Critics of the use of advanced biotechnologies in the agri-food sector (“New Breeding Techniques”, comprising CRISPR) demand a strict regulation of any such method, even more severe than rules applied to so-called “Genetically Modified Organisms” (i.e. recombinant DNA processes and products). But their position is unwarranted, since it relies on faulty arguments.

While most life scientists have always explained that the trigger for regulation should be the single product and its phenotypic traits, opponents insist that the target should be certain biotech processes.

The antagonists maintain that NBTs are inherently risky: this belief is exactly the opposite of a long-standing, overwhelming scientific consensus. NBTs involve unpredictable effects, but it is the same for the results of any other technique. The critics wrongly equate “unintended” with “harmful” and misunderstand two meanings of “risk”: the “risk” of not achieving satisfactory results does not automatically translate into health or environment “risks”. Generic claims that allergenic or toxic properties are a hidden danger of outcomes from NBTs are unsubstantiated – as they would be for traditional techniques.

Among several errors, we criticize the misuse of the Precautionary principle, a misplaced alarm about “uncontrolled spreading” of genetically engineered cultivars and the groundless comparison of (hypothetical) agricultural products from NBTs with known toxic substances.

In order to “save” traditional techniques from “GMO”-like regulations, while calling for the enforcement of similar sectarian rules for the NBTs, the dissenters engage in baseless, unscientific distinctions.

Important and necessary socio-economic, ethical and legal considerations related to the use of agri-food biotechnologies (older and newer) are outside the scope of this paper, which mostly deals with arguments from genetics, biology, and evolutionary theory that are provided by those who are suspicious of NBTs. Yet, we will provide some hints on two additional facets of the debate: the possible motivations for certain groups to embrace views which are utterly anti-scientific, and the shaky regulatory destiny of NBTs in the European Union.

对农业食品领域使用先进生物技术（“新育种技术”，包括 CRISPR）的批评者要求对任何此类方法进行严格监管，甚至比适用于所谓“转基因生物”（即重组生物）的规则更为严格。 DNA 过程和产品）。但他们的立场是没有根据的，因为它依赖于错误的论据。

虽然大多数生命科学家一直解释说，监管的触发因素应该是单一产品及其表型特征，但反对者坚持认为目标应该是某些生物技术过程。

反对者认为 NBT 本质上是有风险的：这种信念与长期存在的、压倒性的科学共识恰恰相反。 NBT 会产生不可预测的影响，但对于任何其他技术的结果来说都是一样的。批评者错误地将“无意”等同于“有害”，并误解了“风险”的两个含义：未取得满意结果的“风险”不会自动转化为健康或环境“风险”。关于致敏或有毒特性是 NBT 的潜在危险的一般说法是未经证实的——就像传统技术一样。

在几个错误中，我们批评了预防原则的滥用、对转基因品种“不受控制的传播”的错误警报以及将来自NBT的农产品与已知有毒物质进行毫无根据的比较。

为了将传统技术从类似“转基因”的法规中“拯救”出来，同时呼吁对NBT执行类似的宗派规则，反对者进行了毫无根据、不科学的区分。

与农业食品生物技术（旧的和新的）的使用相关的重要且必要的社会经济、伦理和法律考虑因素超出了本文的范围，本文主要涉及遗传学、生物学和进化论的论点，这些论点由对 NBT 持怀疑态度的人。然而，我们将就辩论的另外两个方面提供一些提示：某些群体接受完全反科学的观点的可能动机，以及欧盟 NBT 不稳定的监管命运。