The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that none of the studies retrieved by its latest literature horizon scan on new genomic techniques (NGTs) contained new hazards or risks not previously considered in its scientific opinions. The finding is published in EFSA's third biannual report, dated 28 July 2026, which covers scientific literature published up to March 2026 on plants, microorganisms, and animals obtained through NGTs.
The report, prepared in response to a European Commission request under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, systematically screened recent scientific publications to identify any new evidence that could affect EFSA's existing risk assessments. The scan applied a predefined protocol, made public for consultation in May–June 2025, and assessed studies against assessment questions covering potential new hazards, risks, or implications for EFSA's opinions on NGTs applied to plants, microorganisms, and animals. For each category, EFSA found no evidence that would alter its previous conclusions.
The mandate stems from the rapid development of NGTs—techniques capable of changing genetic material that have emerged since 2001, when the existing GMO legislation was adopted. EFSA has previously issued multiple scientific opinions on NGTs, including on plants developed through cisgenesis and intragenesis (updated in 2022), on microorganisms obtained through synthetic biology (2020, 2022), and on the applicability of guidelines for site-directed nucleases. The horizon scan is designed to complement these earlier reviews by capturing newly published data that might warrant a revision of EFSA's risk assessment considerations.
The report also discusses limitations of the search and provides recommendations for improvement. It notes that the request does not cover evidence already assessed in adopted or upcoming opinions. The European Commission had asked EFSA to deliver biannual reports on relevant findings, with this being the third such delivery.
The conclusion that no new hazards have emerged provides regulatory continuity for developers of NGT-derived products, who face no immediate change in risk assessment requirements. For EU consumers and the food and feed industry, the finding suggests that existing safety frameworks remain adequate. Environmental NGOs and anti-GMO advocacy groups may view the scan's scope as limited, as it does not reassess broader ecological or socio-economic impacts. National competent authorities responsible for GMO authorisations can rely on EFSA's unchanged risk assessment baseline when evaluating NGT applications.