The International Seed Federation (ISF) is doubling down on its message: the future of plant breeding depends on predictable, science‑based and globally consistent regulation of gene‑edited seeds.
Speaking with AgTechNavigator, ISF Secretary General Michael Keller made the case that gene editing – when it does not introduce foreign DNA – should be treated like conventional breeding, not subjected to GMO‑style burdens that slow progress and concentrate innovation in the hands of a few.
“Breeding takes time,” he said. “It can take eight years to bring a new wheat variety to market, 14 years for potato, and 20 years for lettuce.”
Seeds move, he stressed. “And only when regulations provide certainty can breeders fully invest, innovate and partner with farmers to bring solutions to the field and to consumers.”
Why the ISF wants gene editing treated differently from GMOs
The ISF’s stance is clear: oversight should be proportionate to risk. If a gene‑edited plant is indistinguishable from one that could have been produced through traditional methods – and contains no stable insertion of foreign DNA – it should not be regulated as a GMO.
This approach is not only scientifically grounded but essential for keeping innovation accessible to the thousands of small and medium‑sized breeders that make up the global seed sector, Keller argues.
“Innovation is in the DNA of the seed sector,” he said. Nearly 20% of turnover is reinvested every year into R&D. “And this is not innovation for innovation’s sake.”
Patchwork regulatory systems – where each country applies different rules, timelines and definitions – create uncertainty that undermines investment and slows the release of improved varieties, he warns.
“No country worldwide is seed independent,” he said. “There’s an interdependency on seed supply, on diversity.”
Breeders need help getting access to these innovations, which starts with clear and consistent rules, he believes.
The case for “conventional equivalence”
Keller’s ideal situation is what he calls “conventional equivalence”: If one country determines that a gene‑edited plant is equivalent to conventional breeding, others should recognise that ruling – avoiding duplicative assessments and eliminating regulatory bottlenecks that disrupt seed trade.
“I dream that we find a system where gene editing is accepted as conventional breeding, and that once something is regulated in one country, it can move to another without reassessment,” he said. “We are interdependent. We should collaborate, but we need to take into account also the different sensitivities.”
Full global harmonisation may not be realistic today, he concedes, which is why ISF and regional partners (e.g., Euroseeds in the EU and the British Society of Plant Breeders in the UK) continue country‑by‑country engagement.
But growing alignment – spanning Argentina, Japan, Brazil, the US and now the UK and EU – is giving the industry hope.
Momentum builds: the regulatory winds are shifting
Examples of progress are emerging:
- Argentina pioneered the “no foreign DNA” product‑based approach in 2015, now widely referenced by other regulators.
- In the UK the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act came into force in November 2025 and allows the release and marketing of precision bred plants in England.
- The EU is expected to endorse its New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) agreement, introducing a provisional regulatory framework for plants developed using advanced gene-editing methods like CRISPR/Cas.
These shifts are significant. They build the regulatory stability required for breeders to think long‑term and launch programmes they believe will reach markets in a realistic timeframe.
Unlocking innovation in both major and underutilised crops
Gene editing is not just a tool for mainstream crops, Keller stresses. It is already being used in yams, millet, sorghum and cassava – crops where private investment has historically been thin. “We have opportunities to build breeding programmes on crops where we didn’t previously invest a lot of money,” he said.
The same applies to traits with high societal benefit. For example, food waste is an area where gene editing is poised to make a tangible impact.
“There are potentially around 100 breeding programmes focused on tomato shelf life,” Keller noted. “Shelf life is critical – it’s a real opportunity to reduce food waste. Gene editing gives breeders another tool to extend the shelf life of tomatoes or lettuce.”
Work on non‑browning bananas by companies like Tropic also shows how previously unachievable traits can now reach the edge of commercialisation.
“These examples show what’s possible – and many more will follow,” he said.
Farmers still decide: regulation must support trust and real‑world performance
Despite the policy discussions, Keller remains adamant that farmers – not technology – drive adoption.
“We cannot just show up to farmers and say, ‘Here is the solution – use it,’” he said. ISF emphasises on‑farm trials, local adaptation and trust‑building, ensuring varieties meet farmers’ real needs under real conditions.
“The farmer can choose whatever they want. It’s up to us to earn trust – from the first breeding decision to the moment the seed is in the bag.”
Learning from the GMO era
ISF does not oppose GMOs but has highlighted how inconsistent, process-based GMO regulations have limited access, raised costs, and disrupted trade – lessons they want applied to prevent similar issues with gene editing.
“Policies need to evolve as science evolves,” Keller said. “Our call is: please let us innovate with the diversity of tools available today and tomorrow.” He believes AI, for example, will be another tool that helps breeders find solutions faster.
A future shaped by clarity – not confusion
Keller’s vision is simple but powerful paradigm shift: “I dream of a map, which is green everywhere. A map where gene editing is regulated not like a GMO, but like conventional breeding.”
That clarity, Keller argues, would unlock more players, more crops, and more geographies – and ensure that innovation in the seed sector translates into real‑world benefits for farmers and consumers, rather than getting stuck in a patchwork of conflicting rules.
