Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, while we support the potential of precision breeding, we have some questions for the Minister. In particular, given the overwhelming public desire for labelling and the implications of that for the organic sector, why have the Government definitely ruled out any kind of mandatory labelling for precision-bred foods and feed products? As I said earlier, while I recognise that it is a small percentage of farms, can the Minister tell us what specific measures are being taken to ensure that the integrity of the organic supply chain is protected and organic farmers are not burdened by the lack of traceability? This House needs clarity on these points before we can be truly confident, especially in the public acceptance of these regulations. We agree with many noble Lords on the broad support for this statutory instrument, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument enacts policy from the ground-breaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, brought in by the previous Conservative Government in 2023. It is a fantastic innovation, which we should welcome. This legislation permits us to use safe science to speed up what nature has been doing for millennia and plant breeders for 100 years or so. Britain has used its Brexit freedoms to bring in the well-tried and tested procedure of gene editing, and we now see the EU considering following behind it.

I also commend my old friends from the FSA for their simplified regulatory regime for marketing precision-bred plants and a proportionate regulatory regime for precision-bred animals to ensure that animal welfare is safeguarded. I am proud to say that I was on the board of the FSA when we agreed the regulatory regime, and we took into account every representation made, including consumer concerns.

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and a few others in the other place attempted to muddy the waters when the Bill went through by claiming that gene editing is the same as genetic modification, but that argument was overwhelmingly rejected as bogus by all major parties in the Commons and Lords, and by Cross-Benchers. Parliament, especially this House, debated this in detail and rejected the ideas produced by the noble Baroness tonight. I therefore deplore the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness —she is entitled to table it—in particular the completely misleading words

“genetically modified precision bred organisms”.

I do not want the Whip on duty to report this to the Chief Whip, but I am tempted to say that I agree entirely with every word of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that it is my policy as well, and sit down and say no more. But I had better stick to my script.

Gene editing simply makes changes that could occur through traditional breeding methods in plants or animals. It takes about eight years to produce a new variety of strawberry, 10 to 15 years for a new variety of potato, and about 25 years for a new variety of apple. Essentially, gene editing produces a natural but faster process. In precision breeding, there is no foreign DNA. All the genes being edited belong to the species.

I say to the noble Baroness that if Rothamsted has found a wheat with a GMO in it, that is its problem. It will not be approved by Defra or the ACNFP, so there is no threat to consumers. As Professor Cristóbal Uauy of the excellent John Innes Centre, has said, all crop breeding relies on the creation and selection of genetic changes to produce beneficial traits. Precision breeding is a way of creating the same genetic changes that could have been made through traditional breeding methods, but much faster and more precisely. All new varieties are subject to strict standards, and this will be the same for precision breeding. The new regulatory framework maintains protection for public health and the environment, allowing scientific advances that support sustainable agriculture to be brought safely to market with consumer confidence, offering enormous benefit to farmers, the public and the environment.

I reiterate that we warmly welcome the Government’s decision to follow Conservative policy and lay these regulations. We should acknowledge that genetic editing enables precise improvements to crops, making them more resistant to pests and diseases, reducing the need for harmful pesticides and increasing tolerance to extreme weather conditions such as drought and floods. These advances help ensure a stable food supply, despite environmental challenges. This increased resilience, as other noble Lords have said, is vital for enhancing food security not only here in the UK but in other countries where farming communities are especially vulnerable to challenging climates. With stronger, healthier crops, farmers can produce more consistent harvests with fewer resources, lowering their reliance on pesticides and fertilisers, which are often expensive and environmentally damaging.

As a result, gene editing supports more sustainable and efficient agriculture. By investing in this technology, we can help ensure that future generations have access to nutritious food. Genetic editing, particularly using tools such as CRISPR, involves making precise, targeted changes to an organism’s existing DNA without adding foreign DNA. It is often used to fix genetic defects and enhance natural traits.

I understand that some of the things being worked on are banana trees resistant to Panama disease and, as the Minister said, bananas which do not go brown in hours. Personally, I would love to find in a supermarket bananas which are yellow instead of the horrible bright green things we get these days, which are unripe and inedible—but that is an aside. People are working on strawberries and tomatoes which will be mildew resistant, wheat which will be able to grow in hotter, drier climates, and broccoli with enhanced glucosinolates —whatever they are—that help prevent heart disease, apparently.

Work is going on to eliminate magnaporthe grisea—rice blast disease—which destroys enough rice crops to feed 60 million people per annum. Gene editing will give us tomatoes with enhanced vitamin D. One day, I hope, we will get tomatoes which are properly ripe and sweet in the supermarket; they are picked when they are bright green and unripe, stored at 12 degrees and then zapped with ethylene, which turns them red. That is another benefit we may get in future.

Precision breeding is not an alternative to conventional breeding. We can get all the benefits I have just described with conventional breeding if we are prepared to spend 20 to 30 years tinkering about with cross-breeding techniques and rejecting 95% of the failures. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, these products will not be on our shelves next year or the year after, since they will have to go through the strict testing regime and the final Food Standards Agency regulatory regime. There are 55 clauses and five schedules—yes, the regulations are complex, but we have to demonstrate to consumers that we have built in all the necessary safety features, which I believe the Government have.

I understand that potential UK developers are taking it carefully and slowly, and that must be the right approach to reassure the public. I am also told that these developers are small start-up companies, not the huge agrochemical companies of the world—the Cargills or whatever. The FSA and its expert scientific committees always adopt a strict precautionary approach. If they are satisfied with the inherent safety of any gene-edited product approved and placed on the new register, you can bet your bottom dollar that it is very safe indeed.

Talking of dollars, I want an assurance from the Minister that if we do a trade deal with the USA and it involves food, we will not permit any product that is produced to lower welfare standards than ours or treated with drugs or chemicals that we have banned. That also means that we should not permit any US gene-edited products to enter our shops without their going through the whole safety and environmental testing regime we have invented in this Act and these regulations. No matter how safe the Americans may think they are, we have to reassure our consumers that we are checking them out too.

Since gene-edited species have genes that are no different from species that have been created slowly, labelling is also nonsensical, as nearly every other noble Lord has pointed out. When I cannot get English apples I buy those delicious Gala apples, which were invented by a Mr Kidd in New Zealand 90 years ago. Since then, Gala apples have been cross-bred and tweaked conventionally up to 36 times. If we label any new gene-edited version, logically we would have to label the other 36 variations as well. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: Parliament rejected calls for labelling, and our expert scientists pointed out that it is impossible to label something as different if it is actually just the same as the other varieties of the same species. That was beautifully and bluntly put by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his usual style. We all laughed.

Let us be honest: those who call for labelling simply want to discredit gene editing by trying to show that the product is somehow different; they claim that it is actually genetic modification by the back door and somehow dangerous. Labelling, rightly, will not happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was also right: if you ask consumers 100 questions on different things that they would like labelled, there will always be some who say, “Yes, we’d like that label”, and we would have to put 200 different things on the label. We all have our own personal fetishes about what we would like to see on food labels. If any Government tried to apply all of them, the label would be about 3 feet long.

I have more bad news, I am afraid, for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. A survey conducted by the FSA showed that 65% of the population would eat a precision-bred product if it had health benefits, 64% would eat it if it was better for the environment, 64% if it was safer for people with allergies, 62% if it tasted better, 61% if it was cheaper and 60% if it was more resilient to changing climates. Consumers are onside, provided that we follow the safety regime in these regulations.

Ultimately, as was so neatly explained by Professor Stephen Penfield of the John Innes Centre:

“The resilience of the UK’s food supply depends on our farmers and growers being able to sustainably and reliably grow their crops”.


This legislation unlocks agricultural innovation, accelerating the development of new crop varieties with higher yields and enhanced pest and disease resistance, enabling farmers to reduce the environmental impact of their agricultural practices.