There is great disorder under the heavens of new biotechnology. Judging by the Italian debate on genetic innovation in agriculture, it seems that we no longer know what to call what. We are waiting for the European Commission to present its proposal to regulate ‘new genomic techniques’ (NGTs) on 5 July (see the leaked draft here). But in the meantime, on 9 June, the Italian Parliament approved a regulation in favour of experimentation with ‘assisted evolution techniques’ (TEAs), which are the same thing. However, if you read the official wording (9 bis, drought decree law) this expression is missing: instead, it refers to the deliberate release into the environment for experimental purposes of ‘organisms produced by genome editing techniques through site-directed mutagenesis or by cisgenesis’.

Some comments in the press and on social media have not helped clarity. “The government authorises GMOs but calls them TEAs,” wrote a scientist in a probiotech newspaper, siding with both technologies. “The government opens up to field trials of new GMOs,” tweeted the Greens, who instead oppose both.

To try and bring some order, I have written an annotated glossary for bewildered consumers in the Italian edition of Scientific American, in which I explain why the Italian Society of Agricultural Genetics decided to call TEAs what is called NGTs in the rest of the world, why editing goes hand in hand with cisgenesis in the current debate, and why “it depends” is the best answer to the question “are NGTs and GMOs different or the same?”

I also argue that the glimmer of hope opened up by the Italian parliament for field experimentation with edited and cisgenic plants is a small piece of good news, but only a small one.

Any opening is welcome, given the stalemate in agbiotech research in Italy. However, the regulatory process for experimental releases is only simplified on a marginal level and only for one year. Then what will happen to open field trials if the European reform takes more than a year to materialise?