Brexit has been a disaster for the UK. It has not spurred the great economic revival that many of the Brexiters claimed it would. And many studies have indicated it will make the UK poorer over the long-term and deter investment.
One of the very few benefits derived from Brexit is that it has allowed England to break free from the stifling European Union regulation of crop biotechnology.
For years, the UK, in lockstep with its then partner EU countries, became a backwater in agro-biotechnology innovation. The EU embraced the ‘precautionary principle’ in its regulatory approach. Genetic engineering of crops—first transgenic (‘foreign’ genes are moved from one crop to another) GMOs beginning in the 1990s and more recently cisgenic genetic engineering, such as CRISPR.
There is a key difference between the EU’s regulatory structure (which is also now being re-evaluated) and the one embraced by countries that have recently deregulated gene editing of crops such as the US, Canada, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Argentina and now England. Regulations in these nations are based on the attributes of the final ‘product while the EU focuses on the ‘process,’ suggesting (falsely) that genetic modification cannot occur naturally in nature.
As the Royal Society has written, applauding the break from Europe regulations, England has discarded “the false assumption that risk is determined by breeding technology rather than the outcomes that the breeding technology is used to deliver.”
Following the end of the Brexit process, the administration of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson moved quickly to deregulate GE for crops and encourage their development. After almost a year-long parliamentary debate, the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill was approved in March 2023.
The new law only covers England; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland continue to outlaw the growing of any genetically engineered crops. The legislation has four major provisions.
- First, it removes plants and animals that are produced through a process of precision breeding technologies from the regulatory requirements that have stifled the approval of GMOs.
- Second, it introduces a two-track notification system for precision breed organisms to be published in the public register. One will be for research purposes and the other for marketing purposes.
- Third, it establishes a regulatory system for precision-bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded.
- Fourth, it sets up a new science-based authorization process for food and feed products developed using precision-bred plants and animals.
Foods created via genetic modification; transgenesis, the transfer of genes between species, will remain banned. The legislation allowing genetic editing of livestock will be implemented later than the sections dealing with plants. The act does not contain any mandatory labeling of foods grown from genetically-edited seeds and consumed domestically. All GE food that is exported to the EU will have to be labelled.
“The passing of the bill is a positive step forward for research and innovation, and will align England’s regulatory path with other countries, said Dr. Penny Hundleby, senior scientist in the Crop Transformation group at the John Innes Centre.
We have used precision breeding techniques for the last 10 years as a research tool to further our understanding of plants, determining which genes underpin which characteristics. This new Act means that we will start to see the outcomes of our research being used to develop crops which are more resilient, and foods that are more nutritious.
The passage of the legislation opens the door to a more sustainable farming system. “[We] now have the opportunity to revolutionize plant breeding and tap into the vast biodiversity of plants in a more precise manner,” said Nick Talbot, executive director of The Sainsbury Laboratory. “This is a crucial innovation that can help break our dependence on agrochemicals and ensure a more sustainable future for all.”
In addition to increasing yields and nutrition, gene-edited crops are more resilient to droughts, flooding and other increasingly unstable weather conditions. “The UK, along with countries around the world, are in a race to climate-proof food systems, and conventional breeding alone cannot keep up with the rapidly changing challenges of new growing conditions, “noted Giles Oldroyd, director of the Crop Science Centre at the University of Cambridge.
Despite the enthusiasm about the change in regulatory direction, many scientists expressed frustration that the legislation did not go far enough, particularly as it did not remove the ban on transgenic modification (GMOs). Said the Royal Society:
This approach is no longer justified given the evidence from 30 years of commercial use that crops developed with GM methods are no more likely to pose unpredictable risks than crops resulting from other breeding technologies. Instead, regulation should focus on assessing scientifically plausible risks given what is known about the GM trait and the species it was introduced into.
England poised to become major innovator of GE crops
Although biotechnology institutions in England have conducted controlled field trials, no genetic engineered crops have ever been commercialized in the UK.
Despite the tight restrictions. England has numerous conducting globally-respected research, among them: Cambridge University’s Crop Science Centre, John Innes Centre, Rothamsted Institute, Earlham Institute and Sainsbury Laboratory.
The Crop Science Centre has conducted trials of both GMO and gene-edited barley to evaluate whether natural-occurring soil fungi would reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers.
The Sainsbury Laboratory has developed via gene-editing a tomato resistant to powdery mildew.
The John Innes Centre is conducting research to make a version of wheat that is heat and drought resistant. The Centre has also conducted field trials on brassica crops to investigate their healthy compounds so they can be nutritionally fortified to block the growth of cancer cells.
“I would say that [gene editing is] definitely a technology that we simply cannot afford to miss at this point where we are, in terms of climate change, said the center’s Lars Ostergaard.” We will not be able to fulfill the requirement in plant-based food production without using this technology.”
Global partnerships
The John Innes Centre is also developing gene-edited vitamin-D rich tomatoes. Norfolk Plant Sciences, a spinout company from the John Innes Centre and the Sainsbury Laboratory, has developed a genetically engineered purple tomato that is rich in anti-oxidants. It will be introduced to market in the US next year.
Rothamsted has partnered with Massachusetts- based Yield10 Bioscience to develop gene-edited technologies to boost yield in crops. It has also launched trials of an omega-3 camelina oilseed variety to produce the first plant-based oil, which is known to improve cardiovascular health. Plant-based fish-like oils will also help reduce overfishing which is decimating many fish stocks.
Rothamsted researchers developing low asparagine wheat
Under previous regulations, trial sites had to be approved by the government, an application procedure that would take many months. With the new law in place, approval for Rothamsted’s Camelina sativa took just weeks. “The new regulations make it significantly easier to carry out research trials and we are very pleased to be able to take immediate advantage of this,” said Johnathan Napier, who leads Rothamsted’s research into the false flax.
Rothamsted is also conducting field trials of a gene-edited wheat that reduces the levels of a naturally occurring amino acid, asparagine, which converts into a carcinogenic processing contaminant, acrylamide, when bread is baked or toasted. The objective of the trials was to produce low asparagine wheat.
“This would benefit consumers by reducing their exposure to acrylamide from their diet, and food businesses by enabling them to comply with regulations on the presence of acrylamide in their products,“ said Nigel Halford of Rothamsted.
North Carolina-based Pairwise, which has introduced to market a gene-edited, vitamin-enhanced and milder tasting greens, has struck a technology-sharing agreement with Norwich-based Tropic Biosciences to develop CRISPR disease resistant bananas, low caffeine coffee and disease resistant rice.”
Tropic Biosciences is also licensing its technology to a host of other companies to develop disease disease-resistant corn and soybeans; sugar beets; and pigs and cattle.
Scotland and Wales missing an opportunity
When the government introduced the bill to liberalize the regulations concerning genetically engineered crops in May 2022, George Eustice, who was then the UK Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, wrote to the Scottish and Welsh governments to urge them to reconsider their opposition to the technology, but he was rebuffed. No approach was made to Northern Ireland as its food policies have operated under a separate agreement that was negotiated with the EU.
Under UK law, the devolved governments of each country composing the UK allows Scotland and Wales to go their own way on some legislation, and they have both chosen to restrict the sale of genetically edited foods. They insist they want to continue to align their regulations with that of the European Union which currently discourages all forms of genetic engineering to cultivate crops, although that appears to be in the process of changing.
Still, gene-editing research continues in Scotland. The Roslin Institute at the University of Edinburgh has produced pigs resistant to Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS), which is one of the most expensive animal diseases in the world, and it has plans to commercialize any products developed in the US. It also has a collaboration with Imperial College of London and the Pirbright Institute in Surrey to use CRISPR technology to make chickens partially resistant to avian flu.
Although a change in Scottish policy opposing gene-editing is unlikely in the absence of a change in policy in the EU, Anne Glover, Scotland’s former chief scientific adviser, continues to lobby the government to reverse course.
I understood the Scottish Government wants to see that agriculture is sustainable, and that we reduce as much as possible the impact on the environment of the use of chemicals and fossil fuel-based fertilizers. The more you can do that the better, and gene-editing offers the possibility to do that.
In July, the European Commission issued a favorable policy paper on gene-editing, urging a more flexible course, but it is uncertain if or when the EU legislature will act upon those recommendations, and whether significant reforms will result.
Steven E. Cerier is a retired international economist and a frequent contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project.
