The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act (PBA)passed into law under the previous Conservative government in March of this year. The act aims to enable the development and marketing of gene-edited (GE) crops and animals in England, creating a more permissive regulatory regime for precision bred organisms (PBOs).
The new Labour government, led by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who assumed office on July 5, 2024, is considering how to take this regulatory framework forward in the future, but has not provided a timescale on when any enabling legislation will be put into practice through secondary regulations.
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs has approved the research field trials of more than 10 GE crops in England, with these being predominantly carried out at Rothamsted Research and the John Innes Centre. But because the regulatory framework for how they will be approved is yet to be established, no companies have yet submitted gene edited products or PBOs to the Food Safety Authority.
Scientists are now demanding clarity from the new government regarding policy continuity. “It is important that the government make the PBA real by bringing forward the appropriate secondary legislation,” said Professor Jonathan Jones, group leader at the Sainsbury Laboratory, another prominent plant science research institute.
The affect of climate change in the UK
It comes as a rising population, climate change and water stress are testing the resilience of UK crops and threatening food domestic production. Wheat yields are predicted to fall by 15% due to record rainfall in recent months. The National Farmers Union has warned a crisis is building. Oilseed rape has witnessed the biggest reduction in yield since the 1980s. Projections suggest that winters in the UK will become wetter, and summers drier. When it does rain, it is expected to be more intense.
According to its proponents, GE can significantly enhance the resilience of crops to rainfall variability and other climate-related stresses. This technology, particularly through methods like CRISPR-Cas9, offers the potential for more rapid, precise, and cost-effective crop improvement to address various agricultural challenges, from food security and nutrition to environmental sustainability and climate change adaptation. Supporters also stress that gene editing is not genetic modification or GM. CRISPR enables these precise genetic modifications without the need to introduce DNA from other species.
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the products of these technologies pose no greater risks than their conventionally bred counterparts,” said Professor Johnathan Napier, a Rothamsted-based scientist calling on the new government to unlock the potential economic and environmental benefits of GE, “and yet they can greatly accelerate the development of more climate resilient, higher-yielding crops requiring fewer pesticide and fertiliser inputs, and with improved quality and nutrition.”
The recently formed UK Agri-Tech Centre, formed to support growth in the agricultural technology sector has also written to the government to outline the potential benefits of GE technology.
But there are also fierce opponents to its advancement. The Sustainable Food Trust, for example, has strong concerns about environmental impact, health and safety risks, regulatory issues, and a belief that traditional breeding techniques are more aligned with sustainable and ecological farming practices.
It has cited the fact the US Food and Drug Administration discovered a gene-edited bull contained an unexpected plasmid insertion in its genome. Surely this is evidence, it claims, that PBOs are essentially indistinguishable from GMs and that the GE act is simply an underhand attempt to introduce GMs by the back door?
“The example of the gene-edited cattle is from over a decade ago, using a different older technology called TALEN from the one that everyone now uses which is CRISPR,” responded Napier. “Moreover, the methods used for carrying out gene editing in plants are much less complex than those used for animals. Importantly, the 2023 Precision Breeding Act requires that, for regulatory approval, any gene-edited crops don’t contain foreign DNA. So the example of the GE bull is not really relevant at all.”
He also stresses that both the UK and EU regulators make a clear distinction between GE and GM. “It is only these lobby groups who are trying to conflate the two distinct technologies.” This is ultimately confusing the consumer, he went on, “and impeding innovations that could help mitigate the climate crisis and food insecurity”.
The impact of UK science is only being felt in other countries
Plant scientists like Napier also fear the prospect of other countries continuing to steal a march on British innovation. For example, a purple tomato with boosted antioxidant levels was first developed at the John Innes Centres. But the product can’t be sold in the UK. Seed sales are instead proving a hit with home gardeners in the US, with initial stocks reportedly sold out within weeks.
The purple tomato is the result of GM – not GE – technology. But it is still a warning of how more favourable regulatory landscapes can become the main beneficiaries of UK-funded research. “The only place where UK science is creating wealth when it comes to GM crop research is North America,” complained Napier.
He and others therefore hope the new British government will quickly implement the rules needed to free up GE technology in the UK. This will protect investment and allow the technology to gain more acceptance from retailers and consumers.
“We need to be more proactive in decarbonising food production whilst also producing sufficient food to ensure the optimal nutrition of 8 billion people globally,” he said. “We should be adopting new technologies to support this transition.”