Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40586315›Full record

ReviewPlant biotechnology journal2025

Proposed EU NGT legislation in light of plant genetic variation.

Alan H Schulman, Frank Hartung, Marinus J M Smulders, Jens F Sundström, Ralf Wilhelm, Odd Arne Rognli, Karin Metzlaff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. From Lab to Field: CRISPRing Major CultivatedInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. What´s in a name: the issue with regulatory definitions.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alan H SchulmanHiLife Institute of Biotechnology and Viikki Plant Science Centre (ViPS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4126-6177
Frank Hartung *Julius Kuehn Institute (JKI) - Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.
Marinus J M Smulders *Plant Breeding, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8549-6046
Jens F Sundström *Department of Plant Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, The Linnean Centre for Plant Biology, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ralf Wilhelm *Julius Kuehn Institute (JKI) - Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9045-8792
Odd Arne Rognli *Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Ås, Norway.
Karin MetzlaffEuropean Plant Science Organisation (EPSO), Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

Jane ja Aatos Erkon Säätiö 210021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission (EC) proposal for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) of July 2023 specifies that Category 1 NGT (NGT1) plants, which are considered equivalent to conventional plants, that is those obtainable by conventional plant breeding or mutagenesis, may differ from the recipient or parental plant by no more than 20 insertions, which cannot be longer than 20 bp; deletions can be no more than 20 but of any size. Here, we examine the proposed 20/20 NGT1 limit against the background of the theoretical considerations and older data used to frame it and in light of recent data from highly contiguous long-read assemblies for reference genomes and pangenomes. We find that current genomic data indicate that natural variation in germplasm used by breeders is much greater than earlier understood and that both conventional breeding and mutagenesis can introduce genomic changes that are both more extensive in size and more frequent than the NGT Category 1 '20 insertions of maximum 20 bp' limit would allow. Furthermore, natural variation also scales with genome size and complexity, a factor not considered in the EC proposal. We conclude that the proposed cut-offs under which an NGT plant is considered equivalent to conventional plants do not align with what is observed in nature, conventional breeding and mutagenesis. Updating the 20/20 rule to broader limits would facilitate breeding for climate resilience, farming sustainability and nutritional security, while ensuring that NGT1 plants are equivalent to conventional ones.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationGenome, PlantGenomicsPlant BreedingPlantsEuropean UnionMutagenesisCRISPR/Cas9gene editingmutagenesisnew breeding techniques (NBT)new genomic techniques (NGT)plant genetic diversity

Identifiers

PMID40586315
PMCPMC12483989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.