It is the controversial technology that consumers know little about, but England wants to see it thrive. By David Burrows.
The agriculture gene editing industry has raised more than $2.72bn (£2.07bn) since 2012, according to AgFunder data. Most of the funding deals are in the Americas (81.9% of the funding, or $2.23bn), followed by Asia with 13% (or $354.31m). Europe has only managed $136.69m, or 5%, due to its stricter regulatory regime.
“[…] while the segment has suffered from the recent venture capital downturn, there are signs of a potential recovery in 2024,” the AgFunder website noted.
Gene editing technology often divides opinion, and has regularly been conflated with genetic modification of crops.
The Food Standards Agency website describes the difference between the two approaches. “Precision breeding is a way of changing the DNA of plants or animals in a precise way, using techniques including gene-editing. These changes must be equivalent to those that could have been made using traditional plant or animal breeding methods. This makes precision breeding different to genetic modification. Genetic modification is when genes from one plant or animal species are inserted into another unrelated species in a way that is not possible using traditional breeding methods.”
Supporters believe that gene-editing technology has the potential to “reshape agriculture”, with development of new crop varieties that can outperform current ones. They also claim the crops will be “greener”, requiring fewer chemical inputs, and able to withstand extreme weather conditions as the climate changes.
In 2023, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act passed into law, receiving Royal Assent from the King. The Act enables the development and marketing of gene edited crops in England only. Defra chief scientific adviser Gideon Henderson said at the time: “The ability to use gene editing to make precise, targeted changes to the genetic code of organisms, in a way that can mimic traditional breeding, enables development of new crop varieties that are more resistant to pests, healthier to eat, and more resilient to drought and heat as climate changes.”
The UK Precision Breeding Act promises to be more permissive than the previous UK regime, explained food law expert Katrina Anderson from Mills & Reeve in a recent update. “However, implementing regulations are still needed to see if it is ultimately easier to bring PBO [precision bred organisms] to market as a food. The discrepancies between England and other parts of the UK are creating unwelcome uncertainty.”
Scotland, for example, is not keen at all on the technology, with the government insisting that a ban would stay in place regardless of whether the EU lifts its restrictions.
With England now regulating precision bred organisms (PBOs) “proportionately to risk“, plants (and animals) produced through precision breeding techniques are no longer regulated as GMOs. This is a similar approach to other countries such as Japan, which has already concluded that PBOs should not be regulated as GMOs, noted law firm Osborne Clarke recently.
“Another key difference between the FSA’s [Food Standards Agency’s] proposed approach compared to the EU’s proposed approach, in particular the European Parliament’s position, is that there are no plans to introduce mandatory labelling for those products produced by precision breeding,” the lawyers explained.
Some commentators have labelled the move as “sneaky”. Journalist Joanna Blythman has said the Act “represents the most serious threat to non-GMO, organic and traditional food and farming in my lifetime”.
HortNews recently reported that Labour ministers are expected to follow through quickly with the implementing rules needed to free up precision breeding techniques such as gene editing, after both Houses of Parliament approved the Precision Breeding Act last year. With food security front of mind, there will be pressure for ministers to go further and look afresh at the rules around GM technology too.
Research among consumers suggests they generally feel ill-informed about gene editing technology. An FSA report in 2021 reads: “Consumers tended to find genome edited food more acceptable than GM food, typically because they perceived it as safer and more natural (although others still felt genome editing was unnatural and more closely aligned with GM than conventional breeding). However, consumers found both GM and genome editing applied to plants more acceptable than either GM or genome editing applied to animals.”
The EU is currently still regulating gene-edited products as genetically modified, which explains the small portion of funding directed towards Europe. The bloc’s new plans could ease restrictions for certain plants but are still likely to be somewhat more prescriptive than those in England.
Leave a Reply