Switzerland remains one of Europe’s more cautious jurisdictions on agricultural biotechnology because it classifies all gene-edited plants and animals out of its broader GMO regime as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under current law. According to the Swiss Expert Committee for Biosafety, the marketing of genetically modified organisms is governed by the Gene Technology Act. In June 2025, the Swiss and related rules, and Parliament extended the cultivation moratorium in June 2025 through the end of 2030. In practical terms, that means gene-edited plants are not already moving under a separate Swiss commercial framework. At the same time, the same official overview makes clear that the cultivation moratorium does not block tightly controlled field trials or the marketing of authorized GMO food and feed under separate approval rules.of GMO food and feed or gene edited varieties.
In September 2024, the Federal Council made public its desire for a new law for plants produced with new breeding technologies, and on the 2nd of April 2025 it opened consultation on a draft law, known as the Breeding Technologies Act, in April 2025 to liberalize regulations for certain crops. However, the Swiss proposal does not treat all gene editing alike. In the official explanatory report, the government says that “New Breeding Technologies” (NBTs) for this draft, which is strictly defined as: targeted mutagenesis that makes precise changes or “edits” to a plant’s existing DNA; and targeted cisgenesis that inserts genetic material, but only from a plant within the same species or a closely related one that could crossbreed naturally using tools such as CRISPR. Any plant containing “transgenic” DNA, material from an unrelated species, remains excluded from this new path and stays under the strict GMO ban. The Swiss proposal also uniquely requires that any modification respect the “Dignity of Living Beings,” a constitutional principle that weighs the benefit of the edit against the “integrity” of the plant. The same report explains that targeted mutagenesis includes genome-editing methods such as CRISPR and allows defined changes at specific points in the genome, including deletions, insertions, or substitutions. Targeted cisgenesis, by contrast, covers the insertion of genetic material that already belongs to the species’ own conventional breeding pool. The report also states that techniques involving the insertion of foreign genetic material do not fall under this new law.
The draft is more permissive than the traditional Swiss moratorium model, but it is not a free pass. In the official explanatory report to the draft law, the Federal Council says plants produced with new breeding technologies would be handled through a risk-based system with two different procedures: a lighter approval route where comparable plants with comparable changes have already been found safe, and a route with an environmental risk assessment where no such comparable plant has yet been judged safe. The same report says plants judged safe should be published together with the relevant information. In the draft law itself, approval is tied to added value for agriculture, the environment, or consumers, along with safeguards for conventional production and consumer choice. Its aim is a risk-based authorization process for plants from new breeding technologies, with potential agronomic goals such as reducing pesticide use and improving drought resilience.
If this system is enacted, it would place Switzerland somewhere between the older current European-style precautionary and process model and the more permissive product-based systems used in countries such as the United States and Canada. It is moving away from a simple moratorium-only posture, but it is not treating gene-edited plants as automatically equivalent to conventional crops. As the Federal Council’s consultation notice explains, the aim is a risk-based authorization procedure for plants from new breeding technologies, with potential agronomic goals such as reducing pesticide use and improving drought resilience.
Switzerland has no plans to relax its approval process for food-producing animals, including aquaculture species, Switzerland remains restrictive. The current reform is explicitly framed by the government as a law on plants from new breeding technologies, and the consultation materials do not create a parallel pathway for gene-edited livestock or fish. While the plant side is under active legislative review, animal applications remain under Switzerland’s existing biotechnology rules rather than a new dedicated approval track.
Switzerland is no longer simply frozen in place on gene editing. It is developing a separate legal pathway for some gene-edited plants. But the country is not yet open to them. The rule that still applies is the cultivation moratorium, extended through December 31, 2030, and the proposed reform is limited to plants rather than food-producing animals.
NGO Reaction
A broad coalition of Swiss environmental, organic, consumer, church, seed, animal-welfare, and small-farm groups are aligned in opposition to gene editing, attempting to keep strict controls in place as the government moves ahead with the Breeding Technologies Act. They are lobbying to recognize gene edited plants as GMOs but regulate them using a special risk-based framework. A cross-section of NGOs led by the Association for GMO-Free Food/Verein für gentechnikfreie Lebensmittel has also expressed concern that BTA would undercut the Food Protection Initiative, a proposed constitutional amendment aimed to make sure new genomic techniques, including gene editing, remain legally treated as GMOs and subject to risk assessment, traceability, coexistence rules, and clear labeling before field release or market approval. Other supporters of the initiative include Bio Suisse, Greenpeace, SWISSAID, the Swiss German Association of Small Farmers, and the Swiss Alliance for GMO-Free Agriculture, GenAu Rheinau, Demeter, FiBL, StopOGM, Uniterre, Biovision, bioverita, ProSpecieRara, Sativa Rheinau, and the SKS/FRC/ACSI consumer organizations.
The Swiss Alliance for GMO-Free Agriculture, Bio Suisse, and the Swiss Farmers’ Association have argued that new genomic techniques should remain clearly identified as genetic engineering and that products from these techniques should be labeled throughout the food chain to protect freedom of choice, safety protections, and consumer confidence. Bio Suisse’s position is especially rooted in protecting organic production, where genetically modified plants remain prohibited; it has called for technology-specific labeling, clear traceability, and coexistence rules so that the costs and risks of GMO-free production do not fall on organic or conventional producers. The Swiss Farmers’ Union should be described separately: it acknowledges that new breeding techniques are legally and technically treated as genetic engineering, but it has also argued for an “open-ended” legal development for non-transgenic techniques, provided there is EU compatibility, proven agronomic, economic or ecological benefit, patent safeguards, and consumer acceptance.
SWISSAID has framed its opposition in sustainability terms, arguing that new genetic technologies are not the right answer to climate stress, pesticide use, biodiversity loss, or declining soil fertility, and that the real need is a shift toward sustainable and equitable agriculture. Its statement backing the Food Protection Initiative calls for strict rules, comprehensive risk assessment, and clear labeling, while tying the broader debate to concerns about patents, market concentration, and corporate control over seeds.
Updated: 11/05/2026
