UK plans to adopt the latest gene-editing technology are being delayed over fears they could clash with EU law if Downing Street strikes a deal with Brussels to remove border controls on food and plant products.
Two senior EU diplomats told the Financial Times that Brussels had informally warned the British government that a deal to remove such controls would not be compatible with current British plans for gene-editing technology.
The previous Conservative government passed legislation in 2023 to simplify rules on gene editing, hailing it as a major Brexit benefit that would attract investment in an emerging sector estimated to be worth £1 billion a year.
But the current Labor administration, which has expressed ambition to reduce barriers to trade with the EU, has not yet introduced the measures that would give effect to the 2023 law.
Gene editing involves making precise changes to a plant’s existing DNA and is used to develop crops that are more resistant to pests, diseases and the effects of climate change.
“We don’t want things to stop because of a potential negotiation that we don’t even know exists,” said Anthony Hopkins, head of policy at the British Society of Plant Breeders. “Delays and uncertainty are terrible for investment. »
The Labor government said in September that it would introduce the necessary secondary legislation to allow companies to market genetically modified products, saying this would put the agricultural sector “at the forefront of innovation across the world”.
But four months on, the measures needed to give practical effect to the Gene Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 have not been introduced.
The delay has raised concerns among science and business leaders that the plans have been shelved ahead of the UK’s attempt to negotiate a wider deal with the EU to remove border controls on food and plant products, known under the name of veterinary agreement.
Brussels has previously indicated it is open to a veterinary deal, but only if the UK agrees to what is known as “dynamic alignment” with EU food and plant safety rules, which require the United Kingdom to automatically transcribe European legislation into its own legislative text.
EU rules require a genetically modified plant to go through a laborious and expensive approval process.
EU proposals to create a streamlined approach to gene editing have been blocked for a year by several member states who say the consequences for conventional crops are unknown.
In a sign of growing concern in Britain’s agricultural sector, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture this week sent a letter, signed by more than 50 leading scientists, politicians and investors, urging the UK’s minister to food, Daniel Zeichner, to commit to a “firm timetable” for introducing secondary legislation.
“The Precision Breeding Act is progressive, consistent and evidence-based. There can be no certainty that the EU will end up with similar arrangements,” they warn in the letter, adding that a veterinary agreement with Brussels could take “many years.”
Defra declined to comment when asked whether it was delaying the legislation because of warnings from Brussels. He also refused to officially reiterate his previous commitments to introduce the legislation or set a timetable for doing so.
George Freeman, a former Conservative science minister and lead signatory of the letter, said ministers needed to set a timetable for implementation. “Potential investors and innovators need clarity and certainty, not delays and speculation,” he added.
Professor Johnathan Napier, scientific director of Rothamsted Research, the UK’s leading agricultural research institute, said it would be a mistake for the UK to link its regulatory system to that of the EU.
“There is a real danger that we end up being ‘rule-takers’ rather than ‘rule-makers’, since we have no input or say in the position the EU plans to take on the gene editing,” he said.
But Allie Renison, a former head of Britain’s Department of Commerce and now at consultancy SEC Newgate, said the government’s apparent caution about introducing gene-editing legislation was unwarranted and that a A compromise could be found in negotiations expected to begin this year.
“The EU is already pursuing its own similar version of gene editing, and any differences can be resolved during negotiations,” she added.
The European Commission declined to comment.
