b'THE RISK CORNER BY: DAVID ZARUKEUROPEAN NGT REGULATIONS: RISKS OF DIVERGENCE AND ADHOCRACYA fter decades of wilful ignorance,EU will likely struggle to continue to justifyan emotional value which is difficult to authorities in the UK, Switzerlandthe technology-focused strategy. define in a regulation. All researchers will and the European Union shouldThe British and Swiss regulationsdefend their innovations as more sustain-have new NGT regulations by the end ofprotect intellectual property rights (pat- able, only to be determined on an ad hoc 2026. The problem is their policies are notents) while the EU is trying to find a waybasis.aligned and, in the case of the Europeanto prevent large corporations from domi- If an NGT is herbicide-tolerant, it cannot Union, are neither coherent nor rational.nating the seed market. They will introducebe considered under the looser first cat-Intense stakeholder pressure has led to adan expert group a year after the implemen- egory (it is immediately classified as a hoc solutions which will not address foodtation of the regulation to consider patentGMO). This is not at all related to the chain sustainability. applications on an ad hoc basis. Withoutresearch or technology but from the Briefly, the British and EU NGTclear patent protection, will more Europeanorganic food industry lobbys long-stand-regulations divide seed breeding technol- researchers leave the EU? ing campaign against herbicides. ogies into two categories: NGTs whereThese researchers likely wont move to Member States will determine whethermodifications that could occur naturallySwitzerland where they have also added aorganic farmers can use the NGTs.or via conventional breeding (eg, targetedclause to their NGT regulation requiring The promise to establish an expert groupmutagenesis, cisgenesis); and GMOsrespect for the dignity of living beings.to examine the NGT patent question at a where genetic modifications often involveIf all plants have dignity, then they havelater date is but one more example of the foreign DNA. NGTs have a simplifiedrights that cannot be obstructed. As civilad hoc nature of the EUs regulation. authorization process and no labelling onsociety groups have been given a say inThere is no scientific basis to these the final products whereas the GMOs fallthe new approval process and Switzerlandcorollaries but indicates a rather desperate under stricter authorization and labellinghas the right to refuse imports of anyattempt by European officials to push any-requirements. The incoming Swiss law doesEU-approved NGTs, it is safe to assumething through their process-based NGT not have a two-tiered system and requiresthat Swiss consumers will be doing evenregulation. It is not bureaucracy but rather, all technologies undergo the same (strict)more of their grocery shopping in neigh- adhocracy.authorization process. bouring countries. Adhocracy is a term coined by Alvin Such diverging policies will createToffler in his 1970 book Future Shock. It REGULATORY DIVERGENCEmore consumer confusion and activistrefers to a flexible, adaptable, and informal After the problems of previous GMO pol- opportunity. form of organization defined by a lack of icies, one would have expected authoritiesformal structure. Rather than laws and reg-to have coordinated their new regulationsADHOCRACY ulations, an adhocratic system would have . at least in Europe. The EU NGT regulation is a product ofspecialized multidisciplinary teams assess The first thing regulators shouldstakeholder compromises rather than aeach situation on a case-by-case basis. Is this have agreed upon is what to call the seedrational scientific approach. It was intro- the best approach to govern NGT policies?breeding technologies. In the EU, they areduced as a means to counterbalance theAdhocracy might work for self-gov-called NGTs (New Genomic Techniques).stifling Farm2Fork strategy and allowerning online communities but not for In the UK they are known as Precision- European agriculture to survive the EUsresearchers where spontaneous decisions Bred Organisms (PBOs). Switzerland alsoGreen Deal chokehold. At the same time,without any scientific basis or rationale uses the NGT acronym, but it stands formany anti-GMO activist positions had tocan upend scientific developments at a Non-Human Gene Technology. Meanwhilebe integrated into the regulation (restric- moments notice. For researchers, the EUs NGO groups like GM Watch call themtions on patents, traceability and herbi- adhocratic NGT regulation is worse than GMO-NGTs to ensure that the publiccide-tolerant plants). This has led to manyno regulation.fear of GMOs is transferred onto the newirrational ad hoc compromises. As researchers migrate to the best technologies. The EU regulation plans to incentivizeenvironment to develop their products and The UK regulation focuses on thetechnologies that support EU sustainabil- technologies, the Swiss and EU regulators product (what the plant is) while the EUity goals like pest resistance and droughtshould align their policies with the British and Switzerland consider the process ortolerance. But what about innovationslaws on NGTs. If not, plus a change. technology (how it was made). This pro- that increase yields allowing farmers cess-based approach had handcuffed theto rewild their less productive fields?David Zaruk is a professor based in Brussels EUs GMO policies and as many NGTOr cover cropping (with herbicides) towriting on environmental-health risk policy plants are identical to traditional plants, theimprove soil health? Sustainability iswithin the EU Bubble.36ISEED WORLD EUROPEISEEDWORLD.COM/EUROPE | FEBRUARY 2026'