Commercial Development of Gene-Edited Food Legalised in England Despite Public Opposition

A tractor at a farm in Harpenden, England, on April 8, 2022. Hollie Adams/Getty Images

The growth and sale of gene-edited food have now been legalised in England after the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act passed into UK law on March 23.

According to the government, the new law allows farmers to “grow crops which are drought and disease resistant, reduce use of fertilisers and pesticides, and help breed animals that are protected from catching harmful diseases.”

The UK government hailed the law changes as a Brexit triumph, as it has been made possible only after the UK’s exit from the European Union.

A pig farm in Norfolk, England, on Oct. 5, 2021. Joe Giddens/PA

Following an EU ruling in 2018, gene-edited organisms are regulated in the same way as genetically modified (GM) organisms.

But the Genetic Technology Act created a new category for gene-edited organisms to regulate them separately from GM organisms.

Ministers have stressed the alleged distinction between gene-editing, which involves the manipulation of genes within a single species or genus, and GM, in which DNA from one species is introduced to a different one.

The government said that only genetic changes which could have been produced through conventional breeding methods or natural processes will be allowed.

The new law has been broadly welcomed by the farming community but has provoked protests from advocacy groups and animal welfare organisations opposed to the development and marketing of animals with “edited” genes.

Relaxing rules on gene-editing also lacks public support. Some 87 percent of individual responses to a government consultation raised concerns over the risk of gene-editing and called for it to continue to be regulated as genetically modified organisms (GMO).

‘Key Tool for UK Food Security’

The government has hailed the new law as a “key tool for UK food security.”

It called the rule change “a major step in unlocking growth and innovation in new technologies, reinforcing food security in the face of climate change, and ensuring England becomes a world-leader in agri-food innovation.”

Gideon Henderson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, said: “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.”

Food Minister Mark Spencer said: “The Genetic Technology Act is fantastic news for British consumers and farmers. Precision Breeding technologies are the future of food production not just at home, but around the world, and this Act will put our nation at the forefront of this revolution.

“Some 40 percent of crops globally are lost every year to floods, pests, and other external events, and this new law will unlock our agri-biotech industry to support resilient food production for decades to come.”

‘GM With Better PR’

But critics have rejected the government’s claim, saying that gene-edited foods are GMOs.

Liz O’Neill, director of the campaign group GM Freeze, said: “Gene editing is GM with better PR and this bill aims to impose new GMOs on UK citizens by removing public protections and the labels that allow us to choose what we are buying and eating.

“All genetic engineering techniques can go wrong and that’s why we need the kind of safety checks that this bill will throw on the scrap heap.”

She added: “There is overwhelming support for proper public protections, including clear labels on foods made with both old and newer GM techniques. Farmers and food producers also have the right to decide whether or not they are using GMOs and these proposals will make it impossible for them to do that.”

Pat Thomas, director of another campaign group Beyond GM, said: “The Genetic Technology Act has a single beneficiary—the biotech industry.

“It removes meaningful regulatory control—including safety assessments, consumer labelling, and monitoring—from a staggering range of genetically modified plants and animals in our food system and the wider environment.

“It allows biotech developers to self-certify that their engineered organisms are safe and beneficial and imposes no penalties if that turns out to be untrue.”

She added: “The catch is that gene-editing technology, which has been around for more than a decade, consistently over-promises and under-delivers and that makes it an economic, food system, and environmental failure. We should be focusing on solutions that work.”

‘Conceptual Sleight of Hand’

The government insists that “editing” genes is safe and, unlike GM, won’t share genetic material across species.

These changes, the government insists, would only be those which could be produced through conventional breeding methods or naturally over time—just fast-forwarded in the lab.

But some scientists have disputed this characterisation.

“There’s a little bit of conceptual sleight of hand to say it’s not any form of GM or genetic modification,” Tim Benton, research director with independent policy institute Chatham House, told The Epoch Times.

Others have warned that gene-editing could lead to unintended consequences.

Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London’s Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine told The Epoch Times: “In addition to any intended genetic modification you invariably have large numbers of unintended alterations to the organism.”

These could include the production of toxins and allergens in plants or crops, he suggests, adding, “It’s a ‘wild west’ of gene-editing of crops, plants, and animals and even bacteria that are going to be released into the environment in an uncontrolled way.”

Rachel Hannah and PA Media contributed to this report.