are regulated.

India has implemented a risk-based approach and an appropriate risk assessment is planned to classify genome editing in the three SDN categories.

Norway may create two classifications: the ‘Precision Bred’ for changes within the species’ gene pool and ‘Genetically Modified’ for changes outside the species’ gene pool.

In Switzerland the current ‘Genetic Engineering Act’ considers GenEd plants as Tr plants and the year-long moratorium for cultivation of Tr plants will apply. Switzerland wants to include the EC proposal in its own considerations.

Currently seven countries regulate GenEd plants as Tr plants (Moldova, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, Wales). Regarding the 113 countries with no regulation yet they have a 22.6% chance to adopt this status.

In the EU and following the EC proposal, NGT-1 plants are equivalent to conventionally bred plants based on SDN-1 and SDN-2 categories in some cases. In the annex 1 (3) (a) of the proposal, if the SDN-2 is an insertion of a continuous DNA sequence existing in the breeder’s gene pool; (b) if the SDN-2 is a substitution of an endogenous DNA sequence with a continuous DNA sequence existing in the breeder’s gene pool, the plant is classified as NGT-1. If the DNA sequence is out of the breeder’s gene pool, the plant is classified as NGT-2. NGT-2 plants based on SDN-3 category are under the “GMO-like” regulatory framework (EC Directive 2001/18) which must be proportionate to the modified trait but include a safety and environmental risk assessment. The EC proposal allows researchers to add or move genes. Moving genes can lead to much more sophisticated effects than simply knocking out a gene with a mutation such as changing expression patterns. Regarding the addition or replacement of 20 nucleotides, this limit comes from a statistical calculation of nucleotides in Escherichia coli needed to prove that a sequence is unique in a genome. If there are more than 20 nucleotides, chances are it is due to human intervention. However, if less than 20 nucleotides have been modified, it is not possible to know whether it is due to human intervention or spontaneous mutation. Although this legislation would be less restrictive regarding the commercialisation of GenEd plants, it would still remain more rigid than the regulatory framework of countries such as Canada and the USA, potentially reducing the EU’s attractiveness to biotech companies. Conventional breeding and mutagenesis can induce genomic changes that are both more important in size and more frequent than the limit of 20 insertions of up to 20 nucleotides set by NGT-1. Natural variation also varies according to genome size and complexity (polyploidy), a factor not taken into account in the EC proposal. The proposed numerical limit of 20 modifications does not correspond to what is observed in nature, conventional breeding and mutagenesis¹⁶. The difficulty with such a delimitation is that it is destined to evolve rapidly over time, as progress is made in conventional breeding techniques. By way of comparison, the USDA APHIS proposed the following exemption in November 2024: “Plants with up to 12 modifications, made simultaneously or sequentially, are exempt from regulation if each modification individually qualifies the plant for exemption and occurs in a different gene. Modifications to either a single allele or pair of alleles on homologous chromosomes will count as one modification.” Commenting on its own exemption, USDA APHIS noted that “Given the rapid advances in plant breeding this number of modifications will quickly, if not already, become out of date”¹⁷.

The future of GenEd plants relies on the new capacity to reshape the genome¹⁸. This includes programming large structural variations (insertions, duplications, deletions, inversions and translocations). These changes that could have occurred naturally are now directed rapidly in laboratories. Indeed, deletions of >100 kb, copy number variations such as duplications and amplifications of genes, of larger chromosome segments, duplication of entire chromosomes (as a 300 kb chromosomal duplication obtained in rice¹⁹) or entire genomes (autopolyploidy) were obtained in crops. These large structural variations within the genome will lead GenEd plants to be classified as NGT-2. In case GenEd plants were to fall under “GMO-like’ legislation, more stringent requirements including the authorisation procedure, traceability and mandatory product labelling would be applied to them. Research and production of such GenEd plants could be slowed down in the EU. Moreover, as many countries with ongoing processes may follow the EU position, that decision may have some consequences on the global market.

Methods

We studied the following databases: the governmental site of each country when the data were available, the website of the European Commission (EC), and the website of the European Sustainable Agriculture through Genome Editing (EU-SAGE), the United States Department of Agriculture Global Agricultural Information Network (USDA GAIN) (November 2024 for the most recent reports), and the Food and Agriculture Organization surveys (FAO) from 2019 to 2025. Each web link can be found in supplementary table 1 in the additional information. The definition of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) comes from the Cartagena Protocol (Article 3) (https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf). For cultivation approvals, we examined all events recorded in the ISAAA GM approval database (which includes biotech events that have been approved for commercialisation/planting and importation at https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/) and in governmental databases).

We used RStudio for all data processing including statistical computations, graphical outputs, and the generation of global maps representing national regulatory statuses. We used Datawrapper (https://www.datawrapper.de) to generate a simplified and visually accessible version of the European map, especially for clearer representation of the UK’s different regions. Finally, the decision-tree diagram was created using WebGraphviz (https://www.webgraphviz.com).

To evaluate the relationship between national acceptance of GenEd plants and Tr plants, we used RStudio with the readxl, dplyr packages, the built-in functions chisq.test() and fisher.test(). The initial data, from an Excel file listing the regulatory status of GenEd plants and Tr plants in 196 countries, were imported and then cleaned in RStudio. We excluded countries whose frameworks for Tr plants were “under discussion”, “no regulation” or “no data available”, recoded Tr plants into two modalities (“Permissive” vs. “Restrictive”) and simplified GenEd plants into a binary variable (1= total authorization or import, 0= other). A 2×2 contingency table was constructed, followed by a Pearson χ² without continuity correction and a Fisher exact test. The strength of the association was measured by the φ-coefficient, then the Haldane-Anscombe corrected odds ratio (adding 0.5 per cell) was made with calculation of the log-normal confidence interval. A logistic regression model was finally fitted to estimate the predicted probabilities of authorisation of GenEd plants, and two scenarios were simulated for countries without regulations to assess their future authorisation.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

1. Gao, H. et al. Heritable targeted mutagenesis in maize using a designed endonuclease. Plant J 61, 176–187 (2010).Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 
2. Townsend, J. et al. High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459, 442–445 (2009).Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
3. Li, T. et al. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 390–392 (2012).Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 
4. Feng, Z. et al. Efficient genome editing in plants using a CRISPR/Cas system. Cell Res 23, 1229–1232 (2013).Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
5. Tuncel, A. et al. CRISPR-Cas applications in agriculture and plant research. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 419–441 (2025).Article Google Scholar 
6. Lin, Q. et al. Prime genome editing in rice and wheat. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 582–585 (2020).Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 
7. Li, B., Sun, C., Li, J. & Gao, C. Targeted genome-modification tools and their advanced applications in crop breeding. Nat. Rev. Genet. 25, 603–622 (2024).Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 
8. Liu, P. et al. Transposase-assisted target-site integration for efficient plant genome engineering. Nature 631, 593–600 (2024).Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
9. Gallego-Bartolome, J. et al. Co-targeting RNA polymerases IV and V promotes efficient de novo DNA methylation in Arabidopsis. Cell 176, 1068–1082.e1019 (2019).Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
10. Liu, S. et al. Hypercompact CRISPR–Cas12j2 (CasΦ) enables genome editing, gene activation, and epigenome editing in plants. Plant. Commun. 3, 100453 (2022).Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
11. Mullins, E. et al. EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms) Statement on criteria for risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA J 20, 7618 (2022).Google Scholar 
12. Kawall, K. The Generic Risks and the Potential of SDN-1 Applications in Crop Plants. Plants 10, 2259 (2021).Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
13. Gelinsky, E. Neue gentechnische Verfahren : Kommerzialisierungspipeline im Bereich Pflanzenzüchtung und Lizenzvereinbarungen (2025) https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/biotechnologie/publikationen-studien/studien.html.
14. European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their food and feed, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/625 (2023). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0411.
15. Ricroch, A. et al. Worldwide study on field trials of biotechnological crops: new promises but old policy hurdles. Front. Plant Sci. 15, 1452767 (2024).Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
16. Schulman, A. H. et al. Proposed EU NGT legislation in light of plant genetic variation. Ecoevorxiv (2025). https://doi.org/10.32942/X24632.
17. USDA APHIS. Guide for Requesting a Confirmation of Exemption from Regulations under 7 CFR part 340 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/confirmation-guide.pdf(2024).
18. Gilbertson, L., Puchta, H. & Slotkin, R. K. The future of genome editing in plants. Nat. Plants 11, 680–685 (2025).Article PubMed Google Scholar 
19. Lu, Y. et al. A donor-DNA-free CRISPR/Cas-based approach to gene knock-up in rice. Nat. Plants 7, 1445–1452 (2021).Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Marcel Kuntz for his valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Université Paris-Saclay, Faculté Jean-Monnet, Laboratoire IDEST, Sceaux, FranceAgnès Ricroch, Walid Ben Rahal, Basile Genty & Raphaëlle Lherminier
2. AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, FranceAgnès Ricroch, Walid Ben Rahal, Basile Genty & Raphaëlle Lherminier

Contributions

A.R. conceived the project, A.R., W.B.R., B.G., R.L. wrote and revised the manuscript. A.R., W.B.R., B.G., and R.L. have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnès Ricroch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary-Material-Ricroch-REV

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions