New Genomic Techniques: Key Dates in a Genetic Revolution

Emerging in the early 2000s with the rise of targeted genome editing, new genomic techniques (NGTs in French, NGTs in English) represent a major shift in plant improvement methods. While their scientific development is part of an international dynamic, their regulatory trajectory diverges significantly across regions of the world. This global timeline only becomes European when the European Union distinguishes itself with a major legal turning point in 2018, which continues to shape current debates.

Before NGTs: Improving Plants Before Genome Editing

From the 1930s to the 1990s: The Era of Random Mutations OR When Plant Improvement Relied Mainly on Field or Greenhouse Observation

Long before the advent of NGTs, plant improvement relied on selection through field observation and the creation of extra-specific diversity through random mutagenesis, practiced since the mid-20th century. Exposing seeds to chemical agents or radiation induces genetic mutations, ideally selected for their traits of interest.

These techniques lead to numerous and non-targeted modifications of the genome. They constitute, in addition to the natural diversity exploitable through crossing, a historical foundation of plant improvement, but do not fall under NGTs, which are precisely distinguished by their targeted and controlled nature.

Early 2000s: Birth of NGTs

The Entry into Directed Mutagenesis

New genomic techniques emerge in the early 2000s, with the development of tools capable of modifying a specific sequence of the genome at a determined location. This directed mutagenesis allows for the first time:

1. to intervene on the chosen gene,
2. to induce a specific mutation,
3. without necessarily introducing foreign DNA into the genome.

It marks a major technological break from previous random approaches and constitutes the scientific birth of NGTs.

2012–2013: CRISPR-Cas9, a Scale Change

The Democratization of NGTs

The development of CRISPR-Cas9 in 2012 represents a decisive turning point. This advancement is based on the work of Jennifer Doudna (University of California, Berkeley) and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Max Planck Institute, Berlin), who demonstrated how a natural mechanism used by bacteria could be transformed into a programmable tool capable of cutting DNA at a precise location. Very quickly, the international scientific community seized this technology. By 2013, it was applied to plants used as research models, paving the way for targeted genome editing of major agricultural or vegetable species in the following years. CRISPR-Cas9 does not create NGTs, but it becomes their accelerator:

1. global diffusion of practices,
2. significant investments in venture capital firms as well as in the seed sector
3. multiplication of research projects,
4. increased visibility of NGTs in public and political debate.

2018: A Regulatory Turning Point in Europe

The Legal Fork

On July 25, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided that organisms resulting from these new techniques fall under the scope of the 2001 GMO directive. This decision leads to:

1. the legal assimilation of NGT plants to GMOs,
2. the application of heavy authorization procedures,
3. specific labeling of products derived from them
4. a significant slowdown in development and market entry in Europe.

This turning point is specifically European and does not reflect the situation observed in many other regions of the world, including nearby Great Britain, which, upon leaving the EU, announced that it accepts these new products without specific labeling.

These international trajectories show that the European turning point of 2018 does not correspond to a global slowdown of NGTs, but to a regulatory choice specific to the Union.

2021: Recognition of an Inadequate Framework

The Institutional Finding

In 2021, the European Commission published a study concluding that existing GMO legislation is no longer suitable for NGTs. This finding officially acknowledges the gap between the state of scientific knowledge and the regulatory framework in force for GMOs.

2023: Towards a Reform of the European Framework

The NGT Regulation Proposal

In July 2023, the European Commission presented a proposal to establish a specific framework for certain plants derived from NGTs, distinguishing different levels of genomic correction. The goal is to reconcile innovation, sustainability, and health safety while addressing societal expectations.

2024–Present: A Trajectory Still Under Construction

Discussions continue among European institutions, member states, and stakeholders. NGTs now occupy a central place in reflections on adapting agriculture to climate change, the resilience of food systems, and the competitiveness of sectors.

Agricultural Competitiveness and Strategic Issues

The observed divergences between the European Union and many other regions of the world in regulating NGTs are not solely due to legal or scientific choices. They have direct implications for agricultural competitiveness. Differentiated access to genetic innovation conditions the ability of sectors to develop varieties adapted to climate stresses, emerging diseases, sustainability requirements, and even their specific demands in terms of commercial products.

In a context of increased international competition, these regulatory gaps can influence the relative position of agriculture in global markets, both in terms of productivity and innovation capacity. They also raise, in the background, the question of intellectual property. The development and protection of innovations resulting from NGTs are currently concentrated in regions that allow and value them.

Thus, the reflection on NGTs goes beyond the mere framework of biotechnology. It engages in structuring choices regarding agricultural sovereignty, innovation strategy, and control of technological assets, calling for an in-depth debate on the place Europe wishes to occupy in the global competition of plant, animal, and medical innovation.