It has always been evident that innovation only reveals its true value when it moves from the research laboratory into practical application. Universities and industrial research laboratories are centers of knowledge, but without transfer into practice, many groundbreaking discoveries remain unused. This is especially true for plant research: only when research results are applied in the fields can they contribute to securing global food supplies. As an article in the NZZ am Sonntag newspaper shows once again, plant scientists at Swiss universities are forced to conduct their cutting-edge research as a kind of shadow boxing. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that their innovations will ever have an impact.

Time is of the essence: our fields are genetically impoverished. And without new breeding methods, we will not have diversity in our seeds. But instead of using modern technologies such as epigenetics or targeted mutagenesis to strengthen the resilience of our crops, many decision-makers remain stuck in a defensive stance. It is high time that these circles took off their ideological blinders and listened to science. The current situation could hardly be more contradictory: according to the European Court of Justice, so-called “random mutagenesis” is classified as genetic engineering, but it is widely used—even in organic breeding. However, the much more targeted method, e.g., approaches such as CRISPR, falls under strict genetic engineering laws and is to remain banned.

Laws without factual basis

Nicolaus von Wirén, director of the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, rightly criticizes in the article: “Our laws are slowing down progress without any factual basis.” Plant geneticist Claudia Köhler, who is also quoted in the article, shares this assessment: “CRISPR is a further development of classical breeding. Those who ban it ignore scientific findings and block solutions for agriculture.” It is clear that many breeding methods—including those permitted in Europe—interfere deeply with the genetic makeup of crops. These include, for example, mutagenesis breeding, which is carried out using chemical or radioactive irradiation.

This political blockade on innovative breeding methods is often justified by the wishes and views of the population. In a representative survey conducted by the research institute gfs in 2024, around 77 percent of respondents rejected genetically modified plants. However, the same study shows that when people recognize the concrete benefits of new breeding methods, acceptance increases significantly. These methods perform particularly well in comparison to conventional mutation breeding methods, which, as mentioned above, sometimes rely on radioactive radiation or chemicals (so-called mutagenesis). This is often ignored in the public debate.

Blockade in epigenetics too

In addition to CRISPR technology, there is another promising development: epigenetics*. This field of research investigates the mechanisms by which plants flexibly adapt their genetic material to environmental changes – without altering the DNA itself. Epigenetic changes are reversible, which distinguishes them from classic genetic engineering. Despite this potential, epigenetic methods such as those used by the Swiss start-up TEGenesis are blocked for regulatory reasons. The company has been waiting for approval for years, but the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) classifies its method – which merely uses a chemical impulse to activate a plant learning process – as genetic engineering.

The hostility to innovation in the field of plant breeding is also evident in the debate surrounding patents. Opponents often criticize them on the grounds that they lead to a monopolization of seeds. But this is a misunderstanding. Patents do not protect the seeds themselves, but rather the specific characteristics that have been developed through research. As Michael Hengartner, President of the ETH Board, recently emphasized, patents are essential for Switzerland as a center of innovation. They enable transparency, as the formulas are disclosed, and thus create the basis for other researchers to build on the findings and achieve further progress. In addition, there are functioning instruments such as licensing platforms that enable smaller breeders to use patented innovations.

Swiss legislation in the field of plant breeding urgently needs a scientifically sound update. After all, the agriculture of the future needs solutions, not bans.