EFSA was requested by the European Commission (in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) to provide a scientific opinion on the application of new developments in biotechnology (new genomic techniques, NGTs) to viable microorganisms and products of category 4 to be released into the environment or placed on the market as or in food and feed, and to non-viable products of category 3 to be placed on the market as or in food and feed. A horizon scanning exercise identified a variety of products containing microorganisms obtained with NGTs (NGT-Ms), falling within the remit of EFSA, that are expected to be placed on the (EU) market in the next 10 years. No novel potential hazards/risks from NGT-Ms were identified as compared to those obtained by established genomic techniques (EGTs), or by conventional mutagenesis. Due to the higher efficiency, specificity and predictability of NGTs, the hazards related to the changes in the genome are likely to be less frequent in NGT-Ms than those modified by EGTs and conventional mutagenesis. It is concluded that EFSA guidances are \'partially applicable\', therefore on a case-by-case basis for specific NGT-Ms, fewer requirements may be needed. Some of the EFSA guidances are \'not sufficient\' and updates are recommended. Because possible hazards relate to genotypic and phenotypic changes introduced and not to the method used for the modification, it is recommended that any new guidance should take a consistent risk assessment approach for strains/products derived from or produced with microorganisms obtained with conventional mutagenesis, EGTs or NGTs.

EFSA was asked by the European Parliament to provide a scientific opinion on the analysis by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) of Annex I of the European Commission proposal for a regulation \'on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) and their food and feed, and amending regulation (EU) 2017/625\'. The Panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO) assessed the opinion published by ANSES, which focuses on (i) the need to clarify the definitions and scope, (ii) the scientific basis for the equivalence criteria and (iii) the need to take potential risks from category 1 NGT plants into account. The EFSA GMO Panel considered the ANSES analysis and comments on various terms used in the criteria in Annex I of the European Commission proposal and discussed definitions based on previous EFSA GMO Panel opinions. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that the available scientific literature shows that plants containing the types and numbers of genetic modifications used as criteria to identify category 1 NGT plants in the European Commission proposal do exist as the result of spontaneous mutations or random mutagenesis. Therefore, it is scientifically justified to consider category 1 NGT plants as equivalent to conventionally bred plants with respect to the similarity of genetic modifications and the similarity of potential risks. The EFSA GMO Panel did not identify any additional hazards and risks associated with the use of NGTs compared to conventional breeding techniques in its previous Opinions.

Plants edited with new genomic techniques (NGTs) currently fall under the Genetically Modified Organisms Directive (2001/18/EC) in the European Union. In the proposal of the European Commission, NGT plants are partially exempted from the regulations of this directive. The proposal makes a distinction between two categories of NGT plants: NGT-1 and NGT-2. NGT-1 category plants are considered equal to plants obtained through conventional breeding methods. These plants will not be labelled for the consumer, although they will be labelled as seeds. NGT-2 category plants may be labelled with additional information as a positive incentive. Labelling of seeds of varieties made with gene editing, but not the products, would mean that most steps in the production chain are transparent, but not the last step towards consumers. The \"right to know\" and increasing knowledge of gene-edited food is a common theme in food labelling towards consumers. Here, we describe current labelling regimes and registers and how these may be applied to provide transparency on gene-edited products to consumers. Furthermore, we also look into consumer studies, which indicate a greater acceptance of gene-edited food among consumers, especially when additional benefits such as sustainability are mentioned.

With scientific progress and the development of new genomic techniques (NGTs), the spectrum of organisms modified for various purposes is rapidly expanding and includes a wide range of taxonomic groups. An improved understanding of which newly developed products may be introduced into the market and released into the environment in the near and more distant future is of particular interest for policymakers, regulatory authorities, and risk assessors. To address this information need, we conducted a horizon scanning (HS) of potential environmental applications in four groups of organisms: terrestrial animals (excluding insects and applications with gene drives), fish, algae and microorganisms. We applied a formal scoping review methodology comprising a structured search of the scientific literature followed by eligibility screening, complemented by a survey of grey literature, and regulatory websites and databases. In all four groups of organisms we identified a broad range of potential applications in stages of basic as well as advanced research, and a limited number of applications which are on, or ready to be placed on, the market. Research on GM animals including fish is focused on farmed animals and primarily targets traits which increase performance, influence reproduction, or convey resistance against diseases. GM algae identified in the HS were all unicellular, with more than half of the articles concerning biofuel production. GM algae applications for use in the environment include biocontrol and bioremediation, which are also the main applications identified for GM microorganisms. From a risk assessor\'s perspective these potential applications entail a multitude of possible pathways to harm. The current limited level of experience and limited amount of available scientific information could constitute a significant challenge in the near future, for which risk assessors and competent authorities urgently need to prepare.

Information on the state of the environment is important to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal, including the EU\'s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The existing regulatory provisions for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) foresee an obligatory post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of potential adverse effects upon release into the environment. So far, GMO monitoring activities have focused on genetically modified crops. With the advent of new genomic techniques (NGT), novel GMO applications are being developed and may be released into a range of different, non-agricultural environments with potential implications for ecosystems and biodiversity. This challenges the current monitoring concepts and requires adaptation of existing monitoring programs to meet monitoring requirements. While the incorporation of existing biodiversity monitoring programs into GMO monitoring at the national level is important, additional monitoring activities will also be required. Using case examples, we highlight that monitoring requirements for novel GMO applications differ from those of GM crop plants previously authorized for commercial use in the European Union.

Recently, the European Commission (EC) published a regulatory proposal on plants generated with new genomic techniques (NGTs) (5 July 2023). According to this proposal, NGT plant applications are categorized into category 1 NGT (NGT1) and category 2 NGT (NGT2) based on their molecular characteristics, which diverges from the current legislation centered around Directive 2001/18/EC. To demonstrate where the path of the proposal leads to in practice, we applied the proposed criteria for categorization to a list of NGT plant applications currently in the commercialization pipeline. Combining literature research and a descriptive statistical approach, we can show that 94% of the plant applications affected by the EC proposal, would be classified as NGT1 and thus would receive market approval without risk assessment, monitoring, and sufficient labeling provisions. The remaining 6% of applications would be classified as NGT2 plants, for which, in deviation from the current regulation, an adapted risk assessment is proposed. Screening of the intended traits in the pipeline highlights that certain NGT1 plants can pose similar environmental risks (e.g., invasiveness) to other genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as defined in Directive 2001/18/EC. For example, NGT1 applications based on RNA interference technology can exhibit insecticidal effects with potential side effects on non-target organisms (i.e., other insects). Our quantitative and case-specific elaboration of how the current EC regulatory proposal would affect the environment, health, and consumer protection will be informative for decision-makers and politicians.

Nontransgenic New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) have emerged as a promising tool for food industries, allowing food cultures to contribute to an innovative, safe, and more sustainable food system. NGTs have the potential to be applied to microorganisms, delivering on challenging performance traits like texture, flavour, and an increase of nutritional value. This paper brings insights on how nontransgenic NGTs applied to food cultures could be beneficial to the sector, enabling food industries to generate innovative, safe, and sustainable products for European consumers. Microorganisms derived from NGTs have the potentials of becoming an important contribution to achieve the ambitious targets set by the European \'Green Deal\' and \'Farm to Fork\' policies. To encourage the development of NGT-derived microorganisms, the current EU regulatory framework should be adapted. These technologies allow the introduction of a precise, minimal DNA modification in microbial genomes resulting in optimized products carrying features that could also be achieved by spontaneous natural genetic evolution. The possibility to use NGTs as a tool to improve food safety, sustainability, and quality is the bottleneck in food culture developments, as it currently relies on lengthy natural evolution strategies or on untargeted random mutagenesis.

The terms \"New Genomic Techniques\" (NGTs) or \"Genome Editing\" refer to various methods that allow finding, cleaving, and repairing specific sequences in the genome. These techniques could contribute to managing various challenges in plant breeding and agriculture. Aside from regulatory uncertainties, the lack of consumer acceptance has frequently been cited as a significant barrier to the widespread use of NGTs in plant breeding and agriculture across the planet. This study was based on an anonymous online survey (N = 1202). It investigated what consumers from two countries that differ in gene technology regulation, namely the United States of America and Switzerland, thought about three specific applications of NGTs in plant breeding (i.e., blight-resistant potato, gluten-free wheat, cold-resistant soybean). The study highlights the importance of the affect heuristic for acceptance, as half of the participants in both countries expressed positive feelings regarding the three applications, a quarter of the participants expressed negative, and the remaining participants expressed torn or neutral emotions. Some evidence was provided that the regulatory context might have acted as a risk cue, as participants in Switzerland expressed more negative feelings, perceptions, and lower acceptance than participants from the United States of America. Lastly, our findings underscore the importance of a collaboration between the life sciences and social sciences in balancing technological innovations and public perceptions and acceptance, which have been shown in this study to be impacted by affect, values, and context.

Climate change and rapid adaption of invasive pathogens pose a constant pressure on the fruit industry to develop improved varieties. Aiming to accelerate the development of better-adapted cultivars, new breeding techniques have emerged as a promising alternative to meet the demand of a growing global population. Accelerated breeding, cisgenesis, and CRISPR/Cas genome editing hold significant potential for crop trait improvement and have proven to be useful in several plant species. This review focuses on the successful application of these technologies in fruit trees to confer pathogen resistance and tolerance to abiotic stress and improve quality traits. In addition, we review the optimization and diversification of CRISPR/Cas genome editing tools applied to fruit trees, such as multiplexing, CRISPR/Cas-mediated base editing and site-specific recombination systems. Advances in protoplast regeneration and delivery techniques, including the use of nanoparticles and viral-derived replicons, are described for the obtention of exogenous DNA-free fruit tree species. The regulatory landscape and broader social acceptability for cisgenesis and CRISPR/Cas genome editing are also discussed. Altogether, this review provides an overview of the versatility of applications for fruit crop improvement, as well as current challenges that deserve attention for further optimization and potential implementation of new breeding techniques.

The current initiative of the European Commission (EC) concerning plants produced using certain new genomic techniques, in particular, targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, underlines that a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment needs to be maintained when using such applications. The current EU biosafety regulation framework ensures a high level of protection with a mandatory environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) products prior to the authorization of individual GMOs for environmental release or marketing. However, the guidance available from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for conducting such an ERA is not specific enough regarding the techniques under discussion and needs to be further developed to support the policy goals towards ERA, i.e., a case-by-case assessment approach proportionate to the respective risks, currently put forward by the EC. This review identifies important elements for the case-by-case approach for the ERA that need to be taken into account in the framework for a risk-oriented regulatory approach. We also discuss that the comparison of genome-edited plants with plants developed using conventional breeding methods should be conducted at the level of a scientific case-by-case assessment of individual applications rather than at a general, technology-based level. Our considerations aim to support the development of further specific guidance for the ERA of genome-edited plants.