MPs urge protection of gene editing gains in EU talks

Former UK science minister George Freeman has written to Defra farming minister Daniel Zeichner, seeking assurances that the UK’s advancements in gene editing for agriculture will not be compromised in ongoing UK-EU regulatory alignment discussions.

Mr Freeman, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (APPGSTA), commended the government’s enactment of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which facilitates gene editing in English agriculture.

The act’s secondary legislation was approved by the House of Lords on 6 May, and Mr Zeichner signed the new regulations into law on 13 May.

See also: MPs urge action on gene editing to curb bird flu risk

Mr Freeman argued that this legislation positions England ahead of European countries in adopting progressive gene editing regulations.

However, he expressed concern that aligning UK food safety rules with EU standards could undermine these advancements.

He warned that agreeing to EU rules for easier trade might jeopardise the UK’s leadership in gene editing and long-term innovation.

In his letter [PDF)], Mr Freeman stressed the UK’s opportunity to capitalise on its lead in precision breeding.

“We have an opportunity to capitalise on that advantage,” he said, highlighting the potential for higher-yielding crops with greater climate resilience, disease resistance, and reduced environmental impact.

He also noted that the Precision Breeding Act could open up trade and investment opportunities with countries such as Canada, Australia, and the US.

He urged the government to protect these opportunities in any UK-EU realignment deal.

Support and opposition

The government’s commitment to the Precision Breeding Act has been welcomed by stakeholders, including the NFU and the British On-Farm Innovation Network, who see it as a significant step towards enhancing food security and promoting sustainable farming.

However, others are critical of gene editing, arguing that it could lead to subpar food for major trading partners.

Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM, argued that lack of transparency means “nobody wants” gene-edited crops, referring to them as “genetically-modified precision-bred organisms”.

She claimed farmers are reluctant to plant them, and businesses worry about consumer rejection.

 Ms Thomas also criticised proponents of deregulation, warning that it means the UK risks producing food of lower standards, especially in relation to the EU’s stated preference for transparency and labelling.

A UK government spokesperson said: “We are not providing a running commentary on our discussions with the EU, these are ongoing and cover a wide range of issues. No final agreement has been made.

“We have been clear that we will always act in the national interest to secure the best outcomes for the UK.”