Deregulating New Genomic Techniques: The Challenge of Ambiguous Objects

Plants derived through new genomic techniques (NGTs) occupy an inherently ambiguous space between genetically modified organisms and conventionally bred plants. Although created through targeted genome editing, many NGT plants are empirically indistinguishable from varieties arising naturally or through traditional breeding. This ambiguity generates corresponding regulatory and epistemic tensions: NGTs do not neatly fit the conceptual architecture that underpins the EU’s process-based GMO legislation. The European Commission’s 2023 Proposal for a Regulation on NGTs seeks to resolve this tension by introducing two new categories and significantly easing regulatory requirements for NGT plants deemed substantially equivalent to conventional ones. This shift from a precautionary, process-based model toward a product-based approach reflects an attempt to close conceptual uncertainties through legislative boundary-redrawing. Yet, such closure risks conflicting with the precautionary principle, which – while not mandating full authorisation procedures – requires procedural safeguards that keep decisions reversible as new knowledge emerges. Precaution is less a barrier to innovation than an institutional mechanism for learning under conditions of scientific indeterminacy. Scientific expertise itself reflects and reinforces these boundary dynamics. Beyond categorical continuity and blanket exclusion, this article points to a third -option: institutionalising productive ambiguity.