Britain’s plans to adopt the latest gene-editing technology are being delayed by concerns that Downing Street will clash with EU law if it agrees with Brussels to abolish border checks on food and plant products.
Two senior EU diplomats told the Financial Times that Brussels had informally warned the British government that an agreement to cut such checks would be incompatible with Britain’s current plans for gene-editing technology.
The previous Conservative government passed legislation to simplify gene editing rules in 2023, hailing this as a key benefit of Brexit, saying it would attract investment in an emerging sector estimated to be worth £1bn a year.
But the current Labor administration, which has touted ambitions to reduce obstacles to trade with the EU, has yet to introduce measures to implement the 2023 law.
Gene editing involves precisely altering a plant’s existing DNA and is used to develop crops that are more resistant to pests, diseases and climate change impacts.
“We don’t want things to be disrupted by potential negotiations that we don’t even know are underway,” said Anthony Hopkins, head of policy at the British Society of Plant Breeders. “Delays and uncertainty are terrible for investing.”
Labor government said in september It said it would introduce the second round of legislation needed to allow companies to bring gene-edited products to market, putting the agricultural sector “at the forefront of innovation around the world”.
However, even after four months, the measures necessary to actually implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, 2023 have not been introduced.
The delay has raised concerns among scientific and business leaders that the plan has been frozen before Britain attempts wider negotiations with the EU to eliminate border checks on food and plant products.
Brussels has previously said it is open to a veterinary pact, but only if Britain agrees to so-called “dynamic adaptation” to EU food and plant safety rules, which would see EU laws automatically transferred to its own statute book.
EU rules require gene-edited plants to undergo a laborious and costly approval process.
An EU proposal to create a streamlined approach for gene editing has been blocked for a year by several member states on the grounds that the consequences for existing crops are unknown.
In a sign of growing concern about the UK farming industry, this week the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agricultural Science and Technology sent a letter signed by more than 50 leading scientists, politicians and investors urging UK Food Secretary Daniel Zeichner to: It promises a “firm timeline” for introducing a second bill.
“Precision breeding is progressive, consistent and evidence-based. “There is absolutely no confidence that the EU will reach a similar agreement,” they warned, adding that a veterinary deal with Brussels could take “years”.
Defra declined to comment when asked whether the legislation was being delayed due to warnings from Brussels. He also declined to repeat on the record previous promises to introduce legislation or set a timetable for doing so.
George Freeman, the former Conservative science secretary and a key signatory to the letter, said ministers should set a timetable for implementation. “Potential investors and innovators need clarity and certainty, not delays and speculation,” he added.
Professor Johnathan Napier, scientific director at Rothamsted Research, the UK’s leading agricultural research institute, said it would be a mistake for the UK to tie its regulatory system to that of the EU.
“We run the risk of ending up being ‘rule takers’ rather than ‘rule makers’ because we do not have input or input into any position the EU wants to take on gene editing,” he said.
But Allie Renison, a former UK trade official now at consultancy firm SEC Newgate, said the government’s apparent caution over introducing gene editing legislation was unwarranted and a compromise could be brokered in negotiations expected to begin this year.
“The EU is already pursuing a similar version of gene editing and there may be differences during negotiations,” she added.
The European Commission declined to comment.
