TOWARDS CONVIVIAL SCIENCES - the new book by Critical Scientists Switzerland
BEYOND THE FIX - the new podcast by Critical Scientists Switzerland
Consultation on the ‘New Breeding Technology Act’ in Switzerland
- Details
- New GE techniques

No scientific basis for a special law
Even 'new' genetic engineering is still genetic engineering; the term 'new breeding technologies' is misleading, as is the justification for a special law.
With the proposed 'Federal Act on Plants from New Breeding Technologies' (the Breeding Technology Act, or NZTG for short), the Federal Council is accommodating the genetic engineering lobby's wish to avoid regulating organisms modified by targeted genetic engineering techniques (such as CRISPR-Cas9) under the existing Genetic Engineering Act (GTG). However, this would be problematic both legally and scientifically.
Here's a summary of our arguments:
- As the Federal Council itself stated, the technologies of concern are genetic engineering processes, and the resulting organisms are genetically modified organisms (GMOs), from both a technical and legal perspective. This is in line with the assessment of the European Court of Justice, which in a judgment of 25 July 2018 in Case C-528/1627. Since there is already a law governing GMOs in the form of the Genetic Engineering Act (GTG), the present proposal constitutes a duplication of legislation.
- The designation of the proposed legislation as 'plants from new breeding technologies' is deceptive for a number of reasons. The term ‘breeding technologies’ obscures the fact that these are genetic engineering processes, and it potentially includes technologies that are not covered by the wording of the law. The misleading title of the law, coupled with a lack of conceptual precision in its text (e.g. how long are 'new' breeding technologies considered 'new'?), undermines both legal certainty and consumer freedom of choice. From a scientific and legal point of view, if something is genetically engineered, it must be labelled as such.
- CSS rejects the envisaged harmonisation with EU legislation on this matter. NGT-1 plants must be regulated as genetic engineering in Switzerland. They must undergo an environmental risk assessment and be labelled along the entire value chain, regardless of EU regulatory developments. The NGT-1 to NGT-3 categories are primarily regulatory constructs — the arbitrary "up to 20 modifications" threshold is not scientifically justified. Risk and equivalence should be based on phenotype, ecological function and genomic context, not the number of base pairs altered.
- The present draft regulation cannot guarantee GMO-free agriculture and production in Switzerland. Given the practical, economic and ecological obstacles, the coexistence of genetically modified and non-genetically modified plants is hardly feasible.
- The explanatory report of the Federal Office for the Environment uncritically adopts the hype and the often untested and unsubstantiated promises surrounding targeted genetic engineering techniques. It is not clear on what basis the Federal Council assumes that their use will ‘make agriculture more sustainable and increase the resilience of crops to climate change’. The question of the added value of plants produced using targeted genetic engineering techniques must be viewed extremely critically from both an ecological and an economic perspective: it must be defined much more clearly, must not be based exclusively on laboratory data, and must be reviewed at regular intervals. In addition to the speculative added value, the risks associated with the technology must also be identified and reviewed periodically.
- Overall, the NZGT draft, which was created under intense lobbying pressure and was not carefully thought through, is unacceptable in its current form. If the goal of a separate authorisation regulation for targeted genetic engineering procedures is to be pursued, it must be presented as part of a revision of the existing Genetic Engineering Act (GTG). Any such revision of the GTG must take into account the constitutional requirements (Art. 120 BV) and the legal requirements (Art. 37a para. 2 GTG). In accordance with the precautionary principle, it must place the general interest in an intact environment and human health above speculative hype (which also extends into science) and market forces, which regularly push for the deregulation of technologies for profit reasons and thus also evade their responsibility for possible damage, the risks of which are usually far greater than is commonly portrayed.
CSS Consultation Response (German) | Stellungnahme (PDF)
CSS Consultation questionnaire (German) | Fragenkatalog Vernehmlassung (PDF)
Science and policy in times of multicrisis and dissent
- Details
- Events
Athens | 15–17 May 2025
Conference on "Science and policy in times of multicrisis and dissent"
What are the roles of scientific evidence and advice and of corporate and non-commercial societal interests in decision-making? In what ways do unaccountable economic actors, interests and assumptions shape policy and scientific considerations about what is possible and what is needed? Under what conditions can existing public problem-definitions, as well as just decisions on them, be made scientifically and democratically legitimate? How should scientific advisors and policy-makers respond to scientific disagreements? And what can responsible scientists do when governments adopt measures intended to shut down or at least control scientific dissent, when it challenges dominant official narratives? Questions like these will be at the heart of the three days of reflection at this conference. By promoting open debate and reflection, this conference aims to engage with a plurality of perspectives on the science–policy interface.
When: Thursday 15 May – Saturday 17 May 2025
Where: Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece
Co-organisers: European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, Critical Scientists Switzerland & Academy of Athens
Funders: Mariolopoulos-Kanaginis Foundation for the Environmental Sciences , Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer pour le progrès humain, Triodos Foundation & Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft – GLS Treuhand
For more information, see here: https://ensser.org/events/2025/conference-programme-science-and-policy-in-times-of-multicrisis-and-dissent/
06/WIM CARTON on Carbon Dioxide Removal and Climate Overshoot
- Details
- BEYOND THE FIX Podcast

05/ANGELIKA HILBECK on The Politics and Promises of Genetic Engineering
- Details
- BEYOND THE FIX Podcast

04/RONY EMMENEGGER on Deep Geological Repositories for Solving the Nuclear Waste Problem?
- Details
- BEYOND THE FIX Podcast

03/CHRISTINE VON WEIZSÄCKER on Why Technofixes Won’t Save Us
- Details
- BEYOND THE FIX Podcast